Biodiversity ISSN: 1488-8386 (Print) 2160-0651 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbid20 Alpine home gardens in the Western Italian Alps: the role of gender on the local agro-biodiversity and its management Giulia Mattalia, Angela Calvo & Paola Migliorini To cite this article: Giulia Mattalia, Angela Calvo & Paola Migliorini (2018): Alpine home gardens in the Western Italian Alps: the role of gender on the local agro-biodiversity and its management, Biodiversity, DOI: 10.1080/14888386.2018.1504692 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2018.1504692 Published online: 14 Aug 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 47 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbid20 BIODIVERSITY https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2018.1504692 Alpine home gardens in the Western Italian Alps: the role of gender on the local agro-biodiversity and its management Giulia Mattalia a , Angela Calvob,c and Paola Migliorini a a c University of Gastronomic Sciences, Bra, Italy; bResearch Center for Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Turin, Torino, Italy; Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Food Science, University of Turin, Torino, Italy ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Home gardens are reservoirs of biodiversity, promoting food security and maintaining farm ecosystem processes. A study on alpine home gardens was conducted in two valleys in Piedmont, north-western Italy. Forty semi-structured interviews with garden managers were gathered. We analysed if gender roles affect the agro-biodiversity and the management of home gardens in the Western Italian Alps. The results show that mixed couples (consisting of men and women) present higher diversity of management practices and a higher number of taxa detected: 138 taxa were detected and out of that 138 taxa were found among mixed couples, 82 among male gardeners and 69 among female gardeners. Indeed, when vegetable gardens are managed by men only, more than half of the taxa are represented by horticultural species. On the other hand, when vegetable gardens are managed by women only, flowering species, wild and semi-wild species representing a relevant percentage of the total number of mentioned taxa. Despite most of the literature emphasising the role of women in biodiversity conservation and traditional ecological knowledge keeping, this study seeks to demonstrate that the joint presence of men and women appears to increase the levels of biodiversity and diversity in management practices within alpine home gardens. Received 12 November 2017 Accepted 23 July 2018 Introduction Home gardens can play a key role not only in biodiversity conservation but they also promote food security and maintain farm ecosystem processes. Many studies have been carried out on home gardens in tropical areas focussing on their biodiversity (Lamont, Eshbaugh, and Greenberg 1999; Kehlenbeck and Maass 2004; Albuquerque, Andrade, and Caballero 2005; Sunwar et al. 2006; Kabir and Webb 2007; Galluzzi, Eyzaguirre, and Negri 2010; Das and Das 2015; Caballero-Serrano et al. 2016), on the role they play in food security (Montagnini 2006; Márquez and Schwartz 2008; Gray et al. 2013), the role they play in cultural identity and creating a sense of belonging (Bhatti and Church 2001; Perreault 2005; Bhatti 2006; Ghazali 2013), their resilience (Wezel and Bender 2003; Aguilar-Støen, Moe, and Camargo-Ricalde 2008; Van der Stege, Vogl-Lukasser, and Vogl 2012), and their socio-ecological and cultural importance (Trinh, Watson, and Hue 2003; Buchmann 2009). Much less literature is available however about home gardens in Europe, particularly through a gender lens. Calvet Mir (2011) traced back this phenomenon to the massive emigrations from rural areas which occurred in CONTACT Giulia Mattalia g.mattalia@unisg.it © 2018 Biodiversity Conservancy International KEYWORDS Marginal agriculture; food security; foraging; tradition ecological knowledge; cultural identity the past 60 years and the consequent marginality of European home gardens. Nevertheless, in the last 15 years more scientific papers on European home gardens have been published especially, in the Iberian peninsula (Agelet, Bonet, and Vallés 2000; Calvet-Mir, GómezBaggethun, and Reyes-García 2012; Reyes-García et al. 2010, 2013, 2014; Riu-Bosoms, Calvet-Mir, and ReyesGarcía 2014), in Austria (Vogl and Vogl-Lukasser 2003; Vogl-Lukasser et al. 2010), in Romania (Papp et al. 2012), in Hungary (Birol, Bela, and Smale 2005) and in Portugal (Carvalho 2016). Few papers have analysed home gardens from a gender perspective. As highlighted by Shiva (1995), both men and women within rural areas have deep traditional knowledge relating to biodiversity and ecosystem functions. However, men and women grow and deepen their knowledge on different species categories (Luoga, Witkowski, and Balkwill 2000; Trinh, Watson, and Hue 2003; Voeks 2007; Carvalho 2016; Ciftcioglu 2017). Indeed, home gardens are hotspots of agro-biocultural diversity (Galluzzi, Eyzaguirre, and Negri 2010) and growing a home garden not only produces tangible goods but it is also a cultural space where traditional knowledge can be actively conserved (Linares and University of Gastronomic Sciences, Bra, Italy 2 G. MATTALIA ET AL. Eyzaguirre 2004). This knowledge is often kept by women, who are considered to be ‘biodiversity guardians’ (Howard 2003) and many studies have thus far explored how women play a more significant role in preserving biodiversity when compared to men (Agrawal 2003; Vogl-Lukasser et al. 2010; Reyes-García et al. 2010; Calvet-Mir et al. 2011). Specifically, Anderson (2003) explained that the value of home garden products produced by women specifically is not only economic, but women also play a major role in preserving neglected (and thus, not economically valued) species such as wild and semi-wild plants. These plants are crucial for maintaining biodiversity and food security (Howard 2003; Vogl-Lukasser et al. 2010). However, many studies emphasised that men and women are often both responsible for the management of the home garden, but they are involved in different tasks (Chambers and Momsen 2007; Reyes-García et al. 2010). In this study, we analysed if gender roles affect the agro-biodiversity and the management of alpine home gardens in the Western Italian Alps. Specifically, we aimed at: determining if gender influences agricultural practices in alpine home gardens; ● determining which group of taxa (A: tree and shrubs; B: horticultural species; C: flower species cultivated for aestethic purposes; D: wild and semi wild; E: cereal and pseudocereal) is used by which gender category (female only, male only, male and female); ● intersecting these data. ● Material and methods Forty interviews were gathered in two alpine valleys in Piedmont, north-western Italy, specifically in the Po Valley (municipalities of Ostana and Oncino) and in the Pellice Valley (municipality of Rorà). Data were gathered during spring 2013 through semi-structured interviews with garden managers who fulfil the following requirements: own a vegetable garden more than 900 m above sea level (a.s.l.) in the municipalities of Rorà, Ostana and Oncino; ● have know-how on vegetable garden management; ● live at least one month per year in one of the municipalities listed above. ● The Pellice Valley, and specifically Rorà, has a population of 250 people and is located at 1000 m a.s.l. Most of the inhabitants worked in the Po Plain. Only a few of them worked in the municipality in agricultural activities and there is little tourism, which positively influences landscape conservation (Mourglia 1901; Tourn 2013, 2003; Regione Piemonte 2003). The Po Valley is home to the source of the Po River and as well as some of the highest mountains in Europe: the Monviso. Oncino and Ostana, the other two sites of the case study, are located respectively on the orographic right and on the orographic left at an altitude of around 1200 m a.s.l. Ostana and Oncino have about 80 inhabitants each, but only a few of them (around 20 each) live permanently in the municipalities. The tortuous and long road to get to the plain does not allow daily transfers to work in denser populated areas. This means that the permanent residents are all retired and consequently the sample is characterised by elderly people. The territory is also characterised by the transhumance practices during the summer time in the mountain pasture (meire) above 1500 m a.s.l. The methodological approach of this study included qualitative and quantitative analysis through participatory observation. Qualitative data were gathered in a semi-structured interview, while data regarding plants of the gardens were collected through the free-listing method. Most of the interviews were conducted within the vegetable gardens, as a means for facilitating plant enumeration. Some questions regarding management arose and were measured by the degree the gardeners agree with the following statements: they comply with the lunar cycle, they use chemical products, they apply manure, they make compost, they use flowering species for aesthetic purposes, the flowering species are planted within the garden, they use of tree species for aesthetic purposes, they garden as a hobby, productivity is not the only goal, they farm organically, they breed animals. All taxa were recorded and were subdivided into five categories: A. tree and shrubs; B. horticultural taxa; C. flowering species cultivated for aesthetic purposes; D. wild and semi-wild taxa; E. cereal and pseudocereal taxa. Moreover, 10 questions were asked regarding the management, the reason for gardening, the knowhow and the way they learnt it. For each question, a value between 0 and 1 was assigned: 0 meant those interviewed did not agree or did not apply this method; 0.5 meant those interviewed did partially agree or partially applied the method; 1 meant those interviewed did agree or applied the method. The sample consisted of 40 vegetable gardens of which eight were managed by women only (F), 14 were managed by men only (M) and 18 were managed by mixed couples, men and women (MF). The average age of the interviewed was 68 for the Po Valley and 63 for the Pellice Valley. More than 80% of the interviewed declared to be originally from the same valley. BIODIVERSITY Results The results (Figure 1) show remarkably different management practices depending on gender. Agricultural practices were grouped into three main categories: agroecological practices (‘agricultural practices aiming to produce significant amounts of food, which valorise in the best way ecological processes and ecosystem services in integrating them as fundamental elements in the development of the practices’ Wezel et al. 2014, 3); cultural practices (regarding sense of beauty and well-being); social factors (regarding the role the garden play in managers’ life). Management agroecological practices The lunar cycle is taken into consideration mostly by men and mixed couples. This is probably due to a higher expectation on productivity. They believe that when planting or sowing vegetables who grow down in the soil (like roots and tubers) the moon should be waning, while in the others vegetables who grow upward in the crescent moon. Manure application is considered as a heavy work. Nevertheless, more women use this method of fertilisation. In fact, women who breed chickens also apply their manure to the home garden, as a way to use an output as an input. Gardeners also reported to get manure once a year by the cow shepherds (marghè) who graze the mountain pasture during summer time. Another mentioned method consists of incorporating deer faeces naturally deposed around the garden as manure. Compost making is a wide spread technique. It is mainly pursued by women because it is 3 considered as part of the home realm. This explained why when home gardens are farmed by men only compost appears less used. Use of chemical products is very high when the farmer is a woman. This is due to the age of the interviewed (mostly above 60 years old) and the intensity of work required by the garden. Using chemicals is clearly a way to avoid heavy tasks. This is very evident; when the woman is not alone but in a mixed couple, the use of chemicals is very low. Animal breeding included chickens, cows and goats. Poultry is mainly a women’s domain; they are sometimes fed with kitchen waste and they do not require any masculine labour. Cows and goats are mainly kept some by transhumant shepherds and some local farmers. Organic gardens are not widespread. This is because in these valleys there is still a traditional farming, a way of cultivating ‘as my grandparents used to do’. There are few home gardeners who have knowledge on the distinction between organic and conventional agriculture. Management cultural practices Aesthetics is also an important issue. All the women interviewed affirmed to use flowering species for improving the sense of beauty and most of the women declared to incorporate them into their home garden. When gardeners are men, there are less flowers in general and much less within the garden which they consider to be more productive and less aesthetic. The datum regarding the use of tree species for aesthetic purposes shows how men and women gardeners can improve their home garden when farming together. Compliance with lunar cycle** 1.0 Manure application** Productivity is not the only goal* 0.8 0.6 Gardening as a hobby* 0.4 Compost making** 0.2 F M 0.0 Use of tree species for aesthetic purposes*** Use of flowering species for aesthetic purposes*** Presence of flowering species within the garden*** No use of chemical products** MF Presence of animal breeding** Gardening organically** Figure 1. Amoeba graph of selected agricultural practices per gender. Every proportion expresses a higher or lower approval per gender and per variable (0 = absence; 0.5 = partial application; 1 = presence). Therefore, higher values mean higher agreement on the variable. Values vary between 0 and 1. * = social factors; ** agroecological practices; ***cultural practices. (F: female only; M: male only; MF: male and female). 4 G. MATTALIA ET AL. Our research suggests that trees are appreciated by men for their productivity and by women for the shade and their intrinsic beauty. Management social factors Gardening is generally considered as a hobby by men, but definitely not for women. To women, it means fresh good food at the doorstep, for men it is mainly a way to spend their time efficiently and productively. For this reason, when mixed couples work together in their home gardens they do consider gardening as a hobby, but it is at the same time productive and recreational. Species and gender Figure 2 shows that mixed couples (MF) present a higher level of records per plant group (except for category E). Moreover, women (F) appear to have a deeper knowledge of wild and semi-wild species when compared with men (M). Regarding cereals and pseudocereals (category E) men appear to be the mainly responsible for this cultivation. It can also be observed that women are less prone to cultivate vegetables. Considering the others categories (A, C and D), men and women show similar values. MF group has the highest number of taxa per each category (except for E) and this is probably due to the complementarity of the M and F group’s skills. Table 1 shows that MF group has a higher level of diversification of records if compared with F and M, showing a higher level of biodiversity by complementing knowledge from both genders. This is true for categories A, B, C and D, while for E, M group has the highest level of diversification. These results show that the mixed group is able to reduce the differences between the gardens managed by men and women. When the vegetable gardens are managed by men the percentage of horticultural species (B) is more than 50%. The percentage decreases when the management is with mixed couples and even more, when only women cultivate it. The opposite occurs when flowering species (C) are considered. When vegetable gardens are managed by women only the percentage of flower species (C) is very high, when the management is mixed it slightly decreases and it is even lower when gardens are cultivated by men only. Among mixed couples (MF) 138 taxa were recorded, while 82 among male (M) gardeners (30% less) and 69 among female(F), gardeners (50% less). A list of mentioned taxa is reported in Table 2. Discussion A large part of the literature showed that women increase the biodiversity (Hoogerbrugge and Fresco 1993; Agrawal 2003; Vazzana et al. 2010; Calvet-Mir et al. 2011) and enrich vegetable gardens with flower species (Reyes-García et al. 2010), wild and semi-wild species (Vogl-Lukasser et al. 2010). In this study, we observed that when alpine home gardens are managed by mixed couples (MF) the number of landraces is significantly higher (= 138 taxa) than in the other two cases (F = 74 taxa; M = 88 taxa). This can be observed in 4 out of the 5 plant categories we created (in A: tree and shrubs taxa; B: horticultural taxa; C: taxa of flower Figure 2. Number of taxa per category and gender group. A: tree and shrubs taxa; B: horticultural taxa; C: taxa of flowering species cultivated for aesthetic purposes; D: wild and semi wild taxa; E: cereal and pseudo-cereal taxa. (F: female only; M: male only; MF: male and female). BIODIVERSITY Table 1. Percentage of taxa per gender group per plant category. A: tree and shrubs taxa; B: horticultural taxa; C: taxa of flower species cultivated for aestethic purposes; D: wild and semi wild taxa; E: cereal and pseudocereal taxa. (F: female only; M: male only; MF: male and female). CATEGORY A B C D E M (%) 62.5 81.8 48.8 36.6 100 MF (%) 91.6 97.7 93.3 96.6 66.6 F (%) 54.2 50 46.6 40 0 species cultivated for aesthetic purposes; D: wild and semi-wild taxa; but not in E: cereal and pseudo-cereal taxa). Indeed, men are generally more interested in the species which have market value, while women mainly focus on their culinary and nutritional value (Balakrishnan 1999). This can be observed in the horticultural category (B) which has a higher market value and shows higher number of taxa for men. It is in line with recent studies by Ciftcioglu (2017), who reported that male respondents valued the opportunity to grow horticultural species (B) more than the women, while female respondents tended to value more ornamental plants (C). Also, women are greater foragers of products from common-pool resources (Agrawal 2003) and women are often responsible for foraging and 5 gathering (Howard-Borjas and Cuijpers 2002), especially if wild and semi wild plants are close to houses and home-gardens. On the other hand, the gathering of wild species that grow at very high altitudes or in places hard to get, like Artemisia absinthium, it is a man’s prerogative (Ertug 2003). Wild species have been essential during famines in all of the Occitan valleys of the Italian Alps and the persistence of traditional knowledge regarding these species is proof of their basic role in food security (Mattalia, Quave, and Pieroni 2012). Having sound traditional knowledge on wild and semi-wild species also means transferring non-cultivated biodiversity from the field to the plate. This is not only an important task in the domestic realm, but also an active way to preserve biodiversity and its traditional knowledge. Furthermore, Alpine home gardens could preserve safeguarded species (particularly for semi-wild species). For instance, some managers reported the presence within their home gardens of Lilium martagon, Lilium croceum and some Gentianaceae which are totally safeguarded species (Regione Piemonte 2009). Those responsible for this contamination are mainly women who not only insert the wild in the domesticated, but they create the Table 2. List of mentioned taxa. Category A (Tree and shrub species) B (Horticultural species) Family Aquifoliaceae Betaluceae Caprifoliaceae Ericaceae Fabaceae Fagaceae Grossulariacee Juglandaceae Lauraceae Primulaceae Rosaceae Species Ilex aquifolium L. Corylus avellana L. Sambucus nigra L. Vaccinium corymbosum L. Acacia spp. Castanea sativa Mill. Ribes uva-crispa L.; Ribes nigrum L.; Ribes rubrum L. Juglans regia L. Laurus nobilis L. Prunus armeniaca L. Malus domestica Borkh.; Prunus avium L.; Prunus cerasus L.; Prunus domestica L.; Prunus persica L.; Pyrus communis L.; Rubus fructicosa L.; Rubus idaeus L. var. fallgold; Rubus idaeus L.; Rubus ulmifolius Shott Tiliaceae Tilia cordata Mill. Vitaceae Vitis labrusca L. Apiaceae Apium graveolens L.; Daucus carota L.; Foeniculum vulgare Mill.; Petroselinum crispum L. Asteraceae Cichorium intybus L.; Lactuca spp.; Tanacetum balsamita L. Brassicaceae Brassica cretica Lam.; Brassica oleracea L. spp.; Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis; Brassica oleracea L. var. gemmifera; Brassica oleracea L. var. sabauda; Brassica rapa L.; Raphanus sativus L. Chenopodiaceae Spinacia oleracea L. Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita pepo L.; Cucurbita spp. Fabaceae Phaseolus vulgare L.; Pisum sativum L. Lamiaceae Borago officinalis L.; Melissa officinalis L.; Mentha pratensis L.; Ocimum basilicum L.; Origanum majorana L.; Origanum vulgare L.; Rosmarinus officinalis L.; Salvia officinalis L.; Satureja montana L Liliaceae Allium ampeloprasum L.; Allium cepa L.; Allium sativum L.; Allium schoenoprasum L.; Asparagus acutifolius L. Polygonaceae Rheum officinale Baill. Rosaceae Fragaria vesca L. Saxifragaceae Bergenia crassulaceae L. Solanaceae Capsicum annuum L.; Lycopersicon esculentum L.; Solanum melongena L., Solanum tuberosum L. (Continued) G. MATTALIA ET AL. 6 Table 2. (Continued). Category C Family Species Amaryllidaceae (Flowering species) Araceae Asteraceae D (Wild and semiwild species) E (Cereals and pseudo-cereals) Narcissus L. Zantedeschia aethiopica (L.) Spreng. Chrysanthemum spp.; Cyanus segetum Hill.; Dahlia spp.; Dimorphotheca pluvialis (L.) Moench; Gazania spp.; Tagetes spp. Balsaminaceae Impatiens balsamina L. Begoniaceae Begonia spp. Brassicaceae Alyssum montanum L.; Aubrieta deltoidea (L.) DC. Caryophyllaceae Dianthus spp. Clusiaceae Hypericum perforatum L. Geraniaceae Pelargonium graveolens L. Hydrangeaceae Hydrangea spp. Iridaceae Crocus bicolor L.; Gladiolus italicus Mill.; Iris spp. Lamiaceae Lavandula stoechas L.; Salvia splendens Sellow ex Schult. Leguminosae Wisteria sinensis (Sims) Sweet Liliaceae Convallaria majalis L.; Fritillaria spp.; Hemerocallis fulva (L.) L.; Hyacinthus orientalis L.; Lilium spp.; Muscari comosum L.; Tulipa spp. Malvaceae Alcea rosea L.; Hibiscus spp. Oleaceae Forsythia suspensa (Thunb.) Vahl; Syringa vulgaris L. Onagraceae Fuchsia spp. Parmeliaceae Cetraria islandica L. Ach. Peoniaceae Paeonia spp Ranuncolaceae Anemone alpina L.; Aquilegia saximontana Rydb.; Clematis spp.; Delphinium inopinatum Nevski; Helleborus niger L. Rosaceae Rosa spp. Scrophulariaceae Antirrhinum majus L.; Digitalis spp. Solanaceae Petunia spp. Violaceae Viola tricolor L. Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare Mill.; Levisticum officinale W.D.J.Koch; Pimpinella anisum L. Apocinaceae Pervinca minor L. Asteraceae Achillea erba-rotta All.; Achillea millefolium L.; Arnica montana L.; Arthemisia absinthium L.; Calendula officinalis L.; Leontopodium alpinum L.; Tanacetum vulgare L.; Taraxacum officinale Weber Cannabaceae Humulus lupulus L. Caryophyllaceae Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garcke Chenopodiaceae Beta vulgaris L.; Chenopodium bonus-henricus L. Ericaceae Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng; Rhododendron macrophillum L.; Vaccinium myrtillus L. Fabaceae Lupinus spp. Gentianaceae Gentiana spp. Liliaceae Lilium martagon L. Oxalidaceae Oxalis acetosella L. Polygonaceae Polygonum bistorta L. Primulaceae Primula vulgaris L. Rosaceae Fragaria vesca L.; Rosa canina L. Scrophulariaceae Veronica allionii Vill. Urticaceae Urtica dioica L. Violaceae Viola cornuta L. Poaceae Secale cereale L.; Zea mays L. var. pignoletto Polygonaceae Fagopyrum esculentum L. habitat to allow rare not-welcomed plants to grow (Vogl-Lukasser et al. 2010). Another important aspect regards the aesthetics within the garden. Our studies show that recreating a sense of beauty, a sense of belonging, a sense of place is generally considered a women task. By decorating the house and the adjacent external areas, women incorporate ornamental biodiversity. It was reported that men do not value, or atleast claim to value, the use of ornamental (‘useless’) plants (Carvalho 2016). Cultivating the home garden, women create surplus value to the functionality of horticultural species planted by men. Gardens become a reason for pride and satisfaction (Heckler 2004), exchange, perpetration of the cultural identity and expression of its own subjectivity (Murrieta and Winkler Prins 2009). Moreover, women take care of the nutritional point of view (in addition to the medical one) since they know the properties of the plant (Daniggelis 2003). As we have seen in our research results, women, and those who identify as women, enhance the multi functionality of vegetable gardens while the men, and those who identify as men, is usually more focussed on the utilitarian perspective (in this case the horticultural production). Management by mixed couples appears to be a good way to integrate these two aptitudes, while making the best use of the agro-biodiversity in their kitchens. The finding that men and women use different management techniques is consistent with findings by Reyes-García et al. (2010). However, our BIODIVERSITY findings on the use of organic fertilisers and pest controls are not in line with the mentioned research. In our study, women appeared to use chemical products far more frequently than men, and this is because of the age of our respondents, their loneliness and their need to avoid heavy labours. In accordance with Carvalho (2016), women are in charge of poultry, which explains the high number of animal breeders among women. Fresh eggs are a source of protein, which are not always easy to find in alpine areas. It is important to rethink the Alps (and Alpine vegetable gardens), not as marginal areas, but rather as reservoirs of biodiversity and cultural diversity (Salsa 2007), especially when perpetuated by different gendered aptitudes. Conclusions Home gardens in the Alps are multifaceted productive and recreational spaces. In this study, we analysed the influence of gender roles on agro-biodiversity and management of alpine home gardens in two Italian alpine valleys. Despite most of the literature emphasising the great role of women in biodiversity conservation and traditional ecological knowledge keeping, this research showed that mixed couples appear to increase the level of biodiversity and diversity in managements of alpine home gardens. Women showed to be more attentive to aesthetics and more expert at foraging, while men are more focussed on the ‘productive’ garden, giving preference to horticultural species. Therefore, men and women use different species and when gardening together they enhance biodiversity and diversity in managements. This results in a mitigation of the differences between genders and in some cases, the exaltation of positive aspects of one of them. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. ORCID Giulia Mattalia Paola Migliorini http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1947-7007 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8573-0381 References Agelet, A., M. Bonet, and J. Vallés. 2000. “Homegardens and Their Role as a Main Source of Medicinal Plants in Mountain Regions of Catalonia (Iberian Peninsula).” Economic Botany 54: 295–309. doi:10.1007/bf02864783. Agrawal, A. 2003. “Sustainable Governance of CommonPool Resources: Context, Methods, and Politics.” Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 243–262. doi:10.1146/annurev. anthro.32.061002.093112. 7 Aguilar-Støen, M., S. Moe, and S. Camargo-Ricalde. 2008. “Home Gardens Sustain Crop Diversity and Improve Farm Resilience in Candelaria Loxicha, Oaxaca, Mexico.” Human Ecology 37: 55–77. doi:10.1007/s10745-008-9197-y. Albuquerque, U., L. Andrade, and J. Caballero. 2005. “Structure and Floristics of Homegardens in Northeastern Brazil.” Journal of Arid Environments 62: 491–506. doi:10.1016/j. jaridenv.2005.01.003. Anderson, S. 2003. “Animal Genetic Resources and Sustainable Livelihoods.” Ecological Economics 45: 331– 339. doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(03)00088-0. Balakrishnan, R. 1999. “Gender Defined Strategies for Biodiversity Management for Household Food Security.” In Gender Dimensions in Biodiversity Management and Food Security: Policy Programme Strategies for Asia. FAO Regional technical consultation. Chennai: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac795e/ AC795E00.htm#TOC. Bhatti, M. 2006. “‘When I’m in the Garden I Can Create My Own Paradise’: Homes and Gardens in Later Life.” The Sociological Review 54: 318–341. doi:10.1111/j.1467954x.2006.00616.x. Bhatti, M., and A. Church. 2001. “Cultivating Natures: Homes and Gardens in Late Modernity.” Sociology 35: 365–383. doi:10.1017/s0038038501000177. Birol, E., G. Bela, and M. Smale. 2005. “The Role of Home Gardens in Promoting Multi-Functional Agriculture in Hungary.” EuroChoices 4: 14–21. doi:10.1111/j.1746692x.2005.00012.x. Buchmann, C. 2009. “Cuban Home Gardens and Their Role in Social–Ecological Resilience.” Human Ecology 37: 705– 721. doi:10.1007/s10745-009-9283-9. Caballero-Serrano, V., M. Onaindia, J. Alday, D. Caballerod, J. C. Carrascod, B. McLarene, and J. Amigo. 2016. “Plant Diversity and Ecosystem Services in Amazonian Homegardens of Ecuador.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 225: 116– 125. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.005. Calvet Mir, L. 2011. “Beyond Food Production: Home Gardens as Biocultural Conservation Agents. A Case Study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain.” PhD, Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona 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 Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Iberian Peninsula.” Economic Botany 65: 146–157. doi:10.1007/s12231-011-9156-1. Calvet-Mir, L., E. Gómez-Baggethun, and V. Reyes-García. 2012. “Beyond Food Production: Ecosystem Services Provided by Home Gardens. A Case Study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain.” Ecological Economics 74: 153–160. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.011. Carvalho, A. 2016. “Homegardens in North-Eastern Portugal: Former Features, Roles, Gendered Knowledge and Practices.” Gaia Scientia 10: 10–25. doi:10.21707/gs.v10.n02a02. Chambers, K., and J. Momsen. 2007. “From the Kitchen and the Field: Gender and Maize Diversity in the Bajío Region of Mexico.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 28: 39–56. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.2006.00275.x. Ciftcioglu, G. 2017. “Social Preference-Based Valuation of the Links between Home Gardens, Ecosystem Services, and Human Well-Being in Lefke Region of North 8 G. MATTALIA ET AL. Cyprus.” Ecosystem Services 25: 227–236. doi:10.1016/j. ecoser.2017.05.002. Daniggelis, E. 2003. “Women and “Wild” Foods: Nutrition and Household Security among Rai and Sherpa Forager-Farmer in Eastern Nepal.” In Women & Plants: Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conservation, edited by P. L. Howard, 83– 97. New York and London: Zed Books and St. Martin’s Press. Das, T., and A. Das. 2015. “Conservation of Plant Diversity in Rural Homegardens with Cultural and Geographical Variation in Three Districts of Barak Valley, Northeast India.” Economic Botany 69: 57–71. doi:10.1007/s12231-015-9299-6. Ertug, F. 2003. “Gendering the Tradition of Plant Gathering in Central Anatolia (Turkey).” In Women & Plants: Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conservation, edited by P. L. Howard, 183–196. New York and London: Zed Books and St. Martin’s Press. Galluzzi, G., P. Eyzaguirre, and V. Negri. 2010. “Home Gardens: Neglected Hotspots of Agro-Biodiversity and Cultural Diversity.” Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 3635–3654. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9919-5. Ghazali, S. 2013. “House Garden as a Symbol of Place, Identity and Sense of Belonging for Low-Cost Flat Residents in Urbanizing Malaysia.” International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 171–175. doi:10.7763/ ijssh.2013.v3.221. Gray, L., P. Guzman, K. Glowa, and A. Drevno. 2013. “Can Home Gardens Scale up into Movements for Social Change? The Role of Home Gardens in Providing Food Security and Community Change in San Jose, California.” Local Environment 19: 187–203. doi:10.1080/13549839.2013.792048. Heckler, S. 2004. “Tedium and Creativity: The Valorization of Manioc Cultivation and Piaroa Women.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10: 241–259. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9655.2004.00188.x. Hoogerbrugge, I. D., and L. O. Fresco 1993. “Homegarden Systems: Agricultural Characteristics and Challenges.” International Institute for Environment and Development, Gatekeeper series no. 39. Howard, P. L. 2003. Women & Plants: Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conservation. New York, London: Zed Books and St. Martin’s Press. Howard-Borjas, P., and W. Cuijpers 2002. “Gender and the Management and Conservation of Plant Biodiversity.” In Biotechnology, Encyclopaedia of Life Support Systems. Edited by H. W. Doelle and E. Da Silva. Oxford: UNESCO EOLSS. Kabir, M., and E. Webb. 2007. “Can Homegardens Conserve Biodiversity in Bangladesh?” Biotropica 40: 95–103. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00346.x. Kehlenbeck, K., and B. Maass. 2004. “Crop Diversity and Classification of Homegardens in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.” Agroforestry Systems 63: 53–62. doi:10.1023/ b:agfo.0000049433.95038.25. Lamont, S., W. Eshbaugh, and A. Greenberg. 1999. “Species Composition, Diversity, and Use of Homegardens among Three Amazonian Villages.” Economic Botany 53: 312– 326. doi:10.1007/bf02866644. Linares, O., and P. Eyzaguirre. 2004. Home Gardens and Agrobiodiversity. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Books. Luoga, E., E. Witkowski, and K. Balkwill. 2000. “Differential Utilization and Ethnobotany of Trees in Kitulanghalo Forest Reserve and Surrounding Communal Lands, Eastern Tanzania.” Economic Botany 54: 328–343. doi:10.1007/bf02864785. Márquez, A., and N. Schwartz. 2008. “Traditional Home Gardens of Petén, Guatemala: Resource Management, Food Security, and Conservation.” Journal of Ethnobiology 28: 305–317. doi:10.2993/0278-0771-28.2.305. Mattalia, G., C. Quave, and A. Pieroni. 2012. “Traditional Uses of Wild Food and Medicinal Plants among Brigasc, Kyé, and Provençal Communities on the Western Italian Alps.” Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 60: 587–603. doi:10.1007/s10722-012-9859-x. Montagnini, F. 2006. “Homegardens of Mesoamerica: Biodiversity, Food Security, and Nutrient Management.” In Tropical Homegardens, edited by B. M. Kumar and P. K. R. Nair, 61–84. Dordrecht: Springer. Mourglia, G. 1901. Il Comune Di Rorà E La Sua Popolazione. Pinerolo: Tipografia Chiantore Mascarelli. Murrieta, R., and A. Winkler Prins. 2009. “‘I Love Flowers’: Home Gardens, Aesthetics and Gender Roles in a Riverine Caboclo Community in the Lower Amazon, Brazil.” In Amazon Peasant Societies in a Changing Environment, edited by C. Adams, R. Murrieta, W. Neves, and M. Harris, 259–277. Dordrecht: Springer. Papp, N., K. Birkás-Frendl, Á. Farkas, and A. Pieroni. 2012. “An Ethnobotanical Study on Home Gardens in a Transylvanian Hungarian Csángó Village (Romania).” Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 60: 1423–1432. doi:10.1007/s10722-012-9930-7. Perreault, T. 2005. “Why Chacras (Swidden Gardens) Persist: Agrobiodiversity, Food Security, and Cultural Identity in the Ecuadorian Amazon.” Human Organization 64: 327– 339. doi:10.17730/humo.64.4.e6tymmka388rmybt. Regione Piemonte. 2003. Atlante Toponomastico Del Piemonte Montano. Torino: Levrotto & Bella. Regione Piemonte. 2009. Le Specie Botaniche Del Piemonte A Protezione Assoluta. Torino: Regione Piemonte. Reyes-García, V., L. Aceituno-Mata, L. Calvet-Mir, T. Garnatje, E. Gòmez, J. Baggethun, J. J. Lastra, et al. 2014. “Resilience of Traditional Knowledge Systems: The Case of Agricultural Knowledge in Home Gardens of the Iberian Peninsula.” Global Environmental Change 24 :223–231. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.022. Reyes-García, V., L. Calvet-Mir, S. Vila, L. Aceituno-Mata, T. Garnatje, J. J. Lastra, M. Parada, M. Rigat, J. Vallès, and M. Pardo-de-Santayana. 2013. “Does Crop Diversification Pay Off? An Empirical Study in Home Gardens of the Iberian Peninsula.” Society & Natural Resources 26: 44–59. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.681107. Reyes-García, V., S. Vila, L. Aceituno-Mata, L. Calvet-Mir, T. Garnatje, A. Jesch, J. J. Lastra, et al. 2010. “Gendered Homegardens: A Study in Three Mountain Areas of the Iberian Peninsula.” Economic Botany 64 :235–247. doi:10.1007/s12231-010-9124-1. Riu-Bosoms, C., L. Calvet-Mir, and V. Reyes-García. 2014. “Factors Enhancing Landracein SituConservation in Home Gardens and Fields in Vall De Gósol, Catalan Pyrenees, Iberian Peninsula.” Journal of Ethnobiology 34: 175–194. doi:10.2993/0278-0771-34.2.175. Salsa, A. 2007. Il Tramonto Delle Identità Tradizionali. Scarmagno: Priuli & Verlucca. Shiva, V. 1995. Monocolture Della Mente. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. BIODIVERSITY Sunwar, S., C. Thornström, A. Subedi, and M. Bystrom. 2006. “Home Gardens in Western Nepal: Opportunities and Challenges for On-Farm Management of Agrobiodiversity.” Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 4211–4238. doi:10.1007/ s10531-005-3576-0. Tourn, G. 2003. Rorà Il Paese Dei Brusapere. Torino: Claudiana. Tourn, G. 2013. Le Valli Valdesi. Torino: Claudiana. Trinh, L., J. Watson, and N. Hue. 2003. “Agrobiodiversity Conservation and Development in Vietnamese Home Gardens.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 97: 317–344. doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(02)00228-1. Van der Stege, C., B. Vogl-Lukasser, and C. R. Vogl. 2012. “The Role of Homegardens in Strengthening Social– Ecological Resilience: Case Studies from Cuba and Austria.” In Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in HumanShaped Environments, edited by T. Plieninger and C. Bieling, 261–282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vazzana, C., V. Moschini, G. Lazzerini, and P. Migliorini. 2010. “L’agricoltura Biologica Delle Donne E La Biodiversità in Toscana.” In Atti Del VI Convegno dell’Associazione Donne&Scienza, 22–27. Torino: Associazione Donne & Scienza. 9 Voeks, R. 2007. “Are Women Reservoirs of Traditional Plant Knowledge? Gender, Ethnobotany and Globalization in Northeast Brazil.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 28: 7–20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.2006.00273.x. Vogl, C., and B. Vogl-Lukasser. 2003. “Tradition, Dynamics and Sustainability of Plant Species Composition and Management in Homegardens on Organic and NonOrganic Small Scale Farms in Alpine Eastern Tyrol, Austria.” Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 21: 349– 366. doi:10.1080/01448765.2003.9755278. Vogl-Lukasser, B., C. Vogl, M. Gütler, and S. Heckler. 2010. “Plant Species with Spontaneous Reproduction in Homegardens in Eastern Tyrol (Austria): Perception and Management by Women Farmers.” Ethnobotany Research and Applications 8: 001. doi:10.17348/ era.8.0.1-15. Wezel, A., and S. Bender. 2003. “Plant Species Diversity of Homegardens of Cuba and Its Significance for Household Food Supply.” Agroforestry Systems 57: 39–49. doi:10.1023/ a:1022973912195. Wezel A., Casagrande M., Celette F., Vian J., Ferrer A. and Peigné J., et al. 2014. “Agroecological Practices for Sustainable Agriculture. A Review.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34 :1–20. doi:10.1007/s13593013-0180-7.