CONTRIBUTION OF HOME GARDENS TO RURAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN RAYMOND MHLABA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, PROVINCE,

By

ALAKA KOLAWOLE .O

(201407116)

Project Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Agriculture (Agricultural Economics)

Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Faculty of Science and Agriculture University of Fort Hare Alice

SUPERVISOR: Professor Ajuruchukwu Obi

January , 2017

i

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this dissertation is the result of my own original work and has not previously been submitted to another university for the purpose of a degree. Where use has been made of the work of others, such work has been duly acknowledged in this text.

Signed ………………………………………… Date: ……………………………..

I, Alaka kolawole.O, student number 201407116, hereby declare that I am fully aware of the University of Fort Hare’s policy on plagiarism and I have taken every precaution to comply with the regulations.

Signature: ………………………………………………

I, Alaka Kolawole.O, student number 201407116, hereby declare that I am fully aware of the University of Fort Hare’s policy on research ethics and I have taken every precaution to comply with the regulations. I have obtained an ethical clearance certificate from the University of Fort Hare’s Research Ethics Committee and my reference number is the following: ………………………………….

Signature: …………………………………

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my supervisor Professor Ajuruchukwu Obi, from the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, at University of Fort hare; for his supervision, guidance, support, patience, and helpful comments, positive and constructive criticism. Without his support, it would have been impossible to complete this study. May the Lord keep and bless you Sir in all dimensions of your life.

The financial support of the ARC-supported Collaboration Centre on Smallholder Farmer Development is gratefully acknowledged. As well, I thank the Research and Development Centre of the University of Fort Hare for financial assistance throughout the period of this study.

To all the respondents, who gave up their time in completing an ample and detailed questionnaire i am thankful, your contribution made it possible for me to compile this work, and it would have been impossible without your willingness to cooperate. Thank you very much. A word of appreciation is owed to all those who assisted me in terms of data collection, Dr Bongiwe Mcata and those who gave their time to make contribution to this study especially my friends around the campus with the data analysis of this project. My family deserve my gratitude for their deepest care and guidance in life. To my parents you will always be my hero.

iii

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated:

Firstly, to God Almighty, who showered His grace on me to accomplish the task of pursuing and completing a Master’s degree.

To Him be all the glory and adoration, great things He has done, greater things He will do. Secondly, to all those individuals who contributed to my academic success up to this point in time I thank you.

iv

ABSTRACT

For decades, home gardens have proved to be significant to rural inhabitants by providing a wide range of useful products such as fruits, vegetables and medicine, but there is lack of quantitative information on its benefits and its contributions to income of rural household. The main objective of this study is to investigate contributions of home garden to income of rural household in Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality, formerly Nkonkobe Local Municipality of Eastern South Africa. The stratified random sampling method was applied in order to choose a sample of 160 household that were interviewed by means of semi-structured questionnaires. The study was conducted among 80 households engaging in home gardens and 80 non- participating households in the study area. Frequencies and mean were used to describe the general characteristics of the households as well as ownership patterns of home gardens. In order to determine the factors that influence home gardens ownership binary logistic regression model was used. The overall model show that level of education, total household income and access to land significantly affects ownership of the home garden positively. Social grant has the highest contributions to total household income for both category while income generated from home garden has the second largest share to total household income, this show that the majority of rural households in the study area rely on social grant as their source of income. Cabbage, spinach, potatoes and carrots were the dominant crops in home gardens. In view of research findings, there is still a wide room for further improvement in home gardens practises in study area. Contrary to expectations, home gardens have the potential to improve livelihood significantly if the rural households take the necessary steps to make the production more sustainable. Based on research findings several policy proposals are suggested. These include investment in agricultural programmes that will empower the rural households like Massive food projects, Siyazondla and related home garden initiatives. Home garden is the major source of food and income generation in Raymond Mhlaba Municipality. Therefore, government should provide sufficient credit facilities, extension services together with marketing arrangement in the area.

Keywords: home gardens, households home gardening and factors influencing ownership of home gardens

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii DEDICATION ...... iv ABSTRACT ...... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vi LIST OF TABLES ...... x LIST OF FIGURES...... xi LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS ...... xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background information ...... 1 1.2 Problem statement ...... 2 1.3 Objectives of the study ...... 3 1.4 Research questions ...... 4 1.5 Research hypotheses ...... 4 1.6 Justification of the study ...... 4 1.7 Outline of the dissertation ...... 5 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 6 2.1 Introduction ...... 6 2.2 Definition of terms ...... 6 2.3 Reason for home gardens ...... 9 2.4 Experience of home gardens from developing countries ...... 11 2.5 Home gardens Management ...... 13 2.6 Benefit derived from home garden among rural household ...... 14 2.6.1 Supplement household food ...... 14 2.6.2 Employment and income generation ...... 15 2.6.3 Reduce household expenditure on food purchases ...... 15 2.6.4 Contribution of home gardening to food security ...... 16 2.6.5 Gender effect on home gardens owner and biodiversity in home gardens ...... 16 2.6.6 Home gardens and household dietary diversity ...... 17

vi

2.6.7 Ecological and social economic sustainability of home gardens ...... 18 2.7 Factors that militates against practice of home gardens ...... 19 2.7.1 Lack of inputs ...... 19 2.7.2 Water access...... 20 2.7.3 Access to land ...... 20 2.7.4 Lack of knowledge ...... 21 2.7.5 Markets ...... 22 2.7.6 Fencing material and theft ...... 22 2.7.7 HIV/ AIDS problem ...... 22 2.7.8 Incidences of pests and diseases...... 23 2.7.9 Lack of credit facilities and reliable markets ...... 23 2.8 Conceptual framework of the study ...... 24 2.9 Chapter Summary ...... 25 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 26 3.1 Introduction ...... 26 3.2 Descriptions of the study Area ...... 26 3.3 Description of Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality ...... 29 3.3.1 History of Raymond Mhlaba Municipality ...... 30 3.3.2 Livelihood ...... 31 3.3.3 Population ...... 32 3.3.4 Gender distribution ...... 33 3.3.5 Climate and vegetation ...... 34 3.4 Socio-economic status ...... 34 3.5 Economic activities ...... 35 3.6 Agricultural profile ...... 35 3.7 Research design ...... 36 3.8 Conceptual model of contribution of home gardens to rural household household income36 3.9 Data ...... 38 3.10 Data variable specification ...... 38 3.11 Sampling technique and sample size ...... 41 3.12 Data collection ...... 42 3.12.1 Questionnaire coding ...... 42

vii

3.12.2 Reliability and validity of result ...... 42 3.13 Analytical framework ...... 43 3.13.1 Socio- economic characteristics of the household...... 43 3.13.2 Crops grown in the home gardens ...... 43 3.13.3 Factors influencing ownership of the home gardens ...... 44 3.13.4 Determinants of contributions of livelihood source of income ...... 46 3.14 Limitation of the study ...... 47 3.15 Chapter Summary ...... 47 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 49 4.1 Introduction ...... 49 4.2 Demographic characteristics of sampled households ...... 49 4.2.1 Distribution of households by household size ...... 50 4.2.2 Distribution of households by age of the household head ...... 51 4.2.3 Distribution of households by number of years of schooling of the household head ...... 51 4.2.4 Distribution of households by gender of the household head ...... 52 4.2.5 Distribution of households by occupation of the household head ...... 53 4.3 Distribution of households by monthly income of household head ...... 54 4.4 Household income sources ...... 55 4.5 Socio economic factors affecting practices of home garden ...... 56 4.5.1 Distribution of households by land ownership of household head ...... 56 4.5.2 Distribution of households by land size of household head ...... 57 4.5.3 Distribution of households by source of water to irrigate garden ...... 58 4.5.4 Distribution of households by the method of cultivation in home garden ...... 59 4.5.5 Distribution of household by the implement of ownership ...... 60 4.5.6 Distribution of households by the livestock ownership ...... 61 4.5.7 Distribution of households by the access to extension services ...... 61 4.5.8 Distribution of households by the access to credit services ...... 62 4.5.9 Distribution of households by the types of labour use ...... 63 4.5.10 Distribution of households by the types of Crops grown in home garden ...... 64 4.5.11 Distribution of households by the reasons for growing the crops ...... 65 4.5.12 Distribution of households by the challenges facing household in their garden66

viii

4.6 Factors influencing ownership of the home gardens ...... 67 4.7 Contribution of livelihoods sources of income to total household income ...... 70 4.8 Chapter Summary ...... 73 CHAPTER FIVE: ...... 74 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS ...... 74 5.1 Introduction ...... 74 5.2 Summary ...... 74 5.2.1 Background and problem Statement ...... 74 5.2.2 Literature Review ...... 75 5.2.3 Methodology ...... 75 5.2.4 Results of Descriptive statistics analysis ...... 76 5.2.5 Results of Binary logistic regression model ...... 76 5.2.6 Result from T-test and one - ANOVA ...... 76 5.3 Conclusions ...... 77 5.4 Policy implications and recommendations ...... 77 5.6 Areas of further research ...... 78 REFERENCES ...... 79 APPENDIX ...... 95 HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE...... 95

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table3.1: Population density (number of people per km2) ...... 32

Table 3.1: Variables that were used in the binary logistic regression model ...... 38

Table 3.2: Summary of study objective and analytical tools...... 47

Table 4.1: Demographic characteristics for participant and non- participants in home garden49

Table 4.3: Methods of cultivation on home gardens ...... 60

Table 4.4: Distribution of households by livestock owned ...... 61

Table 4.5: Maximum likelihood estimates of the binary logistic model for factors influencing household home garden ownership ...... 68

Table 4.6: Contributions of livelihoods sources of income to total household income ...... 70

Table 4.7: T-test results for the contributions of livelihood source to total household income71

Table 4.8 Test of variation in model (ANOVA) ...... 73

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework of home garden ownership ...... 25

Figure 3.1: South Africa - Eastern Cape Province Map ...... 28

Figure 3.2: The Eastern Cape Province Map showing the study areas ...... 30

Figure 3.3: Age structure ...... 33

Figure 3.4: Gender distribution ...... 34

Figure 3.5 Conceptual model of contributions of home gardens to income of rural household37

Figure 4.1: Distribution households by gender of the household head ...... 53

Figure 4.2: Distribution of households by occupation of household head ...... 54

Figure4.3:Distribution of households by monthly income of the household head ...... 55

Figure 4.4: Distribution of households by different income source of the household head ... 56

Figure4.5: Distributions of the households by land ownership of the household head ...... 57

Figure 4.6: Land size...... 58

Figure 4.7: Source of water ...... 59

Figure 4.8: Implement of ownership ...... 60

Figure 4.9: Distribution of households by access to extension services ...... 62

Figure 4.10: Distribution of households by accessto credit services ...... 63

Figure 4.11: Source of labour of the household in the study area ...... 64

Figure 4.12: Types of crops grown in the home gardens ...... 65

Figure 4.13: Household reasons for growing crops ...... 66

Figure 4.14: Distribution of households by challenges facing households in their garden .... 67

xi

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

AIDS – Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

AGRI- BEE- Black Economic Empowerment

CASP – Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme

DAFF – Department of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries

DLA-Department of Land Affairs

DPRU – Development Policy Research Unit

EU - European Union

FAO – Food and Agricultural Organization

GDP – Gross Domestic Product

HIV – Human Immunodeficiency Virus

IFAD – International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFSS – Integrated Food Security Strategy

MDG- Millennium Development Goals

NGO – Non-government Organization

RHG – Rural Home Garden

RNHG – Rural Non-Home Garden

SADC - Southern Africa Development Community

UN- United Nations

WFP – World Food Programme

WHO – World Health Organization

xii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background information

Home garden has been described as an important social and economic unit of rural households, from which a diverse and stable supply of economic products and benefits are derived (Shackleton et al., 2008). Plant products harvested from home garden improve the family nutritional status, health, and food security. Some of the plant products are sold in local and regional market, thus improving the family’s financial status (Gari, 2003). A home garden is therefore, part of household’s livelihood strategy and has gained prominence as natural asset through which sustainable use of resources, particularly for the livelihood may be achieved. Thus home garden are important to rural households because they provide income and sustenance throughout the year from the diversity of crops contained within them, which are harvested at different times.

The contribution of home gardens practices is well appreciated throughout the world (Kebebew et al., 2011). Globally, famine and starvation are knocking with speed. As the world population expands the food problem has become increasingly severe, with the number of those malnourished reaching 3 billion (Olajide et al., 2010). During the period of 2003 until now, Africa’s rate of population growth has been higher than the rate of food production (Bishaw and Abdelkadir, 2003). Despite the identification of food security as an important policy goal in Africa, too many African countries continue to be food insecure especially among the urban-poor (Olajide et al., 2010). This can be reversed through conscious integration of the home gardens strategy into rural and urban development (Krishnal et al., 2012). Home garden practises provide an additional food supply and cash income for the people (Das and Das, 2005). For example in Indonesia and Nicaragua, home gardens contributed 21.1% and 35% of their total income respectively (Tynsong and Tiwari, 2010).

These gardens enhance food security directly by enabling families to have a diversity of nutritionally rich food, increased purchasing power from savings on food bills and

1 income from sales of garden products as well as fall back food provision during seasonal lean periods (FAO, 2010). Koyenikan (2007) pointed out that households instituted home gardens since there are benefits attained such as an increase in household food production, improved health status of the household, income generation and nutrition. In addition, they make use of the available space of land and partake in home gardening as a hobby. Women are the ones that establish and manage these home gardens while men focus on farming and cattle (Finerman and Sackett, 2003).

Faber et al. (2010) established that households which do not partake in home gardening (i.e. grow their own vegetables) also benefit from their community-based agricultural interventions and neighbours. To this end, food gardens become an important source of social capital, which has far-reaching implications in improving the life prospects amongst the rural dwellers. Thus, home gardens are important to families because they provide income and sustenance throughout the year from the diversity of crops contained within them, which are harvested at different times. Mula and Gayao (1991) assert that the cultural value attached to home gardens has been reinforced by their important contribution to household food security over the past 50 years.

In contemporary South Africa, income is the principal determinant of household food security (Kirsten, May, Hendricks, Lyne, Machete, & Punts, 2007). For monetary income African black rural households mainly depend on sources other than farming, including claims against the state, wage earnings, remittances by kin who live and work elsewhere, and petty trade (Carter & May, 1999; Crookes,2003). To this end, this study aims to investigate the contribution of home gardening to rural household income.

1.2 Problem statement

Much investment has been channelled towards home gardens by several stakeholders under the assumption of poverty and income generation. However, no significant improvement in those areas where home gardens have been funded and encouraged. This raises questions on actual contributions of home gardens to rural household income. Government has initiated a number of programmes to empower rural

2 households like Agri- BEE Siyazondla food programme, Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP), which targets mostly rural dwellers, despite all these programmes rural livelihoods are still not improving (Department of Rural development and agrarian reform, 2011). While government is still committed to improving rural households and supporting them to acquire the necessary skills to participate productively in the economic life of their communities, there is little information regarding the appropriate policies that can improve rural livelihoods (Aliber and Hart, 2009). It will be of great importance to know if home garden is a livelihood strategy that could be used in generating income in rural communities.

The extent to which home gardening contributes to rural household incomes is not clear. Home gardens serve as additional source of food and income for farmers but not much is known about the respective contribution of home gardens in South Africa, as they have not drawn the kind of attention they merit from researchers. Therefore there is need to identify and develop economic viable livelihoods through practise of home gardens. This study aims to quantify the contribution of home gardening to rural households’ income. This work is important as it will provide information on how best stakeholders can intervene for an improved food security status and a sustainable livelihood for the rural households.

1.3 Objectives of the study

The broad objective of this study is to investigate the contributions of home gardens to rural household income in Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality, Eastern cape- South Africa.

The specific objectives of the study were to:

 To examine the socio- economic characteristics of the rural households in study area .  To identify the crops produced by rural households in their home gardens and reasons for growing them.  To Investigate factors influencing ownership of home gardens in the study area.  To determine the contributions of livelihood sources of income to total household income

3

1.4 Research questions

 What are the socio- economic characteristics of the rural households in the study area?  Which crops are being cultivated in the home gardens?  What are the factors that influence ownership of the home gardens in the study area?  Which livelihood sources of income contributes most to total household income?

1.5 Research hypotheses

The research will seek to test the following hypotheses:

 H0:β1,β2,β3...... βn = Access to land, inputs and access to water does not influence the practise of home gardens.

 HA: β1,β2,β3………βn ҂ Access to land, inputs and access to water influence the practise of home gardens.

1.6 Significance of the study

The study will provide new insight to better understanding of how home gardens can be used as a livelihood strategy in rural area, by looking at its contributions to rural household income. It will also provide information on opportunities and constraints facing home gardens in the study area. Therefore, it could give insight on required effort to enhance the production and utilization of home gardens in order to bring about the economic development in the area. The information generated could also help a number of organisations including research and development organisations, policy makers, extension service providers, government and non -governmental organisations to assess their activities and redesign their mode of operations and ultimately influence the design and implementation of policies and strategies. The research can also open up new avenues for future research and can act as reference to future researchers who may have desire to improve quality of rural livelihoods in South Africa and anywhere else in the world.

4

1.7 Outline of the dissertation

This study is made up of five chapters. Chapter one introduces what the dissertation is all about, defines the key terms of the study and provides the background of the study. Chapter two discusses the literature review which is all about the readings that have been done in the past regards to the topic; in this chapter, the literature relevant to the contribution of home gardening and factors that affect the practise of home gardens were discussed. The third chapter deals with the description of the study area and methodology, which describes how the data were collected and analysed. Chapter four presents the results of the findings. Lastly, chapter five summarises the findings made from the study, and it encompasses the conclusion and recommendations which emerged from the study.

5

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews literature in line with related specific objectives of the study. The chapter went further to discuss the importance of home gardens as a livelihood strategy for the rural households. However, the review recognises the questions that might arise on the reason why rural households engaged in home gardens and provides an insight to it .Finally the chapter reviews a numbers of empirical studies that have been done to test the conceptual model linking home gardening activities to income generation and household welfare.

2.2 Functions of Home gardens

The area around home, which consists cultivated and non- cultivated plant species, is commonly identified as “home garden”. Back yard gardens and front gardens are synonyms to the home gardens, which are used in different part of the world (FAO, 2006). Plants products harvested from home gardens improve the family’s nutritional status, health, and food security. Some of the plants products are sold in local and regional markets, thus improving family financial status. The marketing of home gardens products by rural households and small-scale farmers have been identified as a potential means of poverty alleviation. (shackleton et al.,2008). A home garden is part of a livelihood strategy and has therefore, gained prominence as a natural asset through which sustainable use of resources, particularly for the livelihood of the poor may be achieved.

The home garden is a small-scale ‘supplementary’ food production system (Hoogerbrugge and Fresco, 1993), located within the homestead or within a 10-minute walk from the homestead, continuously cultivated by and for household members, and comprised of a complex and diverse mixture of annual and perennial plants and livestock (Mohan et al.,2007). The average size of the home garden area is characteristically less than that of a cultivated field, and home garden produce, which is available continuously, is harvested on a daily basis or seasonal from one or several

6 plants (Fernandés and Nair, 1986; Hoogerbrugge and Fresco, 1993). Home garden crops supplement household subsistence requirements and generate cash income by selling surplus produce and cash crops. The choice of home garden crops is determined by the availability of household labour, household’s dietary preferences and the need for cash income (Abdoellah et al., 2006).

The household is defined as a group of persons who live together in the same house or compound and share the same housekeeping arrangement and are catered for as one unit (GSS, 2002). Rural households are directly dependent upon their immediate environment and their own skills to obtain the daily necessities of life such as food (Rocheleau, 1985).

Silwana (2000) defined a homestead as an operational farming unit in which a number of crops (including tree crops) are cultivated and livestock and poultry produced, all for satisfying the farmer’s basic needs. Mixed farming practiced by traditionally African people involves in the production of both crops and animals on three types of land, namely residential, arable and commonage. According to Silwana (2000), residential land is used for home gardening, while arable allotments are used to produce staple food crops such as maize, dry beans, pumpkins and melons, which are often produced, by using a mixed cropping system. During the fallow periods, arable lands play a significant role in livestock production by providing fodder to animals in the form of crop residues and weeds (Bennett, 2002) and as a source of wild leafy vegetables (McAllister, 2001). The commonage is used for the production of small and large livestock, mainly cattle, goats and sheep and for the collection of plant materials for various uses including food in the form of fruit, edible herbs and firewood (Schackleton et al., 2000; Schackleton, 2003)

Baipheti and Jacobs (2009) have mentioned that in the past, rural inhabitants used to be dependent on own produced food and other farm activities which dominated their livelihoods, while urban inhabitants were characterised by purchasing their food from the markets. Therefore, home gardens can be an important method that can be used by a household for food production.

Musotsi et al.,. (2008) argues that for the majority of people in the developing world, home gardening remains the most important method of food production. The daily

7 nutritional and healthy food required by household’s member can be obtained from home garden production. Therefore, home gardens play a vital role to household food security. Koyenikan (2007) argued that households instituted home gardens since there are benefits attained such as increase in household food production, improved health status of the household, income generation and nutrition.

Chivu (2014), also contends that gardens generate income through marketing of surplus produce and from the savings created by producing items that were formerly purchased. The small amount of cash income that home gardens provides can make the vital difference between relative well-being and hardship, crippling debt and starvation in cash poor communities

Marsh (2007) stated that home gardens have multiple potential benefits, which are vital, such as direct increased access to nutritious food-by-food insecure households. Home gardening contributes to food security by providing food that can be utilized by households on a daily basis (e.g., food is harvested, prepared and fed to household members). Home gardening can be done using only the available local planting material, green manures, fencing and indigenous pest control methods without virtually any economic resources (Marsh, 2007).

Monde et al. (2006), also contends that home gardens provide food needed by the family members and staple products, such as maize, make up the rural household diet. The maize is consumed whilst still green (fresh maize) as a vegetable, when it is dry it is converted to maize meal. Animals also benefit since some of the produce is fed to livestock, which is kept around the homestead. Examples of these animals are chickens, pigs, sheep and goats (Monde et al.,. 2006). Seti (2003) pointed out that poverty is the main thing that pushes people to cultivate their gardens since people who are able to buy foodstuffs and other essentials or people who are well off do not find the need to cultivate. There is great dependency on social grants and pension by the rural people, due to the unemployment problem (Seti, 2003).

Participating in home gardening helps those households that rely on pension to have something to eat when the pension date has not arrived and the household has run out of food. This also augments the pension received. Tynsong and Tiwari (2010) outlined that self-sufficiency and a subsistence economy can be attained through

8 home gardening since it is a vital source of income for many rural households. The income gained from home gardens depends on the size, number of marketable crops as well as their management regime. Monde et al. (2006) mention that neighbours and friends are the people that a portion of the garden produce is sold to, and the money attained through selling can either be used to purchase other household food products as well as other essential household needs, such as children’s school fees. Home gardening also allows households to have access to other food commodities such as sugar, flour and rice that they cannot produce in their own areas. Households attain such commodities by buying them from urban markets with the income made from selling of their produce (Monde et al., 2006).

2.3 Reason for home gardens

Development policymakers in favour of field-based commercially oriented agriculture have overlooked small-scale home gardening as a food production strategy (RUDEP, 2004). However, few have benefited from large-scale production orientated programs biased towards landowners and dependent on costly industrial inputs.

RUDEP (2004) mentioned that the following are the reasons why gardens are important in the smallholder agriculture.

•Homestead or underutilized marginal land is often the only resource available to landless and near -landless groups and urban slum dwellers. Intensive gardening can turn this land into a productive source of food and economic security. There are few if any barriers to adoption of intensive household production using organic manure, regenerative agricultural practices and locally adapted societies. The technology entails very little capital investment and because of the marginal nature of resources used and variety of crop grown, carries very little risk. Thus, gardening reaches even those poorest in the villages.

• As an efficient user of soil, water, sunlight and household waste to realize high and sustained yields, home gardens exemplify the relationship between intensification of land use and higher yield. In semi-arid areas where low and erratic rainfall has made the introduction of vegetables farms into difficult task, water conserving garden systems that recycle water used in the home can achieve substantial production.

9

Gardens generate income through the marketing of surplus produce and from the savings created by producing items that were formerly purchased. The small amounts of cash income that home gardens provide can make the vital difference between relative well-being and hardship, crippling debt and starvation in cash poor societies.

• Limited access to resources means that land-poor women are more likely to be under-employed. Home gardening offers women an important means of earning incomes without overtly challenging cultural and social restrictions on their activities. Since women are frequently the principal providers for family diets, enhancing their purchasing power and food production capacity has a direct impact on household nutrition and health.

• Home gardens can be ecologically sound land management systems. Multi-cropping prevents depletion of soil nutrition; the combination of trees, shorter plants, creepers and tubers enhances soil conservation. An advantage of poly-cropped, intensively managed gardens planted with locally adapted species is their primary reliance on cultivation practices rather than toxic chemicals to control weeds, pests and diseases.

Household food production will rarely poison people or the environment - a serious problem in agrochemical intensive field based agriculture. Traditional-style home gardens are also crucial repositories of diverse plant genetic resources.

• Among low-income households the factors of production, including time, energy, money, and land are available in small discrete increments through time and space. Accumulation of these factors to make larger investments can be difficult. Home gardens are a very efficient way to use these resources without competing with staple crop production or other productive activities. Labour inputs effectively utilize small amounts of the spare time of family members, especially women, children and the elderly, and can be conveniently combined with childcare and domestic tasks.

•Gardening can contribute to vitamin A through production of vegetables. Vitamin A deficiency contributes not only to exophthalmia and blindness, but to high child mortality rates as well. Lasting long-term solutions to vitamin A deficiency rest on increasing the availability of vitamin A- rich foods to the most vulnerable groups. Household cultivation of vegetable and fruits can be an effective solution to vitamin

10 deficiency. In short, support for small-scale family food production can provide improve health and economic benefits to the most deprived sectors of the developing world population at a relatively low cost while safeguarding the environment.

2.4 Experience of home gardens from developing countries

In many cases, sales of products produced in home gardens significantly improve the family’s financial status. For example, in west Java as much as two- third of the home gardens production is reported to be sold (Jensen,1993; wilsom 1995), while in South Africa 28% of such products were sold, the remainder being used for household consumption (Shackleton, 2000). InIndonesia and Nicaragua home gardens contributed 21.1% and 35% of their total income respectively (Tysong and Tiwari, 2010). In south - west Bangladesh and north- eastern Bangladesh, an average of 15.9% and 11.8% of household income is derived from home gardens respectively (Motiur et al., 2005). Hence, generally home gardens play a general role in income generation. Home gardens with high plant diversity directly or indirectly gives enormous economic values to the household.

Gilimani (2005) stated that home gardens are directly positively correlated with household economy. Interdisciplinary analysis of home gardens in Nicaragua ( Mendez , 2001) found that all of the families accept the home garden’s role as a place to relax , socialise and enjoy shade and where children could play safely . All these directly and indirectly contribute to household socio – economic status.

Home gardens, although primarily used for subsistence purposes of the household, are increasingly being used to generate cash income (Christanty, 1990; Mendez et al., 2001). It is a common misconception that home gardens are exclusively subsistence- oriented, whereas in fact home gardens provide households with cash crops as well as food crops (Hoogerbrugge and Fresco, 1993). Returns to land and labour are often higher for home gardens than for field agriculture (Marsh, 1998). The quantity of home garden production that is actually sold is highly variable differing from one household to another. In a study of home gardens, Hoogerbrugge and Fresco, (1993) reported that between nine percent and fifty-one percent of production is sold while (Okigbo, 1990) reported that sale of livestock and tree crops produced on home gardens in south eastern Nigeria accounted for over 60 percent of family cash income.

11

A study of urban and rural households in three Russian provinces found that two-thirds of all households obtained some income from home garden (FAO, 2004). In the Helen Keller International (HKI) home garden project in Bangladesh, fifty-four percent of households reported selling home garden products and earning the cash equivalent of 14.8 percent of total average monthly income (HKI/AP, 2003 cited in FAO, 2004). In addition to direct earnings from sale of home garden products, production consumed by the household frees up household earnings for other purchases. In the Bangladesh HKI home garden project, the income value of home garden production increased from fourteen percent of average monthly income to twenty-five percent after taking into account purchased fruits and vegetables (Marsh, 1998). A study of urban home gardens in the Philippines revealed that home gardening families spend less on food than non-gardening families, while home gardening families who plant a larger number of varieties of fruits and vegetables spend even less (Miura, 2003).

Animal component – Livestock

Animals are a very important component of almost all home gardens. Since most people keep animals on extensive basis, it is not too difficult or expensive to practice. Livestock contribute significantly to the household income of small-scale home gardens in many developing countries, while fulfilling several social and cultural needs (Wilson, 1995). Devandra and Thomas (2002) reported that small-scale, resource-poor farmers own about 95% of the livestock in home gardens. They further observed that in some of the very small gardens, where land is a constraint to production, livestock are sometimes the main income generators, serving as cash buffers and capital reserves. Livestock serve as a constant source of income all year round particularly in arid areas such as Burkina Faso where there is only a single cultivation season each year. They are described by Devandra and Thomas (2002) as the most important “cash crop” in small-scale mixed farming systems known to contribute to food security and alleviate seasonal food variability and availability. Livestock also offer opportunities for milk and meat-processing ventures, thus increasing employment especially in rural areas (Mohan, 2004).

12

2.5 Home gardens Management

Nair (2001) stated that home gardens have traditionally been managed and adapted by gardeners rather than through agro forestry research. This could be expected but resulted in an interesting question, whether all gardeners are following similar home garden development trends, or whether they are following different pathways in maintaining their home gardens. The recent advances in using statistical methods for classification of home garden systems provides a good basis to assess the differences between home garden types and evaluating whether different types follow different development trends (Peyre et al., 2006).

It has been shown that the composition and management of home garden vary from one household to another, and this variation is influenced by factors such as type and fertility of the soil, slope of the garden, size of the holding, size of the household, resource endowment and individual farmer’s preference (Rugalema et al., 1994a). According to Vogl et al. (2003), the management and composition of these home gardens reflects a body of knowledge gained through adaptive management of natural resources by communities, and which is based on the communities’ long-term experience with their local environment.

One example of adaptive management is that, Austrian women use simple tools like small hoes, rakes, spades, forks and watering cans to perform their garden duties, which are made locally on the farm i.e. built from the recycled material no longer being used (Vogl et al., 2003). Modern equipment such as rotary cultivators, tillers or flame weeders are not used at all. The only modern tool used by Austrian women farmers is a sprinkler irrigation system. Most of the time women irrigate with watering cans or hosepipes, because this saves water and allows the irrigation of each species according to its needs (Vogl et al., 2003).

In the Bukoba, district of North-western Tanzania soil fertility was maintained mainly through the application of various types of organic matter such as crop residues, tree litter, banana trash, grass mulch, household refuse and animal manure (Rugalema et al., 1994a), while in Austria it is maintained by the use of cattle, sheep, horse or chicken manure (Vogl et al., 2003). In the Bukoba district, it was found that farmers

13 who used cattle manure in their home gardens had higher crop yields when compared to those who did not use it.

Austrian women protect the soil and perennial plant species from frost in winter time practiced mulching in some home gardens during autumn. It is also done to suppress weeds in the pathways between the beds. During digging, manure is set in and the topsoil turned. The loosening of the topsoil without turning it over is done only when plant species are already planted. Most plant species in the beds are rotated every year taking into account special demands e.g. nutrients for subsequently grown species. No written plan exists for managing the garden with regard to crop rotation, because usually Austrian women (Vogl et al.,., 2003) do it without noting the activities.

According to Austrian women gardeners, diseases and pests occurring in gardens never threaten the entire range of cultivated plant species (Vogl et al., 2003). If pests attack certain plant part, they are removed by hand. Austrian women utilize homemade remedies such as teas of nettle (Urticadioica), horsetail (Equisetum species), soft soap or lime to protect plants against diseases and pests. Practices such as control of diseases are significantly more frequent in gardens on organic farms. The weeding process is done by hand on all farms with simple tools (Voglet al., 2003).

2.6 Benefit derived from home garden among rural household

2.6.1 Supplement household food

Monde et al. (2006) mention that in the research conducted at Guquka and Kayalethu in central Eastern Cape, approximately 80% of rural households in the study areas earned incomes that were far below the poverty line. Therefore, there is a significant degree of dependency on external economic activities, especially state grants, for a means of living. Therefore, home gardens are known as the best supplementary food production system for a household and can be regarded as a source of food; home gardening is also one of the strategies that has the potential of enhancing food security for the poor (Mutotsi et al., 2006; Marsh, 2007).

Home gardens refer to the traditional land use system around a homestead where several species of plants are grown and maintained by household members and their

14 products are primarily intended for family consumption and utilization (Gautan et al., 2004). Home gardens are traditional sources of food and nutrition and are therefore important contributors to food security and the livelihoods of farming communities in many developing countries. Home gardens, with their intensive and multiple uses, provide a good safety net for the households that partake in home gardening during food deficit periods. These gardens have been important sources of food, fodder, fuel, medicines, spices, herbs, flowers, construction of materials and income in many countries and are an important means of on-farm conservation of a wide range of unique genetic resources for food and agriculture (Gautan et al., 2004).

2.6.2 Employment and income generation

Employment in rural areas, in most developing countries, comes from agriculture and agriculture-related activities, since most agricultural workers are unskilled and are poorly paid (Machete, 2004). The employment levels influence poverty patterns and food security, which means that the fewer jobs available, the lower the household incomes and the more vulnerable the household is to food insecurity (Bonti-Ankomah, 2001). Matshe (2009) mentioned that the hunger problem could be resolved through practicing agricultural activities (food production) and the generation of income levels that enable rural inhabitants to purchase enough food. According to Marsh (2007), income and improved food security can be attained through home gardening since it is a suitable strategy, but this can only take place when gardens are well adapted. During the period of stress, home gardens may be the principal source of household income and food (Marsh, 2007).

2.6.3 Reduce household expenditure on food purchases

Monde et al. (2006) reported that in most rural households, food security is mainly dependent on purchased food whereby the income that is used to purchase the food is attained from employment or other sources, besides agriculture. Household food security for both poor households in rural and urban areas can be improved through increased subsistence farming that would, in turn, result in a decrease in the “dependence on purchasing food in a context of high food price inflation” (Baiphethi and Jacobs, 2009). A household’s income expenditure on food constitutes the largest share of household expenditure than other household expenses such as clothes,

15 education, etc. (FANRPAN, 2006). Baiphethi and Jacobs (2009) stated that subsistence production and/or smallholder production could therefore increase food supplies and thus cushion households from food price shocks, thereby improving household food security. Therefore, through reducing expenditure costs, household savings increase.

2.6.4 Contributions of home gardening to food security

Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (Committee on World Food Security, 2009). Recent food production strategies rely on industrialized practices and high yield food crop varieties (Bruinsma, 2003) undermining home gardening at the micro level and the culturally based farming practices on food security (Rosset, 1999). Home gardening has contributed to food security in ways, such as direct access to a diversity of nutritionally rich foods increases purchasing power from savings on food bills and income from sales of garden products, and fallback food provision during seasonal lean periods (Akosa, 2011).

Home gardens are traditional sources of food and nutrition and are therefore important contributors to food security and the livelihoods of farming communities in many developing countries. Home gardens, with their intensive and multiple uses, provide a good safety net for the households that partake in home gardening during food deficit periods. These gardens have been important sources of food, fodder, fuel, medicines, spices, herbs, flowers, construction of materials and income in many countries and are an important means of on-farm conservation of a wide range of unique genetic resources for food and agriculture (Gautan et al., 2004).

2.6.5 Gender effect on home gardens ownership and biodiversity in home gardens

Evidence from across several countries shows that while women contribute significant amounts of labour to the production of non-food cash crops, their greatest contribution is in the cultivation of subsistence food crops (Asfaw, 2001). Garí (2003) indicated that in Kagera, Tanzania, while men focused on two permanent crops, banana and coffee, which mainly provided income, women managed a wide range of key annual food and

16 nutritional crops such as sweet potato, beans, and groundnuts within the home garden, besides cultivating distant fields.

In northern Ghana, where gender roles and responsibilities are defined in maintaining household food security, Padmanabhan (2007) noted that staples such as root crops which are considered as ‘male crops’ were cultivated by men in distant fields, while seasonings used in the preparation of soups that accompany these staples are regarded as‘female crops’ and are cultivated around the home. Dreschler (1997) surveyed the home gardens of women and men in rural Zambia and pointed out that these women’s home gardens which were more subsistence oriented compared with those of men showed significantly higher species diversity .

In a study on the effects of gender of home garden ownership on plant diversity in Niamey,Bernholt et al. (2009) noted that home gardens managed by women had higher species diversity compared with those managed by men. Steiner et al. (2004) indicated that female-headed rural households with HIV and AIDS adopted innovative survival strategies in agricultural production; more quality crops rich in protein and vitamins were cultivated to increase food security. Salick (1997) studied the subsistence agriculture of 25 female-headed households among the Amuesha in Peru and found that home gardens of these female-headed households assumed an important position when field cultivation was constrained. These female-headed households depended on home gardens much more than the average household to supplement and supply a significant portion of the household’s diet they cultivated both major and minor crops in home gardens.

2.6.6 Home gardens and household dietary diversity

The diversity of plants, domestic livestock and poultry raised in home gardens provides households with a diversity of foods, including vegetables, fruits, staples and meat, which are rich in vitamins, minerals and proteins (Garί, 2003; Marsh, 1998; Murphy et al., 2006; Shrestha et al., 2002). A baseline study carried out in Nepal showed that home gardens provided 60% of the household’s total fruit and vegetable consumption (Gautam et al., 2008). Talukder et al. (2000) monitored the consumption of fruits,

17 vegetables and eggs from the gardens of 300 low-income Nepalese households. They reported that for more than 95% of the households, their own garden was the main source of vegetables consumed and raising poultry enabled mothers and children to eat eggs.

The Concern Livelihood Programme, which focused on developing nutrition gardens in HIV affected households in rural Zimbabwe, found that the vegetable produce from these gardens supplemented families’ staple diet of maize and improved their nutrition (Keatinge and Amoaten, 2006). Ndaeyo (2007) examined the contribution of homestead farming to the food security of 300 households in south eastern Nigeria and noted that for most rural households home garden crops provided vitamins, proteins and minerals which were hardly cultivated on distant farms. A large-scale home garden project implemented by Heller Keller International in Bangladesh found that households, which grew a larger variety of fruits and vegetables, had a higher intake of vitamin

2.6.7 Ecological, social and economic sustainability of home gardens

Sustainability in the context of home gardening is within the meaning of sustainability as posited by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987): “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs.” In home gardening, sustainability extends to maintaining equilibrium between the biotic and abiotic components of the immediate environment. Cultural practices within the home garden enhance soil fertility while harmonizing the interaction among the producers, the decomposers and the consumers to establish continuously a stable ecosystem.

A stable ecosystem in the home garden portrays the dual concept of sustainability: ecological sustainability and socioeconomic sustainability. A home garden is ecologically sustainable if it production levels (output per unit area) is relatively adequate for the present and future generations without reducing the ecosystem potentials in the garden. This indicates that the continuous interaction between the living and non-living components should result in a stable and productive system. However, the socioeconomic sustainability in a home garden refers to the effective use of the indigenous knowledge system to enhance continuously output per unit area.

18

In other words, increasing or maintaining output to meet the social and economic need of the actual and future generations. Cultural practices within the garden via the multiple cropping and the application of organic material push high the ecological and socioeconomic sustainability in home gardens.

2.7 Factors that militate against practice of home gardens

Many constraints exist that are associated with one’s own food production, which make it difficult for individuals to partake in. In rural areas, there is inadequate physical infrastructure, particularly in the former homeland areas of South Africa, which remain a major obstacle to smallholder agricultural growth in the country (Machete, 2004). Factors such as land availability, income access, water availability and other factors, which will be mentioned in the following section, hinder households from home garden ownership.

2.7.1 Lack of inputs

Aliber and Hart (2009), citing Fraser et al. (2003), in a study that was done in the Eastern Cape, mention that in most cases African farmers lacked access to implements and other resources although they had access to crop land, so they would end up concentrating on home gardens in order to provide some measure of food supplementation. There is great dependency on neighbours in rural areas since they borrow each other’s tools so that they are able to partake in farming. This means that, at times, they get the tools only when others are not using them or get them later than the time that they would like to use those (Fraser et al., 2003)

Aliber and Hart (2009) go on to state that domestic staple food production can be increased, food security can be improved and dependence on imports can be reduced by providing smallholder farmers with inputs and improved technology. These production inputs can be made available at affordable prices so that even poor households are able to access them since rural households are characterized as being poor.

Matshe (2009) notes that smallholder agriculture’s ability to contribute towards reducing food insecurity and produce better products depends on the access of

19 livelihood assets, as well as a strong institutional and favourable external environment since it plays a crucial role. The limited access to land, capital, inadequate research and extension support results in low standards of living. This is because of the inefficient use of land and unproductiveness because of the absence of appropriate research and extension services (Machingura, 2007). Therefore, partaking in agricultural actives is limited in this way.

2.7.2 Water access

Water is an essential resource in food production, making it a critical factor in food security. Achieving the food security of growing numbers of people with the same amount of water is thus an important societal concern (Wenhold, 2007). The growing population and consequent escalation, in per capita consumption of water, have implications for water supplies (FAO, 1990). Food security is the outcome of many interrelated factors, one of which is water, an essential resource for food production. Food production is the most water-intensive activity in society and water is the number one food-limiting factor in many parts of Africa (FAO, 1990).

FAO (1990) identifies agriculture as the largest single user of water, with about 75% of the world’s freshwater being currently used for irrigation. Inadequate and extreme fluctuations on water availability is a major constraint to the productivity and profitability of agriculture, causing poorest farmers to remain at the subsistence level and in perpetual poverty (Hatibu et al., 2006).

2.7.3 Access to land

Arun (1999) indicates that land is the most essential resource in order to obtain agricultural productivity and access to land tends to be a major problem that is faced by those individuals practising agriculture, especially in urban areas. The availability and access of land is exacerbated by the fact that land - in some cases - is being used for non-agricultural purposes; for example, the building of houses so as to cope with the increasing number of people migrating to the cities (Naylor, 1999).

Ravallion (1989) mentions that landholding in rural areas is the most common asset as well as a good indicator of poverty. Therefore, households with small farms tend to

20 be vulnerable to food insecurity. According to Mutotsi et al. (2006), home gardening remains the most essential method of food production for the majority of people, especially those living in developing countries, but land seems to be the biggest problem encountered in this regard due to the high population density that leads to a lot of pressure on land since it is required for settlement. Land has a negative effect on food production, and results in food insecurity. The practising of the farming activities by households depends on whether the land is privately owned, leased or rented because farmers who are squatters may not want to adopt technology that is expensive, or devote themselves to agricultural practices since the land can be taken away any time the owner wants it back (Nzomoi et al., 2007).

Marsh (2007) reported that households with access to land, water and technical assistance are the only households with a feasible chance of partaking in home gardening, leaving many households, which are without these resources food insecure. Farmers with food plots, which are too small to provide for their needs, are regarded as the hungriest people who live in rural areas. Access to land, seeds, water and agricultural equipment determines the level of farming that a person can attain (Matshe, 2009).

2.7.4 Lack of knowledge

Ozowa (1995) states that the general lack of knowledge amongst small-scale farmers are mainly contributed by the high level of illiteracy amongst the farmers; this results in a low level of agricultural production. Rural households are able to produce food when they have knowledge on how to grow crops and raise animals (livestock) that provide beneficial nutritional outcomes and sustain household livelihoods on a continuous basis, in a family. Nompozolo (2000) recommended that extension officers must be trained in indigenous knowledge relevant to the farming communities they serve. If extension officers can be trained on agricultural production activities occurring in places in which they work, households for those communities will benefit in terms of gaining the requisite food production techniques for the products they are producing however, this is possible only if extension officers visit these households in their communities. Nompozolo (2000) suggested that a reasonable amount of information is necessary to bolster own food production in rural areas and for good performance in agricultural productivity.

21

2.7.5 Markets

Faber et al. (2010) noted that there is the potential for income generation; if households produce surplus and that, they have easy access to markets (formal or informal) to sell that which they produce through homestead food production. There is a need for infrastructure such as roads and transport for market access as well as to enable households to sell their surplus produce. In addition, a good storage facility is needed to minimize losses.

2.7.6 Fencing material and theft

Households who partake in home gardening tend to use any land that they can get and, at times, the land is not fenced which means that there are high risks of theft. Kekana (2006) mentioned that a long distance between a farming area and the residing place of an individual could also be identified as a problem to farming. This is because if a farmer has to travel a long distance to the plot, it will lead to insufficient attention and little time allocated to visiting the plot, which may result in theft. This will then expose the cultivated crops to theft and damage by unauthorized people and animals. In this regard, Seti (2003) mentions that crops are often stolen or damaged by livestock due to the lack of proper security.

2.7.7 HIV/ AIDS problem

Datta and Njuguna (2009) noted that there is a significant reduction in household savings and livestock due to the high costs of medication that needs to be met by the households affected by HIV/AIDS, as well as the funeral costs at times. This can result in greedy relatives taking advantage of a vulnerable widow by dispossessing the land and, as a result, partaking in farming activities cannot occur. Farming skills are lost through the dying of an adult family member due to HIV/AIDS, which means that the skill is not passed on to the children as the sick person dies with it (Datta and Njuguna, 2009).

AIDS mortality has a significant impact on household domestic labour, with potentially severe implications on food security in rural communities, which are reliant on small- scale farming (agriculture). The illness and death of breadwinners, due to HIV and

22

AIDS, greatly influence household’s ability to buy food, particularly the death of those people who bring an income into the home (Twine and Hunter, 2008). HIV and AIDS affects labour quantity as a household has less working hours at its disposal in order to bring in money.

According to Altman et al. (2009), a person who is badly affected by HIV/AIDS experiences hardships when working in household food gardens and their productiveness is reduced as the disease progresses. Caregivers who take care of the afflicted person within these households need to reduce the time that they spend on the household food garden since they have to increase the time they spend in for caring for the sick person. This means that when there is a person who is affected by AIDS in a household, other member of the household has to take care of him or her thus sacrificing the time they are supposed to be involved in agricultural activities and producing food for them. When there is someone in a household who is affected by HIV and AIDS the money for food purchases may need to be diverted to medical expenses (Sebolaaphuti, 2005).

2.7.8 Incidences of pests and diseases

In some African countries, pests’ impacts have been estimated on average of about 30% of the total subsistence production loss annually (Makundi, 1996). In Tanzania, a shortfall in crop production especially cereal productions close to or around this figure threatens food security of practically the entire Nation. Pests and diseases together with low agricultural input supply are the major cause of production declines, which lead to household food insecurity (SUA, 2006)

2.7.9 Lack of credit facilities and reliable markets

Availability and accessible credit facilities to farmers enhance production improvement by easily accessing the required inputs at right times (Mrindoko, 2012). Majority of smallholder farmers depend on farm products to get their food and incomes. Unreliable markets of their produce lead them to sell their produces by farm gate prices. These 20 resulted into low earnings and food insecurity (IFAD, 2012). Empowerment of farmers through credit provision will improve their production status as well as their well-beings as reported by Smale et al. (2009) who reported that empowered farmers

23 through provision of agricultural inputs, upgraded the staple food production in Washington DC. Also Doward et al. (2008) reported that provision of subsidy fertilizers improves the production quantities of farmers and hence livelihood sustainability.On the other hand, lack of access to reliable markets and prices leads to households food insecurity and low income. A study by Lyimo-Macha et al. (2005) indicated that the unreliability of markets and low prices (farm gate prices) of the products were among the most common problems affecting marketing and farmer’s income in relation to actual production costs. Moreover, inefficient markets and seasonal variations in market prices affect the contribution of home garden technologies.

2.8 Conceptual framework of the study

The conceptual framework in the study was built on the relationship between the home gardening and improvements in household wellbeing. A garden can be regarded as a viable land that serve as a means of sustenance to the rural households, it is usually fenced and has a source of water supply hence its success are high if some factors that can impede the smooth operation are taking care of . Access to productive land, access to market, availability of input and water access will contribute to its success thereby, increase household income and supplement household’s food.

Home Gardening Livelihood

Factors Outcomes influencing

home garden

Access to land More income

Access to water Enhance well-being Rural Lack of input Improved food household security Access to market income

Capital availability

24

Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework of home garden ownership Source: Adapted from Ernest Bagson(2011)

2.9 Chapter Summary

This chapter has highlighted a number of literature in home gardening. Firstly, an overview of the meaning of home garden was discussed. The chapter went on to explore the importance of home gardens, especially its contribution to the household economy as a whole. It went on to look at the evidence of the contribution of gardening to incomes and food security. The factors that influence the practises of home gardens were also reviewed. Finally, the chapter presented the conceptual frame work of the study

25

.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the research method used in collecting and analysing data collected on contributions of home gardens to income of rural household in Raymon Mhlaba Municipality.The chapter is intended to show how the study was conducted using research tools. It starts by explaining description of the study area, the research design, model, data, the sampling procedure and the sample size from which data was collected.. The analytical framework follows,by outlining descriptive statistics and the binary logistic regression model .

3.2 Descriptions of the study Area

The Eastern Cape Province of South Africa lies on the south eastern coast ofthe country, where Indian Ocean meets the land ofSouth Africa. A guide book used by the Tourist extravagantly shows a great natural beauty, particularly the rugged cliffs, rough seas and dense green bush of the stretch known as the Wild Coast . The Province also features diverse climates and landscapes which range from the dry and desolate Great Karoo to the lush forests of the Wild Coast and the Keiskamma Valley, the fertile Langkloof near , renowned for its rich apple harvests, and the mountains southern Drankensberg region around the town of Elliot. In terms of land area, it is the second largest province after Northern Cape. In year 2001, the Eastern Cape Province occupied a total land area of approximately 169 580 km2 representing 13.9% of the land mass of South Africa.

Due to the provincial boundary changes since then, the latest Census results gives the Eastern Cape Province a land area of 168, 966 square kilometres (Statistics South Africa, 2011). This means that the province is roughly 13.8% of South Africa‟s total land mass . If this study were to look also on the population side then, this will clearly shows a slight decline in the population of South Africa, denoted by a percentage decrease as from 13.9% in 2001 to 13.8% in 2011. District municipalities in the

26 province are Alfred Nzo, Amathole, Cacadu, , Bay Metropolitan and 55 Ukhahlamba. The Eastern Cape Province is divided into 37 local municipalities and two metropolitan municipalities. The province is endowed with mountains, rivers, and savannah grass land with short shrubs and forests (Eastern Cape Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform, 2012). It derives its incomes from eco-tourisms, agro industries, livestock and crop production (Eastern Cape Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform, 2012). The provincial population increased by modestly over the intercensal period 2001-2011. According to the Census results, the population of the Province is estimated at 6.3 million and 60% lives in rural areas (Statistics South Africa, 2011). The government document reviewed that the province are facing the following challenges:

 High levels of poverty,  High unemployment,  Under-employment  Agriculture infrastructure backlog  Poor public health profile  Decline in life expectancy rate  Low literacy rate  High demand for housing, water, sanitation, social security and electricity.

The need for economic development and improvements in livelihoods of the population is therefore very high and much of the efforts of the government are focused on putting in place measures to reverse this trend as fast as possible. Average poverty residence rate in the province is about 75%, being worse in about four Districts namely O.R Tambo, Alfred Nzo, Joe Gqabi and Chris Hani. Unemployment rate is estimated at a whopping 35% (Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform of Eastern Cape Province, 2011). The official documents also put the number of social grant recipients at 2.5 million, representing nearly 40% of the population. Since these social grants are mainly received by the elderly, retired civil servants, disabled and children, this means that the province has a very high dependency ratio and confirms its status as one of the poorest in the country (Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reforms of Eastern,2011 ). The current policy focus on poverty alleviation, job creation and food security is therefore understandable and is in line with what is

27 happening elsewhere on the African continent where the goal of reducing poverty by half in 2015 is being pursued as part of efforts to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Boosting agro-processing is also being pursued to expand employment opportunities as part of what the provincial government wants to do to demonstrate its commitment “to reduce under-development as outlined in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)” (Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform of 57 Eastern Cape Province, 2011). Given that the majority of the population is resource-poor and not in any position to produce sufficient surplus to feed these industries, the government is also focusing on empowering small producers and resource-poor households to operate homestead gardens and subsistence farms.

In fact, the province has only few commercially organized large farms that make any appreciable contribution to the rural economy and the bulk of these are white-owned farms that fall outside the units of observation for the purpose of this study. Based on statistics from the Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform of Eastern Cape Province (2011), there is a decline in agricultural production and its contribution to GDP of the province.

Figure 3.1: South Africa - Eastern Cape Province Map Source: Wikipedia,( 2015)

28

3.3 Description of Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality

Nkonkobe IDP (2011) revealed that in 2000, Raymond Mhlaba Municipality was established. Raymond Mhlaba Municipality is the second largest local municipality in the Province of Eastern Cape.It covers 3 725 km2 and makes up the R63 road of the surface areas of the Amatole District Municipality. “Raymond Mhlaba municipality is a countryside municipality that sits on the foot of the ever imposing and majestic mountain range of the Winterberg (IintabaZenkonkobe)” (Nkonkobe IDP, 2010/11). Raymond Mhlaba Municipality is located in the Eastern Cape, which is the second largest province of South Africa and is regarded, as the poorest province .It is one of the eight local municipalities under the Amatole District Municipality of the Eastern Cape. The Amatole, which means “the calves of the Drakensberg” in Xhosa, is a municipal district, which lies, in the central coastal portion of the Eastern Cape.

Access to the Amatole district is served by the East London Airport, the East London river port, the N2 and N6 national roads and a rail network (Nkonkobe Municipality, 2006). According to Nkonkobe Municipality (2007),Raymond Mhlaba Municipality is bordered by the Nxuba, Lukanji, Makan, Municipality to the west and the Amahlathi Municipality to the east. The major towns of Raymond Mhlaba Municipality are Alice, , Hogsback, Balfour, Middledrift and Seymour. The municipality has a predominantly rural population and has a total of twenty-one wards with forty-one municipal councils (Hule, 2009).

29

Figure 3.2: The Eastern Cape Province Map showing the study areas Source: Wikipedia, (2015)

3.3.1 History of Raymond Mhlaba Municipality

The municipality falls in the zone of two historically conflicting races, which are the blacks and whites. The racial difference and conflict later manifested themselves in laws favouring whites to access key means of production whereas blacks were resettled in the former homeland reserves of and with limited access to means of production (Nel and Davies, 1999). Ciskei and Transkei reserves come to be known as “homelands”. The formation of these two reserves for the resettlement of thousands of people compounded differences, particularly in terms of the small size of land holdings allocated, increased rural densities and limited access to state support and infrastructure.

30

Consequently, the former homelands are characterised by extreme overcrowding and frequent environmental collapse. Land appropriation and uneven development regarding service provision characterize the municipality. Similar to the rest of Raymond Mhlaba, Kat River Valley is an area with a history of contest disputes over command for economic resources. For decades, there has been a number of tribes involved in clashes regarding ownership of the valley resources and this includes the Khoi-Khoi, Xhosa, and white settlers (Water Research Commission, 2006). However, policies of the past and the present have had major impacts on to the inhabitants regarding the valley’s resources. In this respect, the creation of the former homelands of Ciskei has further complicated the valley history.

Historically, Kat River Valley development was hampered by poor land management practices and complex land tenure arrangements (Nkonkobe Municipality, 2004). Whilst some farmers have traditional land tenure arrangements, about half of the land appropriated from white farmers since the consolidation of the Ciskei remained government owned (Water Research Commission, 2003). Despite the valley difficulties emanating from its troubled past, there have been some positive developments concerning utilization of resources. To date, the formation of a water user association and catchment forum has brought together various communities inclusive of small-scale and large-scale farmers to a level where they collectively decide on good resource conservation practices in the valley (Water Research Commission, 2003)

3.3.2 Livelihood

Raymond Mhlaba Municipality characterized by a series of impediments to human welfare due to high unemployment levels (Nel and Davies, 1999). The situation is made worse by the presence of low industrial activities (Nel and Davies, 1999). Amongst these obstacles area high poverty rate resulting from high unemployment rate, low income and lack of basic skills required to spur local economic development, inadequate infrastructure and social services, low agricultural productivity, high dependence on government grants, inadequate and inefficient income generation strategies to improve the economic base of the municipality (Nkonkobe Municipality, 2004). De Wet (1993), as cited by Neland Davies (1999), says income derived from agriculture does not exceed 10% of the average rural income. Many rural people rely

31 on gifts, state pensions and migrant labour remittances for household survival (Nel and Davies, 1999).

3.3.3 Population

According to Global Insight (2009), as cited by Nkonkobe IDP (2010/11), Raymond Mhlaba Municipality had an estimated total population of 131 071 and 28 259 households in 2008. There are 21 wards within the areas. Approximately 70% of people living within the Raymond Mhlaba Municipal area are poor, 72% reside in both villages and farms while 28% reside in urban settlements. Alice and Fort Beaufort are the two main towns that are highly urbanized, in comparison to the rest of the region.

The dominant races in Raymond Mhlaba Municipality are Africans with 94.76% followed by the coloured community with 4.5%, whites with 0.8% and lastly Indians with 0.1%, as illustrated in Figure 3.3 (Nkonkobe Municipality, 2007). This Municipality has a population density of 30.80 per km2 as in 2008 (Nkonkobe IDP, 2010/11). This shows that Raymond Mhlaba Municipality’s population has declined from 132500 in 2002 to 131100 in 2008, as presented by Table 3.1. This decline in total population can be attributed to a drop in the birth rate coupled with an increase in the death rate, at a younger age (Nkonkobe IDP, 2010/11). Another factor that may have resulted in population decline is migration. This is illustrated in the table below:

Table3.1: Population density (number of people per km2) Race 1996 2000 2008

African 36.78 33.84 29.16

White 0.51 0.40 0.23

Coloured 1.16 1.25 1.39

Asian 0.02 0.02 0.02

Total 38.46 35.49 30.80 Population distribution by race Source:Nkonkobe IDP, (2010/11)

32

Figure 3.3: Pouplation distribution by race Source: Nkonkobe IDP, (2010/11)

3.3.4 Gender distribution

This is illustrated by the 40% make up of males with 60% females. According to the Nkonkobe Municipality Spatial Development Framework Review (SDFR) (2010/11 – 2012/13), the reason for a lower number of males than females is that males tend to migrate to the mining sector as well as other industries in search of better employment opportunities.

33

Figure 3.4: Gender distribution Source: Nkonkobe Municipality SDPR, 2010/11 – 2012/13

3.3.5 Climate and vegetation

The climate varies from hot in summer to extreme cold in winter, with heavy frost and snowfall along the hilly areas. The average annual rainfall is 640mm, and most rain falls during the summer months from October to March, with frost and sometimes snow in winter. The minimum and maximum temperatures range from 40C in July to 380C in February. The area has an altitude of about 1200 meters above sea-level. The vegetation is indigenous forest (Nkonkobe Municipality, 2007).

3.4 Socio-economic status

There is heavy reliance on the public sector in terms of job creation. There has been a decline in the performance of all sectors of the economy in Raymond Mhlaba Municipality with the exception of the manufacturing and wholesale/retail sector. The wholesale/retail sector includes Small Micro Medium Enterprises (SMMEs) which are important in resuscitating Raymond Mhlaba Municipality. According to the Nkonkobe Municipality (2006), about 70% of the people in the Municipal area go to bed without food and income at all. About 6531 people in Raymond Mhlaba Municipality earn an amount between R401 and R800 per month. The income levels are extremely low and people without any income account for 74% of the population. A salary or wage less than R800 per month is of serious concern as it means that the disposable income is low and so is the consumer spending power.

34

3.5 Economic activities

There are three categories of employment types in Raymond Mhlaba municipality, namely: the employed, unemployed and not economically employed. Those in the last category include students, homemakers, disabled and those who are too ill to work as well as those not seeking work. This municipality has the highest unemployment rate in comparison to other municipalities that fall under the Amatole District. The unemployment rate has increased from 35% in 1996 to 50% in 2008 (Nkonkobe IDP, 2010/11). The Nkonkobe Municipality SDPR (2010/11 – 2012/13) notes that Raymond Mhlaba Municipality is faced with high unemployment as well as high poverty levels. This is coupled by factors such as low income and low educational skills.

3.6 Agricultural profile

Raymond Mhlaba Municipality is a place, which has diverse climatic conditions that allow various agricultural enterprises to be practiced. The main enterprises within the region are citrus, livestock (cattle, sheep and wool production) and irrigation schemes (Nkonkobe IDP, 2008). There are agricultural projects such as Siyazondla, Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP), Citrus production and the King Sandile Development Trust project (KSDT) which were initiated and have had a significant positive impact on the development area of the Raymond Mhlaba Municipality. These projects benefit a large number of communities in various wards of the municipality who were poverty-stricken and have a great deal of unemployment (Nkonkobe IDP, 2010/11).

Siyazondla is a project that allows households to have access to and consume fresh vegetables from their home gardens and to sell the surplus produce to the surrounding communities at low costs. In the 21 wards that Raymond Mhlaba Municipality has, only 16 municipal wards are beneficiaries with 15 households per ward receiving the funding.

A CASP project is under land reform. This project has beneficiaries and this causes the CASP project to have an economic impact to the Raymond Mhlaba municipality (Nkonkobe IDP, 2010/11). In Raymond Mhlaba Municipality, there is a cattle production scheme with five LRAD projects. There are a number of communal projects

35 and a number of commonages. These commonages are farms, which the beneficiaries get from the LRAD (The Department of Land Affairs) whereby they receive 12 Nguni bulls for livestock improvement.

The Katberg river basin is noted for its agricultural potential, with favourable soils and an adequate water supply. It can be suitable for irrigation crop production and the production of high quality citrus. Citrus is a major contributor to economic development in Raymond Mhlaba Municipality, which employs seasonal as well as permanent workers. Paprika, olives and essential oils are some of the crops that have been identified to be grown in some parts of this municipal area (Nkonkobe IDP, 2010/11).

3.7 Research design

A research design is a specific and concrete procedure that the researchers apply in data collection and interpretation. These are set of rules or guides that enable the researchers to conceptualize and observe the problems under examination. Therefore, the research design adopted in this study is cross-sectional design. It should be noted that Cross-sectional research studies are based on observations that take place in different groups at one time. Hence, this research focuses on rural household participating in home gardens and non-participating households. The following three characteristics of cross-sectional design by Roundy (2003) were observed:

1. Takes place at a single point in time 2. Variables are not manipulated 3. Provision of information, and do not state why

3.8 Conceptual model of contribution of home gardens to rural household income

The conceptual model shows the relationship between dependent variable and independent variables .It further indicates the contributions of home gardens to income of rural household. Access to land , access to water , level of education, household size and total income are conceptualized to be factors that influence the contribution of home gardens to income of rural household .The assumption is that independent

36 variables which are the socio- economic characteristics are presumed to influence the outcome of dependent variable (home garden ownership) . If the household decided to continue the practises of home garden it will lead to increase in income generation, promotion of good health, reduction in household expenditure and poverty alleviation, but if they decided to quit the practising of home gardening it is assumed that the independent variables affects the adoption of home gardening in the rural areas. However, all the afore-mentioned variables plays a vital role in success and adoption of home gardening in rural area.

FACTORS INFLUENCINGHG BENEFITS OF

HOME GARDENS ACCESS TO LAND

INCOME ACCESS TO GENERATION WATER

HOME PROMOTION LEVEL OF GARDEN OF GOOD EDUCATION HEALTH

REDUCE HOUSE HOUSEHOLD HOLD SIZE EXPENDITURE

TOTAL POVERTY

INCOME ALLEVIATION

Figure 3.5 Conceptual model of contributions of home gardens to income of rural household Source: Conceptualization based on literature, 2016

37

3.9Data . Data and variables collected in the survey are described in the following section and summarised in Table 3.1 the choice of the variables were informed as a result of the similar study conducted in the area by Bongiwe Mcata(2011)

Table 3.1: Variables that were used in the binary logistic regression model Variable name Type of Priori expectations measurement (+/-) Dependent variable Home garden ownership Independent variables Gender (Who contributes more to +/- home gardening) Age (number of years) Continuous + Level of Education (number of Continuous + years) Household Size (numbers) Continuous +/- Total Income Continuous + Access to land (yes/no) Dummy + Access to Water (yes/no) Dummy - Livestock ownership (yes/no) Dummy +

3.10 Data variable specification

Home garden ownership

According to Baiphethi and Jacobs (2009), a number of households in South Africa engage in subsistence agriculture as a main source of food and income. Therefore, there is a rise in the number of households engaging in subsistence production as an extra source of food (Alber, 2005). Akrofi et al.(2008) indicate that the importance of home gardening in rural and urban areas in enhancing food and nutritional security has been highly emphasized by a lot of researchers such as Onyango (2007). This variable was measured by asking households if they owned home gardens, if the household owned a garden it was represented by “1” and “0” if it did not.

38

Household size

Montshwe (2006) notes that the household size is a useful unit of analysis given the assumptions that within the household resources are pooled, income is shared, and decisions are made jointly by responsible household members. Based on literature, Yishak (2005) argues that a larger household size means a larger labour size. According to Bonti-Ankomah(2001), larger households are more likely to be vulnerable to poverty and, consequently, to food insecurity and this results in a need for poverty alleviation strategies as well as nutrition programmes

Gender

Is a variable that determines whether you are male or female. According to (FAO, 1995) in rural areas females are more likely to participate in subsistence crop farming (agricultural production) as compared to males. This may suggests that males are more likely to migrate to the cities to search for jobs so to diversify sources of income. Women are left behind to take care of agricultural activities like crop production for survival as well as to attain food security for the household (Mathias et al., 1995).

Age

The farming experience of the household head is determined through age (Hoffert, 2003). This is an important aspect of agricultural productivity. Musemwa et al. (2007) argue that the higher the age of the head of household, the more stable the economy of the farm household, because older people have relatively richer experiences of social and physical environments as well as greater experiences of farming activity. In this study, age was measured by years of household head.

Level of education

Another important factor to consider is the level of education of the heads of households since they are the decision makers in matters concerning farming activities. According to Nkhori (2004), education increases the ability of farmers to use their resources efficiently and the locative effect of education enhances farmer’s ability

39 to obtain, analyze and interpret information. The more educated a household head is, the better the household home garden can be managed and the better the produce attained from it. Level of education was therefore expected to positively the ownership of home gardens. It was measured by taking the total number of years of formal education into account.

Livestock ownership

Livestock in general and small stock in particular are considered as having an important role to play in enhancing the livelihoods of the poor, because they are easily accessible to them (McCorkle, undated). According to Devendra (2006), these animals provide products for cash sale when a need arises, and provide the household with much needed protein. Goats and sheep, for example, are multifunctional animals, which are raised for meat, milk, skin, wool and fibre (Sinn, 1992). This variable was measured by asking households if they owned livestock; if the household owned livestock, it was represented by “1” and “0” if otherwise. Those who owned livestock were asked to list the types of livestock and their numbers.

Access to land

The participation of households in farming activities depends on whether the land is privately owned, leased or rented because farmers who are squatters may not want to adopt technology that is expensive or devote themselves to agricultural practices since the land can be taken anytime the owner wants it back (Nzomoi et al., 2007). According to Matshe (2009), the world’s landless or farmers with plots which are too small to provide for their needs are regarded as the hungriest people who live in addition, access to secure ownership of land, capital assets enhances own production and the household availability of food from one’s own resources. Therefore, the quality of land that a household owns determines the amount of yields in communal farms since these farms are characterized by having poor quality of land and requires the use of chemical fertilizer (Sikwela, 2008). Therefore, access to land is likely to have a positive effect on the ownership of home gardens. Access to land was measured by asking households if they had access to it, if the household had access, it was represented by “1” and “0”if otherwise.

40

Total household income

In South Africa, the income distribution is amongst the most unequal in the world. Bonti-Ankomah (2001) notes that, in both urban and rural areas, wages constitute a larger part of household incomes when compared to other incomes such as those from agriculture .Household food security is highly dependent on household income and asset (or wealth) status and household income varies with household size. Wealthier households do not suffer food shortages as much as low-income households. Moreover, there is a large portion of income spent by poor households for food (Jacobs, 2009).

Literature has revealed that, since 2001, social grants (i.e. child grant, disability grant, foster care grant, care dependency grant, compensation fund and old age pension) have played an essential role in improving household food security. There is significant reliance on social grants due to the large scale of poverty, unemployment as well as the economic downturn (Altman et al., 2009). Since most households are regarded as having low total incomes, this study expected the total household income variable to affect positively the ownership of home gardens since households with access to an income are better able to access inputs... In the regression model income variable was entered as a dummy variable

3.11 Sampling technique and sample size

Sampling is a process of selecting units from a population of interest. Therefore, by studying the sample, the results obtained from the sample may be generalized to the population from which the sample had been chosen (Leedy&Ormrod, 2004). Thus, the characteristics obtained from the sample should reflect approximately the same characteristics as the population. Bless & Smith (2000), stated that in order to get reliable statistics, a sample should be large enough so that it gives a good representation of the actual population. For the purpose of this study, the researcher

41 adopted stratified random sampling technique to select the households, which engaged in home gardens and those who did not engage in home gardens.

According to Nkonkobe IDP (2010/11), the majority (about 72%) of people in Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality reside in rural areas whereas 28% reside in urban areas. A total of 160 respondents were interviewed from rural home garden owners as well as non-home garden owners at Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality. Eighty households of the total sample were drawn from those who engaged in home garden and the remaining 80 households were non-participants from this sample size.

3.12 Data collection

Respondents were selected based on home garden and non-home garden ownership. Their willingness to participate in the research was also given high priority in selecting respondents. Respondents were told the objective of the study as well as the confidentiality of the study during the data collection process before being interviewed. Interviews were done at farmers’ homesteads. Household heads were interviewed individually. In addition, secondary data was collected from municipal officials and the internet.

3.12.1 Questionnaire coding

The questions in the questionnaire were coded to enable the computerisation and running of the data using Spss package. The researcher assigns a numeric value to each of the question response in a spread sheet. For example, if the response on gender of question was male, it was assign a value of 1 and if female, it was assign a value of 2. Years of farming experience was coded to be the years the respondent has been farming. If the household participate in the home garden it was coded 1, and if otherwise it was coded 0.. Beside coding the questionnaire for computer analyses, coding also ensure reliability, validity and consistency of the data.

3.12.2 Reliability and validity of result

In order to ensure reliability and validity of the research, the researcher took the following steps: The researcher did pre-testing of the questionnaire. The researcher ensured that the sample size was larger enough for the result not to be biased.

42

Researcher ensured the reliability of the research by coding appropriately .The researcher ensured a systematic examination of the content .The researcher went with recording material during the interview schedule. The use of recording material was to ensured that no information was lost during the interviewed. The researcher played back the recorded information to ensure that the respondents opinion were properly reported.

3.13 Analytical framework

This section seeks to answer the specific objectives of the study whose aim are to examine the socio-economic characteristics of the study area, identify crops grown in the home gardens and reason for growing the crops as well as factors affecting home garden ownership and to determine the contributions of livelihood source of income to total household income. After collecting and gathering data, it was captured and encoded in the form of spread sheets in Microsoft Excel and exported to SPSS software. To attain the objectives of the study, the following techniques were employed; descriptive analysis, binary logistic regression model, and one-way sample t-test.

3.13.1 Socio- economic characteristics of the household

To achieve this objective descriptive statistics was used in the form of mean, tables and charts. Household head’s such as household size, age, gender and occupation are very important because they are most likely to influence the decisions and activities of the household head (Randela, 2005; Makhura, 2001). According to Bless and Smith (2000), descriptive statistics is the discipline that quantitatively describes the main features of data collection. It is distinguished from inferential statistics (or inductive statistics), in that descriptive statistics aim was to summarize a data set.

3.13.2 Crops grown in the home gardens

Descriptive statistics was used to address this objective in form of chart to identify crops grown in the home gardens and the reason for growing the crops .The crops grown by the home gardeners are spinach , cabbage, carrots, potatoes, onions and

43 tomatoes .The reasons for growing these crops were mainly for consumption, income generation and for donations.

3.13.3 Factors influencing ownership of the home gardens

The binary logistic regression is used to determine the factors influencing ownership of the home gardening The logistic regression is used in instances where the dependent variable is binary or ordinary (Pampel, 2002). The proportions and probabilities for categorical variables are bounded by 0 and 1 and have a binomial distribution. Unlike the normal distribution, the mean and variance of the Binomial distribution are not independent. The mean is denoted by P and the variance is denoted by P*(1-P)/n, where n is the number of observations, and P is the probability of the event for any one individual in this example (Pampel, 2002). There are criteria for applying binary logistic regression which are outlined by Hosmer and Lemeshow (2002) and this includes:

1. The dependent variable is dichotomous and can be coded into values 0 and 1 2. A single case can be represented in the data set only once that is the level of observations must be independent from each other. 3. The model must be correctly specified, that is contains all relevant predictors and no irrelevant predictors and the categories under analysis must be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. 4. Relative large samples are required in a case of standard errors for maximum likelihood coefficients are large-sample estimates. For most application, a minimum of 50 cases per predictor variable is sufficient. Hence, the mathematical representation of the model is presented below.

3.6.3 Mathematical representation of the binary logistic model

Home garden ownership = f ( gender, age , education, household size, total household income , access to land , access to water and livestock ownership)…...... (1)

Home garden ownership is modelled using the binary logistic regression model with the model outcomes:

44

Yi = 1 (household participate),

Yi = 0 (household not participating)

Mathematically, when the logistic regression model involves only one dependent explanatory variable, say X1 and that X1 takes only two values, 1 (participate) and 0(not participate). A logistic regression model for this data would correspond to:

...... ……...…………………………. (2)

More specifically the model is

………...... ………...... ……..(3)

for the household who participate(X1 = 1) and

…………………...... ……..(4) for the household who do not participate(X1 = 0)

We see that β0 represents the logarithm of the odds of response for unexposed individuals, whereas the logarithm of the odds of response for exposed individuals is given by β0 + β1.

If we subtract the latter model equation (where X1 = 0) from the former (where X1 = 1), we see that

표푑푑푠 표푓 푟푒푠푝표푛푠푒 푤ℎ푒푛 푝푎푟푡𝑖푐𝑖푝푎푡푒 = log { } ...... (5) 표푑푑푠 표푓 푟푒푠푝표푛푠푒 푤ℎ푒푛 푛표푡 푝푎푟푡𝑖푐𝑖푝푎푡푒

45

This equation reveals that β1, the regression coefficient associated with X1 represents the logarithm of the odds ratio.

Stated another way, β1 represents the change in the logarithm of the odds in favour of the response of interest when the corresponding explanatory variable, X1, increases by one unit, i.e., from X1 = 1 to X1 = 0.

Clearly, if β1 > 0, the log-odds in favour of the response of interest increases as X1 increases from 0 to 1; conversely, if β1 < 0, the log-odds in favour of the response of interest decreases as X1 increases from 0 to 1.

It should also be evident that if β1 = 0, then the log-odds in favour of the response of interest does not change as X1 changes.

It can be shown that the corresponding model for the probability of response,

………………………….(6) an increasing function with respect to the regression coefficient, β1, so that an increase in the log-odds in favour of response means that the probability of response increases.

3.13.4 Determinants of contributions of livelihood source of income

Descriptive statistics and one way sample t- test was used to address this objective. Descriptive statistics in form of table and percentage were employed to present overall annual household income derived from different livelihood source and the contribution of each activity to overall household income. T- test was also used to find the mean of the variable that contributes most to total household income. A t-test statistical significance indicates whether or not the difference between two groups average most likely reflect a real difference in population from which the groups were sampled. The t-test’s effect size complements its statistical significance, describing the magnitude of the difference, whether or not the difference is statistically significant. In this study T- test was used to test the difference between income generated from home gardening, income from grant, small businesses,wages and pension. One ANOVA were also used to test total household income against home garden ownership.

46

Table 3.2: Summary of study objective and analytical tools. OBJECTIVES RESEARCH QUESTIONS METHODOLOGY

To examine socio- What are the socio-economic Descriptive analysis economic characteristics of the characteristics of households in the study area households in the study area. To identify crops grown Which crops are being Descriptive method in home gardens and cultivated in home gardens reasons for growing the crops. To identify factors that Which factors influence the Binary logistic regression influence ownership of ownership of home gardens model home gardens in the study area To determine Which livelihood source of Descriptive statistics ,T- contributions of income contributes most to test and one way ANOVA livelihood source of total household income income to total household income

3.14 Limitation of the study

The study was limited to Raymond Mhlaba local municipality, which is under Amathole district of Eastern Cape province due to lack of financial resources. The rural households in the municipality are scattered and far from each other making data collection to be costly. The study was focus on rural households engaging in home gardens and households that are not engaging in home gardens. Time constraints also limit the study not to cover the whole Eastern Cape Province.

3.15 Chapter Summary

In this chapter, a description of the the study area were discussed. The analytical and empirical models used in this study were also explained. Research methodology was presented in line with specific objectives of the study. Descriptive statistic involving the

47 use of percentage, mean, standard deviation and tables was used to describe the social economic characteristics of the respondent households. The binary logistic regression model was selected for the factors influencing ownership of home garden. An explanation of the variables used in the model and how they were measured were also explained in this chapter.

48

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter involves interpretation, presentation and discussion of the results of the study conducted to determine contribution of home garden to income of rural household in Raymond Mhlaba Local municipality. This chapter provides answers to the various questions raised in chapter one and is aligned to the broad and specific objectives of the study. This chapter is structured into two parts. The first part focused on the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents sampled, while the second part presented results and discussion based on the inferential analysis involving the regression modelling, t -test. and one- way ANOVA.

4.2 Demographic characteristics of sampled households

According to Randela (2005), demographic characteristics of households are essential when analysing economic data because such factors influence the households’ economic behaviour. According to Bembridge (1987), household demographical information is based on the characteristics of persons within that particular household that describes the epidemiology used to characterize the population at risk. Therefore, the study examined the household in terms of household size, age, number of years in school, gender, total household income, and the sources of income were discussed The socio-economic characteristics discussed are presented in Table 4.1

Table 4.1: Demographic characteristics for participant and non- participants in home garden.

49

Home garden Non- home garden participants participants Variables Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Household size 5.13 2.230 4.36 2.502

Age 53.76 15.071 50.29 15.527

No of years in 8.23 2.989 7.89 4.528 school Gender 1.56 .499 1.59 .495

Occupation 1.71 .845 2.70 .848

Source: Field survey, 2016

4.2.1 Distribution of households by household size

According to Delgado (1999), households with larger family size are more likely to become successful in farming because they have more labour to work on the farm. This means that large family size is advantageous, because it means that a variety of labour capacity is available in the form of young, middle aged and elderly members. However, Paddy (2003) brings into light that large family size puts pressure on consumption than the labour it contributes to agricultural production.

Table 4.1 shows an analysis of household size, which was carried out for both households participating and non – participant in home gardens. Table 4.1 reveals that households, which are participating in home gardening have an average household size of 5, while non-participating households have an average, size of 4. Generally, the results show that most of the households are large and hence there is more labour available .Therefore, household size can be used as a proxy for labour availability (Sikwela, 2008). This suggests that households would not have serious problems with regard to labour; which means that there would be more people to assist with the farming of home gardens, which will in turn provide food and income to households.

50

4.2.2 Distribution of households by age of the household head

According to Muchara (2010), the household head age is an important aspect because it shows whether the household benefits from the experience of older people or has to base its decisions on the risk taking attitude of younger farmers. This makes the age of the household head a very important aspect in determining household activities. Table 4.1 reveals that the average age of the household heads involved in home garden practise is 53 years, while the average age of the household head of the household not involved in home garden practises is 50 years. This depicts that the older a person gets the higher the chances of being involved in farming. In line with the findings of this study Banski‟s (2003) highlights that young people across Africa are moving out of rural areas to urban areas in search of better opportunities because most African rural areas have little economic activities. As a result, there is high unemployment rate and households are vulnerable to being poor. This implies that young people living in rural areas are neither interested in farming nor non-farm rural activities.

The migration of young people from rural areas leaves rural communities with a dark cloud of upward trend of unemployment. Firstly, this is exacerbated by the accumulation of unskilled labour as the most skilled labour migrates to urban areas. Secondly, the closure and failure to develop non-agricultural economic activities in rural areas to encourage new employment opportunities that will cut into the unemployment figures and take up some of the slack when it comes to the excessive number of hands on farms (Banski, 2003).

4.2.3 Distribution of households by number of years of schooling of the household head

The level of education attained by the household head translates to the human capital as well as the ability to cope with modern farm decision-making processes. According to Muchara (2010), the people who have a higher educational level are able to interpret information better. Illiteracy is one of the factors that limit economic, social, physical, technical and educational development in less developed countries (Bester et al., 1999). Table 4.1 depicts that the average of the number of years spent in school by the household heads of those who are involved in home gardening practise is 8 years,

51 while the average of years spent at school by those not participating in home garden practises is 7.89, when rounded-off is 8 years.

These results show that involvement in home garden practice is a personal decision and does not require formal skills. This is a reflection of the treatment and challenges that were faced by poor black people during the era, since most of the respondents went to school during that time. Numerous studies and papers have been published about the education system during the apartheid era. The consequences of lack of education are dire because most households lack knowledge about good agricultural production practices and technology adoption leading to less people engaging in agriculture.

4.2.4 Distribution of households by gender of the household head

Generally, gender refers to the state of being male or female. American Psychology Association (2011) defined gender based on the attitudes, feelings and behaviour that a given culture associates with an individual’s biological sex. Therefore, the respondents’ gender in the sampled data was either male or female. Although gender distribution is shown in Table 4.1, it does not give clear picture of the exact number or mean between male and female respondents of the sample. Hence, Figure 4.1 is provided to close that gap

52

60

50

40

Participants 30 Non- participants

20

10

0 Male Female Figure 4.1: Distribution households by gender of the household head Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.2.5 Distribution of households by occupation of the household head

Generally, occupation is defined as a particular job or profession in which and individual is doing or specialising. More specific definition by Roberts (2011), states that an occupation is providing fulfilment, social connection, self-identity, satisfaction through routine roles. Table 4.1 shows the occupation of the sampled respondents. However, the Table does not provide the clear picture of the occupation of the sampled respondents. Figure 4.2 is provided to close that gap. As indicated in Figure 4.2, 68% of the households in the study area do not have any other form of occupation besides home gardening. This finding is similar to that of Sigei et al (2014) who observed that 74% of the smallholder farmers they study had farming as their only occupation. The implication of this result is that, most rural households rely on agricultural activities as their source of livelihoods.

53

70

60

50

40 Participants 30 Non-participants

20

10

0 Farming wage Trading Artisan employment

Figure 4.2: Distribution of households by occupation of household head Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.3 Distribution of households by monthly income of household head

Household food security is very dependent on household income and asset (or wealth) status, and household income varies with household size (Bonti-Ankomah, 2001). Wealthier households do not go through food shortages as much as low-income households; therefore, there is a large share in the spending of poor households on food (Jacobs, 2009). The total household monthly income ranged from R501, which is the lowest income, to greater than R2000, which is the largest income that a household earns.

Figure 4.3 shows that the majority of households in the Nkonkobe Municipality have an income range of R500-1000, R1001- R2000 and above R2000 with 26.3% RHG falls between R500-1000 while 27.5% reported that they earned R1001-R2000 and 46.3% indicated they earned above R2000. 47% RNHG reported that their total monthly income ranges between R500-1000 with 28% falls between R1001 –R2000 and 25% earned above R2000.Overall, the results suggest that these households are characterised by low household income since they do not own many assets. Having a low total household income may suggest low purchasing power (Bonti-Ankomah, 2001). In order for a household to purchase necessities, including food, a household

54 needs to have access to more disposal income. Thus, for low-income households it is important that they adopt home gardens to supplement their incomes (Jacobs, 2009).

Access to a home garden means that the household can produce and sell their produce and meet some of the food requirements on their own (less vulnerable to food insecurity since they producing their own food and not depend on buying) (Seti, 2003).

50 45 40 35 30 Key 25 RHG Income 20 RNHG 15 10 5 0 500-1000 1001-2000 >2000 Month

Figure4.3:Distribution of households by monthly income of the household head Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.4 Household income sources

Figure 4.4 shows the data of household participating in different livelihood strategies or sources of income. Five sources of income were selected and assigned to three major groups. The first group was agricultural income generating activities, which included on-farm self-employment (crops and livestock production), and/or off-farm agricultural waged employment activities (e.g. harvesting, pruning). The second group of income was the non-agricultural income sources, which included on-agricultural self-employment activities and non-agricultural waged employment activities (e.g. government employment). Lastly, the third major group of income was transfer income sources, which included all individual's income derived from sources other than employment, such as remittances, pensions, grants, aid and donations.

55

90

80

70

60

50 Key RHG 40

30 NRHG 20

10

0 income from wages pension remittance grant garden

Figure 4.4: Distribution of households by different income source of the household head Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.5 Socio economic factors affecting practices of home garden

This section entails a descriptive analysis of the various household socio-economic factors affecting the running of home gardening in rural areas of Raymond Mhlaba Municipality. The literature makes it clear that access to land, land size, access to water, access to farming inputs, and labour are some of the determinants of household home garden ownership

4.5.1 Distribution of households by land ownership of household head

Land ownership implies access to land. Accessibility is one of the most crucial factors in farming. In South Africa, insufficient land constitutes one of the most constraining resources facing rural households (Makhura, 2001). Figure 4.5 reveals that land can be attained through inheritance, buying, leasing and hiring. Most of the respondents in the study have attained their lands through freehold means, making up to 92% of those who are involved in home garden practise, and 74% of those who are not involved in home garden practice.

Figure 4.5 also reveals that the respondents, which attained land through communal means while involved on home gardens, were up to 7.5%, while the respondents,

56 which attained land through the same means and not involved in home garden practises were up to 26%. Moreover, those who are involved in home garden practices while renting the land constitutes 3.4% and those who are not involved in home garden practice but renting the land they are using constitute 1.8%. It is also interesting to find out that there are also a group of people who are leasing out their land. For example, the study found out that 4.5% of the respondents leased out their lands for home garden use while 2.8% of those who leased out their lands, leased it out for non- home garden purposes. Therefore, this sample reveals that all the respondents in this study have access to residential land but not all of them have access to land for farming purposes.

100

90

80

70 KEY 60

50 RHG RNHG 40

30

20

10

0 communal freehold rent lease

Figure4.5: Distributions of the households by land ownership of the household head Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.5.2 Distribution of households by land size of household head

Land is one of the most important resources in agriculture (Stockbridge, 2007). Therefore, access and ownership of this resource determines the people’s ability to perform agricultural practices .The majority of households in the study area have small hectares of land located in front of their house for garden activities. From the results shown in Figure 4.6, 56% of the households have 0.5 hectare while 27% have 0.8 ha. 11% have 1 ha and 6% of the respondents have 2ha. In having access to land, it is

57 likely for households to partake in home gardening, as noted by Najafi (2003) who states that the greater the land owned, the higher the level of production and the more food secure the household is .Therefore access to ownership of this resources determines the people’s ability to perform agricultural practises.

6

11

0.5ha 0.8ha 1ha 56 27 2ha

Figure 4.6: Land size Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.5.3 Distribution of households by source of water to irrigate garden

Households participating in home gardening indicated that they irrigate the crops using, river, rain, water tank and tap water in their respective gardens. According to Nkonkobe IDP (2010/11), there is a lack of water service and maintenance in some parts of Nkonkobe Municipality but rural areas are the ones that require water the most. Water plays a significant role in food production and the practice of home gardens since literature indicates that agricultural practise demands a great deal of water because this is a water-intensive sector (Hatibu et al., 2006).

58

18.5

Tap and tank Rain 11 River Both river and tap 2.5 67

Figure 4.7: Source of water Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

Figure 4.7shows that 67% of the households with home gardens in the study area use tap water and water stored in tank to irrigate their gardens, 11% depends on water from river to irrigate their gardens 2.5% depends on rain water while 18.5 % depends on both river and tap water to irrigate the garden.

4.5.4 Distribution of households by the method of cultivation in home garden

Table 4.3 shows method of cultivation used by the households in the study area. Hand ploughing is the most used form of cultivation in the study area with 66% of households employing it. This is considered cheap as most households employ their own family labour during tillage. 8% of households use tractor traction to till their home gardens. The tractor is usually hired and most of the households do not afford to hire one. As a result, they resort to hand ploughing which is demanding and tiring, 2% of the households uses animal traction for ploughing while 4% indicates that they use hand and animal traction in the garden, with 20% depends on both hand ploughing and tractor traction in the garden.

59

Table 4.3: Methods of cultivation on home gardens Method percentage Hand ploughing 66 Animal traction 2 Tractor traction 8 Hand ploughing and animal traction 4 Hand ploughing and tractor traction 20

Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.5.5 Distribution of household by the implement of ownership

Aliber and Hart (2009), citing Fraser et al. (2003) in a study that was done in Eastern Cape, mention that in most cases African farmers lack access to implements and other resources although they have access to crop land, so they would end up concentrating on home gardens in order to produce food for household consumption. Figure 4.8 shows the distribution of implements which are owned by different households. Some households own more implements than others do, which means that those households that have access to implements are more likely to participate in agriculture (home gardens) than those that do not own any implements.

90 88 90 80 80

70

60 KEY 48 50 44 RHG 40 RNHG

30

20 10 12 6 10 3 0 0 tractor car spade wheel barrow hoe

Figure 4.8: Implement of ownership Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

60

4.5.6 Distribution of households by the livestock ownership

Livestock are an important component of household assets in the communal areas. They contribute to agricultural productivity through providing draught power to both irrigation and dry land farming. They supply manure that is needed in both home garden and other smallholder farms that contributes to household food availability through production, as a production asset and through household food accessibility, through income generation. This therefore makes livestock an important asset to the households. Table 4.4 gives the number of livestock, reasons for keeping these livestock types and the number of households owning a particular livestock type in the study area. The study area is suitable for livestock enterprises such as poultry production. Livestock owned include the following: cattle, donkey, goats, sheep, pigs, and chicken. In South African rural areas, livestock keeping is known as a tradition and a source of livelihood (Coetzee et al., 2005).

Table 4.4: Distribution of households by livestock owned Livestock owned Numbers Reason for keeping LV Number of households keeping LV sheep 53 Source of income and 12 consumption purpose Cattle 38 Ritual purpose, income and 14 consumption purpose Goats 160 Consumption, income and 12 ritual purpose Chicken 186 Consumption and income 22 Donkey 8 Labour, and traction 3

Pig 28 Consumption and income 3 Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.5.7 Distribution of households by the access to extension services

According to Machethe (2004), extension services play an important role in empowering farmers with farming techniques, skills and knowledge. It is therefore critical to assess the availability of extension services. Therefore, access to extension

61 services is essential because it can influence a household’s decision on home garden ownership. In this study as shown in Figure 4.8, majority of households from rural areas of Raymond Mhlaba Municipality had no access to extension services, only 24%households indicate that they have access to extension services while the remaining 76% households said they have not seen any extension officers in their respective houses. Extension officers did not visit these households to teach them about the different gardening activities that they can practise in their homes.

24

KEY Yes No 76

Figure 4.9: Distribution of households by access to extension services Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.5.8 Distribution of households by the access to credit services

In Figure 4.10, the respondents were asked about the access to credit services. The results reveal that 97% of the surveyed respondents indicated that they don’t have access to any credit services, they purchased the input needed in the garden through their personal savings. About 3% of the households reported that they have access to credit services but through co-operatives and borrowing through friends and relatives. This therefore shows the type of surveyed households. In South Africa, a farmer can have an access to credit if and only if he/she has collateral.

62

3

Yes

No

97

Figure 4.10: Distribution of households by accessto credit services Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.5.9 Distribution of households by source of labour

Labour is regarded as a crucial factor of production in smallholder farming considering the simplicity of technology in most African countries (Amani, 2004; Taylor and Cairns, 2001).The labour employed by the sample households is obtained from three sources, namely: family labour, hired labour and both family and hired labour. Figure 4.11 shows the presentation of the labour employed by the various household. 86% of the households used family labour while 4% of the households indicates hired labour and 10% depends on both family labour and hired labour. This is in line with one of the characteristics of smallholder farmers in South Africa, which is that most of them solely depend on family labour (Thapa, 2009).

63

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Family Labour Hired Labour Both family&hired labour

Figure 4.11: Source of labour of the household in the study area Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.5.10 Distribution of households by the types of Crops grown in home garden

One of the characteristics of food insecurity in rural and urban areas is the lack of variety of food. Monde (2003) notes that the lack of irrigation water prevents households from considering planting various vegetables in home gardens. The results presented in Figure 4.12 indicate that the majority of food crops grown are vegetables.. The crops that are grown by rural home garden owners are: cabbage (76%), spinach (80), carrot (65), and tomatoes (48). Among the crops mentioned, onions (35), and potatoes (58) are more dominant than the other crops produced in the study area. These crops and vegetables help household to reduce food insecurity and generate income since these households have daily access to freshly produced crops and vegetables.

64

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Cabbage Carrot Tomato Spinach Onion Potato

Figure 4.12: Types of crops grown in the home gardens Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.5.11 Distribution of households by the reasons for growing crops

According to Matshe (2009), the hunger problem can be resolved through practising agricultural activities (food production). This part focuses only on households who own home gardens, which are rural home gardening households. Figure 4.13 presents the different ways that households make use of the home gardens that they own. The following are reasons for households to own home gardens: own consumption, selling and donation purposes. From the rural home garden owning households, 45% are actively involved in home gardening for own consumption while 25% of the home garden owning households mentioned that it is for income generation. About 25% of the respondents stated the reason for growing crops is for consumption and to generate income while 5% reported that it is for donation i.e for relatives and their neighbours who are in need of the vegetables.

65

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Figure 4.13: Household reasons for growing crops Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

4.5.12 Distribution of households by the challenges facing household in their garden

Figure 4.14 shows the challenges that are faced by the households in their gardens. These problems include water, fencing theft and animal trampling. A proportion of 31% of the respondents indicated that they had a challenge of water in their garden activities. These are likely to be households staying far away from taps and those without water tanks. The majority of the households have access to water for irrigation purposes in their home gardens. A further 18% of the population indicated that they faced the problem of theft, most of their vegetables and crops are being stolen by outsiders . This is the major constraint because it affects the production output. Twelve percent of the population indicated that drought was their biggest challenge in the garden. These people had access to water or those who wanted to increase the scale of their garden activities. Four percent of the population mentioned they had the problem of fencing, this is another constraint that affects their farming activities, because the gardens were not properly fenced it is easy for animals to enter the garden and destroyed the crops or graze on it.

66

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Theft Fencing water Animal drought mkt trampling accessibility

Figure 4.14: Distribution of households by challenges facing households in their garden Source: Field Survey Data, 2016

Some of the members of the population indicated that market accessibility is the problem that they are facing, the distance between where they are staying and where to sell their produce is very far therefore, most of the vegetables will be rotten before reaching the market. Five percent highlighted that they have no access to extension services, they believe if there are extension officers visiting their houses it will improve their knowledge on how to farm and increase their chances of knowing new method to adopt in garden.

4.6 Factors influencing ownership of the home gardens

The factors that influence the ownership of home gardens by households were assessed by the use of a binary logistic regression model (as shown in Table 4.5). Variables that were included in the model include household size, gender, age, level of education, total household income, access to land, access to water and livestock ownership. Out of these variables, three were significant. Level of education , total household income and access to land

67

Table 4.5: Maximum likelihood estimates of the binary logistic model for factors influencing household home garden ownership Variable ß S.E Wald Sig. Constant -1.019 2.132 .229 .633

Household size .002 .088 .000 .984

Gender .246 .423 .339 .560

Age -.012 .015 .651 .420

Level of .206 .073 7.878 .005*** education Livestock -.203 .478 .181 .671 ownership Total .003 .001 19.558 .000*** household income Access to land 1.498 .813 3.394 .065*

Access to -.149 .619 .058 .810 water Source ;Result from SPSS generated from Field Survey,2016

Where ***, ** and * are significant at 1%, 5%, 10% level respectively Nagelkerke R Square =.454 Cox & Snell R Square =.330 -2 Log likelihood =143.199a

The level of education is positively related to home garden ownership, as indicated by its coefficient (.073) and it is statistically significant at 1%. This means that an additional year in their education level is expected to result in an increase in participation in home gardening. These findings are in line with Muchara (2010) who holds the view that the level of education that a person has increases their chances of owning a garden and achieves household food security. Education can mean a person is exposed to information on the essentialities and benefits associated with home

68 garden ownership (i.e. access to fresh vegetables, reduced expenditure costs, the generation of income from selling to neighbours,. Ashby (1981) agreed by stating that better education of farmers and their children will ensure the ability to choose and apply sound farming innovations and modern farming methods within a sustainable context. The result agrees with Najafi (2003) that as a household head attains better or higher education she or he becomes more aware of the possible advantages of modernizing agriculture by means of adoption of improved technologies, enabling them to read instructions on fertilizer packs and diversification of household income, which, in turn, would enhance their crop production. Among other things, an educated household is said to usually find it much easier to understand and interpret market information correctly; network and communicate their business ideas, have better general farm management principles and marketing skills and develop financial intelligence.

Total household income was a significant variable as shown in (Table4.5). It is statistically significant at 1%. This suggests that an increase in income by a unit will result in increase in household chance to participate in home garden, meaning that households are able to purchase agricultural inputs hence their involvement in home gardening increases. This show a positive relationship between the total incomes that a household has and home garden ownership. These results are in line with Bonti- Ankomah (2001) who stated that the greater the household income, the chances of households to engage in agricultural activities.

Access to land is an important factor influencing ownership of the home gardens and it is statistically significant at 10%. This therefore, implies that the more the households in the study area have the access to productive land size, the higher their tendency of engaging in home gardening. Matshe (2009) argues that the level of farming undertaken relies on the amount of access to land. This means that in order for home gardening to take place, amount and access to land is required. Altman et al. (2009) noted that access to land is considered a determinant of people engaging in agricultural activities (i.e. home gardening). Therefore, own production cannot take place without having access to land (Bonti-Ankomah, 2001). If a household has access to land, whether it is a field or home gardening, that will be an advantage to him/her in comparison to other rural households who do not have access to a piece of land. Land

69 size is the amount of land owned by the household in communal areas. The larger the land cultivated the higher the production level. It is expected that households with large garden produce more compared to those who farm on small pieces of land. In this case, households operating on larger land size have the chance of having better income than those with smaller sizes. Land size was significant at 10% and positively related to home garden ownership, with large co-efficient at 1.498.

4.7 Contribution of livelihoods sources of income to total household income

The section presents overall annual household income derived from different livelihood activities and the contribution of each activity to overall total household income. Descriptive statics and one way sample t test was used to derived the percentage and mean income that contributes most to the total household income of rural households in Raymond Mhlaba local municipality.

Table 4.6: Contributions of livelihoods sources of income to total household income Income Social grant pension Wages Small Total from hg & businesses household remittance income

R R R R R R %

RHG 112,800 156,000 33,000 37,500 23,000 362,300 100 (31) (43.1) (9.1) (10) (6.8) RNHG - 166,700 22,400 65,000 19,350 273,450 100 (61) (8) (24) (7) *Figures in parenthesis are percentage contributions. RHG = Rural home garden owner, RNHG =Rural non- home garden Source: Result from SPSS generated from Field Survey, 2016

From Table 4.6 above it could be seen that social grant and remittance contributed most to the total annual income of the households with the share of 43.1% for the household participating in home gardens and 61% for non- participating households. The results is in line with findings of with (Altman et al., 2009) which states that since 2001 social grants have played a vital role in reducing poverty and food security among rural dwellers. Income from the home garden follows with 31% contribution to total annual household income of the participating households, while non- participating

70 households did not derive any income from the home gardens. The percentage contributions of home garden to household income was in line with Marsh (2007) who stated that poor rural and urban households around the world can use homestead production as an important source of supplementing their household income. Income derived from wages contributed 10% to participating households income and 24% to non–participating households, these results show that the rural households in the study area are characterised by unemployed households. Income obtained from pension have the share of 9.1% and 8% for both categories while income from small businesses accounts for 6.8% for households with home gardens and 7% with non- participating households.

Due to the limitations of descriptive statistics in showing how much the sources of income relate to the general total household income, Table 4.7 is provided to bridge that gap.

Table 4.7: T-test results for the contributions of livelihood source of income to total household income t df Sig.(2tailed) Mean Lower Upper difference Income 1.994 79 .050** 2820.000 4.72 5635.28 from (hg) Income 2.014 80 .047** 3851.852 44.88 7658.82 from grant Small 1.958 80 .054* 814.815 -13.47 1643.10 businesses Wages 1.993 80 .050** 925.926 1.15 1850.70

Pension 2.005 80 .048** 567.901 4.11 1131.69

Source : Result from SPSS generated from Field Survey, 2016: where ** and * represents significance at 5%level and 10%

All the variables in table 4.7 were statistically significant at 5% except income from small businesses, which was statistically significant at 10%. Income from grant has the highest mean difference which indicates majority of the rural households in Raymond Mhlaba Municipality rely mainly on social grant as their major source of household income. This is in line with Altman et al. (2009) which state that since 2001 social grants have played a vital role in reducing poverty and food security among rural dwellers .Therefore, both rural households with home gardens as well as those without

71 home gardens are highly dependent on social grants. Home garden has second highest mean difference this implies that home gardening has a substantial contribution to rural household’s income. Income generated from small businesses is also significant and contributes to income of rural households in the study area. The results clearly reflect that rural households participate in more than one activity in an effort to sustain their livelihoods. Wages and pension also contributes to income of rural households with the lowest mean difference, this show that rural households are dominated by unemployed people in the rural areas of South Africa. This could be that wages and pension contributes little compare to income generated from social grant, income from home garden and income generated from small businesses.

Table 4.8 presents the result of one way ANOVA of total household income. A one – way ANOVA statistical significance test was conducted to estimate the mean differences within the group and between the group of total household income and home garden ownership. The null hypothesis tested assumed that total household income does not influence home garden ownership. The alternative hypothesis assumed that total household income influences home garden ownership. The p values in this test will therefore help in rejecting or accepting the null hypothesis. p- Value of 0.05 will be used as the cut off for significance. Therefore if the p- value of the test is less than 0.05 the null hypothesis will be rejected and it will be concluded that total household income influences home garden ownership

Table 4.8 present the one way – ANOVA result and confirmed that variation in mean from total household income were statistically significant among home garden ownership (F (79) =2421.556,p< .05) . This finding has approved the hypothesis which states that total household income influences the ownership of the home gardens.

72

Table 4.8 Test of variation in model (ANOVA) Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig Between 12248709270.000 1 12248709270.000 2421.556 .000 Groups Within 394539432.200 78 5058197.848 Groups Total 12643248700.000 79

Source: Result from SPSS generated from field survey, 2016

4.8 Chapter Summary

The chapter presents results from the binary logistic regression model which shows that ownership of the home gardens were influenced by level of education, total household income and access to land .Home garden play an important role in income generation among the rural households. Taking into account the overall contributions of the five categories of income sources it is very clear that income diversification is crucial in securing rural livelihoods. The results clearly reflect that rural households participate in more than one activity in an effort to sustain their livelihoods. The results also illustrate that households participating in home gardening earn higher incomes than non-participating households do. These findings can be directly linked to the fact that income generated from home gardening has the second highest mean and contributed 31% of total annual income, which relatively boost their income. The results also show that older people are more interested in home gardens than young people.

73

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the results on contributions of home gardens to income of rural household in Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality. The chapter outlines the aims of the study that were stated in the introductory chapter, so that conclusions and recommendations can be drawn. In this section , each of the chapters will be summarized , highlighting the main issues covered and how that links to the overall theme of the dissertation .

5.2 Summary

This chapter summarizes different level of the study, which include introduction, literature review, methodology, and results. The chapter begins with a summary of the introduction focusing mainly on background and problem statement methodology has been summarized with regard to the study area, sampling procedure, data collection methods and instruments, variable specification and method of data analysis. The summary of presentation of the results constitutes the demographic and socio- economic characteristics of the rural household in the study area and the estimation of the model that was used in factors that influences ownership of the home gardens.

5.2.1 Background and problem Statement

Much investment has been channelled towards home gardens by several stakeholders under the assumption of poverty and income generation. However, no significant improvement in those areas where home gardens have been funded and encouraged. This raises questions on actual contributions of home gardens to rural household income. Government has initiated a number of programmes to empower rural households like Agri- BEE Siyazondla food programme, Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP), which targets mostly rural dwellers, despite all these programmes rural livelihoods are still not improving (Department of Rural development and agrarian reform, 2011). While government is still committed to improving rural households and supporting them to acquire the necessary skills to participate

74 productively in the economic life of their communities, there is little information regarding the appropriate policies that can improve rural livelihoods (Aliber and Hart, 2009). It will be of great importance to know if home garden is a livelihood strategy that could be used in generating income in rural communities. The extent to which home gardening contributes to rural household incomes is not clear. Home gardens serve as additional source of food and income for farmers but not much is known about the respective contribution of home gardens in South Africa, as they have not drawn the kind of attention they merit from researchers. In line with the foregoing this dissertation explore the contributions of home gardens to rural household income.

5.2.2 Literature Review

The review of the literature is presented in chapter two of the dissertation in line with the specific objectives of the study. Several benefits that rural households derived from home gardens were discussed. The area around home, which consists cultivated and non- cultivated plant species, is commonly identified as “home garden”. Back yard gardens and front gardens are synonyms to the home gardens, which are used in different part of the world. Plants products harvested from home gardens improve the family’s nutritional status, health, and food security. Some of the plants products are sold in local and regional markets, thus improving family financial status. The marketing of home gardens products by rural households and small-scale farmers have been identified as a potential means of poverty alleviation .Therefore, home garden is part of a livelihood strategy and has therefore, gained prominence as a natural asset through which sustainable use of resources, particularly for the livelihood of the poor may be achieved.

5.2.3 Methodology

This section summarizes the processes and techniques that were followed during data collection . The structured questionnaires in the form of a survey were used as a routine for data collection. This was followed by employing quota sampling through the census statistics to determine households that owned home gardens and those without home gardens. Random sampling was used to get the sample size for the study. A sample of 160 respondents were drawn with the help of a key informant and later stratified into two groups. Descriptive statistics was used to describe the socio-

75 economic characteristics of the rural households in Raymond Mhlaba Municipality, while binary logistic regression model was used to determine the factors influencing ownership of the home gardens

5.2.4 Results of Descriptive statistics analysis

Socio – economic characteristics of the rural household in the study area were presented . It was established from the findings that female heads dominated both household participating and non- participating in home gardens. In this study it was also observed that older people are more involved in the home gardens than younger people . Households from both categories have a minimum household size of less than five and maximum household size of 9 . Social grants , income from farming activities , pension and remittance were major source of income in the study area. Cabbage, spinach, onion, carrots and potatoes were dominants crops commonly grown in their gardens. Bulks of the crops grown are mainly for consumption and income generation.

5.2.5 Results of Binary logistic regression model

In third objective a number of of variables were used to investigate the factors that influence ownership of the home gardens. Level of education, total household income and access to land are the variables that were significant . The results show that the level of education of the household increases the chances of the household to participate in home garden. Total household income which found to be significant increases the chance of household participation in the home gardens, meaning that households are able to purchase agricultural inputs hence their involvement in home gardening increases. Access to land is an important factor influencing ownership of the home gardens and is also statistically significant. This therefore implies that the more households in the study area have access to productive land size , the higher their tendency of engaging in home gardening.

5.2.6 Result from T-test and one way - ANOVA

This addresses the fourth objective by determine the contribution of livelihood source of income to total household income. From this result income from social grant has

76 the highest mean difference, this show that majority of the rural household in Raymond Mhlaba Municipality rely on social grant as their major source of income .Wages and pension also contribute to total household income with lower mean difference . The result clearly reflects that rural households were dominated by unemployed people in the rural area of South Africa

5.3 Conclusions

According to the results of this study practises of home gardens makes a modest contributions to the income of rural households in Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality for those households who engaged in it. Therefore, practices of home garden is one of the strategies to improve household income and reducing poverty in the rural areas.There are opportunities as well as benefits that are attained from engaging in this activity such as employment creation, reduction of household expenditure on food and income generation. If households that participate in home gardening could have access to extension services and credit facilities then they could strengthen their productivity and go commercial by being able to produce for their own consumption and marketing it. This means that people would produce more which would in turn reduce their expenditure costs since they will be buying less food from markets.

5.4 Policy implications and recommendations

In the wake of a global food crisis and the soaring food prices, there has been increased emphasis on enhancing and building local food systems. In this context, there is renewed attention to food production and livelihood enhancement through home gardens. Government can intervene by engaging in more development strategies in rural areas and urban areas so that people can learn more about agricultural activities and can then participate in farming (home gardens). Development agencies, government and research institutes need to design workshops to train people about home gardens and the benefits of engaging in agriculture. The government and farmers’ support organizations can also provide better infrastructure to these people. Households practicing home gardening should be discouraged from selling their produce until the household's food requirements are met. Alternatively, this could be achieved by encouraging increased production from home gardens to ensure that there are surpluses, which can be sold for cash income.

77

Household income can be improved by providing skills development initiatives for household to generate an income in form of agricultural projects like sheep keeping, goat keeping, bee keeping, crop farming and water harvesting technologies.

The results of the study shows that majority of the respondents indicated that among the challenges they face in home gardening practice is lack of credit facilities. They do not have enough money to invest or carry out agricultural production. This is worsened by the fact that they have a borrowing constraint and they cannot access credit markets, as they do not have enough collateral to seek and guarantee repayment of the loan.. Assistance should be extended to rural households so that they can access credit at favourable rates. This will help rural households improve their asset base and invest in agriculture. The results of the study show that a unit increase in education increases the probability of participation in home gardening. Therefore, government should invest in education, improve farmer training and encourage information sharing among farmers.

Farmers should pass on their knowledge to other farmers who have not received training and advice. Exchange of ideas should be encouraged between farming households in order to improve agricultural production. Households should be advised on the appropriate combination of crops to be grown with the objective of ensuring that crops meet household dietary needs. Household members should be taught appropriate crop production practices with the aim of increasing home garden productivity with improved seed, utilisation of both organic and inorganic fertilisers and adequate pest and disease control.

5.6 Areas of further research

More research is required on home gardens so that its contributions to income and nutritional status can be assessed among the rural households. The current study is by no means a full assessment of home gardens there is need to conduct a comparative food security study among households engaged in home gardens, and those who did not engage in home gardens. This study could quantify the contribution of home gardens to household food security in the Raymond Mhlaba Municipality.

78

More research is required which will quantify and separate the monetary benefits of home gardens from what is consumed by households. It would also be desirable to design further research in such a way that it separates the contributions of all home garden components.

REFERENCE Akosa, A. N. A. 2011. Feeding Ghana’s Growing Urban Population – Is Home GardeningtheAnswer?Retrieved,03/06/2015,from: htt//www.Ghanabusinessnews.Com.

Akrofi, S., Struik, P. C. and Price, L. L. 2008. Interactive effects of HIV/AIDS and household headship determine home garden diversity in the Eastern Region

79

of Ghana. Available Online: http://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.php/njas/article/viewFile/1620/1158. Accessed On: 28 April 2016

Aliber, M and Hart, T. G. B. 2009. Should subsistence agriculture be supported as Altman, M., Hart, T. and Jacobs, P. 2009. Food Security in South Africa.Available Online: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/research/output/outputDocuments/6274_Altman_Foods ecurity.pdf. Accessed On: 03 August 2011. Arun, S. 1999. Does land ownership make a difference? Women’s role in agriculture in Kerala India.Women, Land and Agriculture.Oxfarm, Asfaw Z and Woldu Z, 1997. Crop associations of home gardens in Welayata and Gurage in

Ashby J. 1981. New models of agricultural research and extension: The need to integrate women. In: Lewis, Barbara C (Ed.), Invisible farmers: Women and the crisis in agriculture, USAID, Washington DC

Banski, J. 2003. Transforming the functional structure of Poland‟s rural areas, Alternatives for European Rural Areas: Warsaw

Baiphethi, M. N. and Jacob, P. T.2009. The Contribution of Subsistence Farming to Food Security in South Africa.Agrekon. 48(4):342-346.

Bembridge, T. J. 1987. Considerations in technology transfer in less developed areas of Southern Africa. Development Southern Africa 5(2): 212 – 227.

Bennett, J., 2003. The Role of Arable Land Allocations in Cattle Production Systems in Communal Areas of Central Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Unpublished PhD Thesis, School of Science and the Environment, Coventry University, Coventry.

Bernholt, H., K. Kehlenbeck, J. Gebauer & A. Buerkert (2009). Plant species richness and diversity in urban and peri-urban gardens of Niamey, Niger. Agroforestry Systems 77: 159-179.

80

Bless, C., &Higson-Smith, C. 2006. Fundamentals of Social Research methods.Juta& Co, Cape Town. Bonti-Ankomah, S. 2001.Addressing food insecurity in South Africa.Available Online:http://www.sarpn.org.za/EventPapers/Land/20010605Bonti.pdf. Accessed On: 22 May 2010. Bruinsma, J. (Ed.). (2003). World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030;an FAO Perspective. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Carter, M., and May, J. 1999.Poverty and Class in rural South Africa. World Development,27(1):1-20. Chikobvu ,S. 2014.Opportunities for increasing household incomes through gardening: A case of seke communal area in Zimbabwe. Christanty, L. 1990. Homegardens in tropical Asia, with special reference to Indonesia. Homegardens in tropical America: a review. In: K. Landauer, K and Brazil,M (eds.), Tropical Homegardens, pp 9-20. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan . Coetzee, L., Montshwe, B.D. and Jooste, A. 2005. The marketing of livestock on communal lands in the Eastern Cape Province: constraints, challenges and implications for the Extension Services. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 1: 81-103

Das, T. and Das, A. K. (2005). Inventorying Plant Biodiversity in Homegardens. A Case Study in Barak Valley, Assam, North East India. pp. 155 – 163.

Datta, D. and Njuguna, J. 2009.Food security in HIV/AIDS response: Insight from Homa Bay, Kenya.Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS. 6(4):2-4. Delgado, C. 1999. Sources of growth in smallholder agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agrekon 38.

81

Devendra, C. and Thomas, T. 2002. Crop-animal systems in Asia: Importance of livestock and characterization of agro-ecological zones. Agricultural Systems 71: 5-15.

Devendra, C. 2006. Crop-animal systems in Asia: Importance of livestock and characterization of agro-ecological zones. Agricultural Systems 71: 5-15.

Dorward, A., Hazell, P. & Poulton, C., 2008, Rethinking Agricultural Input Subsidies in Poor Rural Economies

Drescher, A.W. 1997. Management strategies in African homegardens and the need for new extension approaches. pp. 231-245. In: Heidhues, F. and Fadani, A. (eds), Food Security and Innovations – Successes and Lessons Learned. Peter Lang, Frankfurt.

Eastern Cape Department of Rural & Agrarian Reform, 2012, Annual Operational Plan(AOP) 2012-2013., Bisho, Eastern Cape Provincial Government.

Ernest Bagson ,B.(2011).Home gardening: the surviving food security strategy in the nandom traditionalarea - upper west region ghanaJournal of Sustainable Development in Africa (Volume 14, No.1, 2012)ISSN: 1520-5509

Faber, M., Witten, C.AndDrimie, S. 2010.Community-based agricultural intervention in the context of food and nutrition security in South Africa. Available onlinehttp://www.sajcn.co.za/index.php/SAJCN/article/viewArticle/461.Acc essed On: 20 September 2015. FANRPAN.2006. Food insecurity in Sekhukhune.Available Online: http://www.fanrpan.org/documents/d00498/FIVIMS_Info_Brief1_Food_inse curity_Sekh ukhune.pdf.Accessed On: 22 July 2015. Finerman R. and Sackett R. 2003.Using Home Gardens to Decipher Health and Healing in the Andes.Available Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14716919.Accessed On: 15 June 2015. Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO).1990. An international action programme on water and sustainable agricultural development. FAO, Rome.

82

. FAO, 1995, Irrigation in Africa in figures. Water Reports. FAO: Rome, viewed 26 March 2013, from http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/glossary/index.j

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).2004.Dietary Diversity in Dangarayo and Dinsor Districts Somalia.Available Online: http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=DIETARY+DIVERSITY+IN+DANG ARAYO+AND+DINOSAUR+DISTRICTS,SOMALIA.Accessed On: 10 November 2012. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).2010. Household food security and community nutrition.Available Online: http://www.fao.org/householdfoodsecurity/V4807e/v4807e05.htm. Accessed On: 19 April 2011 Fernandes, E. C. M. and Nair, P. K. R. (1986). An Evaluation of the Structure and Function of Tropical Homegardens. Journal of Agricultural Systems 21: 279 – 3104 Fraser, G., Monde, N. and Van Averbeke, W. 2003. Food Security in South Africa: A Case Study of Rural Livelihoods in the Eastern Cape. The Challenge of Change: Agriculture,Land and the South African Economy. University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg. Garí, J. A. (2003). Agro biodiversity strategies to combat food insecurity and HIV/AIDS impact in rural Africa. Advancing grassroots responses for nutrition, health and sustainable livelihoods. Population and Development Service, FAO, Rome, Italy(preliminary edition).

Gautan, R., Sthapit, B. and Shrestha, P. 2004. The role of home gardens in on-farm agro biodiversity management and enhancing livelihoods of rural farmers of Nepal. On-farms conservation of agricultural biodiversity in Nepal: managing diversity and promoting its benefits. Pokhara, Nepal. Global Insight. 2009. Regional explorer (REX) update June 2010. Available online: http://www.ihsglobalinsight.co.za/News/news.asp?id=945.Accessed On: 10 January 2012. GSS (Ghana Statistical Service) 2002. 2000 Population and Housing Census, summary

83 report of final results. Accra, Ghana

Hatibu, N., Mutabazi, K., Senkondo, E.M. and Msangi, A.S.K.2006.Economics of rainwater harvestingforcrop enterprises in semi-arid areas of east Africa.Available Online:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377405002908. Accessed On: 10 November 2010. High, C. and Shackleton, C. M. (2000).The Comparative Value of Wild and Domestic Plants in Home gardens of a South African Rural Village. Journal of Agroforestry System 48: 141–156. Hofferth S.L., 2003, Persistence and change in the food security of families with children, 1997-1999. Department of Family studies, University of Maryland, viewed 26 March 2013, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/.

Hoogerbrugge, I. D. and Fresco, L. (1993).Homegarden Systems: Agricultural Characteristics and Challenges, International Institute for Environment and Development, Gatekeeper Series No. 39.12pp.

Hosmer, D. W & Lemeshow, S. 2002. Applied logistic Regression 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York

Hule, Z. C.2009.An exploratory study of the impact of land redistribution on the rural poor: The case of Nkonkobe Municipality.Available Online: http://www.nmmu.ac.za/documents/theses/ZWELANDILE%20CYRIL%20HUL E.pdf.Accessed On: 16 July 2015. IFAD (2012). Increasing Incomes and Reducing Poverty for Rural Smallholder Farmers in Remote Areas of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Extending Agricultural Dealers Networks. An Adaptation of the EADN Final Report, Kenya, 84p

Jacobs, P. T. 2009. The status of Household food security targets in South Africa. Agrekon, 48(4): 410- 411. Jensen, M. (1993b). Productivity and Nutrient Cycling in Javanese Home garden. Journal of Agroforestry Systems 24: 187-201.

84

Keatinge, J. & S. Amoaten (2006). Mainstreaming HIV within a Humanitarian Response– a case study from Concern Malawi. Concern Worldwide, Southern Africa Region Dec. 9 p.

Kebebew, Z and Ayele, G,. 2011. Profitability and Household Income Contribution of Growing Eucalyptus globules (Labill) to Smallholder Farmers: The Case of Central Highland of Oromia. Ethiopia. European Journal of Applied Sciences. 2(1): 25-29, 2010. Available at: http://www. idosi.org/ejas/2(1)10/6. pdf [Accessed on, 19th January, 2016]

Kekana, D. S. 2006. A Socio-economic analysis of urban agriculture: The Soshanguve project case study. Available Online: http://uptd.up.ac.za/thens/available/etd- 08272007+5447/unrestricted/dissertation.pdf. Accessed On: 21 April 2010. KIRSTEN J, MAY J, HENDRIKS S, LYNE M, MACHETHE C and PUNT C (2007). The poverty alleviation and food security role of agriculture in South Africa. In Bresciani F and Valdé A (eds)Beyond Food Production: The role of agriculture in poverty reduction. FAO: Rome. Pp 188 – 221.

Krishnal, S., Weerahewa, J. and Gunaratne, L. H. P. (2012). Role of Homegardens in Achieving Food Security in Batticaloa District, Sri Lanka. International Conference on Economics and Finance Research IPEDR. IACSIT Press, Singapore. 32pp.

Koyenikan, M. J. 2007. Perception of Home Garden Potential Among Women in Edo South Ecologocal Zone, Nigeria. Available Online: http://www.sabinet.co.za/abstracts/genbeh/genbeh_v5_n1_a3.html. Accessed On: 15 June 2011. Leedy, P. and Ormrod, J. 2004. Practical Research: Planning and Design (8th Edition). New York: Prentice Hall

Lyimo-Macha, J. G., Batamuzi, E. K., Tarimo , A. J. P. and Malimbwi, R. E. (2005). Farmer Forums for Improved Food Security: Experiences from TARP II SUA Project. Journal of Continuing Education and Extension 2(1): 17 – 30.

85

Machete, C. L. 2004. Agriculture and Poverty in South Africa: can agriculture reduce poverty? Available Online: http://cfapp1-docs- public.undp.org/eo/evaldocs1/sfcle/eo_doc_357114047.pdf. Accessed On: 03 July 2010. Machingura, C., 2007. An analysis of factors that can be used to identify successful smallholder farmers. A case study of Mbashe and Ngqushwa. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. University of Fort Hare, Alice. Makhura, M.T. 2001. Overcoming transaction costs barriers to market participation of smallholder farmers in the Northern Province of South Africa. Unpublished PhD Thesis University of Pretoria, Pretoria. Marsh, R. 1998. Building on Traditional Gardening to Improve Household Food Security. Food, Nutrition and Agriculture No. 22, Food and Agriculture Organization

Mathias, J., Mertin, P. & Murray, A., 1995, „The psychological functionaing of children from backgrounds of domestic violence‟, Australian Psychologist, 30, 47- 56.

Matshe, I. 2009. Contribution of smallholder production to food security: evidence from sub- Saharan Africa. Available Online: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/research/output/outputDocuments/5823_Matshe_Contri butionofsm allholder.pdf. Accessed On: 22 August 2010. McCorkle, C., Undated. Accumulating Assets through Animal Agriculture. Online: http://www.ilri.org/ILRIPubAware/Uploaded%20Files/20041029115130.01BR_ ISS_Acc umulatingAssetsThroughAnimalAgriculture.pdf. Accessed on: 04 July 2016 Mendez, V. E., (2001). Interdisciplinary Analysis of Homegardens in Nicaragua: Micro-Zonation, Plant use and Socioeconomic Importance. Journal of Agroforestry System 51(2): 85 – 96

Mohan, S. 2004. An assessment of the ecological and socioeconomic benefits provided by homegardens. A case study of Kerala, India. PhD thesis, University of Florida

86

Mohan, S., P. K. R. Nair & A. J. Long (2007). An assessment of the ecological and socioeconomic benefits provided by the homegardens: A case study from Kerala, India. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 29(4): 135 -153.

Monde, N., 2003. Household food security in rural areas of central Eastern Cape. PhD Thesis, Unpublished, University of Fort Hare

Miura, S. 2003. Home Gardening in Urban Poor Communities of the Philippines. 54(1) International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition.

Monde, N., Fraser, G., Botha, J.J. and Anderson, K., 2006. Making home gardening a viable option in rural areas of South Africa: the case study of Guquka and Khayalethu in central Eastern Cape. Available Online: http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/gem/Conference%20Procceedings/Track5Pa pers/Monde%20Tr ack5%20EMSU%20paper%20FinalComplete.pdf. Accessed On: 11 August 2010.

Montshwe D. B. 2006. Factors affecting participation in mainstream cattle markets by small- scale cattle farmers in South Africa. MSc Thesis, University of Free State

Mrindoko, S. (2012). Tanzania Ignorance on Banking Operations Says Report. Impedes Access to Credit Facilities. Daily Newspaper, 28 February. p 1. Makundi, F. I. K. (1996). Household Food Security in Rural Tanzania.A Case study of Moshi Rural District, Kilimanjaro Region. Dissertation for Award for MSc Degree at Agricultural University of Norway, 124pp.

Muchara, B. 2010. Analysis of food value chain in smallholder crop and livestock enterprises in Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. MSc Thesis (Unpublished). University of Fort Hare.

87

Mula, R.P., Gayao, B.T., (1991), Urban and rural home garden in the highlands of the northern Philippines: The case of sweet potato. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines

Murphy, L. L., A. Kassam & D. Kesewa (2006). Innnovations and adaptation in home gardens in AIDS-affected rural Kenya. Unpublished project manuscript

. Musemwa, L., Chagwiza, C., Sikuka, W., Fraser, G., Chimonyo, M. & Mzileni, N. 2007. Analysis of Cattle Marketing Channels Used by Small Scale Farmers in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 19 (9): 31.

Musotsi, A.A., Sigot, A.J. and Onyango, M.O.A. 2008. The role of home gardens in household food security in Butere division of Western Kenya. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development. 8(4): 375-390. Available Online: http://www.bioline.org.br/request?nd08035. Accessed On: 12 February 2011

Motiur, M. R., Furukawa, Y. and Kawata, I. (2005.) Homestead Forest Resources and their Role in Household Economy: A Case Study in the Villages of Gazipur Upazilz of Central Bangladesh. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 4: 359 – 376.

Najafi, B., 2003. An Overview of Current Land Utilization Systems and Their Contribution to Agricultural Productivity. Report of the APO Seminar on Impact of Land Utilization Systems on Agricultural Productivity. Productivity Organization, Islamic Republic of Iran Asian. Nair, M.A. 1986. Agroforestry farming systems in the homesteads of Kerala, southern India. Agroforestry Systems 4:339-363

Naylor, R. 1999. Women Farmers and Economic change in Northern Ghana. Women, Land and Agriculture. Oxfarm, UK.

88

Ndaeyo, N. U. (2007). Assessing the contributions of homestead farming to food security in a developing economy: A case study of Southeastern Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture &Social Sciences, 3 (1): 11-16.

NEL, E. & DAVIES, J. 1999. Farming against the odds: an examination of the challenges facing farming and rural development in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. Department of Geography, Rhodes University, Grahamstown. 22pp

Nkhori P. A. 2004. The impact of transaction costs on the choice of cattle markets in Mahalapye district, Botswana. MSc Dissertation, University of Pretoria

NKONKOBE MUNICIPALITY, 2004. Nkonkobe Integrated Development Programme

Nkonkobe Municipality IDP. 2010/11. Nkonkobe Municipality-Integrated

Development Plan Review Document 2010/2011. Available Online:

http://www.nkonkobe.co.za/nkonkobeidp20102011.pdf. Accessed On: 14 June

2011.

Nkonkobe Municipality Spatial Development Framework Review (SDFR).

2010/11 -2012/13. Nkonkobe Municipality Spatial Development Framework

Review. Available Online:

http://drupal6dev15.econsultant.co.za/sites/psdp.ecprov.gov.za/files/NKONKO

BE%20SDF%20REVIEW%20-%20DRAFT%2026-05-2010.pdf. Accessed On:

13 November 2012.

Nkonkobe Municipality, 2006. Nkonkobe Municipality-Integrated Development Plan Review Document 2005/2006. . Available Online:

89

http://www.nkonkobe.co.za/nkonkobeidp20052006.pdf. Accessed On: 14 June 2011. Nkonkobe Municipality. 2007. Nkonkobe Municipality-Integrated Development Plan Review Document 2006/2007. Available Online: http://www.nkonkobe.co.za/nkonkobeidp20062007.pdf. Accessed On: 10 June 2011. Nkonkobe Municipality. 2008. Nkonkobe Municipality-Integrated Development Plan Review Document 2007/2008. Available Online: http://www.nkonkobe.co.za/nkonkobeidp200072008.pdf. Accessed On: 10 June 2011. Nompozolo, S., 2000. An analysis of the Characteristics and constraints of Smallholder Commercial farmers in the Transkei Region, The Eastern Cape, South Africa. Unpublished M Agric (Agricultural Extension) Dissertation, University of Fort Hare, Alice. Nzomoi, J.N., Byaruhanga, J.K., Maritirim, H.K. and Omboto, P.I. 2007. Determinants of technology adoption in the production of horticultural export produce in Kenya. African Journal of Business Management, 1(5):129- 135. Olajide-Taiwo, F. B., Adeoye, I. B., Adebisi-Adelani, O., Odeleye, O. M. O., Fabiyi, A. O. and Olajide-Taiwo, L. O. (2012). Assessment of the Benefits and Constraints of Home Gardening in the Neighborhood of the National Horticultural Research Institute, Ibadan, Oyo State. Journal Agriculture and Environment Science 7(4): 478 – 483.

Okigbo, B. N. (1990). Home gardens in Tropical Africa. In: K. Landauer & M. Brazil(eds.),Tropical home gardens, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 21-40.

Onyango, C.L. 2007. Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture as a Poverty alleviation strategy among low income households: The case of Orange farm, south Johannesburg. Available Online: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/3562/1/dissertation_onyango_c.pdf. Accessed On: 20 September 2010. Ozowa, V.N. 1995. Information needs of small scale farmers in Africa: The Nigerian Example. Online URL:

90

www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/newsletter/june97/9nigeria.html. Accessed On: 29 September 2010.

Paddy, F. 2003. Gender differentials in land ownership and their impact on household food security: a case study of Masaka district. Master’s Thesis, Uganda. Press, Baltimore and London. Available Online: http://www.troz.unihohenheim. de/research/Thesis/MScAES/Paddy.pdf. Accessed On: 16 August 2010. Padmanabhan, M. A. (2007). The making and unmaking of gendered crops in Ghana. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 28: 57 – 70.

Peyre A, Guidal A, Wiersum KF, Bongers FJJM 2006. Dynamics of home garden structure and function in Kerala, India. Agroforest. Syst. 66: 101–115.

Randela, R. 2005. Integration of emerging cotton farmers into the commercial agricultural economy. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein Ravallion, M. 1989. Poverty in theory and Practice, Washington, D. C. World Bank. Rocheleau, D. E. (1985). Women's use of off-farm lands: Implications for agroforestry research. In: I. Dankelman and J. Davidson (ed), Women and Environment in the Third World: Alliance for the Future. London, Earthscan, 1989. 210 pp.

Rosset, P. 1999. Policy Brief Number 4: The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture in the Context of Global Trade Negotiations. Oakland, CA: Institute for Food and Development Policy. Rugalema, G. H., Johnsen, F. H. and Rugambisa, J. (1994). The Homegarden Agroforestry System of Bukoba District, North-Western Tanzania. 2. Constraints to Farm Productivity. Journal of Agroforestry Systems 26: 205-214. RUDEP 2004, Quang Ngai Rural Development Program Phase 2, Home garden report.

91

Salick, J. 1997. Subsistence and the single woman among the Amuesha of the Upper Amazon, Peru. In: CE Sachs (ed.), Women working the environment. Taylor and Francis, Washington D.C., pp. 139-152.

Sebolaaphuti, K., 2005. The effect of HIV/AIDS on household food security: a case study of Bokaa, a rural area in Botswana. Available Online: http://etd.sun.ac.za/bitstream/10019/1198/1/Sebolaaphuti,%20K. pdf . Accessed On 30 July 2015.

Seti, S. 2003. Subsistence Gardening for Food Security: A Case Study of Three Townships in Grahamstown, Eastern Cape Province. Available Online: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qkkBVWyju_0J:www.fhiser.org.z a/Worki ngpapers/53Seti.pdf. Accessed On: 22 May 2010.

Shackleton, C. M. (2000). The Comparative Value of Wild and Domestic Plants in Homegardens of a South African Rural Village. Journal of Agroforestry System 48: 141–156.

Shackleton, C.M. 2003. The prevalence of use and value of wild edible herbs in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 99: 23–25.

Shackleton, C. M, F. Paumgarten & M. L. Cocks (2008). Household attributes promote diversity of tree holdings in rural areas, South Africa. Agroforestry Systems, 72:221–230.

Shrestha, P., R. Gautam, R. B. Rana & B. Sthapit (2002). Home gardens in Nepal: status and scope for research and development. In: J.W. Watson & P. B. Eyzaguirre (eds.), Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources. Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, pp. 105-118. Available athttp://www.bioversityinternational.org/Publications/Pdf/753.pdf. (accessed 15 January2008.

92

Sikwela, M.M. 2008. Determinants of Household Food Security in the Semi-Arid Areas of Zimbabwe: A Case study of Irrigation and Non-Irrigation Farmers in Lupane and Hwange Districts. Unpublished (Master’s Thesis), University of Fort Hare, Alice. Smale, M., Cohen, M. J. and Nagarajan, L. (2009). Local Markets, Local Varieties: Rising Food Prices and Small Farmers’ Access to Seed. Issue Brief 2009. International Food Policy Research Institutes, Washington DC. 24pp.

.

Statistics South Africa, 2001, Census 2011-Census in Brief, Pretoria, South Africa

Steiner, K., J. Kienzel, F., Ribeiro., (2004), Mitigating the Impact of HIV/AIDS by laborsaving technologies.” GTZ. African Conservation Tillage Network Information Series No. 9

Strategy to address rural food insecurity? Agrekon, 48(4):345-346. SUA ( 2006). Research Agenda for 2005 – 2010. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania. 25pp.

Stockbridge, M., 2007. Competitive Commercial Agriculture in Impacts. In All-Africa Review of Experiences with Commercial Agriculture. The United Nation University press

Talukder, A., L. Kiess, N. Huq, S. de Pee, I. Darnton-Hill & M. Bloem (2000). Increasing the production and consumption of vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables: Lessons learned in taking the Bangladesh homestead gardening programme to a national scale.Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 21(2): 165–72.

Twine, W. and Hunter, L. 2008. AIDS mortality and the role of natural resources in households food security in a rural district of South Africa. Available Online: http://programs.ifpri.org/renewal/pdf/RFbrief11.pdf. Accessed On: 31 July 2010

Tynsong, H. and Tiwari, B. K. 2010. Plant Diversity in the Home gardens and their Significance in the Livelihoods of War Khasi Community of Meghalaya North-

93 east India. Available Online: http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JBD/JBD- 01-0-000-10- Web/JBD-01-1-000-10-Abst-PDF/JBD-01-1-001-10-006-Tynsong- H/JBD-01-1-001-10- 006-Tynsong-H-Tt.pdf. Accessed On: 11 April 2011.

Water Research Commision, 2006. Water the tie that binds Eastern Cape community. The Water wheel, 5(1): 22-25

Wilson, R.T. 1995. Livestock Production Systems. ICTA, Macmillan, UK.

World Food Programme (WFP). 2008. Measuring of food consumption - harmonizing Methodologies. Interagency Workshop Report WFP – FAO 9-10 April 2008, Rome. Yishak, G. 2005. Determinants of Adoption of improved Maize Technology in Damote Gale Woreda, Wolaita, Ethiopia. Msc. Thesis (Unpublished) Presented to School of Graduate Study of Alemaya University. Zobolo AM, Mkabela QN, Mtetwa DK (2008). Enhancing the status of indigenous

vegetables through use of kraal manure substitutes and intercropping. African.

Journal of Indigenous Knowledge. Syst. 7(2):211-222

94

APPENDIX

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE CONTRIBUTIONS OF HOME GARDENS TO INCOME OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS

SECTION A: HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Village Name------; Village No. ------; Household No. ------; Page -Enumerator Name------

1. Household Size, Composition and Characteristics Names of Relation Gender Yr. No. Occup If F, No. If not born in HH family and to HHH (M/F) born yrs. ation. Children Yr. From Province other HH (Code) spent (Code) Born came where (Code) members in (Code) (HHH school First)* 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.  Do not count grandchildren who are not in the HH.

95

Relation to HHH Occupation Where Province

1. Husband 1. Farmer 1. Town 1. Eastern cape 2. Wife 2. Wage 2. 2. Gauteng 3. Mother employment 3. Another 3. Northern cape 4. Father 3. Unemployed village 4. Free state 5. Son 4. Other: specify 4. ------5. Western cape 6. Daughter 5. ______6. KZN 7. Cousin 7. Limpopo 8. Niece 8. Mpumalanga 9. Nephew 9. North west 10. Uncle 11. Aunt 12. Brother 13. Sister 14. Friend 15. Grandson 16. Grand daughter 17. Grand Father 18. Grand mother 19. Other: specify 20. ______

96

2. Name your spouse and any of your children, who do not live in the household at present, year left, where to and what he or she is doing. Names Relatio Gend Yr. Wher Doin Relation Occupati Where Province of n to er Left e to g to HHH on family HHH (M/F) (Cod what membe (Code) e) (Cod rs e) 1. 1. 6. Farm 5. Town 1. E. cape Husband er 6. Township 2. Gauten 2. 2. Wife 7. Wage 7. Village g 3. 3. empl 8. ------3. N. cape Mother oy 4. Free 4. 4. Father 8. Une state 5. 21. Son mplo 5. W. cape 22. Daug yed 6. KZN 6. hter 9. ____ 7. Limpop 7. 23. Cousi ____ o n ___ 8. Mpumal 8. 24. Niece anga 9. 25. Neph 9. North ew west 10. 26. Uncle 27. Aunt 28. Broth er 29. Sister 30. Frien d 31. Gran dson 32. Gran d daug hter 33. Gran d Fathe r 34. Gran d moth er 35. ______

97

3. What does HH have? Item Answer Codes 1. House No. of Houses House Tenancy Drinking Water 1. Own 1. Tap/windmill/borehole Total No. rooms 2. Rent 2. Tanker Tenancy (O/R) 3. River Type of roof 4. Well Roof type 1. Zinc 5. Rain (Code) 2. Thatch 6. Spring/stream 3. Asbestos Wall type 4. _Others_ Toilet (Code) ______1. Flash 2. Pit 2. Water source (Code) Type of Wall 3. Bucket 3. Electricity (Y/N) 1. Mud 4. Bush 2. Brick 3. Zinc Type of transport 4. Wood 1. Bus/bakkie/car 4. Toilet type (Code) 5. Thatch 2. Scooter/motor bike 3. Bicycle 5. Transport veh. type (Code) 4. Animal/drawn carts 6. Phone (Y/N) 7. 8. 9.

98

4 SECTION B HH GARDENING ACTIVITIES

Does the HH Is the HH Approximately Does the HH List the crops have access owning or how many use the arable produced by to arable renting the hectares is this land for own HH land? arable land? arable land? food production? ( 1.Onion 1. Yes 1.Owning 1. 0.5 ha– 1 ha engaging in 2.Potatoes 2. No. 2. Renting 2. 1.5 to 2 ha home 3.Cabbage 3. Other 3. 2.5 ha to 3 gardening) 4. Spinach (Specify) ha 5. Carrot 4. 3.5 ha to 4 1.Yes 6.Other ha 2.No (Specify): 5. Other ( Specify)

How much are How much are If the HH does What are the you making you making not partake in other sources Which monthly from from the home of food for HH commodity is the sale of weekly sales gardening, who own being highly your produce? of your how does it home sold? R500 - R1000 produce? access food? gardens? R1000 -R1500 R300- R500 R1500-R 2000 R500- R800 1 Urban 1 Urban 1.Onion R2000-R2500 R800-R1000 markets markets 2.Potatoes R1000- R1200 2. Rural 2. Rural 3.Cabbage markets markets 4. Spinach 3. Food aid 3. Food aid 5. Carrot system system 6.Other 4. Other ( 4. Other ( (Specify Specify) Specify)

Do HH If No, why do Are there other Which Source of members have HH members people production inputs? to partake in not have time assisting with inputs do the home for home home household gardening? gardening? gardening, use? besides the 1. Yes 1 Working household 2. No 2. Health members? problems

99

3. Age 1 Yes 4. Other 2. No (Specify)

100

5 Irrigation and source of water

Does households depends on rainfall or irrigation for the irrigation of crops?

Rainfall

Irrigation

ii what is the source of water to irrigate the gardens? Tap, River, Dam, Lake or Stream

6How much income does your hh derived from the following

Source of Income R/month R/year

Wages Self-employment Remittance Old pension grant Children grant Other farming activities

7What are the challenges facing home gardens productivity ?

8Support Services, Resources and Infrastructure

Indicate the type of support service

1 Credit Market information 2

workshops 3

Extension services 4

Veterinary services 5

101

9 Which of the following equipment do you own? Please indicate whether is it yours, borrowed or hired?

Equipment own Hired Borrowed

1Plough

2 Planter

3 Cultivator

4 Fork spade

5 Hoe

6 Rake

7 Others(specify)

102

10 Which of the following animals do you keep? Indicate numbers owned and reasons for keeping them.

Type Number owned Reason for keeping

1 Chicken

2 Goat

3 Sheep

4 Pig

5 Cattle

6 Donkey

7 others(specify)

11Indicate the types crops grown in the garden the extent and reason for growing crops Extent Variation in yield Reason for growing Butternuts Potatoes cabbage spinnach onions Tomatoes Pumpkins

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

103