IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v147y2024ics026483772400317x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structured decision-making shows broad support from diverse stakeholders for habitat conservation and restoration in Kenya’s Central Highlands

Author

Listed:
  • Gibbon, Gwili E.M.
  • Dallimer, Martin
  • Golo, Hassan
  • Munene, Humphrey
  • Wandera, Charlene A.
  • Edson, Monda N.
  • Gachura, Jane C.
  • Hobbs, Tim
  • Ihwagi, Festus
  • Ikhamati, Stephen R.
  • Ikiara, Samson K.
  • Kimathi, David
  • Lenyakopiro, Francis B.
  • Mwamodenyi, James M.
  • Mwiti, John
  • Mundia, Rachael
  • Mureithi, Justuce
  • Mwogora, Godfrey
  • Ndiira, Priscilla K.
  • Njeri, Redempta
  • Lepirei, Jerenimo
  • Outram, Craig
  • Rewa, Phineas
  • Schutgens, Maurice
  • Simiyu, Silvano
  • Verwiel, Sven
  • Wandera, Antony
  • White, Don
  • Smith, Robert J.
  • Davies, Zoe G.

Abstract

The need for targeted restoration in regions where ecosystem integrity has become compromised is now widely recognised. Local community views, alongside those of other stakeholders, should be incorporated into transparent decision-making to ensure conservation/restoration activities are successful. We used a structured decision-making approach, working with stakeholders and local communities, to pose and answer the following question for Kenya’s Central Highlands: “what future land-use options [2030] are feasible for the study region, which is most preferable, how does this vary between different stakeholder groups, and what values drive these preferences?”. We engaged with 51 individuals from six stakeholder groups (Big Farms, Conservationists, Counties, Forest Users, Pastoralists, Smallholders). As individuals, the stakeholders held significantly different values for provisioning, cultural, regulation and maintenance ecosystem services. However, following consensus-building activities within the six groups, shared values and perspectives emerged. The future land-use option of habitat conservation/restoration was preferred by the majority of stakeholder groups, although one (Big Farms) favoured increased plantation forestry. Water resource management was also prioritised consistently. By using structured decision-making, we demonstrate that ecosystem restoration is compatible with the views and values of smallholders and forest users, as well as those with a direct interest in conservation. Structured decision-making processes can facilitate stakeholders with disparate views to work towards a consensus regarding future land-use options, aiding environmental planning and implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Gibbon, Gwili E.M. & Dallimer, Martin & Golo, Hassan & Munene, Humphrey & Wandera, Charlene A. & Edson, Monda N. & Gachura, Jane C. & Hobbs, Tim & Ihwagi, Festus & Ikhamati, Stephen R. & Ikiara, Samso, 2024. "Structured decision-making shows broad support from diverse stakeholders for habitat conservation and restoration in Kenya’s Central Highlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:147:y:2024:i:c:s026483772400317x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107364
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483772400317X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107364?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rose Pritchard, 2021. "Politics, power and planting trees," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 932-932, November.
    2. Michelle Ward & Santiago Saura & Brooke Williams & Juan Pablo Ramírez-Delgado & Nur Arafeh-Dalmau & James R. Allan & Oscar Venter & Grégoire Dubois & James E. M. Watson, 2020. "Just ten percent of the global terrestrial protected area network is structurally connected via intact land," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Timothy Downing & Daniel Olago & Tobias Nyumba, 2023. "Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and Climate Change in the Communities Surrounding Mt. Kenya and Mt. Elgon, Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Paul Collier & Gordon Conway & Tony Venables, 2008. "Climate change and Africa," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 24(2), pages 337-353, Summer.
    5. Eric A. Coleman & Bill Schultz & Vijay Ramprasad & Harry Fischer & Pushpendra Rana & Anthony M. Filippi & Burak Güneralp & Andong Ma & Claudia Rodriguez Solorzano & Vijay Guleria & Rajesh Rana & Forre, 2021. "Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 997-1004, November.
    6. Jos Barlow & Filipe França & Toby A. Gardner & Christina C. Hicks & Gareth D. Lennox & Erika Berenguer & Leandro Castello & Evan P. Economo & Joice Ferreira & Benoit Guénard & Cecília Gontijo Leal & V, 2018. "The future of hyperdiverse tropical ecosystems," Nature, Nature, vol. 559(7715), pages 517-526, July.
    7. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Poli, Giuliano & Cuntò, Stefano & Muccio, Eugenio & Cerreta, Maria, 2024. "A spatial decision support system for multi-dimensional sustainability assessment of river basin districts: the case study of Sarno river, Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    9. Curran, Michael & Kiteme, Boniface & Wünscher, Tobias & Koellner, Thomas & Hellweg, Stefanie, 2016. "Pay the farmer, or buy the land?—Cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services versus land purchases or easements in Central Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 59-67.
    10. Schweizer, Daniella & Meli, Paula & Brancalion, Pedro H.S. & Guariguata, Manuel R., 2021. "Implementing forest landscape restoration in Latin America: Stakeholder perceptions on legal frameworks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    11. Sean L. Maxwell & Victor Cazalis & Nigel Dudley & Michael Hoffmann & Ana S. L. Rodrigues & Sue Stolton & Piero Visconti & Stephen Woodley & Naomi Kingston & Edward Lewis & Martine Maron & Bernardo B. , 2020. "Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century," Nature, Nature, vol. 586(7828), pages 217-227, October.
    12. Chazdon, Robin L. & Wilson, Sarah J. & Brondizio, Eduardo & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Herbohn, John, 2021. "Key challenges for governing forest and landscape restoration across different contexts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Jeffrey C. Cegan & Ashley M. Filion & Jeffrey M. Keisler & Igor Linkov, 2017. "Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: literature review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 123-133, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ziqi Meng & Jinwei Dong & Erle C. Ellis & Graciela Metternicht & Yuanwei Qin & Xiao-Peng Song & Sara Löfqvist & Rachael D. Garrett & Xiaopeng Jia & Xiangming Xiao, 2023. "Post-2020 biodiversity framework challenged by cropland expansion in protected areas," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 758-768, July.
    2. Weerasena, Lakmali & Shier, Douglas & Tonkyn, David & McFeaters, Mark & Collins, Christopher, 2023. "A sequential approach to reserve design with compactness and contiguity considerations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 478(C).
    3. Carmenta, Rachel & Cammelli, Federico & Dressler, Wolfram & Verbicaro, Camila & Zaehringer, Julie G., 2021. "Between a rock and a hard place: The burdens of uncontrolled fire for smallholders across the tropics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    4. Marian Leimbach & Niklas Roming & Gregor Schwerhoff & Anselm Schultes, 2016. "Development perspectives of Sub-Saharan Africa under climate policies," EcoMod2016 9336, EcoMod.
    5. Amir Noori & Hossein Bonakdari & Khosro Morovati & Bahram Gharabaghi, 2018. "The optimal dam site selection using a group decision-making method through fuzzy TOPSIS model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 471-488, December.
    6. Tasmin L. Rymer & Neville Pillay & Carsten Schradin, 2013. "Extinction or Survival? Behavioral Flexibility in Response to Environmental Change in the African Striped Mouse Rhabdomys," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-24, January.
    7. David E. BLOOM & Michael KUHN & Klaus PRETTNER, 2017. "Africa’s Prospects for Enjoying a Demographic Dividend," JODE - Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(1), pages 63-76, March.
    8. Castells-Quintana, David & del Pilar Lopez-Uribe, Maria & McDermott, Thomas K.J., 2018. "A review of adaptation to climate change through a development economics lens," Working Papers 309605, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    9. Zeynep K. Hansen & Gary D. Libecap & Scott E. Lowe, 2011. "Climate Variability and Water Infrastructure: Historical Experience in the Western United States," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Climate Change: Adaptations Past and Present, pages 253-280, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Chiara Richiardi & Maria Rita Minciardi & Consolata Siniscalco & Maria Adamo, 2023. "Cumulative Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Anthropogenic Impacts in the Protected Area of the Gran Paradiso National Park in the NW Alps, Italy," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, May.
    11. Matthew D. Wood & Kenton Plourde & Sabrina Larkin & Peter P. Egeghy & Antony J. Williams & Valerie Zemba & Igor Linkov & Daniel A. Vallero, 2020. "Advances on a Decision Analytic Approach to Exposure‐Based Chemical Prioritization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(1), pages 83-96, January.
    12. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    13. Souad Ahmed Benromdhane, 2021. "A multi-attribute utility model for environmental decision-making: an application to casting," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 21-32, March.
    14. Temple, Jonathan R.W., 2010. "Aid and Conditionality," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4415-4523, Elsevier.
    15. Georgios K. Vasios & Andreas Y. Troumbis & Yiannis Zevgolis & Maria N. Hatziantoniou & Marios F. Balis, 2019. "Environmental choices in the era of ecological modernization: siting of common interest facilities as a multi-alternative decision field problem in insular setups," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 49-64, March.
    16. Zhicong Zhao & Pei Wang & Xiaoshan Wang & Fangyi Wang & Tz-Hsuan Tseng & Yue Cao & Shuyu Hou & Jiayuan Peng & Rui Yang, 2022. "A Protected Area Connectivity Evaluation and Strategy Development Framework for Post-2020 Biodiversity Conservation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    18. David Castells-Quintana & Maria del Pilar Lopez-Uribe & Tom McDermott, 2015. "Climate change and the geographical and institutional drivers of economic development," GRI Working Papers 198, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    19. Thies, Christian & Kieckhäfer, Karsten & Spengler, Thomas S. & Sodhi, Manbir S., 2019. "Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 1-21.
    20. Esther Reith & Elizabeth Gosling & Thomas Knoke & Carola Paul, 2020. "How Much Agroforestry Is Needed to Achieve Multifunctional Landscapes at the Forest Frontier?—Coupling Expert Opinion with Robust Goal Programming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-27, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:147:y:2024:i:c:s026483772400317x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.