2. BENEFITS OF HOMEGARDENS

Homegardens are believed to provide a number of benefits to families, ranging from improving nutrition and providing a source for additional household income, to improving the status of women in the household. Potential environmental benefits of homegardens may be important not only for homegardening households, but for the broader society as well. Where the creation of homegardens includes distribution of land to otherwise landless and land-poor families, families are believed to benefit in several additional important ways, including improved family status and improved bargaining power over wage income (see Box 1). This section surveys various ways in which homegardens may contribute to improving the livelihood of poor families.

2.1 Plantings and family health

It has been established that even moderate and mild energy malnutrition contributes to child mortality, and micronutrient deficiencies are associated with increased risk of child and maternal mortality (Kiess 2001). It is estimated that, worldwide, 53 percent of the approximately 10 million child deaths every year can be attributed to malnutrition (Black et al 2003). Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of preventable childhood blindness, and is associated with an increased risk of mortality and an increased severity of infectious diseases (Bloem 1996). Improved family nutrition and health is a key objective of the sustainable livelihoods framework.

Homegardens are one strategy for addressing malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies. Even though animal products are the best sources of micronutrients, vegetables and fruits may be the only source of micronutrients that are reliably available to poor households (Talukder et al 2000, Bloem et al 1998, Reddy 1995). A number of studies have reported that homegardens produce a high percentage of fruits and vegetables consumed by homegardening families.^[4] Although it is relatively straightforward to determine whether a homegardening programme has increased production and consumption of fruits and vegetables, it is not a simple matter to determine the impact of homegardening on nutritional status (HKI/AP 2003).^[5] Nevertheless, a number of studies have concluded that homegardens are associated with better household nutrition.

A large-scale homegardening project implemented by Heller Keller International in Bangladesh found that families who grew more fruits and vegetables, and families who grew a larger variety of fruits and vegetables, were likely have a higher intake of vitamin A (HKI/AP 2001). A study of homegarden consumption in rural Bangladesh found that fruits and vegetables were the most important factor associated with higher intake of vitamin A by women of reproductive age, that consumption of fruits and vegetables contributed more to vitamin A intake than consumption of animal products, and that the number of varieties of fruits and vegetables produced in the homegardens was significantly associated with a higher vitamin A intake (Bloem 1996). The fact that the highest intake of vitamin A was associated with homegardens that were divided into several scattered plots, even though such scattered plots were cultivated by the poorest families, may suggest a tendency of the poorest households to make the most efficient use of the limited resources available to them (Bloem 1996).

Food-based approaches to combating vitamin A deficiency disorders have several advantages over other strategies, such as distribution of vitamin tablets: (1) homegardening programmes allow benefits to reach everyone in the family, not just young children or some other particular group; (2) homegardening programmes can be sustained by households and communities, reducing reliance on outside agents; and (3) homegarden fruits and vegetables can provide other nutritional benefits, helping to prevent degenerative diseases and mortality (HKI/AP 2003). A successful homegardening strategy places the poor at the center of decision making over how best to satisfy their livelihood objectives, and makes them less reliant on outside forces.

In addition to their usefulness in combating vitamin A deficiency, homegardens are associated with a number of other nutritional benefits, some of which have tended to be overlooked (Marsh 1998). Homegardens have been reported to provide 18-40 percent of household calories on Java (Christanty 1981 and Stoler 1978, cited in Hoogerbrugge and Fresco 1993) and 50-58 percent of the recommended daily allowance for calories in the Philippines (Sommers 1978, cited in Christanty 1990).^[6] In Lima, women who must feed a large household are reported to value production of starchy crops such as sweet potato, taro and maize, which have a high energy value and high "filling" quality (Ninez 1985). This comports with the findings of Hoogerbrugge and Fresco (1993), who state that homegardens primarily produce energy foods rather than vitamins, and that vegetables and fruits play a relatively minor role in classic homegardens; they suggest that it is a mistake to promote homegardening as vegetable and fruit gardens alone.

Homegardens can provide important protections against family food insecurity. On Java, climatic conditions mean that owners of homegardens have something available to harvest throughout the year, either for consumption, for home industry or for sale, and this availability is especially important to the economic stability of poor households, particularly during the period between rice harvests (Soemarwoto 1985). A detailed study of Russian households concludes that for the very poorest households, which account for approximately 20 percent of all Russian households, "gardening is absolutely necessary, serving as insurance against food insecurity" (tho Seeth et al 1998: 1621). Homegardens may become the principal source of household food and income during periods of stress, as in Kampala, Uganda after the civil war, where urban agriculture is reported to have substantially fed the city (Marsh 1998). In the context of a study of land-poor households in Kerala, India, homegardening production has been observed to have a "buffering effect" on household consumption when there are shortfalls in wage income (Kumar 1978).

2.2 Animals and family health

With the increasing awareness among nutrition experts that fruits and vegetables contribute less to improved vitamin A status than previously assumed, the focus of homegarden programme has begun shifting to include analysis of the benefits of animal husbandry, poultry and fishponds (HKI/AP 2001).^[7] Animal husbandry extension projects underway in Nepal, Cambodia (poultry and eggs) and Bangladesh (poultry, eggs and fish) promote household egg production by introducing improved breeds of birds that produce more eggs, along with vaccinations and assistance with proper housing and feed, promote improved grass fodder and deworming tablets for milk cows, and are introducing fast growing fish cultivars and plant sources of fish feed (HKI/AP 2003).

Homegardens on Java have been reported to provide 14 percent of household protein requirements (Hoogerbrugge and Fresco 1993, citing Christanty 1981). A study of homegardens in Ghana found that households could potentially produce substantial amounts of meat and related income per year (Asare et al 1990).^[8] Certainly in India it is very common to combine gardening with poultry and livestock on the homegarden plot. Typically the household ties up, fences in or keeps the animals in a shed located on the plot. The household uses manure as fertilizer for the garden and as fuel source. In Javanese homegardens, animals are not confined and receive only minimal feeding - chicken range freely and eat leftovers from the kitchen and "whatever they can find in the garden," while buffalo, cows, goats and sheep graze on village common lands and are fed additional food at night from grasses cut from dykes of rice fields and other areas (Soemarwoto 1985).

To date there is very little written regarding dietary intake and nutritional status of children in households that integrate production of fish, small animals and vegetables (Schipani 2002). However, a survey in Bangladesh that found that, even after accounting for household socioeconomic status, young children in households that raised chickens in the homegarden had the lowest incidence of nightblindness (as compared to households not raising poultry, or raising poultry without a homegarden) (HKI/AP 2001, citing Kiess 1998).^[9]

Families who raise animals use the homegarden plot as a place to keep the animals, either throughout the day, or only at night after the animals return or are brought back from foraging. The homegarden thus serves not primarily as a source of fodder for animals (and may not be the main source of fodder for most households), but is a place for keeping animals. A study of homegardening households in Karnataka, India found that 93 percent of households who had livestock kept their livestock on their homegarden plot exclusively, while a similar study of homegardening households in West Bengal found that 90 percent of respondents with livestock kept them on the homegarden plot at least part of the time (Hanstad 2004). These percentages would be even higher if poultry were included.

2.3 Household income

The livelihood benefits of homegardens go well beyond those related to nutrition and subsistence. In many cases, the sale of products produced on homegardens significantly improves the family’s financial status.

It is a common misconception that homegardens are exclusively subsistence-oriented, whereas in fact homegardens provide households with cash crops as well as food crops (Hoogerbrugge and Fresco 1993). In fact, returns to land and labour are often higher for homegardens than for field agriculture (Marsh 1998). Homegardens can contribute to household income in several ways. The household may sell products produced in the homegarden, including fruits, vegetables, animal products and other valuable materials such as bamboo and wood for construction or fuel. The household may use the homegarden site to conduct cottage industries to produce crafts or small manufactures that can be sold (Marsh 1998).

The volume of homegarden production actually sold appears to be highly variable, with studies reporting that between nine percent and 51 percent of production is sold (Hoogerbrugge and Fresco 1993). Urban homegardens in Papua New Guinea are reported to have expanded over a period of several years (in one neighborhood from a mean area of 125 m² in 1974 to a mean area of 817 m² in 1981), which the households attributed to opportunities to sell homegarden produce in local markets (Vasey 1985). In the studied sample, 42.1 percent of squatter households sold homegarden produce at the market, as compared to a district average of 25.8 percent, indicating that the more impoverished households depended on homegardens more than the average (Vasey 1985).

Livestock and tree crops produced on homegardens in southeastern Nigeria accounted for over 60 percent of family cash income in one study (Okigbo 1990). A study of urban and rural households in three Russian provinces found that two-thirds of all households obtained some income from agricultural home production, and in rural areas the market value of home production (computed using average local prices reduced by calculated market transaction costs) exceeds household labour income (tho Seeth et al 1998).^[10] In the Helen Keller International (HKI) pilot homegarden project in Bangladesh, 54 percent of households reported selling homegarden products and earning the cash equivalent of 14.8 percent of total average monthly income (HKI/AP 2003).

In addition to direct earnings from sale of homegarden production, production consumed by the household frees up household earnings for other purchases. In the Bangladesh HKI homegarden project, the income value of homegarden production increased from 14 percent of average monthly income to 25 percent after taking into account purchased fruits and vegetables (Marsh 1998).

In some cases, a portion of the cash income from homegardens is used to purchase additional food for household consumption. A study of urban homegardens in the Philippines revealed that homegardening families spend less on food than non-gardening families, while homegardening families who plant a larger number of varieties of fruits and vegetables spend even less (Miura 2003).

In Cambodia and Nepal, 31-65 percent of income (31 percent in the case of Nepal and 65 percent in the case of Cambodia) derived from sale of poultry raised on homegardens was used to purchase other foods, while other proceeds were used to invest in production, education, savings and other purposes (HKI 2003). Urban homegardeners in Papua New Guinea sell various fruits at local markets and obtain cash that allows them to purchase rice that produces several times the food energy of the sold fruits (Vasey 1985). Thus, homegardens provide households with a number of options by which they can satisfy their livelihood objectives, and each household can determine for itself what combination of consumption, trade and sale of homegarden production best fits its livelihood strategy.

2.4 Wage security and household status

Ownership of the homegarden plot can make important contributions to improved and sustainable livelihoods in ways that often overlooked, including improved leverage in labour markets, enhanced social status and greater political participation.

One objective to providing ownership to house and garden plots in some settings is to free agricultural labourers (or other wage labourers) from exploitive land-labour linkages. In the 1940’s the Puerto Rican government distributed small homestead plots of between half an acre and one acre to the families of agricultural labourers. The idea behind the law was, in the words of Section 241 of the law, that it is a

"fundamental human right of all the human beings who live exclusively by the tilling of the soil, to be the owners of at least a piece of land which they may use to erect thereon... their own homes, thereby delivering them from coercion and leaving them free to sell their labour through fair and equitable bargaining." (28 L.P.R.A. (1955), quoted in Rosenn 1963: 344).^[11]

Roughly 50,000 families are reported to have received homestead plots under the law, which is further reported to have provided a degree of "peace and spiritual satisfaction" to the families (Pico 1964). Access to small plots of land also allowed the agricultural labourers to participate in elections without selling their votes to the landlord.^[12] Several states in India have provided ownership of (typically) small house plots to agricultural labourer families in order to remove them from feudal-type dependence on employers on whose land they had been living.

Households who own the plot on which their home is constructed also enjoy an immediate increase in status within the village. A survey of rural households in Karnataka, India revealed that among households that had received small plots to construct homes and gardens, increased status within the village was the most cited benefit of ownership, surpassing even income and nutrition benefits; poorer households cited increased status even more often than other households (Hanstad et al 2002). In West Java, homegardens are an important symbol of social status, and households who are forced to build their house on homegardens owned by others are considered to be low status (Ahmad et al 1980, cited in Soemarwoto 1987). Increases in household status not only provide psychological benefits to household members, but are believed to provide households with better access to trade relations within the village, as well as better access to government programmes serving village households.

Describing the role of homegardens in the Saraguro community of Ecuador, homegardens were observed to "make a contribution far greater than that to diet, ritual life and remedy; the gardens are themselves a manifest representation of the community’s most deeply held values: autonomy, status, religious piety, and personal investment in family" (Finerman and Sackett 2003: 477). In Java, urban homegardens function as a status symbol and expression of the owner’s self-image and aesthetic sense, while unfenced rural homegardens can provide a social place for neighbors to socialize and children to play (Christanty 1990). Homegardens are thus seen to contribute to a cohesive social environment, another core objective of the livelihoods approach.

2.5 Benefits to women

Although women’s labour constitutes an important input, it is a mistake to conclude that homegardening is a primarily a female activity (Hoogerbrugge and Fresco 1993). In fact, the role of women varies widely among cultures. In Africa most homegardening tasks seem to be performed by women, in Sri Lanka women provide labour only at peak times, in Indonesia men prepare the land, cultivate tree crops and market homegarden production, while women and children cultivate annual crops (Hoogerbrugge and Fresco 1993). Women do most of the work in Bangladeshi homegardens (Talukder et al 2000), as well as on Russian home production plots, including working the land, planting, weeding and carrying irrigation water, which requires considerable effort and time (tho Seeth et al 1998). However, in traditional settings, any member of the household can be found in the garden, and adult men and women, children and the elderly often have specialized roles in homegardening (Brownrigg 1985).

The role of women in homegardening may be socially determined, as is apparently the case among the Saraguro people of Ecuador, where homegardens are the exclusive domain of women; women decide what to plant and when to harvest, decide how to exploit homegarden resources, make decisions on sales of production and perform daily maintenance (Finerman and Sackett 2003). Or the role of women may be a function of other factors, as in Papua New Guinea, where although women were identified as 61.9 percent of gardeners and 66.7 percent of principal gardeners in urban areas (Vasey 1985), this fact was attributed to household composition and the secondary status of women in the workforce rather than gender (Vasey 1985, 1990).

Even where women play a primary role in homegardening, it can be important to involve the entire family in projects to promote homegardening, especially in cultures where women have little contact with outsiders and may hesitate to become involved in projects without the approval of their husbands (Marsh 1998).

Sales of homegarden produce may be one of the only sources of independent income for women, and such sales may be an important source of income for women (Marsh 1998). Finerman and Sackett (2003) report that having an abundant homegarden is an important source of status for Saraguro women, and conclude that homegardens demonstrate the woman’s freedom from dependence on vendors and neighbors, her ability to expend resources on developing the garden demonstrate her fiscal standing, her production of flowers to adorn the church demonstrates her piety, and her investment in cultivation demonstrates her devotion to family.

Where women control homegarden resources, this may improve household nutrition, especially nutrition of children (Kumar 1978, Talukder et al 2000). In the urban homegardens of Lima, whereas men gardeners typically are interested in producing crops that have a high market value, women gardeners tend to want to produce food for family consumption (Ninez 1985).

In at least some cultural settings, education and information may play an important role in determining the degree to which women control homegarden production. In a study of an HKI pilot homegarden project in Bangladesh researchers found in participating households, 65 percent of the time women made decisions about distribution of garden produce for consumption or sale, as compared to 25 percent of the time in non-participating households, and women in participating households received and controlled the income from sales of garden production 67 percent of the time, as compared to 31 percent of the time in non-participating households (Marsh 1998).

2.6 Environmental benefits

Diversity of plant species and the layered canopy of species are the most striking features of homegardens, with all homegardens generally consisting of "a herbaceous layer near the ground, a tree layer at upper levels, and intermediate layers in between" (Nair 1993: 91). Plant diversity seems to decrease with altitude, length of dry season, share of cash crops, population density, labour shortage within the household and distance to urban areas (Hoogerbrugge and Fresco 1993). Traditional Thai homegardens are reported to contain multiple and sometimes rare varieties of each planted species and represented "in-situ reservoirs for biodiversity at all levels: genetic, species, and ecological," all of which helps to prevent pest and weed outbreaks (Gajaseni and Gajaseni 1999: 19). The high density of homegarden plants also provides habitat for wild animals such as insects, reptiles, birds and small mammals (Christanty 1980). Describing the diversity of Indonesian homegardens (here called "mixed gardens") in the Nineteenth Century, Sollewijn Gelpke observed:

"He who enters a mixed garden... with a botanical eye, sees before him a diversity of plants of which the uninitiated can form no idea. From the greatest inhabited heights to the shores of the sea, on clay and sand, in marshes and on dry land, the whole wealth of the tropics is laid open. That wealth of vegetation is all the more striking when the observer regards it from an economic point of view. He sees palms, bamboos, bananas and a number of fruit trees, all seemingly much alike and with various winding plants clinging to them." (J.H.F. Sollewijn Gelpke 1901, quoted in G.J.A. Terra 1954: 33).

Nutrient recycling is the principal determinant for ecological rationality of homegardens (Gajaseni and Gajaseni 1999). A detailed study of four traditional Thai homegardens found that the households refrained from harvesting everything that could be harvested, and that this ensured minimal nutrient export from the system. In addition, the Thai homegardens contained more plant litter than a typical tropical forest, which should contribute to a highly efficient nutrient recycling (Gajaseni and Gajaseni 1999).

"[A] village with its home gardens is not merely a dwelling-place but also an important agro-ecosystem. It is an integrated unit in which the solar energy is channeled through the plants to animals and man, and matter is cycled and recycled. This cycling and recycling process, together with the layered plant cover, protects the soil of the home garden from exhaustion, leaching, and soil erosion." (Soemarwoto 1985: 2).

Not much is known regarding how homegardens cycle nutrients and conventional analytical and research procedures cannot adequately describe the functioning of homegardens; this leads many researchers to conclude that homegarden systems are unsustainable despite that fact that such systems appear to have persisted for long periods without apparent symptoms of soil nutrient depletion (Nair 2001). More needs to be known regarding the contribution that homegardens make to improved management of natural resources.

Homegardens may be considered to improve or exacerbate public sanitation, depending upon the care with which household wastes are handled. In West Java, it is common for homegardens to contain fishponds. Fish are fed kitchen waste and the pond is fertilized by animal and human waste, including waste from toilets built above the fishpond (Soemarwoto 1985). These households do not use the fishpond water for any household needs. Livestock waste is also used to manure the garden and other fields. Urban homegardens may improve public sanitation at virtually no cost to the larger community by using organic wastes from slaughterhouse manure, treated sewage sludge and wastes from fisheries and breweries (Vasey 1990). However, mishandling of wastes, particularly human feces, may compromise sanitation (Vasey 1990, Soemarwoto 1987). The potential public sanitation benefits should be considered in any assessment of the benefits and costs of expanding the public water delivery system to accommodate homegardening.

Another potential impact of homegardening is land conservation. Terraced homegardens have been recommended to preserve soils on sloping areas (Terra 1954). Fruit trees, bamboo and other trees can be used to rejuvenate infertile soils. Tree roots that penetrate as far as 10 meters can bring mineral constituents into the topsoil, while fallen leaves can provide a natural protective mulching cover and bring more humus into the soil, helping to prevent exhaustion of soils (Terra 1954). However, it is important for homegardening families not to remove ground litter or engage in excessive weeding of the homegarden, which can increase the risk of soil erosion (Soemarwoto 1987).

Distribution of homegarden plots may also have beneficial off-site environmental effects. For example, where population pressures and lack of arable land threaten to push families to resettle in forests and wetlands, distribution of homegarden plots to landless and land poor families can reduce pressures to migrate. This not helps to reduce conversion of lands better left as forests and wetland, but also allows families to remain in areas with established social services and markets for surpluses produced on the homegarden. In addition, distribution of homegardens may reduce the need for land-poor families to gather fodder and fuelwood from marginal lands, contributing to the sustainability of such lands. See Mitchell (forthcoming).