This study investigates the usage behavior and the perception of horticulturalists (horticultural activists) and simple users for urban community gardens. To this end, we surveyed 100 horticulturalists and 213 simple users. Questions in the survey are divided into five categories: 1) usage behavior of community gardens, 2) perception on the benefits of community gardens, 3) perception on the pros and cons of setting up community gardens, 4) willingness to pay for community gardens, 5) importance of specific benefits provided by community gardens. According to the survey, 95.0 percent of horticulturalists and 93.4 percent of simple users supported setting up community gardens. 58.0 percent of horticulturalists and 60.6 percent of simple users were willing to pay their residence tax for community gardens. And the annual membership fee plus resident tax of horticulturalists is 460,455 KW per person, which is 80.6 times more than willingness to pay of simple users. The results of this study can be used as basis data for valuing community gardens.

The purpose of this study is to identify effect in how urban garden is run by different operators in Korea, and consequently how it determines the level of community formation among urban garden users. Based on this analysis, the study is intended to present some points as to how to better manage urban garden. The operators are divided into three types: public, public-private partnership and private. The study interviewed each operating entity and surveyed garden users to gauge the extent to which communities are developed. After the ANOVA analysis and Scheffe post-hoc analysis, it was found that the levels of community formation among users of public and public-private partnership urban gardens were similar (so can be grouped together), whereas that of private urban garden users was higher (separated as another group). However, this study found no meaningful differences in the level of community formation among all types of urban garden in a local community. Some key suggestions are made as a result. First, as for the public and public-private partnership types of urban garden, it is necessary to foster leaders to build a community. Next, it is worth noting the potential of public-private partnership in realizing community revival through urban garden. The last suggestion is that, generally, the urban garden has only little influence on community formation in a local area so far, thus more practical consideration needs to be given to enhance the role of urban garden in a local community.