Integrating stakeholder preferences into ecosystem services mapping in Yala wetland, Kenya

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of Yala wetland showing its location on the shores of Lake Victoria and locations of the stakeholder workshops.

Table 1. ES categories for Yala wetland with definitions modified from (Kandziora et al. 2013) and corresponding supporting literature for each ES denoted by a number

Ecosystem services	Definition of ES
Provisioning services
Firewood^a,b	Fuel derived from trees within the wetland
Charcoal^b	Fuel derived from trees cut and slow-burned to produce charcoal
Construction materials ^a-^c	Poles, reeds and timber harvested from the wetland and used for building and making furniture and ornaments
Fishing gears	Equipment used for fishing made from local materials e.g. cages, canoes
Honey^d	Honey harvested from hives set up in the vegetation in the wetland
Medicine^b	Traditional and locally used medicines derived from natural wetland products
Fisheries^a-^c	Fish harvested from the water bodies in the wetland
Wild Foods^a-^c	Wild foods collected from the wetland e.g. wild vegetables, berries, and meat from small wild game
Regulating services
Erosion protection	Soil retention and capacity to prevent soil erosion
Carbon sequestration^c	Long term storage of carbon in the wetland soil and vegetation
Flood protection^c	Mitigation of impacts of floods in the wetland
Nutrient regulation	Ability of the wetland to store nutrients e.g. nitrogen
Cultural services
Education and research^c	Traditional and local knowledge gained from living in the wetland; research by scientists and other researchers in the wetland
Cultural shrines^d	Places of religious significance to the community where e.g. rituals are carried out
Recreation and tourism^c,d	Outdoor activities and tourism relating to the natural landscape e.g. hiking and bird watching
Intrinsic values^b	The desire for the natural environment to exist outside of its usefulness to people

^aAbila (2005), ^bIkiara et al. (2010), ^cMuoria et al. (2015), ^dMwaura et al. (2003)

Table 2. Matrix showing flow of ES in Yala wetland. Mean scores: 0 = no flow, 1 = very low flow, 2 = low flow, 3 = medium flow, 4 = high flow, 5 = very high flow

Figure 2. Map showing LULC classes in Yala wetland.

Figure 3. Proportions of respondents who favoured high flows of ES over selected LULC classes (NB: High flows here are defined as a score of 4 or 5 on the matrix).

Figure 4. Map showing flow of provisioning services in Yala wetland.

Figure 5. Map showing flow of regulating services in Yala wetland.

Figure 6. Map showing flow of cultural services in Yala wetland.

Table 3. Results of one-way MANOVA test for the effects of expertise on scoring of ES flows (*denotes significance) η2 = partial eta, n = 99

Ecosystem Service	Land Cover Type	Mean score by Environment/ Conservation	Mean score by Farmers/ fishermen (n = 50)	Mean score by other (n = 23)	Mean score of flows by all groups	F-values	p-values	η^2
Firewood	Trees and shrubs	4.67	3.49	3.90	3.91	5.962	.004*	.113
Charcoal	Trees and shrubs	4.04	2.96	3.67	3.41	3.540	.055	.070
Construction materials	Trees and shrubs	4.56	3.53	4.00	3.92	4.078	.019*	.080
Medicine	Trees and shrubs	4.41	3.31	3.62	3.68	4.988	.009*	.096
Fisheries	Papyrus	3.81	3.39	2.76	3.37	2.222	.114	.045
	Water body	4.67	4.14	4.19	4.30	1.694	.189	.035
Erosion protection	Papyrus	4.56	3.82	3.86	4.03	3.501	.043*	.069
	Shrub and trees	4.07	3.47	4.05	3.76	2.374	.099	.048
	Grasslands	3.89	3.18	3.76	3.51	2.335	.102	.047
Carbon sequestration	Papyrus	4.41	3.55	3.67	3.81	3.387	.048*	.067
	Trees and shrubs	4.37	3.65	4.38	4.01	4.357	.020*	.085
Flood protection	Papyrus	4.15	3.31	3.33	3.55	2.410	.095	.049
	Trees and shrubs	3.89	3.73	3.95	3.82	.251	.778	.005
Education and Research	Papyrus	3.96	3.43	3.90	3.68	1.719	.185	.035
	Trees and shrubs	3.74	3.02	3.67	3.36	2.095	.129	.043
Recreation and Tourism	Water body	4.26	2.98	3.81	3.52	7.649	.001*	.140
Intrinsic value	Papyrus	4.22	3.37	3.76	3.69	2.774	.068	.056
	Water body	4.11	3.04	3.71	3.48	4.386	.015*	.085
	Trees and shrubs	3.85	3.04	3.52	3.37	2.978	.056	.060

Table 4. Results of one-way MANOVA test for the effects of gender on scoring of ES flows (*denotes significance) η2 = partial eta, n = 127

Ecosystem Service	Land Cover Type	Mean score by Men	Mean score by Women	Mean score of both groups	F-values	p-values	η^2
Firewood	Trees and shrubs	3.64	4.39	3.93	8.272	.005*	.062
Charcoal	Trees and shrubs	3.36	3.43	3.38	.040	.841	.000
Construction materials	Trees and shrubs	3.87	3.66	3.79	.547	.461	.004
Medicine	Trees and shrubs	3.64	3.53	3.60	.155	.695	.001
Fisheries	Papyrus	3.24	3.30	3.26	.028	.867	.000
	Water body	4.19	4.09	4.15	.174	.677	.001
Erosion protection	Papyrus	3.87	3.68	3.80	.537	.465	.004
	Shrub and trees	3.55	3.77	3.63	.724	.397	.006
	Grasslands	3.49	3.19	3.38	1.115	.293	.009
Carbon sequestration	Papyrus	3.69	3.64	3.67	.038	.845	.000
	Trees and shrubs	3.73	3.94	3.81	.679	.412	.005
Flood protection	Papyrus	3.38	3.11	3.28	.741	.391	.006
Education and Research	Papyrus	3.58	3.09	3.39	2.941	.089	.023
	Water body	3.15	3.34	3.22	.356	.552	.003
Recreation and Tourism	Water body	3.26	3.57	3.38	1.257	.264	.010
Intrinsic value	Papyrus	3.42	3.85	3.58	2.225	.138	.018
	Water body	3.44	3.23	3.36	.435	.511	.004
	Trees and shrubs	3.37	3.40	3.38	.016	.900	.000

Table 5. Results of one-way MANOVA test for the effects of location on scoring of ES flows (*denotes significance) η2 = partial eta, n = 126

Ecosystem Service	Land Cover Type	Mean score (0 to 5 km) n = 104	Mean score (>5 to 10 km) n = 10	Mean score (> 10 km) n = 10	Mean score of flows by all groups	F-values	p-values	η^2
Firewood	Trees and shrubs	3.91	4.00	3.70	3.90	.118	.889	.002
Charcoal	Trees and shrubs	3.26	4.60	3.30	3.37	2.643	.075	.042
Construction materials	Trees and shrubs	3.76	4.40	3.40	3.78	1.105	.334	.018
Medicine	Trees and shrubs	3.63	3.60	3.60	3.63	.005	.995	.000
Fisheries	Papyrus	3.29	2.60	3.60	3.26	.905	.407	.015
	Water body	4.14	3.80	4.50	4.15	.631	.534	.010
Erosion protection	Papyrus	3.71	3.90	4.50	3.79	1.470	.234	.024
	Trees and shrubs	3.50	4.00	4.50	3.62	2.959	.056	.047
	Grasslands	3.27	3.80	4.20	3.39	2.157	.120	.034
Carbon sequestration	Papyrus	3.59	3.50	4.60	3.66	2.211	.114	.035
	Trees and shrubs	3.77	3.80	4.40	3.82	1.007	.368	.016
Flood protection	Papyrus	3.23	3.00	4.20	3.29	1.559	.214	.025
	Trees and shrubs	3.66	3.60	3.40	3.64	.163	.849	.003
Education and Research	Papyrus	3.46	2.40	3.60	3.39	2.227	.112	.036
	Water body	3.35	1.40	3.60	3.21	6.969	.001*	.103
Recreation and Tourism	Water body	3.33	2.80	4.30	3.36	2.624	.077	.042
Intrinsic value	Papyrus	3.48	4.00	4.10	3.57	1.125	.328	.018
	Water body	3.28	3.20	4.30	3.35	1.799	.170	.029
	Trees and shrubs	3.91	4.00	3.70	3.90	3.378	.037*	.053

Table A1. Pairwise comparisons of Tukey’s HSD (* denotes significance at 0.05 level)

Dependent Variable			Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
						Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Firewood from Trees and shrubs	Environment/Conservation	Farming/ Fishing	1.15*	.339	.003*	.34	1.95
		Other	.71	.408	.193	−.26	1.68
	Farming/ Fishing	Environment/ Conservation	−1.15*	.339	.003	−1.95	−.34
		Other	−.43	.363	.458	−1.30	.43
	Other	Environment/ Conservation	−.71	.408	.193	−1.68	.26
		Farming/ Fishing	.43	.363	.458	−.43	1.30
Construction materials from Trees and shrubs	Environment/Conservation	Farming/ Fishing	1.02*	.356	.014*	.17	1.86
		Other	.56	.428	.400	−.46	1.57
	Farming/ Fishing	Environment/ Conservation	−1.02*	.356	.014	−1.86	−.17
		Other	−.46	.381	.452	−1.37	.45
	Other	Environment/ Conservation	−.56	.428	.400	−1.57	.46
		Farming/ Fishing	.46	.381	.452	−.45	1.37
Medicine from Trees and shrubs	Environment/Conservation	Farming/ Fishing	1.09*	.356	.008*	.24	1.93
		Other	.95	.428	.072	−.07	1.97
	Farming/ Fishing	Environment/ Conservation	−1.09*	.356	.008	−1.93	−.24
		Other	−.13	.381	.934	−1.04	.77
	Other	Environment/ Conservation	−.95	.428	.072	−1.97	.07
		Farming/ Fishing	.13	.381	.934	−.77	1.04
Erosion Protection from Papyrus	Environment/Conservation	Farming/ Fishing	.72*	.290	.040	.03	1.41
		Other	.65	.348	.157	−.18	1.48
	Farming/ Fishing	Environment/ Conservation	−.72*	.290	.040	−1.41	−.03
		Other	−.07	.310	.973	−.81	.67
	Other	Environment/ Conservation	−.65	.348	.157	−1.48	.18
		Farming/ Fishing	.07	.310	.973	−.67	.81
Carbon Sequestration from Papyrus	Environment/Conservation	Farming/ Fishing	.83*	.335	.040	.03	1.63
		Other	.68	.403	.215	−.28	1.64
	Farming/ Fishing	Environment/ Conservation	−.83*	.335	.040	−1.63	−.03
		Other	−.15	.359	.912	−1.00	.71
	Other	Environment/ Conservation	−.68	.403	.215	−1.64	.28
		Farming/ Fishing	.15	.359	.912	−.71	1.00
Carbon Sequestration from Trees and shrubs	Environment/Conservation	Farming/ Fishing	.69*	.287	.047	.01	1.37
		Other	.01	.345	1.000	−.81	.83
	Farming/ Fishing	Environment/ Conservation	−.69*	.287	.047	−1.37	−.01
		Other	−.68	.307	.072	−1.41	.05
	Other	Environment/ Conservation	−.01	.345	1.000	−.83	.81
		Farming/ Fishing	.68	.307	.072	−.05	1.41
Recreation and Tourism from Water Body	Environment/Conservation	Farming/ Fishing	1.26*	.339	.001*	.45	2.07
		Other	.53	.408	.396	−.44	1.50
	Farming/Fishing	Environment/ Conservation	−1.26*	.339	.001	−2.07	−.45
		Other	−.73	.363	.117	−1.59	.14
	Other	Environment/ Conservation	−.53	.408	.396	−1.50	.44
		Farming/ Fishing	.73	.363	.117	−.14	1.59
Intrinsic Value of Papyrus	Environment/Conservation	Farming/ Fishing	.82	.362	.065	−.04	1.68
		Other	.45	.435	.558	−.59	1.49
	Farming/ Fishing	Environment/ Conservation	−.82	.362	.065	−1.68	.04
		Other	−.37	.388	.603	−1.30	.55
	Other	Environment/ Conservation	−.45	.435	.558	−1.49	.59
		Farming/ Fishing	.37	.388	.603	−.55	1.30
Intrinsic Value of Water Body	Environment/Conservation	Farming/ Fishing	1.05*	.370	.015	.17	1.93
		Other	.38	.444	.664	−.67	1.44
	Farming/ Fishing	Environment/ Conservation	−1.05*	.370	.015	−1.93	−.17
		Other	−.67	.396	.216	−1.61	.28
	Other	Environment/ Conservation	−.38	.444	.664	−1.44	.67
		Farming/ Fishing	.67	.396	.216	−.28	1.61

Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Müller F. 2013. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators: a theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol Indic. 28:54–78. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abila R. 2005. Biodiversity and sustainable management of a tropical wetland lake ecosystem: a case study of Lake Kanyaboli, Kenya. Summer Sch. 3:1–11; [accessed 2020 May 12]. http://www.oceandocs.net/handle/1834/1272.

 Google Scholar

Ikiara MM, Mwakubo SM, Nyangoro O. 2010. To convert of conserve the Yala wetland: an economic valuation (No. 116/ 2010). Nairobi: Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA).

 Google Scholar

Muoria P, Field R, Matiku P, Munguti S, Mateche E, Shati S, Odeny D. 2015. Yala Swamp ecosystem service assessment. Nairobi: Nature Kenya.

 Google Scholar

Mwaura F, M N, Were E, Kagure E, Wanjohi L, Mbuthia J, Otieno J, and Makala M, 2003. Options of the Yala wetland management for sustainable development and biodiversity conservation. Nairobi: Conservation Leadership Programme.

 Google Scholar