Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research communications

Early Access

Kewadi sweet preparation from pandanus fruits by Nicobarese: Nurturing tradition and nutritional security

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.11059
Submitted
12 August 2025
Published
14-04-2026
Versions

Abstract

This study elucidates the Kewadi sweet production from pandanus fruits (Pandanus leram) in the Nicobar Islands which represents a convergence of cultural heritage, food security and community resilience. Rooted in the indigenous knowledge of tribal people and also as a sustainable practice, Kewadi sweet production and consumption not only provides nutritional benefits but also fosters community strength and cultural identity among the Nicobarese tribe people. Despite facing challenges from modernization aspects and changing dietary preferences, the preservation and promotion of Kewadi sweet are crucial for maintaining this traditional delicacy and cultural legacy. Strategic policy initiatives that enhance value chains, promote market access and raise awareness of Kewadi’s cultural significance can bolster its production and consumption for a harmonious coexistence of tradition and modernity. By embracing and supporting traditional practices like Kewadi sweet preparation, we can ensure sustainability through local resource utilization systems, enhance food and nutritional security and foster the cultural richness in the Nicobar Islands. In this study, technical aspects of Kewadi sweet production were documented through one-on-one interviews with tribal community members, followed by a focus group discussion with key stakeholders. Using the SWOT-AHP framework, the study further analyzes and discusses the social and economic challenges and opportunities associated with the product.

References

  1. 1. Swarnam TP, Velmurugan A, Jayakumar S. Diversification of tribal farming systems: technological impact on tropical islands. 2016. p. 121.
  2. 2. Arora K. The Nicobarese tribes and their knowledge. In: Indigenous forest management in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. 2018. p. 101-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00033-2_3
  3. 3. Engineer N. Post-tsunami changes in the knowledge and practices of the Nicobarese. 2020.
  4. 4. Velmurugan A, Roy SD, Krishnan P, Swarnam TP, Jaisankar I, Singh AK, et al. Climate change and Nicobar Islands: Impacts and adaptation strategies. J Andaman Sci Assoc. 2015;20:7-18.
  5. 5. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci. 2008;1:83-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
  6. 6. Aras H, Erdogmus S, Koc E. Multi-criteria selection for a wind observation station location using analytic hierarchy process. Renew Energy. 2004;29:1383-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2003.12.020
  7. 7. KC B, Stainback GA, Chhetri BB. Community users’ and experts’ perspective on community forestry in Nepal: A SWOT–AHP analysis. For Trees Livelihoods. 2014;23:217-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2014.929982
  8. 8. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Plants of the World Online. 2024. https://powo.science.kew.org/
  9. 9. Jaisankar I, Jayakumaravaradan R, Blesy GM, Asokan HN, Manasseh ER, Moses, et al. Proximate and micronutrient composition of Pandanus species in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. Indian For. 2024;150:531-7.
  10. 10. Sidiq FF, Coles D, Hubbard C, Clark B, Frewer LJ. The role of traditional diets in promoting food security for indigenous peoples in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2022;978:012001.
  11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/978/1/012001
  12. 11. Shelef O, Weisberg PJ, Provenza FD. The value of native plants and local production in an era of global agriculture. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:2069. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.02069
  13. 12. Ghosh-Jerath S, Kapoor R, Bandhu A, Singh A, Downs S, Fanzo J. Indigenous foods to address malnutrition: An inquiry into the diets and nutritional status of women in the indigenous community of Munda tribes of Jharkhand, India. Curr Dev Nutr. 2022;6:nzac102. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzac102
  14. 13. Singh RK, Kumar A, Singh A, Singhal P. Evidence that cultural food practices of Adi women in Arunachal Pradesh, India, improve social-ecological resilience: Insights for Sustainable Development Goals. Ecol Process. 2020;9:1-9.
  15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-020-00232-x
  16. 14. Zwane EM, Masipa MP. The importance of indigenous knowledge system for food security and conservation of natural resources. Indilinga Afr J Indig Knowl Syst. 2021;20:124-40.
  17. 15. Baba S, Chan HT, Aksornkoae S. Useful products from mangrove and other coastal plants. ISME Mangrove Educ Book Ser. 2013;3:45-47.
  18. 16. López LM, Capparelli A, Nielsen AE. Traditional post-harvest processing to make quinoa grains (Chenopodium quinoa var. quinoa) apt for consumption in Northern Lipez (Potosí, Bolivia): ethnoarchaeological and archaeobotanical analyses. Archaeol Anthropol Sci. 2011;3:49–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-011-0060-5
  19. 17. Mahapatra AK, Panda PC. Wild edible fruit diversity and its significance in the livelihood of indigenous tribals: Evidence from eastern India. Food Secur. 2012;4:219–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0186-z
  20. 18. Shrestha PM, Dhillion SS. Diversity and traditional knowledge concerning wild food species in a locally managed forest in Nepal. Agrofor Syst. 2006;66:55-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-6642-4

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.