Human Rights-Based Approach to Community Development: Insights from a Public–Private Development Model in Kenya

Abstract

The right to development, an inherent human right for all, emphasizes that all individuals and communities have the right to participate in, contribute to, and benefit from development that ensures the full realization of human rights. In Kenya, where a significant portion of the population faces poverty and vulnerability to climate change, access to rights-based needs such as clean water, healthcare, and education still remains a critical challenge. This study explored the implementation of a Human Rights-Based approach to community development through a Public–Private Development Partnership model (PPDP), with a focus on alleviating poverty and improving access to rights-based services at the community level in Narok and Nakuru counties. The research aimed to identify critical success factors for scaling the PPDP model and explore its effects on socio-economic empowerment. The study employed a mixed-methods approach for data collection, using questionnaires to obtain quantitative data, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews with community members, local leaders, and stakeholders to gather qualitative data. We cleaned and analyzed all our data in R (version 4.4.3) and used the chi-square to establish the significance of differences between areas where the PPDP model was implemented and control areas where it was not. Results reveal that communities with the PPDP model experienced statistically significant improvements in employment, income levels, and access to rights-based services compared to control areas. The outcomes underscore the potential of the PPDP model to address inclusive and sustainable development. This study therefore proposes a scalable pathway beginning with access to rights-based needs, followed by improved service delivery, and culminating in economic empowerment. These findings offer valuable insights for governments, development practitioners, investment agencies, and researchers seeking community-driven developments in similar socio-economic contexts across Africa. For the first time, it can be adopted in the design and implementation of development projects in rural and local communities across Africa bringing into focus the need to integrate rights-based needs at the core of the project.

1. Introduction

Article 1 of the Declaration on the Right to Development asserts that the right to development is an inherent human right. It emphasizes that every individual and all communities have the right to participate in, contribute to, and benefit from economic, social, cultural, and political development. This development should ensure the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms [1]. In line with this, the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) advocates for the integration of human rights principles such as equality, non-discrimination, participation, and accountability into development efforts. HRBA emphasizes that development should not only aim at economic growth but also at the realization of human rights for all individuals, particularly the most marginalized groups [2].

Despite the growing adoption of rights-based frameworks globally, the implementation of HRBA within public–private partnerships (PPPs) remains underexplored in the empirical literature, especially in lower-middle-income countries like Kenya. In 2015, the United Nations (UN) Member States co-signed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, agreeing on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with the aim of addressing the challenges that human beings face such as the provision of clean water and sanitation, health care, and quality education, among other needs [3]. This action led to the development of PPPs which have been critical for development at local to international levels [4,5]. Their inception reflects a notable evolution in public policy-making, characterized by the transition from a traditional ‘government’ model to a broader concept of ‘governance’ [6]. While significant attention has been placed on infrastructure development within PPP models, there is limited evidence of their ability to deliver rights-based outcomes, particularly when adapted to local development needs through more inclusive frameworks such as Public–Private Development Partnerships (PPDPs). Within the framework of PPPs, key policy functions are delegated to private entities in these collaborative ventures [7]. This collaborative governance model is less rigidly structured and directed, allowing autonomous policy actors to unite their efforts across all stages of the policy process [8,9,10]. This paradigm also signifies a more cooperative and flexible approach to governance.

The foundational concept that underpins PPPs is rooted in the idea of a network society. This perspective envisions that policy outcomes are increasingly achieved through collaborative efforts and joint decision-making involving multiple stakeholders [11]. Present trends in partnership dynamics within development studies focus on critical areas such as infrastructure development [12], global health [13], women’s empowerment [14], poverty alleviation [15], and responses to climate change [16]. Consequently, there is a growing belief in the efficacy of PPPs as a means of aligning public, private, and civil society organizations [17]. This alignment is seen as having the potential to expedite the socio-economic development of countries worldwide [18]. The evolving landscape of PPPs reflects a recognition of their capacity to address diverse global challenges, fostering an inclusive approach to development.

Kenya, as a lower-middle-income economy, grapples with a unique geographical landscape, where approximately 80–85% of its landmass is categorized as arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) [19]. The majority of the population faces vulnerability to climate change effects, exacerbated by prevalent poverty, with about 46% of the population classified as poor [20]. The predominant reliance on rain-fed agriculture and livestock production renders the population susceptible to adverse weather conditions and fluctuating market prices, both locally and internationally. Furthermore, Kenya experiences a heightened susceptibility to natural hazards, particularly floods and droughts, which collectively account for over 70% of the country’s natural disasters [20]. Droughts occurring with increasing frequency have emerged as a national challenge, affecting a substantial portion of the population and constituting a recurring 8% impact on the GDP every five years. The highly arid zones within the country often bear the brunt of severe drought impacts, reflecting a pressing need for strategic interventions to mitigate these adverse effects [20].

PPPs in Kenya officially started with the enactment of the Public Procurement and Disposal Act of 2005 and sessional paper No. 2 of 2005 on the privatization of state corporations and investments [21]. The gains made were further enhanced with the enactment of the Public–Private Partnership Act of 2013 [22]. The Act allows the participation of the private sector in the financing, construction, development, operation, or maintenance of infrastructure through concession or other contractual arrangements. The government of Kenya (GoK) has increasingly turned to PPPs to advance infrastructure and housing development [23]. Between 2012 and 2020, the total investment required for infrastructure development was USD 62,176 million. The GoK contributed USD 25,000 million, resulting in a funding gap of USD 37,000 million [24,25]. With a projected reduction in this funding gap to USD 40 billion over the next eight years, the GoK is focusing more on PPPs to meet the growing demand for quality and affordable infrastructure from its citizens [23]. This emphasizes the significance of PPPs in Kenya’s national development. Despite this enactment and the ongoing PPP projects, many local communities in Kenya are yet to realize the full impacts of such projects, with such communities still lacking major rights-based needs including clean water, quality healthcare, and education and still living in poverty. This exposes a policy gap in the PPP Act that may need to be addressed. This paper explores the application of an inclusive model, public–private development partnership (PPDP) with a community development focus for poverty alleviation and improved living conditions through decent work and access to rights-based needs at the community level [26].

The marginal development within the Masai communities in Kenya could be traced to the colonial system that was characterized by discriminatory and segregated development policies that prioritized the interests of the white minority over those of the African majority [27]. This segregated development led to significant land dispossession and displacement for many African communities. For the Maasai, the Anglo-Maasai Agreement of 1904 resulted in the loss of their ancestral lands to the colonial government, displacing them from areas such as Suswa (the project site), Ol Kalou, and Ol Jororok to Laikipia. The subsequent 1911 Agreement further displaced them to Narok and Kajiado. Efforts to challenge these agreements in court in 1913 were unsuccessful [27]. These policies not only created physical separation between white settlers and Africans but also fostered divisions among African communities themselves. Those communities that collaborated with the colonial government were given preferential treatment, particularly in the Rift Valley and Central provinces, while those critical of the government, such as those involved in the Mau Mau movement, were punished through the loss of their ancestral lands. These historical injustices have left a lasting impact, with the Maasai community continuing to face development disparities and marginalization, exacerbated by historical stereotypes and prejudices. The legacy of colonial land dispossession could have contributed to the ongoing development injustices, limiting the Maasai’s access to resources and opportunities for sustainable development [27]. These historical injustices justify the need for a rights-based, community-centered development model such as the PPDP, which aims to address structural inequalities by empowering marginalized groups like the Maasai.

The PPDP model encourages the private sector to proactively create business ventures that improve conditions for people living in poverty. This project was initially implemented around the Ken-Gen Geothermal project in Narok and Nakuru counties in 2018 by ForumCiv in partnership with the International Labour Organization (ILO). The model has shown significant results towards inclusive growth [26]. The ILO led the coordination of skills development and job creation through macro and small enterprise development, while ForumCiv focused on building community capacity to lobby for increased access to public and social services. However, no scientific study has been conducted to establish the critical success factors and pathways for transformation through this model to promote scalability. This study examined the outcomes of the PPDP model on rights-based service delivery and socio-economic development in rural communities in Kenya. It further examined the critical success factors for scaling this model to promote inclusive and sustainable development. The study is guided by three hypotheses: 1. Implementation of the PPDP model is associated with improved access to rights-based services (clean water, healthcare, education); 2. PPDP implementation leads to improved socio-economic indicators such as employment, business growth, and income levels; and 3. Communities where PPDP projects are implemented show significantly higher levels of inclusivity.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Rights-based approaches (RBAs) have gained prominence as a strategy for embedding human rights norms and standards into development programming. They revolve around the dynamic between right-holders (typically citizens) and duty bearers (typically the state and institutions), placing emphasis on participation, empowerment, and accountability [28,29]. Unlike traditional service delivery approaches, RBAs interrogate the structures and power dynamics that produce marginalization and inequality. This marks a departure from traditional needs-based approaches by framing development challenges as rights violations rather than service gaps.

The shift to RBAs in development stems from increasing recognition that poverty is not just a lack of income but also a consequence of exclusion and disempowerment. Ref. [30] argue that rights-based development places the agency of marginalized communities at the center, allowing them to claim entitlements and demand accountability. These approaches have been applied in various sectors, including health, education, and gender empowerment, yet there is limited empirical work examining their integration into public–private development models.

Public–private partnerships (PPPs) have long been promoted as mechanisms to leverage private sector efficiency and investment for the public benefit [4,12]. However, critiques of PPPs often highlight their bias toward infrastructure development and profit-driven motives, which may neglect inclusive outcomes, particularly in rural or marginalized areas [6]. The growing global discourse has therefore called for more community-centered adaptations of PPPs. In response to these concerns, Public–Private Development Partnerships (PPDPs) have emerged as an evolution of traditional PPPs. Unlike conventional PPPs, PPDPs integrate development and social inclusion goals, encouraging the private sector to engage directly with communities through co-designed programs that address both economic and rights-based needs [26]. However, studies on PPDPs remain limited, particularly in the African context, where structural inequalities, historical injustices, and socio-cultural norms often undermine equitable development [27].

Existing literature on partnerships in development focuses predominantly on large-scale infrastructure, global health, and private finance [13,18], with little attention to community-level empowerment, access to rights-based services, or the lived experiences of marginalized groups. Moreover, few studies examine how such partnerships operate in contexts with entrenched development disparities, such as the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) in Kenya.

This study [4] builds on the rights-based development literature while responding to empirical gaps in the evaluation of PPDPs. It draws on the theoretical lens of rights-based governance, which asserts that development must not only address service delivery but also reshape power relations, promote equity, and foster inclusive participation. The study also considers the framework of collaborative governance [11], where public, private, and civil society actors jointly contribute to decision-making and implementation. By empirically testing the effectiveness of the PPDP model in Kenya’s Narok and Nakuru counties, this study contributes to closing the gap between theoretical advocacy for rights-based development and practical, community-level implementation. It also offers a pathway model linking rights-based needs to broader socio-economic empowerment a contribution that could inform policy, programming, and future research across similar development contexts.

3. Materials and Methods

The study focused on two main areas in Kenya: Nakuru and Narok counties, specifically targeting communities in proximity to the Ken-Gen geothermal project and surrounding localities where the PPDP model had been implemented, as well as neighboring communities where the PPDP was not implemented. While these two counties share some development challenges such as youth unemployment, limited access to quality basic services, and infrastructure gaps, they differ in key socio-economic aspects. Nakuru is more urbanized, with a higher population density and more diversified economic activity, including agriculture, tourism, and manufacturing. In contrast, Narok is predominantly rural and pastoralist, with a more dispersed population.

The general population for the study comprised residents of these communities, estimated at approximately 7000–10,000 people based on local administrative data and community registers. Using this as the sampling frame, the study applied stratified purposive sampling to ensure the inclusion of both PPDP (treatment) and non-PPDP (control) communities. Communities were first stratified by county and then by PPDP presence. Within each stratum, households were selected using local administrative listings, with respondents selected to represent youth, women, men, and persons with disabilities (PWDs). The total sample size of 450 respondents was determined using standard sampling guidelines for social research aiming at a 95% confidence level with a ±5% margin of error, adjusted for field feasibility. The sample included 210 respondents from PPDP areas and 240 from control areas, proportionally distributed based on estimated population size and accessibility.

Data collection involved administering in-person structured questionnaires, followed by focused group discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). The FGDs involved purposively selected participants who were representative of key community stakeholder groups. Participants included women, youth representatives, PWDs, village elders, local health workers, representatives of community-based organizations (CBOs), and county government officials. The selection was conducted to ensure diversity in gender, age, and social roles, as well as to capture a range of experiences related to PPDP implementation. Each FGD included 10–15 participants and was stratified to reflect community-level and policy-level voices across both Narok and Nakuru counties. The purposive selection approach ensured that discussions reflected both direct beneficiaries of development interventions and individuals with community leadership or program implementation roles.

The questionnaire was designed to capture quantitative data on poverty and economic development indicators, including income, employment, business activity, access to basic services, and perceptions of development (see Supplementary Materials). The qualitative instruments included semi-structured guides that explored lived experiences with PPDP, local development barriers, and community perceptions of rights-based service access. We used a sequential mixed-methods approach, where quantitative data was collected first to measure associations and qualitative data was used to explore underlying mechanisms and perceptions. This design aligned with the study’s hypotheses: H1 (access to rights-based services), H2 (economic improvement), and H3 (inclusion and gender equality).

Data was collected from 13 October to 18 October 2023, in Rapland and Suswa wards, with interviews and surveys conducted at the household and community level. FGDs were conducted between 20 May and 22 May 2024, in both Narok and Nakuru counties. In each county, two FGDs were conducted at both the community and policy levels. All qualitative sessions were facilitated by trained moderators and recorded with consent for thematic analysis. The composition of participants, disaggregated by gender and role, is summarized in

Table 1. Summary of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) by County, Level, and Participant Categories.

County	FGD Level	Total Participants	Male	Female	Participant Categories
Narok	Community	21	11	10	Youth reps (11), PWD (1), village elders, community health providers
	Policy	12	6	6	County officials (7), CBOs/schools (2), CSOs/NGOs (2), PWD (3)
Nakuru	Community	16	11	5	Youth reps (5), PWD (1), village elders (10)
	Policy	8	4	4	County officials (5), CSOs/NGOs (2), PWD (1)

below.

Prior to analyzing the quantitative data, the raw data was validated and cleaned to ensure quality. This included addressing inconsistencies, fixing duplicate or missing entries, and cross-validating responses. Quantitative data was analyzed using chi-square tests for independence to examine associations between PPDP presence and the dependent variables aligned with each hypothesis. Contingency tables were constructed, and a significance level of α = 0.05 was applied. In the second stage, qualitative data from FGDs and KIIs was analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring themes, perceptions, and recommendations. Coding was conducted manually and validated by multiple coders to ensure consistency. Themes were grouped under community concerns and proposed initiatives, policy recommendations from stakeholders, and enablers for rights-based service delivery.

To ensure alignment with the study’s objectives, the three hypotheses were directly used to guide data collection and analysis. Hypothesis 1 focused on access to rights-based services (clean water, healthcare, and education), which was captured through both survey variables and qualitative interviews. Hypothesis 2 targeted economic outcomes (employment, income levels, and business growth), measured through income brackets, employment status, and entrepreneurial activity. Hypothesis 3 examined inclusion and participation, tracked via gender, age group, and participation of PWDs in community programs. These variables were analyzed using chi-square tests and thematic analysis to assess statistical and perceptual differences between PPDP and non-PPDP communities. This methodological design ensured consistency between the study’s aims, hypotheses, and analytical approach.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic Analysis

The demographic characteristics of the 450 respondents, drawn from both PPDP project sites and control areas, are summarized in Figure 1. The respondents ranged in age from 18 to 65 years, with a majority (68%) falling between 18 and 45 years in both PPDP and control communities. There was no statistically significant difference in gender distribution between the two groups (p > 0.05), with 49.6% of respondents identifying as male and 51.4% as female. Vulnerable groups, including youth (18–35), women, and the elderly were slightly more represented in the control sites than in the PPDP project sites. A significant majority of 96.7% of the overall study population resided in the rural areas in the project sites for over 10 years, suggesting a stable, established community.

Dependency levels, measured by the average number of dependents per household, were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the control group (57.2%) compared to the PPDP sites (42.8%). Most households across both groups lived in two-bedroom dwellings, and the majority reported owning their homes. Regarding education, 36.7% of the total study population lacked formal schooling, which may have implications for both access to services and participation in community decision-making.

4.2. Community Involvement in Development Activities

Perceptions of development levels varied significantly between the two groups. In the control sites, 36.9% of respondents reported low levels of development, compared to only 16.0% in PPDP project areas (χ² = 56.384, p < 0.05). Additionally, 28.7% of respondents in PPDP areas rated development in their communities as “moderate,” suggesting more positive perceptions in areas where the PPDP model was implemented. Regarding participation in entrepreneurial activities, 47.0% of the total study population across both groups reported involvement in business ventures. The participation rate was marginally higher in PPDP areas (24.3%) compared to control sites (22.7%), though the difference was not statistically significant. This suggests a relatively uniform level of business engagement across the study sites. These findings relate to the first hypothesis, which anticipated that PPDP implementation would improve access to rights-based services such as clean water, healthcare, and education.

Community group membership was generally low across the board, with 70.6% of respondents indicating they were not part of any community-based group or association. This trend was consistent across both PPDP and control areas. Awareness of PPDP initiatives differed sharply between groups. In control areas, 36.9% of respondents stated they were unaware of the PPDP model, whereas only 8.46% of respondents in PPDP implementation areas reported a lack of awareness. This contrast highlights the relative reach and visibility of the PPDP in its designated zones (Figure 2).

The overall unemployment rate for the entire study population was 32.2%. Disaggregated by site, unemployment was higher in control areas (20.1%) compared to PPDP areas (12.1%). However, the difference was not statistically significant (χ² = 9.28, df = 5, p = 0.099), indicating that observed employment differences between the two groups may be due to chance. Regarding household income, 53.3% of all respondents reported earning less than KES 6000 per month (approximately $1.50 per day). Of these, 30.9% were from control sites and 23.7% from PPDP sites. While this suggests a concentration of low-income households in control areas, no statistical test was conducted on income differences due to categorical data constraints. Income dependency patterns revealed that 61% of respondents lived in households with only one-income earner. Additionally, 10% of respondents reported having no identifiable source of income, with the majority of these concentrated in control areas. These findings partially support Hypothesis 2 (H2), which posits that PPDP implementation is associated with improved economic outcomes (Figure 3).

4.3. Factors Influencing Economic Development

In evaluating economic development in both PPDP and non-PPDP project areas, these factors had highly significant effects on economic development: availability of rights-based services (e.g., healthcare, quality education), access to essential infrastructure (e.g., roads, electricity), inclusivity and equal opportunities, Gender equality and women’s empowerment, food Access (e.g., affordability and distribution, food availability (e.g., supply and variety), environmental sustainability and climate change resilience, business growth and entrepreneurship, income levels and economic well-being, and employment opportunities (p < 0.01). Participation in governance and decision-Making, and Food Quality (e.g., nutritional value, safety) were not considered key parameters for the economic development of the communities in the areas (

Table 2. Significance of Economic Development Parameters in Narok and Suswa, Kenya. Development parameters are ranked according to their level of significance to community development, from most significant to least/not significant.

Economic Development Parameters	Level of Significance (p < 0.05)
Access to essential infrastructure (e.g., roads, electricity)	0.000 ***
Availability of public services (e.g., healthcare, education)	0.000 ***
Inclusivity and equal opportunities	0.000 ***
Gender equality and women’s empowerment	0.000 ***
Food Access (e.g., affordability and distribution)	0.000 ***
Quality Education (e.g., access to quality schools)	0.000 ***
Food Availability (e.g., supply and variety)	0.000 ***
Environmental sustainability and climate change resilience	0.02 **
Business growth and entrepreneurship	0.03 **
Income levels and economic well-being	0.05 *
Employment opportunities	0.298
Participation in Governance and Decision-Making	0.484
Food Quality (e.g., nutritional value, safety)	0.655

* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001.

). This section responds to the second hypothesis which proposed that PPDP areas would improve socio-economic outcomes, including income levels, employment, and entrepreneurship.

4.4. Climate Change Awareness, Mitigation, and Adaptation

A large proportion of the total study population (82.7%) reported feeling unprepared to address the challenges and impacts of climate change. Disaggregated by study area, unpreparedness was higher in control communities (45.1%) compared to PPDP project areas (37.6%). Perceptions of the effectiveness of resilience-building programs varied significantly between groups. In control sites, 42.9% of respondents considered these programs ineffective, compared to 31.8% in PPDP areas. This difference was statistically significant (χ² = 37.63, df = 4, p < 0.001), indicating that the PPDP model may contribute to more effective climate resilience efforts. These patterns are relevant to the third hypothesis which suggests that PPDP communities would exhibit higher levels of inclusivity and preparedness, especially in areas related to environmental risks and resilience.

Community perceptions of support and cooperation among residents, local authorities, and development organizations in building resilience also differed significantly. In control areas, 42.7% of respondents reported low levels of cooperation, compared to 24.0% in PPDP communities (χ² = 45.03, df = 4, p < 0.001). Similarly, awareness of climate adaptation strategies and available resources was lower in control areas (46.5%) than in PPDP sites (35.2%). This difference was statistically significant (χ² = 15.32, df = 4, p = 0.004), reinforcing the association between PPDP implementation and improved community awareness of climate adaptation options.

Lastly, perceptions of the seriousness of climate change impacts showed significant variation across groups. In total, 83.1% of the study population rated the impacts as “serious,” “very serious,” or “extremely serious.” This perception was significantly more pronounced in PPDP areas than in control areas (χ² = 17.54, df = 4, p = 0.002), suggesting a heightened awareness of environmental risks in communities exposed to PPDP engagement and sensitization activities. These findings collectively support the proposition that the PPDP model enhances local preparedness, institutional cooperation, access to adaptation knowledge, and community-level awareness of climate-related risks with key components of inclusive and sustainable development (Figure 4).

4.5. PPDP Critical Success Factors

Critical success factors for Successful implementation of the Public–Private Development Partnerships (PPDP) to create sustainable development in communities were assessed and ranked based on their significance. Innovation and technological advancements, Public–private partnerships, Education and skill development programs, Infrastructure development, and Community engagement were the most critical factors for the implementation of PPDP (

Table 3. Critical success factors necessary for successful implementation of PPDP for sustainable development in Olkaria and Suswa areas where PPDP has been implemented since 2018.

Critical Success Factors	Level of Significance (p < 0.05)
Innovation and technological advancements	0.000 ***
Public–private partnerships	0.000 ***
Education and skill development programs	0.000 ***
Infrastructure development	0.000 ***
Community engagement and social initiatives	0.000 ***
Skilled workforce availability	0.001 ***
Access to markets and customers	0.002 **
Business-friendly regulatory environment	0.03 **
Government policies and support	0.032 **

** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.

).

4.6. Effects of PPDP on Poverty Alleviation

The majority of the population (53.3%) in the areas where Public–Private Development Partnerships (PPDP) have been established consider the effects of ongoing project initiatives on poverty alleviation to be moderate. This relates to the first and second hypotheses reflecting how access to services and economic empowerment intersect under the PPDP model. A higher proportion of households in the PPDP project areas (68.4%) reported significant benefits from PPDP initiatives at the community level. However, vulnerable groups, including youth, women, and the elderly, reported a lower impact of 10.5%, pointing towards a focus on this special group in project design (Figure 5).

4.7. Pathways to Development: Examining the Effects of the PPDP Model in Rural Kenya

The pathways through which PPDP causes outcomes on delivery of rights-based services and sustainable development in the community include access to quality education, economic empowerment, skill development, access to healthcare services, access to clean water, business entrepreneurship, capital access, innovation, entrepreneurial skills, collaboration, business development, financial literacy, multi-Stakeholder collaboration, soft skills, legal and regulatory knowledge, leadership, digital literacy. Access to rights-based needs is the most critical and most significant to poverty alleviation. Successful achievement of rights-based needs (RBN) creates opportunities for more pathways including skill development, economic empowerment, and enhanced economic environment (Figure 6).

4.8. Development Disparities and Solutions

The community in Olkaria and Suswa in Nakuru and Narok counties, respectively, largely occupied by Maasai is characterized by low formal education uptake, climate change illiteracy, low-income households, high rate of unemployment, low interest in governance processes, inadequate business engagement and a high gender disparity. The community faces multifaceted development challenges ranging from education, employment, and governance to health and climate change including faraway schools, cultural barriers to education, limited participation in the governance process, poverty, and unemployment, inadequate health facilities, impacts of climate change, climate change illiteracy, food insecurity and gender inequality in education. Also, characteristics of the community are persistent cultural practices like female genital mutilation (FGM), environmental degradation, and healthcare deficiencies.

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) involving the community in Rapland and Suswa, the county government officials, local actors, and CSOs in, Nakuru and Narok towns proposed enablers and initiatives that can be scaled to address the development concerns in the area. In education, building and upgrading schools closer to communities, employing teachers, enhancing water infrastructure, and promoting civic education to combat harmful cultural practices were proposed. Entrepreneurship can be fostered through micro-financing, market expansion, and women empowerment initiatives. Sustainable farming practices, livestock trading support, and technology training for online businesses were highlighted as a means to support economic diversification. Environmental sustainability initiatives proposed included establishing biogas plants and plastic recycling centers and promoting green enterprises. Gender inclusivity was proposed to be prioritized in leadership training, employment opportunities, and policies supporting youth, women, and persons with disabilities (PWDs). Additionally, community-driven approaches to combat female genital mutilation (FGM) were discussed including the role of civic education, legal enforcement, and engagement of cultural leaders. Climate resilience strategies proposed included capacity building, partnerships for clean water, and early warning systems. Some of the key enablers for rights-based services (RBS) included government accountability, education and healthcare infrastructure development, public participation, and partnerships for financing and governance (

Table 4. Demographic characteristics and rights-based approach to delivery of community development. Thematic illustration of FGD output from local communities and county government officials on initiatives to deliver community development and rights-bin Nakuru and Narok counties in Kenya informing the model initiative for developing countries in Africa.

Development Parameter		Community Disparities and Solutions	Policy Makers Solutions	Scalable Initiatives
Demographic characteristic		Far schools (outside 20 km radius). Maasai culture placed a low value on formal education. Nomadic life disrupts school attendance, poverty, low motivation due to high unemployment, high dropout rate due to early pregnancies, peer pressure, early/forced marriages. Lack of awareness of benefits of formal education.	Addressing water access as an interlinked factor to formal education. Address early and forced marriages, and FGM. Build secondary schools and vocational training centers. Employ teachers for ECD and primary schools.	Build and upgrade schools closer to the community. Enhance water infrastructure in schools and communities. Civic education and awareness. Address harmful cultural Practices, e.g., FGM. Use role models for mentorship Programs. Recruitment teachers for ECD and primary schools.
	Low uptake of formal education
	Households’ Economic characteristics	Low-income jobs, one-income households, less empowered women, limited market for products, high unemployment, poverty, climate change impacts. Livestock diseases, limited knowledge on saving.	Synergize activities of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to the needs of community. Support new business ideas and entrepreneurship. Promote micro-financing and entrepreneurship.	Promote entrepreneurship. Micro-financing and access to credit. Expand market opportunities. Train in financial management and business skills. Support business ecosystem.
Development		Expand market for beadwork. Secure Rapland market with fence and electricity. Promote small-scale vegetable farming and beekeeping. Training online business skills. Enhance Internet and telecommunication networks. Create friendly business regulatory environment. Remove land rates at the settlements in Rapland. Training business development and legal requirements. Set public abattoir in Suswa.	Cooperatives and trade societies. Study the uptake of Youth and Social Enterprise Fund in Olkaria. Export market for beadwork. Engage PWDs on diverse opportunities. Develop a Shanga initiative through Shanga production centers. Value addition centers for milk and potatoes in Narok. Livestock quality control lab, livestock extension services, and livestock cooperatives.	Expand local and international markets for beadwork. Promote sustainable farming for vegetables and beekeeping. Set livestock quality control lab, public abattoir, and value addition centers for potatoes and milk. Technology training for online business. Knowledge of legal requirements for business setup. Cooperatives that empower development.
	Business opportunities
	Promoting rights to education	Use role models for awareness. Enhance sponsorships, scholarships, and bursaries. Improve quality of educational facilities. Build secondary schools. Provide food in school, return adult education, basic computer training, digital learning, digital skills on phones, and financial and accounting literacy. Promote education for women.	PPDP to scale education programs. Scale CSR Projects on education. Civic education. Establish Vocational Training Centers (VTCs). Ensure community voices in county-integrated development plans (CIDPs) and budgeting. Affirmative action to scale education programs for women.	Build schools within the community. Implement school feeding program. Establish VTCs. Adult education. PPPs to build schools. Sponsorships, scholarships, and bursaries). Community voices in CIDPs and budgets.
	Promoting green jobs and green enterprises	Biogas plant and recycling centers. Support the use of Sulphur (a by-product) from geothermal to manufacture hair products. Beekeeping, water harvesting ventures, afforestation programs, smart farming, chicken keeping. Technical training on green skills, financial literacy, and business development, linkages with financial institutions.	Sensitization on green jobs and access to green funds, e.g., FLLOCA fund for green enterprises. Fund circular economy projects. Tools to Work Program (TWP) for youth. Sensitization of community on green jobs. Build capacity on carbon markets and negotiation skills.	Biogas and plastic recycling center: Local manufacturing. Tree Nurseries as a business. Technical training on green skills. Financial and business development literacy. Sensitization on green jobs. Funding policy for green jobs. Build capacity on carbon markets.
	Addressing unemployment	Start-up capital for youths and women. Transparency and equity in employment. Jobs for the community. Green jobs. Civic education on rights of the community. Promote formal education. Online businesses and jobs. Set up VTCs and more schools.	Quality assurance for start-ups and capital access. Promote green jobs.	Transparency and equity in employment. Develop a central market to support local businesses. Build more schools and VTCs. Online businesses and Jobs. Activate green jobs. Quality assurance and capital access to start-ups.
	Addressing inclusivity	Gender equity awareness, support women to leadership. Employment for youth, women, and PWDs. Fair education opportunities and awareness of the rights of PWDs. Affirmative action on opportunities for youth, women, and PWDs.	KPIs for county government officers on contracts on employment for women, PWDs, and youth. Access start-up capital for youth, women, and PWDs. Promote youth education and training. Ensure community voices in CIDPs and budgets.	Employment opportunities for Youth, Women, and PWDs through affirmative action. Inclusivity awareness. Education for Girls and PWDs. Vocational training. Women and PWDs in Leadership. Access to capital for youth, women, and PWDs. Accountability through KPIs for resources to youth, women, and PWDs.
	Social protection	Continuous dialogue on FGM at schools and communities. Legal actions against those involved in FGM. Involving cultural elders and area chiefs. Use role models to create more awareness. More research on drivers of FGM. Use local radio for awareness. Build more rescue centers	Understand the linkages between FGM giving birth and male circumcision. Co-create an alternative passage of rights for women within the community. Law courts closer to communities to handle FGM. Engage cultural leaders. Synergize the work of UNESCO with other NGOs.	Sustained community dialogues. Enforce legal actions. Train local law enforcers on FGM issues for effective enforcement. Involve cultural Leaders. More research on FGM. Synergize the work of UNESCO and NGOs. Advocacy.
	Climate change awareness, adaptation and resilience	Train community representatives on climate change adaptation and mitigation. Advocate for local radio programs on climate change. More climate change CBOs. Deal with charcoal burning. Set up tree nurseries and afforestation programs. Promote water management technologies.	Active National Climate Fund at county level. Technology to enhance resilience and access to clean water. Establish early warning systems and safe grounds. Cooperatives to support adaptation activities.	Build capacity of community for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Activation of Climate Funds at county level. Partnerships for water infrastructure. Early warning systems and safe grounds. Local radio programs on climate change.
Enablers to rights-based services (quality education, health and clean water)		Employ more medical personnel and teachers. Build more primary and secondary schools. Enhanced telecommunication infrastructure. Promote water harvesting technologies. Promote adult education. Civic education on how to demand for rights from the duty bearers. Empower communities on water infrastructure management. Build and equip dispensaries. Hold government accountability on rights-based needs.	Promote public participation. Community training on participation in public issues and governance. More government involvement in rights-based needs. Optimize dispensaries. Data used to support interventions. Staffing and housing in health facilities.	Employ more medical personnel and equip health facilities. Optimize dispensaries. Employ more teachers. Promote water harvesting, storage, and conservation technologies. Empower communities for ownership and maintain water infrastructure. Improve telecommunication network. Civic education on rights-based needs as rights of the community. Training on public participation, adult education, Government accountability. Data support interventions.

).

5. Discussion

5.1. Access to Education and Clean Water

This study found that over one-third of the population lacked formal education, with time spent fetching water significantly affecting girls’ attendance in PPDP and non-PPDP areas alike. These findings are consistent with previous studies indicating that socio-cultural norms, early marriages, and limited water access constrain educational attainment in pastoralist communities [31,32,33]. For instance, refs. [30,34] argue that development models must integrate service access and cultural sensitivity; elements emphasized in the PPDP approach, where education and clean water were delivered through an inclusive, community-led model. Economic constraints due to widespread poverty and high unemployment further hinder families’ ability to support education, reinforcing the financial barriers highlighted by [33,35,36]. The absence of positive role models and a disruptive pastoral lifestyle also emerged as key contributors to low educational attainment, echoing the importance of community role models identified in [37].

The link between access to clean water and educational opportunities is evident in both our data and prior research. Significant proportions of respondents, especially girls, spent considerable time fetching water, limiting their ability to attend school. This supports the argument made in [38] which describes how infrastructure interventions, such as solar-powered irrigation systems, freed up time for women and girls to engage in education and economic activities. Similar solutions were recommended by study participants, who advocated for increased investment in water access to improve school attendance.

To address these multifaceted challenges of access to quality education, an inclusive approach integrating economic empowerment, cultural sensitivity, social protection, community participation, and the intersection of access to clean water is crucial. Suggested interventions included building schools closer to communities, raising awareness of the importance of formal education through civic education by using successful role models, targeting socio-cultural barriers through community engagement and legislation, and providing adult education opportunities. Proposed policy interventions provided included infrastructural improvements, early childhood development (ECD) initiatives, civic education campaigns, fostering partnerships for community awareness, and recruiting additional teachers for ECD and technical vocational education and training (TVET) programs. TVET’s transformative potential hinges on addressing knowledge structures and power dynamics that influence its current status, especially in Africa [37]. Active involvement of local chiefs and community leaders in enforcing government directives on education could significantly contribute to ensuring compliance and accountability within the community. The perspectives are also reflected in the bottom-linked governance approach to drive social innovation and development in rural communities [39].

The importance of water project sustainability has been emphasized in the global SDGs, particularly Goal 6, which aims to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all [40]. Studies have shown that in Africa, most water projects decline in performance shortly after external support is withdrawn [41]. For instance, a study on rural water supply sustainability in Mozambique found that a lack of community involvement and financial support compromised rural water supply sustainability, as most communities did not have any savings or collected monthly contributions for operation and maintenance [38]. In Kenya’s ASALs, the failure rate for water projects after handover is extremely high, with some projects proving unsustainable or prematurely terminated [42]. In a study conducted in Narok County, it was found that water projects often fail due to a combination of inadequate maintenance, financial constraints, political influence, and environmental challenges [43]. Poor upkeep of infrastructure, inconsistent payment for services, corruption, and mismanagement disrupt the sustainability of these projects. These findings are consistent with stakeholder feedback during the June 2024 high-level meeting, where participants noted that historical water projects in the region often failed due to poor maintenance and limited community buy-in. There was a consensus that future initiatives must learn from past implementation gaps to ensure sustainability. The study makes a strong case for the role of local governance in resolving conflicts related to water resources and the sustainability of these projects. Access to clean water is a significant impediment to formal education in Narok County, especially for girls who spend substantial amounts of time fetching water, which reduces their limited hours for formal educational opportunities. This situation underscores the need for educational delivery systems that consider the lived experiences of local communities. For example, in Benin, a pilot irrigation project launched in 2007 installed solar-powered drip irrigation systems in arid rural villages freeing women from the responsibility of fetching water and allowing them to participate in educational and economic activities [40]. Similar initiatives in Narok County could significantly improve water access, thereby enhancing educational opportunities and overall community well-being.

5.2. Social Protection and Inclusivity

Our findings revealed a stronger inclusion of women, youth, and PWDs in PPDP areas, with qualitative interviews indicating better targeting and community outreach. Harmful socio-cultural practices such as early marriages and FGM, also captured by prior studies on the Maasai community [44,45,46] need to be addressed. Policy makers expressed the need to engage village chiefs for a deeper understanding of the interlinkage between FGM and male circumcision and, community-level dialogues as initiatives to eliminate the practice. Past studies also found that men in their roles as fathers, husbands, community, and religious leaders play a pivotal part in the abandonment of FGM [47,48]. Stakeholders proposed having frequent community dialogues which would provide platforms for open discussions and consensus-building on alternative rites of passage that respect human rights, like in the case of [49]. These perspectives have been applied in recent studies, e.g., [50] which examined changes in FGM practices among the Maasai in the Loita Hills. This shift is not only needed to abolish harmful practices such as FGM and early childhood marriages from communities, but also stakeholder engagement processes. [51] study of the Olkaria Geothermal Projects found that evidence of balanced community engagement, before any development activities commenced, was necessary to ensure that diverse viewpoints were taken into account.

Policy makers indicated concerns that the Maasai community is often unfairly stereotyped for tourism purposes based on outdated perspectives, such as being poorly educated, culture for tourism, pastoralism, or security roles. Such stereotypes fail to accurately reflect the lived realities of the Maasai. Stakeholders also emphasized the need to diversify community representation in decision-making processes. Current representation was described as skewed toward male elders with limited formal education, underscoring the value of engaging youth, women, and educated individuals to enrich perspectives and outcomes. They queried the potential of the tourism sector and other beneficiaries of the community’s identity and brand to give back to the community through the recognition of communal intellectual property rights. There is precedent for this as elaborated in [52] on the collective intellectual property of the Khoi and San communities of South Africa.

The community and policy makers emphasized efforts required to empower marginalized groups such as women, youth, and PWDs. Some of the solutions focused on holding county governments accountable for ensuring a fair distribution of contracts among women, youth, and PWDs through county government officials’ KPIs. Ref. [53] assessed policies, strategies, and programs for youth participation and empowerment in the agricultural sector in South Africa. They found that collaboration between societal actors and government sectors was needed to address socio-economic barriers. The policy stakeholders stated in Narok and Nakuru indicated that policies for the registration of PWDs were necessary, and that funds had been allocated for the process, including the establishment of regional braille centers and training programs for sign language interpreters.

5.3. Economic and Governance Empowerment

Statistical results indicated modest but important differences in employment, income, and entrepreneurial activity between PPDP and control communities. Our analysis showed a higher proportion of income above KES 6000 in PPDP areas, and qualitative data supported this with community reports of enhanced business opportunities and skill development. These results align with studies on green job promotion and local economic empowerment [41]. Community members in our study cited beekeeping, livestock trading, and vocational training as viable livelihood options. The call for cooperative strengthening and market access reflects successful models in rural Pakistan and aligns with Kenya’s Vision 2030 targets for SME development.

Critical success factors (CSFs) for economic development include innovation and technological advancements, partnerships, education and skill development programs, infrastructure development, and community engagement. The community underscored that green jobs not only promote local environmental sustainability but also provide employment opportunities. Suggestions included ventures like beekeeping, small-scale vegetable farming, climate-smart livestock rearing, and milk production. Reflecting findings by [39], green jobs such as horticulture and agriculture have notably enhanced livelihoods in rural Pakistan. Participants proposed diverse economic opportunities, including livestock trading, maize sales, and the necessity for a public abattoir in Suswa. There was a call for expanded markets for beadwork, mats, and bags. Inadequate livestock extension services were noted and the need for a livestock quality control lab was established. The community proposed the establishment of production centers for the aggregation of farm produce to reduce post-harvest losses and vocational training in green jobs such as solar installation, plumbing, water harvesting, waste recycling, and tree nurseries for business. The community suggested strengthening cooperatives to foster small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the need to assess the level of uptake of youth funds and other financing mechanisms within the Olkaria community.

Policy makers emphasized the need for stronger cooperatives and trade societies to bolster businesses. Facilitating communities’ entry into diverse markets, including exports for beadwork was considered essential. Technical and vocational training were considered as means of transitioning to green jobs. Funding opportunities like Financing Locally led Climate Action Programs (FLLOCA) were observed to provide a possible pathway for financing green enterprises at the local level. Exploring replicable models for implementing the principles of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) and circular economy in Olkaria, such as establishing textile production centers powered by clean energy sources like solar power, could further advance sustainable development efforts in the community. Ensuring rural communities have access to entrepreneurial support systems including catalytic funding, business mentorship, and training could drive the uptake of green jobs.

Ref. [53] highlights the critical role of combining financing, training, and mentoring in supporting entrepreneurs. Initiatives such as the Tools to Work Program were also cited by policy stakeholders as a successful initiative which empowered the youth. These initiatives echo the intention behind prior international agreements on decent work; for example, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights emphasizes the right to work and to participate in cultural life as essential for human dignity. At a closer and more local level, the Energy Act 2019 [54] provides for a benefit-sharing mechanism between energy projects and the communities the projects are based on. Specifically, communities are entitled to five percent of the royalties earned on the geothermal resources extracted [55]. Stakeholders in the June 2024 high-level meeting emphasized that despite this legal provision, many communities remain unaware of the funds or are unclear about how to access them. This highlights persistent gaps in transparency and implementation, which diminish the intended benefit-sharing impact of the Energy Act. The communities also indicated that they lacked enough representatives to help them understand the governance structure, and the few representatives that existed were not adequately supported. They largely distrusted the government as promises are often not fulfilled. Once again, the communities’ perspective is shared by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which underscores the significance of economic empowerment and participation in governance as fundamental human rights.

5.4. Climate Change Impacts and Resilience

The community is characterized by climate change illiteracy. Examples of the worst climate impacts found in Suswa and Olkaria were excessive flooding, increased incidences of severe drought, and landslides. The participants discussed the importance of continual community awareness of climate change and resilience building. Collaboration among various stakeholders, including government bodies, environmental agencies, and local communities, was seen as an enabling lever for implementing effective climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. Supporting community-led initiatives such as afforestation programs, water management projects, and local radio programs on climate change could enhance resilience and mitigate adverse effects of climate change in Nakuru and Narok counties [56].

The communities made similar observations regarding the negative effects of climate change and the associated impacts, for example, changes in rainfall patterns, droughts, flooding, landslides, and death of livestock, indicating that the traditional knowledge is no longer working. Climate illiteracy and confusion regarding weather patterns were viewed by policy makers as contributors to the challenges in addressing climate change. Other drivers are levels of education, civilization, urbanization, access to technology, and marked willingness to accept factual information. Therefore, efforts are needed to educate communities. Utilizing radio, a widely trusted source of information in rural Africa, can effectively disseminate information about climate change. Additionally, fostering physical understanding by highlighting the visible effects of climate change on livelihoods through adult climate literacy programs can motivate concern and action. Integrating scientific information into local traditions, without directly opposing them, can help bridge the gap between traditional beliefs and scientific understanding. Some studies indicated that the active participation of government extension officers can provide accurate and reliable local climate data, further enhancing awareness and informed decision-making. Activation of national and county-level climate funds was deliberated upon, especially in terms of financing adaptation and mitigation measures in Narok and Nakuru counties.

5.5. Access to Healthcare

The study identified significant improvements in access to healthcare services in areas with established PPDP initiatives compared to control areas. These improvements were evident in the availability of medical personnel, enhanced healthcare infrastructure, and increased utilization of healthcare services by the local communities, e.g., maternal health services. In rural India, PPPs have demonstrated enhanced delivery of healthcare services to underserved groups in select regions. This study brought out the urgency for more investments in modern medical facilities and equipment coupled with training for healthcare providers in Suswa and Olkaria. There was a notable increase in healthcare service utilization in PPDP areas, with community members more likely to seek medical attention due to improved service quality and availability. Despite these improvements, gaps remain for communities and healthcare facilities including the need for sustained funding (especially in hard-to-reach areas), and equitable resource distribution. Successful provision of healthcare services intersects with cultural norms and the level of economic empowerment of communities; therefore, long-term and culturally acceptable healthcare provision is critical [4].

5.6. Roles Played by the Public and Private Sectors

The PPDP model demonstrated that meaningful and sustained development outcomes can be achieved through well-structured collaborations between public and private sector actors. In the project sites, the public sector, including county governments for example played a pivotal role in providing an enabling policy environment, aligning interventions with county development priorities, and mobilizing communities through existing administrative structures. They also contributed land, personnel, and coordination through departments such as health, education, and water. Participants at the stakeholder meeting also stressed that community engagement should be a precondition for permitting development activities. They recommended the institutionalization of community engagement strategies and validation mechanisms before project rollout—a principle reflected in the PPDP model’s approach. Conversely, the private sector which comprised NGOs, CBOs, and other development partners offered critical financial resources, technical expertise, and implementation capacity. They spearheaded training programs, supported economic empowerment initiatives, and introduced innovations that enhanced service delivery. This division of roles ensured that the model harnessed the strengths of both sectors: the legitimacy and regulatory framework of the public sector, and the flexibility and innovation of the private sector. Such synergies made it possible to deliver context-responsive, inclusive, and sustainable development interventions, and underscore the potential scalability of the PPDP approach across similar socio-economic settings.

Based on the data collected and analyzed in this study, the findings provide substantial support for the initial hypotheses. First, the hypothesis that the implementation of the PPDP model is associated with improved access to rights-based services was strongly supported. Quantitative results showed statistically significant improvements in access to clean water and healthcare in PPDP areas compared to control sites, while qualitative findings reinforced the community’s perception of better service availability and responsiveness. Second, while employment differences between PPDP and non-PPDP communities were not statistically significant, there were clear improvements in income levels, entrepreneurial activity, and overall economic engagement in PPDP areas. These outcomes, supported by both survey data and stakeholder interviews, offer partial confirmation of the hypothesis that PPDPs enhance socio-economic indicators. Finally, the hypothesis that PPDP communities demonstrate greater inclusivity was supported by both quantitative and qualitative evidence, with higher reported participation of women, youth, and PWDs in development activities and decision-making processes. Taken together, these findings confirm that the PPDP model contributes meaningfully to improved service delivery, community participation, and local development outcomes.

6. Limitations of the Study

This study provides context-specific insights into the implementation and perceived outcomes of the PPDP model in Narok and Nakuru counties. However, several limitations should be noted. First, the study was limited to two counties, and while these offer contrasting socio-economic profiles, the findings may not be fully generalizable to other regions of Kenya. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the data collection captures a snapshot in time and does not allow for the observation of long-term outcomes or causal relationships. Building on this foundation, future research could expand to other counties to assess the scalability and adaptability of the PPDP model across varied local contexts. Longitudinal studies would also provide valuable evidence on the sustainability of the outcomes observed. Finally, more participatory and mixed-methods approaches could deepen the understanding of how community-level perceptions evolve over time and how these shape the success or failure of public–private development partnerships.

7. Conclusions

This study assessed the economic outcomes of the PPDP model on community development in Nakuru and Narok counties by comparing intervention and control areas through a mixed-methods approach. The findings indicate that communities in which the PPDP model was implemented demonstrated statistically significant improvements in key areas such as access to clean water and healthcare, higher household income levels, and greater perceptions of support in building resilience to climate change. Chi-square analyses confirmed that these differences between intervention and control groups were not due to chance. Qualitative findings further reinforced these outcomes, with participants in focus group discussions and key informant interviews highlighting enhanced community engagement, better cooperation with local institutions, and increased awareness of climate adaptation strategies. These converging lines of evidence support the study’s central hypothesis: that the PPDP model facilitates rights-based, inclusive development.

While the research design included clearly defined instruments and a structured sampling approach, further studies could enhance external validity through larger sample sizes and longitudinal tracking of PPDP outcomes. Based on the empirical findings, the PPDP model presents a promising approach for rights-based community development. Its multi-stage framework for instance from rights awareness to service access and economic empowerment provides a practical tool for development actors. Policymakers and county governments may consider incorporating the PPDP model into Medium-Term Plans (MTPs), County-Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs), and targeted funding mechanisms. However, implementation should be guided by continued evaluation, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and sensitivity to the local context. Additionally, high-level stakeholder reflections during the June 2024 meeting reinforced several of this study’s findings, including the importance of robust leadership structures, inclusive representation, and strong community engagement in enabling development outcomes.