Urban Green Spaces, Health, and Wellbeing: Social Value Estimation of a Community Garden in Slovakia

Artículos Urban Green Spaces, Health, and Wellbeing: Social Value Estimation of a Community Garden in Slovakia Espacios verdes urbanos, salud y bienestar: estimación del valor social de un huerto comunitario en Eslovaquia * Espaços verdes urbanos, saúde e bem-estar: uma estimativa do valor social de uma horta comunitária em Eslováquia Ivana Vačková a Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Eslovaquia [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2630-7049 Lukáš Varecha Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Eslovaquia ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5343-170X Katarína Melichová Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Eslovaquia ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0010-7476 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cvu18.evus Received: 31 january 2025 Accepted: 06 may 2025 Published: 18 september 2025 Abstract: is study estimates the social value of community garden solutions co-designed and co-deployed in Nitra, Slovakia, under the INHABIT project, focusing on health and well-being. An extended social return on investment (SROI) framework was tested with community garden users, volunteers, and project implementers. A stakeholder-informed process developed a theory of change, identifying key outcomes, including improved health, psychological well-being, and environmental awareness. Two valuation approaches are compared: one involving direct stakeholder input through contingent valuation and Scholten’s Value Game, yielding an SROI of 2.15 Euros per Euro invested. e second approach, based on nancial proxies, resulted in a higher ratio of 4.27 Euros, emphasizing the importance of local context in valuation. Findings suggest that investments in participatory green space can yield substantial and durable social value, particularly in enhancing community resilience, mental health, and environmental awareness. e results highlight the signicant social, environmental, and community-building benets of participatory green infrastructure, particularly in underserved urban areas. Keywords: Community Garden, Contingent Valuation, Health and Wellbeing, Social Return on Investment, Value Game. Resumen: Este estudio estima el valor social de las soluciones de huertos comunitarios codiseñados y codesarrollados en Nitra, Eslovaquia, en el marco del proyecto IN-HABIT, centrándose en la salud y el bienestar. Se probó un marco ampliado de rentabilidad social de la inversión (SROI) con usuarios de huertos comunitarios, voluntarios y ejecutores de proyectos. Mediante un proceso en el que participaron las partes interesadas, se desarrolló una teoría de cambio en la que se identicaron los siguientes resultados: la mejora de la salud, el bienestar psicológico y la concienciación medioambiental. Se compararon dos enfoques de valoración: el primero implicó la aportación directa de las partes interesadas a través de la valoración contingente y el Juego del Valor de Scholten, que arrojó un SROI de 2,15 € por euro invertido. El segundo enfoque, basado en aproximaciones nancieras, arrojó una ratio superior de 4,27 €, lo que subraya la importancia del contexto local en la valoración. Los resultados sugieren que las inversiones en espacios participativos verdes pueden generar un valor social sustancial y duradero, sobre todo en la mejora de la resiliencia de la comunidad, la salud mental y la concienciación medioambiental. Los resultados ponen de relieve los importantes benecios sociales, medioambientales y comunitarios de la infraestructura verde participativa, especialmente en zonas urbanas desatendidas. Palabras clave: huerto comunitario, juego de valores, rentabilidad social de la inversión, salud y bienestar, valoración contingente. Resumo: Este estudo estima o valor social das soluções de hortas comunitárias co-desenhadas e co-implantadas em Nitra, na Eslováquia, no âmbito do projeto IN-HABIT, centrando-se na saúde e no bem-estar. Um quadro alargado de retorno social sobre o investimento (SROI) foi testado com utilizadores de hortas comunitárias, voluntários e implementadores de projectos. Um processo informado pelas partes interessadas desenvolveu uma teoria da mudança, identicando os principais resultados, incluindo a melhoria da Author notes a Autora de correspondencia / Correspondence author. Correo electrónico / E-mail: [email protected] Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 2025, vol. 18, ISSN: 2027-2103 / 2145-0226 saúde, o bem-estar psicológico e a consciencialização ambiental. São comparadas duas abordagens de avaliação: uma que envolve o contributo direto das partes interessadas através de uma avaliação contingente e do Jogo de Valor de Scholten, produzindo um SROI de 2.15 Euros por Euro investido. A segunda abordagem, baseada em indicadores nanceiros, resultou num rácio mais elevado de 4.27 Euros, sublinhando a importância do contexto local na avaliação. Os resultados sugerem que os investimentos em espaços verdes participativos podem produzir um valor social substancial e duradouro, particularmente no aumento da resiliência da comunidade, da saúde mental e da consciência ambiental. Os resultados destacam os benefícios sociais, ambientais e de construção de comunidade signicativos da infraestrutura verde participativa, particularmente em áreas urbanas carentes. Palavras-chave: valiação contingente, horta comunitária, jogo do valor, retorno social do investimento, saúde e bem-estar. Introduction Modern urbanisation is characterised by rapid population growth, increasing spatial density, and environmental pressures that pose challenges to social cohesion, public health, and ecological sustainability (Piracha & Chaudhary, 2022; Rathnayke & Amofah, 2023). Nitra, Slovakia’s h largest city, reects urbanisation challenges typical of post-socialist cities, shaped by industrial growth, suburbanisation, and socio-economic change (Eliaš et al., 2021). e legacy of socialist-era planning and recent industrial expansion has contributed to urban sprawl, traffic, and declining green spaces (Hardi et al., 2020). Urbanisation and suburbanisation also had serious social impacts, straining housing, services, and social integration of new urban dwellers (Falťan, 2019). e loss of permeable surfaces and insufficient green infrastructure limits access to recreational and social spaces, further reducing opportunities for integration and community-building, particularly for vulnerable groups (Hardi et al., 2020). Funded under the Horizon 2020 mechanism, the IN-HABIT project addresses some of these challenges by integrating cultural, digital, natural and social innovations into the co-design, co-development and co-management of urban public spaces. In Nitra, the pilot area encompasses public and semi-public green spaces, including a community garden, KOZA. Established in 2010 as a part of the cultural and community centre Hidepark, the initial intention was to create a space that would counterbalance the challenges the city experiences in relation to the availability and quality of green spaces. IN-HABIT interventions in the community garden were co-designed and co-deployed, primarily involving the Slovak University of Agriculture researchers, Hidepark centre employees and volunteers, CUKETA NGO members and individual gardeners, with other experts and practitioners. Landscaping was conducted, the garden was expanded with new functional and recreational elements, while community events and educational workshops were co-organised. Implementing these solutions intended to bring various social and environmental benets, primarily focused on inclusive health and wellbeing, and impact multiple stakeholders. Evaluating these effects is crucial to fully capture the broader societal impact of such urban interventions and can guide the decisionmaking process on future interventions. However, despite the recognised benets of urban green spaces, quantifying the social impact remains a methodological challenge. As these impacts do not have a nancial character, they require a specic approach for their assessment. Given the co-design, co-development, and co-management dimensions of these solutions, including individual stakeholders in the impact evaluation process and capturing their benets and costs, is integral. However, developing and applying a comprehensive framework involving stakeholders is challenging (Papastergiou et al., 2023). is study focuses on assessing the social value generated by the IN-HABIT project’s interventions in a community garden in Nitra, utilising the social return on investment (SROI) framework. e SROI framework captures the broader impacts of interventions by linking inputs to outcomes through a theory of change. Adapted from the traditional return on investment (ROI), SROI quanties effectiveness through a ratio of monetised social outcomes to investments (Banke-omas et al., 2015; Edwards & Lawrence, 2021; Nielsen et al., 2021). e analysis uses two valuation strategies: direct stakeholder valuation and a proxy-based Ivana Va#ková, et al. Urban Green Spaces, Health, and Wellbeing: Social Value Estimation of... approach. In the rst approach, we apply contingent valuation, reecting a signicant branch of urban green spaces valuation methods (Papastergiou et al., 2023). e second approach reects efforts to standardise and make social value comparable in SROI analyses. Social value databases such as the HACT Social Value Bank or the Australian Social Value Bank provide methodologically consistent social values for a wide range of outcomes and thus enable time and human resources to be saved in estimating social value (Frijters et al., 2024; Papastergiou et al., 2023). As a social value database is not available in the Slovakian context, we use the Danish OSVB (202x) based on the WELLBY indicator (Frijters et al., 2024), representing a spatially close and accessible option. e article is organized as follows: in the theoretical background we discuss the benets of community gardens, the use of non-market valuation methods in this context and the social return on investment (SROI) framework, in the methodology section we describe how the SROI framework was applied to estimate the social return on investment of a community garden in Nitra, in the next section the results eoretical Background Urban green spaces, such as parks and community gardens, are vital to city life and contribute to improved quality of life (Corkery, 2019). ey support biodiversity, lower urban temperatures, enhance air quality, and promote well-being. As design inuences mental health, planners must consider residents’ sociopsychological needs (Enssle & Kabisch, 2020; Solovey & Kovaleva, 2017). Poor mental health, closely linked to poverty and exclusion, affects individuals, families, and society (Victor & Yang, 2012). Loneliness, a signicant public health issue, can worsen mental health outcomes (Meltzer et al., 2013; Victor & Yang, 2012). Community gardens are green spaces with numerous health benets (Austin, 2014, p. 19). rough shared maintenance, they foster social interaction, a sense of belonging, and civic participation (Austin, 2014, p. 22). Motivations for community gardening include improving neighbourhood aesthetics and safety (Glover, 2003), love of nature, environmental ethics (Irvine et al., 1999), building relationships, and physical activity (Armstrong, 2000). ey enhance access to healthy food, promote better eating habits, and help prevent obesity through increased physical activity (Al-Delaimy & Webb, 2017). Interest in community gardens, a form of urban agriculture, is growing (Laycock Pedersen et al., 2023). Public and environmental goods provided by urban green spaces oen lack market prices, yet their impacts must still be assessed in planning and policy evaluations. Over the past decades, various non-market valuation methods have been developed to assess their value. Among these, contingent valuation has emerged as the dominant approach due to its ability to estimate the total economic value, capturing both use and non-use values under hypothetical future scenarios. Its popularity stems from its ease of application, relatively low cost, and exibility across various types of ecosystems and environmental services (Dinda & Ghosh, 2021; Halkos et al., 2022; Papastergiou et al., 2023). In contrast, the choice experiment method has gained traction in recent years as a more sophisticated stated preference approach by evaluating preferences by enabling respondents to make trade-offs between different features of non-market goods, thus mimicking real-world decision-making (Van Oijstaeijen et al., 2022). Other commonly used methods include the travel cost method, which infers value based on expenditures to access urban green spaces, and benet transfer, which adapts values from existing studies to new contexts (Papastergiou et al., 2023). A key challenge in impact assessment is creating a decision-making framework that reects preferences of the citizens to guide where and how green space development should occur. ere is a need to take a societal perspective in the assessment, consider different population subgroups, and use locally relevant data. is can shi the focus to the social return on investment (SROI) framework, utilising a holistic approach (Edwards & Lawrence, 2021). SROI was rst developed in 1996 by the Roberts Enterprise Development Fund (Corvo et al., 2022). e goal was to go beyond traditional nancial returns and measure the actual impact of Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 2025, vol. 18, ISSN: 2027-2103 / 2145-0226 interventions on people’s lives. is led to the creation of a framework that measures the social, economic, and environmental impacts of investments, commonly referred to as the triple bottom line (Norman & MacDonald, 2004). At its core, SROI calculates a ratio of benets to investments, translating non-monetary social outcomes into monetary terms (Corvo et al., 2022). Edwards & Lawrence (2021) recommend using the SROI framework when interventions impact the local environment and specic stakeholder groups. As a bottom-up, locally focused method, SROI emphasises individual participants and denes impacts through direct stakeholder engagement. However, the process is stakeholder-involved rather than stakeholder-led (Banke-omas et al., 2015; Edwards & Lawrence, 2021; Kadel et al., 2022). e SROI framework is guided by eight core principles (Social Value UK, 2024). ese include: involving all stakeholders affected by an intervention, considering both intended and unintended outcomes, recognising stakeholder values, focusing on material outcomes, avoiding over-claiming, ensuring transparency, validating outcomes, and applying accurate and timely valuation and reporting. ese principles inform the six-step SROI process (Nicholls et al, 2012). Step one identies the objectives and stakeholders of the intervention. Step two maps the theory of change, outlining inputs, outputs, and outcomes. Step three selects indicators to measure results. Step four assesses socio-economic impacts using valuation methods. Step ve monetizes benets using attribution, deadweight, and drop-off. Step six calculates the SROI ratio, followed by a sensitivity analysis and communication of results to stakeholders. Although most analyses are not peer-reviewed, the SROI framework has been widely applied in areas such as physical and maternal health, mental health (including arts, nature-based, and horticultural activities), public spaces, community health, cultural activities, digital inclusion, and other community-based initiatives (Alomoto et al., 2024; Banke-omas et al., 2015; Hartel et al., 2023; Hunter et al., 2022; Kadel et al., 2022; Robinson, 2020; Vasiliu et al., 2024). However, limitations include poor comparability of SROI ratios, limited stakeholder involvement, lack of standardised models, weak impact characterisation, overlooked opportunity costs, and challenges in applying robust valuation methods and counterfactuals like deadweight or attribution (Banke-omas et al., 2015; Edwards & Lawrence, 2021; Lettieri et al., 2021, p. 263; Kadel et al., 2022; ). e valuation of social benets in SROI case studies oen relies on nancial proxies derived from secondary sources, including social value banks such as the Open Social Value Bank, UK Social Value Bank, Australian Social Value Bank, and Simetrica-Jacobs Social Value Bank. However, access to these databases is oen paid, and their values are context-dependent, which may limit their applicability to specic stakeholder groups. Another common approach is the use of the contingent valuation method, which assesses willingness to pay for social or environmental goods (Boardman et al., 2018, p. 433; Ferreira & Marques, 2015; Szott & Motamed, 2023, p. 17). In addition, Scholten’s Value Game is oen used as an interactive, low-cost method to estimate the monetary value of social benets based on stakeholder perceptions. rough focus groups or interviews, participants identify key benets, compare them to market goods, and rank them on a reference scale, enhancing understanding of stakeholder values and supporting intervention design (Scholten, 2019, p. 6). e aim of the paper is to estimate the social value of the community garden in Nitra and the solutions deployed under the IN-HABIT project to promote several dimensions of health and well-being. e applied approach represents the testing of a replicable social return on investment framework. e SROI framework is extended by estimating benets for the diverse actors involved in the co-creation, co-design, and comanagement processes, and considering the opportunity cost of time. By performing two valuation strategies, two distinct approaches to estimating social value are tested and compared. Ivana Va#ková, et al. Urban Green Spaces, Health, and Wellbeing: Social Value Estimation of... Methodology In this study, we estimate the social value of the community garden and related implemented solutions using the Social Return on Investment (SROI) framework, seeking to answer the following research questions: • What are the key social outcomes the community garden generates, particularly regarding health and well-being? • What is the community garden’s social value and social return on investment? • How sensitive are the results to the choice of valuation strategy? To estimate the social value, the standardised six-step SROI methodology (Figure 1) was applied: (1) Establishing scope and identifying stakeholders – including gardeners, volunteers, CUKETA NGO, and the project team, covering 2022–2024 (with impacts from 2023); (2) Mapping outcomes – identifying inputs, outputs, and outcomes using nancial data and stakeholder input, and developing a theory of change; (3) Evidencing outcomes and giving them a value – using contingent valuation and Scholten’s Value Game, alongside values from the Danish Open Social Value Bank, weighted by survey data; (4) Establishing impact – adjusting for deadweight, attribution, and drop-off based on interviews, with future value discounted; (5) Calculating the SROI – estimating return per euro invested, including sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulations; and (6) Reporting, using and embedding – presenting results and limitations. FIGURE 1. e SROI process and data sources used Source: Own elaboration. e case study area is in Nitra, Slovakia, on the outskirts of the city’s urban neighbourhoods. Since the beginning of the IN-HABIT project, the implementers have regularly met with gardeners and volunteers to plan the redevelopment and expansion of the garden. Hard (physical interventions) and so (activities and events) were co-designed during 2 workshops with community members, with the involvement of experts in design, landscape architecture, dendrology and permaculture. 2 additional practical co-design workshops were organised with 3 women experts from Slovak School of Permaculture to co-validate the solutions. ese were followed by 18 additional workshops, with educational elements and physical implementation of the proposed solutions. A gate to the garden was constructed, a chicken sanctuary was built, garden plots were demarcated, edible, honey-bearing and medicinal herbs were planted along the walkways, and a shelf for surplus sharing was built. A new garden workshop was installed, and an old garden pergola for hosting community events and lectures was rebuilt. 3 new garden sections were created, one for gardening, one for education and one for relaxation purposes. A new water feature was introduced – a pond built showcasing various aquatic plants and water garden ecosystems. e community garden expanded from the original 411m2 by a total of 575m2. In the co-deployment of these solutions, waste materials were mostly used. e inclusion of demonstration plots and an educational and recreational area aimed to showcase sustainable Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 2025, vol. 18, ISSN: 2027-2103 / 2145-0226 gardening practices, provide hands-on learning opportunities, and foster community engagement in urban agriculture. Multiple secondary and primary data sources were input into the analysis. e use of each primary and secondary source at each stage of the analysis is shown in gure 1. Data on nancial inputs, implemented activities and outputs were obtained from the records of the IN-HABIT project team and CUKETA NGO (a civic association co-managing the garden with several other groups). Within the nancial inputs, all inputs of the IN-HABIT project were included, and other inputs spent by identied stakeholders. In addition to nancial inputs, we also accounted for the opportunity cost of time. By convention, the opportunity cost of beneciaries’ time was not considered (Nicholls et al, 2012, p. 32). Reecting the SROI framework’s emphasis on stakeholder engagement in the evaluation process, we performed an in-depth structured interview with a representative of CUKETA NGO, structured interviews with gardeners (n=16, 25.4 % of all gardeners), and a more broadly-based questionnaire survey for users of the IN-HABIT project solutions (n=29). eir function was mainly to identify key outcomes and societal benets of the community garden, as well as to estimate social value. e interview with the representative of CUKETA NGO was conducted in March 2024 and helped clarify the space’s functioning, dene the stakeholders, and identify the benets from the organization’s perspective. Personal structured interviews with gardeners were conducted between March and April 2024. e interviews focused on identifying and describing the perceived benets of the community garden and evaluating these benets. Complementary questions were asked to obtain information to estimate attribution and deadweight in the impact calculation phase, as well as about the characteristics of the interviewees. e responses of the gardeners helped to clarify how the different activities implemented led to the identied results. A more quantitative approach was applied using responses to a questionnaire survey for users of IN-HABIT solutions conducted between May and July 2024. On a scale of 0 to 5, respondents marked the extent to which the activities and workshops contributed to different elements of well-being and life satisfaction, quality of leisure time and healthy lifestyle, and social and spatial well-being. Based on responses from individuals who stated that they had participated in activities in the community garden an average score was created for each element. ese sources were combined to clarify social value creation in the context of the implemented activities. Two valuation strategies were utilised and tested to quantify the social benets. e rst approach used primary stated preference methods in the form of contingent valuation willingness to pay scenario (integrated in gardener interviews) and Scholten’s Value game (Scholten, 2019) in the case of CUKETA NGO and volunteers. e presence of a payment mechanism for community members and the possibility of establishing a hypothetical scenario with a low cognitive burden formed suitable conditions for the use of contingent valuation. During the interview, gardeners were presented with a hypothetical scenario involving hypothetical payment for a eld rental at a community garden described to reect the KOZA community garden and the activities carried out during the 2023 season as closely as possible. e WTP question was formulated as an open-ended question. e interview also included questions specifying the counterfactual (deadweight and attribution). In the case of CUKETA NGO, the value game was realized during the interview. In the case of volunteers, a focus group was carried out with the participation of three individuals. Firstly, the participants had to dene a set of market goods to which they attributed value and with which they would like to be endowed. ey then had to form a scale out of these goods based on their perceived value, highest to lowest. en participants were asked to place the annual benets of the community garden on this scale. Social value was estimated as the mean value of the market goods between which the benets of the community garden were located on the scale. To save analytical capacity in the future while leveraging standardised data, social values obtained from a social value bank were tested in the second valuation strategy. e Danish Open Social Value Bank (OSVB) (2023) was selected as the relatively closest since a social bank created for the Slovak or even Central European context is not available. OSVB contains a database of indicators and associated social values. Ivana Va#ková, et al. Urban Green Spaces, Health, and Wellbeing: Social Value Estimation of... From the indicators contained in the OSVB, the indicator best matching one of the key community garden benets identied in the ‘theory of change’ framework was selected for each stakeholder. Given that the dened OSVB proxy indicators imply a change in the quality of health and wellbeing, it was necessary to appropriately ‘weigh’ the number of participating gardeners and volunteers to realistically reect the fact that such a change occurred in only a proportion of them. In the case of gardeners, we used the questionnaire results for users of IN-HABIT solutions. e questionnaire responses allowed us to estimate the number of cases where a community member experienced given outcomes. Results Stakeholders and Inputs Six stakeholder groups were identied: garden users, volunteers, CUKETA NGO, HIDEPARK NGO, lecturers, and the Slovak University of Agriculture (SUA). Garden users, the primary beneciaries, increased from 40 to 63 by 2023–2024, forming a broader community of about 110 people. ey also attended workshops in the garden. Volunteers (8–26 participants annually) supported the site’s upkeep and activities, mainly through “KOZA Brigades.” CUKETA NGO, composed of ve members, led the organization of workshops and garden operations. HIDEPARK NGO co-organised events, supplied materials, and coordinated volunteers. Lecturers provided expertise for workshops on sustainable agriculture. SUA coorganized activities and contributed resources, infrastructure, and equipment (Table 1). Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 2025, vol. 18, ISSN: 2027-2103 / 2145-0226 TABLE 1. Stakeholders and inputs Source: Own elaboration based on CUKETA NGO interview, CUKETA NGO and SUA IN-HABIT Project team records. Regarding the inputs, CUKETA NGO primarily invested time, contributing ideas, solutions, and support to community members, along with nancial resources for renting the garden plot, tools, and operational costs. Gardeners paid €5/month (March–November) to rent plots and contributed time for maintenance, knowledge sharing, and participating in activities. Volunteers mainly invested their time. HIDEPARK NGO provided funds for workshop materials and lecturer honoraria and organised events. Workshop lecturers contributed time and expertise. e SUA project team covered material costs and funded an office container repurposed as a garden workshop. A summary of the nancial inputs is shown in table 2. Ivana Va#ková, et al. Urban Green Spaces, Health, and Wellbeing: Social Value Estimation of... TABLE 2. Summary of nancial inputs Source: CUKETA NGO and SUA IN-HABIT Project team records. Given the signicant time inputs by stakeholders, opportunity costs of time were included for CUKETA NGO members and volunteers. Due to their hypothetical nature, these were calculated at half the hourly wage of equivalent job roles. Based on interviews, the CUKETA NGO leader spent 55 hours/month inseason and 8 hours/month off-season, while other members averaged 14 hours/month in-season. Using the project manager wage (€11.16/hour), the total opportunity cost was €8,894.52. For volunteers, a gardener’s wage (€6.31/hour) was used, totalling €1,211.52. Lecturers were excluded as they were nancially compensated. eory of Change To quantify the social benets, it was necessary to identify the outcomes for each stakeholder. In a stakeholder-informed process, a theory of change comprising affected groups, realised activities, and a chain of outcomes was produced. is process claried the creation of social value in the context of the implemented activities. e resulting theory of change related to health and well-being is shown in gure 2. e outputs and outcomes are summarised in table 3. FIGURE 2. Community Garden solutions theory of change related to health and well-being Source: Own elaboration. Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 2025, vol. 18, ISSN: 2027-2103 / 2145-0226 TABLE 7. SROI ratios Source: Own elaboration. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of the SROI results (Figure 4). It included opportunity costs of time and estimated stakeholder benets. Triangular distributions were used to model uncertainty, with observed values as the most likely, 0 % as the minimum, and 150 % as the maximum. Deadweight, attribution, and drop-off were modelled using Beta distributions to reect their proportional nature. e analysis ran 10,000 iterations for both valuation strategies. Results show strong robustness: the SROI ratio fell below 1 in only 2.78 % of cases for the rst strategy, and 1.37 % for the second. FIGURE 4. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis Source: Own elaboration. e analysis of the IN-HABIT community garden project in Nitra reveals an intervention with a clear and meaningful impact on health, well-being, social cohesion, and environmental awareness. e social value generated by the project stems from the engagement of three primary stakeholder groups community garden users, volunteers, and the CUKETA NGO. e most substantial outcomes were identied among community garden users, as reected in the theory of change. Gardeners reported signicant improvements in life satisfaction, psychological well-being, and community engagement. ese outcomes were linked to multiple aspects of their participation: cultivating their own food, attending permaculture and sustainability workshops, and co-designing the garden space. A strong sense of social connectedness emerged as a recurring theme, with respondents emphasising that the garden provided not just a physical space for growing food but a vital arena for building relationships, exchanging knowledge, and coping with stress and illness. e relatively Ivana Va#ková, et al. Urban Green Spaces, Health, and Wellbeing: Social Value Estimation of... high estimated social value backs these ndings. Volunteers, who assisted primarily with maintenance and event organization through the “KOZA brigades,” experienced more modest but still relevant benets. ese included an enhanced sense of belonging, improved teamwork and physical well-being, and the development of practical skills. However, their role was largely supportive rather than developmental. CUKETA NGO contributed not only to the operational success of the garden but also to wider outcomes related to community-building, skill acquisition, and environmental awareness. e resulting valuation underlines the scale and depth of its impact. In the case of valuation framework, ndings highlight signicant discrepancies between the two strategies and inconsistencies in projected social value across stakeholders. Estimating social value for volunteers shows the importance of considering the local context and including affected parties in the analysis. Including outof-context nancial proxies inated the estimated social value, disregarding the actual perceived benets to volunteers. For the second valuation strategy, the projected value is also signicantly higher for gardeners. Conversely, this approach did not allow the inclusion of a value for CUKETA NGO as it does not have the position of a beneciary of the intervention. Conclusion is paper assessed the social value of health and well-being interventions implemented through the INHABIT project in Nitra’s community garden, using an extended SROI framework. A stakeholder-informed theory of change revealed key outcomes, including enhanced psychological well-being, community cohesion, environmental awareness, and knowledge sharing. Two approaches to estimating the social value of a community garden were compared. Under the rst valuation strategy, engaged groups were directly involved in utilising contingent valuation and Scholten’s Value game. Findings indicate that each Euro invested yields 2.15 Euros in social benets. If only the investments of the IN-HABIT project are accounted for, social benets increased to 2.42 Euros. e second strategy, based on nancial proxies from secondary sources, led to signicantly higher estimated values. Under this approach, each Euro invested is projected to yield 4.27 Euros in social benets, rising to 4.80 Euros when considering only IN-HABIT’s investments. e analysis was limited by the scope of the periods under study. Some long-term benets may only become apparent in the later period. Regarding data collection, the number of interviews and respondents may limit the representativeness of the ndings, although the study sought broad stakeholder involvement and used many data sources. ere are also limitations inherent to SROI framework and the analysis underscores the importance of rening the social value estimation process. Although the stakeholderinformed valuation strategy ensures contextual relevance, it is inherently subjective, and the value could be overor underestimated. Furthermore, the usage of Social Value Bank data may result in ination or misrepresentation of value if the proxy used does not fully align with the local context or intensity of the benet, as shown in the case of the volunteers. Further research should include the development of a comprehensive framework for assessing the social value of innovative solutions within inclusive and green public spaces in cities, involving a wide range of engaged groups, specic target groups but also project implementers and other actors involved in co-design, co-creation, and co-management given the fuzzy position of those involved. Scholten’s Value Game could be further extended as a tool for estimating social value with low cognitive burden; it could be used to show differences in the perceived value generated by different stakeholders and the uninvolved public, and its ability to withstand biases in different contexts should be tested. Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 2025, vol. 18, ISSN: 2027-2103 / 2145-0226 References Al-Delaimy, W. K., & Webb, M. (2017). Community Gardens as Environmental Health Interventions: Benets Versus Potential Risks. Current Environmental Health Reports, 4(2), 252-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-0170133-4 Alomoto, W., Niñerola, A., & Sánchez-Rebull, M.-V. (2024). Evaluating the Social Return on Investment of A Mental Health Disorders Club: A Case Study. Social Enterprise Journal, 21(2), 294-317. ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-10-2023-0122 Armstrong, D. (2000). A Survey of Community Gardens in Upstate New York: Implications for Health Promotion and Community Development. Health & Place, 6(4), 319-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-8292(00)00013-7 Austin, G. (2014). Green Inastructure for Landscape Planning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315856780 Banke-omas, A. O., Madaj, B., Charles, A., & Van Den Broek, N. (2015). Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology to account for value for money of public health interventions: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 15(582), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1935-7 Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2018). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235594 Corkery, L. (2019). Urban Green Space. In K. Bishop & N. Marshall (Ed.), e Routledge Handbook of People and Place in the 21st-Century City (1st ed., pp. 294-304). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211543-32 Corvo, L., Pastore, L., Mastrodascio, M., & Cepiku, D. (2022). e Social Return on Investment Model: A Systematic Literature Review. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(7), 49-86. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2021-1 307 Dinda, S., & Ghosh, S. (2021). Perceived Benets, Aesthetic Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Visiting Urban Parks: A Case Study in Kolkata, India. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 9(1), 36-50. https://do i.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2020.12.007 Edwards, R. T., & Lawrence, C. L. (2021). ‘What You See is All ere is’: e Importance of Heuristics in Cost-Benet Analysis (CBA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) in the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 19(5), 653-664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00653-5 Eliaš, L., Ondrejička, V., Ondrejičková, S., & Nič, M. (2021). Mobility as a Crucial Factor of Spatial Development in Function Urban Areas—Case Study of Kosice Region. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1203(2), 022086. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1203/2/022086 Enssle, F., & Kabisch, N. (2020). Urban Green Spaces for the Social Interaction, Health and Well-Being of Older People —An Integrated View of urban Ecosystem Services and Socio-Environmental Justice. Environmental Science & Policy, 109, 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.008 Falťan, Ľ. (2019). Socio-priestorové premeny vidieckych sídiel na Slovensku v začiatkoch 21. Storočia – sociologická reexia. Sociológia - Slovak Sociological Review, 51(2), 95-114. https://doi.org/10.31577/sociologia.2019.51.2.5 Ferreira, S., & Marques, R. C. (2015). Contingent Valuation Method Applied to Waste Management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 99, 111-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.02.013 Frijters, P., Krekel, C., Sanchis, R., & Santini, Z. I. (2024). e WELLBY: A New Measure of Social Value and Progress. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(736), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03229-5 Glover, T. D. (2003). e Story of the Queen Anne Memorial Garden: Resisting a Dominant Cultural Narrative. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(2), 190-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2003.11949990 Halkos, G., Leonti, A., & Sardianou, E. (2022). Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Entrance to Urban Parks: A Quantile Regression Analysis. Economic Analysis and Policy, 74, 421-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022 .03.013 Hardi, T., Repaská, G., Veselovský, J., & Vilinová, K. (2020). Environmental Consequences of the Urban Sprawl in the Suburban Zone of Nitra: An Analysis Based on Landcover Data. Geographica Pannonica, 24(3), 205-220. http s://doi.org/10.5937/gp24-25543 Ivana Va#ková, et al. Urban Green Spaces, Health, and Wellbeing: Social Value Estimation of... Hartel, N., Gittins, H., Morrison, V., Wynne-Jones, S., Dandy, N., & Edwards, R. T. (2023). Social Return on Investment of Nature-Based Activities for Adults with Mental Wellbeing Challenges. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(15), 6500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20156500 Hunter, R. F., Cleland, C., Cleary, A., Droomers, M., Wheeler, B. W., Sinnett, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., & Braubach, M. (2019). Environmental, Health, Wellbeing, Social and Equity Effects of Urban Green Space Interventions: A Meta-Narrative Evidence Synthesis. Environment International, 130, 104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.env int.2019.104923 Irvine, S., Johnson, L., & Peters, M. K. (1999). Community Gardens and Sustainable Land Use Planning: A Case Study of the Alex Wilson Community Garden. Local Environment, 4(1), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839 908725579 Kadel R., Stielke, A., Ashton, K., Masters, R., & Dyakova, M. (2022). Social Return on Investment (SROI) of Mental Health Related Interventions—A Scoping Review. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 965148. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpubh.2022.965148 Laycock Pedersen, R., omson, G., Friblick, L., Gaubert, C., & Nazarin, S. (2023). Amplifying Sustainable Commercial Urban Agriculture in Sweden through the Stadsbruk Method. In Urban and Regional Agriculture (pp. 307-340). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820286-9.00020-0 Lettieri, E., Biasin, C., Selva, A., Isella, L., Onofrio, R., & Bertelè, P. (2021). SROI Methods for Impact Assessment in Economy of Wellbeing. In Andreoni, G., & Mambretti, C. (Eds.). Digital Health Technology for Better Aging: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 245-266). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3 -030-72663-8 Meltzer, H., Bebbington, P., Dennis, M. S., Jenkins, R., McManus, S., & Brugha, T. S. (2013). Feelings of Loneliness among Adults with Mental Disorder. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48(1), 5-13. https://doi.o rg/10.1007/s00127-012-0515-8 Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert E., & Goodspeed, T. (2012). A guide to Social Return on Investment. SROI Network. https://docs.adaptdev.info/lib/IB6EPT5U Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the Bottom of “Triple Bottom Line”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243-262. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200414211 Open Social Value Bank. (2023). Open Social Value Bank. Author. https://en.opensocialvaluebank.com/ Papastergiou, E., Latinopoulos, D., Evdou, M., & Kalogeresis, A. (2023). Exploring Associations between Subjective Well-Being and Non-Market Values When Used in the Evaluation of Urban Green Spaces: A Scoping Review. Land, 12(3), 700. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030700 Piracha, A., & Chaudhary, M. T. (2022). Urban Air Pollution, Urban Heat Island and Human Health: A Review of the Literature. Sustainability, 14(15), 9234. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159234 Rathnayke, S., & Amofah, S. (2023). Health and Wellbeing Implications of Urban Green Exposure on Young Adults in a European City. Journal of Advanced Research in Social Sciences, 6(4), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.33422/jar ss.v6i4.1136 Robinson S. (2020). Artists for Mental Health Mindfulness Project. Social Return on Investment Evaluation. Institute for Social Value. https://socialvalueuk.org/reports/artists-for-mental-health-mindfulness-project/ Scholten P. (2019). ValueGame. A Method for Involving Customers in Valuing Outcomes. https://socialvalueuk.org /wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ValueGame-Document-FINAL.pdf Social Value UK. (2024). e Principles of Social Value. Author. https://socialvalueuk.org/principles-of-social-value/ Solovey, L. V., & Kovaleva, M. I. (2017). Social and Psychological Problems of Urban Space. Historical and SocialEducational Ideas, 9(4/2), 147-152. Szott, A., & Motamed, M. (2023). Agriculture Sector Cost-Benefit Analysis Guidance. Millennium Challenge Corporation. https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/agriculture-sector-cost-benefit-analysis-guidance/ Van Oijstaeijen, W., Van Passel, S., Back, P., & Cools, J. (2022). e Politics of Green Infrastructure: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Flemish Local Decision-Makers. Ecological Economics, 199, 107493. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.ecolecon.2022.107493 Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 2025, vol. 18, ISSN: 2027-2103 / 2145-0226 Vasiliu, E.-E., Torabi Moghadam, S., Bisello, A., & Lombardi, P. (2024). Visionary Nature-Based Solutions Evaluated through Social Return on Investment: e Case Study of an Italian Urban Green Space. Smart Cities, 7(2), 946-972. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7020040 Victor, C. R., & Yang, K. (2012). e Prevalence of Loneliness Among Adults: A Case Study of the United Kingdom. e Journal of Psychology, 146(1-2), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.613875 Notes * Artículo de investigación cientíca / Research paper Origin of this research This research has been funded under the IN-HABIT (Inclusive Health and Well-being in Small and Medium-sized Cities) project as part of the Horizon 2020 Program (Grant Agreement No. 869227). The contents of this document do not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. The responsibility for the information and opinions expressed herein lies solely with the authors. Licencia Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 Cómo citar / How to cite: Vačková, I., Varecha, L., & Melichová, K. (2025). Urban Green Spaces, Health, and Wellbeing: Social Value Estimation of a Community Garden in Slovakia. Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 18. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cvu18.evus