Two approaches characterise the management of AFE. The first approach is through construction of an electric fence around the forest reserve as a strategy to stabilise the human-wildlife conflict that affected the area. Over the years, the need for more agricultural land intensified because of increased population growth, resulting in encroachment on the forest boundary. This led to human-wildlife conflict as a result of crop damage by the wildlife and, in turn, killing of the endangered species. To solve these issues, under the management of the Rhino Ark charitable trust, the AFE was entirely fenced with hot-wired upright electric posts to deter wildlife from escaping (Massey et al. 2014). The electric fence protecting over 2000 km² took over 21 years to construct and was completed in 2009.

The second approach is through co-management which follows the direction of the Kenya Forest Act in 2016. Co-management, also referred to as collaborative or participatory forest management, incorporates various stakeholders in a variety of roles (Berkes 2009). The Forest Act provides a framework and incentives for stalkeholders’ involvement in forest co-management to enhance the contribution of the forest sector in the provision of economic, social and environmental goods and services (Kenya Forests Act 2016). It also aims at improvement of livelihoods through promotion of participation by the community forest associations (CFAs) in sustainable land use and biodiversity conservation activities. It has also been widely perceived that the co-management represents progressive thinking on efforts to reduce the extent of illegal activities and to enhance sustainable resource use (Movuh 2012). For instance, the CFAs are granted user rights to the forest resources on condition that the rights promote the conservation efforts of the forest (Matiku et al. 2013, Wambugu. et al. 2018). Therefore, this study focused on understanding the ES preferences of the various stakeholders involved in the co-management of AFE.

The initial list was developed after a literature search on stakeholders involved in the co-management of AFE (Kenya Forests Act 2016) that comprised of 50 organisations grouped into the following categories: public institutions, NGOs, community-based organisations, development partners, business groups, faith-based organisations and educational institutions. The second step involved a pre-survey to 10 randomly selected stakeholders representing organisations in each category. During the survey, the stakeholders were required to nominate other organisations whom they considered important and influential in the forest management, including their own institutions. The final list was developed following the nominations in the pre-survey that comprised of 15 multilevel stakeholders/organisations classified into three groups; community-based organisations (CBOs), government organisations (GOs) and Non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

They include;

• Community-based organisations (n = 4): Community Forest Associations (CFAs) whose role is to co-manage the forest together with other stakeholders. Water Resource Users Association (WRUA), mandated to end water use conflicts and sensitise famers on water catchment management. Ndakaini Dam Environmental Conservation Association (NDEKA) which coordinates conservation projects in Ndakaini dam catchment and lastly, Kijabe Environmental Volunteers (KENVO) whose focus is on AFE conservation through income-generating projects and protection of endangered bird species.
• Public/government organisations (N=8): Kenya Forest Service (KFS), mandated to ensure forest protection and conservation. Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), obligated to conserve and manage wildlife and enforce related laws. Kenya Forest Research Institute (KEFRI), focuses on forest science and research. Kenya Tea Development Authority (KTDA), provides effective management to the tea growing sector, including the tea farmers. Kenya Water Tower Agency (KTWA), established to coordinate and oversee the protection, rehabilitation and management of all water towers and the riparian zones. Kenya Water Resource Users Association (WRMA), a state cooperation in charge of all water resources and working closely with WRUA. Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company (NCWSC), supply water to Nairobi county from AFE and manage Ndakaini and Sasumua dams and, lastly, the Nyayo Tea Zone (NTZ) whose mandate is to promote forest conservation by providing tea buffer zones and assorted tree species to check against human encroachment into the forestland.
• NGOs: (n = 3): World Wide Fund (WWF), focuses on forests and water catchment management through downstream water users. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), whose aim is to conserve forest resources and the Rhino Ark, mandated to manage the electric fence around the national park in collaboration with KWS and support community-based conservation initiatives.

Fig. 2 shows the detailed number of stakeholders involved in the co-management of the AFE.

Figure 2.  

Central co-management structure of Aberdare protected Forest Ecosystem.

This work is based on data collected between September 2017 and August 2018 using a questionnaire method, with qualitative and quantitative interviews to the selected key organisations involved in the co-management of AFE. Before the interviews, the participants were taken through an introductory session in which they refreshed their familiarity with the ecosystem types in Aberdare forest, defined what ES is and discussed the ES classification using the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (M.E.A) framework. Second, the ES matrix approach was then explained to them. Participants were encouraged to make their scores individually, particularly in cases where representatives in an organisation were more than one, such as in the case of CFAs, KWS and KFS. Verbal consent was also obtained prior to the interviews.

The questionnaire was structured under three main questions, whereby in the first question, the stakeholders were asked to list all the ES they obtained from the AFE. “What kind of ES did you obtain from AFE?" ES were also explained as benefits, revenues or returns obtained from the AFE or are of importance to the organisation or community at large. The respondents were allowed to list the ES without necessarily categorising them according to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework. Upon exhaustive listing, the stakeholders were presented with the list of possible ES to identify any other obtained ES. The second question required the stakeholders to rank the identified/listed ES using the Likert scale: 0 = not important, 1 = very least important 2 = least important, 3 = medium in importance, 4 = important; 5 = very important, in their perspective to denote the level of ES importance (Burkhard et al. 2009). Follow-up questions to clarify the reasons for the importance rank scores assigned to the various ES were asked where necessary. The last section required the stakeholders to estimate the locations of the identified ES (for the provisioning and cultural ES) on an AFE map provided by use of a marker. Maps can be used as a communication tool to visualise the locations where ES are produced or used (Burkhard et al. 2009).

In the data analysis, the authors categorised all the identified ES as either provisioning (n = 10), regulating (n = 7) or cultural (n = 8) ES according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) classification in 2005. Then, using the matrix method, the selected 15 organisations were placed in the y-axis of the matrix, while in the x-axis, the 25 ES identified and organised as per the MEA classification were placed. At their interception, the average rank scores by each stakeholder on each ES were provided. For the responses representing more than one interviewee, such as the case of KFS, KWS and CFAs, the rank-based non-parametric method was used to calculate the average rank scores (Shan 2014). The measures of mean for each of the identified/listed 25 ES were analysed by use of the SPSS version 21 software for descriptive statistics (Brown 2011). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to find the difference amongst stakeholder groups about ES of importance. A post-hoc least significant difference (LSD) test was conducted to find out stakeholder groups multiple comparisons on ES importance/use.

A post hoc test on the least significant difference (LSD) was computed to assess the differences amongst the three organisations on the various ES levels of importance. The results showed that, apart from water, the rest of the provisioning services had significant differences (Table 1). There was a difference in ES importance between:

1. community-based organisations and government organisations and
2. community-based organisations and NGOs, but there was no significant difference in importance rank between government organisations and NGOs (0.00).

For regulating services, the results showed that, apart from breeding grounds, the rest of the ES had no significant differences amongst the three groups (Table 2). In the category of cultural ES, apart from heritage practices and worship, the rest of the services had significant differences amongst the three groups (Table 3). Generally, there was a significant difference in ES rank importance between community-based organisations and the other two groups (GOs and NGOs).

All the stakeholders were able to identify from the provided map the locations of the obtained provisioning and cultural ES, although regulating ES could not be spatially depicted due to their nature of occurrence. Most provisioning ES were associated with the Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS) that was introduced after enactment of the Kenya Forest Act in 2005 and 2016, to increase forest cover and restore degraded forests in the country. Various community-based organisations through the CFAs benefit from the PELIS by obtaining land allotments for crop cultivation, as well as tree planting through the agroforestry system (KFS 2010). The members are granted user rights to obtain various provisioning non-timber ES such as fish, honey, herbs/medicine, fuel wood, fodder for grazing their cattle and micro hydropower (KFS 2010). The participatory mapping was used to illustrate the spatial distribution of the ES by use of dots and colours (Fagerholm et al. 2012), as shown in Fig. 5. The areas designated for the PELIS programmes were labelled as PELIS with purple dots, indicating beehive keeping points. The blue dots represented legal water abstraction points within the AFE, as well as Ndakaini and Sasumua main water catchments. Cultural ES were represented by red colour, indicating shrines in Kereita region in Kiambu county where most religious groups meet for worship, sacrifices and heritage practices, such as circumcision and initiation ceremonies. Regulating and some cultural ES, such as hiking, jogging, birdwatching, tourism and landscape beauty, were represented by the entire AFE, as reported by the stakeholders. The ES mapping was based on the stakeholders’ perception and should be treated as estimates and not exact locations; however, this does not significantly influence the results on ES location.

Figure 5.  

Estimate location of selected provisioning and cultural ES in AFE.

This study explored through stakeholder perception, the various ES obtained from AFE, the importance rank scores, as well as the estimated locations within the ecosystem. Additionally, the post hoc test was conducted to assess the differences in ES preferences amongst the three stakeholder groups. These results contribute to the discussion on the current preferences, on the ES knowledge and usage amongst the co-managers. It also helps to analyse the trends and to suggest suitable management plans, as well as conservation strategies for sustainable ES use. Different stakeholder groups have different perceptions and interests in the ecosystem in question, thus it is necessary to understand the motive behind certain actions or interests taken by specific stakeholders towards the ecosystem (Martín-López et al. 2012). Normally, observations of any changes in forest such as growth, productivity and damage influence the stakeholders’ actions and decisions in relation to the current situations (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2017, Paavola and Hubacek 2013, Tengö et al. 2017). Besides, most community-based organisations have previously demonstrated high levels of compliance in the conservation projects if their interests are included in the decision-making process (Andrade and Rhodes 2012). For instance, the ultimate mandate of KWS is to ensure in-situ conservation of the forests which implies that a given population is maintained within the community in which it forms a part and in the environment in which it has developed (Braverman 2014). They emphasised the need to ensure minimal use of the forest's tangible goods, as depicted in the low scores in the importance matrix of the ES directly obtained from the forest, such as building materials. Similar sentiments were shared and promoted by Rhino Ark by sensitising the forest adjacent communities through CFAs on alternative livelihoods such as eco-agriculture innovations, ecotourism and beekeeping.

With regard to provisioning services, interesting findings indicate that all stakeholders identified water as the most important provisioning ES from AFE. These findings corroborate existing studies on AFE as an important water catchment providing water-related services to various regions in the country (Massey et al. 2014, Donde et al. 2015, Richard et al. 2016, Ojwang et al. 2017). All the stakeholder groups recognised the role of AFE as a water catchment, however, issues on water over abstraction and illegal abstraction points in the forest cropped up frequently amongst the stakeholders. During the data collection (period of April – August 2018), the AFE region experienced high rainfall, but the Ndakaini dam water levels remained below 30% of its full capacity, according to the NCWSC. As one of the emerging issues, the authors resolved the reasons for the low water levels from the stakeholders’ perspective. Most stakeholders reported insufficient rainfall in the higher altitudes of the forest moorland which feeds Ndakaini dam through underground seepage. The insufficient rainfall in the higher altitude was associated with degradation within the forest. Illegal water abstraction points were also cited as contributing factors to the low water levels in the dam. Despite the very high importance score on water ES, in-depth research is necessary to address such emerging issues to ensure the continued role of AFE as a water catchment area.

Other provisioning services, reported as of high importance, included wildlife habitat and fertile soils. The high wildlife habitat rank could be as a result of the electric fence around the forest that controls the outside movement of the wildlife, hence peaceful co-existence between people and wildlife (KFS 2010). The presence of the deep fertile soils around AFE for tea growing and food crop cultivation was attributed to the high scores for fertile soils in the importance rank matrix. Interestingly, community-based organisations reported only one food-related ES (fish) from the AFE with only one organisation (KENVO) ranking it as of very high importance (score of 5). This indicates a gradual shift from over-reliance on forest products for food or wild animals for protein, as has been documented in many developing countries (Egoh et al. 2012, Strauch et al. 2016) for agricultural crop production. The low scores on food/meat related provisioning ES (from the fish and wildlife) scores could also be associated with the current forest management policies, such as acquisition of forest access rights (Mwangi et al. 2012) or strict rules and penalties on wildlife hunting (Kenya Forests Act 2016).

On regulating services, flood regulation, carbon intake and climate regulation were reported to be of very high importance by all the stakeholders, with an equal rank importance to water, a provisioning service (scores of 5). The deep fertile soils, coupled with high vegetation cover, as well as conservation efforts by various stakeholders including NDEKA and NCWSC around the forest catchment, were attributed to flood reduction and climate regulation in AFE (Matiku et al. 2013). Moreover, stakeholders recognised the essential role of regulating services more than provisioning services with the exception of water and wildlife habitat. This is dissimilar to previous studies whereby people in resource-rich developing economies have reported their highest preference towards provisioning ES of direct benefits, followed by regulating ES and cultural ES (Hartter 2010, Martín-López et al. 2012).

In the cultural ES category, landscape beauty was ranked by all stakeholders as the most important cultural ES provided by AFE, followed by tourism and recreation, respectively. These findings match the case study done in the Ukrainian Carpathians mountain forests where all the stakeholders perceived tourism and aesthetic values (cultural ES) as of more importance to the forestry industry than provisioning ES (Zahvoyska and Bas 2013). Moreover, it could be as a result of economic advancement, whereby global studies have shown that, as countries progress economically, dependence on cultural and regulating ES increases while dependence on provisioning ES decreases (Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2013). However, the rest of the cultural ES were perceived as of little or no importance by most stakeholders which could be due to other factors, including lifestyle change, pre-existing norms and cultures, as well as financial and career status. For instance, medicine/herbs from the forest and heritage practices (circumcision) were reported as of little or no importance (scores 0 - 2) by most stakeholders as a result of stakeholders’ preferences to modern forms of treatment and the dwindling traditional medicine knowledge (Bussmann et al. 2006). The same could be applied to worship as a cultural ES, whereby most people no longer offer sacrifices in the forests and have adopted contemporary religions and worship in buildings rather than in the forests (Strauch et al. 2016).

Generally, the community-based organisations identified the greatest number of ES of importance compared to government organisations and NGOs, as normally, their own well-being is closely connected to ES since they live adjacent to the forests (Ramirez-Gomez et al. 2013). Moreover, government and NGOs group categories ranked most important ES in the regulating and cultural categories, compared to the provisioning services category, information useful in implementation of conservation policies, such as tree planting activities in the hotspot areas (Willemen et al. 2016).

This study matches a study conducted by Wambugu. et al. 2018 in Aberdare forest, whereby forest adjacent communities identified water as the most important provisioning ES from AFE, followed by firewood. With regard to provisioning services, 83% of the respondents valued the AFE predominantly for its regulating benefits, such as climate moderation, water catchment protection, flood and soil erosion control. This is similar to our findings whereby all stakeholder group categories ranked regulating ES as of very high importance (scores of 5) or of high importance (scores of 4). For cultural ES, government organisations (KWS and KFS) valued tourism as the most important due to the revenues accrued, while the adjacent communities cited disparities in benefits-sharing of the accrued revenues (Wambugu. et al. 2018). Similar views were reported by the CFA and WRUA in our study.

Another study on ES flow conducted by Owuor et al. 2017, in the Mida Creek marine reserve along the coastal region of Kenya, revealed that community practitioners generally showed higher and statistically significant differences from the researchers for provisioning services. Mangroves were identified as the most important ecosystems for the provisioning of most ES. Corresponding analysis where obtained in our study whereby the community-based organisations identified the greatest number of ES of importance compared to government organisations and NGOs.

In another study, Wangai et al. 2019 employed the ES matrix approach to spatially display potentials for regulating ES in the peri-urban areas of Nairobi and Kiambu counties. The findings indicated that destruction of vegetation cover has reduced the regulating ES potential while grasslands, wetlands and forests have comparatively high potentials for regulating ES. In our study, AFE was ranked as of very high importance in the provisioning of regulating ES, such as climate and flood regulation.