Socio-Economic Drivers of Ecosystem Service Recognition in Kakamega Forest, Kenya
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Methods Utilized
2.3. Variable Selection and Conceptual Framework
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. ES Acknowledgment
3.2. Socio-Economic Factors Influencing ES Acknowledgment
3.2.1. Provisioning ESs
3.2.2. Regulating ESs
3.2.3. Supporting ESs
3.2.4. Cultural ES
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
- Livelihood activities: creation of eco-based businesses (honey and medicinal plants) with a strong linkage to the market to ensure premium prices of the products, as well as the involvement of youths in these businesses to prevent outmigration.
- Preservation of cultural heritage: safeguarding cultural ESs through community programs such as forest walks and storytelling in schools to preserve cultural links.
- Enhance outreach programs: peer learning via CFA networks and involving long-term residents to create awareness of intangible ESs.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
ES | Ecosystem service |
MEA | Millennium Ecosystem Assessment |
CFA | Community forest association |
PELIS | Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme |
KFE | Kakamega Forest Ecosystem |
PFM | Participatory forest management |
FGD | Focus group discussion |
KII | Key informant interview |
IGAs | Income-generating activities |
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Questionnaire Used in Household Survey
- Section 1: Income and Wealth of the Households
- How much money do you make from your source(s) of income monthly (KES)?
- 0–5000 ☐ 5001–10,000 ☐ 10,001–20,000 ☐ 20,001–30,000 ☐ 30,001–40,000 ☐ 40,001–50,000 ☐ 50,001–60,000 ☐ >60,001 ☐
- 2.
- Do you own a piece of land?
- Yes ☐ No ☐
- 3.
- Do you own any livestock?
- Yes ☐ No ☐
- 4.
- Benefits of Kakamega Forest
Identified | Select If You Acknowledge |
Firewood | |
Grazing grass | |
Medicinal plants | |
Food | |
PELIS | |
Rainfall | |
Recreation | |
IGAs | |
Poles | |
Charcoal | |
Pollination | |
Flood protection | |
Wildlife habitat | |
Sand provision | |
Climate regulation | |
Bee keeping | |
Environmental education | |
Air quality | |
Spiritual and religious use | |
Water |
- Section 2: Demographic Information
- 5.
- Gender
- Male ☐ Female ☐
- 6.
- Age _________
- 7.
- Level of education
- No formal education ☐ Primary education ☐ Secondary education ☐ College/tertiary education ☐ University (Bachelor/Master/PhD) ☐
- 8.
- What is the size of your household? ____________
- 9.
- How many members of the household work? ____________
- 10.
- Distance from the market.
- 0–2 km ☐ 2–4 km ☐ 4–6 km ☐ 6–8 km ☐ 8–9 km ☐ 9–10 km ☐ >10 km ☐
- 11.
- Length of residence (years).
- <20 ☐ 20–30 ☐ 30–40 ☐ 40–50 ☐ >50 ☐
- 12.
- How many members of the household work outside the town? _________
- 13.
- Do you belong to any CFA/forest user group?
- Yes ☐ No ☐
Appendix B
Appendix B.1. Socio-Economic Profile of the Respondents
Attributes | Category | Respondent Percentage (Total) |
Income (KES) (I euro = KES 135.57) | 0–5000 | 40.2 |
5001–10,000 | 25.2 | |
10,001–20,000 | 18.5 | |
20,001–30,000 | 7.1 | |
30,001–40,000 | 5.5 | |
40,001–50,000 | 2.9 | |
50,001–60,000 | 0.2 | |
>60,000 | 0.4 | |
Land ownership | Yes | 81.5 |
No | 18.5 | |
Livestock ownership | Yes | 84.3 |
No | 15.7 | |
CFA membership | Yes | 39.7 |
No | 60.3 | |
Level of education | No formal education | 8.2 |
Primary education | 48.1 | |
Secondary education | 30.5 | |
College/tertiary education | 9.7 | |
University education | 3.5 |
Appendix C. Socio-Economic Factors Influencing ES Acknowledgment
Appendix C.1. Overall Categories of ESs
Provisioning ESs | Regulating ESs | Supporting ESs | Cultural ESs | |||||||||||||
Variables | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | Β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) |
Income | −0.27 | 0.68 | 0.7 | 0.77 | −0.82 | 0.72 | 0.26 | 0.44 | 0.85 | 0.57 | 0.14 | 2.33 | −0.43 | 0.6 | 0.48 | 0.53 |
Land ownership | −3.05 | 0.32 | 0.01 * | 0.05 | 2.82 | 1.33 | 0.04 * | 1.06 | 4.35 | 1.06 | 0.001 * | 8.68 | −1.83 | 1.17 | 0.12 | 0.16 |
Livestock ownership | 2.42 | 0.21 | 0.11 | 11.24 | 0.5 | 1.43 | 0.73 | 1.65 | 1.58 | 1.20 | 0.19 | 4.86 | 1.93 | 1.35 | 0.15 | 6.87 |
Level of education | 1.72 | 0.99 | 0.09 | 5.6 | 1.72 | 1.1 | 0.01 * | 5.56 | 0.06 | 0.88 | 0.95 | 1.94 | 1.16 | 0.91 | 0.20 | 3.19 |
Female household head (HH) | −1.71 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.18 | −0.12 | 1.2 | 0.92 | 0.89 | −1.13 | 0.93 | 0.23 | 0.32 | 0.52 | 1.04 | 0.62 | 1.68 |
Market distance | −0.2 | 0.68 | 0.77 | 0.82 | −1.73 | 0.73 | 0.06 | 0.18 | 0.1 | 0.59 | 0.87 | 1.1 | −0.22 | 0.62 | 0.72 | 0.8 |
Length of residence | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.96 | 1.04 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.34 | 1.45 | 2.22 | 0.71 | 0.002 * | 1.11 | 1.6 | 0.72 | 0.03 * | 1.20 |
CFA membership | 0.25 | 0.11 | 0.03 * | 1.28 | 0.63 | 1.1 | 0.56 | 1.88 | 1.2 | 0.86 | 0.16 | 3.3 | 0.21 | 0.91 | 0.81 | 1.24 |
Age | −0.65 | 0.23 | 0.42 | 0.56 | 0.12 | 1.11 | 0.91 | 1.89 | 0.35 | 0.86 | 0.68 | 1.43 | 0.25 | 0.94 | 0.79 | 1.28 |
Household size | 0.86 | 0.66 | 0.46 | 2.37 | 0.07 | 1.29 | 0.96 | 1.07 | 0.19 | 0.98 | 0.84 | 1.21 | 0.72 | 1.05 | 0.49 | 2.05 |
Labor migration | −0.27 | 0.43 | 0.53 | 0.31 | −0.71 | 0.42 | 0.09 | 0.49 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.72 | −0.76 | 0.34 | 0.03 * | 0.47 |
Constant | 1.50 | 0.74 | 0.04 | 4.5 | 2.78 | 0.86 | 0.001 | 16.08 | 2.0 | 0.67 | 0.003 | 7.41 | 1.58 | 0.69 | 0.02 | 4.86 |
*—significant variable at p < 0.05. |
Appendix C.2. Provisioning ESs
Firewood | Grazing Grass | Medicinal Plants | Food | |||||||||||||
Variables | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | Β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) |
Income | −2.71 | 0.71 | <0.001 | 0.07 | −0.54 | 0.53 | 0.31 | 0.59 | 0.12 | 0.47 | 0.79 | 1.13 | −1.37 | 0.49 | 0.01 | 0.45 |
Land ownership | 0.70 | 1.547 | 0.64 | 2.02 | −2.36 | 0.97 | 0.02 | 0.9 | −0.83 | 0.94 | 0.38 | 0.44 | −2.83 | 1.01 | 0.01 | 0.06 |
Livestock ownership | −1.23 | 1.47 | 0.40 | 0.29 | 4.35 | 0.99 | <0.001 | 1.62 | 0.75 | 0.98 | 0.45 | 2.12 | 0.34 | 1.06 | 0.75 | 1.41 |
Level of education | −2.06 | 1.21 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.32 | 0.82 | 0.7 | 1.37 | 1.38 | 0.74 | 0.06 | 3.96 | −1.04 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.36 |
Female household head (HH) | 0.315 | 1.21 | 0.8 | 1.37 | −1.31 | 0.85 | 0.12 | 0.27 | −0.86 | 0.78 | 0.27 | 0.43 | −0.63 | 0.85 | 0.46 | 0.53 |
Market distance | −0.74 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.48 | −0.94 | 0.52 | 0.07 | 0.39 | −0.43 | 0.48 | 0.37 | 0.65 | −0.42 | 0.52 | 0.42 | 0.66 |
Length of residence | 0.68 | 0.75 | 0.37 | 1.98 | 1.76 | 0.58 | 0.01 | 5.83 | 0.07 | 0.53 | 0.89 | 1.93 | 1.52 | 0.59 | 0.01 | 1.22 |
CFA membership | −0.71 | 1.02 | 0.48 | 0.49 | 2.21 | 0.8 | 0.27 | 1.11 | 0.99 | 0.71 | 0.16 | 2.69 | 0.45 | 0.74 | 0.05 | 1.57 |
Age | 0.32 | 1.01 | 0.75 | 1.38 | −0.84 | 0.76 | 0.27 | 0.43 | 0.47 | 0.72 | 0.51 | 1.60 | 0.45 | 0.75 | 0.55 | 1.57 |
Household size | 1.94 | 1.21 | 0.11 | 6.97 | 2.07 | 0.94 | 0.03 | 7.91 | 1.26 | 0.85 | 0.14 | 3.54 | 0.69 | 0.88 | 0.43 | 2.0 |
Labor migration | −0.52 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.60 | −0.07 | 0.32 | 0.82 | 0.93 | −1.11 | 0.28 | <0.001 | 0.33 | −0.84 | 0.29 | 0.004 | 0.43 |
Constant | 3.07 | 0.81 | <0.001 | 21.52 | 0.93 | 0.58 | 0.11 | 2.54 | −0.21 | 0.54 | 0.7 | 0.81 | 2.24 | 0.59 | <0.001 | 9.41 |
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test | 0.08 | 0.40 | 0.06 | 0.38 | ||||||||||||
PELIS | IGAs | Poles | Charcoal | |||||||||||||
Variables | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | Β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | Β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) |
Income | −0.67 | 0.58 | 0.24 | 0.51 | −1.24 | 0.58 | 0.03 | 0.29 | −0.46 | 0.49 | 0.35 | 0.63 | 1.49 | 0.46 | 0.001 | 4.45 |
Land ownership | −3.3 | 1.27 | 0.01 | 0.04 | −3.59 | 1.33 | 0.01 | 0.03 | −0.39 | 1.02 | 0.7 | 0.68 | 2.64 | 0.94 | 0.005 | 14.04 |
Livestock ownership | −0.01 | 1.28 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 2.96 | 1.18 | 0.01 | 19.4 | −0.02 | 1.05 | 0.99 | 0.10 | −0.98 | 0.98 | 0.32 | 0.38 |
Level of education | 0.99 | 0.94 | 0.29 | 2.7 | 2.11 | 0.98 | 0.03 | 8.27 | 0.58 | 0.79 | 0.47 | 1.78 | −0.88 | 0.72 | 0.22 | 0.42 |
Female household head (HH) | −1.29 | 1.03 | 0.21 | 0.28 | −0.73 | 1.0 | 0.47 | 0.48 | −0.7 | 0.86 | 0.41 | 0.5 | 0.13 | 0.78 | 0.86 | 1.14 |
Market distance | −0.41 | 0.61 | 0.05 | 0.66 | 0.45 | 0.6 | 0.45 | 1.57 | 0.12 | 0.51 | 0.82 | 1.12 | −0.59 | 0.04 | 0.21 | 0.55 |
Length of residence | 1.7 | 0.67 | 0.01 | 1.18 | 0.92 | 0.66 | 0.17 | 1.04 | 1.7 | 0.55 | 0.002 | 1.19 | 0.34 | 0.52 | 0.51 | 1.71 |
CFA membership | 9.33 | 0.89 | <0.001 | 2.33 | 6.28 | 0.9 | <0.001 | 1.12 | −1.21 | 0.73 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 1.23 | 0.69 | 0.8 | 3.43 |
Age | 1.27 | 0.97 | 0.19 | 3.57 | 0.28 | 0.94 | 0.76 | 1.33 | 1.71 | 0.8 | 0.03 | 5.5 | 1.37 | 0.71 | 0.5 | 3.95 |
Household size | 0.79 | 1.07 | 0.46 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 1.09 | 0.56 | 8.12 | 0.67 | 0.92 | 0.47 | 1.95 | −0.54 | 0.83 | 0.52 | 0.58 |
Labor migration | −0.08 | 0.35 | 0.82 | 0.92 | −0.32 | 0.36 | 0.37 | 0.72 | 0.14 | 0.3 | 0.65 | 1.15 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.17 | 1.46 |
Constant | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.29 | 2.0 | −1.2 | 0.68 | 0.08 | 0.3 | −1.13 | 0.58 | 0.05 | 0.32 | −0.97 | 0.53 | 0.07 | 0.38 |
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test | 0.49 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||
Sand provision | Beekeeping (honey) | Water | ||||||||||||||
Variables | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | Β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | ||||
Income | −1.0 | 0.47 | 0.03 | 0.37 | −1.14 | 0.57 | 0.047 | 0.32 | −1.13 | 0.45 | 0.01 | 0.32 | ||||
Land ownership | −0.85 | 0.96 | 0.38 | 0.43 | 0.68 | 1.14 | 0.55 | 1.98 | 2.0 | 0.96 | 0.04 | 7.35 | ||||
Livestock ownership | 0.68 | 0.97 | 0.49 | 1.97 | −1.87 | 1.33 | 0.16 | 0.15 | −0.41 | 0.96 | 0.67 | 0.67 | ||||
Level of education | 0.98 | 0.76 | 0.2 | 2.67 | 1.22 | 0.92 | 0.19 | 3.39 | −1.53 | 0.73 | 0.04 | 0.22 | ||||
Female household head (HH) | −1.47 | 0.83 | 0.04 | 0.23 | −2.4 | 1.08 | 0.03 | 0.09 | −1.0 | 0.78 | 0.21 | 0.37 | ||||
Market distance | −0.22 | 0.49 | 0.65 | 0.8 | −0.42 | 0.6 | 0.48 | 0.66 | −0.78 | 0.47 | 0.09 | 0.46 | ||||
Length of residence | 1.57 | 0.53 | 0.003 | 1.21 | 1.54 | 0.63 | 0.02 | 1.22 | 0.7 | 0.53 | 0.19 | 1.5 | ||||
CFA membership | 1.24 | 0.71 | 0.08 | 1.29 | 2.76 | 0.86 | 0.001 | 1.06 | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.33 | 1.95 | ||||
Age | 0.93 | 0.73 | 0.21 | 2.53 | −0.71 | 0.86 | 0.41 | 0.49 | −0.04 | 0.71 | 0.96 | 0.96 | ||||
Household size | 0.7 | 0.87 | 0.42 | 2.02 | 4.66 | 1.15 | <0.001 | 6.43 | 0.44 | 0.84 | 0.6 | 1.55 | ||||
Labor migration | −0.38 | 0.29 | 0.2 | 0.69 | 0.85 | 0.33 | 0.01 | 2.34 | −0.15 | 0.28 | 0.6 | 0.86 | ||||
Constant | −0.29 | 0.54 | 0.6 | 0.75 | −1.86 | 0.68 | 0.006 | 0.16 | 1.19 | 0.53 | 0.02 | 3.3 | ||||
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test | 0.93 | 0.07 | 0.62 |
Appendix C.3. Regulating ESs
Pollination | Flood Protection | Climate Regulation | Air Quality | |||||||||||||
Variables | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | Β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) |
Income | −0.32 | 0.48 | 0.51 | 0.73 | −0.09 | 0.45 | 0.84 | 0.91 | −0.3 | 0.46 | 0.51 | 0.74 | −0.14 | 0.55 | 0.8 | 0.87 |
Land ownership | 0.55 | 0.99 | 0.58 | 1.57 | 0.06 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 1.94 | 0.74 | 0.93 | 1.42 | 1.48 | 2.41 | 1.06 | 0.02 | 1.09 |
Livestock ownership | 1.83 | 1.0 | 0.06 | 6.26 | −0.78 | 0.95 | 0.42 | 0.46 | 1.65 | 0.96 | 0.09 | 5.19 | −0.12 | 1.1 | 0.91 | 0.89 |
Level of education | 2.36 | 0.82 | 0.004 | 10.6 | 3.16 | 0.76 | <0.001 | 23.7 | 3.72 | 0.78 | <0.01 | 41.4 | 1.29 | 0.86 | 0.13 | 3.64 |
Female household head (HH) | −0.03 | 0.84 | 0.98 | 0.98 | −1.86 | 0.79 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.79 | 0.96 | 1.04 | 0.6 | 0.95 | 0.53 | 1.82 |
Market distance | −0.96 | 0.51 | 0.06 | 0.38 | −0.29 | 0.47 | 0.54 | 0.75 | −0.79 | 0.47 | 0.09 | 0.45 | −0.34 | 0.57 | 0.55 | 0.71 |
Length of residence | 1.29 | 0.55 | 0.02 | 1.28 | 1.21 | 0.53 | 0.02 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.53 | 0.35 | 1.61 | 0.71 | 0.63 | 0.26 | 1.49 |
CFA membership | 2.07 | 0.72 | 0.004 | 1.13 | 0.15 | 0.7 | 0.84 | 1.16 | 0.34 | 0.7 | 0.62 | 1.71 | 0.77 | 0.82 | 0.35 | 2.16 |
Age | 0.6 | 0.74 | 0.42 | 1.82 | 0.53 | 0.7 | 0.45 | 1.7 | 0.63 | 0.71 | 0.37 | 1.89 | −1.23 | 0.9 | 0.17 | 0.29 |
Household size | 1.07 | 0.9 | 0.23 | 2.92 | 1.18 | 0.85 | 0.17 | 3.25 | 1.65 | 0.85 | 0.05 | 5.22 | 1.53 | 0.97 | 0.11 | 4.63 |
Labor migration | −0.26 | 0.3 | 0.39 | 0.77 | −0.57 | 0.28 | 0.04 | 0.57 | −0.61 | 0.28 | 0.03 | 0.54 | −0.46 | 0.32 | 0.15 | 0.63 |
Constant | −1.15 | 0.57 | 0.04 | 0.32 | −0.85 | 0.54 | 0.12 | 0.43 | −1.38 | 0.54 | 0.01 | 0.25 | 1.36 | 0.63 | 0.03 | 3.88 |
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test | 0.16 | 0.90 | 0.21 | 0.07 |
Appendix C.4. Cultural ESs
Wildlife Habitat | Environmental Education | Spiritual and Religious Value | Recreation | |||||||||||||
Variables | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) | β | SE | Sig | Exp(β) |
Income | −0.29 | 0.46 | 0.53 | 0.75 | −0.72 | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.49 | −0.48 | 0.45 | 0.28 | 0.62 | −0.01 | 0.46 | 0.98 | 0.99 |
Land ownership | −1.65 | 0.93 | 0.08 | 0.19 | −0.15 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 0.86 | −0.59 | 0.91 | 0.52 | 0.55 | −0.19 | 0.92 | 0.83 | 0.82 |
Livestock ownership | 0.83 | 0.96 | 0.39 | 2.3 | −0.73 | 0.93 | 0.44 | 0.48 | −0.06 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.13 | 0.95 | 0.89 | 1.14 |
Level of education | 2.65 | 0.75 | <0.001 | 14.2 | 1.62 | 0.72 | 0.03 | 5.05 | −1.35 | 0.72 | 0.06 | 0.26 | −0.17 | 0.73 | 0.82 | 0.85 |
Female household head (HH) | −1.0 | 0.78 | 0.2 | 0.37 | −0.55 | 0.77 | 0.47 | 0.58 | 0.04 | 0.77 | 0.96 | 1.03 | 0.09 | 0.78 | 0.91 | 1.01 |
Market distance | −0.32 | 0.47 | 0.5 | 0.73 | −0.84 | 0.46 | 0.07 | 0.43 | −0.23 | 0.46 | 0.62 | 0.79 | −0.4 | 0.48 | 0.4 | 0.67 |
Length of residence | 1.65 | 0.54 | 0.002 | 1.19 | 0.76 | 0.52 | 0.14 | 1.47 | 1.09 | 0.52 | 0.04 | 1.34 | 0.83 | 0.52 | 0.11 | 1.44 |
CFA membership | 1.26 | 0.7 | 0.07 | 3.54 | −0.75 | 0.68 | 0.27 | 0.47 | −1.17 | 0.68 | 0.80 | 0.84 | 0.37 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 1.44 |
Age | 1.02 | 0.71 | 0.15 | 2.77 | 0.37 | 0.69 | 0.6 | 1.69 | 0.22 | 0.69 | 1.75 | 1.8 | 0.44 | 0.69 | 0.53 | 1.65 |
Household size | −0.37 | 0.84 | 0.66 | 0.69 | 2.38 | 0.85 | 0.005 | 10.8 | 2.25 | 0.85 | 008 | 9.45 | 0.89 | 0.84 | 0.29 | 2.43 |
Labor migration | −0.2 | 0.28 | 0.48 | 0.82 | 0.13 | 0.28 | 0.03 | 1.14 | −0.3 | 0.28 | 0.02 | 0.74 | −0.06 | 0.28 | 0.83 | 0.94 |
Constant | −0.24 | 0.53 | 0.65 | 0.79 | −0.27 | 0.52 | 0.6 | 0.76 | 0.35 | 0.52 | 0.5 | 1.42 | −0.29 | 0.53 | 0.58 | 0.75 |
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test | 0.08 | 0.61 | 0.81 | 0.73 |
References
- Brockerhoff, E.G.; Barbaro, L.; Castagneyrol, B.; Forrester, D.I.; Gardiner, B.; González-Olabarria, J.R.; Lyver, P.O.B.; Meurisse, N.; Oxbrough, A.; Taki, H.; et al. Forest Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning and the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Biodivers. Conserv. 2017, 26, 3005–3035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MEA, M. Ecosystem Assessment. In Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
- Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T.C.H. Use and Perceived Importance of Forest Ecosystem Services in Rural Livelihoods of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 35, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osewe, E.O.; Popa, B.; Vacik, H.; Osewe, I.; Abrudan, I. V Review of Forest Ecosystem Services Evaluation Studies in East Africa. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2024, 12, 1385351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutherland, I.J.; Villamagna, A.M.; Dallaire, C.O.; Bennett, E.M.; Chin, A.T.M.; Yeung, A.C.Y.; Lamothe, K.A.; Tomscha, S.A.; Cormier, R. Undervalued and under Pressure: A Plea for Greater Attention toward Regulating Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 94, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellison, D.; Futter, M.N.; Bishop, K. On the Forest Cover–Water Yield Debate: From Demand- to Supply-Side Thinking. Glob. Change Biol. 2012, 18, 806–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plieninger, T.; Dijks, S.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Bieling, C. Assessing, Mapping, and Quantifying Cultural Ecosystem Services at Community Level. Land Use Policy 2013, 33, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wangchuk, J.; Choden, K.; Sears, R.R.; Baral, H.; Yoezer, D.; Tamang, K.T.D.; Choden, T.; Wangdi, N.; Dorji, S.; Dukpa, D.; et al. Community Perception of Ecosystem Services from Commercially Managed Forests in Bhutan. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 50, 101335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soe, K.T.; Yeo-Chang, Y.O.U.N. Perceptions of Forest-Dependent Communities toward Participation in Forest Conservation: A Case Study in Bago Yoma, South-Central Myanmar. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 100, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loft, L.; Le, D.N.; Pham, T.T.; Yang, A.L.; Tjajadi, J.S.; Wong, G.Y. Whose Equity Matters? National to Local Equity Perceptions in Vietnam’s Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services Scheme. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 135, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouko, C.A.; Mulwa, R.; Kibugi, R.; Owuor, M.A.; Zaehringer, J.G.; Oguge, N.O. Community Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and the Management of Mt. Marsabit Forest in Northern Kenya. Environments 2018, 5, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osewe, I.; Hălălișan, A.-F.; Talpă, N.; Popa, B. Critical Analysis of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Case Studies in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Forests 2023, 14, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mensah, S.; Veldtman, R.; Assogbadjo, A.E.; Ham, C.; Glèlè Kakaï, R.; Seifert, T. Ecosystem Service Importance and Use Vary with Socio-Environmental Factors: A Study from Household-Surveys in Local Communities of South Africa. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyathi, N.A.; Musakwa, W.; Azilagbetor, D.M.; Kuhn, N.J. Perceptions of Cultural and Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Human Wellbeing Indicators amongst Indigenous Communities Neighbouring the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. Heliyon 2025, 11, e41448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tessema, S.B.; Nayak, D. Analyzing the Perceived Prioritized Forest Ecosystem Services under the Participatory Management: A Case of Maksegnit District, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Trees For. People 2022, 9, 100318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassen, A.; Zander, K.K.; Manes, S.; Meragiaw, M. Local People’s Perception of Forest Ecosystem Services, Traditional Conservation, and Management Approaches in North Wollo, Ethiopia. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 330, 117118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mengist, W.; Soromessa, T.; Feyisa, G.L. A Global View of Regulatory Ecosystem Services: Existed Knowledge, Trends, and Research Gaps. Ecol. Process. 2020, 9, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambini, C.K.; Nguyen, T.T. Impact of Community Based Conservation Associations on Forest Ecosystem Services and Household Income: Evidence from Nzoia Basin in Kenya. J. Sustain. For. 2022, 41, 440–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyangoko, B.P.; Berg, H.; Mangora, M.M.; Gullström, M.; Shalli, M.S. Community Perceptions of Mangrove Ecosystem Services and Their Determinants in the Rufiji Delta, Tanzania. Sustainability 2020, 13, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, L.V.; Watkins, C.; Agrawal, A. Forest Contributions to Livelihoods in Changing Agriculture-Forest Landscapes. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 84, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dehghani Pour, M.; Barati, A.A.; Azadi, H.; Scheffran, J.; Shirkhani, M. Analyzing Forest Residents’ Perception and Knowledge of Forest Ecosystem Services to Guide Forest Management and Biodiversity Conservation. For. Policy Econ. 2023, 146, 102866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osewe, E.O.; Popa, B.; Kagombe, J.K.; Osewe, I.; Abrudan, I.V. Ecosystem Services Values for Local People in Participatory Forestry Context: The Case of Karura Urban Forest Reserve. Trees For. People 2025, 20, 100834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muhamad, D.; Okubo, S.; Harashina, K.; Parikesit; Gunawan, B.; Takeuchi, K. Living Close to Forests Enhances People’s Perception of Ecosystem Services in a Forest–Agricultural Landscape of West Java, Indonesia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djagoun, C.A.M.S.; Zanvo, S.; Padonou, E.A.; Sogbohossou, E.; Sinsin, B. Perceptions of Ecosystem Services: A Comparison between Sacred and Non-Sacred Forests in Central Benin (West Africa). For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 503, 119791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katsuda, K.; Ikuyo, S.; Kikuko, S.; Kamijo, T. Local Perception of Ecosystem Services Provided by Symbolic Wild Cherry Blossoms: Toward Community-Based Management of Traditional Forest Landscapes in Japan. Ecosyst. People 2022, 18, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, J.D.; Hicks, C.C.; Gurney, G.G.; Cinner, J.E. Disaggregating Ecosystem Service Values and Priorities by Wealth, Age, and Education. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouwakinnou, G.N.; Biaou, S.; Vodouhe, F.G.; Tovihessi, M.S.; Awessou, B.K.; Biaou, H.S.S. Local Perceptions and Factors Determining Ecosystem Services Identification around Two Forest Reserves in Northern Benin. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2019, 15, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Q.; Chen, H.; Liang, X.; Zhang, H.; Liu, D. Cultural Ecosystem Services Valuation and Its Multilevel Drivers: A Case Study of Gaoqu Township in Shaanxi Province, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 41, 101052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benra, F.; Nahuelhual, L. A Trilogy of Inequalities: Land Ownership, Forest Cover and Ecosystem Services Distribution. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilani, H.R.; Yoshida, T.; Innes, J.L. A Collaborative Forest Management User Group’s Perceptions and Expectations on REDD+ in Nepal. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 80, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyangoko, B.P.; Shalli, M.S.; Mangora, M.M.; Gullström, M.; Berg, H. Socioeconomic Determinants of Mangrove Exploitation and Management in the Pangani River Estuary, Tanzania. Ecol. Soc. 2022, 27, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S.U.; Khan, I.; Zhao, M.; Chien, H.; Lu, Q.; Ali, M.A.S.; Khan, A.A.; Fahad, S. Spatial Heterogeneity of Ecosystem Services: A Distance Decay Approach to Quantify Willingness to Pay for Improvements in Heihe River Basin Ecosystems. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 25247–25261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muyonga, M.K. Migration and Inequality in Kenya. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Osewe, I.; Osewe, E.O.; Popa, B. Interconnection between Ecosystem Services and Local Communities: Knowledge Gap Identification in the Area of Kakamega Forest. Bull. Transilv. Univ. Bras. 2023, 16, 37–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNDP KENYA Medium. UNDP Restoring the Jewel of Kakamega: Mission to UNDP Kenya FLARAK’s Fencing Project in Kakamega Forest. Available online: https://undp-kenya.medium.com/restoring-the-jewel-of-kakamega-mission-to-undp-kenya-flaraks-fencing-project-in-kakamega-forest-b176b5a3c626 (accessed on 17 July 2024).
- Wekesa, C.; Mutta, D.; Larwanou, M.; Kowero, G.; Roos, A. Effects of Charcoal Ban on Value Chains and Livelihoods in Kenyan Coast—Stakeholders’ Perceptions. Environ. Dev. 2023, 45, 100809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ongugo, P. Participatory Forest Management in Kenya: Is There Anything for the Poor? HimalDoc. Available online: https://lib.icimod.org/record/13228 (accessed on 1 August 2024).
- FAOLEX. GoK Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016 (No. 34 of 2016). Available online: https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC160882/ (accessed on 1 August 2024).
- Esther, V.; Martha, K.; Harrison, T.; Lenard, O.; Charles, K.; Stella, W.; Humphrey, N. The Impacts of Human Activities on Tree Species Richness and Diversity in Kakamega Forest, Western Kenya. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 6, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, N. Kakamega Forest Ecosystem: An Introduction to the Natural History and the Human Context. Ph.D. Thesis, Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Fashing, P.J.; Forrestel, A.; Scully, C.; Cords, M. Long-Term Tree Population Dynamics and Their Implications for the Conservation of the Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13, 753–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joram Kagombe, J.K.S.K. Kakamega Forest Strategic Ecosystem Management Plan 2015–2040. 2016. Available online: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/ke/Nandi-Forests-Strategic-Plan-2015-2040.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2025).
- KWS Kakamega Forest Management Plan 2012–2022. 2012. Available online: https://www.kws.go.ke/sites/default/files/2019-11/Kakamega%20Forest%20Ecosystem%20Management%20Plan%20%282012-2022%29_0.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2025).
- KNBS 2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census Volume I: Population by County and Sub-County—Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Available online: https://www.knbs.or.ke/reports/kenya-census-2019/ (accessed on 12 November 2024).
- Saalu, F.N.; Oriaso, S.; Gyampoh, B. Effects of a Changing Climate on Livelihoods of Forest Dependent Communities. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 2020, 12, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siri, J.G.; Lindblade, K.A.; Rosen, D.H.; Onyango, B.; Vulule, J.M.; Slutsker, L.; Wilson, M.L. A Census-Weighted, Spatially-Stratified Household Sampling Strategy for Urban Malaria Epidemiology. Malar. J. 2008, 7, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awuah, R.; Douglass, R.; Agyepong, S.; Kuwornu, E. An Adaptive Household Sampling Method for Rural African Communities. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2017, 17, 11477–11496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray-Rust, D.; Dendoncker, N.; Dawson, T.P.; Acosta-Michlik, L.; Karali, E.; Guillem, E.; Rounsevell, M. Conceptualising the Analysis of Socio-Ecological Systems through Ecosystem Services and Agent-Based Modelling. J. Land Use Sci. 2011, 6, 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musyoki, J.K.; Mugwe, J.; Mutundu, K.; Muchiri, M. Determinants of Household Decision to Join Community Forest Associations: A Case Study of Kenya. Int. Sch. Res. Not. 2013, 2013, 902325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrestha, K.; Fisher, R. Labour Migration, the Remittance Economy and the Changing Context of Community Forestry in Nepal. In Community Forestry in Nepal: Adapting to a Changing World; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; pp. 171–192. [Google Scholar]
- Nyang’au, P.; Beatrice, M.; Rose, M.; John, B.; Nixon, O.; and Irungu, J. Effect of Participation in Commercial Production of Medicinal Plants through Community-Based Conservation Groups on Farm Income at Kakamega Forest, Kenya. J. Sustain. For. 2020, 39, 543–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, L.T.T.; Nichols, J.D.; Brown, K. Firewood Extraction and Use in Rural Vietnam: A Household Model for Three Communes in Ha Tinh Province. Agrofor. Syst. 2017, 91, 649–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onyango, C.M.; Kunyanga, C.N.; Ontita, E.G.; Narla, R.D.; Kimenju, J.W. Current Status on Production and Utilization of Spider Plant (Cleome Gynandra L.) an Underutilized Leafy Vegetable in Kenya. Genet. Resour. Crop. Evol. 2013, 60, 2183–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojunga, S.O.; Langat, D.K.; Owange, K.; Otuoma, J.; Ayaga, G.; Muskiton, K.C.; Wanyiri, M.; Isack, M. The Medicinal Plants and Their Economic Value in Kakamega Forest Ecosystem: A Case Study of Sustainable Land/Forest Project in Western Kenya. J. Med. Herbs Ethnomed. 2023, 9, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mrema, J.P. Forest Resources and Local Elite Capture: Revisiting a Community-Based Forest Management “success Case” in Tanzania. In Corruption, Natural Resources and Development: From Resource Curse to Political Ecology; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2017; pp. 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OCHA. OCHA Kenya: Heavy Rains and Flooding Update—Flash Update #6 (17 May 2024). Available online: https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/kenya/kenya-heavy-rains-and-flooding-update-flash-update-6-17-may-2024 (accessed on 13 July 2024).
- Adeyemi, O.; Chirwa, P.W.; Babalola, F.D. Assessing Local People’s Perceptions and Preference for Ecosystem Services to Support Management Plan in Omo Biosphere Reserve, Nigeria. Environ. Dev. 2022, 43, 100738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T.; Sangha, K.K. Land Use Preference for Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Forests 2022, 13, 2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.V.; Jiang, B. Responses of Forest Structure, Functions, and Biodiversity to Livestock Disturbances: A Global Meta-Analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 4745–4757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adhikari, S.; Harada, K.; Dahal, N.K.; Gurung, R. Scientific Forest Management Practices in Nepal: Perceptions of Forest Users and the Impact on Their Livelihoods. J. For. Res. 2024, 29, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mengist, W.; Soromessa, T.; Feyisa, G.L.; Jenerette, G.D. Socio-Environmental Determinants of the Perceived Value of Moist Afromontane Forest Ecosystem Services in Kaffa Biosphere Reserve, Ethiopia. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 136, 102688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, F.P.; Bastos, R.P. Perceiving the Invisible: Formal Education Affects the Perception of Ecosystem Services Provided by Native Areas. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 40, 101029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmook, B.; Radel, C. International Labor Migration from a Tropical Development Frontier: Globalizing Households and an Incipient Forest Transition: The Southern Yucatán Case. Hum. Ecol. 2008, 36, 891–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Were, L.; Kassilly, J.; Ahaya, O.L. The Indigenous Abaluhyia Worldview in Communicating Conservation of Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Afr. J. Empir. Res. 2024, 5, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Osewe, I.; Coman, C.; Osewe, E.O.; Hălălișan, A.-F.; Talpă, N.; Kagombe, J.K.; Abrudan, I.V.; Popa, B. Socio-Economic Drivers of Ecosystem Service Recognition in Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Forests 2025, 16, 889. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060889
Osewe I, Coman C, Osewe EO, Hălălișan A-F, Talpă N, Kagombe JK, Abrudan IV, Popa B. Socio-Economic Drivers of Ecosystem Service Recognition in Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Forests. 2025; 16(6):889. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060889
Chicago/Turabian StyleOsewe, Ibrahim, Claudiu Coman, Erick O. Osewe, Aureliu-Florin Hălălișan, Nicolae Talpă, Joram K. Kagombe, Ioan Vasile Abrudan, and Bogdan Popa. 2025. "Socio-Economic Drivers of Ecosystem Service Recognition in Kakamega Forest, Kenya" Forests 16, no. 6: 889. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060889
APA StyleOsewe, I., Coman, C., Osewe, E. O., Hălălișan, A.-F., Talpă, N., Kagombe, J. K., Abrudan, I. V., & Popa, B. (2025). Socio-Economic Drivers of Ecosystem Service Recognition in Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Forests, 16(6), 889. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060889