Abstract
Trees within the homestead area provide many functions to rural households. However, within the semi-arid regions of southern Africa, there has been only limited examination of the correlates between the socio-economic attributes of rural households and the density, species richness and types of trees they keep. This paper reports on a multivariate analysis of household attributes in relation to homestead tree holdings from six rural villages in South Africa. In terms of density of trees per household, gender of the household head was the only significant correlate, with female-headed households having significantly fewer trees than their male-headed counterparts. This was especially so for the density of indigenous trees. With respect to species richness, a number of interrelated correlates were identified through Principle Components Analysis, the most prominent ones being relative wealth, village location, homestead size and gender. Most species were common between both male- and female-headed households, although there were differences between them for six of the species held by at least five percent of households. However, the differences were not related to species uses or income generation potential. These results indicate that support programmes should be conscious of the differential needs and responses of households according to their different characteristics and circumstances.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acocks JPH (1988) Veld types of South Africa. Mem Bot Surv S Afr 57:1–146
Allen JA (1990) Homestead planting in two rural Swaziland communities. Agrofor Sys 11:11–22
Arnold M, Dewees P (1998) Rethinking approaches to tree management by farmers. Natural Resource Perspectives, No 26. Overseas Development Institute, London
Bonnard P, Scherr S (1994) Within gender differences in tree management: is gender distinction a reliable concept? Agrofor Sys 25:71–93
Chepstow-Lusty A, Winfield M, Wallis J, Collins A (2006) The importance of local tree resources around Gombe National Park, western Tanzania: implications for humans and chimpanzees. Ambio 33:124–129
Chivaura-Mususa C, Campbell B, Kenyon W (2000) The value of mature trees in arable fields in the smallholder sector, Zimbabwe. Ecol Econ 33:395–400
Cocks ML, Wiersum KF (2003) The significance of plant biodiversity to rural households in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. For Trees Livel 13:39–58
Degrande A, Schreckenberg K, Mbosso C, Anegbeh P, Okafor V, Kanmegne J (2006) Farmer’s fruit tree-growing strategies in the humid forest zone of Cameroon and Nigeria. Agrofor Sys 67:159–175
Dold AP, Cocks ML (1999) Preliminary list of Xhosa plant names from Eastern Cape, South Africa. Bothalia 29:267–292
Fortmann L, Antinori C, Nabane N (1997) Fruits of their labours: gender, property rights and tree planting in two Zimbabwe villages. Rural Socio 62:295–314
Garrity DP (2004) Agroforestry and the achievement of the millennium development goals. Agrofor Sys 61:5–17
Grundy IM, Balebereho S, Cunliffe R, Tafangenyasha C, Fergusson R, Parry D (1993) Availability and use of trees in Mutanda resettlement area, Zimbabwe. For Ecol Mgmt 56:243–266
Hansen JD, Luckert MK, Minae S, Place F (2005) Tree planting under customary tenure systems in Malawi: impacts of marriage and inheritance patterns. Agric Sys 84:99–118
High C, Shackleton CM (2000) The comparative value of wild and domestic plants in home gardens of a South African rural village. Agrofor Sys 48:141–156
Howard P (2006) Gender and social dynamics in swidden and homegradens in Latin America. In: Kumar BM, Nair PKR (eds) Tropical homegardens: a time-tested example of sustainable agroforestry. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 159–182
Jose D, Shanmugaratnam N (1993) Traditional homegardens of Kerala: a sustainable human ecosystem. Agrofor Sys 24:203–213
Kaimowitz D (2003) Not by bread alone … forests and rural livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Oksanan T, Pajari B, Tuomasjukka T (eds) Forests in poverty reduction strategies: capturing the potential. EFI, Finland, pp 45–63
Leakey RR, Tchoundjeu Z, Schreckenberg K, Shackleton SE, Shackleton CM (2005) Agroforestry tree products: targeting poverty reduction and enhanced livelihoods. Int J Agric Sust 3:1–23
Montambault JR, Alavalapati JRR (2005) Socioeconomic research in agroforestry: a decade in review. Agrofor Sys 65:151–161
Musvoto C, Campbell BM (1995) Mango trees as components of agroforestry systems in Mangwende, Zimbabwe. Agrofor Sys 32:247–260
Ntshona ZM (2001) The contribution of communal rangelands to rural people’s livelihoods in the Maluti District. M.Phil thesis, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, pp 200
Paumgarten F, Shackleton CM, Cocks M (2005) Growing of trees in home-gardens by rural households in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo provinces, South Africa. Int J World Ecol Sust Dev 12:1–19
Phiri D, Franzel S, Mafongoya M, Jere I, Katanga R, Phiri S (2004) Who is using the new technology? The association of wealth status and gender with the planting of improved tree fallows in Eastern Province, Zambia. Agric Sys 79:131–144
Price L, Campbell BM (1998) Household tree holdings: a case study of Mutoko communal area, Zimbabwe. Agrofor Sys 39:205–210
Rocheleau D, Edmunds D (1997) Women, men and trees: gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World Dev 25:1351–1371
Rugalema GH, Okting’ati A, Johnsen FH (1994) The homegarden agroforestry system of Bukoba district, North-Western Tanzania. 1. Farming System analysis. Agrofor Sys 26:53–64
Schreckenberg K (1999) Products of a managed landscape: non-timber forest products in the parklands of the Bassila region, Benin. Glob Ecol Biogeog 8:279–289
Shackleton CM, Botha J, Emanuel PL (2003) Productivity and abundance of Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra in and around rural settlements and protected areas of the Bushbuckridge Lowveld, South Africa. For Trees Liveli 13:217–232
Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE (2000) Direct use values of savanna resources harvested from communal savannas in the Bushbuckridge lowveld, South Africa. J Trop For Prod 6:21–40
Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE (2006) Household wealth status and natural resource use in the Kat River Valley, South Africa. Ecol Econ 57:306–317
Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE, Cousins B (2001) The role of land-based strategies in rural livelihoods: the contribution of arable production, animal husbandry and natural resource harvesting. Dev S Afr 18:581–604
Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE, Ntshudu M, Ntzebeza J (2002) The role and value of savanna non-timber forest products to rural households in the Kat River valley, South Africa. J Trop For Prod 8:45–65
Acknowledgements
We are extremely grateful to the residents of the six villages for welcoming and working with the research team. Monde Ntshudu and Johnson Maluga were able translators for which we are grateful. Tony Dold at the Selmar Schonland Herbarium assisted in the identification of a number of tree species. Funding for collection of the previous household profile data by MC at Benton and Crossroads was provided by SANPAD.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shackleton, C.M., Paumgarten, F. & Cocks, M.L. Household attributes promote diversity of tree holdings in rural areas, South Africa. Agroforest Syst 72, 221–230 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9066-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9066-5