Mechanism for Improving the Sustainability of Homestead Food Gardens in the Gauteng Province, South Africa

Abstract

Homestead food garden (HFG) projects are supported by government which attempts to alleviate poverty in food insecure households. Despite the fact that homestead food gardens are seen as a solution to food security in the Gauteng Province and other parts of the world, the issue of unsustainability and failure of these programmes after government support ceases cannot be ignored. A household survey was conducted in the Gauteng Province by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) and the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) to establish a sustainable mechanism for homestead food gardens. The following objectives were addressed: to identify socio-economic factors that influence sustainability of homestead gardens; to identify factors influencing garden availability; and to recommend the mechanism for improving the sustainability of homestead gardens. A total of 1150 households participated and were spread as follows: City of Johannesburg (319); City of Tshwane (270); Ekurhuleni Metropolitan (141); Sedibeng (216); and the West Rand (204). Quantitative and qualitative designs were used as a questionnaire, and stakeholder discussions and field observations were part of the data collection. A purposive sampling technique was used and data was coded, captured, and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Food security status was also in line with the fact that South Africa is food insecure at a household level in contradiction to the national level. A whopping number of households interviewed were food insecure (860), as compared to households that were food secure (290). This food security situation is worrying because 695 households go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food and about 395 households could go the whole day and night without eating anything. It was also established that in terms of sustainability, not all household gardens are economically viable, or socially and environmentally sustainable. Nine hundred and seventy-one households agreed that gardens do not generate income, and very few households (179) emphasised that gardens were generating income. There was an almost equal response in terms of gardens supporting social initiatives. In terms of environmental sustainability, 933 households were not aware about the environmental issues. In conclusion, the majority of households felt that the HFG Programme is very good (371), good (490), and fair (191). Only a few households felt that the initiative is poor (70) and very poor (28). The majority of households felt that the support received is very good (443), good (341), and fair (166). Quite a number of households felt that the support received was poor (105) and very poor (95). Hence, some of the recommended activities to be included in the mechanism include stakeholder and community mobilisation, situational analysis, food garden inputs, nutrition education, participation of the community in homestead programme design and implementation, training, and monitoring.