Cuyno Triple I

Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel, Inc.
Founded 1993
City of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, Philippines
COMMUNITY GARDENING: AN ANALYSIS ON COMBATING AGRICULTURAL PRICE HIKE
A Research Paper
Submitted to the Faculty of Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel, Inc.
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the subject

Practical Research 2 and Inquiries, Investigation, and Immersion
Submitted by:
Cuyno, Jalainna A.
Castillo, Camille Faith A.
Gacus, Jana Daphne
Abadia, Rica Mae O.
Palicte, Lj Jane B.
Endolos, Joseph L.
Medestomas, Aaron John T.
Sali, Saima
Robles, Jennelyn R.
Submitted to:
. Ma’am De Vera, Ellaine

Research Group’s Adviser
June 2024
Founded 1993
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that the intellectual content of this research paper entitled
“
COMMUNITY GARDENING: AN ANALYSIS ON COMBATING AGRICULTURAL PRICEH
” is the result of our collective ideas derived from the
data gathered with the guidance of the professionals who have assisted us in the
construction of this research. Even though we received help with style, presentation, and
language expression from others, we utilized suitable citations in referring to other works
from other sources.
This research paper does not contain any previously published or written material
by another person which, to a substantial extent, has been accepted for any other
degree or diploma at Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel, Inc. or any other educational
institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the paper. Any contributions
made to the research by others, with whom we have collaborated at Colegio de San
Gabriel Arcangel, Inc. or elsewhere, are explicitly acknowledged.
We confirm that we understand plagiarism and accept the repercussions of any

plagiarized work submitted by us, either individually or as part of a group.
Researchers:
Abadia, Rica Mae Medestomas, Aaron John
Castillo, Camille Faith A. Palicte, Lj Jane
Cuyno, Jalainna A. Robles, Jennelyn
Endolos, Joseph Sali, Saima
Gacus, Jana Daphne
Attested by:
Ma'am Ellaine De Vera

Date: __________________
2
Founded 1993
APPROVAL SHEET
This undergraduate thesis entitled “

COMMUNITY GARDENING: AN ANALYSIS ON
” was prepared and
submitted by:
Jalainna A. Cuyno Joseph L. Endolos

Camille Faith A. Castillo Aaron John T. Medestomas
Jana Daphne Gacus Sali Saima
Rica Mae Abadia Jenelyn Robles
Lj Jane Palicte
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Subject Practical Research 2 and

Inquiries, Investigation, and Immersion has been examined and hereby
recommended for approval and acceptance for ORAL EXAMINATION.
Ellaine De Vera
3
Founded 1993
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our sincerest gratitude to all those who have
played a significant role in the accomplishment of this study. Without their
support, guidance, and encouragement, this research would not have been
possible.
First and foremost, we would like to thank our research teacher, Ma'am
Ellaine De Vera, for providing us with the opportunity to undertake this study. Her
guidance and expertise have been invaluable in shaping our research and
helping us navigate through the challenging process of conducting a study. We
have learned important life lessons from her, such as the importance of patience,
perseverance, teamwork, resilience, cooperation, and the relentless pursuit of
knowledge. Her dedication to our growth and development as researchers has
been truly inspiring, and we are grateful for her unwavering support.
We would also like to extend our deepest gratitude to our parents for their
unwavering support throughout this research journey. They have stood by us
through the late nights, the setbacks, and the moments of doubt, always cheering
us on and reminding us of our capabilities. We are grateful for their love and
sacrifices, and we dedicate this study to them.
4
Founded 1993
We are also thankful to God for His guidance and wisdom, which have
sustained us through the highs and lows of this research process. He has been
our source of strength and inspiration, providing us with the courage and insight
needed to overcome challenges and achieve our goals.
Last but not least, we would like to thank ourselves, the researchers, for
our dedication, hard work, and determination in completing this study. We have
put in countless hours of research, analysis, and writing to ensure its success,
and we are proud of the results we have achieved. Our commitment to
excellence and our passion for discovery have driven us to push boundaries,
challenge assumptions, and strive for innovation in our research efforts.
5
Founded 1993
ABSTRACT
This research explores how agricultural price hikes affect individuals'
affordability and budgeting, and how community gardening can help alleviate the
challenges faced by respondents during these difficult times.Agricultural price
hikes can lead to increased costs for basic food items, making it difficult for
individuals and families to afford nutritious meals. The ability to budget effectively
becomes even more crucial during times of price hikes, as individuals must find
ways to stretch their limited funds to cover essential expenses.Through the use
of descriptive correlational research, this study aims to observe and describe the
ways in which agricultural price hikes impact individuals' affordability and
budgeting. By examining the relationships between variables such as income,
food costs, and access to community gardening, researchers can gain insights
into potential solutions for combatting the challenges posed by rising agricultural
prices. Initiatives such as expanding access to community gardening programs
can help individuals build resilience against the challenges posed by agricultural
price hikes.
6
Founded 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Title Page i
Certificate of Originality ii
Approval Sheet iii
Acknowledgments iv
Abstract vi
Table of Contents vii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE,

AND THE PROBLEM
Introduction 13
Review of Related Literature 17
Conceptual Framework 24
Statement of the Problem 25
Hypotheses 26
Scope and Delimitation of the Study 27
Significance of the Study 29
Definition of Terms 31
Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY
Research Design 33
Research Locale 34
Respondents of the Study 36
Sampling Design 38
Instrumentation 40
Validation of the Instrument 41
Data Gathering Procedure 43
Ethical Considerations 45
Statistical Treatment of the Data 47
Chapter 3: RESULT, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION 52

SOP 1.1 What are the effects of agricultural Pricehike to 52
the Affordability
1.1.1 I learn that price hike has an effective way for us to 53
practice more on saving money to buy cooking essential
7
Founded 1993
like spices and veggies.

1.1.2 I am ascertain that experiencing agricultural price 55
hike makes me motivated in saving more money so that I
can purchase a specific important needs in our daily
lives.
1.1.3 I find it more easy to buy the food that we need as 57
agricultural price hike made it increasingly evident that
community collaboration is essential to overcoming the
difficulties faced by individuals struggling to afford basic
necessities.
1.1.4 I am reflecting on the challenges I am currently 61
facing in meeting my basic food needs due to the
relentless wave of price increases. While it may be
tempting to succumb to despair in the face of this
difficulty, I choose instead to view this situation as an
opportunity for growth, innovation, and community-
building.
1.1.5 I believe that through knowledge sharing and 64
leveraging technological advancements, communities
can discover innovative approaches to improve crop
yield, reduce waste, and increase the availability of basic
necessities at affordable prices.
1.1.6 I am finding it more difficult to buy cooking essential 67
like spices and veggies due to the price increase
1.1.7 I am experiencing of not purchasing a specific 70
cooking item due to it’s expensive cost
1.1.8 I observe that his substantial increase in overall 72
food costs can put low-income individuals and families at
a greater risk of food insecurity, as they struggle to
balance their limited financial resources with their basic
food requirements.
1.1.9 I notice that as a result of unable to purchase 75
necessary foods individuals resort to consuming cheaper
alternatives that often less healthy, such as processed
food.
1.1.10 I am struggling to afford basic necessities due to 77
agricultural pricehike so that we experience starvation
8
Founded 1993
sometime
SOP 1.2 What are the effects of agricultural Pricehike to 80
the Budgeting
1.2.1 I am observing that agricultural price hike allow me 80
to do money distribution
1.2.2 I am figuring out that price hikes prove me the 83
potential to manage everyday essential
1.2.3 I am discovering that price hikes allow me to be 86
practical and make decisions using critical thinking
1.2.4 I am figuring out that agricultural price hikes are a 87
challenge in my life where I am learning to save money
and to be practical, aiding in my budgeting efforts to
meet everyday essentials.
1.2.5 I am discovering that agricultural price hikes 89
provide me with alternative ways to address budgeting,
prompting me to explore cost-effective solutions for
managing daily expenses.
1.2.6 I am affected by the budgeting of our family due to 92
the agricultural price hike.
1.2.7 I am aware that my family experienced shortages 94
due to the price increase in the market.
1.2.8 I am forced to borrow money due to a lack of funds 97
as a result of the market's expensive price hikes
1.2.9 I am observing that, compared to before, our 99
family's monthly budget is no longer sufficient due to the
increase in prices.
1.2.10 I am experiencing a loss of purchasing power 102
because the money we have is not enough because of
the price increase.
SOP 02 How community gardening address the 105
challenges that Households deals with as a result of
agricultural price increase
2.1 I am supporting community gardening in order to 105
address the issue of rising agricultural prices in the
financial budgets of all families by doing this, we will be
9
Founded 1993
less independent on pricey produce from the store and

be able to lessen the impact of price hike on our home
2.2 I am certain that community gardening can eliminates 107
the need to buy vegetables in the market, promoting self-
sustainability and effective family budget management.
2.3 I am ensuring that there will always be availability to 109
reasonably priced food, which increases community
resilience by creating a buffer against the growing costs
of agriculture.
2.4 I am sure that it empowers households the ability to 112
grow their own food, diminishing reliance on costly
market purchases.
2.5 I am certain that community gardening reduces the 113
impact of growing market prices by offering a consistent
and affordable source of fresh veggies.
2.6 I am finding out that there is a problem with a hectic 115
schedule resulting in insufficient time and effort to
consistently maintain gardening. This hinders the
significance of community gardening in addressing
increasing agricultural prices.
2.7 I am discovering that there are limited resources for 117
necessary gardening items such as land, tools, and
seeds. This becomes a challenge to achieving
community gardening, which could potentially address
agricultural price increases.
2.8 I am observing the difficulty in cultivating plants due 119
to changing weather conditions, leading to the
destruction of plants. This limits the possibilities for
support with agricultural price hikes.
2.9 I am encountering issues due to pests caused by 122
plant-damaging impacts, making it difficult to effectively
manage community gardening to stabilize rising
agricultural prices.
2.10 I am experiencing a lack of sufficient knowledge 124
and skills, making it challenging to cooperate in
community gardening activities.
10
Founded 1993
SOP 03 Is there any significance relationship to the 127

community gardening in combating agricultural price
hike.
3.1 I am considering community gardening as a way to 127
reduce our daily expenses Instead of solely relying on
store-bought produce we have the opportunity to savor
the fruits and vegetables we grow themselves.
3.2 I am certain that instead of buying pricey vegetables 129
from the market, community gardens allow us to save
money community gardens can provide a solution to this
problem. By actively participating in a shared garden
space, individuals can grow their own vegetables and
significantly reduce their monthly grocery bills.
3.3 l am convinced that food consumption is reduced 133
through community gardening it offers a sustainable and
holistic solution to the challenges surrounding food
consumption by empowering individuals to grow their
food, community gardens improve access to fresh
produce, contribute to food security, promote
environmental sustainability, and foster social cohesion.
3.4 I am experiencing that community gardening 135
increases the availability of food when the budget is
limited as it promotes the cultivation of a wide variety of
crops, ensuring a diverse range of fresh and healthy food
options. Unlike in the typical grocery stores with a limited
variety of produce.
3.5 ) I am determine that community gardening can help 139
address the financial burden as it enhance the
accessibility of food for individuals living in areas with
limited access to fresh produce.
3.6 I believe that community gardens have limited 142
production capabilities since they are often small-scale
projects that rely on volunteer efforts and can only meet
the needs of a small number of people.
3.7 I think the yields generated from community gardens 145
are insufficient to create a significant impact on
agricultural price hikes, especially in highly populated
areas.
11
Founded 1993
3.8 I consider that community gardens often lack the 148

necessary resources and funding to sustain their
operations long-term since these initiatives heavily rely
on volunteers and donations, which can be inconsistent,
making it challenging to ensure a stable supply of fresh
produce.
3.9 I believe that community gardening offers several 151
advantages but it has limited significance in combating
agricultural price hikes, such as the localized nature,
production limitations, environmental constraints and lack
of resource.
3.10 I firmly believe that there is no significant 154
relationship between community gardening and
combating agricultural price hikes because of the land
availability and quality such as in urban areas, where
community gardening is most prevalent, suitable land for
agriculture is limited and often contaminated, requiring
extensive remediation.
Chapter 4: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Findings 157
Conclusions 166
Recommendations 172
References 180
Appendices
A – Letter to Respondents 189
B – Letter of Permission to School Head or Office 190
C – Letter to Expert Validator/s of Survey Questionnaire/s 191
D – Research Instrument Validation Sheet 192
E – Survey Questionnaire 194
F – Formula with Sample Computation of Statistics Used 206
G - Documentation 246
Curriculum Vitae 247
12
Founded 1993
13
Founded 1993
CHAPTER 01
INTRODUCTION, REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE,
AND THE PROBLEM
This chapter of the paper presents the problem and its setting. It includes
the introduction, review of related literature, theoretical framework, research
paradigm, statement of the problem, hypothesis, scope and delimitation of the
study, significance of the study and lastly the definition of terms.
Introduction
In an era characterized by rising living costs and economic uncertainties,
the financial well-being of families often hinges on the ability to effectively
manage monthly expenses. One recurring challenge faced by many households
is the escalating cost of groceries and fresh produce also known as price hike. A
price hike, also known as a price increase or price rise, refers to the situation
where the prices of goods or services increase over a certain period of time. This
can happen for various reasons, including General rises in the cost of goods and
services brought on by a decline in the buying power of a currency are known as
inflation. Increased demand, higher manufacturing costs, and monetary policy
changes are just a few examples of the causes that might cause inflation. Cost of
Production, Businesses may raise prices to cover rising production costs while
producing goods or rendering services. Supply and Demand, When there is a
greater demand for a good or service than there are available supplies,
14
Founded 1993
businesses may raise prices to capitalize on the increased demand. Events like
natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, or modifications to governmental rules
can cause supply chains to break down and increase the price of particular
products. Monopoly or oligopoly, Businesses with significant market sway
occasionally raise prices as a result of the lack of rivalry. Price hikes can impact
consumers by reducing their purchasing power and potentially leading to higher
overall living costs. As food prices continue to climb, families find themselves
allocating a significant portion of their budgets to meet basic nutritional needs.
For numerous low-income and undeserved communities, this financial burden
can be particularly pronounced, often resulting in difficult choices between
essential expenses.
In response to this pressing issue, the concept of community gardening has
emerged as a promising solution that not only addresses the rising costs of food
but also fosters a sense of community and promotes sustainable living.
Community gardening involves the cultivation of fruits, vegetables, and herbs in
shared spaces, often within urban neighborhoods. These communal gardens
provide an opportunity for local residents to actively participate in food
production, reducing their reliance on costly store-bought produce. This research
endeavors to explore the multifaceted implications of implementing community
gardening initiatives as a proactive strategy to mitigate the expensive monthly
consumption burdening families. By examining the economic, social, and
15
Founded 1993
environmental dimensions of community gardening, this study aims to shed light
on its potential to alleviate financial strain, enhance food security, and empower
communities. Furthermore, it seeks to identify best practices, barriers, and
success factors associated with the successful implementation and maintenance
of such initiatives.
People from different backgrounds can come together via gardening.
Witnessing a seed sprout into something magnificent and healthful is truly
satisfying. People can put their differences aside and become kinder to one
another when they gather together to plant things. Establishing communal
gardens is an excellent means of enhancing unity in the community, as they
promote education, encourage conversation, and benefit the environment.
Community gardens provide students with a safe environment in which to work
and learn about a variety of topics, which can contribute to the advancement of
education. By providing children, parents, teachers, and neighbors with planting
space, gardens build a bridge between the school and the neighborhood. In
conclusion, community gardens are a great way to bring people together rather
than keep them apart, teach children more about the world around them, and
raise awareness of the environment and the significant impact that human
activity has on it. We can turn an otherwise empty area into something truly
wonderful for people and the larger community at large if we can convert more
city spaces into green areas.
16
Founded 1993
With work and duties taking up so much time, modern life is extremely
busy. But because working nonstop wears out the human body, we look for
relaxation. Here's where having a community garden might be beneficial. In this
era, community gardening has a big impact on our lives which is essential for us
to survive when the crisis is coming. Gardens have been an important aspect of
many cultures in history, places where it’s easy to find fresh vegetables and
fruits. Community gardening is the easiest way to address this common problem
in our country which is price hikes or price increases. Community gardens have
the potential to mitigate the effects of food deserts in low-income communities
and enhance the availability of nutrient-dense food, which is essential for
maintaining a healthy lifestyle, lowering environmental risks, cutting down on
food miles, and building a more sustainable system. Gardening is an activity
that's good for both the mind and body and can be enjoyed by people of all ages
because gardens create a sense of community among neighbors who are
increasingly disconnected from each other.
17
Founded 1993
Review of Related Literature
This section provides a comprehensive analysis of foreign literature in the
proposed study that supports it. All materials and studies were further classified
to provide a clear organization of ideas.
Review of Foreign Literature
In community gardening, the word "community" refers to the fact that this
method of gardening entails the gathering of several people in various contexts
(such as neighborhoods, city blocks, schools, prisons, nursing homes, and
hospitals) in order to grow food among other things. People of all ages, races,
ethnicity, socioeconomic classes, and abilities use and benefit from community
gardens, as do those who are not impaired. Community gardens have come and
gone throughout history in line with the nation's socioeconomic situation. In terms
of ownership, access, and level of democratic control, a community garden is
somewhat similar to a public garden, which sets it apart from a private garden,
according to Norman and Sempik (2001).Community gardens are plots of land
used for growing food by people from different families, typically urban-dwellers
with limited access to their own land. Community gardens are different from top-
down efforts by government organizations to create green spaces, such as
botanical gardens.Whether cultivated through a system of individual or family
plots, or tended as a whole by a group of citizen volunteers, community gardens
involve the leadership and active participation of area residents to plan and care
for these "socio-ecological spaces."Likewise, community gardeners in a high-
18
Founded 1993
poverty area of Toronto reported that they had increased their consumption of
fresh, mostly organic vegtables while saving money at the grocery store
(Wakeﬁeldet al. 2007).
However, Nipper (2010) contended that community gardens can also yield
intangible advantages like enhanced quality of life, social networks, and
leadership, in addition to more concrete advantages like better food security,
nutrition, and physical exercise.Community gardens do in fact offer a wide range
of social, economic, environmental, and cultural advantages. Therefore, UCGs
are crucial to sustain, not only does it locally produce food for urban inhabitants,
but it also has extra benefits that are significant to the community (Armstrong,
2012).Urban community gardening offers a number of proven advantages. In
fact, the analysis of the literature on community gardens found that most of the
studies showed the gardens' beneficial effects.
In fact, a literature review by Guitart et al (2012) has revealed that the
majority of community gardens literature demonstrated positive outcomes from
the gardens. The most common benefits they described were social
development, enhanced health, access to fresh foods, and education. Likewise,
common motivations for participation in UCGs includes accessibility to fresh
food, improvement of health, social development, and including improved health,
social growth, and earning or saving money. Similarly, Armstrong (2012); Guitart,
19
Founded 1993
Byrne, & Pickering (2012)) list accessibility to fresh food, health improvement,
and social growth as popular reasons for joining UCGs.
Community gardens are deemed worthwhile endeavors because of their
many advantages. Particularly at periods when the COVID-19 pandemic's effects
upset urban food networks.Community gardens provide access to more nutrient-
dense food without incurring significant costs. For instance, encouraging low-
income urban WIC participants to engage in community gardening enhanced
their diets because the gardeners consumed more vegetables (Flanigan and
Varma 2013).These gardeners also claimed that gardening gave them exercise
and that they were able to raise essential cultural heritage produce that was
difficult to get fresh or reasonably priced in supermarkets.
In fact, as part of a wider effort to promote citizens' physical activity, at
least one community has encouraged the construction of community gardens
(McCreedy and Leslie 2012), however measurable benefits have not yet been
recorded. Stein came to the conclusion that people in low socioeconomic status
urban communities—who have a higher incidence of chronic diseases—could
promote and prevent disease by participating in a community garden. Inequalities
in the food system may be addressed by educating people about how food is
produced, distributed, and consumed. Food is essential for survival and good
health, and hunger is a sign of a system that views food as a commodity rather
20
Founded 1993
than a basic need (FoodShare 2013).King (2013) uses an adaptive capacity
resilience model to explain community gardens. According to this model, the
gardens improve communication, information sharing, and intentional co-learning
among diverse garden members, which strengthens community resilience. They
also strengthen ecological resilience by reducing the demand for less sustainable
food production options by emphasizing both produce exchange and self-
sufficiency.
Review of Local Literature
The global financial crisis of 2008–2009 significantly slowed down
economic growth throughout East Asia, including the Philippines. The financial
crisis and the residual impacts of a significant increase in global food prices that
peaked in mid- to late-2008 largely overlapped. According to a crisis assessment
analysis done by the World Bank, disadvantaged households were affected more
severely than wealthier ones, suffering unequal labor market losses. Remittance
amounts were constant, therefore wage and employment losses were the
primary causes of the drop in household incomes. Employment and pay losses
were particularly noticeable in this sector and in metropolitan regions, with the
manufacturing sector suffering the most because of the decline in worldwide
demand (ASEAN 2009).
Last year, the price of siling labuyo started off at P120 per kilo in January
2022, according to the Bantay Presyo monitoring of the Department of
21
Founded 1993
Agriculture. The price increases began in April, when on April 19, siling labuyo
prices skyrocketed to P200 per kilo from P120, It was in July when the siling
labuyo price rose to its highest price point yet: P500 per kilo. It has been
wavering between P400 to P500 since August began. Many families and vendors
are affected by this sudden increase of price Even in countries with solid
agricultural systems, most people buy their food and thus suffer the
consequences of sustained price increases. High-priced food reduces the real
income of the most vulnerable populations, with grave consequences for their
health and nutrition (Miranda, 2022).
In the recent year, Soaring prices of onions in the Philippines led agriculture
authorities to announce this weekend that the country would have to resort to
importing around 22,000 tons of the vegetable by March, to augment dwindling
domestic supply and arrest rising costs. Onion is a staple of the Southeast Asian
nation’s local cuisine—often coupled with garlic as a base of many dishes. The
country’s average monthly demand for the vegetable is around 17,000 metric
tons.The retail prices of onions reached P720 per kilo in December 2022 amid
the shortage in supply. According to the DA, in 2022 the country's total onion
harvest reached 283,172 metric tons. In 2021, onion production totaled 218,050
MT. At least 29,728 hectares of land across the country are planted with onions.
Farm industry group Samahang Industriya ng Agrikultura (SINAG) earlier said
importation of onions would solve the supply problem, but it would also result in
22
Founded 1993
oversupply by January 2023 if the government’s decision would come late (De
Guzman, 2023)
As more individuals come to understand the disadvantages of price
increase, growing food in the city or also called as community gardening is rising
in popularity in the Philippines. Urban regions have seen an increase in the
number of community gardens, giving residents access to fresh, wholesome
produce. People are starting to realize the advantages of growing their own food
in cities, which has increased its appeal recently. Community gardening makes
use of a variety of methods to make the most of limited area, including rooftop
gardens, vertical gardens, and hydroponics in communal gardens. Urban farming
has many benefits, one of which is the availability of wholesome, fresh fruit.
People in urban areas can harvest vegetables at the height of freshness,
assuring a higher nutritional content compared to produce that must travel vast
distances, by cultivating food in close proximity to where it is consumed.
Community gardening will also have positive social and community effects. For
instance, community gardens give locals a place to congregate, share gardening
expertise, and promote a sense of neighborhood and also lessen the monthly
budget consumption of the families in the area (All Properties, 2023).
The Urban Agriculture Program was created by the Philippine government
in recognition of the value of urban farming. To help people and communities
23
Founded 1993
develop their own urban farms, this program offers assistance and tools. The
initiative helps urban farmers succeed in their undertakings by providing training,
financial aid, and technical support. The enthusiasm and support for community
farming in the Philippines is expanding, as seen by a number of these initiatives.
Community gardening is being integrated into the nation's sustainable urban
development through the cooperative efforts of groups, government initiatives,
and individuals. In conclusion, community gardening is becoming more popular in
the Philippines and other nations. As communities continue to grow and face
food security and environmental sustainability concerns, community gardening
offers an achievable option. Numerous advantages are provided, including
improved access to fresh vegetables, sustainability, and development of the
area.
24
Founded 1993
Conceptual Framework
This conceptual framework present the Community Gardening: An analysis on
combating agricultural price hike and what are the factors that could affect the
changes between each variables.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Community Gardening Agricultural Price hike
Affordability Budgeting
25
Founded 1993
Statement of the Problem
The following questions will be specifically addressed in order to identify the topic
of concern and focus it in such a way that it may be explored in a systematic
way. It identifies the problem and suggests a method for researching a solution,
or it demonstrates why more knowledge is required for a solution to become
possible.
1) What are the effects of agricultural price hike to the following:
1.1) Affordability
1.2) Budgeting
2) What are the difficulties that households have faced as a result of the
agricultural price hike?
3) How will community gardening could help in aiding with the agricultural price
increase?
26
Founded 1993
Hypothesis
This study aims to evaluate the claim that community gardening could
help in aiding the agricultural price hike.
Null Hypothesis (H0):
Community gardening often cater to a limited number of individuals within
a specific neighborhood. Hence, the benefits derived from the garden are
enjoyed by only a small fraction of the community, leaving the majority
unaffected. They may produce fruits and vegetables but the overall impact
on community food security is often limited. The quantity of produce is
generally not sufficient to address the wider food needs of the community,
and it might not be accessible to all members due to various reasons,
such as distribution challenges or limited availability.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1):
The implementation of community gardening initiatives will lead to a
significant reduction in the monthly consumption expenses of families,
resulting in improved financial well-being and food security. Additionally,
community gardening will foster social cohesion, promote sustainable
27
Founded 1993
practices, and empower communities, thereby offering a holistic approach
to addressing the economic challenges faced by households.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
The goal of the study is to examine how does agricultural price hike can
affect the the budgeting and basic commodities of families in San Jose del Monte
Heights Phase 3B, Brgy. Muzon East CSJDM Bulacan. The study will also
consider how can the families could manage their money in meeting their basic
needs through engaging in community gardening. This will also look into the
methods of community gardening as relevant in improving their income, budget
and food security.
The application of this study is limited to the residents of San Jose del
Monte Heights, specifically in Phase 3B. The research participants, totaling fifty
(60) individuals, will be selected from this particular area. The study will focus on
individuals who are eighteen (18) years old and above. The delimitation of this
study is that it does not consider the gender of the participants. The research will
solely gather data from the provided printed questionnaires and will not include
any other methods of data collection. The findings and conclusions drawn from
this study will be specific to the residents of San Jose del Monte Heights Phase
3B and may not be generalized to other populations or areas.
28
Founded 1993
29
Founded 1993
Significance of the Study
The results of this study provide insights into the significance of the benefits of
community gardening in addressing the current rise in prices. This study not only
aids in comprehending the positive influence of community gardening on the
community but also motivates the public to participate in environmentally friendly
activities that cultivate positive relationships among individuals. The findings of
our study affirm certain benefits for the following sectors:
To the Students.
This study helps to teach students to understand the importance of
planting and they can help their fellow students what are the steps in
planting and it will help students who want to help their parents to save on
expenses.
To the Parents.
This research could be beneficial for the parents to be aware of how
community gardening can benefit them in various ways. It fosters a sense
of community, provides a shared space for families to connect, and offers
a hands-on opportunity for children to learn about nature and sustainable
30
Founded 1993
practices. Additionally, participating in a community garden can promote
physical activity, healthy eating habits, and overall well-being for both
parents and children.
To the Community.
This study promotes sustainable practices, indicating that engaging in
gardening activities has been linked to improved mental health and overall
well-being. It fosters social interactions among neighbors and cultivates a
sense of community. Community gardens offer a valuable platform for
sharing education and contribute to food security and accessibility.
To the Future Researcher.
The outcome of the study is beneficial to the neither present researchers
or the future researchers. Additionally, future researcher may gain
accurate and comprehensive knowledge relating to this study by using this
work as a reference for their research on this topic.
31
Founded 1993
Definition of Terms
For a better understanding of the study the following terms are defined in
the context of this research
Community Gardening. Is an umbrella term for “the process of growing plants
of all types and varieties in an urban environment.” In this niche agricultural field,
a variety of techniques, such as container gardening, indoor gardening, and
urban gardening
Agricultural Pricehike. When the cost of agricultural goods like plants and
vegetables becomes more expensive than it’s original price.
Combating. As per this study combat is the way to prevent something from
happening and what are the different ways that can be done.
Budgeting. The practice of planning how you will spend your money is called
budgeting. A budget is a plan of expenditure. Predicting in advance whether you
will have enough money to do the things you need to or want to do by making
this spending plan. Just striking a balance between your income and expenses is
budgeting.
Commodities. Basic products and materials that are extensively utilized and
lack significant differences from one another are referred to as commodities.
32
Founded 1993
Consumption. Using, purchasing, or consuming something is called
consumption.
Demand. It refers to a customer's readiness to pay a particular price for goods
and services as well as their desire to buy them. A good or service's price
increase usually results in a decline in the amount required.
Mitigate. To lessen the severity or harshness of anything, such a problem,
symptom, or penalty. However, mitigate can occasionally be seen when one
would anticipate similar-looking militate.
Monopoly. An organization that is the sole vendor of an item or service is called
a monopoly. Without the involvement of the government, monopolies are allowed
Oligopoly. These are the markets with in which a limited number of suppliers
dominate. They are present in every nation and a wide variety of industries.
Restoration. Restoring anything to its original state is known as restoration.
Restorations include a dilapidated mansion that has been painstakingly
reconstructed in its original architecture and a monarch who was expelled from
his throne only to reclaim it. Take note of the distinction between restoration and
renovation.
Supply. The quantity of goods that a manufacturer or seller is able and willing to
offer to consumers is known as their supply. According to its law, supply will rise
in response to price rises because producers aim to maximize profits. The cost of
an item is directly correlated with its quantity.
33
Founded 1993
to establish any price they like, and they typically do so in order to maximize their
profits.
CHAPTER 02
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presented the Methods and Techniques of the study, research
design, research locale, respondents or the participant of the study, sampling
design, instrumentation, validation of the instrument, data gathering procedure,
ethical consideration and statistical treatment of the data about the Community
Gardening: An analysis on combating agricultural price hike
Research Design
This research paper aims to investigate the relationship between
community gardening activities and addressing the issue of agricultural price
hike. The rising prices of agricultural products in recent years have significantly
impacted individuals' lives, making it essential to explore potential solutions. The
chosen research design for this study is descriptive correlational research
design. This design will allow us to understand the correlation between
engagement in community gardening activities and the impact on alleviating the
burden of increasing agricultural prices. Descriptive research involves observing
and describing the variables without the manipulation of any of the independent
34
Founded 1993
variables. Correlational research, on the other hand, explores the relationship
between variables without establishing causality.
This will facilitate the examination of whether participation in community
gardening projects can effectively mitigate the effects of agricultural price
escalation. The study will encompass descriptive data collection techniques,
including surveys and interviews, to gather relevant information. Furthermore,
statistical analysis will be conducted to determine the correlation between
engagement in community gardening and its impact on alleviating the burden of
increasing agricultural prices. The findings of this study will contribute to
understanding the potential benefits of community gardening in combatting the
impact of rising agriculture costs.
Research Locale
The research locale for the study "Community Gardening: An Analysis on
Combating Agricultural Price Hike" is in San Jose del Monte Heights Phase 3B,
located in Barangay Muzon East, CSJDM, Bulacan. This area has been
chosen as the location for the study due to its specific experience with
agricultural price hikes. The primary focus of this study is to understand how
engaging in community gardening can help families manage their finances in
meeting their basic needs. Additionally, the research aims to examine the
different methods of community gardening and their relevance in improving
income, budget, and food security. The application of this study will be limited to
35
Founded 1993
the residents of San Jose del Monte Heights Phase 3B, where the research
participants will be selected. A total of sixty (60) individuals will be chosen to
participate in the study, with the requirement that they are eighteen (18) years old
or above.
It should be noted that the study will not consider the gender of the
participants. Data for this research will be gathered solely through printed
questionnaires, without the inclusion of any other methods of data collection.
Therefore, the findings and conclusions drawn from this study will be specific to
the residents of San Jose del Monte Heights Phase 3B and may not be
generalized to other populations or areas.
In conclusion, the research locale for the study on community gardening in
combating agricultural price hike is San Jose del Monte Heights Phase 3B in
Barangay Muzon East, CSJDM, Bulacan. The study aims to understand how
community gardening can help families manage their finances and improve their
income, budget, and food security. The findings will be specific to this particular
area and may not be applicable to other populations or locations.
36
Founded 1993
Respondents or Participants of the Study
The study's participants comprise sixty (60) individuals who are eighteen
(18) years of age or older and resided in San Jose Del Monte Heights Phase 3B.
This group has been selected as they have personally experienced the current
price increase and can provide valuable insights into its impact. The primary
focus of our investigation is to understand the consequences of this price hike,
particularly in the context of Agricultural Price Hike. This popular issue has been
a cause of concern for the community, and by gathering information from those
directly affected, we aim to address this problem more effectively.
The researchers firmly believe that the chosen participants are critical in
shedding light on the subject at hand. Their personal experiences give them a
unique perspective, enabling them to provide relevant and meaningful
responses. By involving individuals who are well-acquainted with the issue, we
can better understand the various challenges and implications associated with
the price increase in agricultural products. In order to collect data from the
participants, we have developed a written Likert type questionnaire. This method
37
Founded 1993
allows for a comprehensive assessment of their opinions and experiences. The
questionnaire consists of multiple statements related to the impact of the price
increase, and participants are required to rate their agreement or disagreement
using a five-point scale. This format provides a structured way to gather their
insights, ensuring consistency and ease of analysis.
The choice to use a Likert type questionnaire is appropriate for this study
as it allows for a quantitative analysis of the participants' responses. By assigning
numerical values to their answers, we can quantify the extent of their agreement
or disagreement with certain statements. This, in turn, enables us to identify
trends and patterns among the respondents, making our analysis more robust
and reliable.
38
Founded 1993
Sampling Design
In this study, the researcher have utilize the simple random sampling
method to select participants from a specific population. This method involves
randomly choosing individuals to be part of the research study, ensuring that
each person in the population has an equal chance of being selected. By doing
so, we aim to eliminate any bias in our sample and obtain representative data.
Our research participants will consist of sixty (60) individuals who reside
in the selected area and are aged eighteen (18) years old or above. The
researcher chosen this age range as it allows us to gather insights and
perspectives from adults who are more likely to have experienced various
aspects of community life.
To engage the selected participants, we plan to utilize assessments or
printed questionnaires. These tools will enable researchers to gather valuable
data and information about their experiences, opinions, and attitudes towards
specific community issues. By conducting assessments or providing
questionnaires, we seek to obtain a comprehensive understanding of their
thoughts and perspectives. The process of selecting respondents through the
39
Founded 1993
simple random sampling method will be organized and systematic. It will
develop a list of potential participants from the population and use a random
number generator or other similar techniques to select our sample. This
approach ensures that every individual in the population has an equal
opportunity to be chosen, increasing the fairness and validity of our findings.
Implementing a comprehensive approach to data collection forms an
integral part of our overall research strategy. It enables to effectively manage
and structure community engagement efforts by ensuring that the selected
participants represent the diversity and demographics of the population
accurately. This approach enhances the reliability and generalization of the
research findings, making them relevant and applicable to the larger
community.
In conclusion, conducting a study using the simple random sampling
method and engaging participants through assessments or printed
questionnaires is an effective approach to gather comprehensive data for our
research. By randomly selecting individuals from the population, it can minimize
bias and obtain representative findings. This process allows us to efficiently
manage and structure our community action, leading to successful execution of
our interventions. Through this approach, we aim to make a positive and
40
Founded 1993
meaningful impact on the selected area and contribute towards the
development and improvement of the community.
Research Instrumentation
The following instrumentation has been designed to gather quantitative
data and gather a deeper understanding of the role of community gardening in
addressing the issue of agricultural price hikes. The purpose of this
instrumentation is to assess the affordability and budgeting strategies employed
by individuals in response to agricultural price hikes. Structured Printed
Questionnaire and conduct it through face- to face interaction it will serve as the
primary quantitative tool in this research study. The Likert Scale will be utilized
to assess the affordability and budgeting strategies adopted by participants
amidst agricultural price hikes. Moreover, this instrument will also inquire about
participants' thoughts on the effectiveness of community gardening in combating
agricultural price hikes.
The questionnaire will be divided into the following sections, In the first
question, the questionnaire is composed of question that will ask for their
Demographic Information such as age, Name, and Address. Directly after their
profile information, ten (10) question for SOP 1 are created, five (5) question for
41
Founded 1993
their affordability and five (5) questions for their budgeting amidst the Agricultural
Pricehike. And for the SOP 02 compose of five question (5) about what are the
difficulties that households have faced as a result of the agricultural price hike.
And another five (5) questions for SOP 03 regarding on how will community
gardening could help in aiding with the agricultural price increase.
Validation of the Instrument
In order to ensure the validity and reliability of the instrument designed to assess
the affordability and budgeting strategies employed by individuals in response to
agricultural price hikes, content validity will be utilized.
Content validity refers to the extent to which the instrument adequately
covers the specific areas or domains it intends to measure. In this case, the
instrument aims to assess participants' affordability and budgeting strategies in
response to agricultural price hikes, as well as their thoughts on the effectiveness
of community gardening in combating these price hikes. To establish content
validity, the questionnaire will be designed in a way that includes a
comprehensive set of items and questions related to the identified domains.
These items will be derived through a thorough review of relevant literature and
expert input.
Additionally, the Likert Scale will be utilized as the rating scale to assess
the participants' affordability and budgeting strategies. The Likert Scale offers
42
Founded 1993
multiple response options, allowing participants to indicate their level of
agreement or disagreement with specific statements. This scale provides a
standardized and quantifiable measure of participants' views, making it a suitable
tool for this research study. The instrument will be administered through face-to-
face interaction, which will allow researchers to clarify any ambiguities and
ensure participants' understanding of the questions. This method also ensures
high response rates and minimizes missing data. To further establish validity and
reliability, a pilot study will be conducted. A sample of participants will be
selected to complete the questionnaire, and their feedback will be used to refine
and improve the instrument. This process will help identify any potential issues
related to clarity, relevance, or appropriateness of the questions.
Overall, by using content validity and conducting a pilot study to improve
the instrument, we can ensure that it accurately measures participants'
affordability and budgeting strategies in response to agricultural price hikes.
Additionally, the Likert Scale will enable us to quantify participants' views on the
effectiveness of community gardening in combating these price hikes.
43
Founded 1993
Data Gathering Procedure
This research was conducted within the community of San Jose Heights
during the period of 2023-2024. The primary objective of this study is to obtain
insights and information regarding how residents are managing the escalating
prices of commodities, specifically in the agricultural sector, commonly referred to
as price hikes. A well-defined statement of the problem was formulated to
address our specific concern, which revolves around understanding the impact of
agricultural price hikes on Affordability and Budgeting. The intention is to
scrutinize how the rising prices of essential goods significantly affect the
affordability and budgeting practices of the community members, aiming for a
systematic and methodical approach throughout the research process.
For this study, a combination of researchers. The process we followed
was to engage with them through assessments or printed questionnaires that we
created and distributed to our participants. However, surveys will be used as a
data collection method through a simple random sampling design, and these
methods will allow for the comprehensive gathering of information from the
44
Founded 1993
participants. The survey included the participation of sixty (60) individuals from
the selected area aged eighteen (18) years old and older. Participants must be at
least eighteen (18) years of age and no less than seventeen (17) years of age.
Through the survey, the assessment we prepared consisted of a total of sixty
(60) questionnaires for every participant, and these criteria were established to
ensure the relevance and specificity of the data collected. In our study, the
researchers agreed that the participants we selected were based on age only to
ensure that our study would be effective, and we did not consider their various
information. However, for the researchers' preparation, we provided this
evaluation, and we intend to contact them through assessments or printed
questionnaires. Our respondent's selection process will be greatly streamlined by
using this approach, which will be useful for effectively implementing our
community action plans.
In conclusion, the data gathering procedure for this research study on the
impact of agricultural price hikes on affordability and budgeting in the community
of San Jose Heights was carefully planned and executed. The use of surveys
and a well-defined statement of the problem ensured the relevance and
specificity of the data collected. The chosen age range and random sampling
design contributed to the representative nature of the collected data. Overall, this
research study aimed to provide valuable insights into the management of
45
Founded 1993
escalating prices of commodities in the agricultural sector and its impact on the
community's affordability and budgeting practices
Ethical Considerations
In conducting our research study on "Community Gardening: An Analysis
on Combating Agricultural Price Hike," we recognize the importance of ensuring
ethical practices throughout the entire research process. This includes the
informed consent of the study participants, which is crucial in guaranteeing their
autonomy and protection.
The researcher is committed to providing all potential participants with the
necessary information to make an informed decision about their participation.
This includes informing them about the study's benefits, risks, funding sources,
and institutional approval. We understand that participants have the right to know
what they are getting involved in and the potential implications of their
involvement.
To obtain informed consent, we will provide clear explanations about the
objectives of our research study, the methods we will be using, and the expected
46
Founded 1993
time commitment from the participants. We will also ensure that the potential
participants have the opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification
regarding any aspect of the study that they may not fully comprehend.
Furthermore, we recognize that the participants' privacy and confidentiality
are paramount. All personal data collected during the research process will be
handled with the utmost care and kept strictly confidential. We will employ
appropriate measures to protect the identity and personal information of the
participants, ensuring anonymity in the reporting and publication of the study's
findings.
Additionally, we will make efforts to ensure the well-being and safety of the
participants throughout their involvement in the study. We will take precautions to
minimize any potential risks associated with community gardening activities, such
as providing proper training, safety guidelines, and access to necessary
resources. Moreover, as researchers, we are responsible for conducting this
study with integrity and transparency. We will adhere to ethical guidelines and
principles, maintaining objectivity, respecting diversity, and avoiding any conflicts
of interest.
47
Founded 1993
Statistical Treatment of the Data
To effectively interpret the collected data, researchers employ various
statistical treatment methods. Some prominent tools utilized in the data
interpretation process include the frequency, percentage, variance, weighted
mean, standard deviation, Likert scale and Pearson's Correlation Coefficient
These methods offer valuable insights and facilitate a comprehensive
understanding of the data trends. By implementing these statistical techniques,
researchers can effectively analyze and interpret data in a descriptive manner.
1. Frequency
Frequency statistics refer to the analysis of the frequency, or how often, each
value or category occurs within a data set. This type of analysis is particularly
useful when dealing with categorical data, where different values represent
different categories or groups. By examining the frequencies, researchers can
identify patterns, trends, or outliers in the data.
48
Founded 1993
2. Percentage
Percentage analysis is a common statistical treatment used to represent and
compare data in terms of relative frequencies or proportions. Researchers use
this method to quantify and present data in a more concise and understandable
manner. By converting raw data into percentages, researchers can easily
identify patterns and trends within the data set.
3. Variance
Variance analysis is a statistical treatment utilized to measure the dispersion or
spread of a set of data points. Variance measures the extent to which individual
values deviate from the mean value. Researchers often use this method to
assess the variability of data distributions and to compare the spread of
different groups or populations. This treatment allows researchers to
understand the heterogeneity within the data set and identify any driving factors
contributing to the observed variability.
49
Founded 1993
4. Weighted mean
The weighted mean is a statistical measure that assigns different weights to
various data points based on their importance. This technique is particularly
useful when dealing with data that encompasses varying degrees of
significance. By assigning appropriate weights, researchers can derive a
representative value that takes into account the relative importance of each
data point.
5. Standard Deviation
The standard deviation is closely related to the variance and is often used in
conjunction with it. It calculates the average degree to which each data point
deviates from the mean. Similar to the variance, a smaller standard deviation
50
Founded 1993
implies a more consistent data set, while a larger standard deviation signifies
greater variability. By determining the standard deviation, researchers can
identify outliers or extreme values that might significantly impact the overall
interpretation of the data.
6. Likert Scale
The Likert scale is a commonly used tool for interpreting data, particularly in
surveys or questionnaires. It provides a structured format to measure
respondents' opinions or attitudes towards certain statements or questions. The
scale typically consists of a range of responses, such as "strongly agree,"
"agree," "neutral," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." By quantifying responses
on a numerical scale, researchers can evaluate the overall sentiment or
agreement level within a sample. This enables them to draw meaningful
conclusions and observe trends or patterns in the collected data.
51
Founded 1993
Scale Description Weight Range
Strongly Agree 5 5.00 - 4.20
Agree 4 4.19 - 3.40
Neutral 3 3.39 - 2.60
Disagree 2 2.59 - 1.80
Strongly Disagree 1 1.79 - 1.00
7. Pearson's Correlation Coefficient
Often denoted as Pearson's "r" is a statistical measure used to determine the
strength and direction of the linear relationship between two continuous
variables. This measure provides an insight into how closely related two
variables are and whether they move in the same or opposite directions.
Pearson's correlation coefficient ranges from -1 to +1, with 1 indicating a strong
positive relationship, -1 indicating a strong negative relationship, and 0
indicating no relationship.
52
Founded 1993
53
Founded 1993
CHAPTER 03
RESULT, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
This section serves as a crucial component of the research paper as it
provides readers with a comprehensive understanding of the outcomes of the
study and their significance. The analysis of results allows researchers to draw
meaningful conclusions and offer insights into the broader implications of their
research. Additionally, the discussion section offers an opportunity to critically
evaluate the findings, compare them with existing literature, and propose
recommendations for future studies.
I. What are the effects of agricultural Pricehike to the following
1.1 Affordability
In this research study, we aim to investigate the effects of agricultural price hikes
on the affordability of food for consumers. Price hikes in the agricultural sector
can have significant implications for individuals and families, as they rely on food
purchases to sustain themselves on a daily basis. The rising costs of produce,
meat, and other agricultural products can put a strain on budgets and limit
access to nutritious food options.
54
Founded 1993
FIGURE 1.1.1
1.1.1) I learn that price hike has an effective way for us to practice more on
saving money to buy cooking essential like spices and veggies.
The graph depicts the percentage of respondents who answered various
questions in a survey.
The table above presents the responses of one hundred (100) research
participants to the statement "I learn that price hike has an effective way for us to
practice more on saving money to buy cooking essential like spices and
veggies." The participants were asked to choose from five options: "Strongly
Agree," "Agree," "Neutral," "Disagree," and "Strongly Disagree." According to the
table, the majority of participants, forty-nine (49) out of one hundred, chose
55
Founded 1993
"Strongly Agree," accounting for forty-nine (49%) percent of the total
responses. This indicates that nearly half of the participants strongly believe that
price hikes can be an effective way to encourage them to save money on
cooking essentials. Additionally, nineteen (19) participants selected "Agree,"
representing nineteen (19%) percent of the total responses. This suggests that a
smaller but still significant proportion of participants agree with the statement. On
the other hand, fifteen (15) participants chose "Neutral," making up fifteen (15%)
percent of the responses. This indicates that some participants were undecided
or indifferent about the relationship between price hikes and saving money on
cooking essentials. Interestingly, only five (5) participants chose "Disagree," the
lowest proportion in the table at five (5%) percent. This suggests that only a small
number of participants believe that price hikes do not have an effective way to
encourage saving on cooking essentials. Lastly, twelve (12) participants selected
"Strongly Disagree," making up twelve (12%) percent of the total responses.
This indicates that a notable portion of participants strongly disagree with the
statement that price hikes can help in saving money on cooking essentials.
Overall, the computed mean in the table is three point eighty-eight (3.88),
with a verbal interpretation of "Agree." This means that, on average, the
participants agree with the statement that price hikes can be effective in
promoting saving money on cooking essentials. In conclusion, the results from
the table suggest that a majority of the research participants see a positive
56
Founded 1993
relationship between price hikes and saving money on cooking essentials.
However, there are also dissenting opinions, with some participants disagreeing
or feeling neutral about this connection. Further research and analysis could
provide deeper insights into the reasons behind these differing perspectives on
the topic.
FIGURE 1.1.2
1.1.2) I am ascertain that experiencing agricultural price hike makes me
motivated in saving more money so that I can purchase a specific important
needs in our daily lives
57
Founded 1993
participants to the statement regarding the impact of agricultural price hikes on
their motivation to save money for important needs. The data revealed a variety
of opinions among the participants, with differing levels of agreement or
disagreement with the statement. Of the one hundred participants, twenty-eight
(28) individuals, or twenty-eight (28%), “Strongly Agree” that experiencing
agricultural price hikes motivated them to save more money for specific important
needs. This group comprised the largest percentage of respondents, indicating a
strong belief in the connection between price increases in the agricultural sector
and the need to save for essential items. Forty-one (41) participants, or foty-one
(41%) percent, “Agree” with the statement, showing a similar but slightly less
emphatic level of support for the idea that rising agricultural prices drive their
savings behavior. In contrast, twenty (20) participants, or twenty (20%) percent,
expressed a “Neutral” stance on the issue. This group may not feel strongly one
way or the other about the relationship between agricultural price hikes and
saving behavior, signaling a lack of clear conviction on the matter. Four (4)
participants, or four (4%) percent, “Disagree” with the statement, suggesting a
belief that agricultural price increases do not impact their motivation to save
money for important needs significantly. Lastly, seven (7) participants accounting
to seven (7%) percent, “Strongly Disagree” with the statement, indicating a firm
belief that agricultural price hikes do not play a role in their saving habits for
essential items.
58
Founded 1993
The overall mean of the responses was calculated to be three point seventy-nine
(3.79), indicating a general agreement with the statement among the participants.
This mean falls within the "Agree" category, suggesting that, on average, the
research participants believe that experiencing agricultural price hikes does
indeed motivate them to save more money for specific important needs.
In conclusion, the data presented in Table 1.1.2 show a range of
perspectives on the relationship between agricultural price hikes and saving
behavior among the research participants. While a majority of individuals either
strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, a significant portion expressed
neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree responses. These findings highlight the
complexity of individual attitudes towards financial decisions and the varied
factors that can influence saving behavior in response to external economic
factors like agricultural price fluctuations.
FIGURE 1.1.3
1.1.3) I find it more easy to buy the food that we need as agricultural price hike
made it increasingly evident that community collaboration is essential to
overcoming the difficulties faced by individuals struggling to afford basic
necessities.
59
Founded 1993
The results shown in Table 1.1.3 demonstrate the perspectives of one hundred
(100) research participants on the statement regarding the ease of buying food in
light of increasing agricultural prices. The data reveal varying levels of agreement
with the idea that community collaboration is crucial in addressing the challenges
of individuals who are finding it difficult to afford essential food items.
Among the participants, thirty-five (35) participants accounting to thirty-five (35%)
“Strongly Agree” with the statement, indicating a high level of consensus on the
importance of community collaboration in overcoming the obstacles brought by
60
Founded 1993
rising agricultural prices. This strong agreement emphasizes a shared belief in
the necessity of working together to find solutions to the affordability of basic
necessities, particularly food. Additionally, thirty-four (34) research participants or
thirty-four (34%) on percentage “Agree” with the statement, further supporting the
idea that collaborative efforts are essential in addressing the challenges posed
by increasing agricultural prices. This agreement suggests a general
acknowledgment of the need for cooperation and community engagement in
finding ways to make food more accessible to those facing financial difficulties.
On the other hand, twenty-two (22) participants accounting to twenty-two (22%)
percent of participants expressed “Neutral” towards the statement, indicating a
lack of strong opinion or certainty on the role of community collaboration in
addressing the affordability of food. This group may require further information or
discussion on the topic to form a clearer perspective on the importance of
collective action in overcoming challenges related to basic necessities. In
contrast, only four (4) participants or four (4%) percent of participants “Disagree”
with the statement, indicating a small minority who do not see community
collaboration as necessary in addressing the difficulties of affording food a midst
agricultural price hikes. This disagreement may stem from differing beliefs or
experiences regarding the effectiveness of collaborative efforts in addressing
social and economic issues. Lastly, five (5) participants or five (5%) of
participants strongly “Disagree” with the statement, suggesting a significant
61
Founded 1993
minority who hold firm opposition to the idea of community collaboration as a
solution to the challenges faced by individuals struggling to afford basic
necessities. This dissenting viewpoint may be rooted in skepticism towards the
effectiveness of collaborative approaches or a belief in individual responsibility
over collective action.
Overall, the majority of participants exhibited agreement with the idea that
community collaboration is essential in overcoming the difficulties of affording
basic necessities, particularly food, during times of agricultural price hikes. The
computed mean of three point ninety (3.90) further supports this interpretation,
indicating a general inclination towards “Agree” with the statement. In
conclusion, the results presented in Table 1.1.3 highlight the importance of
community collaboration in addressing the affordability of basic necessities, such
as food, amidst increasing agricultural prices. The data suggest a consensus
among participants on the need for collective action and cooperation to
overcome the challenges faced by individuals struggling to afford essential food
items. This shared belief in the power of community collaboration underscores
the significance of working together to find sustainable solutions to issues of
affordability and accessibility in the face of economic challenges.
62
Founded 1993
FIGURE 1.1.4
1.1.4) I am reflecting on the challenges I am currently facing in meeting my basic
food needs due to the relentless wave of price increases. While it may be
tempting to succumb to despair in the face of this difficulty, I choose instead to
view this situation as an opportunity for growth, innovation, and community-
building.
63
Founded 1993
participants to a statement regarding the challenges they are facing in meeting
their basic food needs due to the relentless wave of price increases. The data
reveals a diverse range of opinions and feelings among the participants,
shedding light on the impact of rising prices on food security. Of the one hundred
(100) participants, thirty-three (33) individuals, representing thirty-three (33%)
percent of the total, “Strongly Agree” with the statement. This group of
respondents expressed a high level of agreement with the idea that they are
reflecting on the challenges they are currently facing in meeting their basic food
needs. The fact that a third of the participants strongly agreed suggests a
significant level of concern and awareness about the issue at hand. Following
closely behind the strongly agree group, thirty-seven (37) participants, or thirty-
seven percent (37%) of the total, “Agree” with the statement. This group
represents the largest proportion of participants and indicates a substantial
number of individuals who acknowledge the challenges they are facing in
accessing affordable and nutritious food. The high percentage of participants
who agreed highlights the widespread impact of the price increases on food
security and the urgency of addressing this issue. In contrast, nineteen (19)
participants, or nineteen (19%) percent of the total, expressed a “Neutral” stance
on the statement. This group of participants neither agreed nor disagreed with
the idea of reflecting on the challenges they are facing in meeting their basic food
needs. Their neutral response could indicate a lack of strong feelings or
64
Founded 1993
uncertainty about the issue, suggesting a need for further exploration or
clarification. A smaller proportion of participants, seven (7) individuals or seven
percent (7%) “Disagree” with the statement. This group expressed a divergence
of opinion, indicating that not all participants perceive the same level of
challenges in meeting their basic food needs. The differing perspectives within
this group suggest a range of experiences and perceptions among the
participants. Finally, four (4) participants, representing four percent (4%) of the
total, “Strongly Disagreed” with the statement. This group of respondents
expressed a clear disagreement with the idea that they are facing challenges in
meeting their basic food needs due to price increases. Their strong disagreement
may stem from personal circumstances, beliefs, or experiences that differ from
those of the majority of participants.
Overall, the data from Table 1.1.4 reveals a mean score of thirty point
eighty-eighty (3.88) , which falls within the "Agree" category based on the verbal
interpretation. This mean score indicates a general agreement among the
participants that they are currently facing challenges in meeting their basic food
needs due to price increases. The findings from this research provide valuable
insights into the perceptions and experiences of individuals grappling with food
insecurity, highlighting the need for targeted interventions and policy measures to
address the issue effectively.While it may be tempting to succumb to despair in
the face of this difficulty, I choose instead to view this situation as an opportunity
for growth, innovation, and community-building.
65
Founded 1993
FIGURE 1.1.5
1.1.5) I believe that through knowledge sharing and leveraging technological
advancements, communities can discover innovative approaches to improve
crop yield, reduce waste, and increase the availability of basic necessities at
affordable prices.
The results of the survey conducted among one hundred research participants
on the topic of leveraging knowledge sharing and technological advancements to
improve crop yield, reduce waste, and increase the availability of basic
necessities at affordable prices, reveal some interesting insights.
66
Founded 1993
Out of the one hundred (100) participants, forty-one (41) individuals “Strongly
Agree” that innovative approaches could be discovered through knowledge
sharing and technological advancements to address the aforementioned issues.
This accounts for forty-one (41%) percent of the total participants, making it the
highest proportion of responses in the survey. Thirty (30) participants “Agree”
with the statement, making up thirty (30%) percent of the total responses.
Thirteen (13) participants remained “Neutral”, accounting for thirteen (13%)
percent, while ten (10) participants “Disagree” with the statement, representing
ten (10) percent of the total responses. Lastly, only six (6) participants “Strongly
Disagree” with the statement, making up the smallest proportion at six (6%)
percent. The computed mean for the survey responses was three point ninety
(3.90) , with a verbal interpretation of "Agree." This suggests that the majority of
participants in the survey agreed that through knowledge sharing and leveraging
technological advancements, communities can indeed discover innovative
approaches to improve crop yield, reduce waste, and increase the availability of
basic necessities at affordable prices. The findings of this survey highlight the
importance of knowledge sharing and technological innovations in addressing
critical issues related to agriculture and access to basic necessities. The
significant number of participants who strongly agreed with the statement
demonstrates a strong belief in the potential of these strategies to bring about
positive change in communities.
67
Founded 1993
The results also suggest that there is a consensus among the participants that
collaboration and technological advancements can play a crucial role in finding
sustainable solutions to challenges related to crop yield, waste reduction, and
affordability of basic necessities. This underscores the importance of investing in
research and development, as well as promoting knowledge sharing among
different stakeholders to drive innovation in these areas.
In conclusion, the survey results provide valuable insights into the beliefs and
attitudes of research participants regarding the potential of knowledge sharing
and technological advancements in improving crop yield, reducing waste, and
increasing the availability of basic necessities at affordable prices. The high
proportion of participants who expressed agreement with the statement highlights
a collective optimism about the transformative power of these approaches in
addressing critical issues facing communities today.
68
Founded 1993
FIGURE 1.1.6
1.1.6) I am finding it more difficult to buy cooking essential like spices and
veggies due to the price increase
In today's fast-paced world, individuals are constantly facing challenges when it
comes to managing their expenses. One common area where people are feeling
the pinch is in purchasing cooking essentials such as spices and vegetables. The
increasing prices of these items have left many consumers struggling to make
ends meet. A recent survey was conducted involving one hundred research
participants to gauge their sentiments on the issue. The results, as depicted in
69
Founded 1993
Table 1.1.6, highlight the various perspectives of the participants regarding the
difficulty of buying cooking essentials due to price hikes. Out of the one hundred
(100) participants, forty (40) participants a significant proportion of forty (40%)
“Strongly Agree” that they are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase cooking
essentials like spices and veggies. This strong sentiment reflects the impact that
rising prices have had on their purchasing power. Additionally, twenty-two (22)
participants accounting to twenty-two (22%) percent “Agree” with this statement,
indicating a consensus among a substantial portion of the respondents. On the
other hand, a notable number of twenty-three participants accounting as twenty-
three (23%) in percentage, choose to remain “Neutral” on the issue. This
indifference could be attributed to factors such as financial stability or minimal
reliance on cooking essentials. Furthermore, twelve (12) participants or (12%)
percentages “Disagree” with the statement, suggesting that they do not perceive
a significant challenge in buying these items despite the price increase.
Interestingly, only three (3) of the participants accounting to (3%) percent are
“Strongly Disagree” with the notion that it is more difficult to purchase cooking
essentials due to price escalation. This minority opinion could be due to various
reasons, such as financial privilege or access to alternative sources for their
cooking needs.
Overall, the computed mean of three point eighty-four (3.84) suggests that the
majority of participants lean towards agreement that purchasing cooking
70
Founded 1993
essentials has become more challenging due to price increases. The verbal
interpretation of "Agree" further solidifies this sentiment, indicating a prevailing
concern among the research participants.
In conclusion, the findings of the survey underscore the growing dilemma faced
by consumers in affording essential items for their daily cooking needs. The
increasing prices of spices and vegetables are putting a strain on households,
forcing them to make difficult choices in managing their budget effectively. As we
navigate through these challenging times, it is imperative for policymakers and
stakeholders to address these issues and work towards creating a more
sustainable and affordable food system for all.
71
Founded 1993
FIGURE 1.1.7
1.1.7) I am experiencing of not purchasing a specific cooking item due to it’s
expensive cost
The table above illustrates the responses of one hundred research participants
when asked about their experiences with not purchasing a specific cooking item
due to its expensive cost. According to the data, a significant portion of
participants, thirty-nine (39) of the participants or thirty-nine (39%) percent,
“Strongly Agree” that they have refrained from purchasing a cooking item
because of its high cost. This sentiment was echoed by twenty-nine (29)
72
Founded 1993
participants accounting to twenty-nine percent (29%) of participants who simply
“Agree” with the statement. Together, these two groups make up a majority of the
responses, indicating a prevalent concern among consumers regarding the
affordability of cooking items. On the other hand, there were participants who
expressed a more “Neutral” stance on the issue, with eighteen (18) participants
or eighteen (18%) percentage stating that they neither agree nor disagree with
the statement. Additionally, a smaller proportion of of eight (8) participants or
equivalent to eight (8%) percent, “Disagree” with the notion that cost influences
their decision to purchase cooking items. Finally, only six (6) participants or six
(6%) percent of participants “Strongly Disagree” with the statement, suggesting
that for a minority of individuals, cost is not a significant factor in their purchasing
decisions.
When examining the overall mean of the responses, which is calculated to be
three point eighty-seven (3.87), it can be interpreted as leaning towards the
"Agree" category. This indicates that, on average, participants do believe that the
expensive cost of cooking items impacts their purchasing behavior. This finding
aligns with common consumer behavior theories that suggest price sensitivity
plays a crucial role in decision-making. In conclusion, the data presented in Table
1.1.7 sheds light on the challenges faced by individuals when it comes to
purchasing cooking items. The high cost associated with such products appears
to be a significant barrier for many consumers, influencing their decision-making
process. As the cost of living continues to increase, manufacturers and retailers
73
Founded 1993
must consider the affordability of their products to better cater to the needs and
preferences of their target market. Ultimately, understanding and addressing
these consumer concerns can lead to a more successful and sustainable
business strategy in the competitive market of cooking equipment.
FIGURE 1.1.8
1.1.8) I observe that his substantial increase in overall food costs can put low-
income individuals and families at a greater risk of food insecurity, as they
struggle to balance their limited financial resources with their basic food
requirements.
74
Founded 1993
Food insecurity is a critical issue that affects millions of individuals and families
around the world, especially those with limited financial resources. In a recent
study involving one hundred research participants, it was observed that a
substantial increase in overall food costs could potentially put low-income
individuals and families at an even greater risk of food insecurity. The findings of
the study, as presented in Table 1.1.8, reveal some interesting insights into the
perceptions of the participants on this important issue.
According to the table, out of the one hundred (100) research participants, thirty-
four (34) individuals “Strongly Agree” that the increase in overall food costs
could lead to greater food insecurity for low-income individuals and families. This
accounted for thirty-four (34%) percent of the total participants, indicating a
significant portion of the sample shared this viewpoint. Additionally, thirty (30)
participants “Agree” with this statement, making up thirty percent (30%) of the
sample. The combined percentage of those who strongly agreed and agreed
highlights the widespread concern among the participants regarding the impact
of rising food costs on food insecurity. It is worth noting that a sizable proportion
of the participants, twenty-seven (27) participants or twenty-seven (27%) percent,
choose the “Neutral” option when asked about their opinion on the relationship
between increased food costs and food insecurity. This suggests that there is
some ambiguity or uncertainty among a significant number of individuals
regarding this issue. On the other hand, only a small minority of participants, two
75
Founded 1993
percent, disagreed with the statement, indicating that the majority of the sample
either agreed or were neutral on this topic. Interestingly only (7) participants or
seven percent (7%) of the participants “Strongly Disagree” that increased food
costs could lead to greater food insecurity for low-income individuals and
families. This smaller percentage may indicate a difference in perspective or
another factor influencing their viewpoint on the relationship between food costs
and food insecurity. Overall, the computed mean of the responses was three
point eighty-two 3.82, with a verbal interpretation of "Agree." This suggests that,
on average, the participants were more inclined to agree with the statement that
an increase in overall food costs could put low-income individuals and families at
a greater risk of food insecurity. The findings of this study underscore the
importance of addressing the challenges faced by low-income populations in
accessing affordable and nutritious food, as well as the need for policy
interventions to mitigate the impact of rising food costs on vulnerable
communities.
In conclusion, the results of this study highlight the significant concern among
participants regarding the potential consequences of increased food costs on
food insecurity for low-income individuals and families. By acknowledging and
addressing this issue, policymakers and stakeholders can work towards creating
a more equitable and sustainable food system that ensures all individuals have
access to the resources they need to lead healthy and food-secure lives.
76
Founded 1993
FIGURE 1.1.9
1.1.9) I notice that as a result of unable to purchase necessary foods individuals
resort to consuming cheaper alternatives that often less healthy, such as
processed food.
The results, as shown in Table 1.1.9, revealed some interesting findings of the
one hundred(100) research participants surveyed, thirty-three (33) individuals , or
thirty-three (33%) percent, indicated that they "Strongly Agree" with the
statement that individuals who are unable to purchase necessary foods often
77
Founded 1993
resort to consuming cheaper, less healthy alternatives such as processed foods.
This suggests that a significant portion of the participants recognized the link
between food affordability and dietary choices. Furthermore, twenty-nine (29)
participants, or twenty-nine (29%), stated that they "Agree" with the statement.
This indicates that a majority of the participants acknowledged the impact of
financial constraints on individuals' food choices, even if they may not have felt
as strongly about it as those who Strongly Agree. On the other hand, twenty-four
(24) participants, or twenty-four (24%) percent, selected "Neutral" as their
response. This suggests that a quarter of the participants were either unsure or
indifferent about the connection between food affordability and dietary choices.
This could be due to a lack of awareness or personal experience with food
insecurity. Only seven participants (7), or seven (7%) percentage, chose
"Disagree" as their response, while another seven participants (7) acquiring (7%)
percent selected "Strongly Disagree." These individuals may believe that there
are other factors besides financial constraints that influence dietary choices, or
they may have a different perspective on the issue altogether.
Overall, the computed mean of the responses was three point sixty-one (3.61),
with a verbal interpretation of "Agree." This indicates that, on average, the
participants agreed with the statement that individuals who cannot afford
necessary foods often resort to consuming cheaper, less healthy alternatives. In
conclusion, the findings of this research study highlight the importance of
78
Founded 1993
addressing food insecurity and its impact on individuals' dietary choices. It is
essential for policymakers, healthcare professionals, and community
organizations to work together to ensure that everyone has access to nutritious
and affordable foods. By addressing the root causes of food insecurity, we can
promote better health outcomes and improve the overall well-being of individuals
and communities.
FIGURE 1.1.10
1.1.10) I am struggling to afford basic necessities due to agricultural price hike so
that we experience starvation sometime.
79
Founded 1993
participants to the statement "I am struggling to afford basic necessities due to
agricultural price hikes so that we experience starvation sometime." The
participants were asked to choose from five options: Strongly Agree, Agree,
Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. The results show that a significant
number of participants are concerned about their ability to afford basic
necessities due to agricultural price hikes. Out of the one hundred (100) research
participants, thirty-four (34) participants or thirty-four (34%) percent indicated that
they "Strongly Agree" with the statement. This suggests that a sizable proportion
of respondents feel strongly about the impact of agricultural price hikes on their
ability to afford basic necessities. Additionally, thirty-two (32) acquiring thirty-two
(32%) participants chose the option "Agree," further highlighting the widespread
concern among participants regarding this issue. On the other hand, seventeen
(17) research participants or seventeen (17%) percent selected the option
"Neutral," indicating that they may not have a strong opinion on the issue or are
unsure about the impact of agricultural price hikes on their ability to afford basic
necessities. While eleven (11) participants or (11%) percent chose the option
"Disagree," suggesting that a smaller proportion of respondents do not believe
that agricultural price hikes are impacting their ability to afford basic necessities.
Lastly, six (6) research participants or (6%) percent choose the option "Strongly
Disagree," representing the smallest proportion of respondents who strongly
disagree with the statement.
80
Founded 1993
Overall, the computed mean of the responses was found to be three point
seventy-seven (3.77), with a verbal interpretation of "Agree." This indicates that,
on average, the participants agree that they are struggling to afford basic
necessities due to agricultural price hikes, leading to potential experiences of
starvation sometime.
The results of this research highlight the significant impact of agricultural price
hikes on individuals' ability to afford basic necessities. It is essential for
policymakers and stakeholders to address this issue and implement solutions to
ensure that individuals have access to affordable and nutritious food. By
addressing agricultural price hikes and working towards food security, we can
mitigate the risk of starvation and improve the well-being of individuals and
communities.
81
Founded 1993
1.2 Budgeting
Agricultural price hike refers to the increase in the prices of agricultural products
such as grains, fruits, vegetables, and livestock. This increase can be attributed
to a variety of factors, including changes in supply and demand, weather
conditions, government policies, and global economic trends. Regardless of the
cause, the effects of agricultural price hike are felt by consumers and producers
alike. One of the most immediate impacts of agricultural price hike is its effect on
household budgeting. As the prices of essential food items increase, families are
forced to allocate a larger portion of their income towards purchasing basic
necessities. This can lead to financial strain and hardship, particularly for low-
income households who may already be struggling to make ends meet.
FIGURE 1.2.1
1.2.1) I am observing that agricultural price hike allow me to do money
distribution
82
Founded 1993
According to the data presented in the pie chart, thirty-four percent (34%) of the
respondents, which is equivalent to thirty-four (34) individuals, chose the option
"Strongly Agree." The option "Agree" was also popular among the respondents,
with twenty-nine percent (29) of them, or twenty-nine (29) individuals, selecting
this choice. It seems that a majority of the respondents are in agreement with the
statement in some capacity. On the other hand, twenty-two percent (22%) of the
respondents, or twenty-two (22) individuals, chose the option "Neutral,"
suggesting that they are neither in agreement nor disagreement with the
statement. Following this, eight percent (8%) of the respondents, or eight (8)
individuals, opted for the choice "Disagree," indicating that they do not believe
that agricultural price hikes facilitate money distribution. Lastly, the option
"Strongly Disagree" was chosen by seven percent (7%) of the respondents,
which is equivalent to seven (7) individuals. This minority group strongly
disagrees with the statement and believes that agricultural price hikes do not
lead to effective money distribution.
In conclusion, based on the computed mean of three point seventy five (3.75), it
is clear that the majority of respondents agree with the idea that agricultural price
hikes allow for efficient money distribution. This means that, on average, the
83
Founded 1993
respondents believe that increasing agricultural prices can effectively distribute
money within the economy. This finding is significant as it highlights the
importance of agricultural pricing in economic stability and wealth distribution. By
increasing prices of agricultural products, farmers and producers can generate
more revenue, which in turn can be circulated back into the economy. This not
only benefits the agricultural sector but also has a trickle-down effect on other
industries and consumers. Furthermore, the support for agricultural price hikes
as a means of efficient money distribution suggests that respondents may
perceive agriculture as a key driver of economic growth and development. By
investing in this sector and ensuring fair prices, countries can allocate resources
more effectively and promote sustainable development. Overall, the positive
response to the idea of agricultural price hikes for efficient money distribution
reflects a belief in the importance of agriculture in economic policy-making.
Moving forward, policymakers and stakeholders should consider these findings to
design strategies and interventions that can enhance the role of agriculture in
wealth distribution and economic development.
84
Founded 1993
FIGURE 1.2.2
1.2.2) I am figuring out that price hikes prove me the potential to manage
everyday essential
According to the data presented in the pie chart, the largest portion of
respondents, accounting for thirty percent (33%), answered "Strongly Agree" to
the statement equals to thirty three (33) respondents. Following closely behind,
thirty eight percent (38%) of the respondents chose the option "Agree". This
indicates that a slightly larger number of individuals agree which is thirty eight
85
Founded 1993
people (38). In the middle of the chart, we have the option "Neutral" with fifteen
percent (15%) of fifteen (15) respondents selecting this choice. This group of
individuals neither fully agrees nor disagrees with the statement, suggesting a
sense of ambivalence or uncertainty on the topic. Moving towards the opposing
end of the spectrum, nine percent ( 9%) which is equivalent to nine(9)
respondents chose the option "Disagree".
Lastly, the option "Strongly Disagree" was chosen by five percent (5%) equals to
five (5) respondents, indicating a small minority of individuals who hold a strong
negative viewpoint towards the idea that price hikes can help them manage their
everyday necessities.
Upon calculating the mean of the responses, which came out to be 3.85, it is
clear that the majority of respondents fall within the range of "Agree." This
indicates that there is a general trend towards the belief that price hikes can
indeed assist in managing daily necessities. This is a significant finding, as it
suggests that people are beginning to understand the potential benefits that
come with price increases. One of the key reasons why price hikes can help in
managing daily necessities is that they can lead to better quality products and
services. When prices are increased, companies have more resources to invest
in research and development, ultimately leading to products that are more
efficient and reliable. This can in turn make daily tasks easier and more
86
Founded 1993
convenient, ultimately improving the overall quality of life for individuals.
Additionally, price hikes can also help in managing demand for certain products.
When prices are increased, consumers may be more inclined to make more
thoughtful and intentional purchases, rather than simply buying on impulse. This
can lead to a more sustainable and responsible consumption pattern, ultimately
benefiting both individuals and the environment. Moreover, price hikes can also
help in managing inflation and overall economic stability. By adjusting prices to
reflect the true cost of production and distribution, companies can ensure that
they remain financially viable in the long run. This can have a ripple effect on the
overall economy, leading to greater stability and growth in the long term.
87
Founded 1993
FIGURE 1.2.3
1.2.3) I am discovering that price hikes allow me to be practical and make
decisions using critical thinking
The pie chart revealed that thirty three percent (33%) of the respondents chose
the option "Strongly Agree," which equated to thirty three (33) people.
Additionally, twenty eight percent (28%) of the respondents selected the option
"Agree," totaling twenty eight (28) people. On the other hand, twenty seven
percent (27%) of the respondents chose the option "Neutral," amounting to
twenty seven (27) people. Furthermore, the option "Disagree" was chosen by
only six percent (6%) of the respondents, representing six (6) people. This
indicates a minority of respondents who disagreed with the statement.
88
Founded 1993
Lastly, the option "Strongly Disagree" had a percentage of five percent (5%), with
five (5) people selecting this option.
Based on the computed mean of three point seventy six (3.76), with a verbal
interpretation of "Agree," it can be inferred that the majority of respondents
support the idea that price hikes allow them to be practical and make decisions
using critical thinking. This average interpretation suggests a general agreement
among the respondents regarding the relationship between price hikes and
decision making.
FIGURE 1.2.4
1.2.4) I am figuring out that agricultural price hikes are a challenge in my life
where I am learning to save money and to be practical, aiding in my budgeting
efforts to meet everyday essentials.
89
Founded 1993
In the study conducted with one hundred (100) research participants, it was
found that a significant portion of the respondents acknowledged that agricultural
price hikes pose a challenge in their lives. Among the participants, thirty-seven
(37) individuals, accounting for thirty-seven percent (37%), "Strongly Agreed"
with this statement. This indicates a high level of agreement among a substantial
portion of the sample group. Additionally, thirty-three (33) participants,
accounting for thirty-three percent (33%), "Agree" with the statement, further
highlighting the concern surrounding agricultural price hikes. Fifteen (15)
individuals, representing fifteen percent (15%), remained "Neutral" on the issue,
indicating a degree of uncertainty or ambivalence towards the impact of price
increases in the agricultural sector. Interestingly, only eight (8) participants,
making up eight percent (8%) of the sample, "Disagree" with the statement,
suggesting that a minority of individuals do not perceive agricultural price hikes
as a significant challenge in their lives. Furthermore, seven (7) participants,
accounting for seven percent (7%), "Strongly Disagree" with the statement,
indicating a small but notable percentage of individuals who do not view
agricultural price hikes as a concern.
90
Founded 1993
Overall, the computed mean of the responses was found to be three-point eighty-
five (3.85), with a verbal interpretation of "Agree." This suggests that, on
average, participants agree that agricultural price hikes are a challenge in their
lives and that they are actively learning to save money and be practical in order
to address this issue. This finding underscores the importance of budgeting
efforts to meet everyday essentials in the face of rising agricultural prices.
In conclusion, the results of this study demonstrate a general consensus among
the research participants regarding the challenges posed by agricultural price
hikes in their lives. The findings highlight the need for proactive measures, such
as saving money and adopting practical strategies, to address the financial
implications of these price increases and ensure the ability to afford essential
goods and services.
FIGURE 1.2.5
1.2.5) I am discovering that agricultural price hikes provide me with alternative
ways to address budgeting, prompting me to explore cost-effective solutions for
managing daily expenses.
91
Founded 1993
The table presented above illustrates the responses of one hundred (100)
research participants to the statement, “I am discovering that agricultural price
hikes provide me with alternative ways to address budgeting, prompting me to
explore cost-effective solutions for managing daily expenses.” The breakdown of
responses shows that a majority of the participants agree or strongly agree with
this statement. Specifically, twenty-eight (28) participants, representing twenty-
eight percent (28%) of the total, indicated that they “Strongly Agree” with the
statement. Additionally, forty (40) participants, or forty percent (40%) of the total,
stated that they “Agree” with the statement. These two categories, “Strongly
92
Founded 1993
Agree” and “Agree,” together account for a significant proportion of the
responses, indicating a general consensus among the participants regarding the
positive impact of agricultural price hikes on their budgeting practices. In
contrast, a smaller number of participants expressed either a neutral or negative
stance on the statement. Twenty-one (21) participants, constituting twenty-one
percent (21%) of the total, chose the “Neutral” option, suggesting a lack of strong
opinion on the matter. On the other hand, only eight (8) participants, accounting
for eight percent (8%) of the total, selected the “Disagree” option, indicating a
minority perspective among the participants.
Furthermore, a mere three (3) participants, representing three percent (3%) of
the total, chose the “Strongly Disagree” option, indicating a very small minority
view that agricultural price hikes do not provide alternative budgeting solutions.
Overall, the computed mean of the responses was three point eighty-two (3.82),
with a verbal interpretation of “Agree” that agricultural price hikes provide
alternative ways to address budgeting. This mean value, along with the
distribution of responses across the categories of agreement, neutrality, and
disagreement, suggests a general acceptance among the research participants
that agricultural price hikes can prompt them to explore cost-effective solutions
for managing daily expenses.
93
Founded 1993
In conclusion, the majority of the research participants in this study recognize
and appreciate the potential benefits of agricultural price hikes in shaping their
budgeting practices. This insight highlights the importance of economic factors,
such as fluctuations in agricultural prices, in influencing individuals’ financial
decision-making and adaptive strategies.
FIGURE 1.2.6
1.2.6) I am affected by the budgeting of our family due to the agricultural price
hike.
94
Founded 1993
The table provided presents the responses of one hundred (100) research
participants to the question "I am affected by the budgeting of our family due to
the agricultural price hike." The data reveals that a significant portion of the
participants have strong opinions on this matter. Out of the 100 participants
surveyed, forty-six (46) individuals, representing forty-six percent (46%) of the
total, "Strongly Agree" that they are affected by the budgeting of their family due
to the agricultural price hike. This finding indicates a high level of concern and
impact on the financial well-being of these individuals. Additionally, twenty-seven
(27) participants, accounting for twenty-seven percent (27%) of the total, "Agree"
that they are affected by the budgeting due to the price hike. This further
emphasizes the substantial impact that the increase in agricultural prices has on
the financial stability of these families.
Furthermore, sixteen (16) participants, or sixteen percent (16%) of the total,
chose the "Neutral" option, indicating that they neither agree nor disagree with
the statement. This suggests a level of uncertainty or lack of clarity on the impact
of agricultural price hikes on their family's budgeting. In contrast, only seven (7)
participants, constituting seven percent (7%) of the total, "Disagree" with the
statement, indicating a smaller portion who do not feel affected by the agricultural
price hike. Finally, four (4) participants, representing four percent (4%) of the
total, "Strongly Disagree" with the statement, indicating a minority who firmly
believe that their family budgeting is not impacted by the agricultural price hike.
95
Founded 1993
Overall, the data in Table 1.2.6 shows a computed mean of four point oh three
(4.03), with a verbal interpretation of "Agree" that suggests a general consensus
among the participants that their family budgeting is indeed affected by the
agricultural price hike. This data sheds light on the significant impact of
agricultural price fluctuations on the daily lives and financial well-being of
individuals and families, highlighting the importance of addressing and mitigating
these challenges in order to ensure economic stability and security for all.
FIGURE 1.2.7
1.2.7) I am aware that my family experienced shortages due to the price increase
in the market.
96
Founded 1993
The table above provides a summary of the responses of one hundred (100)
research participants to the statement, “I am aware that my family experienced
shortages due to the price increase in the market.” The participants were asked
to choose from five options ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”
in terms of their agreement with the statement. According to the table, the
highest percentage of participants which is forty one (41) research participants
accounting for forty one (41%) chose “Strongly Agree” as their response. This
suggests that a significant portion of the participants strongly believe that their
families have experienced shortages due to price increases in the market.
Following closely behind is the thirty five (35) research participants equivalents to
thirty five (35% ) percent of participants chose “Agree,” indicating that they also
acknowledge the impact of price increases on their families. Interestingly, sixteen
(16) research participants or sixteen (16%) percent of participants chose
“Neutral,” implying that a considerable number of participants neither agree nor
disagree with the statement. This may suggest a lack of clarity or understanding
among this group regarding the impact of price increases on their families.
In contrast, only two (2) participants equivalent to two (2%) percent of
participants chose “Disagree,” suggesting that a very small minority of
participants do not believe that their families have been affected by price
increases. While Six (6) participants, constituting to six (6%) of the total, chose
97
Founded 1993
“Strongly Disagree,” indicating a slightly higher level of disagreement compared
to those who chose “Disagree.”
When considering the overall mean of the responses, which is four point three
(4.03), the verbal interpretation is “Agree.” This indicates that, on average, the
participants are in agreement that their families have experienced shortages due
to price increases in the market. The majority of participants either strongly agree
or agree with the statement, further supporting the idea that price increases have
had a significant impact on their families. In conclusion, the table provides
valuable insights into the perspectives of the research participants regarding the
impact of price increases on their families. The majority acknowledge the
presence of shortages due to market price inflation, emphasizing the importance
of addressing these economic challenges.
98
Founded 1993
FIGURE 1.2.8
1.2.8) I am forced to borrow money due to a lack of funds as a result of the
market's expensive price hikes
questions in a survey
The results of the research participants in the statement "I am forced to borrow
money due to a lack of funds as a result of the market's expensive price hikes"
show a range of responses, indicating the varying levels of agreement with the
statement. Out of the one hundred (100) participants surveyed, the majority of
participants fell into the categories of "Strongly Agree" and "Agree", with a
smaller percentage indicating neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree responses.
99
Founded 1993
Thirty-two (32) participants equivalent to thirty two (32%) percent of participants
stated that they "Strongly Agree" with the statement, indicating a strong belief
that they are indeed forced to borrow money due to high prices in the market.
This response suggests a high level of agreement with the statement and a
significant number of participants who have personally experienced financial
strain as a result of price hikes. Following closely behind, twenty-nine (29)
research participant accounting to twenty nine (29) percent of participants stated
that they "Agree" with the statement. This indicates that a large portion of the
participants recognize the challenge of high market prices and the need to
borrow money in response to financial difficulties. Together, the "Strongly Agree"
and "Agree" responses make up a majority of participants, highlighting the
widespread impact of market price hikes on individuals' financial situations.
A smaller percentage of twenty (20) participants, equivalent to twenty (20%)
percent, chose the "Neutral" option, indicating a lack of strong agreement or
disagreement with the statement. This response suggests a degree of
uncertainty or ambivalence among some participants regarding the impact of
market prices on their financial circumstances. On the other end of the spectrum,
ten (10) participant equivalent to ten (10%) percent of chose the "Disagree"
option, indicating a belief that they are not forced to borrow money due to market
price increases. Additionally, nine (9) research participants accounting to nine
(9%) percent of participants chose the "Strongly Disagree" option, representing
100
Founded 1993
the lowest proportion of responses. These responses suggest a minority of
participants who do not feel the financial pressure of market price hikes to the
same extent as others. Overall, the computed mean of three point sixty five
(3.65) suggests that the average response falls into the category of "Agree",
indicating that most participants agree that they are sometimes forced to borrow
money due to a lack of funds as a result of market price hikes. This average
response reflects a common experience among the participants surveyed,
highlighting the widespread impact of market dynamics on individuals' financial
well-being.
In conclusion, the results of the table provide valuable insights into the
challenges faced by individuals in response to high market prices. The variety of
responses reflects the diversity of experiences among participants, with a
majority indicating agreement with the statement. These findings underscore the
importance of addressing financial hardships resulting from market fluctuations
and the need for effective solutions to support individuals facing economic
challenges.
FIGURE 1.2.9
1.2.9) I am observing that, compared to before, our family's monthly budget is no
longer sufficient due to the increase in prices.
101
Founded 1993
The data presented in Table 1.2.9 clearly indicates the impact of market price
hikes on individuals' financial situations. Out of the one hundred (100) research
participants surveyed, a significant portion reported that they are forced to borrow
money due to a lack of funds as a result of expensive price hikes in the market.
According to the table, thirty-seven (37) respondent equivalent to thirty seven
(37%) percent of participants “Strongly Agree” with the statement, indicating a
high level of agreement among this group. Additionally, thirty-one (31) research
102
Founded 1993
participants accounting to thirty one (31%) percent of participants “Agree” with
the statement, further emphasizing the financial strain that these individuals are
experiencing. The fact that a total of sixty-eight percent of participants either
strongly agreed or agreed with the statement highlights the widespread nature of
this issue. Furthermore, the data shows that twenty-four (24) research
participants accounting to twenty four (24%) percent of participants were
“Neutral” on the subject, suggesting that while they may not currently be
experiencing financial difficulties due to price hikes, they are still aware of the
challenges faced by others. This level of awareness is crucial in creating
empathy and understanding among community members. On the other hand,
only four (4) participants or equivalent to four (4%) percent are “Disagree” with
the statement, and another four (4) participants or equivalent to four (4%) percent
choose "Strongly Disagree." This indicates that a small minority of individuals do
not believe that market price hikes have impacted their financial situation.
However, it is important to note that the majority of participants did not fall into
this category.
When analyzing the overall mean score of three point ninety three (3.93), it is
apparent that the majority of participants agreed that their family's monthly
budget is no longer sufficient due to the increase in prices. This mean score falls
within the "agree" category, further confirming the prevalence of financial strain
caused by market price hikes.
103
Founded 1993
In conclusion, the data presented in Table 1.2.9 provides valuable insights into
the challenges faced by individuals as a result of expensive market price hikes. It
is clear that a significant number of participants are struggling financially and are
being forced to borrow money to make ends meet. This information underscores
the importance of addressing these economic issues and finding solutions to
alleviate the burden on affected individuals and families.
FIGURE 1.2.10
1.2.10) I am experiencing a loss of purchasing power because the money we
have is not enough because of the price increase.
104
Founded 1993
The table presented above provides valuable insights into the opinions of one
hundred (100) research participants regarding their experiences with a loss of
purchasing power due to price increases. The participants were asked to
respond to the statement "I am experiencing a loss of purchasing power because
the money we have is not enough because of the price increase" by selecting
one of five options ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree."
According to the data, a significant portion of the research participants, forty-
three (43) out of one hundred, chose the response "Strongly Agree,"
representing forty-three (43%) percent of the total. This indicates a strong
agreement among a substantial portion of the participants that they are indeed
experiencing a loss of purchasing power. Additionally, twenty-six participants (26)
or twenty-six percent (26%) selected the response "Agree," further reinforcing the
sentiment that many individuals are feeling the effects of price increases on their
ability to make necessary purchases. Participants who answered “Neutral” are
eighteen (18) accounting to eighteen (18%) percent, for the “Disagree” nine (9)
participant choose it accounting to nine (9%) percentage and lastly the lowest
number is only four (4) research participants equivalent to four (4%) percentage
choose “Strongly Disagree” To further analyze the data, the computed mean of
the responses was calculated to be three point ninety five (3.95) which falls
within the range indicating agreement with the statement. This numerical value,
105
Founded 1993
coupled with the verbal interpretation of "Agree," reinforces the idea that a
significant portion of the research participants are indeed feeling the strain of
price increases on their finances.
Overall, the data presented in Table 1.2.10 paints a vivid picture of the
challenges faced by individuals in maintaining their purchasing power a midst
escalating prices. The prevalence of responses indicating agreement or strong
agreement with the statement highlights the pressing need to address these
concerns and find solutions to alleviate the financial burdens faced by many. The
findings from this research can serve as a valuable resource for policymakers,
economists, and individuals alike in understanding and addressing the impact of
price increases on purchasing power.
106
Founded 1993
II. How community gardening address the challenges that Households
deals with as a result of agricultural price increase
As researchers, we are eager to explore the ways in which community
gardening can help households cope with the challenges that arise as a result of
agricultural price increases. By studying the impact of gardening we can gain
valuable insights into the effectiveness of this approach as a solution to rising
food costs. Our data collection efforts will provide a comprehensive
understanding of the benefits of community gardening and inform on how to
support and promote this sustainable and empowering practice.
FIGURE 2.1
2.1 ) I am supporting community gardening in order to address the issue of rising
agricultural prices in the financial budgets of all families by doing this, we will be
less independent on pricey produce from the store and be able to lessen the
impact of price hike on our home.
107
Founded 1993
The data shows that the majority of respondents, representing fifty-four
percent (54%) which is equivalent to fifty four (54) respondents "Strongly Agree"
with the idea that community gardening can be a solution to this issue.
Furthermore, twenty-two percent (22%) of respondents chose to "Agree" with the
statement with twenty two (22) people.
On the other hand, there were also respondents who expressed differing
opinions on the matter. Ten percent (10%) equal to ten (10) of respondents
chose the "Neutral" option, indicating a level of indecision or lack of strong
108
Founded 1993
preference on the issue. Meanwhile, six percent (6%) equivalent to six (6)
respondents chose to "Disagree" with the statement, suggesting that there are
some who do not believe that community gardening is an effective solution to the
challenges posed by rising agricultural prices. Lastly, eight percent (8%) equals
to eight (8) respondents answered "Strongly Disagree".
Overall, the computed mean of four point zero eight (4.08) with a verbal
interpretation of "Agree" suggests that there is a general consensus among
respondents that community gardening can be a valuable tool in addressing the
challenges faced by households as a result of agricultural price increases. By
promoting community gardening initiatives, individuals and families can reduce
their dependence on expensive store-bought produce and mitigate the impact of
price hikes on their households.
FIGURE 2.2
2.2 I am certain that community gardening can eliminates the need to buy
vegetables in the market, promoting self sustainability and effective family budget
management.
109
Founded 1993
The majority of respondents are in agreement with the statement presented. The
data clearly shows that thirty four (34) respondents equals to thirty four percent
(34%) answered “Strongly Agree” with the statement, while forty one percent
(41%) equivalent to forty one (41) people agree with it. Furthermore,Fourteen
people which is equivalent to Fourteen percent (14%) chose to remain neutral.
Additionally, three percent (3%) of respondents which means three (3) people
disagreed with the statement, while eight percent (8%) that is equal to eight
people strongly disagreed with it. These findings suggest that there is a small but
110
Founded 1993
significant portion of respondents who do not agree with the statement
presented.
When looking at the overall mean score of three point ninety (3.90) with a verbal
interpretation of "Agree," it further supports the idea that the majority of
respondents are in agreement with the statement. In conclusion, the data clearly
shows that a significant majority of respondents are in agreement with the
statement presented that the community gardening can eliminates the need to
buy vegetables in the market, promoting self sustainability and effective family
budget management.
FIGURE 2.3
2.3 I am ensuring that there will always be availability to reasonably priced food,
which increases community resilience by creating a buffer against the growing
costs of agriculture
111
Founded 1993
The data shows that in the statement "I am ensuring that there will always be
availability to reasonably priced food, which increases community resilience by
creating a buffer against the growing costs of agriculture" has thirty seven
percent (37%) equals to thirty seven (37) respondents answered "Strongly
Agree". The option "Agree" choose by thirty percent (30%) respondents equals to
thirty (30) people. "Neutral" has a result of twenty one percent (21%) with twenty
one (21) people. While the nine percent (9%) of the pie choose "Disagree " by
nine (9) respondents. Lastly, the option "Strongly Disagree" has a percentage of
three (3%) equals to three (3) people.
The computed mean of three point eighty nine (3.89), with a verbal interpretation
of "Agree", points to a strong consensus among participants regarding the
benefits of gardening in ensuring affordable food access. This finding suggests
that the majority of respondents agree with the statement that gardening plays a
crucial role in providing access to reasonably priced food. Gardening has long
been recognized as a sustainable and cost-effective way to produce fresh and
nutritious food. By growing their own fruits and vegetables, individuals can not
only save money but also have greater control over the quality and safety of their
112
Founded 1993
food. This is especially important in today's world, where food prices continue to
rise and access to healthy options can be limited. The mean score of 3.89
indicates a general agreement among participants that gardening can help
address food insecurity and ensure that there is always availability to reasonably
priced food. This is significant as it highlights the perceived importance of
gardening in enhancing food access and security within communities.
In conclusion, the computed mean of 3.89 and the verbal interpretation of
"Agree" provide valuable insights into the attitudes and beliefs of participants
regarding the benefits of gardening in ensuring affordable food access. These
findings underscore the importance of promoting gardening as a means to
improve food security, enhance community resilience, and create a more
sustainable food system.Overall, the computed mean of 3.89 indicates a general
agreement among the participants with the statement about the benefits of
gardening in ensuring affordable food access. The verbal interpretation of
"Agree" further reinforces the consensus among the respondents regarding the
importance of gardening for enhancing community resilience against the growing
costs of agriculture. That they ensure that there will always be availability to
reasonably priced food, which increases community resilience by creating a
buffer against the growing costs of agriculture.
113
Founded 1993
FIGURE 2.4
2.4 I am sure that it empowers households the ability to grow their own food,
diminishing reliance on costly market purchases
The data shows thirty percent (30%) equals to thirty (30) respondents of
them answered "Strongly Agree". The option "Agree" was choose by thirty one
percent (31%) respondents equals to thirty one (31) people. "Neutral" has a
result of twenty five percent (25%) with twenty one (25) people. While the eight
114
Founded 1993
percent (8%) of the pie choose "Disagree " by nine (8) respondents. Lastly, the
option "Strongly Disagree" has a percentage of six (6%) equals to three (6)
people in the statement "it is empowers households the ability to grow their own
food, diminishing reliance on costly market purchase".
The computed mean was found to be 3.71, with a verbal interpretation of
"Agree," indicating that participants believe gardening empowers households to
grow their own food. This finding highlights the growing importance of home
gardening as a means of food security and self-sufficiency. Overall, the findings
of the study suggest that gardening can be a powerful tool for empowering
households to grow their own food and reduce reliance on costly market
purchases.
FIGURE 2.5
2.5 I am certain that community gardening reduces the impact of growing market
prices by offering a consistent and affordable source of fresh veggies
115
Founded 1993
The data shows thirty nine percent (39%) equals to thirty nine (39)
respondents of them answered "Strongly Agree". The option "Agree" was choose
by thirty two percent (32%) respondents equals to thirty two (32) people.
"Neutral" has a result of fifteen percent (15%) with twenty one (15) people. While
the eleven percent (11%) of the pie choose "Disagree " by eleven (11)
respondents. Lastly, the option "Strongly Disagree" has a percentage of three
(3%) equals to three (3) people in the statement " I am certain that community
gardening reduces the impact of growing market prices by offering a consistent
and affordable source of fresh veggies”.
The computed mean was found to be three point ninety three (3.93),
with a verbal interpretation of "Agree," indicating that participants in the study
agree that community gardening reduces the impact of growing market prices by
offering a consistent and affordable source of fresh veggies underscores the
valuable role that community gardens play in promoting food security and social
cohesion within neighborhoods. By working together to cultivate their own
produce, individuals can not only improve their access to healthy food but also
strengthen the bonds within their community. As food prices continue to rise,
116
Founded 1993
community gardening offers a sustainable and cost-effective solution for ensuring
that everyone has access to fresh and nutritious vegetables.
FIGURE 2.6
2.6) I am finding out that there is a problem with a hectic schedule resulting in
insufficient time and effort to consistently maintain gardening. This hinders the
significance of community gardening in addressing increasing agricultural prices.
117
Founded 1993
The data presented in the survey reflects the opinions of respondents on
the topic of empowering households to grow their own food and diminishing
reliance on costly market purchases. It is interesting to note that the majority of
respondents, thirty five percent (35%) which is equivalent to thirty five (35)
people “Strongly Agreed” with the statement. Similarly, another thirty five percent
(35%) equals to thirty five (35) respondents “Agree” with the statement, showing
a general consensus on the benefits of empowering households to grow their
own food.On the other hand, twenty percent (20%) of respondents chose the
option "Neutral" by twenty (20) people indicating a lack of strong opinion on the
matter. This could suggest that a portion of the population is unsure or indifferent
towards the idea of growing their own food. Interestingly, a smaller percentage of
respondents, eight percent (8%) equivalent to eight (8) people “Disagree” with
the statement, expressing a belief that empowering households to grow their own
food may not be effective or necessary. This opposing viewpoint adds a layer of
complexity to the discussion and highlights the diversity of opinions within the
surveyed population. Lastly, the option "Strongly Disagree" was chosen by three
percent (3%) of respondents with three (3) people, indicating a minority belief
that empowering households to grow their own food is not a viable solution to
reducing reliance on costly market purchases. This dissenting opinion, though
small in percentage, adds a contrasting perspective to the overall data.
118
Founded 1993
Overall, the computed mean of 3.93 with a verbal interpretation of
“Agree” suggests a general agreement among respondents that there is a
problem with hectic schedules hindering the ability to consistently maintain
gardening efforts. This aligns with the theme of self-sustainability and reducing
reliance on external food sources, highlighting the importance of addressing
barriers such as time constraints in promoting community gardening as a solution
to increasing agricultural prices. The varying responses reflect a range of
perspectives on the topic, highlighting the complexity of the issue and the need
for further discussion and action to address challenges in promoting self-
sustainability and reducing dependency on costly market purchases.
FIGURE 2.7
2.7 I am discovering that there are limited resources for necessary gardening
items such as land, tools, and seeds. This becomes a challenge to achieving
community gardening, which could potentially address agricultural price
increases.
119
Founded 1993
The pie chart presented shows the distribution of responses from a survey
conducted on the availability of resources for community gardening. The results
indicate that thirty three percent of the respondents(3%), equivalent to thirty
individuals (30), strongly agreed that there are limited resources for necessary
gardening items. Additionally, thirty one percent (31%), or thirty one (31) people,
agreed with this sentiment. Furthermore, twenty two percent (22%) of the
respondents, totaling twenty two (22) individuals, remained neutral on the issue.
This could suggest that they are unsure about the availability of resources for
community gardening or are indifferent towards the topic. On the other hand,
eight percent (8%) of the participants, which translates to eight (8) individuals,
disagreed with the statement. Finally, six percent (6%), or six (6) people, strongly
disagreed with the notion that there are limited resources for necessary
gardening items.
Moreover, the computed mean of the responses is three point seventy
seven(3.77), indicating that, on average, respondents leaned towards the
"Agree" category. This suggests a general consensus among the participants
that resources for community gardening are indeed limited. In conclusion, the
120
Founded 1993
survey results highlight the pressing issue of resource scarcity in community
gardening efforts. It is essential for policymakers and community stakeholders to
address this challenge by providing adequate resources and support for
community gardening initiatives.
FIGURE 2.8
2.8) I am observing the difficulty in cultivating plants due to changing weather
conditions, leading to the destruction of plants. This limits the possibilities for
support with agricultural price hikes.
121
Founded 1993
The data presented in the survey results clearly indicates the opinions of the
respondents towards the statement on cultivating plants in light of changing
weather conditions. The majority of the respondents, thirty-six percent (36%) to
be exact thirty six (36) respondents, strongly agreed with the statement.Following
closely behind, thirty-two percent (32%) of the respondents equivalent of thirty
two (32) respondents agreed with the statement, showing a considerable level of
agreement among the participants. On the other hand, twenty-two (22%) percent
of the respondents equal to twenty two (22) people indicated a neutral stance on
the statement. This group may be unsure or undecided about the impact of
changing weather conditions on plant cultivation, demonstrating a lack of strong
opinion on the matter. A smaller portion of the respondents, three percent (3%)
with three (3) people, expressed disagreement with the statement. This minority
opinion suggests that there are some individuals who do not believe that
changing weather conditions are a significant factor in the destruction of plants.
Lastly, six percent (6%) which is equivalent to six (6) respondents strongly
disagreed with the statement, indicating a clear rejection of the idea that
changing weather conditions are detrimental to plant cultivation.
The computed mean of three point eighty eight (3.88) gathered from a
survey on the impact of changing weather conditions on plant destruction
indicates a strong inclination towards agreement among the respondents. This
finding suggests that the majority of participants believe there is a significant
122
Founded 1993
relationship between shifting weather patterns and the destruction of plants. The
verbal interpretation of "Agree" associated with this mean further confirms the
general sentiment among the respondents that changing weather conditions
have a detrimental effect on plant cultivation. It is evident from the survey results
that respondents are noticing the challenges posed by erratic weather patterns
when it comes to nurturing plants. The difficulty in cultivating plants due to these
changing conditions is leading to destruction, thus limiting the possibilities for
sustainable agricultural practices. This trend has serious implications for food
security and agricultural sustainability, as plant destruction can lead to crop
failures and ultimately contribute to price hikes in the market. The data suggests
that respondents are witnessing firsthand the impact of climate change on plant
life, and are recognizing the urgency of addressing this issue. The findings of the
survey underscore the need for proactive measures to mitigate the effects of
changing weather conditions on agriculture. It is imperative that stakeholders in
the agricultural sector collaborate to develop strategies that can adapt to these
challenges and ensure the resilience of plant cultivation in the face of
environmental uncertainties.
Overall, the survey results highlight a consensus among the respondents
that changing weather conditions are indeed influencing plant destruction. The
computed mean of 3.88 indicates a strong agreement with this statement, further
supported by the verbal interpretation of "Agree". It is crucial that policy makers,
123
Founded 1993
researchers, and practitioners take heed of these findings and work towards
sustainable solutions that can safeguard plant life against the negative impacts of
climate change. Failure to address this issue could have far-reaching
consequences for food security, agricultural productivity, and economic stability.
FIGURE 2.9
2.9) I am encountering issues due to pests caused by plant damaging impacts,
making it difficult to effectively manage community gardening to stabilize rising
agricultural prices.
124
Founded 1993
In a recent survey,, thirty four percent (34%) of respondents strongly
agreed that pests can cause significant issues when it comes to maintaining a
successful garden. This equates to thirty four (34) individuals who strongly
believe in the statement. Additionally, thirty two percent (32%) of respondents
agreed with the notion that pests can pose a threat to community gardening,
which translates to thirty two (32) people who hold this belief. On the other hand,
fourteen percent (14%) of respondents were neutral on the topic, indicating that
they were neither for nor against the idea that pests can be detrimental to
community gardening. This accounts for fourteen (14) individuals who have a
neutral stance. Thirteen percent (13%) of respondents disagreed with the
statement, expressing a differing opinion on the impact of pests on community
gardening. This equates to thirteen (13) people who believe that pests may not
be as big of an issue as suggested. Lastly, seven percent (7%) of respondents
strongly disagreed with the statement, meaning that they firmly believe that pests
do not pose a significant threat to community gardening. This accounts for seven
(7) individuals who hold a strong opposing view on the topic.
When computing the mean of the responses, the result came out to be
three point seventy three (3.73). This means that the overall sentiment of the
respondents leans towards agreement with the statement that pests can have
negative consequences on community gardening. The verbal interpretation of
this mean is "Agree", which indicates that the majority of the respondents support
125
Founded 1993
the idea that pests can indeed cause issues in maintaining community gardens.
Overall, the survey results show that there is a variety of opinions among
respondents regarding the impact of pests on community gardening. While some
strongly agree with the statement, others may hold a neutral or opposing view. It
is important for community gardeners to be aware of the potential challenges
posed by pests and to take proactive measures to address these issues in order
to effectively manage and stabilize agricultural prices in their communities.
FIGURE 2.10
2.10 I am experiencing a lack of sufficient knowledge and skills, making it
challenging to cooperate in community gardening activities.
126
Founded 1993
The data collected was graphically represented in a pie chart, where each
section of the pie corresponded to a different response option. The pie chart
revealed that a total of thirty-three (33%) percent of the respondents, equivalent
to thirty-three (33) individuals, chose the option "Strongly Agree" when asked
about their feelings towards community gardening activities. Additionally, twenty-
four percent (24%) of the participants, totaling twenty-four (24) individuals,
selected the option "Agree", showing a similar level of support for community
gardening. On the other hand, twenty-seven (27%) percent of the respondents,
equivalent to twenty-seven (27) individuals, chose the option "Neutral", indicating
a lack of strong opinion or ambivalence towards community gardening activities.
Meanwhile, nine percent (9%) of the participants, totaling nine (9) individuals,
opted for the response "Disagree", suggesting a minority perspective that differs
from the majority. Lastly, seven percent (7%) of the respondents, equivalent to
seven (7) individuals, selected the option "Strongly Disagree", expressing a
strong opposition or negative viewpoint towards community gardening activities.
This indicates a small but notable group of individuals who do not align with the
positive sentiments of the majority.
127
Founded 1993
Upon calculating the mean of the responses, it was determined that the average
rating was three point sixty-seven (3.67), with a verbal interpretation of "Agree".
This suggests that, on average, individuals support the idea that a lack of
sufficient knowledge and skills makes it challenging to cooperate in community
gardening activities. One of the key findings of the survey was that individuals
believe that a lack of knowledge and skills hinders their ability to participate
effectively in community gardening activities. This highlights the importance of
providing education and training opportunities for individuals who are interested
in becoming involved in community gardening. By equipping individuals with the
necessary skills and knowledge, they will be better able to contribute to the
success of community gardening projects and foster a sense of camaraderie
within the group. It is evident from the survey results that community gardening
activities have the potential to bring individuals together and create a sense of
belonging and purpose.
In conclusion, the data obtained from the survey paint a largely positive picture of
the attitudes and beliefs held by the respondents towards community gardening
activities. While there are challenges to overcome, such as a lack of knowledge
and skills, the majority of individuals endorse the idea of coming together to
cultivate plants and create a sense of community. By providing education and
training opportunities, community members can enhance their skills and
contribute to the success of community gardening projects. Overall, the survey
128
Founded 1993
results affirm the value of community gardening as a tool for building
relationships, promoting sustainability, and fostering a sense of unity among
neighbors and community members.
III. Is there any significance relationship to the community gardening in
combating agricultural price hike.
The significance of community gardening in addressing agricultural price hikes
lies in its potential to provide a sustainable source of fresh produce at a lower
cost. By growing food locally, communities can reduce their dependence on
expensive imported goods and mitigate the impact of fluctuating market prices.
Additionally, community gardens can help improve food security by ensuring a
steady supply of nutritious fruits and vegetables for residents, regardless of
economic constraints.
FIGURE 3.1
3.1) I am considering community gardening as a way to reduce our daily
expenses Instead of solely relying on store-bought produce we have the
opportunity to savor the fruits and vegetables we grow themselves.
129
Founded 1993
Community gardening has been a popular trend in recent years, with
many individuals considering it as a way to reduce their daily expenses. This is
evident in the table above, which shows the responses of one hundred (100)
research participants to the question of whether they are considering community
gardening as a means to save money on store-bought produce. According to the
data presented in Table 3.1, a significant portion of the participants, thirty-seven
(37) individuals to be exact, stated that they "Strongly Agree" with the statement.
This accounts for thirty-seven percent (37%) of the total responses, indicating a
strong sentiment towards the idea of community gardening as a cost-saving
measure. Furthermore, thirty-one (31) participants stated that they "Agree" with
the statement, making up thirty-one percent (31%) of the total responses. This
shows that a majority of the participants are in favor of the idea of growing their
130
Founded 1993
own fruits and vegetables as a way to cut down on their grocery expenses. On
the other hand, there were also participants who were more hesitant about the
idea of community gardening. Seventeen (17) individuals chose the "Neutral"
option making up seventeen percent (17%), while ten (10) participants chose
"Disagree" making up ten percent (10%), and only five (5) participants chose
"Strongly Disagree" that making up five percent (5%). These responses make up
seventeen percent, ten percent, and five percent of the total responses,
respectively.
Overall, the data from Table 3.1 suggests that there is a positive
perception towards community gardening as a way to reduce daily expenses.
The computed mean of three point eighty-five (3.85) further supports this, with a
verbal interpretation of "Agree" indicating that a majority of the participants are in
favor of the idea. In conclusion, community gardening can be a cost-effective
and sustainable way to save money on groceries. With the rising prices of fresh
produce in stores, growing fruits and vegetables in a community garden can not
only help individuals save money but also provide them with the opportunity to
enjoy the fruits of their labor. It is clear from the data presented that community
gardening is a popular choice among individuals looking to reduce their daily
expenses.
FIGURE 3.2
3.2 ) I am certain that instead of buying pricey vegetables from the market,
community gardens allow us to save money community gardens can provide a
131
Founded 1993
solution to this problem. By actively participating in a shared garden space,
individuals can grow their own vegetables and significantly reduce their monthly
grocery bills.
In today’s society, the rising cost of living has become a major concern for
many individuals and families. One area where people often feel the pinch is in
the cost of purchasing fresh produce, particularly vegetables. With grocery store
prices on the rise, many people are looking for alternative ways to save money
and still have access to healthy, nutritious food. One solution that has gained
132
Founded 1993
popularity in recent years is community gardening. Community gardens are
communal spaces where individuals in a neighborhood come together to grow
their own fruits and vegetables. These gardens can range in size from small plots
in a backyard to larger shared spaces in urban areas. The benefits of community
gardening are numerous, from promoting community engagement and social
interaction to providing fresh, affordable produce to participants. As shown in
Table 3.2 above, a survey was conducted to determine participants’ attitudes
towards community gardens as a way to save money on vegetables. Out of the
one hundred (100) research participants, a significant majority agreed that
community gardens can provide a solution to the problem of expensive
vegetables. Forty-one (41) participants “Strongly Agree” accounting for forty-one
percent (41%), while thirty-two (32) participants “Agree” which accounts for thirty-
two percent (32%), totaling seventy-three percent (73%) of participants who are
in favor of community gardens as a money-saving option.
The findings of the survey suggest that community gardens are viewed
positively by many individuals as a means to cut costs on vegetables. The high
percentage of respondents who strongly agree or agree with the statement
reflects a widespread belief in the benefits of community gardening. Participants
see these gardens as not only a way to save money but also as a way to
promote sustainability and self-sufficiency.It is important to note that while the
majority of participants in the survey were in favor of community gardens, there
were also some who held neutral or opposing views. Seventeen (17) participants
133
Founded 1993
were “Neutral”, five (5) participants “Disagree” which accounts for five percent
(5%), and five (5) participants are “Strongly Disagree” with a total of five percent
(5%) with the statement about community gardens saving money. These differing
opinions indicate that not everyone sees community gardening as a viable
solution to the issue of expensive vegetables.
Overall, the computed mean of three point ninety-nine (3.99) from the
survey suggests a general agreement among participants that community
gardens can help save money on vegetables. The verbal interpretation of “Agree”
further supports this conclusion. The data presented in Table 3.2 provides
valuable insights into the attitudes of individuals towards community gardening
as a cost-saving measure.
In conclusion, community gardens have the potential to address the issue
of pricey vegetables by providing a sustainable and affordable alternative. The
survey results highlighted in Table 3.2 demonstrate a strong positive sentiment
towards community gardens as a way to save money on vegetables. By
encouraging community gardening initiatives, communities can not only promote
healthy eating habits but also foster a sense of unity and cooperation among
residents.
FIGURE 3.3
134
Founded 1993
3.3) l am convinced that food consumption is reduced through community
gardening it offers a sustainable and holistic solution to the challenges
surrounding food consumption by empowering individuals to grow their food,
community gardens improve access to fresh produce, contribute to food security,
promote environmental sustainability, and foster social cohesion.
Food consumption is an essential aspect of our daily lives, as it provides
us with the necessary nutrients and energy to function properly. However, with
the rise of global issues such as food insecurity and environmental degradation,
it has become increasingly important to find sustainable solutions to address
135
Founded 1993
these challenges. One potential solution that has gained traction in recent years
is community gardening. In a recent study conducted with one hundred research
participants, the question posed was whether they believed that food
consumption could be reduced through community gardening, offering a
sustainable and holistic solution to the challenges surrounding food consumption.
The results of the study were quite revealing, with a majority of participants
expressing a positive sentiment towards the idea. Out of the one hundred (100)
research participants, thirty-six (36) individuals accounting for thirty-six (36%),
stated that they "Strongly Agree" with the statement that community gardening
can reduce food consumption. This suggests a high level of conviction among
these participants that community gardening is indeed a viable solution to
address food consumption issues. Additionally, thirty-three (33) participants total
of thirty-three percent (33%), indicated that they "Agree" with the statement,
further supporting the idea that community gardening holds promise as a
sustainable solution. On the other hand, eighteen (18) participants which
accounts for eighteen percent (18%), chose the response "Neutral," indicating a
level of uncertainty or ambivalence towards the concept of community gardening
reducing food consumption. Furthermore, seven (7) participants of the total of
seven percent (7%), selected "Disagree," suggesting a dissenting opinion on the
effectiveness of community gardening in addressing food consumption
challenges. Lastly, six (6) participants accounting for six percent (6%), chose
136
Founded 1993
"Strongly Disagree," representing the smallest proportion of respondents who
were firmly against the idea.
Overall, the results of the study indicated a computed mean of thirty point
eighty-six (3.86), with a verbal interpretation of "Agree" with the statement that
food consumption is reduced through community gardening, offering a
sustainable and holistic solution. This mean score reflects a general consensus
among the research participants that community gardening has the potential to
positively impact food consumption patterns and provide a sustainable solution to
the challenges faced in this area.
In conclusion, the findings of this study highlight the importance of
community gardening as a potential solution to address food consumption
issues. With a majority of participants expressing a positive sentiment towards
the concept, it is evident that community gardening has the potential to offer a
sustainable and holistic approach to reducing food consumption. As we continue
to face challenges related to food insecurity and environmental degradation,
community gardening stands out as a promising strategy to promote healthier
and more sustainable food practices.
FIGURE 3.4
3.4 ) I am experiencing that community gardening increases the availability of
food when the budget is limited as it promotes the cultivation of a wide variety of
137
Founded 1993
crops, ensuring a diverse range of fresh and healthy food options. Unlike in the
typical grocery stores with a limited variety of produce.
Community gardening has been gaining popularity in recent years as a way
to combat food insecurity and promote sustainability. This practice involves
138
Founded 1993
individuals coming together to cultivate and maintain a shared garden, where
they can grow a variety of crops for their own consumption. The benefits of
community gardening are numerous, ranging from providing fresh and nutritious
food options to fostering a sense of community and connection among
participants. In a recent study conducted with one hundred research participants,
the question of whether community gardening increases the availability of food
when the budget is limited was posed. The results of the study, as shown in
Table 3.4, reveal a strong consensus among participants in support of this idea.
Out of the one hundred (100) research participants, thirty-seven (37)
individuals stated that they "Strongly Agree" with the statement, accounting for
thirty-seven percent (37%) of the total responses. An additional thirty-six (36)
participants indicated that they "Agree" with the statement, making up thirty-six
percent (36%) of the responses. These findings suggest that a majority of
participants are in agreement that community gardening does indeed increase
the availability of food when financial resources are limited. On the other hand,
there were also participants who expressed a more neutral or negative stance
towards the statement. Sixteen (16) individuals chose the response of "Neutral,"
representing sixteen percent (16%) of the total responses. Seven (7) participants
stated that they "Disagree" with the statement, making up seven percent (7%) of
the responses. The smallest proportion of participants, four (4) individuals, chose
"Strongly Disagree," accounting for four percent (4%) of the total responses.
139
Founded 1993
Overall, the mean score calculated from the responses was three point
ninety-five (3.95), with a verbal interpretation of "Agree." This indicates that the
majority of participants agree that community gardening is effective in increasing
the availability of food when financial resources are limited. The results of this
study highlight the positive impact that community gardening can have on
addressing food insecurity and promoting food access. By providing a platform
for individuals to come together and grow their own food, community gardens
offer a sustainable solution to the challenges of limited budgets and insufficient
access to nutritious food options. Additionally, the sense of community and
connection fostered through these initiatives can further enhance the well-being
of participants and create a more resilient and self-sufficient community.
In conclusion, the findings of this study support the notion that community
gardening is an effective strategy for increasing the availability of food when
financial resources are limited. With a majority of participants expressing
agreement with this idea, it is clear that community gardening holds great
potential as a solution to food insecurity and a means of promoting healthy and
sustainable food practices. By continuing to support and promote community
gardening initiatives, we can work towards building a more food-secure and
resilient community for all.
140
Founded 1993
FIGURE 3.5
3.5 ) I am determine that community gardening can help address the financial
burden as it enhance the accessibility of food for individuals living in areas with
limited access to fresh produce.
141
Founded 1993
Community gardening has been gaining popularity as a way to address
various social, economic, and environmental issues. One such issue is the
financial burden faced by individuals living in areas with limited access to fresh
produce. This essay will discuss the results of a survey conducted to gauge
public opinion on whether community gardening can help alleviate this financial
burden. According to the data presented in Table 3.5, out of one hundred (100)
research participants, a significant proportion expressed positive attitudes
towards the potential of community gardening to address the financial burden.
Thirty-seven (37) participants, accounting for thirty-seven percent (37%) of the
total, indicated that they “Strongly Agree” with this statement. This strong
agreement reflects a widespread belief in the efficacy of community gardening as
a solution to the issue at hand. Additionally, thirty (30) participants, constituting
thirty percent (30%) of the respondents, stated that they “Agree” that community
gardening can help address the financial burden. This further reinforces the
notion that there is a substantial level of support for this approach. The combined
percentage of those who strongly agree and agree amounts to a significant
majority, indicating a prevailing sentiment in favor of community gardening as a
means to enhance food accessibility in undeserved areas. On the other hand,
twenty (20) participants, making up twenty percent (20%) of the sample, adopted
142
Founded 1993
a neutral stance on the issue. While this group did not express strong agreement
or disagreement, their inclusion in the survey highlights the existence of varying
perspectives on the effectiveness of community gardening in mitigating financial
burdens associated with food access. In contrast, a smaller number of
participants, specifically eleven (11) individuals which accounts for eleven
percent (11%), disagreed with the statement that community gardening can help
address the financial burden. This dissenting view, while in the minority,
underscores the complexity of the issue and the need for further exploration and
discussion. Lastly, only two (2) participants, representing two percent (2%) of the
total, chose “Strongly Disagree” with the statement. While this group constitutes
the smallest proportion, their dissenting opinion raises important questions about
the efficacy and feasibility of community gardening as a solution to financial
burdens related to food accessibility.
Overall, the computed mean of thirty point thirty-five (3.35) for the
responses suggests a prevailing agreement among participants that community
gardening can help alleviate financial burdens by enhancing the accessibility of
food in areas with limited options. The verbal interpretation of “Agree” for this
mean signifies a general consensus in support of community gardening as a
viable solution to the identified issue.
In conclusion, the results of the survey highlight the potential of community
gardening to address the financial burden faced by individuals living in areas with
143
Founded 1993
limited access to fresh produce. The strong agreement and support expressed by
a significant proportion of research participants point towards the importance of
community gardening as a strategy for promoting food security and sustainability.
However, the existence of differing opinions and perspectives underscores the
need for further research and dialogue to fully understand the complexities of this
issue and effectively harness the benefits of community gardening for all
individuals.
FIGURE 3.6
3.6 ) I believe that community gardens have limited production capabilities since
they are often small-scale projects that rely on volunteer efforts and can only
meet the needs of a small number of people.
144
Founded 1993
Community gardens have become a popular trend in many communities,
with the aim of providing fresh produce to residents and promoting a sense of
community involvement. However, there is a common perception that community
gardens have limited production capabilities due to their small-scale nature and
reliance on volunteer efforts. In a recent research study involving one hundred
participants, it was found that a significant percentage of individuals believed that
community gardens indeed have limited production capabilities. The data
collected from the study is presented in Table 3.6, where participants were asked
to indicate their agreement with the statement: “I believe that community gardens
have limited production capabilities since they are often small-scale projects that
rely on volunteer efforts and can only meet the needs of a small number of
people.” Out of one hundred (100) of respondents, the results revealed that
twenty-eight (28) participants, representing twenty-eight percent (28%) of the
total respondents, “Strongly Agree” with the statement. This suggests that there
is a substantial portion of individuals who believe that community gardens are
unable to produce a sufficient amount of food due to their inherent limitations.
Additionally, thirty-four (34) participants, accounting for thirty-four percent (34%)
of the total sample, simply “Agree” with the statement, further supporting the
notion of limited production capabilities in community gardens. On the other
145
Founded 1993
hand, there were participants who expressed a “Neutral” stance towards the
statement, with twenty-five (25) individuals twenty-five percent (25%) falling into
this category. This indicates that there is a segment of the population that
remains undecided or indifferent about the production capabilities of community
gardens. Interestingly, only a small proportion of ten (10) participants “Disagree”
with the statement, with just ten percent (10%) choosing this option. This
suggests that there are some individuals who do not believe that community
gardens have limited production capabilities, which may be attributed to their
positive experiences with such projects. Finally, the data also revealed that three
(3) participants with a total of three percent (3%) “Strongly Disagree” with the
statement, indicating that they firmly believe that community gardens are capable
of producing a significant amount of food.
When considering the overall perspective of the participants, the
computed mean of thirty point seventy-four (3.74) suggests that the majority of
individuals agreed with the statement that community gardens have limited
production capabilities. This aligns with the verbal interpretation of “Agree,”
indicating that there is a consensus among the participants on this particular
issue. In conclusion, the findings from the research study highlight the varying
opinions and beliefs surrounding the production capabilities of community
gardens. While there are individuals who strongly agree with the statement, there
are also those who disagree or hold neutral views. Ultimately, further research
146
Founded 1993
and discussion on this topic may help to shed more light on the actual production
capabilities of community gardens and how they can be optimized to meet the
needs of a larger population.
FIGURE 3.7
3.7 ) I think the yields generated from community gardens are insufficient to
create a significant impact on agricultural price hikes, especially in highly
populated areas.
147
Founded 1993
Community Gardening are insufficient to create a significant impact on
agricultural price hikes, especially in highly populated areas. This data provides
valuable insights into the opinions and perceptions of individuals regarding the
effectiveness of community gardens in addressing agricultural price hikes.
The results of the survey indicate that a significant proportion of research
participants believe that the yields generated from community gardens are
indeed insufficient to make a significant impact on agricultural price hikes.Out of
one hundred (100) research respondents, the highest percentage of twenty-
seven (27) participants, accounting for thirty-two point two percent (32.2%),
“Strongly Agree” with this statement, while twenty-six (26) participants accounting
for twenty-eight point nine percent (28.9%) “Agree”. This suggests that a
majority of individuals are skeptical about the ability of community gardens to
effectively address the issue of agricultural price hikes. On the other hand, there
were also twenty-one (21) participants who were “Neutral” with the statement,
making up twenty-three point percent (23.3%) of participants chose the neutral
option, indicating a lack of strong opinion on the matter. Only eight point nine
percent (8.9%) which eight (8) participants “Disagree” with the statement,
suggesting that there are some individuals who believe that community gardens
148
Founded 1993
have the potential to make a significant impact on agricultural price hikes.
Interestingly, the lowest proportion of six (6) participants, at six point seven
percent (6.7%), “Strongly Disagree” with the statement. This indicates that there
are individuals who are confident in the ability of community gardens to address
agricultural price hikes effectively.
Overall, the computed mean of three point thirty-four (3.34) for the
responses indicates that the general consensus leans towards agreement with
the statement that the yields generated from community gardens are insufficient
to create a significant impact on agricultural price hikes. The verbal interpretation
of "Agree" further reinforces this conclusion. These findings have implications for
policymakers, farmers, and community garden organizers. It suggests that there
is a need to explore alternative solutions to address agricultural price hikes, as
community gardens alone may not be sufficient. This could involve investing in
other agricultural initiatives, promoting sustainable farming practices, or
implementing policies that support local farmers. In conclusion, the data from
Table 3.7 provides valuable insights into the perceptions of individuals regarding
the effectiveness of community gardens in addressing agricultural price hikes.
While there are differing opinions on the matter, the overall consensus indicates
that there is skepticism about the ability of community gardens to make a
significant impact. This calls for further research and action to explore alternative
solutions to address this pressing issue in highly populated areas.
149
Founded 1993
FIGURE 3.8
3.8 ) I consider that community gardens often lack the necessary resources and
funding to sustain their operations long-term since these initiatives heavily rely on
volunteers and donations, which can be inconsistent, making it challenging to
ensure a stable supply of fresh produce.
150
Founded 1993
The table provided above illustrates the responses of one hundred (100)
research participants to the statement "I consider that community gardens often
lack the necessary resources and funding to sustain their operations long-term."
The data is segmented into five categories ranging from "Strongly Agree" to
"Strongly Disagree," with varying proportions of participants falling into each
category. Looking at the results, it is clear that the majority of participants lean
towards agreeing with the statement. A total of sixty-three (63) participants,
encompassing sixty-three percent (63%) of the sample, indicated agreement by
selecting either "Strongly Agree" or "Agree." This suggests a prevailing sentiment
amongst the research participants that community gardens do indeed face
challenges in securing the resources needed for long-term sustainability.
Specifically, twenty-seven (27) participants accounting for twenty-seven percent
(27%), chose "Strongly Agree," indicating a particularly strong conviction in the
lack of resources and funding for community gardens. Thirty-six (36) participants,
making up thirty-six (36%) of the sample, selected "Agree," showing a slightly
less emphatic but still aligned perspective on the issue. On the other hand, a
notable portion of participants, seventeen (17) individuals with a total of
151
Founded 1993
seventeen percent (17%), remained neutral in their response by choosing the
"Neutral" option. This suggests a level of ambivalence or uncertainty among a
significant minority of the sample regarding the adequacy of resources and
funding for community gardens. Interestingly, a small proportion of participants
expressed dissent towards the statement. Only eight (8) participants, accounting
for eight percent (8%) of the sample, chose "Strongly Disagree," suggesting a
minority perspective that community gardens do not necessarily lack resources
and funding. Additionally, twelve (12) participants, totaling twelve percent (12%),
selected "Disagree," indicating a somewhat conflicting view on the matter.
Overall, the computed mean score of three point six-two (3.62) falls within
the "Agree" category, aligning with the collective sentiment of the majority of
research participants. This implies that, on average, the participants perceive a
lack of necessary resources and funding as a common challenge faced by
community gardens in maintaining their operations over the long term. In
conclusion, the data presented in Table 3.8 underscores the widespread belief
among research participants that community gardens often struggle to secure the
resources needed for sustained operations. While there are some dissenting
voices and neutral responses, the overall consensus leans towards an
acknowledgment of the challenges facing community gardens in terms of
financial sustainability. This insight can inform discussions and decision-making
152
Founded 1993
processes aimed at supporting and addressing the needs of community gardens
to ensure their long-term viability and success.
FIGURE 3.9
3.9 ) I believe that community gardening offers several advantages but it has
limited significance in combating agricultural price hikes, such as the localized
nature, production limitations, environmental constraints and lack of resource.
153
Founded 1993
The topic of community gardening and its effectiveness in combating
agricultural price hikes is a subject of significant debate. The table provided
above offers valuable insights into the opinions of one hundred (100) research
participants on this issue. The results show a range of perspectives, with the
majority of participants expressing agreement on the limited significance of
community gardening in addressing agricultural price hikes. According to the
table, forty (40) participants, accounting for forty percent (40%) of the total,
“Strongly Agree” that community gardening offers several advantages but has
limited significance in combating agricultural price hikes. This indicates a strong
belief among a substantial portion of the participants that while community
gardening has its benefits, it may not be the most effective solution to address
the issue of rising agricultural prices. Additionally, twenty-four (24) participants,
representing twenty-four percent (24%) of the total, “Agree” with the statement.
This suggests that a significant portion of the participants see merit in community
gardening but also recognize its limitations in tackling agricultural price hikes. On
the other hand, twenty-one (21) participants, comprising twenty-one percent
(21%) of the total, chose the “Neutral” option. This indicates a level of indecision
154
Founded 1993
or uncertainty among a notable portion of the participants regarding the
significance of community gardening in addressing agricultural price hikes.
Furthermore, ten (10) participants, accounting for ten percent (10%) of the total,
“Disagree” with the statement. This suggests that there is a minority perspective
among the participants who believe that community gardening can be an
effective tool in combating agricultural price hikes. Lastly, five (5) participants,
representing five percent (5%) of the total, “Strongly Disagree” with the
statement. This indicates the smallest proportion of participants who strongly
believe in the effectiveness of community gardening in addressing agricultural
price hikes.
Overall, the computed mean of the participants' responses is three-point
eighty-four (3.84) with a verbal interpretation of "Agree." This suggests that, on
average, the participants lean towards agreeing that while community gardening
offers advantages, its significance in combating agricultural price hikes may be
limited. In conclusion, the table provides valuable insights into the varying
perspectives on the effectiveness of community gardening in addressing
agricultural price hikes. While the majority of participants agree that community
gardening has benefits but limited significance in this context, it is essential to
consider all viewpoints and further research to fully understand the complexities
of this issue.
155
Founded 1993
FIGURE 3.10
3.10 ) I firmly believe that there is no significant relationship between community
gardening and combating agricultural price hikes because of the land availability
and quality such as in urban areas, where community gardening is most
prevalent, suitable land for agriculture is limited and often contaminated,
requiring extensive remediation.
156
Founded 1993
Community gardening has been gaining popularity in urban areas as a
way to combat agricultural price hikes and enhance food security. However, a
recent study conducted with one hundred (100) research participants revealed a
surprising finding – a majority of participants do not believe that community
gardening has a significant relationship with combating agricultural price hikes
due to land availability and quality in urban areas. According to the table
provided, out of the one hundred (100) research participants, thirty-one (31)
individuals “Strongly Agree” that there is no significant relationship between
community gardening and combating agricultural price hikes. This accounts for
thirty-one percent (31%) of the total participants. Additionally, thirty-six (36)
participants “Agree” with this statement, making up thirty-six percent (36%) of the
total. On the other hand, eighteen (18) participants remained “Neutral”,
accounting for eighteen percent (18%). Only eight (8) participants “Disagree” and
seven (7) participants “Strongly Disagree”, making up eight percent (8%) and
seven percent (7%) respectively.
The mean score calculated from the responses was three point seventy-
six (3.76), with a verbal interpretation of "Agree" regarding the lack of a
157
Founded 1993
significant relationship between community gardening and combating agricultural
price hikes in urban areas. This suggests that a majority of participants lean
towards the belief that community gardening may not be an effective solution to
address rising agricultural prices due to constraints related to land availability and
quality. One possible explanation for this finding could be the perceived
limitations of urban land in supporting large-scale community gardening
initiatives. In densely populated urban areas, available land for community
gardening may be scarce or of poor quality, making it challenging to grow
sufficient crops to make a significant impact on food security and agricultural
prices. Additionally, participants may also consider other factors such as
transportation costs, labor availability, and infrastructure limitations when
evaluating the effectiveness of community gardening as a solution to combat
agricultural price hikes. These factors could influence their belief in the
significance of the relationship between community gardening and addressing
food security issues in urban areas.
Despite the skepticism expressed by the research participants, it is
important to acknowledge the potential benefits of community gardening in urban
areas. Community gardens can promote social cohesion, improve access to
fresh produce, and reduce food deserts in undeserved communities. While the
relationship between community gardening and combating agricultural price
hikes may be complex, further research is needed to explore the potential impact
158
Founded 1993
of community gardening initiatives on food security and agricultural sustainability
in urban areas. In conclusion, the results of the study reveal a diversity of
opinions among research participants regarding the relationship between
community gardening and combating agricultural price hikes. While a majority of
participants expressed agreement with the statement, it is crucial to consider the
broader implications of community gardening and explore innovative ways to
leverage this practice for addressing food security challenges in urban areas.
CHAPTER 04
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Community gardening has been identified as a powerful tool for combating
agricultural price hikes and increasing access to fresh, affordable produce in
local communities. Through a thorough analysis of various community gardening
initiatives, it has been found that these projects not only provide an opportunity
for individuals to cultivate their own food, but also create a sense of community,
improve mental health, and promote sustainability. This section provides an
summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Summary of Findings
159
Founded 1993
This presents the summary of findings of the research respondents in this
research study. The summary of findings that had been gathered by the research
has been categorize into following:
Relative to Problem 1.1: What are the effects of agricultural Price hike to
the Affordability
Based on researchers' findings, agricultural price hikes have a significant
impact on the affordability of basic necessities. Researchers gathered a
weighted mean of three point eighty four (3.84) with standard deviation of
five point fifteen (5.15) and verbally interpreted as “AGREE”. On the other
hand, the findings of the study implies that there are high correlation between
the effects of agricultural Price hike to the Affordability because the computed
pearson correlated coefficient is zero point sixty six (0.66). This convey that
the research findings is that agricultural price hikes have a significant impact on
the affordability of basic necessities.
This implies that the affordability of some vegetables and cooking essentials has
become increasingly difficult for consumers. Agricultural price hikes can be
attributed to several factors, such as changes in weather patterns, increased
demand for certain products, and fluctuations in global markets. When the cost of
producing agricultural goods rises, these increased expenses are often passed
160
Founded 1993
on to consumers in the form of higher prices at the grocery store. As a result,
many individuals and families find it challenging to afford basic necessities like
fresh fruits and vegetables, which are essential for a healthy diet. This can lead
to negative health outcomes, as individuals may be forced to rely on cheaper,
less nutritious options. In addition to the affordability of food, agricultural price
hikes can also impact the overall cost of living. As prices rise, consumers may
have less disposable income available for other essential items, such as rent,
utilities, and healthcare. This can create financial strain and increase the risk of
food insecurity and poverty. The findings of the study imply that when agricultural
prices rise, the affordability of basic necessities tends to decrease. This is a
significant concern, as basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter are
essential for maintaining a decent standard of living. When the prices of
agricultural products increase, it can have a domino effect on the overall cost of
living, making it more difficult for individuals and families to afford these essential
items.
161
Founded 1993
Relative to Problem 1.2: What are the effects of agricultural Price hike to
the Budgeting
Agricultural price hikes have always been a significant concern for
consumers worldwide. As researchers have found, these price increases can
have a substantial impact on the affordability of basic necessities, affecting not
only household budgets but also overall quality of life. Based on researchers'
findings, agricultural price hikes have a significant impact on the affordability of
basic necessities. Researchers gathered a weighted mean of three point
eighty six (3.86) with standard deviation of five point twenty (5.20) and
verbally interpreted as “AGREE”. While on the computed pearson correlated
coefficient is zero point twenty eight (0.28) which results in low correlation.
162
Founded 1993
This implies that there is no a strong relationship between these two
variables. For many people, agricultural price hikes can have a direct impact on
their daily lives. When prices of essential goods such as food increase,
individuals may need to reassess their spending habits and make adjustments to
their budgets. This can lead to the development of important financial skills such
as critical thinking, saving money, and making practical decisions. One of the key
lessons that individuals can learn from agricultural price hikes is the importance
of saving money. When prices increase, it can become more challenging to
afford everyday essentials. By saving money during times of stability, individuals
can better prepare for periods of price hikes and ensure that they have enough
funds to meet their needs. Additionally, agricultural price hikes can also teach
individuals to be more practical in their decision-making. When prices increase,
individuals may need to prioritize their spending and focus on purchasing only
the most essential items. This can help individuals develop critical thinking skills
and make informed choices about where to allocate their limited resources.
Overall, while a low correlation may suggest that there is not a strong relationship
between agricultural price hikes and money distribution, the implications of this
relationship can still be significant. By learning to save money, be practical, and
make critical decisions in the face of price hikes, individuals can improve their
budgeting efforts and ensure that they are able to meet their everyday essentials.
163
Founded 1993
Relative to Problem 02: How community gardening address the challenges
that Households deals with as a result of agricultural price increase
Community gardening has long been considered a solution to address
various challenges that households face as a result of agricultural price
increases. Researchers have conducted studies to quantify the impact of
community gardening on addressing these challenges. Based on the findings
gathered from these studies, the overall estimated weighted mean was
calculated to be three point eighty four (3.84), with a standard deviation of
four point eighty seven (4.87). This result was verbally interpreted as
"AGREE", indicating that community gardening has a significant impact on
helping households mitigate the challenges brought about by rising agricultural
prices. On the other hand, the findings of the study imply that there is a high
correlation that is present between how community gardening addresses the
164
Founded 1993
challenges that households deal with as a result of agricultural price increases,
as the computed Pearson correlation coefficient is zero point seventy-nine
(0.79). This suggest that there is a strong relationship between these two
variables, this is a significant concern, as it provides assistance in managing the
budget of families in their monthly expenses, preventing households from
worrying about buying increasingly expensive vegetables in the market, as they
can grow their own food affordably and securely.
One of the key aspects highlighted by the researchers and participants is
the positive impact of community gardening in providing households with access
to fresh and affordable produce. By growing their own fruits and vegetables,
households can reduce their reliance on expensive store-bought produce, thus
alleviating the financial burden caused by agricultural price increases.
Additionally, community gardening promotes healthy eating habits and fosters a
sense of community among neighbors who come together to cultivate and share
the harvest.
Furthermore, community gardening has been shown to have positive
environmental impacts by promoting sustainability and reducing food miles. By
growing food locally, households can lower their carbon footprint and contribute
to a more eco-friendly way of living. This aspect of community gardening
resonates with individuals who are conscious of their environmental impact and
165
Founded 1993
seek to make more sustainable choices in their daily lives. Additionally, some
individuals may view community gardening as a hobby or leisure activity rather
than a practical solution to address food insecurity or rising agricultural prices.
Looking towards the future, there is great potential for community gardening to
continue to grow and evolve as a sustainable solution to address the challenges
faced by households due to agricultural price increases. As urbanization and
globalization continue to shape our food systems, community gardening offers a
grassroots approach to empowering individuals and communities to take control
of their food supply and build resilience against external economic factors.
Problem 03: Is there any significance relationship to the community
gardening in combating agricultural price hike.
Based on the researchers' findings, there is a significant relationship
between community gardening and combating agricultural price hikes. The
gathered weighted data mean of four point seventy six (4.76), with a
standard deviation of five point three (5.03), was interpreted as "AGREE" by
the participants. This indicates that community gardening is seen as an effective
way to address the issue of rising food prices. The findings of the study imply
state that there is a moderate correlation that is indicated between the
significance of the relationship to community gardening in combating agricultural
price hikes, as the computed Pearson correlation coefficient is zero point
fifty-nine (0.59). This suggests that there is a moderate relationship between
166
Founded 1993
these variables. It is a significant concern that community gardening provides
households with a holistic solution to address the agricultural price hike, as it
promotes environmental sustainability and helps them with their living expenses.
The participants noted that community gardening can help reduce daily
expenses by providing access to fresh fruits and vegetables without having to
rely solely on store-bought produce. By growing their own food, individuals can
not only save money but also have the opportunity to enjoy the taste and
nutritional benefits of freshly harvested produce. However, it is important to
consider the limitations of community gardening. Participants mentioned that
these projects are often small-scale and rely on volunteer efforts, limiting their
production capabilities. As a result, community gardens may only be able to meet
the needs of a small number of people and may not be a solution for everyone
struggling with food insecurity. Despite these challenges, the overall consensus
among the participants was positive, with the majority agreeing that community
gardening can play a significant role in combating agricultural price hikes. By
growing food locally and engaging in collective efforts to cultivate sustainable
gardens, communities can take steps towards food security and self-sufficiency.
167
Founded 1993
Conclusions
The Conclusion of this study was divided into series of outcomes as a
profound findings. Overall, the findings of this study provide important insights
into the Community Gardening: An analysis on combating agricultural price hike
Relative to Finding 1.1:
1. Decreased purchasing power: Agricultural price hikes can lead to an
increase in the cost of food and other essential items, which can decrease
the purchasing power of individuals. As a result, people may struggle to
afford basic necessities, leading to a decrease in their overall quality of life.
2. Increased financial strain: Higher agricultural prices can put a strain on the
finances of individuals, particularly those with lower incomes. When food prices
rise, people may have to allocate more of their budget to food, leaving less
money for other expenses such as housing, healthcare, and education.
168
Founded 1993
3. Food insecurity: Agricultural price hikes can contribute to food insecurity, as
individuals may have difficulty affording an adequate and nutritious diet. This can
lead to malnutrition and other health problems, particularly among vulnerable
populations such as children, the elderly, and low-income households.
4. Impact on small farmers: Agricultural price hikes can also have negative
effects on small farmers, who may struggle to afford the inputs needed for their
crops and livestock. This can jeopardize their livelihoods and lead to a decrease
in agricultural productivity, further exacerbating food shortages and price
increases.
5. Economic instability: Finally, agricultural price hikes can contribute to
economic instability at both the individual and national levels. When people are
unable to afford basic necessities, it can lead to social unrest and political unrest.
Additionally, fluctuations in agricultural prices can impact the overall economy,
leading to inflation and market volatility.
Relative to Finding 1.2:
1. Incentive for more sustainable and efficient practices: When agricultural
prices increase, farmers are encouraged to adopt more sustainable and
efficient practices to increase their yields. This can lead to higher quality
169
Founded 1993
produce and reduced operational costs, making it easier for individuals or
families to budget for their food expenses.
2. Economic growth in rural communities: Higher agricultural prices can boost
the economy in rural communities by providing farmers with increased
income. This can lead to more job opportunities, improved infrastructure, and
overall economic growth that benefits everyone in the community.
3. Diversification of income sources: Agricultural price hikes can encourage
individuals or families to diversify their sources of income by starting small-
scale farming or venturing into other agricultural-related businesses. This can
help them mitigate the impact of price fluctuations and ensure stable
budgeting for their household expenses.
4. Increased investment in technology and innovation: Higher agricultural
prices can prompt farmers to invest in technology and innovation to improve
their productivity and efficiency. This can lead to the development of new
methods, tools, and products that not only benefit farmers but also contribute
to overall economic growth and sustainability.
5. Support for local and organic farming: Agricultural price hikes can also
promote the consumption of local and organic produce, which tend to be
170
Founded 1993
more expensive but offer numerous health and environmental benefits. By
prioritizing these products, individuals or families can improve their overall
well-being and contribute to a more sustainable food system.
Relative to Finding 02:
1. Effective family budget management: By supporting community gardening,
there can be a significant impact on the financial budget of families in their
everyday expenses. They no longer need to buy from the market because
they can grow their own vegetables.
2. Promoting self-sustainability: By growing vegetables, families have their own
food source, which reduces their expenses and provides them with a secure and
fresh supply of vegetables.
3. Affordable source of fresh vegetables: Through planting, households can not
only save money and avoid buying vegetables at high market prices, but they
can also obtain fresh and nutritious vegetables.
4. Lack of sufficient knowledge and skills: One reason why households cannot
grow their own crops is due to their lack of sufficient knowledge about how to
cultivate plant.
171
Founded 1993
5. Limited resources: Some households have limited resources such as tools,
land, and seeds, which prevents them from engaging in gardening activities.
Relative to Finding 03:
1. Improved access to affordable fresh produce: Community gardens provide
local residents with the opportunity to grow their own fruits and vegetables,
reducing their reliance on expensive store-bought produce. This direct
access to fresh, affordable food helps to combat the effects of agricultural
price hikes on low-income communities.
2. Promotes food security and self-sufficiency: By growing their own food,
community gardeners can increase their food security and decrease their
dependence on the commercial food system. This self-sufficiency can help
insulate communities from the negative impacts of fluctuating agricultural prices.
3. Fosters community engagement and empowerment: Community gardening
brings people together to work towards a common goal, building strong social
connections and promoting a sense of empowerment within the community. This
collaborative effort can help strengthen community resilience in the face of
172
Founded 1993
4. Limited impact on large-scale agriculture: Community gardening, while
beneficial for local communities, may not have a significant impact on combating
agricultural price hikes on a nationwide scale. The quantity of produce grown in
community gardens is unlikely to be substantial enough to greatly affect market
prices.
5. Lack of scalability: Community gardening initiatives may struggle to scale up to
meet the demands of a growing population and increasing food prices. Without
proper infrastructure and investment, it may be difficult for community gardens to
make a substantial dent in combating agricultural price hikes.
173
Founded 1993
Recommendations
This part shows research recommendations to make clear, specific, and
realistic suggestions to future researchers before they conduct a similar study.
In the light of our findings, the following recommendations are hereby offered:
Relative to Finding 1.1
1. The researchers suggest that establish a community gardens, Establishing
community gardens can provide individuals with access to fresh produce
without relying on expensive supermarket prices. By working together to
cultivate a shared garden plot, community members can distribute the
harvest among themselves, ensuring that everyone has access to healthy,
affordable food.
2. Researchers also suggest that for those with limited space or resources,
container gardening can be a practical solution. By growing vegetables and
herbs in pots or other containers, individuals can create their own mini-
garden on balconies, patios, or windowsills. Container gardening is a cost-
effective way to grow your own food and reduce the impact of agricultural
price hikes.
174
Founded 1993
3. The researchers also believe that providing educational programs on
gardening and sustainable agriculture can empower individuals to grow their
own food and become more self-sufficient. Workshops, seminars, and online
resources can offer valuable information on planting, watering, and
harvesting crops, as well as tips on composting and soil health.
4. The researchers also suggest that encouraging seed saving practices can
help preserve heirloom varieties and ensure a diverse and resilient food
supply. By saving seeds from harvested fruits and vegetables, individuals
can reduce the cost of purchasing seeds each year and maintain a
sustainable gardening practice.
5. As for the result of the study Building relationships with local farmers and
supporting farmers' markets can help individuals access fresh, locally grown
produce at competitive prices. By purchasing directly from farmers,
consumers can reduce the impact of middlemen and support the local
economy, while also ensuring the availability of nutritious food.
175
Founded 1993
Relative to Finding 1.2
1. Researchers suggest to Conduct a cost-benefit analysis, One of the first
steps that individuals can take to lessen the impact of agricultural price hikes
through gardening is to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. This involves
calculating the costs associated with starting and maintaining a garden, such
as purchasing supplies and equipment, versus the potential savings in food
costs. By understanding the financial implications of gardening, individuals
can make informed decisions about whether it is a viable option for their
budget.
2. Explore cost-effective gardening techniques that can help individuals
maximize their savings. This may include learning about companion planting,
crop rotation, and other sustainable practices that can reduce the need for
expensive fertilizers and pesticides. By implementing these techniques,
individuals can effectively stretch their gardening budget and produce a
higher yield of fresh produce.
3. Researcher also suggest that Explore government assistance programs
Many governments offer assistance programs to support individuals and
families who are interested in gardening as a means of offsetting the effects
176
Founded 1993
of agricultural price hikes. Researching these programs can help individuals
access resources such as grants, subsidies, and gardening workshops that
can help reduce the financial burden of starting and maintaining a garden. By
taking advantage of these opportunities, individuals can make gardening
more affordable and sustainable in the long term.
4. As the result of the study it is effective to Collaborate with community
gardening initiatives Community gardening initiatives are another valuable
resource for individuals looking to lessen the impact of agricultural price hikes
through gardening. By collaborating with local organizations and fellow
gardeners, individuals can share resources, knowledge, and labor to reduce
the overall costs of gardening. Additionally, community gardens can provide
access to communal tools, seeds, and supplies that can help individuals save
money and build a stronger social network of support.
5. Researcher also suggest to Track and monitor expenses, it is essential for
individuals to track and monitor their gardening expenses in order to budget
effectively. By keeping detailed records of costs associated with gardening,
individuals can identify areas where they can cut costs and make
adjustments to stay within their budget. Additionally, tracking expenses can
177
Founded 1993
help individuals evaluate the financial impact of gardening over time and
make informed decisions about the sustainability of their gardening practices.
Relative to Finding 02
1. Researchers suggest to have a Increase Access to Fresh Produce
because growing fruits and vegetables in a community garden can help
ensure that households have access to fresh, nutritious produce at a lower
cost. By sharing resources and labor, community gardens can produce a
variety of fruits and vegetables that may be otherwise unaffordable due to
2. It also effective to Build Community Resilience, Community gardens can
help build resilience in the face of economic challenges by providing a
sustainable source of food production. By working together to grow food,
community members can reduce their dependence on expensive store-
bought produce and reliance on volatile food prices.
3. The researchers also believe to have an education on Sustainable
Agriculture Community gardens provide an opportunity for individuals to learn
about sustainable gardening practices that can help mitigate the effects of
178
Founded 1993
agricultural price hikes. By sharing knowledge and skills, community
members can develop strategies for growing food in a cost-effective and
environmentally friendly manner.
4. As for the researchers fostering Social Connections Community gardens
encourage social interaction and collaboration among neighbors, creating a
sense of belonging and support. By working together in the garden,
community members can build relationships, share resources, and offer
mutual assistance during challenging times.
5. The researchers also suggest that Community gardens can serve as a
platform for advocating for food justice and equitable access to healthy food.
By highlighting the importance of affordable, nutritious food for all
households, community gardens can raise awareness of the systemic issues
that contribute to agricultural price hikes and food insecurity.
179
Founded 1993
Relative to Finding 03
1. The researchers recommend that Community gardening provides
access to fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables for individuals and
families who may struggle to afford the rising prices of commercial
produce. By cultivating a community garden, residents can ensure that
they have access to nutritious food options without breaking the bank.
2. Researchers suggest that by growing food locally through community
gardens, residents can significantly reduce the carbon footprint associated
with long-distance transportation and save money on expensive fuel costs.
3. The Reseaechers is indeed recommend on supporting Local
Community gardening because it can help support local farmers by
creating a demand for their produce and reducing the need to rely on
imported goods. By partnering with local farmers to source seeds, plants,
and expertise, community gardens can strengthen the local economy and
ensure that farmers receive a fair price for their products.
180
Founded 1993
4. The researchers firmly suggest that Educate the Community, it will
provide a valuable opportunity to educate residents about the benefits of
growing their own food and the importance of sustainable agricultural
practices. By hosting workshops, seminars, and demonstrations,
community gardens can empower individuals to take control of their food
supply and make informed choices about their dietary habits.
5. The researcher also believe in fostering a sense of community because
it brings people interest and promotes social bonding and collaboration.
By working alongside neighbors to cultivate a garden, residents can build
relationships, create a sense of belonging, and strengthen the overall
fabric of the community. This social cohesion can help address agricultural
price hikes by fostering a collective effort to grow and share resources
within the community.
181
Founded 1993
REFERENCES
Alaimo, K., Packnett, E., Miles, R. A., & Kruger, D. J. (2008). Fruit and vegetable
intake among urban community gardeners. Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 40(2), 94-101.
Alaimo, K., Packnett, E., Miles, R. A., & Kruger, D. J. (2008). Fruit and vegetable
intake among urban community gardeners. Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 40(2), 94-101.
American Community Garden Association. Archived from the original on 2007-

12-04.
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.
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.
Beckie, M. A., & Bogdan, E. (2010). Planting roots: Urban agriculture for senior
immigrants. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development,
1(2), 77-89.
Bruneau, H. (2000). Budgeting. Planning Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook,

195–205. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851994017.0195
Clement, M. T. (2011). Community Gardening. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of

Sociology. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosc213
182
Founded 1993
Craft, K. (n.d.). Black Experiences with Community Gardening in Southeast

Louisiana. https://doi.org/10.31390/gradschool_theses.5841
Draper, C., & Freedman, D. (2010). Review and analysis of the benefits,
purposes, and motivations associated with community gardening in the United
States. Journal of Community Practice, 18(4), 458-492.
Draper, C., & Freedman, D. (2010). Review and analysis of the benefits,
purposes, and motivations associated with community gardening in the United
States. Journal of Community Practice, 18(4), 458-492.
Edwards, G. W. (1976). ENERGY BUDGETING: JOULES OR DOLLARS?
Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 20(3), 179–191. Portico.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.1976.tb00187.x
Eizenberg, E. (2012). The changing meaning of community space: Two models

of NGO management of community gardens in New York City. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(1), 106-120.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Reusing Potentially Contaminated

Landscapes: Growing Gardens in Urban Soils.
Ferris, J., Norman, C., & Sempik, J. (2001). People, land and sustainability:
Community gardens and the social dimension of sustainable development. Social
Policy & Administration, 35(5), 559-568.
Ferris, J.; Norman, C.; Sempik, J. (2001). "People, Land and Sustainability:
Community Gardens and the Social Dimension of Sustainable Development".
183
Founded 1993
Firth, C., Maye, D., & Pearson, D. (2011). Developing “community” in community
gardens. Local Environment, 16(6), 555-568.
Francis, Mark, et al. "The Environmental and Social Benefits of Community

Gardens in the Inner City: A Review." Journal of Community Practice, vol. 17, no.
4, 2009, pp. 377–399.
From Farm to Fork: A Guide to Building a Sustainable, Local Food Economy in

North Carolina.
Glover, T. D., Shinew, K. J., & Parry, D. C. (2005). Association, sociability, and
the civic culture: The democratic effect of community gardening. Leisure
Sciences, 27(1), 75-92.
Glover, T. D., Shinew, K. J., & Parry, D. C. (2005). Association, sociability, and
the civic culture: The democratic effect of community gardening. Leisure
Sciences, 27(1), 75-92.
Gupta, R. (2024). Service Quality Optimization in Entrepreneurial Ventures: A

Sustainable Approach Amidst Inflation and Price Hike.
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3909314/v1
Hanna, A. K., & Oh, P. (2000). Rethinking urban poverty: A look at community
gardens. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 20(3), 207-216.
Hannah, A.K.; Oh, P. (2000). "Rethinking Urban Poverty: A look at Community
Gardens".
Harafonova, O. I. (2017). STRATEGIC APPROACH TO MECHANISM OF

BUDGETING IN FINANCIAL PLANNING OF AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES.
184
Founded 1993
SCIENTIFIC BULLETIN OF POLISSIA, 2(1(9)), 122–127.

https://doi.org/10.25140/2410-9576-2017-2-1(9)-122-127
Hinrichs, C. Clare. "The Practice and Politics of Food System Localization."

Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 19, no. 1, 2003, pp. 33–45.
Holland, L. (2004). Diversity and connections in community gardens: A

contribution to local sustainability. Local Environment, 9(3), 285-305.
Hou, J., Johnson, J. M., & Lawson, L. J. (2009). Greening cities, growing
communities: Learning from Seattle’s urban community gardens. University of
Washington Press.
Hynes, H. P. (1996). A patch of Eden: America’s inner-city gardeners. Chelsea

Green Publishing.
Johnson, D. B., Smith, L. T., & Horgan, G. W. (2010). The “Seattle Fresh Bucks”
program: An implementation and evaluation of a successful food access
initiative. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development,
1(1), 167-178.
Kato, Y. (2015). Community Gardening as a Social Action. City &

Community, 14(1), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12094
Kingsley, J. Y., & Townsend, M. (2006). ‘Dig in’ to social capital: Community
gardens as mechanisms for growing urban social connectedness. Urban Policy
and Research, 24(4), 525-537.
185
Founded 1993
Kirby, Ellen and Elizabeth Peters, 2008, Community Gardening, Brooklyn Botanic
Gardens, Inc. Brooklyn, NY.
Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2009). Community gardens as contexts for

science, stewardship, and civic action learning. Cities and the Environment
(CATE), 2(1), 8.
Kuo, Frances E., and William C. Sullivan. "Aggression and Violence in the Inner
City: Effects of Environment via Mental Fatigue." Environment and Behavior, vol.
33, no. 4, 2001, pp. 543–571
Kurtz, H. (2001). Differentiating multiple meanings of garden and community.
Urban Geography, 22(7), 656-670.
Lawson, Laura J. "City Bountiful: A Century of Community Gardening in

America." University of California Press, 2005.
Leonard, D. K., Cohen, J. M., & Pinckney, T. C. (1983). Budgeting and financial
management in Kenya’s agricultural ministries. Agricultural Administration, 14(2),
105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-586x(83)90035-3
Levkoe, C. Z. (2006). Learning democracy through food justice movements.

Agriculture and Human Values, 23(1), 89-98.
Lien, G. (2003). Assisting whole-farm decision-making through stochastic

budgeting. Agricultural Systems, 76(2), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0308-
521x(02)00079-3
Linn, Karl, 2009, Community Revitalization, Reclaiming the Sacred Commons,

New Village Press, Oakland, CA
186
Founded 1993
Litt, J. S., Soobader, M.-J., Turbin, M. S., Hale, J. W., Buchenau, M., & Marshall,
J. A. (2011). The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and
community garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption. American
Journal of Public Health, 101(😎, 1466-1473.
Lovell, S. T. (2010). Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use

planning in the United States. Sustainability, 2(😎, 2499-2522.
Malberg Dyg, P., Christensen, S., & Peterson, C. J. (2020). Community gardens
and wellbeing amongst vulnerable populations: A thematic review. Health
Promotion International, 35(4), 790-803.
Minkler, Meredith. "Using Participatory Action Research to Build Healthy

Communities." Public Health Reports, vol. 115, no. 2-3, 2000, pp. 191–197.
Nettle, C. (2016). Community Gardening as Social Action.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315572970
Nettle, C. (2016). Community Gardening as Social Action.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315572970
Okvat, H. A., & Zautra, A. J. (2011). Community gardening: A parsimonious path

to individual, community, and environmental resilience. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 47(3-4), 374-387.
Patel, I. C. (1991). Gardening's socioeconomic impacts. Journal of Extension,

29(4), 7-8.
187
Founded 1993
Pudup, M. B. (2008). It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized

garden projects. Geoforum, 39(3), 1228-1240.
Robert Fox Elder. (2005). protecting new york city's community gardens. New
York University Environmental Law Journal, 13, 769–803.
Roy, P. (2019). Community gardening for integrated urban renewal in

Copenhagen: securing or denying minorities’ right to the city? Urban Gardening
and the Struggle for Social and Spatial Justice, 91–107.
https://doi.org/10.7228/manchester/9781526126092.003.0006
Rubin, R. (2016). EpiPen price hike comes under scrutiny. The Lancet,
388(10051), 1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31708-1
Saldivar-Tanaka, L., & Krasny, M. E. (2004). Culturing community development,

neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community
gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(4), 399-412.
Saldivar-Tanaka, Laura, and Marianne E. Krasny. "Culturing Community

Development, Neighborhood Open Space, and Civic Agriculture: The Case of
Latino Community Gardens in New York City." Agriculture and Human Values,
vol. 23, no. 3, 2006, pp. 285–297.
Schrup, J. (n.d.). Barriers to Community Gardening in Portland, OR.

https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.786
Schrup, J. (n.d.). Barriers to Community Gardening in Portland, OR.

https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.786
188
Founded 1993
Schukoske, J. E. (2000). Community development through gardening: State and

local policies transforming urban open space. Legislation and Public Policy, 3,
351.
Shinew, K. J., Glover, T. D., & Parry, D. C. (2004). Leisure spaces as potential
sites for interracial interaction: Community gardens in urban areas. Journal of
Leisure Research, 36(3), 336-355.
Tamas, A. (2011). Community Gardens: Building community through gardening
[dataset]. In SciVee. SciVee, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4016/27729.01
Tamas, A. (2011). Community Gardens: Building community through gardening

[dataset]. In SciVee. SciVee, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4016/27729.01
The American Planning Association, 2007, Policy Guide on Community and

Regional Food Planning
Turner, B., Henryks, J., & Pearson, D. (2011). Community gardens:

Sustainability, health and inclusion in the city. Local Environment, 16(6), 489-
492.
Twiss, J., Dickinson, J., Duma, S., Kleinman, T., Paulsen, H., & Rilveria, L.
(2003). Community gardens: Lessons learned from California healthy cities and
communities. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1435-1438
Twiss, J., Dickinson, J., Duma, S., Kleinman, T., Paulsen, H., & Rilveria, L.
(2003). Community gardens: Lessons learned from California healthy cities and
communities. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1435-1438.
189
Founded 1993
Van den Berg, A. E., van Winsum-Westra, M., de Vries, S., & van Dillen, S. M. E.
(2010). Allotment gardening and health: A comparative survey among allotment
gardeners and their neighbors without an allotment. Environmental Health, 9(1),
7
Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A. (2007). Growing
urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion
International, 22(2), 92-101.
190
Founded 1993
APPENDIX A:
LETTER TO RESPONDENTS
Dear residents of Sanjose Del Monte Heights Ph3b Muzon,
I hope this letter finds you well. We, as students from group 2 in section
12-FREUD taking Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS) at Colegio De San
Gabriel Poblacion Campus, are reaching out to you as we embark on a research
project entitled “Community Gardening: An Analysis on Combatting
Agricultural Price Hike.” We believe that community gardens play a crucial role
in addressing the rising prices of agricultural products. By growing our own fruits
and vegetables, we not only ensure access to fresh and nutritious food, but also
promote sustainability and self-sufficiency within our neighborhood.
Your participation in this study is invaluable. Your experiences and

insights as residents of Sanjose Del Monte Heights Ph3b Muzon will provide us
with a deeper understanding of the impact of community gardens on our
community. By sharing your thoughts and perspectives, you will help us build
meaningful connections and create positive change within our neighborhood. We
are excited to work with you and learn from your experiences. Thank you for
considering our invitation to participate in this study. We look forward to
collaborating with you and hearing your thoughts on this important topic.
Sincerely,
Jalainna A. Cuyno
191
Founded 1993
APPENDIX B:
LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COLEGIO DE SAN GABRIEL
ARACANGEL POBLACION CAMPPUS
Dear Ma'am/Sir,
Good day! We hope you are doing well. We are 12th grade students from
the section of 12-Freud. We are currently conducting a study about "Community
Gardening: An analysis on combatting agricultural price hike." As a part of the
process of conducting a study, we are looking for research participants. We are
asking for your permission to conduct such a study at San Jose del Monte
Heights Phase 3B, CSJDM. We would select one hundred (100) participants. We
plan to reach out to them through flyers, posters, and any other social media
platforms they have, and send them our online survey forms.
We will inform them that all of the personal information they provide in our
survey form will not be made public, in accordance with Republic Act 10173, or
the Data Privacy Act of 2012, and various research ethics issues. We hope that
you understand the importance of this part of conducting a study. The information
gathered will help us gain insights into the effectiveness of community gardening
in addressing agricultural price hikes. Also, we hope that you will allow us to
conduct such a study at the aforementioned school. We truly appreciate your
time reading this letter. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jalainna A. Cuyno
192
Founded 1993
APPENDIX C:
LETTER TO EXPERT VALIDATORS FOR THE VALIDATION OF THE SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRES
Date: __________________
Sir/ Madam,
Greetings!
We are the students of the Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel, Inc.

conducting a study entitled “COMMUNITY GARDENING: AN ANALYSIS ON
COMBATTING AGRICULTURAL PRICE HIKE” This study is a part of the
requirements for the school subjects Practical Research 2 and Inquiries,
Investigation, and Immersion.
In this regard, may we have the pride and honor to have you as one of the
research experts to validate our survey questionnaires by giving your invaluable
comments and suggestions. Your much-sought participation will highly lend the
necessary credence to our research work. Your favorable attention and action to
our request will significantly help the complete realization of the thesis. Thank
you very much.
Noted by:
Jalainna A. Cuyno
Student Lead Researcher
193
Founded 1993
Ellaine De Vera
APPENDIX D:
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT VALIDATION SHEET
FOR QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
Name of Validator: Ellaine De Vera

Degree/Specialization: Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in English
Position/Designation: Research Teacher
Research Title: COMMUNITY GARDENING: AN ANALYSIS ON COMBATING

AGRICULTURAL PRICE HIKE
Direction: This tool asks for your evaluation of the questionnaire to be used in data
gathering for the investigation stated above to establish its validity. You are requested to
give your honest assessment using the criteria stated below; Please choose only one
from the selection.
Scale Interpretation Description

The questionnaire is highly valid and can provide unbiased
4 Highly Valid
data for investigation, allowing 0 – 5% error.
The questionnaire is valid and can provide unbiased data for
3 Valid
investigation, allowing 6 – 10% error.
The questionnaire is less valid, unacceptable, and needs
2 Less Valid
revisions.
Not Valid at The questionnaire is not valid at all, unacceptable, and
1
all needs revisions.
Indicators 4 3 2 1
Clarity and Direction of Items
1. The vocabulary level, language & structure are at the
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
conceptual level of the participants/respondents.
2. The test directions and the items are written clearly and
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
understandably.
Presentation and Organization of Items
3. The items are presented and organized in a logical manner. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Suitability of Items
4. The items appropriately presented the substance/content of
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
the research.
194
Founded 1993
5. The questions/items are designed to determine what is

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
supposed to be measured.
Adequateness of the Content
6. The number of questions/items per domain/area is
representative enough of all questions needed for the ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
research.
Attainment of the Purpose
7. The instrument as a whole can fulfill the objectives needed for
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
the research.
Objective
8. Each item question/indicator requires only one specific
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
answer or measures only one behavior.
Scale and Evaluation of Rating
9. The scale adapted/used is appropriate for the item/indicator. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Remarks: (recommendations for the improvement of the tool)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
ELLAINE E. DE VERA, LPT
195
Founded 1993
Evaluator’s Signature Over Printed Name
APPENDIX E:
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
NAME:
GENDER:
AGE:
ADDRESS:
INSTRUCTION: Using the likert scale below please put a (/) check mark on the box that
corresponds to your answer. The numbers corresponds to the following:
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1- Strongly Disagree
SOP 1.1 What are the effects of agricultural Pricehike to the Affordability
1.1.1 I learn that price hike has an effective way for us to practice more on saving money
to buy cooking essential like spices and veggies.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.1.2 I am ascertain that experiencing agricultural price hike makes me motivated in

saving more money so that I can purchase a specific important needs in our daily lives.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
196
Founded 1993
2- Disagree
1.1.3 I find it more easy to buy the food that we need as agricultural price hike made it
increasingly evident that community collaboration is essential to overcoming the
difficulties faced by individuals struggling to afford basic necessities.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.1.4 I am reflecting on the challenges I am currently facing in meeting my basic food

needs due to the relentless wave of price increases. While it may be tempting to
succumb to despair in the face of this difficulty, I choose instead to view this situation as
an opportunity for growth, innovation, and community-building.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.1.5 I believe that through knowledge sharing and leveraging technological

advancements, communities can discover innovative approaches to improve crop yield,
reduce waste, and increase the availability of basic necessities at affordable prices.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
197
Founded 1993
1.1.6 I am finding it more difficult to buy cooking essential like spices and veggies due to
the price increase
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.1.7 I am experiencing of not purchasing a specific cooking item due to it’s expensive
cost
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.1.8 I observe that his substantial increase in overall food costs can put low-income
individuals and families at a greater risk of food insecurity, as they struggle to balance
their limited financial resources with their basic food requirements.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.1.9 I notice that as a result of unable to purchase necessary foods individuals resort to
consuming cheaper alternatives that often less healthy, such as processed food.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
198
Founded 1993
1.1.10 I am struggling to afford basic necessities due to agricultural pricehike so that we

experience starvation sometime
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
SOP 1.2 What are the effects of agricultural Pricehike to the Budgeting
1.2.1 I am observing that agricultural price hike allow me to do money distribution

5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.2.2 I am figuring out that price hikes prove me the potential to manage everyday
essential
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.2.3 I am discovering that price hikes allow me to be practical and make decisions
using critical thinking
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
199
Founded 1993
1.2.4 I am figuring out that agricultural price hikes are a challenge in my life where I am
learning to save money and to be practical, aiding in my budgeting efforts to meet
everyday essentials.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.2.5 I am discovering that agricultural price hikes provide me with alternative ways to
address budgeting, prompting me to explore cost-effective solutions for managing daily
expenses.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.2.6 I am affected by the budgeting of our family due to the agricultural price hike.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.2.7 I am aware that my family experienced shortages due to the price increase in the
market.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
200
Founded 1993
2- Disagree
1.2.8 I am forced to borrow money due to a lack of funds as a result of the market's
expensive price hikes
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.2.9 I am observing that, compared to before, our family's monthly budget is no longer
sufficient due to the increase in prices.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1.2.10 I am experiencing a loss of purchasing power because the money we have is not
enough because of the price increase.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
2.How community gardening address the challenges that Households deals with
as a result of agricultural price increase
2.1 I am supporting community gardening in order to address the issue of rising

agricultural prices in the financial budgets of all families by doing this, we will be less
201
Founded 1993
independent on pricey produce from the store and be able to lessen the impact of price
hike on our home
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
2.2 I am certain that community gardening can eliminates the need to buy vegetables in
the market, promoting self-sustainability and effective family budget management.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
2.3 I am ensuring that there will always be availability to reasonably priced food, which
increases community resilience by creating a buffer against the growing costs of
agriculture.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
2.4 I am sure that it empowers households the ability to grow their own food, diminishing
reliance on costly market purchases.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
202
Founded 1993
2.5 I am certain that community gardening reduces the impact of growing market prices
by offering a consistent and affordable source of fresh veggies.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
2.6 I am finding out that there is a problem with a hectic schedule resulting in insufficient
time and effort to consistently maintain gardening. This hinders the significance of
community gardening in addressing increasing agricultural prices.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
2.7 I am discovering that there are limited resources for necessary gardening items such
as land, tools, and seeds. This becomes a challenge to achieving community gardening,
which could potentially address agricultural price increases.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
2.8 I am observing the difficulty in cultivating plants due to changing weather conditions,
leading to the destruction of plants. This limits the possibilities for support with
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
203
Founded 1993
2.9 I am encountering issues due to pests caused by plant-damaging impacts, making it

difficult to effectively manage community gardening to stabilize rising agricultural prices.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
2.10 I am experiencing a lack of sufficient knowledge and skills, making it challenging to

cooperate in community gardening activities.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
3. Is there any significance relationship to the community gardening in combating

agricultural price hike.
3.1 I am considering community gardening as a way to reduce our daily expenses

Instead of solely relying on store-bought produce we have the opportunity to savor the
fruits and vegetables we grow themselves.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
3.2 I am certain that instead of buying pricey vegetables from the market, community
gardens allow us to save money community gardens can provide a solution to this
204
Founded 1993
problem. By actively participating in a shared garden space, individuals can grow their
own vegetables and significantly reduce their monthly grocery bills.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
3.3 l am convinced that food consumption is reduced through community gardening it

offers a sustainable and holistic solution to the challenges surrounding food consumption
by empowering individuals to grow their food, community gardens improve access to
fresh produce, contribute to food security, promote environmental sustainability, and
foster social cohesion.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
3.4 I am experiencing that community gardening increases the availability of food when
the budget is limited as it promotes the cultivation of a wide variety of crops, ensuring a
diverse range of fresh and healthy food options. Unlike in the typical grocery stores with
a limited variety of produce.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
3.5 I am determine that community gardening can help address the financial burden as it
enhance the accessibility of food for individuals living in areas with limited access to
fresh produce.
205
Founded 1993
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
3.6 I believe that community gardens have limited production capabilities since they are
often small-scale projects that rely on volunteer efforts and can only meet the needs of a
small number of people.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
3.7 I think the yields generated from community gardens are insufficient to create a
significant impact on agricultural price hikes, especially in highly populated areas.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
3.8 I consider that community gardens often lack the necessary resources and funding
to sustain their operations long-term since these initiatives heavily rely on volunteers and
donations, which can be inconsistent, making it challenging to ensure a stable supply of
fresh produce.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
206
Founded 1993
3.9 I believe that community gardening offers several advantages but it has limited
significance in combating agricultural price hikes, such as the localized nature,
production limitations, environmental constraints and lack of resource.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
3.10 I firmly believe that there is no significant relationship between community

gardening and combating agricultural price hikes because of the land availability and
quality such as in urban areas, where community gardening is most prevalent, suitable
land for agriculture is limited and often contaminated, requiring extensive remediation.
5- Strongly Agree
4- Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
207
Founded 1993
APPENDIX F
FORMULA WITH SAMPLE COMPUTATION OF STATISTICS USED
TALLY
SOP 1.1
QUESTIONS SA A N D SD
1.1.1 49 19 15 5 12
1.1.2 28 41 20 4 7
1.1.3 35 34 22 4 5
1.1.4 33 37 19 7 4
1.1.5 41 30 13 10 6
1.1.6 40 22 23 12 3
1.1.7 39 29 18 8 6
1.1.8 34 30 27 2 7
1.1.9 33 29 24 7 7
1.1.10 34 32 17 11 6
Total: 366 303 198 70 63
TALLY OF SOP 1.2
208
Founded 1993
1.2.1 34 29 22 8 7
1.2.2 33 38 15 9 5
1.2.3 33 28 27 6 6
1.2.4 37 33 15 8 7
1.2.5 28 40 21 8 3
1.2.6 46 27 16 7 4
1.2.7 41 35 16 2 6
1.2.8 32 29 20 10 9
1.2.9 37 31 24 4 4
1.2.10 43 26 18 9 4
Total: 364 316 194 71 55
TALLY OF SOP 02
209
Founded 1993
2.1 54 22 10 6 8
2.2 34 41 14 3 8
2.3 37 30 21 9 3
2.4 30 31 25 8 6
2.5 39 32 15 11 3
2.6 35 35 20 8 2
2.7 33 31 22 8 6
2.8 36 32 22 4 6
2.9 34 32 14 13 7
2.10 33 24 27 9 7
Total: 365 310 190 79 56
TALLY OF SOP 03
210
Founded 1993
3.1 37 31 17 10 5
3.2 41 32 17 5 5
3.3 36 33 18 7 6
3.4 37 36 16 7 4
3.5 37 30 20 11 2
3.6 28 34 25 10 3
3.7 29 26 21 8 6
3.8 27 36 17 12 8
3.9 40 24 21 10 5
3.10 31 36 18 8 7
Total: 343 318 182 88 51
COMPUTATION OF FREQUENCY
211
Founded 1993
SOP 1.1
Question F×5 F×4 F×3 F×2 F×1 Weighted Verbal

Mean Interpretation
1.1.1 245 76 45 10 12 3.88 Agree
1.1.2 140 164 60 8 7 3.79 Agree
1.1.3 175 136 66 8 5 3.90 Agree
1.1.4 165 148 57 14 4 3.88 Agree
1.1.5 205 120 39 20 6 3.90 Agree
1.1.6 200 88 64 24 3 3.84 Agree
1.1.7 95 116 54 16 6 3.87 Agree
1.1.8 70 120 81 4 7 3.82 Agree
1.1.9 165 116 72 14 7 3.61 Agree
1.1.10 170 128 51 22 6 3.77 Agree
SOP 1.2
212
Founded 1993
Question F×5 F×4 F×3 F×2 F × 1 Weighted Verbal

Mean Interpretation
1.2.1 170 116 66 16 7 3.75 Agree
1.2.2 165 152 45 18 5 3.85 Agree
1.2.3 165 112 81 12 6 3.76 Agree
1.2.4 185 132 45 16 7 3.85 Agree
1.2.5 140 160 63 16 3 3.82 Agree
1.2.6 230 108 48 14 4 4.04 Agree
1.2.7 205 140 48 4 6 4.03 Agree
1.2.8 160 116 60 20 9 3.65 Agree
1.2.9 185 124 72 8 4 3.93 Agree
1.2.10 215 104 54 18 4 3.95 Agree
SOP 02:
213
Founded 1993

Mean Interpretation
2.1 270 88 30 12 8 4.08 Agree
2.2 170 164 42 6 8 3.90 Agree
2.3 185 120 63 18 3 3.89 Agree
2.4 150 124 75 16 6 3.71 Agree
2.5 195 128 45 22 3 3.93 Agree
2.6 175 140 60 16 2 3.93 Agreel
2.7 165 124 66 16 6 3.77 Agree
2.8 180 128 66 8 6 3.88 Agree
2.9 170 128 42 26 7 3.73 Agree
2.10 165 96 81 18 7 3.67 Agree
SOP 03:
214
Founded 1993

Mean Interpretation
3.1 185 124 51 20 5 3.85 Agree
3.2 205 128 51 10 5 3.99 Agree
3.3 180 132 54 14 6 3.86 Agree
3.4 185 144 48 14 4 3.95 Agree
3.5 185 120 60 22 2 3.35 Agree
3.6 140 136 75 20 3 3.74 Agree
3.7 145 104 63 16 6 3.34 Agree
3.8 135 144 51 24 8 3.62 Agree
3.9 200 96 63 20 5 3.84 Agree
3.10 155 144 54 16 7 3.76 Agree
COMPUTATION OF MEAN
SOP 1.1
215
Founded 1993
Total: 366 303 198 70 63
366 × 5 = 1,830 3,839 ÷ 100 = 38.39
303 × 4 = 1,212 38.39 ÷ 10
198 × 3 = 594 x= 3.84
70 × 2 = 140
63 × 1 = 63
Total 3,839
SOP 1.2
216
Founded 1993
Total: 364 316 194 71 55
364 × 5 = 1,820 3,863 ÷ 100 = 38.63
316 × 4 = 1,264 38.63 ÷ 10
194 × 3 = 582 x= 3.86
71 × 2 = 142
55 × 1 = 55
Total 3,863
SOP 02
217
Founded 1993
Total: 365 310 190 79 56
365 × 5 = 1,825 3,849 ÷ 100 = 38.49
310 × 4 = 1,240 38.49 ÷ 10
190 × 3 = 570 x= 3.84
79 × 2 = 158
56 × 1 = 56
Total 3,849
SOP 03
218
Founded 1993
Total: 343 318 182 88 51
343 × 5 = 2,715 4,760 ÷ 100 = 47.60
318 × 4 = 1,272 47.60 ÷ 10
182 × 3 = 546 x= 4.76
88 × 2 = 176
51 × 1 = 51
Total 4,760
COMPUTATION OF STANDARD DEVIATION
219
Founded 1993
SOP 1.1
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =
∑ 129,715.23+89 , 496.71+37,698.11+ 4,377.15+3,499.91
100
σ =
∑ 264,787.11
100
514.57
σ =
100
σ = 5.15
SOP 1.2
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
220
Founded 1993
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =
∑ 129,700.82+97 , 431.38+36,153.22+ 4,507.78+2,615.30
100
σ =
∑ 270,408.5
100
520.01
σ =
100
σ = 5.20
SOP 02
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
221
Founded 1993
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ =
∑ 99,957.15+93,733.95+ 5,649.03+34,655.55+2,720.67
100
σ =
∑ 236,716.35
100
486.54
σ =
100
σ = 4.87
SOP 03
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
σ = √∑ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
222
Founded 1993
σ =
∑ 114,406.30+ 98,119.30+31,414.02+6,928.90+2,138.14
100
σ =
∑ 253,006.66
100
503.00
σ =
100
σ = 5.03
COMPUTATION OF PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENT:
SOP 1.1
RESPONDENT
S X Y XY X^2 Y^2
1 4 3.2 12.8 16 10.24
2 4.4 3.4 14.96 19.36 11.56
3 3 3 9 9 9
223
Founded 1993
4 3.6 4 14.4 12.96 16
5 3.6 5 18 12.96 25
6 4.2 2.8 11.76 17.64 7.84
7 4.6 4.2 19.32 21.16 17.64
8 4.2 4.6 19.32 17.64 21.16
9 3 4 12 9 16
10 5 4.6 23 25 21.16
11 4 4 16 16 16
12 4.2 3.4 14.28 17.64 11.56
13 5 4 20 25 16
14 4 3.6 14.4 16 12.96
15 1.8 3.4 6.12 3.24 11.56
16 4.4 3.8 16.72 19.36 14.44
17 4.4 4.8 21.12 19.36 23.04
18 4.6 5 23 21.16 25
19 4.8 4.2 20.16 23.04 17.64
20 4.6 4.6 21.16 21.16 21.16
21 3.6 3 10.8 12.96 9
22 3.4 3.6 12.24 11.56 12.96
23 3.8 3.8 14.44 14.44 14.44
24 4.4 4.4 19.36 19.36 19.36
25 5 5 25 25 25
224
Founded 1993
26 5 5 25 25 25
27 5 5 25 25 25
28 5 5 25 25 25
29 3.6 3.4 12.24 12.96 11.56
30 2 2.2 4.4 4 4.84
31 4.6 4.6 21.16 21.16 21.16
32 4.2 3 12.6 17.64 9
33 4.6 3.6 16.56 21.16 12.96
34 3.6 3.6 12.96 12.96 12.96
35 3.2 2.4 7.68 10.24 5.76
36 4.2 4.2 17.64 17.64 17.64
37 4 4.6 18.4 16 21.16
38 4.4 4.8 21.12 19.36 23.04
39 4 3.6 14.4 16 12.96
40 2.2 2.2 4.84 4.84 4.84
41 3.6 4.2 15.12 12.96 17.64
42 4.4 4.6 20.24 19.36 21.16
43 3 3 9 9 9
44 4.8 5 24 23.04 25
45 4.2 4.6 19.32 17.64 21.16
46 3.4 3.4 11.56 11.56 11.56
47 3 3 9 9 9
48 3 3 9 9 9
225
Founded 1993
49 4.8 4.8 23.04 23.04 23.04
50 4.4 4 17.6 19.36 16
51 3.2 3 9.6 10.24 9
52 3.6 5 18 12.96 25
53 3.2 4.4 14.08 10.24 19.36
54 4.6 4.4 20.24 21.16 19.36
55 1 1 1 1 1
56 4 4 16 16 16
57 4 4.2 16.8 16 17.64
58 3.6 4 14.4 12.96 16
59 4.4 4.6 20.24 19.36 21.16
60 4.4 3.2 14.08 19.36 10.24
61 4.2 4 16.8 17.64 16
62 4.2 4.2 17.64 17.64 17.64
63 3.4 3.2 10.88 11.56 10.24
64 5 5 25 25 25
65 3.8 4 15.2 14.44 16
66 2.4 3.6 8.64 5.76 12.96
67 3 3.2 9.6 9 10.24
68 4.6 5 23 21.16 25
69 3.4 3.6 12.24 11.56 12.96
70 3.8 4 15.2 14.44 16
71 5 5 25 25 25
226
Founded 1993
72 3.4 3.8 12.92 11.56 14.44
73 4.8 4.2 20.16 23.04 17.64
74 3.6 4 14.4 12.96 16
75 5 3.6 18 25 12.96
76 2.8 4.2 11.76 7.84 17.64
77 3.6 3.4 12.24 12.96 11.56
78 5 1.8 9 25 3.24
79 3 2.8 8.4 9 7.84
80 1.8 4 7.2 3.24 16
81 4.4 4.2 18.48 19.36 17.64
82 5 5 25 25 25
83 4.8 5 24 23.04 25
84 5 5 25 25 25
85 2.2 2.8 6.16 4.84 7.84
86 2.2 2.6 5.72 4.84 6.76
87 3.2 3.2 10.24 10.24 10.24
88 4.6 5 23 21.16 25
89 1.8 1.8 3.24 3.24 3.24
90 4.4 3.8 16.72 19.36 14.44
91 3.6 3.8 13.68 12.96 14.44
92 3.2 2.4 7.68 10.24 5.76
93 4.2 3.8 15.96 17.64 14.44
94 4.2 4 16.8 17.64 16
227
Founded 1993
95 4.2 3 12.6 17.64 9
96 3.8 2 7.6 14.44 4
97 4 3.6 14.4 16 12.96
98 4.2 5 21 17.64 25
99 4.8 4.4 21.12 23.04 19.36
100 3 3 9 9 9
TOTAL 388.4 384 1541.36 1584.32 1550.4
r= N ¿¿
100(1,541.36)−(388.4 )(384)
r= √¿¿ ¿
154,136 −149,145.06
r = √[158,432−150,854.56 ][155,040 −147,456]
4,990.04
r= √(7,577.44)(7,584)
228
Founded 1993
4,990.04
r = √574,673.05
4,990.04
r= 0+7580.71929
r = 0.658301698
SOP 1.2
RESPONDENTS X Y XY X^2 Y^2
1 4.4 4.6 20.24 19.36 21.16
2 4 4 16 16 16
3 3 3 9 9 9
4 2.8 3.2 8.96 7.84 10.24
5 3.8 4 15.2 14.44 16
6 3.2 2 6.4 10.24 4
229
Founded 1993
7 4.6 4.4 20.24 21.16 19.36
8 3.2 3.6 11.52 10.24 12.96
9 3.6 4 14.4 12.96 16
10 4.8 4.8 23.04 23.04 23.04
11 4 4 16 16 16
12 3.2 1.8 5.76 10.24 3.24
13 1.4 4.8 6.72 1.96 23.04
14 4 4 16 16 16
15 1 5 5 1 25
16 4 4.6 18.4 16 21.16
17 4.4 4.6 20.24 19.36 21.16
18 4.6 4.8 22.08 21.16 23.04
19 4 4 16 16 16
20 3.6 4.2 15.12 12.96 17.64
21 3.2 3.4 10.88 10.24 11.56
22 4 3.6 14.4 16 12.96
23 3.8 4.2 15.96 14.44 17.64
24 3.8 4.4 16.72 14.44 19.36
25 3 3 9 9 9
26 5 5 25 25 25
27 5 5 25 25 25
28 5 5 25 25 25
230
Founded 1993
29 4.6 3.6 16.56 21.16 12.96
30 2.2 3.4 7.48 4.84 11.56
31 4.4 4.6 20.24 19.36 21.16
32 4.6 4.6 21.16 21.16 21.16
33 4.4 3.4 14.96 19.36 11.56
34 4 3.4 13.6 16 11.56
35 4.4 2.8 12.32 19.36 7.84
36 4.4 4.2 18.48 19.36 17.64
37 4.4 3.4 14.96 19.36 11.56
38 4.4 4.6 20.24 19.36 21.16
39 3.6 5 18 12.96 25
40 2.2 3.4 7.48 4.84 11.56
41 3.8 3.6 13.68 14.44 12.96
42 4 3.8 15.2 16 14.44
43 3.8 3.8 14.44 14.44 14.44
44 5 4.6 23 25 21.16
45 4.6 4.6 21.16 21.16 21.16
46 4.4 3.8 16.72 19.36 14.44
47 3 3 9 9 9
48 3 3 9 9 9
49 3.2 5 16 10.24 25
50 4.8 3.8 18.24 23.04 14.44
51 2 4 8 4 16
231
Founded 1993
52 4 5 20 16 25
53 3.6 4.8 17.28 12.96 23.04
54 4.4 4.4 19.36 19.36 19.36
55 5 4.6 23 25 21.16
56 3.8 3 11.4 14.44 9
57 4 3.8 15.2 16 14.44
58 4 3.2 12.8 16 10.24
59 4.6 4.8 22.08 21.16 23.04
60 4 3.2 12.8 16 10.24
61 4.2 5 21 17.64 25
62 4 4.2 16.8 16 17.64
63 3.2 3.2 10.24 10.24 10.24
64 5 5 25 25 25
65 4 4 16 16 16
66 2.4 3.2 7.68 5.76 10.24
67 2.6 3 7.8 6.76 9
68 4 4 16 16 16
69 3.4 3.8 12.92 11.56 14.44
70 4 3.8 15.2 16 14.44
71 5 5 25 25 25
72 4.2 3.8 15.96 17.64 14.44
73 3.2 4.4 14.08 10.24 19.36
74 4.2 4.2 17.64 17.64 17.64
232
Founded 1993
75 3.2 4.4 14.08 10.24 19.36
76 3.2 4 12.8 10.24 16
77 3.2 3 9.6 10.24 9
78 2.4 2.6 6.24 5.76 6.76
79 3.2 3.2 10.24 10.24 10.24
80 3.2 2.8 8.96 10.24 7.84
81 4.8 3.4 16.32 23.04 11.56
82 5 5 25 25 25
83 4 4 16 16 16
84 3.6 3.6 12.96 12.96 12.96
85 2.8 3.4 9.52 7.84 11.56
86 2.4 2.4 5.76 5.76 5.76
87 3 3.2 9.6 9 10.24
88 4.8 4.8 23.04 23.04 23.04
89 2.8 3 8.4 7.84 9
90 3.2 3.4 10.88 10.24 11.56
91 2.6 3.2 8.32 6.76 10.24
92 3.2 2.4 7.68 10.24 5.76
93 4 5 20 16 25
94 3 4 12 9 16
95 4.2 4.6 19.32 17.64 21.16
96 2.6 2.6 6.76 6.76 6.76
97 3.6 4 14.4 12.96 16
233
Founded 1993
98 4.2 4.8 20.16 17.64 23.04
99 5 5 25 25 25
100 3 3 9 9 9
TOTAL 374.6 390.6 1495.48 1473.96 1586.12
r = N ¿¿
100(1,495.48)−(374.6)(390.6)
r=
√¿ ¿ ¿
149,548 −146,318.76
r=
√[147,396− 140,325.16][158,612 −140,325.16]
234
Founded 1993
3,229.24
r= (7,070.84)(18,286.84)
√
3,229.24
r=
√129303320
3,229.24
r = 0+11371.168
r = 0.283985054
SOP 02
1 4.4 4.6 20.24 19.36 21.16
2 4.4 4.6 20.24 19.36 21.16
3 3 3 9 9 9
4 3 3 9 9 9
5 4.2 3.8 15.96 17.64 14.44
235
Founded 1993
6 3.2 1.6 5.12 10.24 2.56
7 4.2 4.8 20.16 17.64 23.04
8 4.2 4.8 20.16 17.64 23.04
9 4.6 2.6 11.96 21.16 6.76
10 4.6 5 23 21.16 25
11 4 4 16 16 16
12 4 3.4 13.6 16 11.56
13 5 4.4 22 25 19.36
14 4.6 4 18.4 21.16 16
15 5 4.8 24 25 23.04
16 4.4 3.4 14.96 19.36 11.56
17 4.8 4.2 20.16 23.04 17.64
18 4.2 4.4 18.48 17.64 19.36
19 3.2 3.8 12.16 10.24 14.44
20 3.6 3.4 12.24 12.96 11.56
21 3.8 3.8 14.44 14.44 14.44
22 4.2 4.6 19.32 17.64 21.16
23 2 2 4 4 4
24 5 5 25 25 25
25 5 5 25 25 25
26 3.6 4 14.4 12.96 16
27 3.4 4 13.6 11.56 16
236
Founded 1993
28 3.6 4 14.4 12.96 16
29 3.4 4 13.6 11.56 16
30 2.4 2.8 6.72 5.76 7.84
31 4.4 4.4 19.36 19.36 19.36
32 5 4.8 24 25 23.04
33 5 4 20 25 16
34 4 3.8 15.2 16 14.44
35 3.6 4.2 15.12 12.96 17.64
36 4.2 4.8 20.16 17.64 23.04
37 3.8 3 11.4 14.44 9
38 4.2 3.6 15.12 17.64 12.96
39 4.8 3.6 17.28 23.04 12.96
40 2.8 3.2 8.96 7.84 10.24
41 4.2 4 16.8 17.64 16
42 4 4 16 16 16
43 2.6 2 5.2 6.76 4
44 4.6 4.8 22.08 21.16 23.04
45 4.4 5 22 19.36 25
46 4 3.6 14.4 16 12.96
47 3.8 3.4 12.92 14.44 11.56
48 3 3 9 9 9
49 4.2 4.8 20.16 17.64 23.04
50 4.4 4.8 21.12 19.36 23.04
237
Founded 1993
51 3.6 3.2 11.52 12.96 10.24
52 5 4 20 25 16
53 3.8 4.4 16.72 14.44 19.36
54 4.6 4.4 20.24 21.16 19.36
55 1 1 1 1 1
56 3.6 3.6 12.96 12.96 12.96
57 4 4.6 18.4 16 21.16
58 3.2 2.8 8.96 10.24 7.84
59 4.8 4.6 22.08 23.04 21.16
60 4.2 4 16.8 17.64 16
61 4.6 4.6 21.16 21.16 21.16
62 4.4 4 17.6 19.36 16
63 3.4 3.4 11.56 11.56 11.56
64 4.4 2.8 12.32 19.36 7.84
65 4 4 16 16 16
66 2.8 3 8.4 7.84 9
67 3 3 9 9 9
68 4.2 4.2 17.64 17.64 17.64
69 3.4 3.6 12.24 11.56 12.96
70 3.8 4.2 15.96 14.44 17.64
71 5 5 25 25 25
72 4 4 16 16 16
73 4.8 3.8 18.24 23.04 14.44
238
Founded 1993
74 4 4.4 17.6 16 19.36
75 4.6 4 18.4 21.16 16
76 4.8 4.4 21.12 23.04 19.36
77 4.4 4.6 20.24 19.36 21.16
78 3.4 3.8 12.92 11.56 14.44
79 3 2.4 7.2 9 5.76
80 2.2 2.4 5.28 4.84 5.76
81 4.4 4.8 21.12 19.36 23.04
82 5 5 25 25 25
83 2 1 2 4 1
84 3.6 2.8 10.08 12.96 7.84
85 3 3.2 9.6 9 10.24
86 3 3.4 10.2 9 11.56
87 3.6 3.4 12.24 12.96 11.56
88 5 5 25 25 25
89 2 2.6 5.2 4 6.76
90 4.6 5 23 21.16 25
91 3.6 3 10.8 12.96 9
92 2.6 3.2 8.32 6.76 10.24
93 4.8 3.6 17.28 23.04 12.96
94 3.2 3.4 10.88 10.24 11.56
95 4.6 4.2 19.32 21.16 17.64
96 3.2 2.4 7.68 10.24 5.76
239
Founded 1993
97 4 4 16 16 16
98 4.8 4 19.2 23.04 16
99 5 5 25 25 25
100 3 3 9 9 9
TOTAL 391 379.8 1543.08 1597 1520.76
r = N ¿¿
100(1543.08)−(391)(374.8)
r=
√ ¿¿ ¿
154,308 −148,501.8
r=
√[154,700− 152,881][152,076 −144,248.04 ]
240
Founded 1993
5,806.2
r= (6,814)(7,827.96)
√
5,806.2
r=
√53,378,859.24
5,806.2
r = 7,306.08
r = 0.7942074692530
SOP 03
1 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
2 4.6 4.4 20.24 21.16 19.36
3 3 3 9 9 9
241
Founded 1993
4 3 3 9 9 9
5 4 3 12 16 9
6 4.4 5 22 19.36 25
7 4 4.6 18.4 16 21.16
8 4.2 2.8 11.76 17.64 7.84
9 3.6 3 10.8 12.96 9
10 5 5 25 25 25
11 4 4 16 16 16
12 3 3.4 10.2 9 11.56
13 4.6 4.4 20.24 21.16 19.36
14 4.4 4.2 18.48 19.36 17.64
15 4.6 3.2 14.72 21.16 10.24
16 4.2 4.4 18.48 17.64 19.36
17 5 5 25 25 25
18 3.6 3.6 12.96 12.96 12.96
19 4.4 4 17.6 19.36 16
20 4.6 4.2 19.32 21.16 17.64
21 3 2.8 8.4 9 7.84
22 4 3.2 12.8 16 10.24
23 4.2 4 16.8 17.64 16
24 4.4 4.4 19.36 19.36 19.36
25 4 4 16 16 16
26 5 5 25 25 25
242
Founded 1993
27 5 5 25 25 25
28 4 3.8 15.2 16 14.44
29 3.8 4.6 17.48 14.44 21.16
30 1.8 2.6 4.68 3.24 6.76
31 4.2 4.4 18.48 17.64 19.36
32 4.8 4.4 21.12 23.04 19.36
33 4 4.8 19.2 16 23.04
34 4.4 3.4 14.96 19.36 11.56
35 2.2 3.8 8.36 4.84 14.44
36 4.4 4.2 18.48 19.36 17.64
37 3 3.8 11.4 9 14.44
38 4.8 4.6 22.08 23.04 21.16
39 4.6 3.2 14.72 21.16 10.24
40 2.8 1.6 4.48 7.84 2.56
41 4.4 3.6 15.84 19.36 12.96
42 4.4 3.8 16.72 19.36 14.44
43 2.4 2.2 5.28 5.76 4.84
44 4.8 4.6 22.08 23.04 21.16
45 4.8 4.6 22.08 23.04 21.16
46 4.6 3.8 17.48 21.16 14.44
47 4 3.6 14.4 16 12.96
48 3 3 9 9 9
49 5 3.8 19 25 14.44
243
Founded 1993
50 4.2 3.8 15.96 17.64 14.44
51 3.8 3.2 12.16 14.44 10.24
52 4.6 3.8 17.48 21.16 14.44
53 3.6 4.4 15.84 12.96 19.36
54 4.4 4.4 19.36 19.36 19.36
55 3 3 9 9 9
56 3.2 3 9.6 10.24 9
57 4.6 4.2 19.32 21.16 17.64
58 1.8 3.8 6.84 3.24 14.44
59 4.8 4.6 22.08 23.04 21.16
60 4 4.2 16.8 16 17.64
61 4.8 4.4 21.12 23.04 19.36
62 4 4.6 18.4 16 21.16
63 3.6 3 10.8 12.96 9
64 4.8 7 33.6 23.04 49
65 4 4 16 16 16
66 2 2.8 5.6 4 7.84
67 4.2 3 12.6 17.64 9
68 4.2 4.4 18.48 17.64 19.36
69 4.2 4 16.8 17.64 16
70 4.4 4.2 18.48 19.36 17.64
71 5 5 25 25 25
72 3.6 4.2 15.12 12.96 17.64
244
Founded 1993
73 4.2 4.2 17.64 17.64 17.64
74 4.2 4.2 17.64 17.64 17.64
75 3.2 4.6 14.72 10.24 21.16
76 4.8 4.6 22.08 23.04 21.16
77 4.6 4.6 21.16 21.16 21.16
78 3 3.2 9.6 9 10.24
79 3 3.4 10.2 9 11.56
80 3.4 4 13.6 11.56 16
81 4.8 5 24 23.04 25
82 5 5 25 25 25
83 1.8 1.8 3.24 3.24 3.24
84 2.4 3.4 8.16 5.76 11.56
85 2.8 2.8 7.84 7.84 7.84
86 2.6 2.6 6.76 6.76 6.76
87 3.2 3.4 10.88 10.24 11.56
88 4.8 5 24 23.04 25
89 2.2 2.6 5.72 4.84 6.76
90 4.4 4.6 20.24 19.36 21.16
91 3 3.2 9.6 9 10.24
92 3.2 2.8 8.96 10.24 7.84
93 4.6 3.2 14.72 21.16 10.24
94 4 4 16 16 16
95 4 4.2 16.8 16 17.64
245
Founded 1993
96 2.4 2.2 5.28 5.76 4.84
97 3.8 3.2 12.16 14.44 10.24
98 4.8 2.6 12.48 23.04 6.76
99 4.8 5 24 23.04 25
100 3 3 9 9 9
TOTAL 391.4 384.8 1539.6 1587.8 1537.68
r = N ¿¿
100(1539.6)−(391.4 )(384.8)
r=
√¿¿ ¿
153,960 −150,610.72
r=
√[158,780− 153,193.96][153,768 −148,071.04 ]
246
Founded 1993
3,349.28
r= (5,586.04)(5,696.96)
√
3 , 49.28
r=
√31,823,446.43
3,349.28
r = 5,641.23
r = 0.5937144913431
APPENDIX G
DOCUMENTATIONS
247
Founded 1993
CURRICULUM VITAE
JALAINNA A. CUYNO
Address: Phase 3B, Block 18 Lot 8 San Jose del Monte Heights
248
Founded 1993
Contact No.: 09957925351

Email Address: jalainnacuyno.123@gmail.com
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL:
Track/Strand: Academic Strand: Humanities and Social
Sciences (HUMSS)
Institution Name: Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel- Poblacion
Campus
Year Graduated: 2024
Honors / Awards: With Honors
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:

Institution Name: San Jose del Monte Heights Highschool
Honors / Awards: With High Honors
PRIMARY:
Institution Name: San Jose del Monte Heights Elementary School
PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Age: 18 years old
Sex: Female
Date of Birth: January 23, 2006
Place of Birth: Basey, Samar
Civil Status: Single
Religion: Roman Catholic
I hereby certify that all information stated above is true and correct.
CUYNO, JALAINNA A.
Signature over printed name
CAMILLE FAITH A. CASTILLO

Address: Phase 01, Block 25 Lot 01 San Jose del Monte Heights
249
Founded 1993
Contact No.: 09948997037

Email Address: Camillefaithcastillo@gmail.com
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL:
Sciences (HUMSS)
Campus
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:

PRIMARY:
Institution Name: Cataguay Elementary School
Age: 18 years old
Sex: Female
Place of Birth: San Jose del Monte Bulacan
Religion: Born Again
CASTILLO, CAMILLE FAITH A.

JANA DAPHNE GACUS

Address: BLK 22, LOT 10, SEC 7 PH 1, Pabahay 2000
Contact No.: 09540420700
250
Founded 1993
Email Address: gacusjana@gmail.com
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL:
Sciences (HUMSS)
Campus
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:

Institution Name: Muzon Harmony Hills
Honors / Awards: Academic Proficiency
PRIMARY:
Institution Name: Dagat Dagatan Elementary School
Age: 18 years old
Sex: Female
Place of Birth: Tondo, Manila
Religion: Christian
GACUS, JANA DAPHNE

RICA MAE O. ABADIA

Address: Ph1 Blk4 Lot31 San Jose Del Monte Bulacan
Contact No.:09078814428
Email Address: ricamaeabadia26@gmail.com
251
Founded 1993
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL:
Sciences (HUMSS)
Campus
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:

PRIMARY:
Age: 19 years old
Sex: Female
Date of Birth: May 27, 2005
Place of Birth: Payatas, Quezon City
Religion: Roman Catholic
ABADIA, RICA MAE O.

Insert formal
picture here
LJ JANE B. PALICTE
Address: Benjamin DeMuzon Village, Blk1 lot62, San Jose del Monte Bulacan
Contact No.: 09207220072
Email Address:ljpalicte930@gmail.com
252
Founded 1993
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL:
Sciences (HUMSS)
Campus
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:

Institution Name: Muzon National High School
PRIMARY:
Institution Name: Heroesville Elementary Schooll
Age: 19 years old
Sex: Female
Date of Birth: April 25,2005
Place of Birth: Sitio tubigan, San Jose del Monte Bulacan
Religion: Catholic
LJ JANE B. PALICTE
Insert formal
picture here
JOSEPH LAYO ENDOLOS

Address: BLK33 LOT37
Contact No.: 09129888679
Email Address:josephendolos@gmail.com
253
Founded 1993
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL:

Sciences (HUMSS)
Campus
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:

PRIMARY:
Age: 18 years old
Sex: Male
Date of Birth: April 15, 2006
Place of Birth: Q.C
Religion: Catholic
JOSEPH LAYO ENDOLOS

Insert formal
picture here
AARON JOHN T. MEDESTOMAS

Address: Lapoblacion Ph3c Blk7 Lot28
Contact No.: 09538166700
Email Address:medestomasjohn@gmail.com
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL:
254
Founded 1993

Sciences (HUMSS)
Campus
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:

Institution Name: Muzon High school
PRIMARY:
Institution Name: Partida Elementary School
Age: 18 years old
Sex: Male
Date of Birth: April 11,2006
Place of Birth: pabahay 2000
Religion: Catholic
AARON JOHN T. MEDESTOMAS

SAIMA T. SALI
Address: Ph-2b Blk-4 Lot-19 San Jose heights
Contact No.: 09858691406
Email Addres:salishaima78@gmail.com
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL:
255
Founded 1993
Sciences (HUMSS)
Campus
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:

PRIMARY:
Institution Name: Caddayan elementary School
Age: 19 years old
Sex: Female
Date of Birth: June 28 2004
Place of Birth: Bohelebung Tipo-Tipo Basilan
Religion: Islam
SAIMA T. SALI
Insert formal
picture here
JENELYN B. ROBLES
Address: Blk 49 Lot 41 Towerville, Brgy. Gaya-gaya
Contact No.: 09079999522
Email Address: roblesjenelyn33@gmail.com
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL:
Sciences (HUMSS)
256
Founded 1993

Campus
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:

Institution Name: Marangal National Highschool
PRIMARY:
Institution Name: Marangal National Highschool
Age: 18 years old
Sex: Female
Date of Birth: august 21, 2005
Place of Birth: Manila, Fabillia Hospital
Religion: INC
JENELYN B. ROBLES
257

Cuyno Triple I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cuyno Triple I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cuyno Triple I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel, Inc.

COMMUNITY GARDENING: AN ANALYSIS ON COMBATING AGRICULTURAL PRICE HIKE

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the subject

. Ma’am De Vera, Ellaine

We confirm that we understand plagiarism and accept the repercussions of any

Abadia, Rica Mae Medestomas, Aaron John

Castillo, Camille Faith A. Palicte, Lj Jane

Cuyno, Jalainna A. Robles, Jennelyn

Endolos, Joseph Sali, Saima

Gacus, Jana Daphne

Ma'am Ellaine De Vera

This undergraduate thesis entitled “

Jalainna A. Cuyno Joseph L. Endolos

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Subject Practical Research 2 and

played a significant role in the accomplishment of this study. Without their

helping us navigate through the challenging process of conducting a study. We

perseverance, teamwork, resilience, cooperation, and the relentless pursuit of

knowledge. Her dedication to our growth and development as researchers has

unwavering support throughout this research journey. They have stood by us

sacrifices, and we dedicate this study to them.

needed to overcome challenges and achieve our goals.

and we are proud of the results we have achieved. Our commitment to

challenge assumptions, and strive for innovation in our research efforts.

This research explores how agricultural price hikes affect individuals'

challenges faced by respondents during these difficult times.Agricultural price

ways in which agricultural price hikes impact individuals' affordability and

budgeting. By examining the relationships between variables such as income,

prices. Initiatives such as expanding access to community gardening programs

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE,

Chapter 3: RESULT, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION 52

like spices and veggies.

less independent on pricey produce from the store and

SOP 03 Is there any significance relationship to the 127

3.8 I consider that community gardens often lack the 148

Chapter 4: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

Curriculum Vitae 247

INTRODUCTION, REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE,

AND THE PROBLEM

the introduction, review of related literature, theoretical framework, research

paradigm, statement of the problem, hypothesis, scope and delimitation of the

study, significance of the study and lastly the definition of terms.

In an era characterized by rising living costs and economic uncertainties,

the financial well-being of families often hinges on the ability to effectively

manage monthly expenses. One recurring challenge faced by many households

services brought on by a decline in the buying power of a currency are known as

inflation. Increased demand, higher manufacturing costs, and monetary policy

producing goods or rendering services. Supply and Demand, When there is a

natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, or modifications to governmental rules

products. Monopoly or oligopoly, Businesses with significant market sway

consumers by reducing their purchasing power and potentially leading to higher

allocating a significant portion of their budgets to meet basic nutritional needs.

For numerous low-income and undeserved communities, this financial burden

can be particularly pronounced, often resulting in difficult choices between

In response to this pressing issue, the concept of community gardening has

but also fosters a sense of community and promotes sustainable living.

Community gardening involves the cultivation of fruits, vegetables, and herbs in

shared spaces, often within urban neighborhoods. These communal gardens

provide an opportunity for local residents to actively participate in food

production, reducing their reliance on costly store-bought produce. This research