|
Otto Soemarwoto
Director
Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University
Bandung, Indonesia
Introduction
Homegardens may have originated in prehistoric times when hunters and
gatherers deliberately or accidentally dispersed seeds of highly valued
fruit trees in the vicinity of their camp sites (Hutterer, 1984).
Brownrigg (1985) in his literature review, mentioned that homegardens in
the Near Eastern region were documented in paintings, papyrus
illustrations and texts dating to the third millenium BC. These ancient
gardens may have originated as early as the seventh millenium BC. They
were attached to temples, palaces, elite residences and the homes of the
common people. The homegarden was mentioned in an old Javanese charter
of AD 860 (Terra, 1954). Perhaps the first published report in modern
times was that by Raffles in 1818.
From this very brief historical sketch there is evidence that
homegardening is a very old tradition which may have evolved over a long
time from the practices of the hunters/ gatherers and continued in the
ancient civilizations up to modern times.
This chapter is not intended to present a literature review of
homegardens, but rather to discuss their salient features, based on the
author's experience in Indonesia, as related to their potential and
opportunities for future development, and the associated constraints and
pitfalls.
The homegarden as an agroforestry system
A common interpretation of homegardens is that it is a system for the
production of subsistence crops for the gardener and his family. It may
or may not have the additional role of production of cash crops. It can
be immediately surrounding the home or slightly further away, but still
near the residential area. The Indonesian term pekarangan is derived
from the .word karang, meaning a place of residence (Poerwadarminta,
1976) and, hence, pekarangan specifically refers to a garden on the
residential site.
The term agroforestry denotes land-use systems consisting of a
mixture of perennials and annuals, and often also animals. A major
concern in agroforestry research is sustainability (Lundgren and
Raintree, 1983). It is determined by the structure of the system, its
ecological functions and its continued ability to fulfil the
socio-economic needs of the people. Thus, as is implied by the term,
homegarden as an agroforestry system should ideally combine the
ecological functions of forests with those of providing the
socio-economic > needs of the people (Soemarwoto and Soemarwoto, 1984).
The ecological functions of forests include hydrologic benefits,
microclimatic modification and soil-erosion control, and
genetic-resource conservation.
The structure and composition of homegardens
Structure is intimately linked to function. Although this
relationship is obvious, too often we ignore it. Not surprisingly,
manipulations of structure have often led to the loss of valuable
functions, or vice versa, which in turn has resulted in conditions
contrary to our expectations or even collapse of the system.
A prominent structural characteristic of the homegarden is the great
diversity of species with many life forms varying from those creeping on
the ground, such as the sweet potato, to tall trees often metres and
more, e.g., the coconut palm, and vines climbing on bamboo poles and
trees. These create the forest-like multistorey canopy structure of many
homegardens. Well-known examples are those from Java, but they are also
found in other parts of Asia such as Malaysia, the Philippines,
Thailand, Sri Lanka and India, as well as in other continents. For
example, at the First International Workshop on Tropical Homegardens
held at the Institute of Ecology in Bandung in December 1985, such
systems were reported from the Pacific, from Africa, and from Latin
America by various authors. Such land-use systems are also abundantly
reported in the literature (e.g., Anderson, 1954; Kimber, 1973;
Fernandes et al., 1984). Fernandes and Nair (1986) gave schematic
presentations of the structure of different homegardens from various
geographical regions and reported that the canopies of most homegardens
consisted of two to five layers. Christanty et al. (1980) demonstrated
the remarkably close resemblance of the light-interception curve of a
homegarden in West Java with that of the Pasoh forest in Malaysia, as
measured by Yoda(1974). These measurements provide an objective and
precise method for the identification of the canopy layers. The
forest-like structure is also derived from the lack of a discernible
planting pattern: usually there are no rows, blocks or definite planting
distances among components. To the casual observer, homegardens look
haphazard.
A popular assumption is that the forest-like structure has been the
result of deliberate planning to mimic the forest. This is doubtful,
since in Java, where such homegarden structure is very well developed,
forests do not have a high cultural value. They are considered dangerous
places where wild animals roam and evil spirits dwell. On the other hand
babad alas (forest clearing), e.g., for the establishment of a
settlement, is considered a noble deed. The term babad alas still
remains in the Javanese vocabulary to indicate pioneering activities of
a praiseworthy nature, e.g., the foundation of a university. It is
therefore inconceivable that people would deliberately create a "forest"
in the surroundings of their home. Indeed a person feels offended when
his homegarden is said to resemble a forest. It is more likely that the
forest-like structure has been an accidental result of people's efforts
to fulfil their many kinds of subsistence needs in the absence of a
market economy. Karyono (1981) found associations of plants in rural
homegardens in which the plants played complementary roles. For example,
Table 1 lists the various economic plants with which pineapple is
associated in the homegardens in rural areas of Citarum watershed, West
Java, Indonesia.
Table 1 Association of pineapple (Ananas comosus) with various
other plants in the homegardens in rural areas of Citarum watershed,
West Java, Indonesia.
With the development of a market economy the complexity of the
homegarden diminishes, and its resemblance to a forest tends to
disappear, as described in a later section.
Species diversity and plant density vary from place to place,
influenced by ecological and socio-economic factors. Kimber (1973) found
31, 30 and 67 species in three gardens in Martinique. The smallest
garden was about 1,500 sq m. In Grenada there were 18 vegetable
varieties and 13 distinct types of food trees in a sample garden of less
than 2,000 sq m (Brierley, 1985). Thaman (1985) reported from random
surveys of homegardens in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea; Suva, Fiji;
Nuku'alva, Tonga; South Tarawa, Kiribati; Nauru Island; and the
"Location" contract settlement on Nauru at least 85,114,79,61,33 and 65
different species and distinct varieties of food plants, respectively,
in the homegardens in those areas. In addition, a very wide range of
non-food plants was found in mixed homegardens which were of
considerable importance for handicraft, fuel, medicine, fibre, dyes,
ornamental purposes, perfumes and deodorants, livestock feed, and shade
and construction materials. A total of 100 species were found in kitchen
gardens and 77 species in hut gardens (a hut being a temporary shelter
built in the field during the growing season of the field crop) in the
Knon Kaen province in north-east Thailand (Kamtuo et al, 1985).
The dynamics of species succession and plant density and composition
of homegardens have been intensively studied by Indonesian researchers.
In a West Javanese village of 41 households the average number of plant
species per homegarden was 56. The total number of species in the
village was 219 in the dry season and 272 in the wet season, i.e., an
increase of almost 25 percent in the wet season. The highest increase
was in the number of vegetable species, which was almost 75 percent in
the wet season. The number of spice plants also increased considerably
during the wet season, although the number of species remained constant.
Another steep increase was in the number of subsidiary staple food
plants. Obviously the villagers were taking as much advantage as
possible of the rains.
In an extensive survey from the lowlands to the highlands of West
Java, Karyono (1981) recorded that the average size of 351 homegardens
sampled was 229.1 m2. The size decreased with altitude. The total number
of species found in the survey was 501 in the dry season and 560 in the
wet season, with a cumulative number of 602 in the two seasons. The
average number of species in the dry season was 19.0 per homegarden and
24 in the wet season. Species density was 8/100 m2 in the wet season.
The highest number of species per homegarden was in the altitude between
500 and 1,000 m, species density increasing with increasing altitudes.
Both the number of species and the number of plants were highest in
the lowest canopy layer, being 62 percent and 35 percent, respectively,
of their total numbers and gradually decreasing to 1 percent and 6
percent, respectively, in the highest layer. However, the highest canopy
coverage was found in the fourth layer from the ground.
Poor people tend to grow more staple crops, vegetables and fruit
trees, whereas well-off people grow more ornamentals and
high-economic-value cash crops (Ahmad et al., 1980). Generally, in the
more remote areas more subsistence crops are grown and nearer cities the
number of cash crops increases. When labour is scarce, people grow more
perennials and less annuals since perennials require less labour than
annuals (Stoler, 1975). Penny and Singarimbun (1973) observed that when
there were not many off-farm jobs, people spent more time on their
homegardens and crop diversity increased. A similar situation was found
in a widow's garden in Nicoya (Wagner, 1958).
Culture and tradition are the other factors which influence
homegarden composition. In a village on the border between West and
Central Java, where the traditions of the Sundanese and the Javanese
meet, more vegetables were found in the Sundanese homegardens than in
the Javanese ones, but more medicinal plants in the Javanese than in the
Sundanese (Abdoellah, 1980). It is known that the Sundanese have a
strong preference for vegetables in their diet, while the Javanese
customarily consume jamu, i.e., traditional herbal medicine for curative
and other purposes. Terra (1954) concluded from his extensive studies
that intensive homegardening was found in societies with matrilinear
traits, e.g., in Central Java, West Sumatra, Aceh, southern Burma, in
the Kasi region of Assam in India, in northern Thailand, Kampuchea and
in some parts of the mountain ranges between Vietnam and Kampuchea. In
the Muslim districts of southern Ethiopia, tobacco, coffee and drugs
were intensively cultivated, but they were absent from the homegardens
in Christian northern Ethiopia (Simoons, 1965).
Homegardens commonly have animals as components. Brownrigg's
literature review (1985) indicated that animals were found in virtually
all types of gardens, e.g., poultry, including doves, and fish in the
Near-East homegardens, and poultry and livestock in the Luso-Latin and
Caribbean homegardens. Other examples of homegardens with animals are
the Chagga gardens in Tanzania (Fernandes et al, 1985), the homegardens
in Ghana (Asare et al, 1985), Grenada (Brierley, 1985), Indonesia
(Soemarwoto et al, 1975; Soemarwoto and Soemarwoto, 1984), Kerala, India
(Nair and Sreedharan, 1986) and Bangladesh (Leuschner and Khalique,
1987).
Culture, religion, and economic and ecological factors influence the
animal species kept in the homegardens. In Muslim regions, pigs are an
absolute taboo, e.g., in West Java and Aceh, but they are very common in
the non-Muslim regions, e.g., in Christian North Sumatra and in Bali,
Indonesia, where the dominant religion is Hinduism. In West Java with
its high rainfall and long wet season, people almost always make a
fishpond in their homegardens.
The function of homegardens
The interest in homegardens has primarily been focused on their
function of producing subsistence items and generating additional
income. They are known for their stable yields, very varied products,
continuous or repeated harvests during the year and low inputs. Although
light intensities decline in the successive layers because of the
stratified structure of the canopies, Christanty et al. (1980) showed
that there was no appreciable decrease in photosynthetic rates. Field
experiments demonstrated that in these lower layers the yields were
still satisfactory (Omta and Fortuin, 1978; Noor, 1981). Obviously the
lower-storey plants were selected for their shade tolerance. This shows
that the people are capable of effectively utilizing the spatial niches
of the homegardens. However, their yields are generally low, although
for poor people they can significantly contribute income and/or
nutrients to their minimal income and poor diet, particularly during
lean periods. For these reasons homegardens are being promoted in many
countries, e.g., in Lima, Peru (Ninez, 1985), Ghana (Asare et al, 1985),
the Pacific Islands (Falanruw, 1985; Sommers, 1985; Thaman, 1984), Sri
Lanka (Jacob and Alles, 1987) and Indonesia.
The Lima gardens, with an average size of 200 sq m, produced an
income of US $ 28.33 in five months. Not impressive, but still it added
almost 10 percent to the family income during that period (Ninez, 1985).
Higher productivity has also been reported. In Indonesia, homegardens
can contribute 7-56 percent of the owner's total income (Ochse and
Terra, 1937; Ramsay and Wiersum, 1974; Ahmad et al, 1980; Danoesastro,
1980). Homegardens may also produce higher incomes than other land uses.
Gonzales-Jacomes (1981) found that in Central Mexico the average income
per square metre of homegarden was almost 13 times that of irrigated
plots. From our studies it was estimated that in West Java the annual
income from homegarden fishponds per unit area was 2-2.5 times that of
rice fields, and in tourist areas, where homegardeners sold ornamental
plants in pots or plastic bags, the average income could reach almost 20
times that of rice fields. In a study by Stoler (1975) in a village in
Central Java, the cash value of production from homegardens was found to
be influenced by the size of the homegarden units, the smallest gardens
being relatively more productive. She also found that there was an
inverse relationship between labour, in terms of hours worked per
hectare, and garden size, i.e., there was more labour input in smaller
homegardens than in larger ones.
Indonesian data are illustrative of the relationship between
productivity and cost. Ochse and Terra (1937) calculated that in
Kutowingangun, a village in Central Java, 44 percent of the total
calories and 14 percent of the protein consumed came from the
homegardens, but only 8 percent of the total costs and 7 percent of the
total labour were spent on them. Terra and Satiadiredja (1941) reported
that in the same area the gross income as well as net income from
homegardens was more than that from dry fields though less than that
from rice fields. Similarly, Danoesastro (1980) reported that in three
sub-districts in East Java the percentage values of average gross income
from homegardens was 39 for rice fields and 72 for dry fields, but the
average net income (percentage values) was 84 for the rice fields and
184 for the dry fields. The figures of net income from homegardens
varied from 6.6 to 55.7 percent of total income with an average of 21.1,
while the cost of production ranged from 4.7 to 28.5 percent of gross
income from homegardens (with an average of 15.1). The cost of
production from rice fields varied between 47.4 and 66.6 percent, with
an average of 55.9 percent of gross income from this form of land use.
Thus, the cost of production of homegardens was much lower compared with
that of rice fields.
Ahmad et al. (1980) observed that income from homegardens before the
rice harvest, the so-called paceklik or lean period, was 25.5 percent of
total income, and declined during and immediately after the rice harvest
to only 6.4 percent of total income. Terra and Satisdiredja (1941)
reported that income from homegardens increased sharply before Idhul
Fitri, the major Muslim festival, when people needed more cash. These
fluctuations show the versatility of homegardens for meeting varying
needs at different times of the year. Because of this, the homegarden is
popularly known in Indonesia as lumbung hidup (living store).
It has also been recognized that homegardens are an important source
of nutrients. Covich and Nickerson (1966) reported that consumption of
100g each of Manilkara sapotilla, Persea americana, Manihot esculenta
and Guilielnuf utilis grown in Choco Indian dwelling clearings urDarien,
Panama, was equivalent to approximately 10,12,150, 15.5, 31, 25 and 113
percent of the minimum daily requirement of protein, calcium, carotene,
thiamine, riboflavin, niacin and ascorbic acid, respectively.
Homegardens in villages in Lawang, East Java, produced a daily average
of 398.4 calories, 22.8 g protein, 16.4 g fat, 185 g carbohydrate, 818.4
mg calcium, 555 mg phosphorus, 14 mg iron, 8,362 IU vitamin A, 1,181.2
mg vitamin B and 305 mg vitamin C (Haryadi, 1975). Similar results were
reported from the Philippines and Nigeria (Fernandes and Nair, 1986). In
Indonesia, the author and co-workers have found that rice fields gave
higher yields of protein and calories than homegardens, but more
calcium, vitamin A and vitamin C were obtained from homegardens than
from rice fields. As mentioned earlier, Ochse and Terra (1937) reported
that homegardens could supply up to 18 percent of the calories and 14
percent of the protein consumed in the whole village.
In general, a large proportion of the products of homegardens is
consumed by the gardeners themselves. This is especially true in remote
areas where the market economy has not yet developed. Danoesastro (1980)
reported that in his study area in Central and East Java, products
consumed varied from 21 to 85 percent, with an average of 44, while in
Stoler's (1975) study, an average of 67 percent was consumed. Stoler
noted that the cash value of the produce consumed was, on average, 16
percent of total consumption with a breakdown of 12,17 and 19 percent,
respectively, for the smallest, the medium-sized and the largest
homegarden groups. Ahmad et al. (1980) reported that the percentage of
total produce consumed by the household were as follows: fruit 46,
coconut 83.7, vegetables 94.7, medicinal plants 95.5, and tubers and
roots 97.3. Other important products for home consumption are fuelwood,
construction material and materials for handicraft and home industry.
The socio-cultural functions of homegardens have not received much
attention so far. In many areas products for religious rituals and
ceremonies are very important, e.g., in Bali and Thailand. Thaman (1985)
noted the importance of sacred or fragrant plants in homegardens. He
gave a list of 35 plant species considered sacred in Tonga. There is an
abundance of examples from all parts of the world of plants and animals
considered sacred or supposed to possess magical or mystical powers.
They play a very important role in the lives of the people. In areas
where the market economy has developed, many of these plants and animals
also have economic importance because of the demand for them in daily
rituals and particularly during major festivals. In cities, the
aesthetic role of homegardens is important.
Studies in villages in West Java have shown that homegardens are an
important social-status symbol (Ahmad et al., 1980). People who do not
have a homegarden and, hence, have to build their house on someone
else's homegarden, are considered of low status. In traditional
Indonesian villages, people can freely enter homegardens, e.g., to get
water from a well, or just to pass through them. Although there may be
fences around them, they are seldom completely closed nor are there
locked gates. The concept of trespassing does not exist. Those who close
off their gardens completely are considered conceited. Fruits and other
products are traditionally shared with relatives and neighbours, and
products for religious or traditional ceremonies and medicine are given
away freely when requested. However, this equitable social situation is
now gradually changing (see a later section in this chapter).
A homegarden is also an important place for children to play and for
adults to congregate in their free time. For this purpose a small part
of the homegarden is kept clean (not planted), e.g., the so-called
baruan in West Java or pelataran in Central Java. It is shaded by some
trees planted at the edges. The owner of the homegarden is responsible
for the safety of all children who play there. Young people who get
married may build their homes on their parents' homegarden. Thus
homegardens play an important role in family and community life. They
are more than just a production system.
Soil erosion under homegardens
The ecological functions of homegardens have generally been taken for
granted and only mentioned in passing. The protective effect of the
homegarden on soil erosion has been deduced from its multistorey
structure. However, the relationship between canopy structure and soil
erosion is complex.
Soil erosion consists of two processes, i.e., splash and surface
erosion. Splash erosion is the detachment of soil particles from the
soil surface by the kinetic energy of falling water drops, which in
homegardens are drops of throughfall, i.e., water dripping from the
canopies. The kinetic energy of a falling drop is determined by its mass
and velocity (Chapman, 1948). Williamson (1981) showed that the volume
of a drop bears a linear relationship to the logarithm of the width of
the driptips of leaves — the wider the driptips the larger the volume.
Therefore, throughfall from canopies with leaves which on the average
have large driptips has high kinetic energy. Due to gravitational force,
the velocity of the falling drop is accelerated. However, as the
velocity increases the drag force of the air, working in the opposite
direction of the movement, also increases until an equilibrium is
reached between gravitational force and drag, at which time the velocity
becomes constant — the so-called terminal velocity. At a free-fall
distance of 7.8 metres, 95 percent of the terminal velocity has been
attained (Laws, 1941). Hence, a canopy base that is more than 8 metres
high does not have much additional effect on the velocity of the falling
drop. However, there are large differences in the drop's velocity with
canopy heights lower than 8 metres and, therefore, its kinetic energy.
Consequently, when a homegarden has a multilayer structure, with the
lowest canopy base being about 3 metres high and the leaves not having
narrow driptips, the protective effect on splash erosion will be much
less than in a homegarden with tall trees and a very low closed
undergrowth with narrow driptips. Litter also provides effective
protection against the erosive force of falling drops.
Surface erosion is the removal of soil from the surface by water
running over it. The erosive force of running water is also determined
by its mass and velocity. Litter reduces the run-off coefficient by
increasing infiltration and thus decreases the mass of the overland flow
and, hence, also its erosive force.
Measurements of the erosivity of throughfall in multilayered
homegardens showed that it was 135 percent of incident rainfall (Ambar,
1986). But splash erosion was only 80 percent of that in an open space.
The reduction of splash erosion in the homegardens was due to the
low-growing crops and litter. Ambar made similar measurements in
monoculture bamboo groves which did not have an undergrowth but with the
ground being covered with a mat of litter. The erosivity of throughfall
was 127 percent of incident rainfall, but the splash erosion was only 47
percent of that in an open space. Therefore, although the bamboo groves
did not have a multilayer structure, the splash erosion was very much
reduced by the litter. The lower erosivity of throughfall in the bamboo
groves compared to that in the homegardens was the result of the
narrower driptips of bamboo leaves compared with the average width of
those in homegardens.
In another experiment, splash erosion was measured in a mixed garden,
in a bamboo grove and in an open space where the weeds and litter had
been removed (Soemarwoto and Soemarwoto, 1984). The erosion in an intact
mixed garden and bamboo grove was minimal, while in the open, erosion
increased sharply with higher rainfall intensities. When the litter and
lower-level crops of the mixed garden and the litter of the bamboo grove
were removed, erosion increased significantly in both types of garden.
The erosion curve of the mixed garden was a function of rainfall
intensity and was greater than that of the bamboo grove. This again was
due to the narrow driptips of the bamboo leaves. Clearly the erosive
effect of throughfall in agroforestry systems is generally higher than
that of incident rainfall and driptip, undergrowth and, especially,
litter are important factors in reducing the rate of erosion in such
systems (Wiersum, 1984).
Animals in homegardens are important elements in the cycling of
matter. In West Javanese villages plants, goats, sheep, horses, chicken
and fish, and also man, are components of the recycling of wastes. In
non-Muslim regions the pig plays the role offish. Thus man is an
integral part of the trophic system from which he obtains nutrients and
income (Soemarwoto et al, 1975). Naturally, there is a health hazard
attached to this recycling system. Therefore, although the recycling of
wastes does present an excellent opportunity for the efficient use of
resources and helps in the maintenance of soil fertility, it should not
be accepted uncritically.
Prospects and pitfalls
The fact that homegardens have existed for many centuries, if not
millenia, in some parts of the world shows that they are ingrained in
the tradition and culture of the peoples in those regions. In some parts
at least they have not shown any decline, e.g., in Indonesia. Data from
Java show that the total area under homegardens has increased from 1.398
million ha in 1933 to 1.417 million ha in 1937 (Terra, 1953)and 1,554
million ha in 1980 (Government of Indonesia, 1982), representing,
respectively, 18.0, 18.1 and 18.5 percent of the total agricultural
land. In areas which suffer from heavy soil erosion, such as in the
upper Solo River basin in Central Java, there are no visual symptoms of
soil erosion under homegardens while the fields outside the village are
heavily eroded. In a short survey in the Phu Wai watershed in Khon Kaen,
north-eastern Thailand, the author and his team also observed that in
the plantation forests and upland fields there was slight-to-severe soil
erosion, but there was almost no erosion under the homegardens.
Homegardens are also a rich genetic resource. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to conclude that homegardens are a sustainable production
system. Their socio-cultural functions and the recycling systems also
contribute to their sustainability. However, in general, this
sustainability prevails under conditions of low yield and input.
Therefore, if we wish to use the homegardens as a major tool to raise
the standard of living of the people to satisfactory levels, the
question arises whether the yield and the income from homegardens can be
significantly increased without sacrificing their sustainability.
The earlier-mentioned unpublished studies of Stoler showed that
homegardens responded positively to higher inputs of labour. Moreover,
introduction of new species as well as high yielding and
pest/disease-resistant varieties and/or selection of superior lines from
the existing stock, adoption of better planting techniques, and
post-harvest technology and marketing systems should be able to increase
yield and income from homegardens significantly.
Although many homegardens are traditional, especially in the rural
areas, they are not static but are capable of responding to new
opportunities or adapting to new conditions. For example, in samples of
homegardens of transmigrants in Lampung, Sumatra, who migrated from
Tulungagung, East Java, we found a total of 138 species, while in the
same number of samples in their village of origin we found only 69
species. Of these 138 species, 96 were acquired locally by the
transmigrants, and of these, 36 species had been obtained from the local
indigenous people. A majority of the transmigrants believed that local
plants grew better than the ones they took from their original village.
The homegardeners in the tourist areas who grow ornamental plants to
cater to tourist demand and obtain high economic returns are another
example of the ability of traditional people to respond to new
opportunities.
There are many examples of introduction of higher inputs and improved
technology in homegardens, both spontaneously carried out by the people
or stimulated by the government. Improved strains of fish, rabbits,
chickens, coconut, citrus, cloves and vegetables have been widely
introduced in Indonesian homegardens. The trees are planted in rows and
the annuals in blocks. Near to and in cities highly valued plants such
as orchids and animals such as poultry are raised. Fish and chickens are
not left untended, but are fed with high-quality feed, and the chickens
are vaccinated against diseases. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides are
increasingly being used. Many homegardeners have benefited greatly from
this development to the extent that they obtain their income solely or
primarily from their gardens — an income which is sufficient to support
a relatively comfortable life-style.
However, these developments also carry risks. These risks are
associated with the changes in the structure of homegardens, which in
turn bring about changes in their ecological as well as socio-economic
functions. Paying attention solely to the tangible economic and
nutritional gains of homegardens, and agroforestry in general, runs the
risk of sacrificing the intangible ecological and social values. For
example,. when market demand and price offered for a certain plant
product becomes high, the cultivation of that species will spread, often
replacing those species and varieties which are of little or no
immediate economic value. This causes a reduction in the complexity of
the homegarden and degeneration of its forest-like structure. In such
processes of commercialization, the highly nutritious, yet commercially
less valuable local vegetables are usually the first ones to go. It is
not easy to achieve homegarden development with both nutritional and
economic advantages.
In homegardens with low species diversity, harvesting becomes more
seasonal, instead of continuous. Its multifunctional characteristics
decline with a corresponding reduction in its versatility. Its function
as a living store from which one can harvest according to the nature and
time of need has been more or less lost. In these commercialized
homegardens control of species composition and harvest has changed from
being internal, i.e., by the gardeners themselves, to external, i.e., by
the market forces.
Commercialization causes a decline in the diversity of species and/or
varieties, and consequently the process of genetic erosion sets in. For
example, in the 1920s, 75 varieties of mango had been reported in the
Cirebon area in West Java; but in a recent survey in the same area we
found only 48 varieties. In Depok near Jakarta, where homegardeners have
specialized in commercial fruit growing, we found only one variety of
mango in a sample of 15 homegardens. In the same samples we found four
banana varieties, while in the rural interior not far from Jakarta there
were 25 varieties in a sample of the same number of homegardens.
The dominance of a certain crop on the farm increases the risk of
losses due to its specific pests and diseases. Although sometimes a
higher number of plant species can lead to an increase of pest losses,
the advantage of a species-rich polyculture is undoubtedly that the risk
of losses is spread among many species (Ewel, 1986).
In many homegardens with fruit trees, there are signs of soil
erosion, even though these homegardens are not monocultures and to a
certain extent they still retain the layered canopy structure but
without the low-growing, ground-covering crops. Often there was no
litter on the ground which led to severe erosion, for example, where
clove trees were dominant and the leaves were collected to be distilled
for their oil, and under coffee bushes where clean weeding was practised
to facilitate easy collection of the beans which fell on the ground.
Erosion was also often observed in homegardens in which vegetables were
grown in nutrition campaigns.
The availability of chemical fertilizers has reduced the need for
organic manures. Composting is deemed cumbersome and time consuming, and
its opportunity cost is considered high, while chemical fertilizers can
be bought easily in large or small quantities, as needed. As a result
the extent and intensity of the recycling systems are declining. This
reduces the efficiency of resource use and in the long run will also
affect soil structure and fertility.
The social functions have also been lost to a greater or lesser
extent. Fences are now often built for security reasons. Sharing of the
harvest and amenities of the garden, such as a well, is no longer a
common practice. Households have become more individualized and less
community-oriented. The concept of trespass is becoming more widespread.
Equitability has declined.
Refusal or resistance to improvement of the homegarden is also
common. These failures often happen when the opportunity cost is high,
when the growth requirements are not met, or when the introduced species
conflict with the interest of the people. For example, many poor people
have to use the labour of the whole family, i.e., husband, wife and
children, to earn money and cannot spare the time for gardening, even
though they know they can get some additional income or nutritious food.
Many vegetables, which have been recommended in nutrition campaigns,
require full sunlight or intensive cultivation for their growth and,
consequently, grow poorly in the shade or half-shade of trees or when
they are not well tended. These plants disappear soon after the campaign
ends, or more fortunately some of the heliophilic species or varieties
end up being planted on the dykes of rice fields.
An example of conflict between an introduced variety and the existing
homegarden structure and species association was the introduction of the
rapid-growing and high-yielding hybrid coconut. Traditionally the
coconut, which requires full sunlight for maximum production, occupied
the highest canopy. But the hybrid variety has a low growth habit and,
hence, it displaces the fruit trees, while the spatial niche above this
low hybrid becomes empty. As a result these plants are only grown at the
edges of homegardens, just to please the government officers. (Also see
Hoskins, this volume.)
From the above discussion we see that while there are many
opportunities and potentials for improving homegardens, there are many
risks associated with it if we proceed in a manner which only takes into
account the economic and nutrition aspects. A system has properties of
productivity, stability, equitability and sustainability (Conway, 1985).
These are being changed. High-yielding, but high-input and high-risk,
species and varieties increase productivity, but at the expense of
stability, equitability and sustainability. Pests and diseases,
market-price fluctuations and high seasonality reduce stability.
High-yielding, high-input, high-risk species and varieties tend to
increase inequitability. Inequitability adversely affects sustainability
(Crosson, 1986). Soil erosion and loss of soil fertility and genetic
erosion also reduce sustainability. Consequently, sustainability is
being jeopardized and, hence, long-term gains become questionable.
Erosion hazards can be dealt with relatively easily since the factors
influencing them are well known. Good ground cover and litter, or mulch,
are essential. Improved homegardens should be designed and managed in
such a way that they have both. Leaves with driptips are beneficial and,
as far as possible, efforts should be made to grow plants with such
leaves. A multilayer canopy structure is not a sine qua non, if the
above requirements are fulfilled. Therefore, we do not have to aim
specifically at having such a structure. Usually terracing is not
necessary, since land for settlements is made flat to facilitate easy
construction of the houses. But terracing will be necessary for homegardens which are located on slopes.
The needs of the people, present and future, and taking into account
their traditional and religious beliefs and ecological conditions,
should be the bases for the planning of species and varietal
composition. Whenever possible a combination of woody perennials and
annuals should be attempted since they combine the stability of a mature
system and the high productivity of an immature one. This would reduce
the need for high inputs which would therefore make such improved
homegardens more accessible to the poor. Usually the perennials play the
role of cash crops and the annuals food. The perennial trees will also
help the poor through lean periods (Chambers and Longhurst, 1986).
Since homegardens are a part of the total agro-ecosystem and linkages
exist between them and the other parts of the system, i.e., the rice and
the dry fields, their development cannot be considered in isolation.
Information on the agricultural calendar and the seasonality of
homegarden crops would enable us to design a species composition which
would improve the role of the homegarden so that it could fill in the
troughs of the lean periods and the seasonability of labour supply and
demand. Considering the earlier-mentioned study of Stoler (1975),
presumably the smaller farmers would be more responsive to providing
more labour for homegarden improvement than the larger ones.
In
conclusion we can say that homegardens do have a promising future.
However, while it is relatively easy to increase yields and income,
there are difficult problems in achieving long-term sustainability.
These difficulties are both in the biophysical and in the socio-economic
realm. It is recommended that ICRAF look into these problems and
stimulate research to seek appropriate solutions.
REFERENCES
Abdoellah, O.S. 1980. Structure of homegardens of Javanese and
Sundanese people in Bantarkalong. First degree thesis, Department of
Biology, Faculty of Science and Mathematics, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia (Indonesian).
Ahmad, H.,
A. Martadihardja and Suharto. 1980. Social and cultural aspect of
homegarden. In J.I.Furtado (ed.), Tropical ecology and 'development.
Kuala Lumpur: The International Society of Tropical Ecology, Kuala
Lumpur.
Ambar, S. 1986. Aspects of vegetation and land use in the
erosion process in the Jutiluhur lake catchment, West Java. Doctoral
thesis. Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia.
Anderson, E. 1954. Reflections on certain
Honduran gardens. Landscape 4: 21-23.
Asare,
E.O., S.K. Oppong and K. Twung-Ampofo. 1985. Homegardens (backyard
gardens) in the humid tropics of Ghana. In Proceedings of the First
International Workshop on Tropical Homegardens. Bandung, Indonesia: UN
University and Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University (in press).
Brierley, J.S. 1985. West Indian kitchen gardens: A historial
perspective with current insights from Grenada. Food and Nutrition
Bulletin 7: 52-60.
Brownrigg, L. 1985. Homegardening in international
development: What the literature shows. Washington, D.C.: The League for International Food Education (LIFE).
Chambers, R. and R. Longhurst. 1986. Trees, seasons and the poor.
Institute of Development Studies Bulletin (University of Sussex) 17:
44-50.
Chapman, G. 1948. Size of raindrops and
their striking force at the soil surface in a red pine plantation.
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 29: 664-670.
Christanty, L., M. Hadyana, Sigit and Priyono. 1980. Light distribution
in a Sundanese homegarden. Paper presented at the seminar on the Ecology of Homegardens III.
Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia
(Indonesian).
Conway, G.R. 1985. Agroecosystem analysis. Agricultural
Administration 20: 31-55.
Covich, A. and N.H. Nickerson. 1966. Studies
of cultivated plants in Chogo dwelling clearings, Darien, Panama. Economic Botany 20: 285-301.
Crosson, P. 1986.
Sustainable food production. Food Policy: 143-156.
Danoesastro, H. 1980.
The role of homegarden as a source of additional daily income. Paper
presented at the seminar on the Ecology of Homegardens III. Institute of
Ecology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia (Indonesian).
Ewel, J.J.
1986. Designing agricultural ecosystems for the humid tropics. Ann. Rev.
Ecol. Syst. 17: 245-271.
Falanruw, M.V.C. 1985. The traditional food
production system of Yap Islands. In Proceedings of the First
International Workshop on Tropical Homegardens. Bandung, Indonesia: UN
University and Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University (in press).
Fernandes, E.C.M. and P.K.R. Nair. 1986. An evaluation of the structure
and function of tropical homegardens. Agricultural Systems 21: 179-310.
Fernandes, E.C.M., A. OTctingati and J. Maghembe. 1984. The Chagga
homegardens: A multi- storeyed agroforestry cropping system on Mt.
Kilimanjaro, Northern Tanzania. Agro-forestry Systems 2: 73-86.
Gonzales-Jacomes, A. 1981. Homegardens in Central Mexico, their
relationship with water control and their articulation to major society
through productivity, labour, and market. In Prehistoric Intensive
Agriculture in the Tropics. Canberra: Australian National University.
Government of Indonesia. 1983. Statistics of Indonesia. Central Bureau
of Statistics, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Haryadi, M.M.S.S. 1975. Potential contribution of
homegardening to nutrition intervention program in Indonesia. Seminar on Food and Nutrition, Gadjah Mada
University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Hutterer, K.L. 1984. Ecology and evolution of
agriculture in Southeast Asia. In T.A. Rambo and P.E. Sajise (eds.), An
introduction to human ecology research on agricultural systems in
Southeast Asia. Los Banos, Philippines: University of the Philippines.
Jacob, V.J. and W.S. Alles. 1987. Kandyan gardens of Sri Lanka.
Agroforestry Systems 5:123-137.
Kamtuo, A., K. Lertrat and A. Wilariat.
1985. Traditional homegardening in Hinland village, Khon Kaen Province,
Northeast Thailand. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop n
Tropical Homegardens. Bandung, Indonesia: UN University and Institute of
Ecology, Padjadjaran University (in press).
Karyono, E. 1981. Homegarden
structure in rural areas of the Citarum watershed, West Java. Doctoral thesis, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia.
Kimber,
C.T. 1973. Spatial patterning in the dooryard gardens of Puerto Rico.
Geographical Review 6: 6-26.
Laws. J.O. 1941. Measurements of the fall-velocities of
water drops and raindrops. Washington, B.C.: U.S. Soil Conservation
Service.
Leuschner, W.A. and K. Khalique. 1987. Homestead agroforestry
in Bangladesh. Agroforestry Systems 5: 139-151.
Lundgren, B.O. and J.B.
Raintree. 1983. Sustained agroforestry. In B. Nestel (ed.), Agricultural
Research for Development: Potentials and Challenges in Asia. The Hague:
ISNAR.
Nair, M.A. and C. Sreedharan. 1986. Agroforestry farming systems
in the homesteads of Kerala, southern India. Agroforestry Systems 4:
339-363.
Ninez, V. 1985. Working at half-potential: Constructive
analysis of home garden programmes in the Lima slums with suggestions
for an alternative approach. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7: 6-14.
Noor,
Z.M. 1981. The effect of various light intensities on the physiological
and morphological characteristics of taleuspadang (Xanthosoma
atrovirens). First degree thesis, Faculty of Science and Mathematics,
Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia.
Omta, S.W.F. and F.T.J.M.
Fortuin. 1978. The cultivation ofSolanum nigrum L. as a leaf and fruit vegetable in the homegardens of West Java: Surveys and experiments.
Bandung; Indonesia: Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University, and
Groningen, Netherlands:Department of Plant Physiology, Groningen State
University.
Ochse, J.J. and G.J.A. Terra. 1937. The economic aspect of
the "Koetawinangoen report". Landbouw 13: 54-67 (Dutch).
Penny, D.H. and M. Singarimbun. 1973.
Population and poverty in ruralJava: Some arithmetics from Sriharjo.
Ithaca, New York: Department of Agricultural Economics, New York State University.
Poerwadarminta, W.J.S. 1976. General dictionary of the
Indonesian language. Jakarta: PN Balai Pustaka (Indonesian).
Ramsay, D.M. and K.F. Wiersum. 1974. Problem of
watershed management and development in the Upper Solo River Basin.
Paper presented at the Conference on Ecological Guidelines for Forest,
Land and Water Resources, Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia.
Simoons, P.J. 1965. Two Ethiopian gardens.
Landscape 6: 15-20. Soemarwoto, O. and I.
Soemarwoto. 1984. The Javanese
rural ecosystem. In A.T. Rambo and P.E. Sajise (eds.), An introduction to human ecology research on
agricultural systems in Southeast Asia. Los Banos, Philippines:
University of the Philippines.
Soemarwoto O., I. Soemarwoto, E. Karyono,
E.M. Soekartadiredja and A. Ramlan. 1975. The Javanese homegarden as an
integrated agroecosystem. In Science for a Better Environment. Tokyo,
Japan: Science Council of Japan.
Sommers, P. 1985. Advancing Pacific Island food gardening systems.
Some observations and suggestions. Paper presented at the First
International Workshop on Tropical Home-garden. Bandung, Indonesia: UN
University and Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University.
Stoler, A. 1975. Garden use and household consumption patterns in a
Javanese village. Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New
York.
Terra, G.J.A. 1954. Mixed garden horticulture in Java. Malayan J.
Trop. Geogr. 4: 33-43.
Terra, G.J.A. and S. Satiadiredja. 1941. Results of a third
budget-research in the district of Koetowinangoen. Landbouw 17: 137-178
(Dutch).
Thaman, R.R. 1984. Urban agriculture and home gardening in Fiji: A
direct road to development and independence. Transactions and
Proceedings of the Fiji Society 14.
——.1985. Mixed gardening in the Pacific Islands: Present status and
future prospects. Paper presented at the First International Workshop on
Tropical Homegarden. Bandung, Indonesia: UN University and Institute of
Ecology, Padjadjaran University.
Wagner, P.L. 1958. Nicoya: A cultural geography. University of
California Publication in Geography, Vol. 12, No. 3.
Wiersum, K.F. 1984.
Surface erosion under various tropical agroforestry systems. Paper
presented at the Symposium on the Effects of Forest Land Use on Erosion
and Slope Stability, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Williamson, G.S. 1981. Driptips and splash erosion. Biotropica 13:
228-231.
Yoda, K. 1974. Three dimensional distribution of light intensity in a
tropical rainforest in West Malaysia. Japanese J. Ecol. 24: 247-254.
|
