ROLE OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN FOREST MANAGEMENT AND

CONSERVATION: A CASE OF IVETI FOREST, MACHAKOS COUNTY, KENYA.

Juliana Nthenya Edward

A Research Project Submitted to the School of Education and Social Sciences at

Lukenya University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the
Degree of Master of Arts in Geography

2022
 DECLARATION
I am aware that plagiarism is prohibited, so my project is original and hasn't been submitted
to any other organization for consideration for any other award.

Signature ……………………………Date………………………...
27/9/2022
Juliana Nthenya Edward

(Reg. No.: MAG/03/0388- SBA/2019)

UNIVERSITY SUPERVISORS

We, the academic supervisors, have given our authorization for this dissertation to be
forwarded for review.

27/9/2022
Signature……………………………Date……………………………

Dr. Ruth M. Kimeu, PhD

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Lukenya University
(Supervisor)

Signature...…………… ……………………… Date…………………………………

Dr. Philip K. Mwendwa, PhD

Lecturer
Kabarak University

(Supervisor)

2
 DEDICATION
I devote my project to the All-Powerful God in appreciation of His unfailing compassion,
grace, and love. To my dear husband Edward, my beloved sons Paschal and Cyprian and
daughter Grace Valerie for their prayers and unwavering support they have given me during
this study.

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am incredibly appreciative of all of my lecturers at Lukenya University for their advice and
constructive criticism, which kept me on track from the beginning of the course until its
conclusion. Dr. Philip Kimanzi and Dr. Ruth Mwili Kimeu, who served as my supervisors,
were patient with me as I worked to finalize this project. My sincere gratitude also goes to my
family, friends, classmates, and coworkers, who have helped and encouraged me in numerous
ways and enabled me to earn this degree.

4
 ABSTRACT
Kenya's forest ecosystem has undergone such severe deterioration that it only covers 3% of
its total land area, far below the globally recommended limit of 10%. The Kenyan
government passed the Forests Act in 2005, enabling both the administration and the local
populace to take a role in maintaining the forests. The project's objectives were to: identify
the tasks given to Community Forest Associations to manage the Iveti forest in Machakos
County through Participatory Forest Management; identify the factors that affect community
participation and participation in and preservation of the Iveti forest; examine the challenges
that the neighborhood faces in managing and preserving the Iveti forest, and to identify
strategies that can be adopted to address these issues. In order to gather information from the
participants, the study used a descriptive survey research design that included questionnaires
and interview schedules. In addition, 165 members of the Iveti Forest Community Forest
Association, 10 Kenya Forest Service employees stationed there, and ten village elders were
sampled using stratified and purposeful sampling techniques. For the pilot study, 19
respondents were taken into consideration. The data was analyzed using the Statistical
Package for Social Science, and the results were presented using tables, charts, and graphs.
According to the report, the Iveti Community Forest Association managed and conserved the
Iveti forest through reforestation, seedling production, pruning, and thinning. However, the
CFA members' involvement in the Iveti forest's planning, execution, evaluation, and
monitoring of forest management and conservation was negligible. Measures like increased
benefit sharing, CFA involvement in planning and management, a review of the forest rules,
allowing people to harvest mature trees for timber, and making all forest events participatory
could be adopted to increase their participation. Furthermore, according to the study, the
government should offer incentives, favorable policies, and appropriate institutional
arrangements to encourage people to participate in local communities to create an effective
incentive structure.

5
 Table of Contents

DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF PLATES xii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS xiii
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS xiv
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background of Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 3
1.3 The Study's Objectives 4
1.3.1 The general objective 4
1.3.2 Specific objectives of the research 4
1.4 Research Questions 5
1.5 Significance of the Study 5
1.6 Scope of the Study 6
1.7 Limitations of the study 6
1.8 Assumptions of the Study 6
1.9 Organization of the study 6
CHAPTER TWO 7
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.0 Introduction 7
2.1 Empirical Literature 7
2.1.1 Decentralization of Forest Management 7
2.1.2 Communities, rights and forest decentralization in Kenya 8
2.1.3 PFM related activities undertaken by Community Forest Associations 10
2.1.4 Factors that influence community participation in forests 13
2.1.4.1 Community Awareness 13
6
 2.1.4.2 Level of education 15
2.1.4.3 Economic constructs 16
2.1.4.4 Benefit Sharing 16
2.1.5 Challenges that the community faces in the management and conservation of
forests 17
2.1.5.1 Governance 17
2.1.5.2 Transparency 18
2.1.5.3 Forest Management 18
2.1.5.4 Forest Product 19
2.1.5.5 Inclusiveness of Participation 19
2.1.5.6 Accountability of Executive Committee 19
2.1.5.7 Responsiveness 20
2.1.5.8 Livelihood and Social Justice 20
2.1.6 Measures to improve community participation in forest management. 21
2.1.6.1 Incentives 21
2.1.6.2 Development Partners 22
2.1.6.3 Institutional Arrangements and Property Rights 24
2.1.6.4 Policy Relevance 24
2.2 Theoretical Literature 25
2.2.1 Participatory Development Theory 26
2.2.2 Common Resource Pool Theory 26
2.3 Conceptual Framework 26
2.4 Summary of Literature 27
CHAPTER THREE 29
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 29
3.0 Introduction 29
3.1 Study design 29
3.2 Study area 29
3.2.1 Location of study area 29
3.2.2 Climate 30
3.2.2.1 Rainfall 30
3.2.2.2 Temperature 31
3.2.3 Topography 31

7
 3.2.4 Vegetation 31
3.2.5 Population 31
3.2.6 Socio- economic activities 31
3.2.7 Soils 31
3.3 Target population 32
3.4 Sample size and Sampling procedures 32
3.4.1 Stratified sampling 33
3.4.2 Purposive sampling 33
3.5 Research instruments 33
3.5.1 Pilot study 33
3.5.1.1 Instrument validity 34
3.5.1.2 Instrument Reliability 34
3.6 Data Collection Procedures 34
3.6.1 Questionnaires 34
3.6.2 Photography 34
3.6.3 Interview schedules 35
3.7 Data Analysis Procedures 35
CHAPTER FOUR 36
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 36
4.1 Introduction 36
4.2 Demographic Information 36
4.2.1 Gender of respondents 36
4.2.2 Age of respondents 37
4.2.3 Marital Status of respondents 38
4.2.4 Level of education of respondents. 38
4.2.5 Occupation of respondents 39
4.2.6 Level of income 39
4.2.7 Duration of stay in the area 40
4.3 PFM related activities undertaken by Community Forest Associations 40
4.3.1 Active participation in forest management 43
4.3.2 Level of participation in forest management and conservation 45
4.3.3 Integration of community participation in forest management 46
4.4 Factors that influence community participation in forest management and
conservation in Iveti forest. 47
8
4.5 Challenges faced by the community in forest management and conservation 53
4.5 Measures to be taken to improve community participation. 54
CHAPTER FIVE 57
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57
5.1 Introduction 57
5.2 Summary 57
5.3 Conclusions 58
5.4 Recommendations 59
5.5 Suggestions for further studies 59
REFERENCES 60
APPENDICES 78
Appendix I: Introductory letter 78
Appendix II: Questionnaire 79
Appendix III: An Interview Schedule for KFS officials 85
Appendix IV: Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Interview Guide for Key Informants 87
Appendix V: Project Schedule 89
Appendix VI: Budget 90
Appendix VII: NACOSTI Research Permit 91

9
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.0 Response rate 36
Table 4.1 Level of Education 38
Table 4.2 Occupation of respondents 39
Table 4.3 Duration of stay in the area 40
Table 4.4 Conservation activities 43
Table 4.5 Involvement in forest management activities 44
Table 4.7 Level of participation in forest management and conservation 45
Table 4.8 Lessons and experiences on integration of Participatory Forest Management 46
Table 4.9 Factors that influence community participation in forest management and
conservation in Iveti forest 47
Table 4.10 Training on forestry management and conservation 48
Table 4.11 Benefits of involving in conservation activities 50
Table 4.12 Satisfaction with sharing of benefits at Iveti CFA 51
Table 4.13 Opportunity in sharing forest resources 52
Table 4.14 Integrating adjacent community in improving livelihood 52
Table 4.15 Utilization of forest resources after training 53
Table 4.16 Challenges faced by the community in forest management and conservation
53
Table 4.17 Leadership challenges affecting communities in conservation and
management 54
Table 4.18 Community strategies to improve community participation 54
Table 4.19 Government strategies to improve community participation 56
Table 4.20 Future utilization strategies 56

10
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Hierarchy of forest management in Kenya 25

Figure 2.2: Conceptual Framework 27
Figure 3.1: Map of Machakos County showing the study area of Iveti Hills Forest 30
Figure 4.1 Gender of the respondents 37
Figure 4.2: Age of respondents 37
Figure 4.3 Marital Status of respondents 38
Figure 4.4 Level of income 40
Figure 4.5 User groups 41
Figure 4.6 Rating of training 49

11
LIST OF PLATES

Plate 4.1: CFA Tree nursery at Iveti Forest 41

Plate 4.2: The Researcher with some members of the Bee keeping User Group 42
Plate 4.3: A CFA member pruning a tree at Iveti Forest 44
Plate 4.4: Training of dairy farmers user group 48
Plate 4.5: Members collecting firewood from Iveti forest 50
Plate 4.6: Youth group at a picnic site at Iveti forest 51

12
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CCS Carbon Capture Storage

CFA Community Forest Association

CEC Cation Exchange Capacity

CBO Community Based Organization

CFUGs Community Forest User Groups

CG County Government

CFM Community Forest Management

CPRC Chronic Poverty Research Centre

FMPM Forest Management Planning Manual

FRA Forest Resources Assessment

GoK Government of Kenya

KFS Kenya Forest Service

KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Statistics

NEMA National Environmental Management Authority

NG National Government

PES Payment for Environmental Services

PFM Participatory Forest Management

PELIS Plantation Establishment and Livelihood

Improvement Scheme

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

13
 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS
Sharing of benefits takes place when goods or earnings are divided amongst community
members, between community members and the private sector, or between community
members and the government.

Community awareness describes how well a community is aware of the protection and
sustainable usage of forests. This knowledge is influenced by a person's education level,
capability development, and preconceptions.

The term "community awareness describes how well a community knows forests' safety
and self-sustaining use: an individual's education level, capacity development, and
perceptions all impact this knowledge.

Management of forests in communities is essentially an unorganized social effort started by

localities close to forests to halt further environmental deterioration.

Management of resources on a local level is a process that offers people the chance and
responsibility to manage their own resources, identify their needs and aspirations, and make
choices that will have an impact on their wellbeing.

Community organization is the method whereby a community ascertains its needs or

objectives, seeks out the resources to combat these requirements or objectives, and takes act
in response to them. As a result, the community grows and develops collaborative and
cooperative awareness and experiences.

Community Forest Association (CFA) is a network of rural- based organizations dedicated

to forest management and protection.

Decentralization is the method by which a centralized government delegates authority over

decisions about natural resources from itself to organizations at lower tiers of an ideological,
managerial, and regional power structure.

Economic factors – they include the government's payments to the communities for
environmental services provided as compensation for those services. Business ventures
intended to benefit from forest-related activities, such as beekeeping, are known as income-
generating activities.

Income-generating activities are commercial ventures intended to benefit from forest-

related activities, such as beekeeping.
14
Natural Resource Management (NRM) is the wise use of precious natural resources, such
as fisheries, forests, fisheries, land, and water, as well as wildlife and plant life.

Participation is characterized as self-determined change or actively participating in one's

own personal growth and one's surroundings, existence, and outer world.

Participatory Forest Management (PFM) refers to the structured collaboration of

government representatives, users of both commercial and noncommercial forest resources,
interested parties, community organizations, and other parties to achieve objectives connected
to the potential utilization of forest resources.

Sustainable development is defined as growth that satisfies current demands without

endangering the environment, the requirements of present generations, or both.

15
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
This chapter includes the background of study background, purpose, and objectives, broken
down into general and specific objectives. In addition, this chapter will discuss the study's
organization, research questions, significance, limitations, delimitations, and assumptions.

1.1 Background of Study

To improve forest management in many developing countries, academic research and policy
have focused on community involvement in the management of public forests (Chirenje et al.,
2013). As a result, the emphasis has switched from centralized to public decision-making, and
neighborhood associations now participate in forest preservation and regulation (Islam et al.,
2015).

This policy change resulted from top-down state forest policies that did not advance fairness in
access to forest resources and ecological sustainability (Tesfaye et al., 2012). Today, the
objective is to create cooperative management between citizens and regulatory bodies in order
to protect forest resources. Based on mutual trust and respect, this is achieved (Islam et al.,
2015). The Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit's Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg World Summit on
Sustainable Development's emphasis on the significance of locals in managing forest resources,
among other external influences, are to blame for this tendency (Shrestha & McManus, 2008).
Therefore, decisions relating to the management of forests should involve the local community.
now that most people accept it (Jumbe & Angelsen, 2007).

The theory of decentralization asserts that local decision-makers are better at making moral
decisions than centralized authorities, as demonstrated by the prior example (Tacconi, 2007).
This is so that they may leverage their site-specific forest knowledge and save money on
administrative expenses. Furthermore, it is anticipated that local decisions made with
community involvement will become more acknowledged, making policies for forest
management relatively easy (Maier et al., 2014). Compared to traditional, exclusive decision-
making methods, participation is thought to result in better environmental conditions and easier
decision-making regarding environmental policy (Newig & Fritsch, 2009). Top-down Forest
management decisions are decided primarily by central state officials without user input.
Regulations are enforced using top-down authority rather than bottom-up forest management
(Chhetri et al., 2013).

1
In order to meet consumer demands for wood products and prevent deterioration, the South
Asian country of Nepal instituted community forestry in response to growing ecological issues
in the country's mountainous regions. The campaign aimed to grant locals possession of forest
assets (Bhattarai & Dhungana, 2005). An inclusive strategy for managing India's forest
resources can be provided to prevent further environmental destruction and degeneration of
trees in forest areas and shared public lands (Borrini et al., 2007).

PFM adoption has been encouraged by a number of compelling factors in several nations.
Community-based initiatives were initiated by the Indian government to support forest
conservation efforts that state officials were unable to properly monitor (Ogada, 2012). The best
way to improve sustainable management in Nepal, according to studies, is to transfer
government forest areas to CFUGs as community forests, despite the program's initial goal of
fostering a connection between the forest areas and community groups by acknowledging the
community's customary user privileges (Anup, 2017; Ghimire, 2020). This policy is considered
one of the world's most forward-thinking forest policies.

Many developing nations have modified their national forest policies and implemented
participatory forest management (PFM) strategies (Eilola et al., 2015). For example, many
nations in Africa and South Asia have used participatory management to comprise local
populations in managing natural resources. The majority of African and Asian nations have
encouraged rural community involvement in the process and use of natural forest areas through
some form of participatory forest management (PFM), according to Schreckenberg et al. (2006).
Numerous nations in South Asia and Africa, for instance, have embraced a participatory
management strategy to involve indigenous communities in the management of natural
resources (Glynn et al., 2017). Ethiopia has implemented PFM projects since the 1990s with
community participation (Ameha et al., 2014). A current example is the PFM program in
southwest Ethiopia's Gebradima forest.

An approach to managing forests that involve surrounding neighborhoods and other interested
parties and improves people's lives is known as participatory forest management
(Schreckenberg et al., 2007). In addition, nearly 1.7 billion people depend both directly and
indirectly on forestry products and resources like honey, firewood, lumber, feed, and fruits for
their livelihood (World Bank, 2007). Different user groups, including herders, hunters, and
gatherers of firewood and poles, gain from the utilization of forest resources in varied settings
(Limberg et al., 2007).

2
The Kenya Forest Act (2005) was created and passed to abolish colonial and pre-colonial forest
command and control and to acknowledge that government organizations had failed to
safeguard woods bordered by disgruntled local groups (Nyakeya et al., 2018). Residents who
live near a forest may establish a Community Forest Association (CFA) in accordance with
Section 46 of the Forest Act under the Societies Act (1998) (Chapter 108) to take part in the
preservation and management of state- or local authority-managed forests. Community
members who have previously done this may make use of Section 47 of the Forest Act to
protect, maintain, and manage forests as well as create and carry out forest programs that are
consistent with their fundamental rights as forest users (Brooks & Matiku, 2011).

A Forest Management and Conservation Fund has been established under Section 18 of the
Forest Act (2005) to enhance forest preservation and restoration, support community-based
forest projects, launch nurseries and seedling commercialization, and facilitate research and
educational activities (Wamukoya et al., 2006). The Kenya Vision 2030, according to GoK
(2019), includes the ecosystem as one of its social cornerstones and reinforces the need to
protect natural resources to foster economic growth. By 2030, there should be a 10% increase in
forest cover, and natural forest resources should be managed sustainably for economic
development and environmental protection.

Dida conducted the first pilot study on the effects of PFM via CFAs on reducing poverty in
Arabuko-Sokoke, Coast region, in 1997 (Musyoki et al., 2016). Similar studies have been
conducted in the Kakamega forest, Mount Kenya, Mount Elgon, and other regions. Community
involvement is still crucial to enhancing the PFM strategy's effectiveness and advancing
sustainable forest management in Kenya, even though the PFM strategy has undoubtedly
increased forest cover, decreased illegal logging, and retained ecological integrity (Wekesa,
2017).

Iveti Hills Forest is a gazetted government forest that is particularly vital to the neighboring
villages in Machakos County, according to GoK (2019). A significant watershed that feeds
multiple rivers and streams in Machakos County is the Iveti Hills Forest. This study seeks to
evaluate the contribution of community participation to the preservation and management of the
Iveti forest in light of Kenya Vision 2030's inclusion of the environmental segment in the social
pillar and emphasis on the need to protect natural resources to support economic growth
(Anderson et al., 2017). In order to maintain the environment and spur economic progress,
forests must be able to sustain their natural resources by 2030 and increase to 10% of the total
land area (Githiomi & Mugendi, 2012). Because of this, the goal of this study is to identify
strategies that could be applied to boost community involvement in the Iveti forest.
3
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Forest management in Kenya has been formally delegated to CFAs through cooperation with
the Kenya Forest Services (KFS) agency (GoK, 2005). According to the PFM system, KFS has
direct access to decision-making mechanisms, benefit distribution, and forest control. In
contrast, CFAs are given the authority to carry out a range of management activities related to
forest management (Mogoi et al., 2012). While it is clear that the PFM approach has been
crucial in boosting forest cover, reducing forest degradation, and maintaining ecosystem
balance, community participation is still a crucial component of improving PFM approach
effectiveness and advancing sustainable forest management in Kenya (Jepkosgei, 2018).

According to studies, forestry conservation measures have been successfully implemented by

CFAs using the PFM approach in a number of water catchment areas, including the Arabuko-
Sokoke, Mau complex, and Kakamega forests (Nthuku, 2018). Unauthorized logging, grazing,
and forest intrusion are still common in the area in spite of the establishment and operation of
CFAs in the Iveti forest, further accelerating the destruction of the forest there (Duguma et al.,
2019). This raises concerns about how incorporating community engagement can enhance
effective local forest governance.

Although many studies on PFM for other forests, including Arabuko-Sokoke and Kimothon
Forest in Trans Nzoia County, have been conducted, there has not been a serious examination
and documentation of the PFM process in Iveti Forest that emphasizes the role of community
engagement. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate how community participation affected
the governance and preservation of the Iveti forest in Kenya's Machakos County.

1.3 The Study's Objectives

1.3.1 The general objective

This primary objective of the study was to investigate how community participation influenced
forest conservation and management in Machakos County's Iveti Forest, Kenya.

1.3.2 Specific objectives of the research

In order to accomplish the aforementioned general objective, the study was driven by the
specific objectives listed below;

(i) To establish the Participatory Forest Management (PFM) related activities undertaken by
the Community Forest Association (CFA) members in the management and conservation
of Iveti Forest in Machakos County, Kenya.

4
 (ii) To determine the factors that influence of community participation in the management and
conservation of Iveti Forest in Machakos County, Kenya.

(iii) To investigate the challenges that the community face in the management and
conservation of Iveti forest in Machakos.

(iv) To establish the necessary measures for effective community participation in the
management and conservation of the Iveti forest in Machakos County, Kenya.

1.4 Research Questions

In light of the aforementioned goals, this study aimed to provide answers to the following
questions:

(i). Which activities does the Iveti CFA undertake in the management of Iveti forest in Machakos
County, Kenya?

(ii). Which factors influence community participation in the management and conservation of
Iveti forest in Machakos County, Kenya?
(iii). What challenges does the local community in Kenya's Machakos County face in managing
and conserving Iveti Forest?
(iv). What measures should be taken to ensure effective community involvement in managing
and conserving Iveti forest in Kenya's Machakos County?

1.5 Significance of the Study

The study's conclusions would help the government develop policies that encourage community
involvement in forestry conservation and guarantee that communities living next to forests
benefit from the outcomes of their efforts, in line with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)
number 15, which seeks to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial
ecosystems. Additionally, slowing and reversing land degradation, combatting desertification,
stopping and reversing climate change, and managing forests sustainably will all assist forest
managers in arresting Kenya's prior forest loss. Additionally, it would aid in the fight against
climate change and land degradation while ensuring that local communities engage in
sustainable conservation practices. In addition, sustainable Development Goal no. 13, concerned
with Climate Change Mitigation, is linked to trees' ability to store and collect carbon.

The study's findings would also aid communities around forests in understanding their
responsibility in forest conservation and management. The community would become more
aware of sustainable forest practices. The study's findings would also be helpful to interested
agencies including Kenya Forest Services (KFS) and the National Environmental Management

5
Authority (NEMA). Students from several disciplines, including forestry and environmental
sciences, would also cite the study's findings. For academic purposes, this study is essential in
assisting students with their further investigation of PFM in Kenya.

1.6 Scope of the Study

This study examined the role that the community plays in the management and conservation of
Iveti Forest in Machakos County, Kenya. It covered ten villages adjacent to Iveti forest. Mainly
the household heads were targeted by this research and in their absence the wives were
interviewed. Data from CFA members, village elders, and officials at Iveti KFS Station and the
County Government level were gathered through questionnaires, interview schedules, and
Focus Group Discussions (FGD).

1.7 Limitations of the study

Like other studies, this one was undoubtedly prepared to face several obstacles. First,
uncooperative respondents would probably provide inaccurate information, challenging the
research process. The researcher obtained the required corroborating evidence from the
university, the KFS commission, and local authorities to demonstrate that the study was
conducted primarily for academic purposes to circumvent such constraints. The researcher
conducted the study while upholding other ethical principles and a high level of confidentiality.

Given the number of surveys that were to be completed, methodological restrictions in data
collection were likely to be faced. Another stumbling block was language issue because most of
the respondents were illiterate. As a solution to this, research assistants translated the questions
in the questionnaires making it easy to get the right responses.

1.8 Assumptions of the Study

The following fundamental propositions were made in this study:

The study's sample accurately reflected the local populace.

The study also assumed that the participants would provide voluntary, accurate, and truthful
responses to provide the necessary data for this study.

1.9 Organization of the study

The set-up of this study consists of five chapters. The study's background, the problem
statement, the objectives, the research questions, and the study's significance are all covered in
Chapter One's Introduction, along with other introductory topics. The literature review section
of Chapter two includes a theoretical and conceptual framework that serves as the foundation
for the study. Chapter three of the thesis covers the study's topic, methodology, and
6
justification. Data analysis, conclusions, and interpretation are covered in Chapter four. Finally,
a summary of results, a debate of the results in light of similar research, and a conclusion are all
included in Chapter five. The restrictions and suggestions for additional study are also
highlighted.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
The research of different scholars was evaluated and debated in this part. This review's main
goal was to make clear how community involvement plays a role in managing and protecting
forests at the global, geographic, and federal levels. This chapter discusses the theoretical and
philosophical foundations of forest management.

2.1 Empirical Literature

Highlights included the PFM-related activities carried out by Community Forest Associations
(CFAs), the factors influencing community involvement, the challenges community members
face, and the measures being taken to increase community involvement in preserving and
managing forests.

2.1.1 Decentralization of Forest Management

Many countries use decentralized natural resource management to encourage fairness in
decision-making and profit allocation. It is a common belief that decentralization of the
utilization of natural resources will raise equity and effectiveness (Ribot, 2004).
Decentralization is the process by which a higher-ranking member of an ideological,
governmental, or regional power structure is given authority over a lower-ranking member's
utilization of natural resources (Udumo et al., 2020). The sources of the effectiveness and equal
and fair benefits of decentralization are democratic processes that stimulate local organizations
and relevant councils to support and provide relevant services to community members through
their organizations (Larson, 2005). Decentralization can take different forms, including
deconcentration, delegation, devolution, and corporatization (Knox & Meinzen-Dick, 2001;
Blaser et al., 2005).

Transferring authority to local governments that respect citizens' political rights and freedoms,
are available to the general public, and are accountable to them is known as democratic
decentralization (Blair, 2000). Devolution of administrative and political authority does not
necessarily mean that lower-level governments or private interested parties, such as local

7
communities, will gain control over forest resources. Decentralized resource governance has
also been referred to as "common-pool resource management" (Agrawal and Gupta, 2005).

Community forest management, participatory forest management and joint forest management
are decentralization strategies (PFM). Many governments have tried to decentralize in response
to financial backers, non-governmental organizations, and local politics. However, the fact that
authority, property ownership, and resource access are not fully redistributed or shared renders
what many government agencies refer to as decentralization as not truly democratic (Larson,
2005). For instance, the government in Uganda has resisted sharing lucrative revenue sources
with the local and state levels (Benson, 2005). According to studies, Tanzania needs to offer
communities more tangible incentives to encourage them to stay committed to forest
management (Blomley et al., 2017).

2.1.2 Communities, rights and forest decentralization in Kenya

There is still uncertainty over the type of forest management that will be used because the PFM
practice as it is known in Kenya has not yet been completely operationalized. However, the
growing practice in most forests appears to have significant components of shared forest
management as used in Tanzania and India (Ngigi and Busolo, 2019). According to the Forests
Act of 2005, for instance, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and the community must come to an
agreement before the community can participate in activities that safeguard and conserve forest
resources. The CFA is a group that has received formal recognition (GoK, 2007). They are
anticipated to receive benefits in exchange, including income from neighborhood-based
businesses, ecotourism, leisure, and research and development projects, as well as timber and
non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Examples of some forests that display characteristics of
community forest management are the sacred/cultural forests of the Kayas, Ramogi, and Loita,
where people have autonomy over management of their forests but the KFS remains the
overarching manager of all forests (Mogoi et al., 2012). Participation of the community is
expected to enhance sustainable use, biodiversity preservation, equitable benefit distribution,
and conflict resolution (Kallert et al.,2000). The kind of participation chosen for the PFM
implementation process, which varies across Africa, has a considerable impact on these
outcomes (Yemshaw, 2007).

The Kenya Forest Service (KFS), the entity in responsibility of managing protected forests, and
CFAs are required to jointly manage state-owned woodlands in accordance with the Forest Act.
CFAs are given access rights, user obligations, and joint management duties (Chomba et al.,
2015). But after their management plan has been approved and a management agreement has
been executed with KFS, CFAs are only given the PFM rights and obligations (Thygesen et al.,
8
2016). While the management plan outlines the community's planned forest activities, the
agreement delegates management authority and responsibilities to the CFAs. The user rights
may include the ability to cultivate or grow crops on degraded forest land as well as the ability
to acquire non-timber forest resources (such as honey, poles, grass, grazing, and medicinal plant
collection). These privileges come with responsibilities, including the need to develop a
management plan, start crops, conduct forest patrols, go to CFA meetings, and pay forest user
fees (Okumu and Muchapondwa, 2020).

The decentralization of the forests in Kenya appears to be uneven. Communities' involvement in

the implementation process is modest, confined to protection and monitoring, with little
influence over decisions and little access to the cash generated from the shared utilization of the
forest resources. Because of this, the communities bear the brunt of the effort and receive only
minimal benefits from the forest (Gabay et al., 2020). The primary governmental guardians of
Kenya's woods, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), are
reluctant to transfer power to the locals (Mogoi et al., 2012). Large corporations continue to
dominate timber harvesting, and the money now gathered from the forests does not benefit the
locals (Agrawal, 2013).

Local communities are now able to take part in initiatives that need funding and technical
expertise, like rearing butterflies and bees. Unanimously, it is agreed that property rights
provide a strong set of incentives for sustainable forest management. Rights holders are more
likely to undertake investments that will benefit the forest because they are more likely to profit
from their investments in contexts where property rights are clear-cut, fairly enforced, and
secure (Mogoi et al., 2012). Nevertheless, where incentives are incompatible with the
difficulties faced by rights holders (including their needs for a living), as when resource users
and/or resource managers are denied the right to revenue from forest resources, their motivation
to devote time and resources to sustainable management will be diminished (Gabay et al.,
2020).

Andersson et al. (2008) contend that in order to fully comprehend the effects of decentralization
initiatives on resource management, it is essential to examine the rights and competencies that
are transferred to actors at lower levels. Through different combinations of property rights,
actors and institutions will be given additional decision-making power. According to
decentralization plans, the range of activities users can engage in to earn money and support
their livelihoods will depend on the rights they acquire or maintain. (Wittman & Geisler, 2005).
The costs and benefits of resource appropriation are likely to be influenced by the rights that

9
local actors, such as women and the poor, now enjoy as a result of decentralization reforms. Use
rights and control rights are two different types of property rights (Hegga et al., 2020).

Use rights include access and/or withdrawal rights, whereas control rights include management,
exclusion, and alienation rights. These different rights have varying degrees of security, which
affects how resources are used and managed. There has been a lot of discussion about
community governance of shared resources. Ratner et al. (2018) described the elements
necessary for efficient management of natural resources. These elements have been used as
indicators in an effort to give a structured evaluation of institutional performance in respect to
the recently developed CFAs. These elements include having access to low-cost processes for
resolving disputes, having control over the rules that govern resource use, being able to decide
who is allowed to use and harvest resources, being able to monitor rule compliance and punish
infractions, and having local leadership. When considered collectively, these factors impact
resource users' incentives, perceptions of the advantages, and commitment to working with
others to solve challenges involving shared resources (Ostrom, 2005).

2.1.3 PFM related activities undertaken by Community Forest Associations

PFM is still developing in many areas of Africa, and regional success is unequal (Yemshaw,
2007). PFM is sometimes used as a catch-all phrase to imply local involvement and involves a
multi-stakeholder approach where the business sector, institutions, and communities are
involved in the management of forests and participating in the benefits that result from such
management processes. In order to manage forests sustainably, it entails forming a cooperation
between the local community and the regional governments (Ngece et al., 2007). Incorporating
local communities into forest management is essentially a strategy for balancing socioeconomic
goals with forest sustainability and biodiversity conservation. These socioeconomic goals
encompass equity, dispute settlement, awareness, forest production, poverty reduction, and
resource exploitation that is sustainable (Mwari, 2018). According to Siraj et al. (2018), the
positive effects of putting the PFM method into practice are shown through a shift in the
communities' attitudes about the forest resource and, consequently, a change in the degree of
forest conservation. However, the PFM implementation process's chosen mode of participation
has a significant impact on these outcomes.

Decentralization initiatives like PFM have historically sought to increase rural households' input
into decision-making and their awareness of the advantages of all facets of forest management
(Schreckenberg et al., 2006). But there is a lot of engagement, and it has been difficult to ensure
inclusion in these processes. The long-term sustainability of forest management with economic

10
goals, however, depends on inclusivity since it enables widespread public engagement in local
decision-making.

According to Piabuo et al. (2018), a 1978 FAO report underlined the critical part that local
populations play in the preservation of sustainably forested regions. It was accepted at the Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg in 2003. In developing countries, community-owned or managed forests make up
more than 25% of the total forest cover; by 2015, the amount of these forests is expected to
double (Huff, 2015). According to estimates, community-based management constitutes
roughly one-third of the world's forestland (FAO, 2016).

According to numerous studies, community involvement is crucial for sustainable forest

management (Chirenje et al., 2013). It is clear that involving local communities in forest
governance ensures project sustainability, increases acceptance, makes environmental policy
more efficient and cost-effective, reduces conflicts with local authorities and fosters better
governance (Newig and Fritsch, 2009), fosters trust between the community and the forest
department, and fosters a sense of responsible ownership (Ferranti et al., 2010).

It has been demonstrated that involvement in forest management groups affects decisions to
increase tree planting on farms (Emtage and Suh, 2004). This might be as a result of the fact
that it makes people feel more attached to and obligated to preserve forest ecosystems, which in
turn makes them want to increase the quantity of forest cover on their farms. Farmers that
participate in community-based conservation organizations have access to more diverse, high-
quality, and variety of tree species (Boffa et al., 2005).

Participating in planning requires involving local stakeholders in decision-making, establishing

new regulations or amending existing ones, developing alternate planning activities, and
allocating rights, duties, and resources among the forest management actors (Tadesse et al.,
2017). The dynamic character of stakeholder demands, priorities, and interests can be captured
and integrated throughout project implementation when they are involved in planning (Reed et
al., 2009).

The Program on Forests, PROFOR (2011) states that integrating the forest associations into
forest management activities is fundamental in implementation. Local residents should be made
aware of the plans made for their communities, according to Chowdhury (2004), if they are to
provide their approval and cooperate during the implementation of the program and beyond.
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) entails assessing, planning, and carrying out actions to
determine whether intended end-points, such as improved livelihoods and forest condition, have

11
been realized. As part of its mission, M&E also aims to improve feedback and group decision-
making (Evans et al., 2018).

Rural people are motivated to use the resources at their disposal, which may include logging
and converting forests to agricultural land use, as agriculture is "the major proximal driver of
tropical deforestation," which suggests that they are interested in doing so (Tacconi, 2007).
Forest conversion does not, technically speaking, contribute to the management of forests in a
way that supports livelihoods if the objective is sustainable forest management. On the other
hand, altering agricultural practices and the gathering of timber and non-timber forest products
may help to support livelihoods and the maintenance of forest cover. Even while the really poor
may be able to increase their earnings thanks to the gathering of wild non-timber forest
products, there is little chance that poverty will be reduced (Ros-Tonen and Wiersum, 2003).
Forests perform a variety of environmental tasks, including soil and water conservation, which
result in indirect environmental benefits. It is sometimes believed that trees are vital for local
livelihoods because of their positive environmental effects.

A key component of sustainable development has been identified as community involvement.

Sustainable growth won't be possible unless the current ecological constraints are lifted, claim
Kinnunen and Kaksonen (2019). The management of renewable resources, the application of
appropriate expertise, the investment in absorptive capacity, reprocessing, and avoiding the use
of worn-out resources are the means of overcoming these hurdles. According to Pokharel et al.
(2007) local communities have a responsibility to help preserve the forest by:

a) establishing local conservation criteria that are in line with national policy
b) Initiating community outreach programs to spread the word about the importance of the
forest resource.
c) Keeping their settlements' physical surroundings neat, secure, and enjoyable.
d) Support policies that will reduce soil, water, and air pollution.

Unlike the Forest Act CAP 385 it replaced, the Forests Act 2005 provides a framework and
incentives for community and commercial sector involvement in the forestry sector
(Government of Kenya, 2005). The forest community can work with KFS thanks to established
Community Forest Associations (CFAs). These agreements may be applied to state or local
authority forests. As a result, local communities can participate in the preservation,
management, and protection of a particular forest area in accordance with the directives of the
forest's management plan (Ongugo et al., 2008).

12
The Act also grants the Association a number of user rights, provided that these rights do not
conflict with the preservation of the forest (Government of Kenya, 2005). Some of the user
rights granted to these associations include the ability to gather medicinal herbs, honey, timber
or fuel wood, grass and grazing, harvesting forest produce for community-based industries,
ecotourism and recreational activities, scientific and educational endeavors, establishing
plantations through nonresident cultivation, contracts to help with carrying out specific
silvicultural operations, development of community welfare, and more (Thirikwa, 2014).

2.1.4 Factors that influence community participation in forests

The level of community involvement in forest management is influenced by a variety of
variables, such as community awareness, educational attainment, CFA status, income level,
gender, and benefit sharing (Thenya & Ngecu, 2017). The primary variables impacting
community engagement, according to Wekesa (2017) research, are economic structures,
community awareness, and benefit sharing.
Numerous studies have shown that a person's socioeconomic condition may limit their ability to
engage in forestry initiatives and also influence how much they will pay in transaction fees
(e.g., Ogada, 2012; Adhikari et al., 2014).

Due to high transaction and opportunity costs, low participation rates among the poor and
disenfranchised are common. Due to the high opportunity costs of their time and the heavy
demands of their productive and reproductive responsibilities, women may choose not to
participate, for example (Yego et al., 2021). Education may raise participants' understanding of
the potential benefits of participating in forestry programs, but it may also reduce their
availability and interest due to options available outside the community (Adhikari et al., 2014).
According to Mbeche et al. (2021), who empirically investigate PFM participation in Kenya,
more off-farm income results in higher opportunity costs of involvement and, as a result,
diminishes their interest in forest conservation. Participating in CFA activities provides a
backup plan since accessing other sources of income may be expensive due to transaction costs
that are represented in the distance to the closest road or market (Okumu and Muchapondwa,
2020).

2.1.4.1 Community Awareness

Published research suggests that participation in forest governance is more likely to increase
when local people's access rights to resources are not constrained (Adhikari et al., 2014). There
is proof in favor of the proposition that incentives for collective action and knowledge
accessibility (through, for instance, extension) have an effect on involvement. Attending group
meetings also promotes the growth of confidence and trust among those involved in making
13
decisions collectively, which has a favorable effect on participation (Bremer et al., 2014).
According to Bremer et al. (2014) and Luswaga and Nuppenau (2020), forest user groups
provide as a forum for members to learn about the value of sustainable forest protection.

Since people who are aware of the Forest Act (Act, 2005) are more inclined to join CFAs,
campaigns to promote household participation in CFAs should concentrate on educating the
households on the relevant provisions of the Act. Additionally, campaigns should encourage
communities to form other groups because people who belong to other social groups are more
likely to eventually join CFAs. More importantly, forest management authorities should ensure
entry into forests for the extraction of specified forest products because restricted entrance
discourages families from joining CFA and participating in devolved forest management
agreements (Warui, 2016). Specifically, policies that show promise are:

a. Increasing access to information, especially with regards to the content of the Forest Act
(Act, 2005);
b. Increasing access to formal credit among the forest communities;
c. Promoting formation of social groups, other than CFAs, among the forest communities;
d. Improving infrastructure to link communities with the forests so as to minimize transport
cost that individuals incur on harvesting forest products; and
e. Providing increased access to forests by the adjacent communities. Possibly, the range of
products harvested and other activities allowed in the forest could be expanded to cater
for the varying interests of households. This would make participation in CFAs more
rewarding to households.

The local populace will be inspired to change their resource and land use patterns and devote
time and energy to forest conservation initiatives if they understand the value of the goods and
services that forests provide (Marta-Pedroso et al., 2014). Communities can manage forests and
woodland resources for variety if the right conditions exist and there are sufficient incentives
(Koech, 2020).

Local groups preserved natural resources throughout the pre-colonial era, including water
springs and grazing during the dry season. They achieved this by creating guidelines, laws, and
social consequences (Macharia, 2015). Forests were preserved for reasons other than the riches
they held; they offered safety and even took on a religious importance. For example, the
MijiKenda community in Kenya's coastal forests protected Kaya Forests out of respect for their
religion (Persha et al., 2010).

14
How the forest is used depends on how the villagers feel about it, what they know about it, and
how important the forest resources are to the local economy (Asah et al., 2014). Ngara and
Mangizvo (2013) assert that indigenous knowledge and management are regularly employed to
maintain and, in some cases, enhance biodiversity. This is because it employs broadly
accessible management science that is more adapted to attaining ecological sustainability
objectives. Additionally, methods for the ethical gathering and use of materials from certain
species are included in cultural knowledge and management systems (Macharia, 2015).

Communities are more inclined to respect forest resources if those resources are significant to
their culture, religion, economy, or society, according to studies (Wekesa, 2017). The Mijikenda
community in the coastal region, according to Wanza and Njuguna (2012), has kept and
protected the Kaya forests for spiritual reasons. Because they recognize the benefits of taking
part in forest management activities, many communities have taken on the duty of managing
and maintaining forest resources (Githitho, 2003). When communities have the necessary
knowledge, resources, and tools, they typically engage in forest management techniques, which
promote biodiversity in the environment (Murray, 2007). The government should host
educational forums to inform people on the significance of protecting, conserving, and
managing forest resources in order to raise awareness within the community and encourage
their participation.

2.1.4.2 Level of education

In addition, families' decisions to take part in forest management and community forest
management may be directly influenced by education levels (Balana et al., 2010). For instance,
in addition to the immediate benefits to farm households, farm forests offer important
environmental benefits. To comprehend these indirect benefits, the decision-maker at the
household must have some education, either often conducted in English and need at least basic
literacy, a high degree of education is necessary (Mogoi et al., 2012). To improve revenue from
forest ecosystems, they must first raise challenges that affect formal or informal, obtained
through education or extension programs. Accordingly, household heads with higher levels of
education or those who have access to government or farmer-farmer extension services are
more likely to adopt farm forestry (Muneet, 2008), either because they view planting trees as a
way to improve the land or because they can appreciate other intangible benefits like ambiance,
micro-climate modification, or carbon sequestration.

According to socioeconomic surveys conducted in Iveti in 2010, Upper Imenti in 2006, and
Kahurura in 2011, the local populations are primarily controlled by primary and secondary
school literacy levels (Thenya et al., 2017). Since these leaders are expected to participate in
15
large meetings that are their communities. For involvement in higher conversations and the
investigation of novel solutions, a high degree of reading is also necessary (Ngatia et al., 2017).
The communities with answers. It is necessary for the CFAs to produce forest management
plans that the KFS will accept, which necessitates more educated leadership (Ongugo, 2007).

According to Oli and Trueu (2015), educated people understand and value forests, and thus are
less likely to be influenced than uneducated people. When all other factors are held constant,
people with higher levels of education are more likely to engage in forest management than
people with lower levels of education or no education at all because they are aware of and
capable of enforcing their entitlement to benefits from participation agreements (Matiku, 2013).

2.1.4.3 Economic constructs

Income level is a term that describes someone's yearly or monthly earnings or their style of
living (Dev et al., 2003). Given their financial stability, affluent earners are likely to exert less
pressure on the forest and to participate in protective measures (Jumbe and Angelsen, 2007).
However, low-income earners could be subsistence farmers who heavily rely on natural
resources for their livelihood and regularly utilize hazardous agricultural practices that harm
forest resources; as a result, they are less likely to take part in forest management (Kumar and
Saxena, 2017).

The poorest people are the ones who are excluded from development organizations' trainings
and workshop programs because they lack literacy, which devalues them and gives the
impression that they are less capable of making and acting on decisions (Pokharel and Nurse,
2004). Rasaily and Zuo (2012) discovered that while many of the same things are used by
wealthy and middle-class households who rely on private woods, the majority of the forest
products used for livestock rearing are heavily dependent on communal forests. Even so, a large
number of people continue to heavily rely on communal forests as a source of income. Poor
households often have a high opportunity cost of participation since the time spent engaging
could have been used to earn money in other ways (Adhikari et al., 2014).

There are large power and economic gaps amongst the user households of community forest
members (Thoms, 2008). Community forestry has only little improved the lives of rural
residents, despite its potential to improve rural life (Dev et al., 2003). The results show that
some households, particularly the poorer ones, have suffered harm (Malla, 2000). Community
forestry initiatives apparently no longer draw participants. According to Aryal et al. (2012), if
this situation persists, the outcomes may be significantly different from what the community
forestry initiative had in mind.

16
2.1.4.4 Benefit Sharing
In addition to other benefits, membership in community forest groups is anticipated to give
members greater access to forest products such as feed, thatch grass, tree seedlings, honey,
herbal treatments, and feed. Fish farming, grain farming, beekeeping, and ecotourism are a few
additional activities that are allowed under the co-management concept. With these advantages,
it would be reasonable to assume that communities will accept the system and successfully use
it. But things have moved slowly, and occasionally CFAs have been established only to fail
soon after (Ongugo et al., 2007). As evaluation studies conducted elsewhere in the world have
shown, decentralizing forest management may not necessarily have favorable environmental
effects (Agrawal and Ribot, 1999). Thus, it is necessary and significant to understand what
encourages individual households to join community forest organizations and how their
participation influences particular environmental outcomes in Kenya.

The current barrier to local communities participating more actively is the lack of knowledge
regarding latent advantages and the methods for benefit sharing (FRA, 2010). As communities
frequently have high expectations for the potential immediate benefits of their engagement,
benefit sharing was one of the main factors driving JFM's acceptability and success in India
(Phiri, 2009).

The government has created and put into effect regulations outlining the standards, rights, and
responsibilities of all parties participating in forestry management, as well as how to divide the
benefits that emerge from these efforts (Wekesa, 2017). To promote cooperative management of
forests and other natural resources, the government, for instance, adopted the Forest Act of
2005. (Mariki, 2013) asserts that benefit sharing is a successful framework for allocating
benefits from forest management projects among and between the appropriate parties, including
the state, local residents, and non-governmental organizations. Fair benefit sharing regulations
are necessary to ensure the equal allocation of natural resources.

If they were given equal power and the chance to profit from conservation initiatives, the
majority of communities would be happy to take part in forestry management programs (Rashid
et al., 2013). Communities may also decide not to participate in forest management initiatives if
they believe the KFS's participation guidelines do not favor them and limit their ability to barter
for favorable terms and take advantage of the opportunities that are presented.

2.1.5 Challenges that the community faces in the management and conservation of forests
Community Forest Associations (CFAs) have several challenges, some of which prohibit them
from accomplishing their forestry conservation objectives. One of these challenges is a lack of

17
understanding of the forest resources (Koech et al., 2009). When it comes to protecting water
catchment areas, for instance, the majority of CFA members are ignorant that certain trees
shouldn't be planted close to these regions because they may impede the normal flow of water.
Wekesa (2017) claims that there are several issues that CFAs must deal with, such as a lack of
accountability and transparency, some members who fail to pay the registration fee, and a
tendency for autocracy among the members.

2.1.5.1 Governance
The challenge of developing an administrative structure that fosters, supports, and encourages
human growth—especially for the most defenseless and impoverished members of society—is
one that all civilizations must overcome (Subramanian, 2012). Building the capacities necessary
to realize development that prioritizes the underprivileged and women, upholds environmental
standards, and creates opportunities for critical local employment should be the goal of
governance activities in community forest associations (Tole, 2010).

2.1.5.2 Transparency
Stakeholders must have access to information to understand and monitor community forest
associations. More attention must be paid to transparency in all of these areas: the transportation
of forest products, the creation of funding, and the management of forests. However, efficient
management and transparency at the management level are crucial to the success of any CFA
(Nygren, 2005).

2.1.5.3 Forest Management

Community forest management-related concerns are only discussed in committee meetings and
general assemblies, where impoverished people and women often do not attend. Since the
majority of community forest user organizations continue to fail to provide the poor and
marginalized groups with advantages from community forestry operations, restrictions on the
use of common land have made these households dependent on government assistance
(McDermott and Schreckenberg, 2009). Effective participation in community-based forest
management requires two key components: inclusion of individuals in executive committees
and decision-making roles, as well as an improved information system (Dolisca et al., 2006).
The interests and rights of the users, notably the poor, women, landless, and disadvantaged
people who continue to be "silent spectators of community forestry processes," are usually
overlooked when decisions are made (Rai, 2007). The typical outcome of this circumstance is
distrust and apathy in the process, which, once more, has a negative impact on participation.

18
The most influential members of the community typically dominate the executive committee
and decide how to administer the community forest, including how to harvest and distribute the
forest products. The typical member of a Community Forest User Group (CFUG) takes part in
the least amount of the activity and is hardly aware of the community forest harvest. Therefore,
it can overlook how traditionally, castes of workers, women, and the destitute have relied on the
forest to survive. When creating the forest, it is important to take into account both the needs of
the neighborhood and the state of the community forest. However, it is largely absent from
Operational Plans (OPs). The District Forest Office (DFO) employees and top members of the
CFUG are making this decision; ordinary users are not notified of it. Many management
guidelines are circumspect with regard to the levels of approved forest product harvesting. The
poorest are the ones that suffer the most when community forests are completely closed off
during the first phase of implementation. There is a common perception among users that the
community forest is the chairpersons' woodland (Gauli and Rishi, 2004).

2.1.5.4 Forest Product

Many Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) do not explicitly state how flow forest products
will be shared in their operations plans. The majority of OPs, according to Heinrich et al.
(2020), discuss the prices users must pay for fuel wood and timber but mention nothing about
non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Unless otherwise specified in the Plan, the Executive
Committee will decide how to distribute non-timber forest products. Even if the general
assembly has the power to choose how benefits are distributed, most decisions about benefit-
sharing arrangements are made by the executive committee. Due to the underrepresentation of
these groups in the executive committee, the sharing mechanism found it difficult to satisfy the
demands for forest products from the poor and disadvantaged groups (Dahal and Chapagain,
2012). The majority of CFUGs distribute lumber either on a first-come, first-served basis or a
set quantity of goods depending on availability. The removal of fuel wood and grass is either
authorized by an executive committee resolution or permitted for a set amount of time. The
impoverished cannot afford the products if they are sold to members. Rarely do the
underprivileged argue in favor of extracting goods to satisfy their needs. If community forests
are badly managed, the poor might not gain greater advantages from them. Due to the
community forest being shut down in the name of protection, the majority of landless and
occupational caste people are compelled to depend on fuel wood from the nearby natural forests
(Pokharel and Nurse, 2004).

19
2.1.5.5 Inclusiveness of Participation
Although remote and seasonal users have been left out, the forestry sector policy has
endeavored to define accessibility to forests and forest products in relation to jointly recognised
customary user rights (Sahide et al., 2020). One must pay expensive fees after being kicked out
of the Community Forest User Group in order to regain their previous access and use privileges
(CFUG). Here, challenges include ensuring that authorized users have access to the system and
encouraging parity among CFUG members (Anderson et al., 2017).

2.1.5.6 Accountability of Executive Committee

Chamley and Poe, (2007) assert that accountability and ownership are key elements influencing
community forestry's beneficial effects. The Community Forest User Group's members should
always answer to the executive committee (CFUG). However, it hasn't actually occurred in the
majority of CFUGs. In theory, CFUGs have control over community forests. Community
forestry-related decisions are made by a CFUG's assembly. Along with defining and
recognizing use rights, creating the constitution, and creating the operational plan, assemblies
also decide on the protection, harvesting, benefit sharing, and mobilization of CFUG money
(Ojha et al., 2009). The assembly elects a committee of executives. On behalf of users and
committee members, it appears that the executive committee makes the majority of choices. To
stop committee members from controlling decision-making and to keep them accountable to the
general users in the CFUGs, a proper framework must be established (Pagdee et al., 2006).

2.1.5.7 Responsiveness
The Forest Act of 1993 and the Forest Regulation of 1995, which acknowledge CFUG as an
independent, self-governing corporate organization for maintaining and utilizing community
forests, serve as Nepal's legal foundation for community forestry. For instance, the Churia,
Terai, and Inner Terai concept paper was approved by the Nepali government (Bampton et al.,
2007). One of the paragraphs in the report discusses how the initiative will be carried out using
the proceeds from the community trees. Legal regulations like departmental circulars and
decisions taken at the cabinet or ministerial levels have an impact on community forestry
practices. For instance, in Nepal, a departmental directive from 1999 forbade the removal of
green trees from common forests (Kanel and Kandel, 2004).

A different circular, however, limiting the harvest to the annual increment, later took its place.
About the connections and communication channels between various CFUGs, OPs are
essentially mute (Gupta, 2014). The possibility of exchanging experiences, resources, and
advantages that can result from the OP's successful implementation hasn't been mentioned by
anyone. Elites in the studied area are typically the ones wielding their authority because they
20
have access to information, are more informed about the legislation, and can utilize it to their
advantage (Wedel, 2017). Many user group members aren't even familiar with the bylaws and
operational guidelines that control their own community forests, let alone what responsibilities
they have to make sure that their FUG runs efficiently. Poorly formulated operational plans and
constitutions may have been created as a result of users' inadequate technical knowledge and
expertise. To increase awareness of community forest management, it is crucial to include
people in the process of community forestry (Pharcharuen, 2021).

2.1.5.8 Livelihood and Social Justice

A program for community forest management was started in order to manage natural resources
and improve peoples' quality of life. Although significant progress has been made in this area, it
is sometimes criticized for not providing rural poor with better opportunities for a living
(Sunderlin, 2006).

2.1.6 Measures to improve community participation in forest management.

Studies have demonstrated that a range of incentives are available (Hope et al., 2005; WWF,
2006; Morse, 2007), development partners are available (Selman, 2004; Dahan et al., 2010;
Banana et al., 2012; Biendeweg, 2012; McNamara et al., 2020), institutional arrangements are
in place, and property rights are some of the measures that increase community involvement in
forest management (Agrawal, 2003).

2.1.6.1 Incentives
According to the framework, the main factor influencing people's decision to take part in
resource governance is incentives, which are a reason to do something (Cleaver, 2000). It is
believed that a variety of incentives, such as the following, have a direct impact on resource
governance participation;

a) incentives that depend on the properties of the resource base

b) incentives relating to the resource's user, including community characteristics;
c) incentives relating to the institutional structures and regulations in place for resource
governance.

In order to give stakeholders a financial incentive to take part in the preservation of natural
resources and the restoration of damaged land, several academics have advocated in support of
a Payment for Environmental Services (PES) (Morse, 2007). Environmental goods and services
are frequently taken for granted and are essentially thought to be provided without charge,
hence their administration has grown sloppy. This type of inadequate management or "no

21
management" has detrimental economic effects on society, particularly on the poor and
marginalized groups who bear the brunt of the costs (WWF, 2006).

PES serves as a market mechanism for conservation in this way by rewarding vendors of goods
and services that support the management of natural resources (WWF, 2006). The fundamental
idea behind this strategy is to allocate resources in a way that ensures a continuous supply of the
desired environmental services into the future and takes the economic value of such services
into account when making financial decisions to prevent market failures (Rojas, 2003). In order
to reduce environmental and human development concerns, particularly in developing nations,
the PES is a method that integrates the three objectives of economic growth, ecological
integrity, and poverty reduction (Hope et al., 2005).

Studies on the topic of people's participation in locally managed resources (including forests,
fisheries, and irrigation) often only assess the factors that influence people's participation
(Jumbe and Angelsen, 2007; Adhikari et al., 2014). These studies have stressed the need of
providing local communities with incentives to promote involvement. These studies discovered
that factors like dependence, social heterogeneity, group size, government support, leadership,
market, and infrastructure, which cannot be easily created or changed within the framework of
common property resource governance, are predictors of participation in managing common
property resources (Adhikari et al., 2014). However, more incentives or a higher level of
incentives as well as favourable regulations could assist efficient administration and
management of common property resources under less favorable circumstances.

The features of a resource may also act as encouraging or discouraging factors for involvement.
The possession of private woodlots may be a sign of an interest in environmental preservation
activities or a search for farming alternatives (Waruingi et al., 2021). Increased forest cover
might also reduce the motivation to participate in conservation initiatives. When the forest cover
or condition is good, there is a bountiful supply of ecosystem services provided by the forest,
hence there is minimal incentive for humans to self-organize and preserve the forest, according
to Okumu and Muchapondwa (2020). On the other side, being far from the forest might have
higher opportunity and transaction costs, which would restrict participation in forest
conservation (Ogada, 2012). Institutional arrangements, which are defined as a collection of
guidelines that limit how far communities can go in their actions, have a significant role in
encouraging or discouraging user participation in resource governance.

22
2.1.6.2 Development Partners
In order to achieve the global goals of sustainable and equitable development, the 2002 World
Summit on Sustainable Development recognized the importance of corporate and governmental
collaborations. According to Kenya's Forest Act of 2005, community participation in forest
management is required to safeguard local livelihoods based on grazing, farming, and non-
timber forest products (Government of Kenya, 2005). The Lembus Forest Integrated
Conservation and Development Project was developed via cooperation between the IUCN,
Kenya Forest Service, and County Council of Koibatek. The community must manage the
Lembus forests more effectively to meet ecological, social, and economic demands (Macharia,
2015).

By paying attention to and assisting the local population, forest management can be enhanced.
The initiative involves a significant local organization called the Lembus Council of Elders.
Ages 40 to 80 have a wealth of wisdom in conservation that dates back generations (Anthwal et
al., 2010).

Community-based organizations (CBOs) and nonprofit organizations both advocate the

increased participation of local communities in forest management (NGOs). As a result, they
are able to assist initiatives like media and communication campaigns, knowledge sharing, and
networking with nearby communities and other forestry actors (Banana et al., 2012).

According to Selman (2004), identifying local stakehoolders, creating social networks, and
developing power structures all require an awareness of the local stakeholders. Stakeholders
have a variety of motives, but it is possible to distinguish between those who are merely
functional and those who are actively involved. It's probable that some people are motivated by
craftsmanship while others are more interested in actively taking part in policymaking. A
driving force, clearly stated goals, a shared concern among partners, a shared vision, enough
resources, as well as a culture that values openness and honesty, are all necessary for
partnerships to succeed (Jacobson and Choi, 2008).

For community organizations to make the most of the resources at their disposal, alliances
between groups are essential. NGOs, international organizations, and donor agencies from
industrialized countries are allies of community organizations (Guo and Acar, 2005).
Community forest initiatives are frequently strongly encouraged to be included when a global
agency like the World Bank or the US Agency for International Development (USAID)
provides financial support for forestry projects, for example (Dahan et al., 2010).

23
Biendeweg (2012) found that as the national government's engagement in development and
resource management declines, local and international NGOs are taking on more responsibility
over conservation and development capacity building programs. A high level of trust must exist
between the agent and the community members for capacity building to be successful. It is more
likely for businesses and people to succeed if they have a long history of working with the
community and keep in touch with them frequently. For this reason, it is more probable that
those working in land use capacity building will be successful in spreading sustainable land use
practices if they engage in horizontal interaction with community members (Saint-Onge and
Wallace, 2012). Community members are more inclined to participate in participatory
procedures because they allow them the chance to receive feedback and collaborate on novel
ideas over an extended period of time. Stakeholders must trust one another and dedicate
themselves to long-term forest management in order to safeguard forest resources. It can be
essential to alter judicial or administrative processes, or transfer power, to promote mutual trust.
It usually takes time for stakeholders to build trust, particularly if they have never previously
shared management or decision-making responsibilities (McNamara et al.,2020).

2.1.6.3 Institutional Arrangements and Property Rights

A framework for community involvement in Kenya's sustainable forest management is provided
under the Forests Act of 2005. It creates Community Forest Associations (CFAs) and grants
local communities access to and control over Kenya's forest resources (GoK, 2005).

A common property resource's governance cannot be effectively developed without the usage of
the suitable institutional frameworks (Agrawal, 2003). Institutional arrangements are defined as
legal frameworks that offer different tiers of resource governance and management (Rahman et
al., 2017). Ineffective participation is still a problem, mostly because institutional frameworks
and policy frameworks don't provide enough incentive structures to encourage public
engagement in (and contribution to) resource governance and management.

Forest user groups serve as a venue for members to learn about the significance of sustainable
forest protection in order to encourage participation (Bremer et al., 2014), Additionally,
participating in group meetings fosters the growth of trust and confidence among participants,
which has a positive effect on engagement (Luswaga and Nuppenau, 2020).

Institutional frameworks regulate individual decisions made at the operational level in the
context of managing common property resources, such as participation decisions (Saunders,
2014). Property rights enforcement should be affected by institutional structures that address the
distribution of relative power and control that influences incentives and policies (Saunders et

24
al., 2010). Institutional frameworks are important when asserting property rights (Ostrom,
2008). For the users to effectively exercise their rights, they offer administrative and
enforcement help (Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001).

According to Adhikari et al. (2014), transferring property rights from the state to the community
is necessary to create incentives for user participation. More and more literature on community
involvement in common property resource management emphasizes this. Transfer of property
rights, the legal framework outlining users' rights, informs resource users that they are
responsible for paying the costs associated with resource misuse and ensures that they will reap
the rewards of their time, money, and labor investments in resource management in the future. It
thereby establishes the incentive systems that they must deal with (Djamhuri, 2008).

2.1.6.4 Policy Relevance

Community Forest Associations must establish User Groups for Community Forests in order to
be successful. It is necessary to develop and promote a strategic approach, such as mandating
poor and disadvantaged group involvement in planning and decision-making, in order to ensure
their proper representation and help them realize their authority, responsibility, and
accountability. Detailed instructions for the design of the constitution and operational plan may
be useful if community forest management is to properly handle the social, technical, financial,
and institutional components (Kanel and Kandel, 2004).

In order to encourage public engagement, it is vital to make promises about equity,

representativeness, and transparency. Conflict can be avoided, information can be shared among
participants, and strong relationships with the organization supporting the planning can be
fostered through participatory planning (Hiltunen et al., 2009). It is difficult to create a National
Forest Program (NFP). It could advance democratization efforts in a variety of ways, including
by enhancing political decision-openness, making's fostering pluralism in communication and
decision-making, fostering reciprocal learning, and raising awareness of everyone's shared
responsibility for forest concerns (Kangas et al., 2010). According to Hjorts (2004), the
development of consensus, the handling of conflicts, collaboration for problem-solving, and
negotiation during decision-making are all examples of how public engagement can be used as a
tool for environmental management.

25
Figure 2.1: Hierarchy of forest management in Kenya
Source: KFS, 2008

2.2 Theoretical Literature

The study used a multidisciplinary research approach. They are founded on two notions relating
to local community, self-sufficiency, and forest preservation.

2.2.1 Participatory Development Theory

The study in question adopts the participatory development theory (Waisbord, 2001). The
strategic model included a notion of growth that is in line with a western conception of success.
Theorists and practitioners of participatory theory required to create an awareness of cultural
diversity and other specific challenges that globalization theorists overlooked. Many project
challenges and delays have been caused by a lack of sensitivity (Coetzee, 2001). The
participatory development idea asserts that development is a procedure that stresses community
involvement in local communities' self-development, using the resources readily accessible to
guide their future growth. A group's and one person's interests will never clash (Andolina et al.,
2009). The primary factors to be taken into account with this strategy are capacity building,
sustainability, and self-sufficiency.

Every participant must actively participate in all stages of development, including prioritization,
planning, execution, assessment, and surveillance. This is the central concept of participatory

26
communal development models. Furthermore, it works to protect intellectual rights and the
viability of services (Himberg et al., 2009). Participating in decision-making and problem-
solving in the society could aid in achieving sustainable development. This study will illustrate
unequivocally the value of the community development participative approach for sustainable
development at the local level.

2.2.2 Common Resource Pool Theory

Another theory that functioned as the study's guiding principle is the common resource pool
hypothesis, which is supported by Sommerfeldt (2013) and claims that organizations in charge
of managing a particular resource must come up with a workable plan that will enable
communal administration of the resource. Ostrom (2008) asserts that problems with forest and
land degradation lead to the creation of "policy tools" that establish guidelines that users of
common resources must follow. How effectively decentralization can manage a forest resource
depends on the community's capacity to organize and use it, the resource's sustainability, the
degree of trust amongst managers, and a common comprehension of the resource. Despite the
fact that the theory does not specifically address adaptive governance in relation to collective
management, it is still valuable because it emphasizes the creation of efficient methods that
blend in with and support the culture, values, and conventions of communities managing
common resource pools like forests collectively (Pahl-Wostl, 2009).

2.3 Conceptual Framework

Forest management and conservation is the dependent variable in the conceptual framework.
The degree to which a person is involved in managing and protecting the forest will vary
depending on the type of management function they occupy. The socioeconomic factors that
influence community forestry engagement also include household income, the household head's
position within the CFA, the members' educational attainment, and the benefits of taking part.

In order to increase engagement in the management and conservation of Iveti Forest, this study
aims to identify potential actionable steps.

27
 PFM related activities
User group activities
Conservation activities
Forest management activities

Factors influencing participation

Community awareness
Education level of CFA members
Economic constructs
Benefits gained from sharing
FOREST
MANAGEMENT
AND
Challenges faced by CFAs CONSERVATION
Lack of transparency and
accountability
Failure to contribute registration
fees
Dictatorial tendency

Measures to improve community

participation
Incentives GOVERNMENT
Institutional arrangements and POLICY AND
property rights REGULATORY
Development partners GUIDELINES

Independent Variables Moderating Variable Dependent Variable

Figure 2.2: Conceptual Framework

Source: Author, 2022.

2.4 Summary of Literature

According to the two theories, active citizen involvement takes place when citizens take part in
decision-making regarding the resource that has to be managed. These participation theories
were used in this study to help shed light on the research questions. In order to effectively
implement government laws and regulations, alienate the poor, and actively support the entire
system, the local community must be involved in conservation (passive participation).

Decentralization, according to the literature, refers to any action taken by a central government
to assign decision-making authority over natural resources to individuals and groups at lower
levels in a political, administrative, and territorial hierarchy using Participatory Forest
Management (PFM), Joint Forest Management (JFM), and Community Forest Management. To
mention a few, increasing neighborhood and local community participation in the planning,
implementation, monitoring, and evaluation stages of forest conservation and management is

28
one activity connected to participatory forest management (PFM). Several variables, such as a
community's level of education, CFA membership, level of income, gender, and benefit sharing,
may affect how that group participates in choices about managing its forests. Lack of
knowledge of forest resources, a lack of accountability and transparency, the refusal of some
members to pay the registration fee, and a predisposition for autocracy among the members are
a few of the issues that impact community in forestry management and preservation. The
availability of incentives, the involvement of development partners, institutional frameworks,
property rights, and the relevance of policies are a few strategies to increase community
involvement in forest management.

29
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter outlines the procedure used to collect the study's data. This chapter covers the
study design, target population, and sampling design in detail. The methodology, tools, and field
administration procedures utilized to collect the data are discussed, as well as how validity and
reliability were determined. The chapter's conclusion discusses numerous methods for data
analysis.

3.1 Study design

This study employed a descriptive survey as its method of investigation. This type of research is
beneficial since it offers a current account of an event or incident. According to Antwi and
Hamza, (2015), a descriptive survey design is a method that is precise and scientific for
responding to research questions that are intended to describe and collect information on the
current situation of individuals or an event under inquiry. This kind of study design describes
the attitudes, values, traits, and potential behavior of the individuals (Mugenda and Mugenda,
2003).

Because it uses fewer resources and takes less time, the design is very relevant to our inquiry.
Another element that exists and could be studied with this design is the role that community
involvement plays in forest management and conservation.

3.2 Study area

This section provides information about the geographic location, climate, physical qualities, and
socioeconomic background of the study area.

3.2.1 Location of study area

The research area is located in Machakos County, within the two sub-counties of Machakos
town and Kathiani, and it touches a number of places and sub-locations within the two sub-
counties (Wang'ombe, 2004). Government-owned Forest encircled by residential neighborhoods
(Willy et al., 2019). The study area is 2,048 meters above sea level (Njuguna et al., 2015). The
Mua-Iveti-Mitaboni Range is bordered by the 364.07-hectare Iveti Forest Reserve. It is located
11 kilometers north of the town of Machakos, southwest of Nzaikoni. Its coordinates are 10 28'
42.3" S and 37017' 2603" E.

30
Figure 3.1: Map of Machakos County showing the study area of Iveti Hills Forest
Source: Author (2022).

3.2.2 Climate
The section provides a comprehensive description of the climatic conditions of the study area
including rainfall and temperature.

3.2.2.1 Rainfall
The study area experiences 500 to 1300 mm of annual rainfall, or 1000 mm on average. The
pattern is bimodal, with prolonged rains from March to May and brief rains from October to
December (Kinyili et al., 2019). In general, April's short showers are more frequent and reliable
than its long rains.

The region frequently exhibits significant rainfall variability due to rising temperatures, which
also tend to accelerate evapotranspiration. Recent years have seen unexpected changes in the
length of the growing season, the number of wet days, and seasonal start and end dates (Bosire
et al., 2019).

31
3.2.2.2 Temperature
As a result of its high altitude in comparison to the nearby midland and lowland areas, the study
area enjoys mild temperatures between 18.7°C to 29.7°C (Kinyili et al., 2019). The coldest
month of the year is July, while October and March often have the highest temperatures.

3.2.3 Topography
A succession of steep hills and pronounced valleys make up the landscape of the Iveti forest
area. A clear view of Machakos County's expansive plateau plain, more hills, and urban centers
may be had from the highest point, which is around 2,048 meters above sea level (Njuguna et
al., 2015).

3.2.4 Vegetation
According to Wang'ombe (2004), the hill's vegetation consists of both naturally growing flora
and tree species that have been planted there. Brachylaenahutchinsii, Juniperusprocera, and
Vi/ex keniensis are a few of the indigenous trees that have been planted. [Forest Management
Planning Manual (FMPM), 2002] Among the naturally occurring trees are Croton
megalocarpus, Croton macrostachyus, Albizigummifera, and a number of shrubs. The primary
species of foreign trees on this hill is eucalyptus (Willy et al., 2019).

3.2.5 Population
The population of the study area was 79,483 households for the two sub-counties (KNBS,
2019). The population density around the hill is high, up to 500 inhabitants per square km, 10
villages surround the hill and each has between 180 and 3000 households (Wang’ombe, 2004).

3.2.6 Socio- economic activities

The majority of farmers grow coffee on 0.5-hectare fields and make dairy products through
zero- grazing. A substantial quantity of agricultural forestry is also practiced by farmers in Iveti,
with Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), Wattle, and (Acacia pycnantha). Grevillea (Grevillea
robusta) with avocado (Persea americana) fruit trees (Willy et al., 2019).

3.2.7 Soils
The Iveti Hills' soils are primarily Alfisols and Acrisols (GoK, 2009). They are divided into
loamy sands and sandy loams. They are friable, dark to reddish brown in color, and well-
drained. They make up the majority of the soils in the forest and are characterized by their hard
pan-like formations, high erodibility, low organic matter content, low water holding capacity,
and low inherent fertility (Osman, 2018).

32
The research area is located inside the HNr1 soil mapping unit, which, in accordance with Willy
et al. (2019), is composed of well-drained, moderately deep to very deep, dusky red soils that
formed on banded gneisses, biotite garnet gneisses, and tuff. Soil Taxonomy: Oxic Paleustalf
with exceedingly fine, disorganized, and rhodic nitisols. These soils have low Nitrogen (N), low
Phosphorous (P), neutral to slightly acidic pH, moderate Cation Exchange Capacity, and
moderate Carbon (C) content (CEC), (Willy et al., 2019).

3.3 Target population

The Iveti CFA members who serve as a representative of the nearby communities were the
study's major target population in the communities close to the Iveti Forest. They also included
the County and the station's Kenya Forest Service representatives. Iveti Community Forest
Association has 313 registered members, 13 KFS officers at Iveti Station, and 15 senior KFS
officials at the County headquarters, according to the most recent statistics report. Therefore, the
total population will be 341.

3.4 Sample size and Sampling procedures

Given that the study only covers a portion of the population, the complete population of the
villages near forests was sampled in order to provide the population with information on that
population as quickly and cheaply as feasible (Phrasisombath, 2009). From the total of 341
members, a sample size was computed.

Wulundari and Kurniasih (2019) claim that given the required margin of error (e) of (5%), the
known population size (N), and the sample size (n), the Slovin Formula produces the sample
size (n). The formula incorporates the N and e values:

N
n= 2
1+ Ne

Where;

N is the population size of the study area (341)

n is the sample size of the study area.

e is the desired margin of error (0.05).

Therefore;

341
n=
{1+341 ( 0.05² ) }

= 184.07557

33
 = 185 (Rounded to a whole number)

The calculated value of n is the same as the selected sample size. Slovin's Formula calculates
how many samples are required when a population is too large to sample each individual
directly. Slovin's formula works well for straightforward random sampling. This formula was
used to choose 185 members from a total of 341 persons.

3.4.1 Stratified sampling

First, the study area was divided into 10 strata based on adjacency to Forest Reserve. Each
stratum was based on the village boundaries. One hundred and sixty-five (165) CFA members
were selected randomly from the strata and given questionnaires to fill.

3.4.2 Purposive sampling

The researcher deliberately chooses which participants to include in the study based on their
capacity to supply the necessary data; this is a non-probability sampling technique (Teddlie,
2007). It enables the researcher to easily and rapidly locate the desired sample. Purposive
sampling was used in this study to get information from ten (10) KFS officials and ten (10)
village elders obtained from the sample of one hundred and eighty- five (185) respondents.

3.5 Research instruments

The researcher used a variety of techniques to collect primary data from the chosen respondents,
including focus group discussions (FGD), photography, open-ended and closed-ended
questionnaires, interview schedules, and photography. Since they allowed respondents to
respond honestly, questionnaires were an efficient instrument for gathering data. Furthermore, it
is simple to code participant responses, improving data accuracy. However, because they
provided the researcher with a deeper insight of the construct being studied and served as a
complement to questionnaires, interview schedules and focus group discussions (FGD) were
excellent strategies for gathering data.

3.5.1 Pilot study

The effectiveness of the research instruments was assessed using a pilot study based on the
study objectives. This was completed prior to the actual data collection process. Mugenda and
Mugenda (2003) determined that 10% of the sample would be a sufficient sample size for the
pilot project. The researcher's sample size was 185, thus 19 individuals were required for the
pilot study. The researcher used respondents who were distinct from the study participants yet
shared comparable characteristics in order to prevent bias in the research.

34
3.5.1.1 Instrument validity
How successfully a test measure captures what it is intended to capture is referred to as validity
(Jackson et al., 2008). Validity highlights the accuracy and importance of conclusions obtained
from study findings. The degree to which data collection findings accurately reflect the
phenomenon under study (Kothari, 2004).

To assess the reliability of the focus groups, the questionnaire, and the interview schedule, two
experts, in this case my supervisors, looked at each component separately. Comparison of the
study's results with those of other studies on relevant topics also helped to validate the research
instrument. The researcher corrected any errors and discrepancies found during the reliability
test before starting the actual investigation.

3.5.1.2 Instrument Reliability

Reliability, according to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), is the consistency with which a
research tool generates findings from data after numerous trials. A trustworthy instrument will
therefore produce repeatable results when used to collect information from a sample that was
randomly chosen from the sample population. 19 people at the Iveti Forest took part in a pilot
study to gauge the reliability of the tools. By evaluating the consistency with which items
testing the same concept produced the same results, a dependability measure was created.

3.6 Data Collection Procedures

The researcher gathered information from both primary and secondary sources. The primary
method used to collect online secondary data was reading pertinent articles from books,
journals, and other scholarly publications. The primary data was acquired using questionnaires
with both closed- and open-ended questions and interview schedules.

3.6.1 Questionnaires
Questionnaires were given out to the selected CFA members in order to gather socioeconomic
data. A few of the most important topics included interactions with the forest ecosystem,
household information (including size, age, gender, education level, and gender of household
head), landholding, and land productivity (use of forest products, participation in forest
conservation activities, perception of the importance of the forest ecosystem, costs associated
with obtaining forest products, and alternative sources for satisfying needs related to forests).

3.6.2 Photography
Many different components of the research were documented through the extensive use of
photographs, including the work being done, the forest vegetation, the community members, the
projects, and many more. Digital Still Cameras (DSC) were used to create the images, which
35
were then printed as hard copies. Photographs capture the reality of the event and can be shared
with many other academics and copied several times.

3.6.3 Interview schedules

Officials and staff members of the Kenya Forest Service were cross-examined both in their
offices and on the job. The researcher was able to gather knowledge from this key informant
interview that could not have been obtained from direct observation or through historical
records.

3.7 Data Analysis Procedures

The systematic application of logical and/or statistical tools to describe and present data is
known as data analysis. The procedure is what organizes, structures, and gives sense to the vast
amount of data gathered in the field (Shamoo and Resnik, 2003).

In order to address the study's objectives, the generated qualitative data was processed, sorted,
gathered, and organized into linked subjects. There were certain questions in the survey that
generated quantitative data that was statistically analyzed. The Statistical Programme for Social
Scientists (SPSS) Version 26 program, for instance, produced tables and percentages by
categorizing the data using the Variable and Data views after respondents' gender distributions
were discussed in-depth during interviews. Several formats, including text, tables, charts, and
figures, were used to convey the results from both qualitative and quantitative data.

36
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction
Analyses of the data, conclusions, and interpretations are included in this chapter. Diagrams and
tables are used to display the results. The data that has been analyzed is organized according to
topics that correspond to the research objectives.

The study's required sample size was met by distributing a total of 185 questionnaires. 146
surveys were completed accurately and sent back as illustrated in Table 4.0.

Table 4.0 Response rate

  Sample Response Percentage of responses
CFA members 165 133 80.6
KFS officials 10 6 60
County officials 10 7 70
Total 185 146 78.9
Source: Author (2022)
Table 4.0 reveals that 146 of the intended 185 respondents completed and returned the surveys,
translating to a 78.9% return rate. According to Rindfuss et al., (2015), a response rate of at
least 50% is necessary for data analysis. Therefore, it was determined that the response rate was
appropriate.

4.2 Demographic Information

The information in this part summarizes the characteristics of the study population, including
gender, age, marital status, educational attainment, occupation, level of income and duration of
stay in the area.

4.2.1 Gender of respondents

Male respondents made up 48.87% of the sample, while female respondents made up 51.13%.
These results showed that the proportion of male and female respondents was nearly equal.
These results agree with (Nelson and Stathers, 2009) that gender distribution was attributed to
the culture of the research area being generally tolerant and flexible, enabling women to take
part in various development and empowerment efforts, including safeguarding and managing
forests and other natural resources.

37
 Percentage

Male; 48.87%
Female ; 51.13%

Figure 4.1 Gender of the respondents

Source: Author (2022)

4.2.2 Age of respondents

In the survey, 42.1% of respondents claimed to be between the ages of 56 and 65, while 30.8%
of respondents claimed to be between the ages of 36 and 45. Between the ages of 46 and 55,
27.1% of the respondents fell. According to these results, elder people are more eager to
participate in forest management and conservation. These results support the claim by
Coulibaly-Lingani et al. (2011) that, older people cared and dedicated their time to managing
trees and protecting the environment. Additionally, older people relied on forest resources since
they had to support their families.

Age of respontents and their percentages

133
140

120

100

80
56
60 41
36
40

20 30.80% 27.10% 42.10% 100.00%

0
36-45 Years 46-55 Years 56-65 Years Total

Frequency Percentage

Figure 4.2: Age of respondents

Source: Author (2022)

38
4.2.3 Marital Status of respondents
According to the study's findings, the majority of respondents (75%) were married, 20% were
single, and 5% were divorced. The findings are in line with those of Chen et al.
(2013), who found that married people were more likely to participate in forest conservation
efforts compared to the divorced and the single.

5%

20%

Single
Married
Divorced

75%

Figure 4.3 Marital Status of respondents

Source: Author (2022)

4.2.4 Level of education of respondents.

According to the study's findings, 78.9% of respondents were educated up to the elementary
level, 12% up to the secondary level, and 9% up to the tertiary level (Table 4.2). These findings
are consistent with a socioeconomic study by Thenya et al. (2017), which discovered that the
local community had a high level of literacy from basic and secondary schools. Few responders
with tertiary degrees work in forestry conservation since the bulk have moved to urban areas in
pursuit of employment. These findings support the claims made by Adhikari et al. (2014) that,
while education may increase people's awareness of the potential advantages of taking part in
forestry programs, it may also present them with opportunities outside of their village, which
would decrease their availability and interest in doing so.

Table 4.1 Level of Education

Education Level Frequency of responses Percentage of responses
Primary 105 78.9
Secondary 16 12.0
Tertiary 12 9.0
Total 133 100
Source: Author (2022)
39
4.2.5 Occupation of respondents
According to the study's findings, 74.4% of respondents were farmers, while 18.0% ran their
own businesses and 7.5% worked for the government (Table 4.3). The majority of people there
were farmers since they saw it as a way to take advantage of the forest's riches.

Table 4.2 Occupation of respondents

Occupation Frequency of responses Percentage of responses
Farmer 106 74.4
Business 27 18.0
Government employee 10 7.5
Total 133 100
Source: Author (2022)

4.2.6 Level of income

According to the results, the bulk of respondents (42.1%) earned between Ksh 20,001 and
30,000 per year (Figure 4.3). Additionally, 14.3% reported having a monthly salary between
Ksh 30,001 and Ksh 40,000, while 36.1% said their monthly income was between Ksh 10,001
and Ksh 20,000. Another 7.5% earned Ksh 5,001 to Ksh 10,000. The results are consistent with
those of Dev et al. (2003), who showed that since they can afford it, people with high incomes
are more likely to participate in efforts to protect forestland and are less likely to put pressure on
the forest. Low-income earners, however, may be subsistence farmers who regularly use
unsanitary farming practices that destroy forest resources and who depend heavily on the
environment for their existence.

The findings are consistent with those of Thenya et al. (2017), who proposed that characteristics
such as community awareness, educational attainment, position in the CFA, income level,
gender, and benefit sharing may affect community participation in forest management. Contrary
to popular belief, PFM is not only for households with low incomes (Mutune et al., 2015).
Compared to households with greater incomes, more low-income households actually showed
decreased engagement (Mwangi et al., 2011). The lack of clarity in the benefit sharing
regulations, particularly for material prizes, may be the cause of the apathy.

40
 0.143 0.075

0.361 Ksh 5,001-10,000

Ksh 10,001-20,000
0.421 Ksh 20,001-30,000
Ksh 30,001-40,000

Figure 4.4 Level of income

Source: Author (2022)

4.2.7 Duration of stay in the area

According to the study's results, the vast majority of participants (83.5%) had lived in the area
for more than 20 years, while 8.3% had done so for between 11 and 20, 4.5% for less than a
year, and 3.8% for between six and ten years (Table 4.4).

Table 4.3 Duration of stay in the area

Duration Frequency of responses Percentage of responses
0-5yrs 6 4.5
6-10yrs 5 3.8
11-20yrs 11 8.3
Over 20yrs 111 83.5
Total 133 100
Source: Author (2022)

The findings support the claims made by Asah et al. (2014) that local attitudes toward,
knowledge about, and beliefs about the forest as well as the economic importance of nearby
forests impact forest use behaviors. Longer-term residents are more engaged in forest
conservation because they have a deeper awareness of the forest.

4.3 PFM related activities undertaken by Community Forest Associations

The majority of responders (39% of those surveyed) identified beekeeping as their primary user
group. There were 27.1%, 14.3%, 12.0%, 6.8%, and 6.8% respectively for the tree nursery, fruit
farming, dairy farming, and ecotourism. Considering that they benefited from the selling of the
honey that was gathered, the majority of responders were beekeepers. Since the residents of the
hamlet may only graze their animals in a small section of the forest, dairy farming is not as

41
common in the area. The findings are consistent with those of Bremer et al. (2014), who
asserted that forest user groups act as forums for educating members about the importance of
sustainable forest protection and fostering engagement. Similar to this, Mbeche et al. (2021)
noted that local communities could take part in the management, preservation, and management
of a specific forest area in accordance with the terms of a management plan for the forest and in
collaboration with KFS through registered Community Forest Associations.

0.068
0.12
Bee keeping
0.398 Tree nursery
0.143 Fruit farming
Dairy farming
Ecotourism
0.271

Figure 4.5 User groups

Source: Author (2022)

Plate 4.1: CFA Tree nursery at Iveti Forest

Source: Author (2022)

42
Further, it was established that respondents participated in forest conservation in various ways.
Twelve (12%) of the respondents took part in soil and water conservation activities while 16%
practiced forest, water and soil conservation. Further, 20% participated through tree planting,
conservation agriculture and production of organic manure. Tree planting and cut-off fittings
was practiced 15% of the respondents, while 18% of the respondents were planting fruit trees,
digging cut off and planting trees along contours. 19% of the respondents stated said they
patrolled forests and conducted soil and water conservation. According to the study, the
majority of respondents (91.7%) had been involved in conservation efforts for more than five
years, while only 8.3% had done so for between two and five years. The findings supported the
premise that how locals use forests is influenced by their perceptions of the forest and how
valuable its resources are to the community's economy (Asah et al., 2014). Long-term residents
have a tendency to participate in forest conservation more since they have more knowledge
about the forest.

Plate 4.2: The Researcher with some members of the Bee keeping User Group
Source: Author (2022)

43
Table 4.4 Conservation activities
Forest conservation Percentage of responses
Soil and water conservation 12
Forest water and soil conservation 16

Fruit farming, cut off digging and contour tree planting 18

Forest patrols, soil and water conservation 19

Tree planting, conservation agriculture and production of
20
organic manure
Tree Planting, cut-off fitting 15
Total 100
Source: Author (2022)

4.3.1 Active participation in forest management

It was established that 40.6% of the respondents were actively involved in reforestation
activities while 59.4% were very actively involved (Table 4.5). Further 88% were actively
involved in seedling production while 12% were very actively involved. In crop production
activities, 88% of the respondents were actively involve while 12% were very actively involved.
For pruning activities, 55.6% of the respondents were actively involved, 12.1% were very
actively involved while 32.3% of the respondents were not actively involved. Thinning
activities had 30.8% of the respondents actively involved, 12.1% of the respondents were
actively involved while 57.1% of the respondents not actively involved. The findings back up
the assertions made by Begum et al. (2021), who claimed that local communities must
participate in forest management activities in order to help manage and preserve the forest.

9.8% of respondents claimed they would not take part in participatory forest management and
conservation, in contrast to the 90.2% who said they would. Persha et al. (2010) discovered that
communities can and will only manage forests and woodland resources for variety provided the
proper enabling environment and incentives are in place. The findings are consistent with those
findings.

44
Table 4.5 Involvement in forest management activities
Forest management activities Response Percentage of responses

Reforestation Active 40.6

Very Active 59.4

Seedling production Active 88

Very Active 12

Crop production Active 88

Very Active 12

Pruning Active 55.6

Very Active 12.1
Not Active 32.3
Thinning Active 30.8
Very Active 12.1
  Not Active 57.1
Source: Author (2022)

Plate 4.3: A CFA member pruning a tree at Iveti Forest

Source: Author

45
4.3.2 Level of participation in forest management and conservation
The majority of respondents (91.7%) revealed that they were not at all active in the planning
stage, while only 8.3% said they were (Table 4.9). The respondents were excluded from the
planning stage because of problems such as laws dictating to the communities, a lack of
understanding, and insufficient incentives for community involvement in forestry operations.
Only 30.8% of respondents claimed they were actively involved in the implementation stage,
while the majority of respondents (69.2%) said they were not. These findings are in accordance
with those of Mollick et al. (2021), who stressed that communities' contributions to
implementation are restricted to protection and monitoring, with little power over decisions and
little access to the shared resources.

Table 4.7 Level of participation in forest management and conservation

Stage of participation Response Percentage of responses

Not involved 91.7

Planning
Slightly involved 8.3

Not involved 69.2

Implementation
Involved 30.8

Not involved 91.7

Evaluation
Involved 8.3

Not involved 78.9

Monitoring
Involved 21.1
Source: Author (2022)

Additionally, Githitho (2003) highlighted that communities have taken on the responsibility of
managing and maintaining forest resources because they see the advantages of participating in
such initiatives. Murray (2007) has observed that communities tend to engage in forest
management methods if they have access to sufficient knowledge, information, and resources,
which promotes bio-diversity in the ecosystem.
Additionally, it was found that 8.3% of respondents said they had participated in the evaluation
stage, compared to 91.7% of respondents who said they had not at all. This was caused by the
fact that the locals were not made aware of the plans created for their areas and lacked guidance
on how to participate in evaluation. Mbeche et al. (2021) emphasized the findings and suggested

46
that if locals are to give their agreement and cooperate during program execution and beyond,
they should be made aware of the plans created for their communities. In addition, 78.9% of
respondents said they had no involvement at all in the monitoring stage, while 21.1% said they
had involvement. The results are in line with those of Ferranti et al. (2010), who claimed that
including local populations in forest governance promotes project sustainability, boosts
acceptance, and improves the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of environmental regulations.

4.3.3 Integration of community participation in forest management

The study found that everyone surveyed agreed that include community involvement in forest
management and conservation techniques is a good idea. Additionally, it was discovered that
integrating nearby people in the preservation and management of the region's woods enhanced
both of these processes. It fosters community and stakeholder forest management activities,
according to 40% of respondents, while 35% of respondents said it improves forest
management. 15% of those polled said it decreased criminal activity and encouraged prompt
community communication. 10% of those polled said their neighborhood notifies any unlawful
activities that happen in the forest. These results were in line with those of Kinnunen and
Kaksonen (2019), who noted that addressing current ecological restrictions is a prerequisite for
sustainable development and that community involvement has become widely recognized as
such. Similar to this, Ngece et al. (2007) claimed that the degree of forest conservation has
changed due to local residents' altered attitudes toward the forest resource. Similar to this,
Schreckenberg et al. (2006) asserted that inclusivity is essential for the viability of forest
management with economic aims since it enables widespread public participation at the local
level.

Table 4.8 Lessons and experiences on integration of Participatory Forest Management

  Percentage of responses
Enhancement of forest management 35
Promotion of forest management activities 40
Reduction illegal activities and promotion of immediate 15
communication
Reporting of any illegal activities in the forest 10
Total 100.0
Source: Author (2022)

47
4.4 Factors that influence community participation in forest management and
conservation in Iveti forest.
The majority of respondents (70%) claimed that community awareness was a significant factor
influencing the community's participation in forest management and conservation in the Iveti
forest, while only 15% of respondents claimed that benefit sharing had an impact on their
community's participation in forest management. Only 5% of respondents claimed that
economic circumstances influenced their community involvement, compared to 10% who
claimed that their degree of education had an impact.

The study came to the conclusion that since the majority of community members were aware
that certain forest resources were important to them on an economic, cultural, and social level,
they would take part in more forest conservation projects. The majority of the community
people were also prepared to take part in conservation efforts because they depended on the
forest for supplies like firewood, water, and animal feed. The availability of information and
training on techniques for forest management and conservation inspired the CFA members.

Table 4.9 Factors that influence community participation in forest management and
conservation in Iveti forest
Factors Percentage of responses
Community awareness 70
Benefit Sharing 15
Level of education 10
Economic constructs 5
Total 100
Source: Author (2022)

All respondents said they had attended a workshop or seminar on forestry management and
conservation, according to the results. Majority of the respondents (30.1%) were trained on bee
keeping, 14.8% were trained on animal keeping while 13% were trained on water conservation.
In addition, 10.8% of the respondents were trained on tree nursery establishment while 12%
were trained on seedling production. Further, 11% were trained fruit farming while 8.3% were
trained on pruning. Majority of the respondents were trained on bee keeping since it was an
income-generating business that would benefit them. Training is crucial for forest conservation
because it motivates locals to take part in conservation efforts. The findings are consistent with

48
Pokharel and Nurse (2004), who emphasize the value of trainings and workshops and go on to
claim that those who are excluded and forgotten from training and workshop programs run by
development agencies are illiterate and are therefore undervalued because it is believed that
they have a lower capacity to make and act on decisions.

Table 4.10 Training on forestry management and conservation

Activity    Percentage (%)

Animal keeping 14.8

Fruit farming 11
Bee keeping 30.1
Pruning 8.3

Tree nursery establishment 10.8

Seedling production 12
Water conservation 13
Total 100
Source: Author (2022)

Plate 4.4: Training of dairy farmers user group

Source: Author (2022)

49
 0.2105
0.3383

Average
Useful
Very Useful

0.4511

Figure 4.6 Rating of training

Source: Author (2022)

After the training, the majority of respondents (87.2%) were found to have engaged in
conservation activities. Their capacity to see the need of preserving the forest and the benefits of
conservation efforts made this possible. These findings support the claims made by Marta-
Pedroso et al. (2014) that local people will be inspired to change their resource and land use
patterns and to devote time and effort to forest conservation initiatives if they are made aware of
how much they benefit from the goods and services provided by forests. The study's findings
are in line with those of Kerse (2016), who discovered a strong and favorable correlation
between residents in the Sodo village, southwest of Addis Abeba, receiving training and
participating in the forest conservation initiative. In a different study, Maraga et al. (2010)
discovered that local inhabitants' awareness of environmental issues had an impact on how
much they participated in efforts to maintain forests. Additionally, Alemtsehay (2010) argued
that a community's level of participation in a program for the conservation of natural resources
may depend on how well they comprehend its objectives. People can boost their participation in
conservation efforts by learning about the advantages of sustainable forest management through
training programs.

According to the study, participation in conservation initiatives has advantages for members.
While 33.8% of respondents reported benefits from gathering firewood and 9.8% from grazing
in the forest, the majority of respondents (56.4%) reported receiving extra benefits such as those
from obtaining medicinal herbs, honey, lumber, or fuel wood. The results agreed with those of
Rashid et al. (2013) who discovered that most communities would be encouraged to participate

50
in forestry management operations if they had equal power and the right to profit from
conservation efforts.

Table 4.11 Benefits of involving in conservation activities

Benefits Percentage of responses
Grazing in the forest 9.8
Collecting firewood 33.8
Others 56.4
Total 100
Source: Author (2022)

Furthermore, it was discovered that the distribution of CFA benefits among members depended
on their involvement in conservation initiatives. According to the results, the majority of
respondents (87.2%) were somewhat content with the way benefits were shared at Iveti CFA,
while 12.8% were extremely satisfied (Table 4.11). The findings are consistent with the Forest
Act of 2005, which grants some user rights to associations, including the gathering of medicinal
herbs, the gathering of honey, the gathering of timber or fuel wood, the gathering of grass and
grazing, and the gathering of forest products for ecotourism and recreational activities.

Plate 4.5: Members collecting firewood from Iveti forest

Source: Author 2022

51
Plate 4.6: Youth group at a picnic site at Iveti forest
Source: Author (2022)

Table 4.12 Satisfaction with sharing of benefits at Iveti CFA

Statement Frequency Percent
Great extent 17 12.8
Moderate extent 116 87.2
Total 133 100
Source: Author (2022)

The report states that the community was given the same chances to share forest resources as
other stakeholders. In contrast to 14.3% of KFS officials who agreed that this opportunity was
only partially shared, the majority of KFS officials (85.7%) thought that the community was
given an equal chance to share forest resources with other parties. This is in line with Larson's
(2005) claim that the benefits of decentralization in terms of efficiency and justice come from
democratic processes that force local institutions and local authorities to serve and offer relevant
services to local people through their institutions.

52
Table 4.13 Opportunity in sharing forest resources

Statement  Frequency Percent

To some extend 1 14.3
Yes 6 85.7
Total 7 100.0
Source: Author (2022)

The research also showed that the concept of involving the nearby community in forest
management initiatives enhanced local residents' standard of living. Most respondents (57.1%)
said that they believed that people were aware of sacred trees. According to these findings,
Wanza and Njuguna (2012) pointed out that the Mijikenda community in the coastal region has
preserved and safeguarded the Kaya forests for spiritual reasons. Furthermore, 28.6% of
communities said they understood the value of protecting forests and planting trees, while
14.3% said they received benefits from beekeeping and PELIS when trees fell in their areas.
These findings support Githitho's (2003) assertion that communities tend to appreciate and
protect forest resources that have economic, social, cultural, and religious significance.

Table 4.14 Integrating adjacent community in improving livelihood

  Percentage of responses
Falling of trees through PELIS 14.3

Knowledge of tree planting and forest conservation 28.6

Knowledge about sacred trees 57.1

Total 100.0
Source: Author (2022)

The study indicated that community use of the forest's resources had improved. According to
the data, 35% of respondents said biodiversity conservation had grown, and 45% said there has
been an increase in logging. Additionally, 20% of respondents mentioned that the community is
taking on more responsibility.

53
Table 4.15 Utilization of forest resources after training
  Percent
Reduced logging 45
Improved biodiversity conservation 35
Increased responsibility from community 20
Total 100.0
Source: Author (2022)

4.5 Challenges faced by the community in forest management and conservation

From the findings, majority of the respondents (36.1%) faced the challenge of inadequate
capital. This was because they were not supported by financial institutions to obtain capital.
Also, most of them were farmers with no other source of income. 23.1% of the respondents
dealt with low perception by non-CFA members and incorporation with rangers while 16% of
the respondents suffered from drought. 12.8% of respondents reported dealing with unethical
forest guards, while 12% reported dealing with members that lacked dedication. These results
are consistent with those of Wambua et al. (2017), who stated that CFAs face a variety of
challenges, including a lack of accountability and transparency, some members' failure to pay
the registration fee, and a propensity for dictatorship among the members. The paper went on to
claim that these issues are the root causes of CFA mismanagement and sustainability, which
renders CFAs ineffective.

Table 4.16 Challenges faced by the community in forest management and conservation
Percent
Corrupt forest guards 12.8
Drought 16
Lack of members’ commitment 12
Inadequate capital 36.1
Low perception 23.1
Total 100
Source: Author (2022)

According to the survey, 25% of respondents had a problem with insufficient equipment, while
45% of respondents had trouble with the Kenya Forest Service's lack of assistance. High
expectations for returns by members were cited as a serious difficulty by 10% of respondents.
The survey also discovered that 20% of respondents had leadership conflicts, which had an
impact on CFA expansion and forest conservation. These findings are consistent with Nygren's

54
(2005) observation that greater focus is required on the transparency of forest management, the
flow of forest products, and the development and use of funds. Lack of transparency frequently
breeds distrust and apathy in the process, which, once more, has a negative impact on
participation.

Table 4.17 Leadership challenges affecting communities in conservation and management

Challenge Percentage (%)
Unsupportive KFS officials 45
Inadequate equipment 25
High expectations for returns 10
Leadership wrangles 20
Total 100
Source: Author (2022)
4.5 Measures to be taken to improve community participation.
According to the study, everyone who responded agreed that providing incentives would
increase community participation. The respondents also provided additional techniques that
may be implemented to increase community involvement in the Iveti forest. 25% of the
respondents suggested that people should be allowed to buy timber materials, while 10%
suggested that CFA should be engaged in planning and management. 15% suggested that
benefit sharing should be enhanced while 15% suggested forest rules should be revised.
Furthermore, 35% of the respondents suggested that all events in the forest should be
participatory. These findings concur with the observation made by Agrawal (2003) that
appropriate institutional settings are necessary to promote effective user participation in the
management of a common property resource. Banana et al. (2012) also noted that by working
with and listening to the local populace, forest management can be enhanced. In a similar vein,
Kanel and Kandel (2004) noted that to guarantee proper representation and aid in their
realization of their authority, responsibility, and accountability, strategic procedures like the
mandatory involvement of poor and disadvantaged groups in planning and decision-making
need to be designed and promoted.

Table 4.18 Community strategies to improve community participation

 Community strategies Percent

All events in the forest should be participatory 35
Enhance benefit Sharing 15
CFA’s involvement in planning and management 10

55
 People to be allowed to buy timber materials 25
Review of forest rules 15
Total 100.0
Source: Author (2022)

The study identified policies that had been implemented to improve community involvement in
forest management and conservation activities. All decision-making procedures, silvicultural
activities, and the establishment of a forest management agreement for Iveti were actively
participated in by the community. Additionally, community empowerment and support for
livelihood improvements, training on forest rules and regulations and FCMA 2016, training on
management and conservation practices, and training on community empowerment were all
performed.

Additionally, the KFS representatives offered ideas that the local government may implement to
raise community awareness and improve the efficacy of community participation in forestry
management initiatives. According to the results, 24% of the respondents suggested that the
government can ensure every chief’s meeting or baraza has a forester to educate community on
the importance of conserving neighboring forests and how they can benefit from it while 15%
suggested that government can facilitate introduction/support forest-based income generation
activities and other socioeconomic activities. 33% suggested that the government can conduct
local level planning for forest management, local level trainings and local level support for
livelihood improvement. 8% suggested participation of sustainable management of forest
resources, capacity building of communities and forest staffs and 20% suggested enhancing
awareness creation and formation of support groups involved in conservation issues. In
addition, the study established that the government needs to improve in awareness, training and
benefit sharing and making of regulations. These results corroborate Murray's (2007) finding
that, in the presence of adequate knowledge, information, and resources, communities are more
likely to use forest management techniques and so support bio-diversity in the ecosystem. The
author also mentioned that the government should host educational forums to inform
communities of the significance of protecting, conserving, and managing forest resources in
order to raise community awareness and involvement. In a similar vein, Pharcharuen (2021)
asserted that the most important step in increasing public knowledge of community forest
management is incorporating people in the process of community forestry.

56
Table 4.19 Government strategies to improve community participation

 Government strategies Percentage of responses

Chiefs’ Barazas 24
Income generating activities 15
Local level trainings 33
Capacity building 8
Awareness creation 20
Total 100.0
Source: Author (2022)

The study suggested several approaches for future use of forest resources. In response to the
survey questions, 28.6% of respondents suggested that 20% of the forest resources be given to
the community, 14.3% suggested that they take into account community/user groups, 30.6%
suggested that the forest resources be protected for the community's benefit, and 26.5%
suggested that 40% of the forest resources be returned to CFA (community). Adhikari et al.
(2014) stated that additional or greater levels of incentives and favorable laws could assist
efficient administration and management of common property resources in less advantageous
circumstances, and their findings corroborated these findings.

Table 4.20 Future utilization strategies

 Utilization strategies Percent
20% to the community 28.6
40% sent back to CFA (community) 14.3

Consider community/user groups 30.6

For community’s benefits 26.5

Total 100.0
Source: Author (2022)

57
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction
This chapter makes a connection between the study's goals and its findings. It includes a
description of the findings, a discussion of the findings in light of related studies, and a
conclusion. Additionally, underlined are the limitations and suggestions for additional study.

5.2 Summary
The results of the analysis are outlined in this section. This was accomplished in accordance
with the study's objectives. Initial objectives of the project included assessing PFM-related
initiatives undertaken by the Iveti Community Forest Association (CFA) in Kenya's Machakos
County. According to the findings, Iveti Community Forest Association performed
reforestation, seedling production, pruning, and thinning among other activities to preserve Iveti
forest. Additionally, the CFA representatives urged the community to contribute to forest
preservation. The design, execution, evaluation, and monitoring of the Iveti forest's forest
management and conservation, however, received relatively little help from the CFA members.

The second objective of the study was to identify the various elements that influence
community participation in these activities in order to manage and conserve the Iveti Forest in
Machakos County, Kenya. Participation in conservation initiatives and their benefits,
integrating surrounding communities, and attending training seminars and workshops on forest
management and conservation were some of these. Investigating the challenges, the community
has managing and conserving the Iveti forest in Machakos was the study's third objective. The
community had to deal with issues like official corruption, a lack of devotion among members,
a negative reputation among non-CFA members, a lack of funding, a marketing issue, and an
unstable climate. These obstacles prevented the community from effectively participating in the
management and conservation of the Iveti forest.

The study's fourth goal was to determine what measures need to be taken to ensure successful
community engagement in the management and protection of the Iveti forest in Machakos
County, Kenya. The CFA members identified a number of actions that ought to be taken. These
actions included boosting benefit sharing, involving the CFA in planning and management,
reviewing the forest rules, enabling individuals to cut mature trees for timber, and making all
forest events participatory in order to boost benefit sharing. The KFS authorities recommended
that communities actively participate in all decision-making processes, engage in some forestry
activities, be trained in management and conservation methods, review participatory forest
58
management plans for Iveti, and construct forest management plans. The KFS County officials,
on the other hand, suggested that the government make sure that every chiefs meeting or baraza
has a forester to inform the community about the significance of protecting nearby forests and
how they can benefit from doing so, facilitate the introduction of and support for activities that
generate income from the forest and other socioeconomic activities, conduct local level
planning for forest management, local level trainings, and local level support for improving the
quality of life, and enhance The community's involvement in the management and preservation
of the Iveti forest would be enhanced by these approaches.

5.3 Conclusions
Based on the aforementioned findings, the study came to the conclusion that PFM-related
activities carried out by Community Forest Association members, such as developing
community conservation norms in accordance with national policy, conducting community
education to raise awareness of the value of the forest resource, maintaining a clean, safe, and
enjoyable physical environment in their settlements, and advocating for measures that will
reduce soil, water, and air pollution, are effective. A good management and conservation of the
Iveti forest will likely result from community participation as well as participation from the
nearby community.

The study's findings indicated that CFA members and their officials' efforts to raise community
knowledge and share benefits with local residents had a positive impact on local livelihoods
and, as a result, on the community's engagement in the management and conservation of the
Iveti forest. Additionally, the community's use of forest resources has improved through time
compared to the current state.

The study also found that the community faces challenges in managing and conserving the
forest, including poor perception among non-CFA members and integration with rangers,
drought and marketing issues, dishonest officials and a lack of funding, dishonest forest guards,
unpredictable weather, and a lack of commitment from members. The difficulties the
community faces must be resolved in order to improve community involvement in the
management and conservation of Iveti forest.

The study also concluded that the government and the community can increase community
participation by implementing measures and strategies such as the government ensuring that
every chiefs meeting or baraza has a forester to inform the community on the significance of
conserving nearby forests and how they can benefit from it, government facilitating
introduction/support of forest-based income generation activities and other socioeconomic
activities, government conducting local surveys to gauge community participation, and
59
government facilitating introduction of local government programs. In addition, the study
established that the government needs to improve in awareness, training and sharing benefits
and making of laws.

5.4 Recommendations
According to the study's findings, it was advised to do the following:

1. The study suggested that in order to encourage people to participate, incentives should
be offered, such as property rights and supportive laws for local communities.

2. According to the study, Payment for Environmental Services (PES) should be

implemented in order to increase stakeholder involvement, ensure the future
sustainability of the required environmental services and take their economic values into
account when making financial decisions.

3. To increase awareness of the value of the forest resource, the paper suggests
promoting community education.
4. In order to facilitate effective user engagement in the governance and management of
common property resources, particularly forest resources, it is advised that the right
institutional frameworks be put in place.

5.5 Suggestions for further studies

The Iveti Forest in Machakos County was the focus of the current study's analysis of the role of
community participation in forest management and conservation. More research is needed to
assess other forests in other Kenyan counties so that conclusions cannot be generalized. Future
studies may also focus on the role that other factors, in addition to community involvement,
play in forest management and conservation.

60
 REFERENCES
Adhikari, S., Kingi, T., & Ganesh, S. (2014). Incentives for community participation in the
governance and management of common property resources: the case of community
forest management in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics, 44, 1-9.

Agrawal, A. (2003). Sustainable governance of common-pool resources: context, methods, and

politics. Annual review of anthropology, 243-262.

Agrawal, A., & Gupta, K. (2005). Decentralization and participation: the governance of
common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World development, 33(7), 1101-1114.

Agrawal, A., & Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in
resource use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society, 29(4), 485-514.

Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. (1999). Making decentralization accountable: A framework for
analysis and empirical studies from South Asia and West Africa. J. Dev. Areas, 33,
473-490.

Alemtsehay, J. T. (2010), “Determinating factors for a successful establishment of

participatory forest management: A comparative study of Goba and Dello districts,
Ethiopia”, Unpublished Master's Thesis, The University of Agder.

Ameha, A., Larsen, H. O., & Lemenih, M. (2014). Participatory forest management in Ethiopia:
learning from pilot projects. Environmental management, 53(4), 838-854.

Anderson, K., Ryan, B., Sonntag, W., Kavvada, A., & Friedl, L. (2017). Earth observation in
service of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geo-spatial Information
Science, 20(2), 77-96.

Andersson, K. P., Bauer, J., Jagger, P., Luckert, M., Meinzen-Dick, R. S., Mwangi, E., &
Ostrom, E. (2008). Unpacking decentralization.

Andolina, R., Laurie, N., & Radcliffe, S. A. (2009). Indigenous development in the Andes:
Culture, power, and transnationalism. Duke University Press.

Anthwal, A., Gupta, N., Sharma, A., Anthwal, S., & Kim, K. H. (2010). Conserving
biodiversity through traditional beliefs in sacred groves in Uttarakhand Himalaya,
India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(11), 962-971.

Antwi, S. K., & Hamza, K. (2015). Qualitative and quantitative research paradigms in business
research: A philosophical reflection. European journal of business and
management, 7(3), 217-225.
61
Anup, K. C. (2017, March). Community forestry management and its role in biodiversity
conservation in Nepal. In Global Exposition of Wildlife Management (Vol. 51).
InTech.

Aryal, A., Brunton, D., Pandit, R., Shrestha, T. K., Lord, J., Koirala, R. K., ... & Raubenheimer,
D. (2012). Biological diversity and management regimes of the northern
Barandabhar Forest Corridor: an essential habitat for ecological connectivity in
Nepal. Tropical Conservation Science, 5(1), 38-49.

Asah, S. T., Guerry, A. D., Blahna, D. J., & Lawler, J. J. (2014). Perception, acquisition and use
of ecosystem services: Human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy
implications. Ecosystem services, 10, 180-186.

Balana, B. B., Mathijs, E., & Muys, B. (2010). Assessing the sustainability of forest
management: An application of multi-criteria decision analysis to community forests
in northern Ethiopia. Journal of environmental management, 91(6), 1294-1304.

Bampton, J. F., Ebregt, A., & Banjade, M. R. (2007). Collaborative forest management in
Nepal’s Terai: Policy, practice and contestation. Journal of Forest and
Livelihood, 6(2), 30-43.

Banana, A. Y., Bukenya, M., Arinaitwe, E., Birabwa, B., & Ssekindi, S. (2012). Gender, tenure
and community forests in Uganda (Vol. 87). Center for International Forestry
Research.

Begum, F., de Bruyn, L. L., Kristiansen, P., & Islam, M. A. (2021). Institutionalising co-
management activities for conservation of forest resources: Evidence from the
Sundarban mangrove forest management of Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental
Management, 298, 113504.

Benson, C. (2005). The role of local institutions in ensuring poverty reduction and
environmental sustainability in Uganda’s natural resource decentralization.

Bhattarai, B., & Dhungana, S. P. (2005). How can forests better serve the poor. A Review of
Documented Knowledge on Leasehold and Community Forest Action Nepal
Kathmandu.

Biedenweg, K. (2012). A Framework for Evaluating Forest Conservation Implications of

Community-Based Capacity Building: Experiences from the Northern Bolivian
Amazon. Conservation and Society, 10(3), 256-269.

62
Blair, H. (2000). USAID and Democratic Decentralization: Taking the Measure of an
Assistance Programme. Democracy Assistance: International Co-operation for
Democratization (Democratization Studies 5).

Blaser, J., Kuchli, C., Colfer, C., and D. Capistrano, D. (2005). Introduction. In: The politics of
decentralization: Forests, power and people. 1–9. London: Earthscan.

Blomley, T., Edwards, K., Kingazi, S., Lukumbuzya, K., Mäkelä, M., & Vesa, L. (2017). When
community forestry meets REDD+: has REDD+ helped address implementation
barriers to participatory forest management in Tanzania? Journal of Eastern African
Studies, 11(3), 549-570.

Boffa, J. M., L. Turyomurugyendo, J. Barnekow-Lillesø, R. Kindt. (2005). Enhancing Farm

Tree Diversity as a Means of Conserving Landscape-based Biodiversity: Insights
from the Kigezi Highlands, Southwestern Uganda. Mountain Research and
Development 25 (3): 212–217.

Borrini, G., Jaireth, H., Farvar, M. T., Pimbert, M., Renard, Y., & Kothari, A. (2007). Sharing
power: learning-by-doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the
world. Earthscan.

Bosire, E. N., Gitau, W., Karanja, F., & Ouma, G. (2019). Analysis of climate variability, trends
and expected implication on crop production in a Semi-Arid Environment of
Machakos County, Kenya. Kenya. Adv. Agric. Sci, 7, 99-115.

Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., & Lopez-Carr, D. (2014). What factors influence participation in
payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador's SocioPáramo
program. Land use policy, 36, 122-133.

Brooks, T., and Matiku, P. (2011). The science–policy interface for safeguarding key
biodiversity areas. Animal Conservation, 14(2), 111-113.

Charnley, S., & Poe, M. R. (2007). Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we
now? Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 36, 301-336.

Chen, H., Zhu, T., Krott, M., & Maddox, D. (2013). Community forestry management and
livelihood development in northwest China: integration of governance, project
design, and community participation. Regional Environmental Change, 13(1), 67-75.

63
Chhetri, B. B. K., Johnsen, F. H., Konoshima, M., & Yoshimoto, A. (2013). Community
forestry in the hills of Nepal: Determinants of user participation in forest
management. Forest Policy and Economics, 30, 6-13.

Chirenje L, Richard A, Emmanuel G, Musamba B. (2013). Local communities’ participation in

decision-making processes through planning and budgeting in African countries.
Chinese J Popul Resour Environ. 11:10–16.

Chomba, S., Treue, T., & Sinclair, F. (2015). The political economy of forest entitlements: can
community-based forest management reduce vulnerability at the forest
margin? Forest Policy and Economics, 58, 37-46.

Chowdhury, S. A. (2004). Participation in forestry: A study of people’s participation on the

social forestry policy in Bangladesh: Myth or reality? (Master's thesis, The
University of Bergen).

Cleaver, F. (2000). Moral ecological rationality, institutions and the management of common
property resources. Development and change, 31(2), 361-383.

Coetzee, J. K. (2001). Development: Theory, policy and practice. Oxford University Press

Southern Africa.

Coulibaly-Lingani, P., Savadogo, P., Tigabu, M., & Oden, P. C. (2011). Factors influencing
people's participation in the forest management program in Burkina Faso, West
Africa. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(4), 292-302.

Dahal, G. R., & Chapagain, A. (2012). Community forestry in Nepal: decentralized forest
governance. In Lessons from forest decentralization (pp. 85-100). Routledge.

Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Yaziji, M. (2010). Corporate-NGO collaboration: Co-
creating new business models for developing markets. Long range planning, 43(2-
3), 326-342.

Dev, O. P., Yadav, N. P., Springate-Baginski, O., & Soussan, J. (2003). Impacts of community
forestry on livelihoods in the middle hills of Nepal. Journal of forest and
Livelihood, 3(1), 64-77.

Dhanapal, G. (2019). Revisiting participatory forest management in India. Current

Science, 117(7), 1161.

64
Djamhuri, T. (2008). Community participation in a social forestry program in Central Java,
Indonesia: the effect of incentive structure and social capital. Agroforestry
Systems, 74(1), 83-96.

Dolisca, F., Carter, D. R., McDaniel, J. M., Shannon, D. A., & Jolly, C. M. (2006). Factors
influencing farmers’ participation in forestry management programs: A case study
from Haiti. Forest ecology and management, 236(2-3), 324-331.

Duguma, L. A., Atela, J., Minang, P. A., Ayana, A. N., Gizachew, B., Nzyoka, J. M., &
Bernard, F. (2019). Deforestation and forest degradation as an environmental
behavior: unpacking realities shaping community actions. Land, 8(2), 26.

Eilola, S., Fagerholm, N., Mäki, S., Khamis, M., & Käyhkö, N. (2015). Realization of
participation and spatiality in participatory forest management–a policy–practice
analysis from Zanzibar, Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 58(7), 1242-1269.

Emtage, N., and J. Suh. (2004). Socio-Economic Factors Affecting Smallholder Tree Planting
and Management Intentions in Leyte Province, the Philippines. Small-scale Forest
Economics, Management and Policy 3(2):257-271.

Evans, K., Guariguata, M. R., & Brancalion, P. H. (2018). Participatory monitoring to connect
local and global priorities for forest restoration. Conservation Biology, 32(3), 525-
534.

Ferranti, F., Beunen, R., & Speranza, M. (2010). Natura 2000 network: a comparison of the
Italian and Dutch implementation experiences. Journal of Environmental Policy &
Planning, 12(3), 293-314.

FRA (2010). Long- Term Strategy for Global Forest resources assessments 2012-2030. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Gabay, M., Oldekop, J. A., Humphreys, D., Kamoto, J., Mutta, D. N., Rai, N., ... & Stoian, D.
(2020). Contextual factors shaping forest-poverty dynamics.

Gauli, K., & Rishi, P. (2004). Do the marginalised class really participate in Community
Forestry? A case study from Western Terai Region of Nepal. Forests, Trees and
Livelihoods, 14(2-4), 137-147.

65
Gebreegziabher, Z., A. Mekonnen, M. Kassie, and G. Kohlin. (2010). Household Tree Planting
in Tigrai, Northern Ethiopia: Tree Species, Purposes and Determinants. EfD
Discussion Paper Series. RFF.

Ghimire, P., & Lamichhane, U. (2020). Community based forest management in Nepal: Current
status, successes and challenges. Grassroots Journal of Natural Resources, 3(2), 16-
29.

Githiomi, J., and Mugendi, N. (2012). Household tree planting and its related constraints in
meeting wood fuel production in Kiambu, Thika and Maragwa Districts of Central
Kenya. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry, 4(7), 120-125.

Githitho, A. N. (2003). The sacred Mijikenda Kaya forests of coastal Kenya and biodiversity
conservation. The importance of sacred natural sites for biodiversity conservation,
27-35.

Glynn, P. D., Voinov, A. A., Shapiro, C. D., & White, P. A. (2017). From data to decisions:
Processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural
resources and environments. Earth's Future, 5(4), 356-378.

Government of Kenya (GoK). 2007. Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2007 on Forest Development
Policy. Nairobi: Government Printers.

Government of Kenya. (2005). Forest Act, 2005.

Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations:
Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and
voluntary sector quarterly, 34(3), 340-361.

Gupta, S. P. (2014). Study on the Contribution of Collaborative and Community Forest

Management to Livelihoods of Rural People in Bara District of Tarai, Nepal (Doctoral
dissertation, Master’s Thesis, Kathmandu University).

Hegga, S., Kunamwene, I., & Ziervogel, G. (2020). Local participation in decentralized water
governance: insights from north-central Namibia. Regional Environmental
Change, 20(3), 1-12.

Heinrich, M., Scotti, F., Andrade-Cetto, A., Berger-Gonzalez, M., Echeverría, J., Friso, F., ... &
Spadafora, R. (2020). Access and benefit sharing under the Nagoya protocol—Quo
Vadis? Six Latin American case studies assessing opportunities and risk. Frontiers
in Pharmacology, 11, 765.
66
Hiltunen, V., Kurttila, M., Leskinen, P., Pasanen, K., & Pykäläinen, J. (2009). Mesta: An
internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural
resources planning. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(1), 1-9.

Himberg, N., Omoro, L., Pellikka, P., &Luukkanen, O. (2009). The benefits and constraints of
participation in forest management. The case of Taita Hills, Kenya. Fennia-
International Journal of Geography, 187(1), 61-76.

Hjortsø, C. N. (2004). Enhancing public participation in natural resource management using

Soft OR––an application of strategic option development and analysis in tactical
forest planning. European Journal of operational research, 152(3), 667-683.

Hope, R. A., Porras, I. T., & Miranda, M. (2005). Can payments for environmental services
contribute to poverty reduction? A livelihoods analysis from Arenal, Costa
Rica. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Huff, A. (2015). Green Development, Natural Resource Financialization and Emerging

Conflict in Southern Africa with Examples from Implementation Contexts in
Madagascar, Tanzania and South Africa (No. IDS Evidence Report; 148). IDS.

Islam, K. K., Jose, S., Tani, M., Hyakumura, K., Krott, M., & Sato, N. (2015). Does actor power
impede outcomes in participatory agroforestry approach? Evidence from Sal forests
area, Bangladesh. Agroforestry Systems, 89(5), 885-899.

Jackson, S., Martin, A., and Eklund, C. (2008). Long and short measures of flow: The construct
validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 30(5), 561-587.

Jacobson, C., & Choi, S. O. (2008). Success factors: public works and public‐private
partnerships. International journal of public sector management.

Jepkosgei, R. (2018). Influence of Community Participation on Forest Conservation in Maasai

Mau Forest, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, KISII UNIVERSITY).

Jumbe, C. B., & Angelsen, A. (2007). Forest dependence and participation in CPR
management: Empirical evidence from forest co-management in Malawi. Ecological
Economics, 62(3-4), 661-672.

Kajembe, G. C., Mohamed, B. S., & Luoga, E. J. (2005). Impact of joint forest management on
Handeni hill forest reserve and adjacent communities in Tanga, Tanzania.

67
Kallert, S. R., Mehta, J. N., Ebbin, S. A., & Litchenfed, L. L. (2000). Community natural
resource management. promise, rhetoric and reality. Journal of Society and Natural
Resources, 705-715.

Kanel, K. R., & Kandel, B. R. (2004). Community forestry in Nepal: Achievements and
challenges. Journal of forest and Livelihood, 4(1), 55-63.

Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L. A., Hujala, T., & Tikkanen, J. (2010).
Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes
in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(3), 213-222.

Kenya Forest Act, (2005). The Forest Act 2005. Kenya Gazette Supplement, 88(7).

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2019). Volume I: Population by County and Sub- County.
Nairobi: Government Printer.

Kerse, B.L. (2016), “Factors affecting local people participation in forest managed for Carbon
sequestration: the case of mount Damota, southern Ethiopia”, Developing Country
Studies, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 56-64.

Kinnunen, P. H. M., & Kaksonen, A. H. (2019). Towards circular economy in mining:

Opportunities and bottlenecks for tailings valorization. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 228, 153-160.

Kinyili, B. M., Ndunda, E., & Kitur, E. (2019). Trade-Off Between Agroforestry and Ecosystem
Services among Smallholder Farmers in Machakos County, Kenya. East African
Journal of Forestry and Agroforestry, 1(1), 13-23.

Knox, A., & Meinzen-Dick, R. S. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and devolution of
natural resource management: exchange of knowledge and implications for policy:
a workshop summary paper (No. 577-2016-39189).

Koech, C. K. (2020). Household factors affecting the implementation of forest conservation

strategies: A case of south Nandi Forest, Nandi County, Kenya.

Koech, C., Ongugo, P., Mbuvi, M., and Maua, J. (2009). Community Forest Associations in
Kenya: Challenges and Opportunities. Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Kenya.

Kothari, C. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age International.

68
Kumar, N., & Saxena, N. C. (2017). India’s forests: potential for poverty alleviation.
In Managing A Global Resource (pp. 99-136). Routledge.

Larson, A. M. (2012). Democratic decentralization in the forestry sector: lessons learned from
Africa, Asia and Latin America. In The politics of decentralization (pp. 46-76).
Routledge.

Limberg, G., Iwan, R., Moeliono, M., Sudana, I., and Wollenberg, E. (2007). Community-
Based Forestry and Management Planning. Managing Forest Resources in a
Decentralized Environment, 107.

Luswaga, H., & Nuppenau, E. A. (2020). Participatory forest management in West Usambara
Tanzania: What is the community perception on success? Sustainability, 12(3), 921.

Macharia, B. (2015). Factors influencing community participation in forestry conservation

projects: a case of Kithoka-Twajai forest community-based organization, Meru
County Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).

Maier, C., Lindner, T., & Winkel, G. (2014). Stakeholders’ perceptions of participation in forest
policy: A case study from Baden-Württemberg. Land use policy, 39, 166-176.

Malla, Y. B. (2000). Impact of community forestry policy on rural livelihoods and food security
in Nepal. Unasylva, 51(202), 37-45.

Maraga, J.N., Kibwage, K.J. and Boniface, O.O. (2010), “Factors determining community

participation in afforestation projects in river Nyando basin, Kenya”, African
Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 4 No. 12, pp. 853-859.

Mariki, S. (2013). Conservation with a human face? Comparing local participation and benefit
sharing from a national park and a state forest plantation in Tanzania. Sage
Open, 3(4), 2158244013512665.

Marta-Pedroso, C., Laporta, L., Proença, V., Azevedo, C., and Domingos, T. (2014). Changes in
the ecosystem services provided by forests and their economic valuation: a
review. Forest Landscapes and Global Change, 107- 137.

Matiku, P., Caleb, M., and Callistus, O. (2013). The impact of participatory forest management
on local community livelihoods in the Arabuko-Sokoke forest, Kenya. Conservation
and Society, 11(2), 112-129.

69
Mbeche, R., Ateka, J., Herrmann, R., & Grote, U. (2021). Understanding forest users'
participation in participatory forest management (PFM): Insights from Mt. Elgon
Forest ecosystem, Kenya. Forest Policy and Economics, 129, 102507.

McDermott, M. H., & Schreckenberg, K. (2009). Equity in community forestry: insights from
North and South. International Forestry Review, 11(2), 157-170.

McNamara, K. E., Clissold, R., Westoby, R., Piggott-McKellar, A. E., Kumar, R., Clarke, T., ...
& Nunn, P. D. (2020). An assessment of community-based adaptation initiatives in
the Pacific Islands. Nature Climate Change, 10(7), 628-639.

Mensah, C. (2008). Community-based natural resources management and livelihood

improvement: the case of Amansuri Conservation and Integrated Development
Project (ACID) in Jomoro district in Ghana (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Cape Coast).

Mogoi, J.; Obonyo, E.; Ongugo, P.; Oeba, V.; and Mwangi, E. (2012). Communities, Property
Rights and Forest Decentralization in Kenya: Early Lessons from Participatory
Forestry Management. Conservation and Society, 10(2), 182- 192.

Mollick, A. S., Roy, M., Khan, N. I., Islam, W., Sadath, N., & Nath, T. K. (2021). Assessing
good governance in protected areas (PA) Co-management: a case study of the
Sundarbans Mangrove Forests of Bangladesh. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 1-25.

Morse, J. M. (2007). Sampling in grounded theory. The SAGE handbook of grounded theory,

229-244.

Mugenda, O., and Mugenda A., (2003): Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative
Approaches. Nairobi, Kenya: ACTS press.

Muneet, S.E.T. (2008). Factors Affecting Adoption of Agroforestry Farming System as a Mean
for Sustainable Agricultural Development and Environment Conservation 24 in Arid
Areas of Northern Kordofan State, Sudan. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences
15(1) 137-145.
Murray Li, T. (2007). Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Economy
and society, 36(2), 263-293.

Musyoki, J. K., Mugwe, J., Mutundu, K., & Muchiri, M. (2016). Factors influencing level of
participation of community forest associations in management forests in
Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 35(3), 205-216.

70
Mutune, J. M., Wahome, R. G., & Mungai, D. N. (2015). Local Participation in Community
Forest Associations: A Case Study of Sururu and Eburu Forests, Kenya. Int. J. Afr.
Asian Stud. 13:1-13.

Mwangi, E., Meinzen-Dick, R., & Sun, Y. (2011). Gender and sustainable forest management in
East Africa and Latin America. Ecology and society, 16(1).

Mwari, P. M. (2018). Recognition and Affirmation of Women’s Rights in the Management of

Community Forest Associations: A Case of the Mt. Kenya and Aberdare
Ecosystems, Nyeri County, Kenya. African Multidisciplinary Journal of
Research, 3(2).

Nelson, V., & Stathers, T. (2009). Resilience, power, culture, and climate: a case study from
semi-arid Tanzania, and new research directions. Gender & development, 17(1), 81-
94.

Newig, J., & Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance: participatory, multi‐level–and

effective. Environmental policy and governance, 19(3), 197-214.

Ngara, R., & Mangizvo, R. V. (2013). Indigenous knowledge systems and the conservation of
natural resources in the Shangwe community in Gokwe District,
Zimbabwe. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 3(1), 20-28.

Ngatia, J., Ngecu, W. M., & Thuita, T. (2017). High community expectation against low
societal transformation through community-based income generating activities.
Analysis of Participatory Forest management in Kenya 2005-2013.

Ngece, N., Kakuru, W., & Kimani, K. (2007). Conflict management and community
development, projects as incentives for partners to participate in Participatory Forest
Management (PFM): The case of Loita and Lembus communities in
Kenya. Participatory Forest Management (PFM), Biodiversity and Livelihoods in
Africa, 19, 171-185.

Ngigi, S., & Busolo, D. N. (2019). Devolution in Kenya: the good, the bad and the ugly. Public
Policy and Administration Research, 9(6), 9-21.

Njuguna, E., Gathara, M., Nadir, S., Mwalusepo, S., Williamson, D., Mathé, and Calatayud, P.
A. (2015). Characteristics of soils in selected maize growing sites along altitudinal
gradients in East African highlands. Data in brief, 5, 138-144.

71
Nthuku, J. (2018). An Assessment of The Role of Community Forest Associations in The
Management of Karura Forest Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).

Nyakeya, K., Raburu, P., Masese, F., Tsuma, J., Nyamora, J., Magondu, E., and Jepkosgei, M.
(2018). Sensitivity of the native Chironomus species in monitoring of riverine
ecosystems in the catchments of Lake Victoria Drainage Basin, Kenya. Africa
Environmental Review Journal, 2(2), 126-133.

Nygren, A. (2005). Community-based Forest management within the context of institutional

decentralization in Honduras. World development, 33(4), 639-655.

Ogada, M. J. (2012). Forest management decentralization in Kenya: Effects on household farm

forestry decisions in Kakamega.

Ojha, H., Persha, L., & Chhatre, A. (2009). Community forestry in Nepal: a policy innovation
for local livelihoods. International Food Policy Research Institute, 913.

Okumu, B., & Muchapondwa, E. (2020). Welfare and forest cover impacts of incentive-based
conservation: Evidence from Kenyan community forest associations. World
Development, 129, 104890.

Oleleboo, W. L. (2014). Implementing sustainable environmental management in developing

countries: a case study of community participation in forest management in
Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).

Oli, B. N., & Treue, T. (2015). Determinants of participation in Community Forestry in

Nepal. International Forestry Review, 17(3), 311-325.

Ongugo, P. O. (2007, September). Participatory Forest Management in Kenya: Is there anything

for the poor. In Proceedings: International conference on poverty reduction and
forests.

Ongugo, P. O., Mogoi, J. N., Obonyo, E., & Oeba, V. O. (2008). Examining the roles of
community forest associations (CFAS) in the decentralization process of Kenyan
forests.

Osman, K. T. (2018). Dryland soils. In Management of soil problems (pp. 15-36). Springer,

Cham.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Self-governance and forest resources. Terracotta reader: A market

approach to the environment, 12.

72
Ostrom, E. (2008). Developing a method for analyzing institutional change. In Alternative
Institutional Structures (pp. 66-94). Routledge.

Ostrom, E (2008). Institutions and the Environment. Economic Affairs 28(3): 4–31.

Pagdee, A., Kim, Y. S., & Daugherty, P. J. (2006). What makes community forest management
successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Society and
Natural resources, 19(1), 33-52.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level
learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global environmental
change, 19(3), 354-365.

Persha, L., Fischer, H., Chhatre, A., Agrawal, A., & Benson, C. (2010). Biodiversity
conservation and livelihoods in human-dominated landscapes: Forest commons in
South Asia. Biological conservation, 143(12), 2918-2925.

Pharcharuen, W., Suramati, P. W., Phrakhrusutaworathammakit, P., Mahawaro, P., &

Chantawaree, S. (2021). Community participation in sustainable management of
community forests: Case study Ban Mae Hong Khrai, Mae Pong Sub-District, Doi
Saket District, Chiang Mai Province. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S2), 1373-
1388.

Phiri, M. (2009). Evaluation of the performance of joint forest management (JFM) programme:

case of Dambwa Forest Reserve in Livingstone District, Zambia (Doctoral
dissertation, Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch).

Phrasisombath, K. (2009). Sample size and sampling methods. Faculty of Postgraduate Studies

and Research University of Health Sciences: Vientiane.

Piabuo, S. M., Foundjem-Tita, D., & Minang, P. A. (2018). Community forest governance in
Cameroon: a review. Ecology and Society, 23(3).
Pokharel, B. K., & Nurse, M. (2004). Forests and people’s livelihood: Benefiting the poor from
community forestry. Journal of forest and Livelihood, 4(1), 19-29.

Pokharel, B. K., Branney, P., Nurse, M., & Malla, Y. B. (2007). Community forestry:
Conserving forests, sustaining livelihoods and strengthening democracy. Journal of
Forest and Livelihood, 6(2), 8-19.

73
PROFOR, F. (2011). Framework for assessing and monitoring forest governance. Program on
Forests (World Bank) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations: Rome, Italy.

Rahman, H. M., Saint Ville, A., Song, A., Po, J., Berthet, E., Brammer, J., ... & Hickey, G.
(2017). A framework for analyzing institutional gaps in natural resource
governance. International Journal of the Commons, 11(2).

Rai, R. K. (2007). Nepal's Terai Forest Management: An Ethical View. In Paper Submitted for
Seminar Period (March 2007) at University of Joensuu.

Rasaily, R. G., & Zuo, T. (2012). Effect of managing methods of the community forests on the
expression of forest products extracted from them in Lalitpur and Dhadhing districts
from Nepal. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(31), 4465-4473.
Rashid, A. M., Craig, D., Mukul, S. A., and Khan, N. A. (2013). A journey towards shared
governance: status and prospects for collaborative management in the protected
areas of Bangladesh. Journal of forestry research, 24(3), 599-605.
Ratner, B., Burnley, C., Mugisha, S., Madzudzo, E., Oeur, I., Mam, K., ... & Adriázola, P.
(2018). Investing in multi-stakeholder dialogue to address natural resource
competition and conflict. Development in Practice, 28(6), 799-812.
Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., ... & Stringer, L.
C. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for
natural resource management. Journal of environmental management, 90(5), 1933-
1949.
Ribot, J. C. (2004). Choosing Representation: Institutions and Powers for Decentralized Nature
Resource Management. In Interlaken Workshop on Decentralization in Forestry,
27–30.
Rindfuss, R. R., Choe, M. K., Tsuya, N. O., Bumpass, L. L., & Tamaki, E. (2015). Do low
survey response rates bias results? Evidence from Japan. Demographic research, 32,
797-828.
Rodgers, W. A., Nabanyumya, R., Mupada, E., & Persha, L. (2002). Community conservation
of closed forest biodiversity in East Africa: can it work? UNASYLVA-FAO-, 41-49.

Rojas, M. (2003). What are We Learning from Experiences with Markets for Environmental
Services in Costa Rica? A Review and Critique of the Literature.
Ros-Tonen, M. A., & Wiersum, K. F. (2003, May). The importance of non-timber forest
products for forest-based rural livelihoods: an evolving research agenda.

74
 In GTZ/CIFOR international conference on livelihoods and biodiversity, Bonn,
Germany.
Sahide, M. A. K., Fisher, M. R., Erbaugh, J. T., Intarini, D., Dharmiasih, W., Makmur, M., ... &
Maryudi, A. (2020). The boom of social forestry policy and the bust of social forests
in Indonesia: Developing and applying an access-exclusion framework to assess
policy outcomes. Forest policy and economics, 120, 102290.
Saint-Onge, H., & Wallace, D. (2012). Leveraging communities of practice for strategic
advantage. Routledge.

Saunders, F, Mohammed, S, Jiddawi, N, Nordin, K, Lundèn, B and Sjöling, S (2010). The

Changing Social Relations of a Community-Based Mangrove Forest Project in
Zanzibar. Ocean &Coastal Management 53(4): 150–160.
Saunders, F. P. (2014). The promise of common pool resource theory and the reality of
commons projects. International Journal of the Commons, 8(2), 636–656.

Schreckenberg, K., Luttrell, C., & Moss, C. (2006). Forest Policy and Environment Programme:
Grey Literature Participatory Forest Management: an overview March 2006.

Selman, P. (2004). Community participation in the planning and management of cultural

landscapes. Journal of environmental planning and management, 47(3), 365-392.

Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research. Oxford University

Press.

Shrestha, K. K., & McManus, P. (2008). The politics of community participation in natural
resource management: lessons from community forestry in Nepal. Australian
Forestry, 71(2), 135-146.

Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2013). Online power resource management: Activist resource mobilization,

communication strategy, and organizational structure. Journal of public relations
research, 25(4), 347-367.

Siraj, M., Zhang, K., Xiao, W., Bilal, A., Gemechu, S., Geda, K., ... & Xiaodan, L. (2018). Does
participatory forest management save the remnant forest in Ethiopia? Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences, 88(1), 1-14.

75
Subramanian, C. (2012). E-governance: A key to good governance in India. International
Journal of Recent Scientific Research, 3(5), 305-308.

Sunderlin, W. D. (2006). Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos,

and Vietnam: An assessment of the potential. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(4),
386-396.

Tacconi, L. (2007). Decentralization, forests and livelihoods: theory and narrative. Global

environmental change, 17(3-4), 338-348.

Tadesse, S., Woldetsadik, M., & Senbeta, F. (2017). Forest users’ level of participation in a
participatory forest management program in southwestern Ethiopia. Forest Science
and Technology, 13(4), 164-173.

Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of
mixed methods research, 1(1), 77-100.

Tesfaye, Y., Roos, A., Campbell, B. J., & Bohlin, F. (2012). Factors associated with the
performance of user groups in a participatory forest management around Dodola
forest in the Bale mountains, Southern Ethiopia. The Journal of Development
Studies, 48(11), 1665-1682.

Thenya, T., & Ngecu, W. M. (2017). Indigenous strategies and dynamics of resource utilization
in tropical wetland. A case study of Yala swamp, Lake Victoria Basin,
Kenya. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 6, 21-39.

Thirikwa, R. W. (2014). Assessment of Community Forest Associations in Socio-economic

empowerment of communities in Kinangop, Nyandarua County.

Thoms, C. A. (2008). Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local
livelihoods: A critical examination of community forestry in
Nepal. Geoforum, 39(3), 1452-1465.

Thygesen, S. H., Løber, T., Skensved, E. M., & Hansen, C. P. (2016). Implementation of
participatory forest management in Kenya: A case study of Karima
Forest. International Forestry Review, 18(3), 357-368.

Tole, L. (2010). Reforms from the ground up: a review of community-based forest management
in tropical developing countries. Environmental Management, 45(6), 1312-1331.

76
Udumo, B. O., Uba, J. U., Nwabudike, C. P., & Addo, D. E. D. (2020). Community Based
Organization as a Criterion Variable to Environmental Literacy on Forest
Management in Southern Cross River State, Nigeria. Journal of the Social
Sciences, 48(3).

Waisbord, S. (2020). Family tree of theories, methodologies, and strategies in development

communication. In Handbook of communication for development and social
change (pp. 93-132). Springer, Singapore.

Wambua, P. M., Muthama, N. J., & Thenya, T. (2021). Challenges, opportunities and
sustainability of community forest associations and water resource users
associations: A case of Kilungu catchment, Kenya. Journal of Sustainability,
Environment and Peace, 4(1), 10-20.

Wambugu, E. W., Obwoyere, G. O., & Kirui, B. K. (2017). Socioeconomic Factors that
determine community participation in forest management and conservation of
adjacent ecosystems A case of Aberdare forest, Kenya.

Wamukoya, G., Ludeki, J., and Walubengo, D. (2006). Environmental Management in Kenya:

A Framework for Sustainable Forest Management in Kenya–Understanding the
New Forest Policy and Forests Act, 2005. Centre for Environmental Legal Research
and Education.

Wang’ombe, E. (2004). Forest Resource Valuation: A Case Study of Nuu and Iveti Hills in
Eastern Province of Kenya. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Environment Studies (Agroforestry and
Rural Development) Of Kenyatta University.

Wanza, N. C., & Njuguna, M. B. (2012). Designing for sustainability in cultural landscapes:
The Kaya Kinondo Forest of the Mijikenda Community, Kenya. Sustainable
Futures: Architecture and Urbanism in the Global South, 159-166.

Warui, S. C. (2016). Dynamics of Conflict in Decentralized Forest Management in Mount

Kenya Forest (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. Thesis, Kenyatta University).

Waruingi, E., Mbeche, R., & Ateka, J. (2021). Determinants of forest dependent household’s
participation in payment for ecosystem services: Evidence from Plantation
Establishment Livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS) in Kenya. Global Ecology
and Conservation, 26, e01514.

77
Wedel, J. R. (2017). From power elites to influence elites: Resetting elite studies for the 21st
century. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(5-6), 153-178.

Wekesa, I. W. (2017). Examining the role of community participation in forest management

and conservation in Kimothon forest, TransNzoia county, Kenya (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Nairobi).

Willy, D. K., Muyanga, M., Mbuvi, J., & Jayne, T. (2019). The effect of land use change on soil
fertility parameters in densely populated areas of Kenya. Geoderma, 343, 254-262.

Wittman, H., & Geisler, C. (2005). Negotiating locality: Decentralization and communal forest
management in the Guatemalan highlands. Human Organization, 64(1), 62-74.
Wulandari, C., and Kurniasih, H. (2019). Community preferences for social forestry facilitation
programming in Lampung, Indonesia. Journal of Forestry and Society, 3(1), 114-
132.
Yego, P., Mbeche, R., Ateka, J., & Majiwa, E. (2021). Forest-based livelihood choices and their
determinants in Western Kenya. Forest Science and Technology, 17(1), 23-31.
Yemshaw, Y. (2007). Collaborative Forest Management in Africa: In Limbo. Participatory
Forest Management (PFM), Biodiversity and Livelihoods in Africa, 19, 190.

78
 APPENDICES
Appendix I: Introductory letter

The Office of Directorate of Post Graduate Studies

Date: 15th of April 2022

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

REF: EDWARD NTHENYA JULIANA MAG/03/0388- SBA/2019

This is to confirm that the above student is undertaking Master of Arts in Geography at Lukenya
University. She has completed her Proposal writing on “Role of Community Participation in
Forest Management and Conservation; A case Study of Iveti Forest, Machakos County,
Kenya”.

Any Assistance accorded to her to enable her collect data from the relevant offices, is highly
commendable.

Yours Sincerely

Prof. IMTEYAZ Ahmad

79
Appendix II: Questionnaire
I'm a Lukenya University student pursuing a Masters of Arts in Human Geography. A portion
of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree are met by this study. All information will be
treated with the strictest confidentiality as this is solely an academic study.

Part 1: General information

Interview Date: ……………………………………………….

Interview No: ………………………………………………….

Village: ……………………………………………………………

Sub County: …………………………………………………....

Please indicate by ticking the appropriate option.

1. GenderMale [ ] Female [ ]
2. Age
18- 25 [ ]
26- 35 [ ]
36- 45 [ ]
46- 55 [ ]
56- 65 [ ]
Above 66 [ ]
3. Marital status
Single [ ]
Married [ ]
Other [ ]
4. Education level
(a) Primary [ ]
(b) Secondary [ ]
(c)Tertiary [ ] (Specify……………………………………………………
5. What is your current occupation?
(a) Farmer [ ]
(b) Business [ ]
(c) Casual [ ]
(d) Government employee [ ]
6. Please provide the average monthly income you earn.

80
 (a) Below Sh. 5,000 [ ]
(b) Sh. 5,001 – Sh. 10,000 [ ]
(c) Sh. 10,001 – Sh.20,000 [ ]
(d) Sh. 20,001 – Sh.30,000 [ ]
(e) Sh. 30,001 – Sh. 40,000 [ ]
(f) Sh. 40, 001 – Sh.50,000 [ ]
(g) Over Sh. 50,000 [ ]

7. How many years have you been a resident of this area?

(a) 0 -5 years [ ]

(b) 6 – 10 years [ ]

(c) 11 – 20 years [ ]

(d) Over 20 years [ ]

Part 2: PFM related activities undertaken by Community Forest Associations

1. Do you belong to the Iveti Community Forest Association?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
2. If yes, under which CFA User Group are you registered?
(a) Ecotourism [ ] (b) Dairy farming [ ] (c) Tree nursery [ ] (d) Fruit Farming [ ]
(e) Bee keeping [ ]
3. Are you an active participant in Forest Management and Conservation?
(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] If No, ignore No. 4 & 5.
4. Please tick the appropriate response in the below.

Rate your involvement Very active Active Not active

in each of the activities
below

Reforestation

Seedling production

Crop production

Pruning

81
 Thinning

5. Do you want to get more active in conservation and participatory forest management?
(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
6. Select the appropriate checkbox in the table to indicate how much the CFA members are
participating in each of the four phases of Iveti forest's forest management and
conservation.
Please mark the appropriate column with a TICK. Where 1= Not at all 2= little extent 3=
some extent 4= large extent 5= very large extent
Stages in forest 1 2 3 4 5
management

and conservation
Planning
Implementation
Evaluation
Monitoring

Part 3: Factors that influence community participation in forest management and

conservation in Iveti forest.

1. Have you ever attended a workshop or seminar on managing and conserving forests?
Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
2. If yes, which areas were you mostly trained on?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
3. How would you your training based on what you learnt?
(a) Very useful
(b) Useful
(c) Average
(d) Not very useful
(e) Not useful at all

82
4. Before the training, were you active in any conservation efforts?
(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
5. What would you say is the strength of your desire to protect forests?
(a) Very high
(b) High
(c) Moderate
(d) Low
(e) Very low
6. What conservation activities are you involved in? (List three starting with most popular
to the least popular)
(a) …………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
(b) …………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
(c) …………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….
7. How long have you participated actively in conservation efforts?
(a) 0- 1 year [ ]
(b) 2- 5 years [ ]
(c) 5 years or more [ ]
8. What kinds of benefits do members get as a result of participating in conservation
efforts?
(a) No benefit [ ]
(b) Grazing in the forest [ ]
(c) Collecting firewood [ ]
(d) Wages [ ]
(e) Other(specify)
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
9. As a CFA, do you engage in any income-generating activities?
(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
10. What two activities do you engage in?
(a)
……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….

83
 (b)
……………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………

11. What method is used to distribute the members' accrued benefits?

(a) Equally [ ]

(b) Subject to participants' engagement in the events [ ]

12. How satisfied are you with Iveti CFA's benefit-sharing policies?

(a) Great extent [ ]

(b) Moderate extent [ ]

(c) No extent [ ]

(d) Very low extent [ ]

(e) Low extent [ ]

Part 4: Challenges faced by the community in forest management and conservation.

1. What difficulties do you encounter when engaging in these activities? Please list three.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Where do you get financial support as a CFA?
(a) KFS [ ]
(b) CFA members [ ]
(c) Other donors [ ]
3. Do you take part in election of CFA leaders?
(b) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
4. In your opinion, are the current leaders carrying out their duties as expected?
Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
5. Rate your agreement with the following statements regarding the obstacles to effective
and efficient management and conservation of the Iveti forest. Please TICK accordingly
in the appropriate column Where 1= Not at all 2= little extent 3= some extent 4= large
extent 5= very large extent

84
 Statements on challenges affecting effective 1 2 3 4 5
and
efficient conservation and management of forestry
resources in Iveti forest
Corruption is the leading cause of forest degradation
Failure to contribute registration fees hinders effective

forest conservation practices

Kenya Forest Service are not helpful
Lack of equipment slows down the process
of

conservation and management

High expectations of members regarding the direct

benefits they should derive from forests.

Leadership wrangles affect growth of CFA and forest

conservation.

Part 5: Measures to be taken to improve community participation.

1. If incentives were offered, do you think community participation will improve?

(d) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
2. Do you think there are opportunities for employment in the forest?
(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
3. In your opinion, what other strategies can be put in place to improve community
participation in Iveti forest?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING.

85
Appendix III: An Interview Schedule for KFS officials
Section A: Overview of Community Participation on Forest Management
and Conservation in Iveti Forest, Machakos County

1. What managerial position/rank do you hold at your workplace?

………………………………………………………………………………………......

2. How long have you worked at your workstation?

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

3. Do you agree that including community involvement into forest management and
conservation measures is a good idea?
…………………………………………………………………………………………..

4. What measures have you taken at your work station to increase community
involvement in forest management and conservation procedures?

……………………………………………………………………………………….

5. What strategies, in your opinion, can local government do to raise community

awareness and improve the effectiveness of community involvement in forestry
management initiatives?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………..................................................................................................................

86
6. Do you encounter any managerial difficulties or restrictions as a result of including
neighboring communities in your forest management and conservation efforts?
..........................................................................................................................................

7. What lessons and experiences have you learnt as a result of involving adjacent
communities in conservation and management of forests in the area?
………………………………………………………………………………………….

8. Do you believe that including the idea of community engagement through

Participatory Forest Management (PFM) method is a crucial step in leading efforts to
conserve and manage forests locally?
.........................................................................................................................................
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….

I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING PART.

87
Appendix IV: Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Interview Guide for Key Informants
Section A: General Situation on the Role of Community Participation on Forest
Conservation and Management in Iveti Forest, Machakos County

1. 1. What is the connection between local government and forest management? (Probe
from different groups)
..........................................................................................................................................
2. Do you believe the nearby community is sufficiently active in government-sponsored
forest management and conservation efforts??
..........................................................................................................................................
3. In your opinion, do you think the integration of adjacent community has enhanced
forest management and conservation practices in Iveti forest?
..........................................................................................................................................
4. Is the community accorded equal opportunity as other parties in terms of sharing
forest resources?
..........................................................................................................................................
5. Which areas do you think the government can improve to promote community
participation and improve forest management?
.........................................................................................................................................
6. Has the idea of integrating adjacent community in forest management efforts
improved the livelihood of the people in the area? (Probe for economic, social and
cultural benefits)
..........................................................................................................................................
7. What challenges/problems does the community encounter in accessing forest
resources? (Probe for different types of resources and the gravity/intensity of the
problems encountered)
..........................................................................................................................................
8. How can you compare the utilization of forest resources by the community in the past
and now?
........................................................................................................................................
9. In your view, how would like forest resources to be utilized in the future?
..........................................................................................................................................
10. What measures can the government introduce to promote equitable, sustainable, and
effective utilization of forest resources in Iveti forest?

88
....................................................................................................................................

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION

89
Appendix V: Project Schedule
Date Activity Deadline

January Literature search and study Mid-January

February Develop draft proposal Mid-February

February Pilot study End of February

Design of instrument

March and April Field work End of March

Write-up End of April

May Write –up End of May

File cleaning Mid-June

Data analysis End of June

June Write-up Mid July

August Circulation of reports End of August

September Circulation of reports for End of September

comments

Dissemination workshop
Mid October

October Final report and document End of October

cleaning

90
91
Appendix VI: Budget

Activity Amount
Travelling/Allowances 30,000.00
Telephone services 7,000.00
Internet services 15,000.00
Printing services 30,000.00
Data collection 20,000.00
Binding 12,000.00
TOTAL(KSh) 114,000.00

92
Appendix VII: NACOSTI Research Permit

93
94