International Journal of Research on Land-use Sustainability 1: 17-24, 2014
Copyright © 2014, Open access
ISSN: 2200-5978 print
Can homegardens help save forests in Bangladesh? Domestic biomass fuel
consumption patterns and implications for forest conservation in south-central
Bangladesh
Sharif Ahmed Mukul1,2,*, Mashiur Rahman Tito2,3, Shifath Ahmed Munim4
1
Tropical Forestry Research Group, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072,
Australia
2
Centre for Research on Land-use Sustainability, Maijdi, Noakhali 3800, Bangladesh
3
Research and Innovation, mPower Social Enterprises Limited, Banani, Dhaka 1213, Bangladesh
4
Architecture Discipline, Science, Engineering and Technology School, Khulna University, Khulna 9208, Bangladesh
Corresponding author; E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
We conducted an exploratory survey in south-central Bangladesh to realize the contribution of homegardens to household
domestic biomass fuel consumption. Households were placed into categories based on their land holdings. A total of thirty
households were interviewed to understand their domestic fuel consumption pattern as well as the role played by
homegardens in meeting their biomass fuel requirements. This study suggested that the majority of the households in the
area rely extensively on homegardens to meet their domestic fuel requirements. 58% of the households biomass fuel
were drawn from homegardens, followed by neighbours (16%), markets (12%) and from public/fallow land (14%). 47
species were identified from the homegardens that were used by the respondents as fuel. Fuelwood was a major type of
biomass fuel used by the households, contributing to about 56% of households total biomass fuel consumption, followed
by dried leaves (21%), dung cake/sticks (14%), and crop residues (6%). As homegardens were found to provide a valuable
alternative source of biomass fuel, it was concluded that a rich homegarden system near forest regions should be
supported in order to reduce pressure on the country’s remaining forests. Governments can facilitate this by granting
marginal households access to trees in fallow lands, as well as public places including roads, railways and river banks.
Key-words: biomass fuel, domestic cooking, homegarden, forest conservation, deforestation
Introduction
About 2.3 billion people worldwide – every two in five - rely on biomass fuel as their main sources of domestic
energy requirements (FAO 1995; Sands 2005; Arnold et al. 2006). Whilst economic development in many
developing countries has progressed rapidly in the last few decades, alternatives to biomass fuel are still scarce
in many areas in those countries, particularly in remote rural areas (Soussan 1991; Koopmans 1993). Forests
are still vital sources of biomass fuel, providing the majority of biomass fuel requirements in most developing
countries (Arnold et al. 2006). According to FAO (2006), fuel wood harvests account for about 40% of the global
removals of wood from forests. Extraction of fuelwood from forests is also one of the major reasons for its
depletion and degradation in developing states (Sands 2005). In South Asia, projected biomass fuel
consumption during the year 2010 was about 372.5 million cubic meters, which was second highest in the
world (Arnold et al. 2003; Arnold and Persson 2003). This suggests that biomass fuels will continue to be a
major source of domestic energy in rural areas in this region for many years ahead. However, a combination of
rapid losses in forest cover and reduced access to forests due to conservation regulations have stimulated the
need for an alternative source of biomass fuel (Uddin and Mukul 2007).
In tropical regions homegardens comprise an assemblage of plants around a residence, and typically include
trees, shrubs, vines and herbs (Nair 1993). In fact, homegardens represent a well-established traditional landuse system in the tropics, playing an important role in the livelihoods and economy of small-holder rural
households (Webb and Kabir 2009). They also play a considerable role in forest conservation by providing an
alternative source of biomass fuel for local people, which may have otherwise been derived from forests
(Uddin and Mukul 2007; Bardhan et al. 2012). We assume that, in a changing world with decreasing forest
cover and/or limited access to forests for biomass fuel, homegardens will play an important role as a substitute
source of biomass fuel together with sources other non-timber forest products (Mukul 2011). In areas where
there are limited forests for public use, homegardens are already playing a noteworthy role in meeting
household fuel requirements for domestic cooking (Miah et al. 1990, 2011).
Bangladesh is characterized by a relatively small natural resource base and a population of more than 160
million. The official forest coverage of the country is about 17%, with per capita forestland of around 0.02 ha –
one of the lowest in the world (Mukul et al. 2013). Moreover, the country’s public forests are often degraded
and unevenly distributed or spatially scattered (out of 64 districts of the country, 28 districts have no state
forests) (Zashimuddin 2004). Due to its high population density, poverty and unemployment the deforestation
rate in the country is also one of the highest in tropical Asia (Poffenberger 2000). Despite this, per capita
fuelwood consumption in the country is one of the lowest in the world (i.e. 0.1 m3) as there is a big gap
between supply, availability and demand (Miah et al. 2011).
More than 77% of people live in rural areas in Bangladesh and about 80% of them possesses small to medium
sized homegardens which are used as a supply for domestic fuel (Zashimuddin 2004). In the southern and
central regions of the country there are very limited public forests where people can collect biomass fuel for
domestic use. In such circumstances homegardens have evidently played a vital role in meeting the demand for
biomass energy (see for example: Zashimuddin 2004; Jashimuddin et al. 2006; Miah et al. 2009, 2011). This
paper reports a case-study carried out in a south-central rural village Bangladesh where we investigated
households’ domestic biomass fuel consumption patterns and the role played by the homegardens in meeting
household biomass fuel requirements. We believe the results of this study will provide insight into the
prospective role of homegardens as an alternative source of biomass fuel.
Material and methods
2.1 The study area
For this study the Noakhali district was selected purposively and the Sadar (also known as Sudharam) upazila1
was selected randomly from a list of six upazillas (i.e. Begumganj, Chatkhil, Companiganj, Sadar, Senbagh and
Subarnachar) comprising the district. Geographically the upazila lies between 22034/ to 22054/ N latitude and
90053/ to 91018/ E longitude and is crossed by mighty Meghna river (SRDI 1999). The Bay of Bengal borders the
upazila on its southern edge (Figure 1). The upazila is devoid of any kind of public forests except some
mangrove plantations in the coastal areas, and is famous for its homestead forest resources. The field survey
was conducted in Lalpur village of Binodpur union within the upazila.
1
Administrative unit, sub-district.
18
Figure 1. Forest coverage in Bangladesh (highlighted in green) (left) and location map of study area in the
country (right) (Source: Banglapedia)
2.2 Field techniques
Several field visits were arranged in the study area for data collection between January to August 2006. We
followed a multistage random sampling technique to locate the village and households, with households as the
ultimate sampling unit. Households were categorized into three distinct land holding categories through a
preliminary socio-economic survey, i.e. landless to marginal household (<0.50 ha), small household (0.51-1.00
ha) and medium to large household (1.00> ha). Both agricultural lands and homesteads were considered for
this classification. Thirty households, taking 10 from each of the land-holding categories, were chosen
randomly for the final study (Table 1).
Table 1. Classification of the households and sampling intensity
Land holding category
Average homestead size
(decimal)
No. of total household
(N)
Percentage HH sampled
(%)
Landless to marginal
Small
Medium to large
07
15
24
49
52
21
20
19
48
Information regarding the homegardens and household fuel consumption patterns were obtained by
interviewing the selected households and by undertaking field visits to the respective homegardens. For
interviews we used a semi-structured questionnaire where details about the household’s homestead situation
(i.e. homestead size, species composition etc.), species preferences and quality, fuel consumption pattern,
quantity consumed (kg month -1household-1), sources of biomass fuel etc. were recorded. Additional data
regarding each household’s demographic and socio-economic status were also gathered. On each topic
households were free to express his/her views.
19
Results
3.1 Structure and composition of the homegardens
The average homegarden size of the households’ belonging to landless to marginal, small and medium to large
land holding categories in the study area were, 0.07 (±0.01) ha, 0.14 (±0.04) ha and 0.19 (±0.01) ha
respectively. Species compositions in each homegarden varied according to the socio-economic status of the
owner. However, it was observed that wealthier households’ homegardens were richer in plant diversity than
that of other households. About 37 tree species, 4 palms, 3 grasses and 3 species of shrubs and herbs were
found in the homegardens of the area. Plant species that were used as a source of biomass fuel include: Acacia
auriculilformis, Aegle marmelos, Albizzia lebbeck, Albizzia procera, Albizzia saman, Alstonia scholaris,
Anthocephallus chinensis, Areca catechu, Artocarpus heterophyllus, Artocarpus lakoocha, Averrhoa carambola,
Azadirachta indica, Baccaurea ramiflora, Bambusa balcooa, Bombyx ceiba, Borassus flabellifer, Butea
monosperma, Cassia fistula, Citrus acida, Cocos nucifera, Delonix regia, Dillenia indica, Diospyros discolor,
Diospyros embryopteris, Elaeocarpus robustus, Erythrina variegata, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Ficus roxburghii,
Garcinia cowa, Lannea coromandelica, Mangifera indica, Melia azedarach, Melocanna baccifera, Moringa
oleifera, Musa spp., Odina wodier, Phoenix sylvestris, Phyllanthus acidus, Psidium guajava, Schumannianthus
dichotoma, Swietenia macrophylla, Syzygium cumini, Syzygium grandis, Tamarindus indica, Terminalia catappa,
Typha elephantine and Zizyphus mauratiana. Figure 2 below shows the vertical composition of species in the
homegardens in the area.
Figure 2. Vertical stratification of a homegarden in the study area (left); and a typical homegarden edge
dominated by palms and tall species (right)
3.2 Biomass fuel used by the households
Fuelwood was the most commonly used biomass fuel by the respondents – it contributed around 56% of total
households’ fuel consumption. Other kinds of fuel used by the households were fallen leaves, dung cake and
dung sticks, crop residues and others (e.g. bio-gas, saw mill residues). Household fuel consumption is shown in
Figure 3. Household fuel consumption patterns differed considerably according to their wealth status and the
seasons, which influenced the access of households’ to different kinds of biomass fuel (Table 2). Wealthier
households were more likely to use fuelwood, on average 24.0 kg/month, thereby constituting the highest share
in their fuel consumption. Poorer households, on the other hand, mainly used dried fallen leaves and dung
cake/ sticks as their fuel for cooking. Agricultural crop residues, like rice husks and straw were also used
20
extensively by households after the harvesting of these crops took place. Household usage of leaves as fuel
increased during the winter season due to greater availability, whilst the use of firewood went down during the
monsoon due to their incombustibility as a result of the higher moisture content.
Table 2. Monthly household biomass fuel consumption (in Kg)
Land holding
category
Landless to marginal
Fuel type
Fuelwood
15.8 (±3.49)
Small
16.40
(±3.24)
24.00
(±3.40)
Medium to large
Dried leaves
8
(±3.46)
9.50
(±4.33)
3.00
(±2.16)
Dung cake
6.3
(±1.34)
5.90
(±3.35)
1.50
(±1.96)
Crop residues
4.6
(±0.97)
0.80
(±1.14)
0.50
(±0.71)
Others
2.1
(±0.74
0.60
(±0.70)
0.20
(±0.42)
Figure 3. Energy use in the study area by consumption
3.3 Sources and preferences of biomass fuel
Homegardens were a major source of biomass fuel for 87% of the respondents in the area, and contributed
about 58% of the households’ total fuel consumption for domestic cooking and other purposes. In fact
homegardens were a major source of biomass fuel for households from all three land holding categories (Table
3). Households were also found to collect biomass fuel from neighbors (16%), government’s fallow land (14%) –
mainly from road-side plantations and nearby markets (Figure 4). Households belonging to the landless to
marginal land-holding category collected a considerable amount (20.2%) of fuel from public and fallow land
and from neighbours (15.0%). Households in this category also purchased 20.4% of their domestic fuel from
markets. The most preferred fuel species, parts consumed and their abundance in local homegardens are listed
in Table 4. In general, households were most likely to prefer the species that were lighter in weight and had
higher calorific value.
Table 3. Biomass fuel sources (in terms of % share) of different households
Land holding category
Landless to marginal
Small
Source
Homegarden
58.7
(±8.84)
58.8
Neighbour
15
(±6.68)
17.2
21
Market
6.1
(±3.21)
11.4
Public/Fallow land
20.2
(±4.49)
12.6
Medium to large
(±8.80)
56.1
(±6.23)
(±8.28)
15.1
(±10.7)
(±4.33)
20.4
(±5.40)
(±8.80)
8.4
(±6.92)
Public/
Fallow
land
14%
Market
12%
Homegard
en
58%
Neighbour
16%
Figure 4. Different sources of biomass fuel in the study area
Table 4. Preferences for species as biomass fuel
Botanical name
Local name
Parts used
Occurrence
Preference*
Cocos nucifera
Albizzia spp.
Areca catechu
Terminalia catappa
Mangifera indica
Bombyx ceiba
Erythrina indica
Bambusa spp.
Typha elephantina
Oryza sativa
Narikel
Koroi
Supari
Katbadam
Am
Shimul
Madar
Bamboo
Hogla
Dhan
Petiole, Fruit
Leaves, Wood
Petiole
Leaves, wood
Leaves, wood
Wood
Wood
Sheath, twigs
Grass
Husk, Straw
+++
++
+++
+++
++
++
++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+
+
++
++
+++
+++
++
++
+++
* Ranked by respondents as: +++ high; ++ moderate, and + low
3.4 Collection and storage of biomass fuel
In general, women and children were responsible for the collection of biomass fuel in the area. No systematic
method of biomass fuel collection was evident. When harvesting from their own homegardens, households
usually preferred the parts of the plant that were defected or had no alternate use. Biomass fuel was stored by
households during the rainy season for future use. However, there was no specific place for storage - any
vacant area with a roof served for storage purposes. Households used any location close in proximity to their
residence during the dry season for storage purposes (Figure 5).
22
Figure 5. Stack of firewood for future use (left) and straw collected from paddy for multiple application
(right)
Discussion
The findings of our study are coherent with the findings of several other authors who have also conducted
their studies in similar regions in Bangladesh (see for example: Miah et al. 1990, 2003; Jashimuddin et al. 2006).
In their studies, Miah (2003) and Jashimuddin et al. (2006) also found that homegardens were a major source
of household domestic fuel. Fuelwood was the most common form of biomass derived from homegardens,
representing over half of households’ biomass consumption. Miah et al. 2003, 2011 also reported similar
trends in the Chittagong and Noakhali districts of the country.
In Bangladesh, an estimated 88% of all wood products are still drawn from homegardens (Poffenberger 2000),
suggesting that homegardens and trees outside of forests generally act as a major source of biomass fuel in the
country. Biomass fuel is also preferable to fossil fuels when considering climate change regulations (Koh and
Ghazoul 2008). In countries like Bangladesh, biomass fuel is also more affordable for rural households who
have limited access to advanced technologies for cooking and other domestic purposes (Chowdhury et al.
2011).
In tropical developing countries where the majority of forests are poorly delineated and/or unregulated,
unsustainable biomass fuel collection may lead to deforestation and forest degradation (Mukul et al. 2014).
Biomass fuel collection from forests also involves gathering of litter from the forest floor, and as a result there
is often complete removal of young seedlings and saplings, aggravating forest degradation through nutrient
depletion, soil erosion and poor regeneration (Sherstha 2005). In Bangladesh, like many other tropical regions,
an increasing focus on the importance of conservation has resulted in stricter forest protection regimes.
Consequently, household access to state forests is becoming increasingly limited (Uddin et al. 2013). In many
forested areas, however, traditional forest uses are still common and are sources of forest conflicts (Mukul et
al. 2013; Mukul 2014). Under these circumstances, homegardens can undeniably help to reduce pressure on
existing public forests and thus enhance forest conservation efforts.
Conclusion
As alternatives to biomass fuels are still scarce in tropical developing countries, forests are still a vital source of
biomass fuel. Our study clearly demonstrates that in areas where household access to public forests is limited
and/or forests are scarce, homegardens can play an important role. However, the promotion of homegardens
23
is not a long-term solution in the fight against deforestation. In areas where unsustainable harvesting is leading
to forest loss and degradation, homegardens can act as an initial alternative to biomass harvesting from
forests.. Governments can allow land-less and marginal people to have access to plantations in governments’
fallow lands and public areas - including roads, railways and canal banks. It is recommended that fast growing
species with high calorific values and substantial growth and branching capacity are used in such plantations.
Acknowledgement
An abridged version of this paper has been presented in the Swedish Bioenergy Conference held in Jonkoping, Sweden.
The authors would also like to thanks Dr. Johan Vinterback (Swedish Bioenergy Association) and Dr. Hubertus Pohris
(Technische Universität Dresden, Germany) for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
References
Arnold, J.E.M., Köhlin, G., Persson, R., 2006. Woodfuels, Livelihoods, and Policy Interventions: Changing Perspectives.
World Development 34: 596–611.
Arnold, M., Kohlin, G., Persson, R., Shepherd, G., 2003. Fuelwood Revisited: What has changed in the last decade? Bogor,
Indonesia: Occasional Paper No. 39, Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Arnold, M., Persson, R., 2003. Reassessing the fuelwood situation in developing countries. International Forestry Review 5:
379-383.
Bardhan, S., Jose, S., Biswas, S., Kabir, K., Rogers, W., 2012. Homegarden agroforestry systems: an intermediary for
biodiversity conservation in Bangladesh. Agroforestry Systems 85: 29-34.
Chowdhury, M.S.H., Koike, M., Akther, S., Miah, M.D., 2011. Biomass fuel use, burning technique and reasons for the
denial of improved cooking stoves by Forest User Groups of Rema-KalengaWildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 18: 88–97.
FAO, 1995. Forests, Fuels and the Future: Wood energy for sustainable development. Forestry Topics Report No. 5, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Jashimuddin, M., Masum, K.M., Salam, M.A., 2006. Preference and consumption pattern of biomass fuel in some
disregarded villages of Bangladesh. Biomass and Bioenergy 30: 446-451.
Koh, L.P., Ghazoul, J., 2008. Biofuels, biodiversity, and people: Understanding the conflicts and finding opportunities.
Biological Conservation 141: 2450 –2460.
Koopmans, A., 1993. Wood Energy Development in Asia: Assessment of Critical Issues, Constraints and Prospects..Paper
presented at Regional Expert Consultation on Data Assessment and Analysis for Wood Energy Planning 23-27
February, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Miah, G., Abedin, M.Z., Khair, A.B.M.A., Shahidullah, M., Baki, A.J.M.A., 1990. Homestead plantation and household fuel
situation in Ganges flood plain of Bangladesh. In: Abedin, M.Z., Lai, C.K., Ali, M.O. (eds). Homestead plantation
and agroforestry in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Jaydebpur, Bangladesh, pp
120-135.
Miah, M.D., Ahmed, R., Uddin, M.B., 2003. Biomass fuel use by the rural households in Chittagong region, Bangladesh.
Biomass and Bioenergy 24: 277-283.
Miah, M.D., Foysal, M.A., Koike, M., Kobayashi, H., 2011. Domestic energy-use pattern by the households: A comparison
between rural and semi-urban areas of Noakhali in Bangladesh. Energy Policy 39: 3757–3765.
Miah, M.D., Rashid, H.A., Shin, M.Y., 2009. Wood fuel use in the traditional cooking stoves in the rural floodplain areas of
Bangladesh: A socio-environmental perspective. Biomass and Bioenergy 33: 70–78.
Mukul, S.A., 2008. Traditional homegardens and domestic biomass fuel consumption pattern in the developing world: the
case of a south-central rural village of Bangladesh. In: Vinterback, J. (ed.), Proceedings of the international
conference ‘World Bioenergy 2008’ held at Jonkoping, Sweden, pp 276-279.
Mukul, S.A., 2014. Biodiversity conservation and ecosystem functions of indigenous agroforestry systems: Case study from
three tribal communities in and around Lawachara National Park. In: Chowdhury, M.S.H. (ed.). Forest
24
Conservation in Protected Areas of Bangladesh: Policy and community development perspective. Springer,
Switzerland, pp 171-179.
Mukul, S.A., Herbohn, J., Rashid, A.Z.M.M., Uddin,M.B., 2014. Comparing the effectiveness of forest law enforcement and
economic incentive to prevent illegal logging in Bangladesh. International Forestry Review 16: 363-375.
Mukul, S.A., Rashid, A.Z.M.M., Quazi, S.A., Uddin, M.B., Fox, J., 2012. Local peoples’ response to co-management regime in
protected areas: A case study from Satchari National Park, Bangladesh. Forests, Tress and Livelihoods 21: 16-29.
Mukul, S.A., Uddin, M.B., Rashid, A.Z.M.M., Fox, J. 2010. Integrating livelihoods and conservation in protected areas:
understanding the role and stakeholder views on prospects for non-timber forest products, a Bangladesh case
study. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 17: 180–188.
Nair, P.K.R., 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Poffenberger, M., 2000. Communities and forest management in South Asia (ed). IUCN, DFID and Asia Forest Network,
Indonesia, pp 35-46.
Sands, R., 2005. Forestry in a Global Context. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Sherstha, B.B., 2005. Fuelwood harvest, management and regeneration of two community forests in Central Nepal.
Himalayan Journal of Sciences 3: 75-80.
Soussan, J., 1991. Philippine Household Energy Strategy - Fuelwood supply and demand. ETC Consultants, UK.
SRDI, 1999. Land and Soil Resource Use Guidelines- Sudharam Thana, Noakhali District. Soil Resource Development
Institute (SRDI), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Uddin, M.B., Mukul, S.A., 2007. Improving Forest Dependent Livelihoods through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A case study
from Satchari National Park. In: Fox, J., Bushley, B., Dutt, S., Quazi, S.A. (eds). Making Conservation Work: Linking
Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh. East-West Center, Hawaii, USAand Nishorgo Support Project
of the Bangladesh Forest Department, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp 13-35.
Uddin, M.B., Steinbauer, M.J., Jentsch, A., Mukul, S.A., Beierkuhnlein, C., 2013. Do environmental attributes, disturbances,
and protection regimes determine the distribution of exotic plant species in Bangladesh forest ecosystem? Forest
Ecology and Management 303: 72–80.
Webb, E.L., Kabir, M.E., 2009. Home Gardening for Tropical Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology 23: 1641–
1644.
Zashimuddin, M., 2004. Community forestry for poverty reduction in Bangladesh. In: Sim, H.C., Appanah, S., Lu, W.M.
(eds). Forests for Poverty Reduction: Can Community Forestry Make Money? FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific (FAORAP), Bangkok, Thailand, pp 81-94.
Communicated by: Dr. Shaheed Hossain Chowdhury, Shinshu University, 8304 Minamiminowa-Mura,
Nagano-Ken, Japan
Received: 10 April 2014
Accepted: May 15, 2014
25