This article was downloaded by: [Victoria Reyes-Garcia]

On: 23 January 2012, At: 19:40

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa20

Home Gardens in Three Mountain

Regions of the Iberian Peninsula:
Description, Motivation for Gardening,
and Gross Financial Benefits
a b c
Victoria Reyes-García , Laura Aceituno , Sara Vila , Laura
d e f
Calvet-Mir , Teresa Garnatje , Alexandra Jesch , Juan José
c g g g
Lastra , Montserrat Parada , Montserrat Rigat , Joan Vallès &
b
Manuel Pardo-De-Santayana
a
ICREA and Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
b
Departamento de Biología (Botánica), Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid, C/ Darwin 2. Campus de Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain
c
Departamento de Biología de Organismos y Sistemas, Universidad
de Oviedo, Campus del Cristo, Oviedo, Spain
d
Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma
de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
e
Institut Botànic de Barcelona (CSIC-ICUB), Passeig del Migdia s.n.,
Parc de Montjuïc, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
f
Institute for Organic Farming, University for Natural Resources and
Applied Life Sciences Vienna, Vienna, Austria
g
Laboratori de Botànica, Facultat de Farmàcia, Universitat de
Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

Available online: 23 Jan 2012

To cite this article: Victoria Reyes-García, Laura Aceituno, Sara Vila, Laura Calvet-Mir, Teresa
Garnatje, Alexandra Jesch, Juan José Lastra, Montserrat Parada, Montserrat Rigat, Joan Vallès
& Manuel Pardo-De-Santayana (2012): Home Gardens in Three Mountain Regions of the Iberian
Peninsula: Description, Motivation for Gardening, and Gross Financial Benefits, Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, 36:2, 249-270

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2011.627987

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012
 Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 36:249–270, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1044-0046 print/1540-7578 online
DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2011.627987

Home Gardens in Three Mountain

Regions of the Iberian Peninsula: Description,
Motivation for Gardening, and Gross
Financial Benefits

VICTORIA REYES-GARCÍA,1 LAURA ACEITUNO,2 SARA VILA,3

LAURA CALVET-MIR,4 TERESA GARNATJE,5 ALEXANDRA JESCH,6
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

JUAN JOSÉ LASTRA,3 MONTSERRAT PARADA,7

MONTSERRAT RIGAT,7 JOAN VALLÈS,7 and
MANUEL PARDO-DE-SANTAYANA2
1
ICREA and Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
2
Departamento de Biología (Botánica), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
C/ Darwin 2. Campus de Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain
3
Departamento de Biología de Organismos y Sistemas, Universidad de Oviedo,
Campus del Cristo, Oviedo, Spain
4
Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,
Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
5
Institut Botànic de Barcelona (CSIC-ICUB), Passeig del Migdia s.n.,
Parc de Montjuïc, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
6
Institute for Organic Farming, University for Natural Resources and
Applied Life Sciences Vienna, Vienna, Austria
7
Laboratori de Botànica, Facultat de Farmàcia, Universitat de Barcelona,
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

Previous research on tropical home gardens stresses their

ecological, economic, and social functions. This article a) describes
home gardens ( n = 252) in three rural areas of the Iberian
Peninsula, b) explores motivations for gardening, and c) com-
putes the gross financial benefits of crops in home gardens.
Different from tropical gardens, the studied gardens specialize in
edible plants, species with other uses being marginally present.
Motivations for gardening relate more to people’s way of living (i.e.,

Address correspondence to Victoria Reyes-García, ICREA Researcher, Institut de Ciència

i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellatera, Barcelona,
Spain. E-mail: victoria.reyes@uab.cat

249
 250 V. Reyes-García et al.

hobby, keeping traditions) than to economic reasons. The aver-

age gross financial value of home gardens in our sample is 1,691
C/year/gardener, equivalent to almost three minimal monthly
salaries in Spain. Home gardens seem to also provide noneconomic
benefits that help explain the maintenance of those agroecosystems.

KEYWORDS Catalan Pyrenees, Central Asturias, gross value,

kitchen gardens, Sierra Norte de Madrid, vegetables

Over recent decades, interest has grown in home gardens, defined here
as relatively small cultivated plots usually devoted in whole or in part
to the growing of herbs, fruits, or vegetables for household consump-
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

tion (adapted from Kumar and Nair 2004). Studies on home gardens have
stressed the ecological, economic, and social functions of gardening. For
example, researchers have documented characteristics and functions of
home gardens in tropical rural areas of Central and South America (Aguilar-
Stoen et al. 2009; Albuquerque et al. 2005; Del Angel-Perez and Mendoza
2004; Perrault-Archambault and Coomes 2008;Vázquez-García 2008), Africa
(Tchatat et al. 1996; Drescher et al. 1999; High and Shackleton 2000;
Maroyi 2009), and Asia (Cai et al. 2004; Ali 2005; Abdoellah et al. 2006;
Sunwar et al. 2006) finding that with a focus mostly on edible crops,
tropical home gardens contribute to sustain basic households needs with-
out generating environmental degradation (Torquebiau 1992; Gajaseni and
Gajaseni 1999; Nair 2001; Watson and Eyzaguirre 2002; Del Angel-Perez
and Mendoza 2004). Research on the ecological functions of home gar-
dens has also found that home gardens improve nutrient cycling (Kumar
and Nair 2004), serve as refuges for endangered species (Gessler et al.
1998), and contribute to in situ conservation of genetic and species diver-
sity (Sunwar et al. 2006; Kabir and Webb 2008; Perrault-Archambault and
Coomes 2008; Scales and Marsden 2008; Aguilar-Stoen et al. 2009). Research
on the economic functions of home gardens in tropical regions suggests
that home gardens are efficient in cash and energy flows (Cai et al. 2004),
have higher productivity than other agricultural systems (Jensen 1993), and
generally contribute to food security through the generation of products
for household consumption (Dharmasena and Wijeratne 1996; Wezel and
Bender 2003). In some cases, home gardens also contribute to household
cash income through the commercialization of surplus fruits and vegeta-
bles (Drescher et al. 1999; Wezel and Bender 2003; Ali 2005; Motiur et al.
2006; Pandey et al. 2007; de la Cerda and Mukul 2008; Maroyi 2009). Last,
research on the social functions of home gardens has found that these agroe-
cosystems provide an important space for social relations (Shillington 2008)
and contribute to household health (Finerman and Sackett 2003; Del Angel-
Perez and Mendoza 2004). Similarly, researchers have also noticed that
 Home Gardens of the Iberian Peninsula 251

home gardens in cities of industrialized nations contribute to community

development (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004) and impact food choice,
social skills, and nutritional knowledge (Lautenschlager and Smith 2007) of
home garden holders. In sum, research on home gardens suggests that this
form of agriculture provides a myriad of ecological, economic, and social
benefits.
Despite the vast literature on the topic on tropical countries and the
widespread existence of home gardens in industrial nations, the academic
interest on home gardens in temperate areas is limited and recent (see
Cleveland et al. 1985; Agelet et al. 2000; Vogl-Lukasser and Vogl 2002, 2004;
Thompson et al. 2003; Vogl and Vogl-Lukasser 2003; Morton et al. 2008;
Perry and Nawaz 2008; Jesch 2009; Rigat et al. 2009; Aceituno-Mata 2010;
Bassullu and Tolunay 2010; Reyes-García et al. 2010; Calvet-Mir et al. 2011).
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

The research presented here aims to contribute to this body of knowl-

edge by a) providing a description of temperate vegetable home gardens
of the Iberian Peninsula, an understudied agroecosystem; b) exploring the
motivations for gardening among home garden managers in rural areas of
developed countries; and c) estimating the gross financial importance of
these agroecosystems. Since our data only allows us to estimate the gross,
and not the net, financial value of home gardens, results presented here are
partial, and they should be taken as the first step in improving our under-
standing of the financial value of these agroecosystems in rural areas of
developed countries.

STUDY SETTING

We conducted research in three rural areas of the Iberian Peninsula: the

Catalan Pyrenees, Central Asturias (Cantabrian Range), and Sierra Norte de
Madrid (Central Range) (Figure 1). Although the three areas have differ-
ent languages and distinctive cultural background, geographical and historic
similarities allow comparisons between home gardens in the three regions.
Specifically, the three areas are similar in that a) they are in mountain or
pre-mountain regions, b) over the last decades they have experienced a pop-
ulation exodus to nearby urban and industrial centers, and c) over the same
period, the overall importance of the agricultural activity has decreased,
increasing the importance of the tertiary sector and construction. Table 1
summarizes the main characteristics of the three studied areas.
Until the mid-twentieth century,the economic system of rural areas in
the Iberian Peninsula was dominated by un-mechanized agricultural activ-
ities (Naredo 2004). During the second half of the twentieth century, the
introduction of new crops, the mechanization of farm activities, and later
the European Union agrarian policy led—in the three study areas—to the
concentration of agricultural activities in the most productive lands and
 252 V. Reyes-García et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

FIGURE 1 Map of the studied areas.

TABLE 1 Characteristics of the study zones

Sierra Norte de
Characteristics Catalan Pyrenees Central Asturias Madrid

Ecosystem Mountainous and Mountainous Mountainous

pre-mountainous
Elevation (masl) From 729 to 1422 From 150 to 600 From 600 to 2000
Annual rainfall (mm) From 800 to 1200 1066 From 600 to 1000
Mean temperature 16 to 8 17.3 to 7.5 28.5 to 1
range (◦ C)
Main economic Tourism, livestock Mining, industry, Tourism,
activities farming, agriculture livestock farming construction,
livestock farming

produced a migration flow to urban areas, resulting in the abandonment

of less productive lands and activities (Naredo 2004). For example, the
weather and topography of the Catalan Pyrenees, one of our study sites
in the southern flanks of the Pyrenees, coupled with the process of agricul-
tural mechanization caused a progressive abandonment of cultivable land
over the twentieth century. The difficulty and costs of mechanizing agri-
culture in areas with significant slopes resulted in the transformation of
otherwise cultivated areas to permanent grazing lands or forests (Direcció
General de PlanificacióiAcció Territorial 2000). Central Asturias, in the north-
west of the Iberian Peninsula, suffered a similar process. Cereal cultivation
 Home Gardens of the Iberian Peninsula 253

dominated the agricultural sector in Central Asturias until the first half of
the twentieth century(Bosque-Maruel and Vilá-Valentí 1990), but the spe-
cialization of the region in dairy farming resulted in the transformation
of agricultural lands into meadows (Rodríguez and Menéndez 2005). The
imposition of a milk quota system and strict hygiene and technology stan-
dards that occurred after the incorporation of Spain into the European
Union (1986) forced small dairies to close, accentuating the concentration
of land property. Nowadays many areas in Central Asturias are devoted
to pastures, prairies, tree crops such as eucalyptus, or have simply been
abandoned and reverted to scrubland.Similarly, over the last decades agri-
culture has lost its predominance in our third study region, the Sierra
Norte de Madrid. Traditionally, the most important economic activities of
the area were cereal cultivation in rotation with pastures for livestock farm-
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

ing and subsistence agriculture (Barrios et al. 1992; Aceituno-Mata 2010).

The proximity of the city of Madrid has led to the almost complete aban-
donment of the agricultural activity, for most residents in the area work in
the service and construction sectors, dependent of the economic activity of
Madrid.
Secondary sources and our own ethnographic information suggest that
home gardens have historically been an integral part of the agricultural
systems of the three studied regions (Barrios et al. 1992; Rodríguez and
Menéndez 2005; Rigat et al. 2009; Aceituno-Mata 2010). As in other regions
of the world, home gardens in the Iberian Peninsula were traditionally ori-
ented to household consumption. Home gardens have traditionally been
important in the three regions of study mainly because villages in those
areas lacked regular access to markets. For example, snow diminishes the
mobility of villagers in the highest areas of the Catalan Pyrenees during the
winter season, discontinuing weekly markets and impeding villagers’ access
to market towns for the provision of goods. Similarly, the scattered settle-
ment pattern in Central Asturias increases the costs of transport for fruits and
vegetables, which has resulted in sporadic local markets. In the three study
regions home gardens persist nowadays as the most characteristic form of
agriculture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multidisciplinary team of social and natural scientists collected data for

this article during February through October 2008. During fieldwork, six
researchers lived in the study sites and participated in the regular activi-
ties of the villages. Notably, they accompanied people in their leisure and
work activities. Participant observation allowed the understanding of the dif-
ferent activities and tasks around gardening. During fieldwork, researchers
also conducted open-ended interviews with men and women about the
 254 V. Reyes-García et al.

management of home gardens. We use this information to contextualize the

quantitative findings of the research.

Sampling
Our sampling strategy proceeded in two steps: selection of villages and
selection of home gardens. We first selected villages that were representative
of the environmental and socioeconomic variability of each area. We then
selected between 20 and 100% of the gardens of each village for the study.
The percentage of gardens selected in a village depended on the total num-
ber of active home gardens in the village. Because villages do not have
homegarden censuses, we used a combination of snowball and purposive
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

sampling strategies (Bernard 2006) to ensure that we captured variability

in the types of home gardens selected for the study. For example, once we
had an accurate list of gardens, we selected irrigated and non-irrigated home
gardens, or organic and nonorganic home gardens. After we had identified
potential gardens for the study, we requested the voluntary participation of
the primary garden manager, defined as the person who reportedly realized
most of the work on the home garden and made decisions about its manage-
ment. Because some households had more than one garden, we included in
the study all the gardens managed by households in the sample.
We interviewed a total of 202 home garden managers, 121 men and
81 women, managing a total of 252 home gardens in 58 villages: 37 villages
where settled in the Catalan Pyrenees, 11 in Central Asturias, and 10 in the
Sierra Norte de Madrid. Villages in the Catalan Pyrenees belong to Vall Fosca,
Alta Vall del Ter, and Alt Empordà areas, respectively located in the districts
(or “comarques”) of Pallars Jussà, Ripollès, and Alt Empordà. Villages in the
Sierra Norte the Madrid belong to the district (or “comarca”) Sierra Norte.
Villages in Central Asturias belong to the districts (or “concejos”) of Riosa,
Morcín, Lena, Mieres, Oviedo, and Gijón.

Methods of Data Collection

INDIVIDUAL SURVEY

We administered a survey to the main garden manager. The survey included

questions on individual and household attributes such as sex, age, educa-
tion level, and household size (or number of people living in the household
at the moment of the interview).We also asked respondents about the pri-
mary garden management practices, including a) type of fertilization (i.e.,
organic, inorganic), b) watering system (i.e., rain fed, canal), c) weeding
system (i.e., manual, chemical), and d) pest control system (i.e., manual,
chemical). Finally, we asked a general question about the final destination
 Home Gardens of the Iberian Peninsula 255

of products grown in home gardens. Specifically, we asked subjects to esti-

mate the amount (all = 100%, most = 75%, half = 50%, a small amount =
25%, and none = 0%) of home garden products devoted to i) consumption,
ii)gift-giving, and iii) sale.
In a second part of the interview, we asked informants to list all their
reasons for growing a home garden. Specifically we asked: “Why do you
grow a home garden? Please, tell me all the reasons why you do so.” We
allowed informants to give as many reasons as they wanted and recorded
their responses verbatim.

GARDEN INVENTORY

We visited each garden a total of three times. At the beginning of the sowing
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

season, during our first visit, we requested the main gardener to accompany
us to each of his or her home gardens. We measured the dimensions of
each garden (in m2 ). We then asked the gardener to identify all the culti-
vated plants present in the home garden at the time of the visit. We recorded
the local name and the main use (i.e., edible, medicinal, ornamental) of
each plant species as reported by the gardener. We measured the cultivated
surface of each crop present in the home garden, also in m2 . In the two sub-
sequent visits we noted the presence and surface area of crops not present
during previous visits.
We determined the scientific names of the crops in the field or in the
laboratory. We took pictures of all the species. We contrasted the pictures of
those crops that we could not identify in the field with herbarium vouchers
previously collected by the authors. We took vouchers of plants that could
not be identified in the field or with the assistance of photos. Vouchers were
identified and deposited in the herbarium of the Centre de Documentació
de Biodiversitat Vegetal, Universitat de Barcelona (BCN), in the herbarium
of the Departamento de Biología de Organismos y Sistemas, Universidad de
Oviedo (FCO) or in the herbarium of the Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid,
CSIC (MA). We identified crops at the species level and when possible at the
subspecies or variety levels.

VEGETABLES PRICE SURVEY

Twice during the period of research, at the beginning and at the end, we
visited three local markets in each of the study regions and obtained the
price of fruits and vegetables present in home gardens in our sample (2 times
× 3 local markets × 3 areas = 18 prices per each crop). When possible, we
obtained the prices in kg. For crops that are sold in bunches (e.g., Allium
porrum), we weighed three bunches in local stores of each area to obtain
the average weight of a bunch, so we could estimate the price per kg.
 256 V. Reyes-García et al.

Methods of Data Analysis

We analyzed information on manager’s and garden’s characteristics using
descriptive statistics. We used an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare
garden’s and gardener’s characteristics across the three regions.
To analyze people’s motivations to grow a vegetable garden, we coded
textual answers to the question “Why do you grow a home garden?” into
five categories that capture the range of reasons given by informants: a) as
a pastime, b) because garden products are of better quality than commercial
products, c) for economic reasons, d) because of tradition, e) as a form of
physical exercise. We analyzed this information using descriptive statistics.
To estimate the gross financial value of home gardens we followed four
steps. First, we discarded wild species, seasoning, and non-edible plants
(e.g., medicinal, ornamental) from our lists of species found in home gar-
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

dens. Second, we estimated crop productivity by multiplying the surface

sown with a crop (recorded in garden inventories) by the average pro-
ductivity of the crop reported in the literature for the Iberian Peninsula.
Specifically, we used data reported by Agustí (2004), Carcelén-Fernández
et al. (1988), and Navarro (2001) for the productivity of fruit trees and data
reported by Mainardi-Fazio (2006) and Maroto-Borrego(1992) for the pro-
ductivity of vegetables. Third, we calculated the gross financial value of
each crop by multiplying the estimated productivity by the average retail
price of the crop during the period of research. To assign a price to a crop:
i) For crops that had a local market price in the same region where it was
reported, we assigned the average price in that region (average price of the
species in three local stores at two points of time). ii) For crops that did
not have a local market price in the region where they were reported, but
had a market price in any or in the two other regions, we assigned the
average price in the other regions. iii) For crops that were not commercial-
ized in local markets in the studied areas, we assigned prices from stores in
surrounding cities. Finally, we defined the gross financial value of a home
garden as the sum of the estimated value of all its crops with a market price.

RESULTS
Description of Gardeners and Home Gardens
The information in Table 2 suggests that in the three regions home gardening
is mainly conducted by retired people, since the average age of the main
home garden manager was 66.7 years, which is above the official retirement
age of 65 years. Moreover, home gardening in mountain areas of the Iberian
Peninsula is a slightly predominant male activity in Central Asturias (68% of
managers) and the Sierra Norte de Madrid (74%), whereas is equally popular
among men (49%) and women in the Catalan Pyrenees. About one half of
the sample had only completed primary education and only about 14% of
 Home Gardens of the Iberian Peninsula 257

the sample had had any education beyond high school, although the overall
level of education changes across regions.
Home gardens in our sample had an average surface of 585 m2 most
of it (422 m2 ) under cultivation (Table 2), although there were important

TABLE 2 Comparison of a) manager’s characteristics, b) garden’s physical characteristics, and

c) garden’s management practices (by study area)

Catalan Central Sierra Norte

Pyrenees Asturias de Madrid Total

Number of 37 11 10 58
villages
Tenders’ characteristics
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

Number of 103 41 58 202

gardeners
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Age of primary 65.6 67.6 68.2 66.7
gardener
Number of 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.3
gardens per
gardener∗∗∗
Household size 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.6
% % % %
Male primary 50.9 69.6 71.4 60.0
gardenersˆˆˆ
Gardenerswho have completedˆˆˆ:
No education 10.5 0.0 15.5 9.8
Primary school 62.3 51.8 36.9 51.6
Secondary school 2.6 25.0 33.3 17.7
High school 5.3 10.7 5.9 6.7
Education above 18.2 12.5 8.3 14.2
high school
Garden’s characteristics
Number of 114 54 84 252
gardens
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Area total∗∗∗ , m2 357 509 945 585
Area under 277 402 632 422
cultivation∗∗∗ ,
m2
Distance to the 516 2, 555 524 968
household∗∗∗ , m
# % # % # % # %

Number of species∗∗ 28.6 21.8 26.0 26.2

Edible∗∗ 20.5 71.6 16.7 76.4 21.9 84.0 20.1 76.6
Ornamental∗∗∗ 4.8 16.9 2.3 10.3 2.0 7.8 3.3 12.7
Seasoning 1.1 3.9 0.9 4.1 1.3 5.1 1.1 4.3
Medicinal∗∗∗ 1.7 5.9 0.5 2.1 0.2 0.6 0.9 3.5
Animal feed∗∗∗ 0.2 0.8 1.2 5.6 0.2 0.9 0.5 1.7
Other uses 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.5 0.4 1.5 0.2 0.8
(Continued)
 258 V. Reyes-García et al.

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Management practices % % % %
Type of fertilizationˆˆ
Manure 95.6 83.9 94.0 92.5
Inorganic 3.5 16.7 3.6 6.30
Nothing 0.9 0.0 2.4 1.18
Watering systemˆˆˆ
Rain feed only 24.6 10.7 3.6 14.6
Canal 21.1 0.0 90.5 39.4
Manual (watering cans, tubes) 30.7 62.5 6.0 29.5
Mechanical (dripping, sprinkling) 16.7 26.8 0.0 13.4
Other 7.0 0.0 0.0 3.1
Weeding system
Manual 95.6 96.4 96.4 96.1
Herbicide 3.5 3.6 0.0 2.4
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

Other 0.9 0.0 3.6 1.6

Pest control systemˆˆˆ
Nothing/manual 36.0 26.8 15.5 27.6
Mineral/ecologic 21.1 3.6 15.5 15.3
Chemical 43.0 69.6 69.1 57.1
Products’ destination
50% or more of the production oriented to:
Consumption 93.9 92.9 90.5 92.5
Giftˆˆˆ 39.5 41.1 17.9 32.7
Sale 4.4 3.6 7.1 5.1
∗∗∗ , ∗∗ ,
and ∗ results of ANOVA Prob>F < 0.01, Prob > F < 0.05 and Prob > F < 0.10
ˆˆˆ, ˆˆ, and ˆ χ 2 , Pr < 0.01, Pr < 0.05 and Pr < 0.10.

regional differences. On average, home gardens in Sierra Norte de Madrid

had a cultivated surface of 632m2 , whereas home gardens in the Catalan
Pyrenees had a cultivated surface of 277m2 . Results from an ANOVA test
show that the differences on the total surface cultivated between areas are
significant in statistical terms (Prob > F < 0.001). The average home garden
in our sample was within walking distance (less than 1 km) from the main
house of the manager, although gardens in Central Asturias were significantly
further from the manager’s house (avg = 2.6 km) than gardens in the other
two regions (Prob > F < 0.001).
We found that home gardens in our sample had an average of 26 taxa,
but we also found a large variation in the number of taxa between gardens
(SD = 16). Most plants grown in the sampled home gardens were edible
(20 taxa, or 77%). The proportion of edible species was larger in Sierra
Norte de Madrid (84%) than in the other two regions. Home gardens also
contained an average of three ornamental plants (13% of the taxa) and one
seasoning species (4%). The proportion of ornamental (17%) and medicinal
(6%) plants was larger in the Catalan Pyrenees than in the two other areas.
Home gardens in Central Asturias display the largest share of taxa for animal
feed (6%).
 Home Gardens of the Iberian Peninsula 259

Ethnographic observations and survey data suggest that the studied gar-
dens have an overall high dependence on labor and a low dependence on
agricultural inputs. Thus, work in home gardens (including sowing, weeding,
and watering) is still mainly done by hand or with the help of simple tools
like small hoes, rakes, spades, and forks. For example, 96.1% of the gardens
in our sample were weeded manually, versus 2.4 % that managed weeds
with herbicides. Soil fertility is mostly maintained by the use of manure from
the farm cattle, sheep, horses, or hens (92.5%of the gardens).
We did not find differences in weeding management practices in gar-
dens in the three areas of study, but we found differences in the type of
fertilization, watering, and pest control management systems. More gardens
in the Catalan Pyrenees and the Sierra Norte were fertilized with organic
inputs than gardens in Central Asturias. Conversely, almost all gardens in
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

Sierra Norte depended on canal irrigation, versus the prevalence of rain and
manual and mechanical watering systems in the other areas (Pr chi = 0.001).
Chemical pest control methods were used more often in Central Asturias and
Sierra Norte than in the Catalan Pyrenees (Pr chi = 0.001).
Regarding product’s destination, in 92.5% of the cases, informants
reported that 50% of garden’s production or more went to household con-
sumption. There were no significant differences in product’s destination
across the three regions of study.

Motivations for Gardening

In general people reported keeping home gardens for more than one reason.
Less than one half of the managers (47%) gave only one reason to keep a
home garden, the rest giving two or more of the reasons listed in Table 3.
Across the three study areas, most people (74%) argued that they tend
a garden because they like the activity, thus, considering gardening as a
pastime. Almost one half of the informants (43%) also argued that they
maintain a home garden because the garden’s fruits and vegetables are of
better quality than commercial ones. This reason seemed to be more impor-
tant for respondents in the Catalan Pyrenees (58%) than for respondents in

TABLE 3 Motivations for gardening

Catalan Central
Pyrenees Asturias Sierra Norte de Total
N = 103 N = 41 Madrid N = 58 N = 202

Pastime 67.0 82.9 79.3 73.8

Product’s quality 58.2 12.2 36.2 42.6
Economic reasons 34.0 24.4 24.1 29.2
Tradition 11.6 17.1 24.1 16.3
Physical exercise 2.9 31.7 8.6 10.4
 260 V. Reyes-García et al.

Sierra Norte de Madrid (36%) and Central Asturias (12%). Less than one third
of the people in the sample (29%) argued that they keep a home garden
because home gardens provide some sort of economic benefit. Other (i.e.,
less reported) reasons to keep a home garden were to continue an activ-
ity that has been traditionally conducted in the area (16%) and as a form
of physical exercise (10%), a reason relatively more important for respon-
dents in Central Asturias than for respondents in the other two regions of
study.

Gross Financial Value of Crops Found in Home Gardens

Table 4 shows the relative presence (% of gardeners growing the crops), the
average surface area grown (m2 /gardener), and the estimated gross financial
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

value ( C/gardener) of the most common edible crops grown in the studied
home gardens.
We found 120 edible taxa in the sampled home gardens. Only 12 of
the 120 edible crops identified were grown in half or more of the gardens,
which implies that most of the crops (108) were present in less than one half
of them. The most common taxa grown across home gardens include Allium
cepa (present in 90% of the gardens), Lycopersicumesculentum (88%),
Solanum tuberosum (84%), Cucurbitapepo(81%), Phaseolus vulgarisvar. vul-
garis(77%), and Capsicum annuum (75%) (Table 4, column [a]). As much as
70 crops (or 58% of the total number of edible taxa identified) were grown
in less than 10 (or 4%) of the sampled gardens.
On average, most crops occupied a small average of the surface area
grown by any gardener, probably because most crops were not present
in most of the gardens (Table 4, column [b]). The crop that represented
the largest area per gardener was Solanum tuberosum (133 m2 /gardener),
which on average occupied at least two-fold the area of other crops. For
example, the next crop with a large area, a tree with a wide canopy, Juglans
regia, occupied 70 m2 /gardener.
A few crops provided a high average gross financial value per gar-
dener, whereas most crops had a low gross financial value (Table 4, column
[c]). The crop with the largest gross financial value was Lycopersicon escu-
lentum (183 C/year/gardener). Other species with a high average gross
financial value included Malusdomestica (163 C/year/gardener), Solanum
tuberosum (152 C/year/gardener), Phaseolus vulgaris var. vulgaris (127 C/
year/gardener) and Phaseolus vulgaris var. nanus (122 C/year/gardener).
We also found that 75% of the crops present in home gardens generated an
average gross financial value of less than 10 C/year/gardener. Those crops
include otherwise common species such as Daucus carota subsp. sativus,
Apium graveolens var. dulce, or Fragariax ananassa.
Last, we calculated the gross financial value of home gardens (Table 5).
On average, crops in home gardens in our sample had a gross financial
 Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

TABLE 4 Relative presence, averaged surface area, and estimated gross financial value of the most common edible species found in home
gardens

[c] Estimated gross

Common name [a] Presence [b] Surface m2 / financial value
Scientific name [Spanish] Voucher # % gardener gardener C/gardener

Allium cepa L. Cebolla, cebolleta BCN 28655 90.1 24.17 70.83

Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Tomatera BCN 29952 87.6 23.25 183.22
Solanum tuberosum L. Patatera BCN 29797 84.2 132.99 152.08
Cucurbita pepo L. Calabacín 81.7 6.21 38.72
Phaseolus vulgaris L.var. vulgaris Judías de enrame 77.2 31.31 127.38
Capsicum annuum L. Pimiento BCN 24737 75.2 11.13 47.64
Beta vulgaris L. var. cicla L. Acelga FCO 30700 73.3 3.03 28.77
Allium porrum L. Puerro 68.3 4.86 25.77
Daucus carota L.subsp. sativus (Hoffm.) Zanahoria BCN 46847 57.4 1.95 6.34
Arcang.
Lactuca sativa L. Lechuga BCN 46842 56.9 4.46 35.02
Cucumis sativus L. Pepino BCN 46850 56.4 3.55 27.80

261
Cichorium endivia L. var.crispum Lam. Escarola 50.0 2.20 39.77
Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. nanus (L.) Aschers. Judías de mata baja 49.0 11.39 122.96
Brassica oleracea L.convar. capitata (L.) Alef. Repollo 48.5 6.75 24.99
Allium sativum L.s.l. Ajo común o blanco BCN 29832 43.6 5.04 14.52
Malus domestica Borkh. Manzano BCN 46830 40.1 65.07 163.12
Apium graveolens L. var. dulce (Mill.) Pers. Apio cultivado FCO 30716 38.6 0.40 4.92
Pyrus communis L.subsp. communis Peral FCO 30733 36.6 44.31 59.09
Brassica oleracea L.convar. botrytis (L.) Alef. Coliflor 35.6 4.05 18.89
Fragaria xananassa (Weston) Duchesne et Fresón FCO 29576 35.2 1.94 3.52
Dossier
Prunus domestica L.subsp. domestica Ciruelo común BCN 46834 35.2 1.05 25.59
Brassica oleracea L. s.l. Berza o repollo FCO 16947 32.2 2.1 6.0
Lactuca sativa L. var. capitata L. Lechuga arrepollada 29.7 3.1 32.7
Pisum sativum L. Guisante BCN 32140 29.7 2.8 5.9
Cucurbita maxima Duch. in Lam. Calabaza BCN –S-1499 28.7 2.3 11.6
Solanum melongena L. Berenjena BCN 25004 28.7 0.9 3.9
(Continued)
 Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

TABLE 4 (Continued)

[c] Estimated gross

Common name [a] Presence [b] Surface m2 / financial value
Scientific name [Spanish] Voucher # % gardener gardener C/gardener

Brassica oleracea L. var. oleracea Berza BCN 32181 25.7 2.8 19.4
Lactuca sativa L. var. longifolia Lam. Lechuga romana 24.3 1.0 5.4
Lactuca sativa L. var. crispa L. Lechuga rizada 22.8 2.3 15.3
Prunus persica (L.) Batsch Melocotonero BCN 46832 22.8 21.6 53.7
Prunus avium (L.) L. Cerezo BCN 29827 22.3 12.4 12.9
Asparagus officinalis L. Espárrago BCN 2472 21.8 4.1 6.2
Vicia faba L. Habas BCN 46826 18.8 3.3 5.1
Cucurbita pepo L. Calabaza 18.3 0.4 0.0
Cynara scolymus L. Alcachofera BCN 46848 17.3 1.6 4.3
Juglans regia L. Nogal BCN 29877 17.3 69.8 79.5

262
Phaseolus coccineus L. Judía escarlata 15.8 5.5 65.1
Vitis vinifera L.subsp. vinifera Vid BCN 29972 15.8 24.5 0.0
Brassica oleracea L.convar. capitata (L.) Lombarda 14.8 1.1 5.2
Alef.fo. rubra Peterm.
Cucumis melo L.subsp. melo Melón BCN 46851 14.4 10.8 18.4
Spinacia oleracea L. Espinaca BCN 46077 14.4 0.7 4.7
Brassica oleracea L. var. italica Plenck Bróculi, brécol 13.9 0.8 5.8
Cydonia oblonga Mill. Membrillero BCN 46849 12.4 0.6 0.0
Ficus carica L. Higuera BCN 24887 12.4 12.6 11.0
Brassica napus L. Nabo BCN 46856 11.9 3.7 6.5
Lactuca sativa L.group quercifolia Lechugahoja de 11.9 0.2 1.9
roble
Corylus avellana L. Avellano BCN 29831 11.4 4.6 2.4
Rubus idaeus L. Frambueso BCN 29774 10.9 0.2 0.0
Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. et Nakai Sandía BCN 29662 10.4 5.6 9.0
 Home Gardens of the Iberian Peninsula 263

TABLE 5 Gross financial value of home gardens, in euros

Sierra Norte de
Catalan Pyrenees Central Asturias Madrid Total
Avg (±SD) Avg (±SD) Avg (±SD) Avg (±SD)

C/garden 918 ( ± 890) 1, 367 ( ± 1, 803) 1, 979 ( ± 1639) 1, 362 ( ± 1, 463)

C/gardener 1, 015 ( ± 951) 1, 768 ( ± 2, 051) 2, 866 ( ± 1, 882) 1, 691 ( ± 1, 712)
Fruits 247 ( ± 491) 241 ( ± 499) 955 ( ± 1, 127) 447 ( ± 1, 712)
Vegetables 769 ( ± 640) 1, 527 ( ± 1, 960) 1, 911 ( ± 1, 462) 1, 244 ( ± 1, 356)

value of 1,362 C/garden/year or 1,691 C/gardener/year. We found large

variations between the gross financial values obtained by gardeners (SD =
1,712). For example, whereas the financial value of three gardeners was less
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

than 100 C/year, the maximum financial value in our sample was 10,531 C/
year. Gardens in the Sierra Norte de Madrid provide the highest financial
value both per garden (1,979 C/garden/year) and per gardener (2,866 C/
gardener/year). On average vegetables contribute 74% of the gross financial
benefit of gardens and fruits contribute 26% of it. The percentage is larger
in Central Asturias, where vegetables contribute 86% of the gross financial
benefit of gardens and lower in Sierra Norte de Madrid, where vegetables
contribute only 67% of the gross financial benefit of home gardens.

DISCUSSION

We organize the discussion around the three goals of this work.

Characteristics of Home Gardens in Rural Areas of the

Iberian Peninsula
The characterization of home gardens in rural areas of the Iberian Peninsula
allows comparing them with tropical and other temperate gardens. Several
particularities emerge from this comparison. First, differently from previ-
ously studied home gardens, gardens in our sample seem to be specifically
devoted to food production. In a review of research of home gardens in
tropical areas, Kumar and Nair (2004) highlight the role of home gardens
not only as a source of nutritional security, but also for the generation of
cash income, the production of a variety of timber, fuel wood, and non-
timber forest products, and for the maintenance of farm animals. Differently,
home gardens in rural areas of the Iberian Peninsula seem to be grown
almost exclusively for fruits and vegetables to be consumed in the house-
hold. In the studied agroecosystems, other plant uses, with the possible
exception of ornamental plants, are marginal. Furthermore, some of the uses
 264 V. Reyes-García et al.

typically reported for plants present in tropical home gardens, such as tim-
ber for construction or tool crafting, were not even mentioned by a single
informant in our sample.
The specialized role of the studied home gardens in food production
finds parallels and differences with previous research on Europe. On the one
side, our finding meshes with findings in Italian home gardens (Negri 2003)
and in the gardens of Turkish migrants in Germany (Gladis and Pistrick
2011). For example, according to research in Italian home gardens (Negri
2003) and our own findings, in both areas over 60% of the respondents
consume most the products of their home gardens. On the other side, our
finding differs from previous research on Austrian home gardens suggesting
multiple roles of home gardens, including a large presence of species for
animal feed (Vogl-Lukasser and Vogl 2002), which were rare in our sample.
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

Our ethnographic understanding and literature on the studied areas

(Agelet et al. 2000) suggest that the cultivation of nonedible taxa was com-
mon until some decades ago, and that some of the species that were
reported only as edible during this work, also had other uses (i.e., medici-
nal) in the past. However, the low frequency of nonedible species and the
scant report of alternative uses suggest that the studied home gardens are
nowadays more specialized in edible (and some ornamental) plants than
their counterparts in the tropics and even than some other home garden
systems in temperate areas.
A commonality between the studied home gardens and home gardens
in tropical areas (Kumar and Nair 2004) is their high dependence on labor
and a low dependence on agricultural inputs. Nevertheless, the studied
home gardens seem to have recently suffered some changes associated to
the mechanization of the agricultural sector, not necessarily present in trop-
ical gardens. For example, home garden managers in our sample present
a relatively high reliance on chemical pest control methods (57.1%), or on
mechanical watering systems (13.4%).
Another of the particularities of home gardens in rural areas of the
Iberian Peninsula with other European home gardens relates to the predom-
inance of the activity between genders. With the exception of the Catalan
Pyrenees, home gardening in mountain areas of the Iberian Peninsula seems
to be a slightly predominantly male activity, whereas other studies in Europe
show that women are often involved in home gardening (Vogl-Lukasser and-
Vogl 2004) and that women are often responsible for the introduction of and
experimentation with new species in home gardens.

Motivations for Gardening

We found that the main motivations for gardening relate to people’s way
of life. For example, when asked directly, 74% of the respondents in our
 Home Gardens of the Iberian Peninsula 265

sample said that keeping a home garden was their pastime and another 16%
reported that they did it because it was a tradition in the area. In compar-
ison, less than one third of the people in the sample mentioned that they
keep a garden for economic reasons. The finding dovetails with research
on home gardens ecosystem services (Calvet-Mir et al. 2011). This research,
conducted in one of our areas of study, suggests that home gardens provide
a wide range of ecosystem services beyond the production of food. Although
the most valued ecosystem service provided by home gardens is the provi-
sion of quality food, other services, like the habitat service “maintenance of
landraces” and the cultural services “hobby,” “heritage value of home gar-
dens and associated traditional ecological knowledge,” and “enjoyment of
home gardens’ aesthetic features,” are highly valued by informants.
Therefore, our findings suggest that, like ornamental gardens in indus-
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

trialized nations (Nassauer 1988; Kaplan 2001; von Hassell 2005; Clayton
2007), home gardens in temperate areas might provide benefits associated
to several aspects of people’s wellbeing (i.e., psychological, social, health)
that act as incentives in the maintenance of those agroecosystems. For exam-
ple, as mentioned, all the areas in our sample have an important agrarian
past. Although most people in the sample are retired or do not work on
the primary sector, home gardens might be a marker of cultural identity,
since local traditions and identity are still linked to agrarian activities (San
Miguel 2004). So, as ornamental gardens (Clayton 2007), vegetable home
gardens might contribute to increasing the individualsense of belonging to
a community, thus contributing to psychological wellbeing.
Similarly, the health benefits attributed by respondents to vegetable
home gardens also seem to play a key role in their maintenance. Thus, 43%
of the respondents said that producing their own quality food was one of
their main motivations for managing a garden. Informants feel that keeping
a garden gave them control over their nutrition because they had control
on the amount of chemicals in fruits and vegetables, they could harvest
the products on demand, and because their home-grown products were of
better quality and flavor than market products. Ten per cent of the respon-
dents reported that keeping the garden helped them to stay active and do
some sort of physical exercise. The importance of ornamental home gar-
dens as a place where people can be physically active and the importance
of vegetable home gardens in affording healthy food have been reported
in previous studies and feel peaceful, and in different regions of the world
(Vogl and Vogl-Lukasser 2003; Clayton 2007; Morton et al. 2008).

Gross Financial Benefits of Home Gardens

The last goal of this article was to estimate the gross financial benefits of
crops grown in home gardens. We found that, although some crops produce
higher gross financial benefits than others, garden managers do not seem
 266 V. Reyes-García et al.

to organize their home gardens to maximize those benefits. For example,

despite their small size, most home gardens have relatively important areas
devoted to less financially valuable crops.
We also found that, on average, the gross financial value of home
gardens per manager is of 1,691 C/year. The amount represents almost
three months of the official minimum salary in Spain, which the government
fixed at 641 C/month for the year 2011 (Spanish Government, Royal Decree
1795/2010). This finding, however, needs to be taken with caution, as the
methods used to collect and analyze information on crop productivity and
prices might create measurement errors that affect our results in unknown
magnitude and direction. For example, since we calculate home garden
productivity using yield data from crops under intensive management, the
estimated productivity might be biased upward, which might result in an
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

overestimation of the gross financial value of vegetables in home gardens.

We might also have an upward bias because we only measured the surface
initially sown with a given crop, but we did not measure whether the crop
was later affected by a pest or whether for some other reason its cultivation
failed or was abandoned.
Contrary, the omission of noncommercial crops and nonedible plants
grown in home gardens (seasoning, ornamental, medicinal, and other useful
plants as well as noncommercial and wild edibles) and the omission of
considerations on the quality of the product (mainly organically grown and,
therefore, with a higher market value) might result in an underestimation of
the gross financial value of home gardens.
Future research can improve the work presented here a) by directly
calculating crop productivity in home gardens, and b) by including both the
costs and the benefits generated by home gardens in financial calculations.
Such research would help explain the pervasive maintenance of vegetable
home gardens across space and time.

REFERENCES

Abdoellah, O.S., H. Y. Hadikusumah, K. Takeuchi, S. Okubo, Parikesit. 2006.

Commercialization of home gardens in an Indonesian village: vegetation
composition and functional changes. Agroforestry System 68: 1–13.
Aceituno-Mata, L. 2010. Estudio etnobotánico y agroecológico de la Sierra Norte de
Madrid. PhD Dissertation. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Agelet, A., M. Á. Bonet, and J. Vallès. 2000. Home gardens and their role as a main
source of medicinal plants in mountain regions of Catalonia (Iberian Peninsula).
Economic Botany 54: 295–309.
Aguilar-Stoen, M., S. R. Moe, and S. L. Camargo-Ricalde. 2009. Home gardens sus-
tain crop diversity and improve farm resilience in Candelaria Loxicha, Oaxaca,
Mexico. Human Ecology 37: 55–77.
Agustí, M. 2004. Fruticultura. Madris, Spain: Mundiprensa.
 Home Gardens of the Iberian Peninsula 267

Albuquerque, U.P., L. H. C. Andrade, and J. Caballero. (2005). Structure and floris-

tics of home gardens in Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Arid Environments 62:
491–506.
Ali, A. M. S. 2005. Home gardens in smallholder farming systems: Examples from
Bangladesh. Human Ecology 33: 245–270.
Barrios, J. C., M. T. Fuentes, and J. P. Ruíz. 1992. El saber ecológico de los ganaderos
de la Sierra de Madrid [The ecological knowledge of cattle ranchers in Sierra
de Madrid]. Comunidad de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Bassullu, C., and A. Tolunay. 2010. General characteristics of traditional
homegarden involving animal practices in rural areas of Isparta Region of
Turkey. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 9: 455–465.
Bernard, H. R. 2006. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative
methods, 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Bosque-Maruel, J., and J. Vilá-Valentí. 1990. Geografía de España: Galicia, Asturias,
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

Cantabria [Spanish geography: Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria]. Barcelona, Spain:

Planeta.
Cai, C. T., L. S. Luo, and Y. Z. Nan. 2004. Energy and economic flow in home gardens
in subtropical Yunnan, SW China: A case study on Sanjia village. International
Journal of Sustainable Development& World Ecology 11: 199–204.
Calvet-Mir, L., M. Calvet-Mir, L. Vaqué-Nuñez, and V. Reyes-García. 2011. Landraces
in situ conservation: A case study in high-mountain home gardens in VallFosca,
Catalan Pyrenees, Iberian Peninsula. Economic Botany 65: 146–157.
Calvet-Mir, L., E. Gómez-Bagetthun, and V. Reyes-García. in press. Beyond food
production: Home gardens’ ecosystem services. A case study in Vall Fosca,
Catalan Pyrenees, northeastern Spain. Ecological Economics
Carcelén-Fernández, E., X. G. Vázquez-Fernández, J. L. López-García, J. Garcia-
Berrios, M. Barrasa-Rioja, M. Gomez-Folguiera, J. M. Pereira-González, A. X.
Mendez-López, and A. Piñeiro-Soto. 1988. Frutales arbustivos: explotación en
pequeñas parcelas [Fruit bushes: Exploitation in small plots]. Universidade de
Santiago de Compostela, Lugo.
Clayton, S. 2007. Domesticated nature: Motivations for gardening and percep-
tions of environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27:
215–224.
Cleveland, D.A., T. V. Orum, and N. Ferguson. 1985. Economic value of home
vegetable gardens in an urban desert environment. Hortscience 20: 694–696.
de la Cerda, H. E. C., and R. R. G. Mukul. 2008. Homegarden production
and productivity in a Mayan community of Yucatan. Human Ecology 36:
423–433.
Del Angel-Perez, A., and M. Mendoza. 2004. Totonachome gardens and natural
resources in Veracruz, Mexico. Agriculture and Human Values 21: 329–346.
Dharmasena, K. H., and M. Wijeratne. 1996. Analysis of nutritional contribution of
homegardening. Tropenlandwirt 97: 149–158.
Direcció General de Planificació i Acció Territorial. Pla comarcal de muntanya,
1995–1999. El Ripollès. 2000. Barcelona, Departament de Política Territorial i
Obres Públiques, Generalitat de Catalunya.
Drescher, A. W., J. Hagmann, and E. Chuma. 1999. Home gardens—A neglected
potential for food security and sustainable land management in the communal
lands of Zimbabwe. Tropenlandwirt 100: 163–180.
 268 V. Reyes-García et al.

Finerman, R., and R. Sackett. 2003. Using home gardens to decipher health and
healing in the Andes. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 17: 459–482.
Gajaseni, J., and N. Gajaseni. 1999. Ecological rationalities of the traditional
homegarden system in the Chao Phraya Basin, Thailand. Agroforestry Systems
46: 3–23.
Gessler, M., U. Hodel, and P. B. Eyzaguirre. 1998. Home gardens and agrobiodiver-
sity: Current state of knowledge with reference to relevant literatures. IPGRI.
Discussion paper, Rome, Italy.
Gladis, T., and K. Pistrick. 2011. Chaerophyllum byzantinum Boiss. and
Trachystemonorientalis (L.) G. Don-recently introduced from Turkish wild flora
as new crop species among other interesting findings from immigrant gardens
in western Germany. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 58: 165–174.
High, C., and C. M. Shackleton,C.M., 2000. The comparative value of wild and
domestic plants in home gardens of a south African rural village. Agroforestry
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

Systems 48: 141–156.

Jensen, M. 1993. Productivity and nutrient cycling of a Javanese home garden.
Agroforestry Systems 24: 187–201.
Jesch, A, 2009. Ethnobotanical survey of home gardens in Patones, Sierra Norte
de Madrid, Spain: Management, use and conservation of crop diversity with
a special focus on local varieties. Thesis Dissertation. University of Natural
Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna.
Kabir, M. E., and E. L. Webb. 2008. Can home gardens conserve biodiversity in
Bangladesh? Biotropica 40: 95–103.
Kaplan, R. 2001. The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits.
Environment & Behavior 33: 507–542.
Kumar, B. M., and P. K. R. Nair. 2004. The enigma of tropical home gardens.
Agroforestry Systems 61–62: 135–152.
Lautenschlager, L., and C. Smith. 2007. Beliefs, knowledge, and values held by inner-
city youth about gardening, nutrition, and cooking. Agriculture and Human
Values 24: 245–258.
Mainardi-Fazio, F. 2006. El cultivo biológico, trucos, técnicas y consejos para el cul-
tivo de hortalizas y frutas sin sustancias tóxicas ni contaminantes [Biological
farming, tricks techniques and tips for growing vegetables and fruits without
toxic chemicals and contaminants]. S.O.S. del Jardinero. De Vecchi, Barcelona.
Maroto-Borrego, J. V. 1992. Horticultura herbácea especial [Special herbaceous
gardening]. Madrid, Spain: Ediciones Mundi-Prensa.
Maroyi, A. 2009. Traditional home gardens and rural livelihoods in Nhema,
Zimbabwe: A sustainable agroforestry system. International Journal of
Sustainable Development & World Ecology 16: 1–8.
Morton, L. W., E. A. Bitto, M. J. Oakland, and M. Sand. 2008. Accessing food
resources: Rural and urban patterns of giving and getting food. Agriculture
and Human Values 25: 107–119.
Motiur, R. M., Y. Furukawa, I. Kawata, M. M. Rahman, and M. Alam. 2006. Role of
homestead forests in household economy and factors affecting forest produc-
tion: a case study in southwest Bangladesh. Journal of Forestry Research 11:
89–97.
Nair, P. K. R. 2001. Do tropical home gardens elude science, or is it the other way
around? Agroforestry Systems 53: 239–245.
 Home Gardens of the Iberian Peninsula 269

Naredo, J. M. 2004. La evolución de la agricultura en España (1940–2000) [changes

in Spanish agriculture (1940–2000)]. Editorial Universidad de Granada, Granada.
Nassauer, J. I. 1988. The aesthetics of horticulture: Neatness as a form of care.
Hortscience 23: 973–977.
Navarro, J. 2001. Guía de las frutas cultivadas. Identificación y cultivo [Guide to
cultivated fruits. Identification and culture]. Madrid, Spain: Mundiprensa.
Negri, V. 2003. Landraces in Central Italy: Where and why they are conserved
and perspectives for their on farm conservation. Genetic Resources and Crop
Evolution 50: 871–885.
Pandey, C.B., R. B. Rai, L. Singh, and A. K. Singh. 2007. Home gardens of Andaman
and Nicobar, India. Agricultural Systems 92: 1–22.
Perrault-Archambault, M., and O. T. Coomes. 2008. Distribution of agrobiodiver-
sity in home gardens along the Corrientes River, Peruvian Amazon. Economic
Botany 62: 109–126.
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

Perry, T., and R. Nawaz. 2008.. An investigation into the extent and impact of hard
surfacing of domestic gardens in an area of Leeds, United Kingdom. Landscape
and Urban Planning 86: 1–13.
Reyes-García, V., S. Vila, L. Aceituno-Mata, L. Calvet-Mir, T. Garnatje, A. Jesch,
J. J. Lastra, M. Parada, M. Rigat, J. Vallès, and M. Pardo-de-Santayana. 2010.
Gendered home gardens. A study in three mountain areas of the Iberian
Peninsula. Economic Botany 64: 235–247.
Rigat, M., T. Garnatje, and J. Vallès. 2009. Estudio etnobotánico del alto valle del
río Ter (Pirineo catalán): resultados preliminares sobre la biodiversidad de los
huertos familiares [Ethnobotanical study of the high river Ter valley (Pyrenees):
Preliminary results on biodiversity in home gardens]. In Botánica Pirenaico-
Cantábrica en el siglo XXI , eds. F. Llamas and C. Acedo, 399–408. León, Spain:
Universidad de León.
Rodríguez. F., and R. Menéndez. 2005. Geografía de Asturias [Geography of Asturias].
Barcelone, Spain: Ariel.
Saldivar-Tanaka, L., and M. Krasny. 2004. Culturing community development,
neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino com-
munity gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values 21:
399–412.
San Miguel, E. 2004.. Etnobotánica de Piloña (Asturias). Cultura y saber popular
sobre las plantas en un concejo del Centro-Oriente Asturiano [Ethnobotany
of Biloña (Asturias). Culture and local knowledge of plants in a council of
East Central Asturias]. Tesisdoctoral, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid,
Spain.
Scales, B. R., and S. J. Marsden. 2008. Biodiversity in small-scale tropical agroforests:
a review of species richness and abundance shifts and the factors influencing
them. Environmental Conservation 35: 160–172.
Shillington, L. 2008. Being(s) in relation at home: socio-natures of patio “gardens”
in Managua, Nicaragua. Social Culture and Geography 9: 755–776.
Spanish Government, Royal Decree. 1795/2010, December 30. http://www.boe.es/
boe/dias/2010/12/31pdfs/BOE-A-2010-20150.pdf (accessed January 2, 2012).
Sunwar, S., C. Thornstrom, A. Subedi, and M. Bystrom. 2006. Home gardens
in western Nepal: Opportunities and challenges for on-farm management of
agrobiodiversity. Biodiversity & Conservation 15: 4211–4238.
 270 V. Reyes-García et al.

Tchatat, M., H. Puig, and A. Fabre. 1996. Genesis and organization of home gardens
in the rainforest zone of Cameroun. Revue D Ecologie-la Terre et la Vie 51:
197–221.
Thompson, K., K. C. Austin, R. M. Smith, P. H. Warren, P. G. Angold, and K. J.
Gaston. 2003. Urban domestic gardens (I). Putting small-scale plant diversity in
context. Journal of Vegetation Sciences 14: 71–78.
Torquebiau, E. 1992. Are tropical agroforestry home gardens sustainable.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment 41: 189–207.
Vázquez-García, V. 2008. Gender, ethnicity, and economic status in plant manage-
ment: Uncultivated edible plants among the Nahuas and Popolucasof Veracruz,
Mexico. Agriculture & Human Values 25: 65–77.
Vogl, C.R., and B. Vogl-Lukasser. 2003. Tradition, dynamics and Sustainability of
plant species composition and management in home gardens on organic
and non-organic small scale farms in alpine Eastern Tyrol, Austria. Biological
Downloaded by [Victoria Reyes-Garcia] at 19:40 23 January 2012

Agriculture & Horticulture 21: 349–366.

Vogl-Lukasser, B., and C. R. Vogl. 2002. Ethnobotany as an Interdisciplinary tool for
the study of the biocultural management of agrobiodiversity in home gardens
of alpine farmers in Eastern Tyrol. In Interdisciplinary Mountain Research, ed.
U. Tappeiner, 264–273. London, UK: Blackwell Science.
Vogl-Lukasser, B., and C. R. Vogl. 2004. Ethnobotanical research in home gardens of
small farmers in the Alpine region of Osttirol (Austria): An example for bridges
built and building bridges. Ethnobotanical Research & Applications 2: 111–137.
von Hassell, M. 2005. Community gardens in New York City: Place, community, and
individuality. In Urban place: Reconnecting with the natural world, ed. P. F.
Barlett, 91–116. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Watson, J. W., and P. B. Eyzaguirre. 2002. Proceedings of the Second International
Home Gardens Workshop: Contribution of home gardens to in situ conserva-
tion of plant genetic resources in farming system. International Plant Genetic
Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
Wezel, A., and S. Bender. 2003. Plant species diversity of home gardens of Cuba
and its significance for household food supply. Agroforestry Systems 57: 37–47.