Towards circular production system in the coconut value chain: actor, roles, linkage and constraints in Kilifi County, Kenya

Abstract

Circular economy has been recognized as an innovation to resolve coconut waste challenges while promoting economic growth. Adoption of circular economy is expected to be a shared responsibility among stakeholders. However, limited research on stakeholder interactions in the coconut value chain hinders the development of collaborative strategies. This study, based on coconut value chain, elucidates stakeholders’ perceptions by identifying key actors, their roles, linkages, level of influence, perceived benefits, and potential constraints faced by actors. Data were collected through a participatory workshop and key informants’ interviews anchored on Social Network Analysis. Twenty-one stakeholders and linkages were identified in the information, product, and finance networks. The National Coconut Development Authority, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries were the most influential stakeholders in the information network. Farmers and cooperatives are centrally positioned in the product network, whereas finance flow is dominated by the Kenya Revenue Authority and the private sector. Despite stakeholders’ positive perceptions, several challenges, such as actors’ limited knowledge and skills impede transition to a circular economy. To enhance adoption of a circular economy, this study recommends formation of more inclusive farmer groups to improve access to information, credit and market linkages.

Keywords:

• Circular economy
• coconut value chain
• Net-Map
• Kilifi County
• value chain stakeholder
• social network analysis
• stakeholder collaboration

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• George Mudimu, Development Sciences, Marondera University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Marondera, Zimbabwe

SUBJECTS:

• Agricultural Economics
• Agricultural Development
• Agriculture and Food
• Agriculture

Introduction

Agricultural waste is a global issue that poses environmental and health-related risks (Adeyemo et al., 2019; Atinkut et al., 2020; Kour et al., 2023). According to Obi et al. (2016), annual agricultural waste is estimated at approximately 998 million tons. In developing countries, the amount of agricultural waste is higher than that of other wastes produced (Kour et al., 2023). Agricultural waste generated is expected to increase by 2050 owing to changes in population structure and dietary patterns (Atinkut et al., 2020; Elbasiouny et al., 2020). Furthermore, as developing countries continue to intensify farming systems, there is a likely of a significant increase in agricultural waste globally (Obi et al., 2016),. Therefore, efforts should be focused on developing sustainable agricultural waste management strategies to mitigate the negative impacts of agricultural waste.

Recently, circular economy (CE) has gained momentum as a tool for sustainable agricultural waste management. Circular economy is defined as a restorative and regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Nikolaou et al., 2021). Moreover, circular economy provides opportunities for improved resource efficiency and reduced climate impacts by minimizing waste along the value chain, while ensuring economic growth and job creation from waste utilization. According to Schroeder et al. (2019), circular economy considers social, economic, and environmental contexts to maximize benefits and minimize trade-offs.

In most developing countries, agricultural value chains generate significant agricultural waste (Perdana et al., 2023). For instance, in the coconut value chain, waste is generated at various nodes such as production (coconut leaves and husks), distribution (coconut shell and husks), processing (copra meal), and consumption (coconut shell). Dulo et al. (2022) estimated that the total coconut production in Kenya in 2018 was 105,000 metric tons (MT), of which 47% was estimated to be potential waste, translating to 49,000 MT. It was estimated that 2.54 to 2.94 tonnes of coconut waste is generated monthly within the Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana (Clarence, 2016). Furthermore, Nunes et al. (2020) noted that up to three million tons of green coconut waste is generated in Brazil.

In Kenya, like many other developing countries, coconut waste generated is mismanaged and often disposed of in landfills or water bodies, left in the open to rot or burning without energy recovery (Ajien et al., 2023; Doe et al., 2022), which leads to environmental pollution and amplifies the effects of climate change through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Dulo et al., 2022; Obeng et al., 2020). Furthermore, owing to the prevalent tropical climate, the pile of coconut waste left to rot often becomes a habitat for mosquitoes, pests, and rodents, and hence becomes a nuisance with corresponding health implications (Dulo et al., 2022). Curia et al. (2021) noted that the transition towards circular coconut production systems has the potential to mitigate the negative impacts of coconut waste.

Coconut waste may be generated directly or indirectly during agricultural production and processing of coconuts. Obi et al. (2016) categorized agricultural waste into production (crops) and processing (industrial) waste. Research has shown that coconut waste can be used at the production and processing levels to produce technical materials such as mats (Munib, 2021; Stelte et al., 2023); cocopeat and compost (Side et al., 2022); briquettes and activated charcoal (Nunes et al., 2020; Obeng et al., 2020); coconut flour (Karandeep et al., 2019) and livestock feed (Silva et al., 2021). Therefore, the utilization of coconut waste biomass from a circular economy perspective can meet the current and future societal needs for food, feed, fuel, and fiber while promoting social, economic, and environmental benefits by minimizing trade-offs.

Although there are many applications for the use of coconut waste from a circular economy perspective, the adoption of CE practices remains low in many countries (Doe et al., 2022). Swaans et al. (2014) emphasized that the success of any agricultural innovation in a value chain is a shared responsibility among stakeholders. Stakeholders not only initiate multisectoral cooperation but also mobilize resources and support innovation adoption (Kimani et al., 2016). Several authors have argued that the participation of all stakeholders could support the implementation of strategies that enhance the adoption of various agricultural innovations (Enciso et al., 2022; Kamara et al., 2023; Tana et al., 2023). Social network analysis (SNA) has been suggested as a suitable method for visualizing, measuring, and analyzing the relationships among multiple and diverse actors that influence adoption (Brandes et al., 2016; Kimani et al., 2016; Spielman et al., 2011).

SNA provides a basis for understanding the attributes of different stakeholders and how they interact. As noted by Buccini et al. (2020) and Pilamala Rosales et al. (2023), such analysis requires a flexible and open methodological framework that elucidates one’s perspective, fosters discussion, and develops a strategic approach to networking activities. Therefore, the SNA tool-Net-Map developed by Schiffer and Hauck (2010) is used to understand situations in which different actors influence outcomes. According to Pilamala Rosales et al. (2023), the net-map methodology has been applied to facilitate the development and oversight of policy interventions, enhance coordination of multi-stakeholder governance, and gain insights for strategic enhancement of stakeholder networks. For instance, Boadi et al. (2023) used Net map to analyze stakeholder connections and influence in agriculture-for-nutrition policymaking in Ghana, while Nyokabi et al. (2018) employed Net-Map to determine stakeholder roles, their relationships, and their impact on milk quality in the Kenyan dairy sector.

Like other agricultural value chains, the Kenyan coconut value chain is not different regarding the adoption of innovations. Different stakeholders in the coconut value chain play various roles in promoting a transition towards a circular coconut production system, including information provision, complementary inputs, and incentives for farmers to adopt circular economy practices (AFA_NOCD, 2020). Despite these efforts, the level of circular economy adoption in coconut value is said to be low in Kenya. Therefore, this study adopts SNA tool Net-map analysis to map the landscape of various key actors, analyze their roles, and examine how power relations in the linkages influence stakeholder collaboration to enhance a transition towards a circular coconut production system.

This study contributes to the nascent literature on the adoption of circular economy by determining the perceptions of coconut value chain stakeholders regarding circular economy innovations in Kilifi County. Specifically, the study determines the key actors and analyzes their roles, how power relations in the linkages influence the adoption of circular economy, and the constraints that impede adoption. The results can inform policymakers about the multifaceted roles of different actors in the transition towards a circular economy. This study provides a foundation for informed decision-making, fostering an environment for stakeholder collaboration to formulate and implement policies to enhance the transition towards circular coconut production systems. Additionally, this study contributes to the existing literature on the coconut value chain. Few studies Mwachofi (2016) have been conducted on the coconut value chain in Kenya, and none, to the best of our knowledge, has assessed the influence of coconut value chain stakeholders on transition towards CE using SNA tool Net-Map.

Materials and methods

Study area

The study was conducted in Kilifi County, Kenya, which is one of the six counties in the coastal region of Kenya. It occupies an estimated land area of 1,237,000 hectares (ha), of which 689,120 ha are used for agriculture, accounting for 55% of the county’s total area. The County has good climatic conditions, whereby the majority of the population is involved in agriculture. Agriculture plays an important role in the county and is the dominant source of employment and critical for food security for the majority of the population. Farmers in the county rely on dairy and crop farming, including mangoes, citrus, cashew nuts, cassava, and coconuts. Kilifi County is the largest producer of coconuts by volume in Kenya, and second in acreage. The area under coconut production is estimated to be 35,494 ha, producing 40,510 MT of nuts (AFA-NOCD 2020). The County is home to most stakeholders involved in the coconut value chain.

The County has a bimodal rainfall pattern, with an average annual precipitation ranging from 300 mm in the hinterland to 1,300 mm in the coastal belt. It lies between longitudes ${39}^{°}$ and ${40}^{°}$ east and between latitudes $2^{°}$ and $4^{°}$ south. The County lies between 100 m and 340 m above sea level. It borders Kwale County to the southwest, Taita Taveta County to the west, Tana River County to the north, Mombasa County to the south, and the Indian Ocean to the east. The County is made up of 35 wards and seven sub-counties: Kilifi South, Kilifi North, Ganze, Malindi, Magarini, Kaloleni, and Rabai (Republic of Kenya, 2013). A map of the study area is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Map of Kilfi County.

Source: Kilifi CIDP (2018).

Research design

The study employed a mixed-method approach to determine actors, their roles, interlinkages, perceived benefits, and constraints impeding the transition to coconut circular economy production systems. The study targeted key stakeholders in the coconut value chain in Kenya, including research institutions- Nuts and Oil Crops Directorate (NOCD), Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (KEPHIS), extension institutions–Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MOALF), coconut processors, and farmers. These stakeholders were selected based on their extensive experience, involvement, and knowledge of Kenya’s coconut value chains. As recommended by Kamara et al. (2023), for KALRO and MOALF, different categories were targeted, including senior, middle, and frontline staff, as they have diverse knowledge and authority consistent with their professional hierarchies. Therefore, inviting respondents from these cadres provided a unique opportunity to triangulate information and understand the differences in perceptions between staff with varying levels of authority.

Data collection and analysis

A stakeholder meeting was organized at Pwani University in Kilifi County on July 6, 2023, with the help of the Kilifi County Agricultural Office and Pwani University. According to Kamara et al. (2023), it is essential to elicit the perspectives of different stakeholders engaged in promoting and enhancing the transition to a circular coconut production system to understand needs and solutions. However, before conducting the stakeholder meeting, a preliminary identification of potential actors, their interlinkages, and goals was conducted as recommended by Schiffer and Hauck (2010). Prior knowledge and a review of relevant literature informed this identification. We established 12 actors and three relationships among them: information, product, and finance flow.

In total, 25 individuals representing different stakeholder groups participated in the meeting. Before obtaining a written and a verbal consent, the stakeholders were briefed on the SNA and Net-map tool concepts (i.e. meaning of power/influence), as outlined by Schiffer and Waale (2008). As noted earlier, Net-map is a participatory social network mapping tool based on the visualization of networks and discussions in which many actors influence outcomes. By creating network maps, respondents can clarify their views on a situation and develop a strategic approach to their networking activities. Moreover, respondents could identify the actors involved in a network, their linkages, and their influence level.

During the mapping, the respondents were asked to identify all stakeholders involved in the coconut value chain and their roles these stakeholders performed in regard to transition to a circular economy. The names of these identified stakeholders were written in sticker notes and placed on Manila paper. To indicate the linkages between different actors, lines were drawn to indicate the relationships between stakeholders, with different colors used to denote the types of linkages {resource flow (funds), information exchange, coconut, and by-product trade (product flow)}.

Next, to elicit stakeholders’ perceptions of power and influence in the value chain were determined, with influence or power visualized by placing the influence towers next to the actor cards; for our case, we used bicycle spare parts and bottle tops (the stronger the influence, the higher the tower). Influence was measured on a nine-point Likert scale, where (7 or 8) illustrated very strong influence, (5 or 6) strong, (4 or 3) medium, (2 or 1) low influence, and 0 no influence. During the meeting, power/influence was defined as the ability of a stakeholder to enhance or promote the transition towards a circular economy in the coconut value chain. Then, a discussion was held with participants to identify each stakeholder’s goals, the reasons behind the perceptions of power and influence, and the challenges and opportunities facing stakeholders in the transition towards a circular coconut production system. Audio recordings were taken by the researcher to help fill in the information gaps that the researcher did not capture during notetaking.

To ascertain and triangulate the information provided by the meeting participants, the researcher identified 12 key informants, who were interviewed using interview guides. The informants were purposively chosen based on their involvement and experience in promoting and adopting various circular economy activities in the coconut value chain. The key informants interviewed were research professionals (n = 4), extension professionals (n = 3), processors (n = 2) and farmers (n = 3).

Qualitative data from the key informant interviews and the stakeholder workshop were recorded and transcribed. The interview covered various themes related to actors’ roles, perceived benefits of CE, and constraints impeding the transition to circular coconut production. The transcripts were coded in Excel using thematic coding and then analyzed using NVIVO version 20. NVIVO 20 allowed for more in-depth exploration and coding of the interview transcripts, enabling the identification of key themes and patterns from the data (Dhakal, 2022). The relational data from the stakeholder workshop were exported to Excel to generate a square matrix in which all stakeholders were lined up in the same order in columns and rows. The created matrix was filled with data about linkages between actors where (1= presence of linkage and 0= absence of linkage). An attribute sheet was then generated to capture the power levels (influence scores).

UCINET 6 software (Brandes et al., 2016) was used to generate sociograms and degree centrality measures of the underlying social relations among coconut value chain actors (Figure 2). According to Brandes et al. (2016) and Pilamala Rosales et al. (2023), centrality measures of the actor degree are estimated to help understand stakeholders’ power relations and influence within a network. Moreover, degree measures describe how an actor is embedded in a network, that is, how influential or prominent the actor is in domain linkages (Brandes et al., 2016; Hermans et al., 2017). Degree centrality can be broken down into inbound or outbound, which are called in-degree and out-degree, respectively. According to Wasserman and Faust (1994), indegree refers to the number of ties an actor receives, whereas out-degree refers to the number of links an actor sends. In this study, in-degree values for an actor reflect a position where others want to influence it, whereas the high out-degree measure for an actor reflects a position where it wants to influence those linked to them.

Figure 2. Sample Net-Map from workshop.

Ethical consideration

The study proposal and data collection tool were approved by the Egerton University Institutional Scientific and Ethics Review Committee (Reference number: EUISERC/APP/302/2024). Moreover, the data collection was reviewed and approved by National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) (license number: NACOSTI/P/24/33141). During the data collection process, a written and a verbal consent that was recorded was sought among the stakeholders. The consent involved elaboration of information on data privacy and confidentiality. Reporting was done anonymously based on data privacy guidelines by Egerton University Institutional Scientific and Ethics Review Committee as well as the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation in Kenya.

Results and discussion

Actors in the coconut value chain

A diverse group of 21 stakeholders were identified during the discussions, who influenced the transition towards a circular economy within the coconut value chain. The full list of the identified actors is shown in Table 1, along with their roles and levels of influence, as assigned by the respondents. The key actors include processors, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries (MOALF), National Coconut Development Authority (NOCD), Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), farmers, and consumers. These actors collectively engage in a range of roles and collaborative efforts that enhance and promote various circular practices in the coconut value chain.

Table 1. Stakeholders, their roles, and influence scores.

	Actor (stakeholder)	Function (Role)	Influence/power
1.	Nursery operator	Production and distribution of quality coconut seedlings. Provision of extension services	5
2.	Courier shop	Purchase coconut waste value added products and sell to consumers	5
3.	Consumer	Consume coconut waste value added products	6
4.	KRA	Collection of Levy and taxes from other value chain actors	2
5.	Exporters	They help with global marketing of coconut waste value added products	2
6.	Transporters	Help with transportation of coconut waste value added products a	1
7.	University	They provide innovations, technologies, and research needed for production at farm level. Their finding also inform policy	2
8.	MOALF	They are mandated to provide training, information to farmers and funded by county government	8
9.	KALRO	Mandated with agricultural research technology development and dissemination providing extension services	7
10.	Processor	Buying coconut waste value added products Provision of extension services	6
11.	NOCD	They are mandated to provide information to other actors and perform research and funded by the national government	8
12.	Farmers	Produce coconut & coconut waste value added products	8
13.	Traders	Bulk and market coconut on behalf of farmers	4
14.	Cooperatives	Help with coconut waste value added products marketing, provision of inputs and services to farmers	7
15.	Financial providers	Work with different institutions to provide finance and information to different actors in the coconut sector	6
16.	Input suppliers	Provide inputs and information to farmers	2
17.	Aggregators	Collecting of coconut and coconut waste value added products from farmers	5
18.	KEPHIS	Ensuring that coconuts and coconut products meet phytosanitary requirements	1
19.	KEBS	Maintain quality through surveillance and issuing of quality mark used in products	2
20.	Supermarket	Distribution and retailing of coconut and coconut waste value added products to consumers.	4
21.	National government	Policy formulation	5

The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MOALF) is normally the major government institution responsible for scaling innovation adoption by coconut farmers. The respondents assigned MOALF a score of 8, which was attributed to an integral role in disseminating new technologies, such as circularity practices, to other value chain actors. Further, it was noted that the MOALF was responsible for issuing policies, regulations, and directives for stakeholder collaboration to drive knowledge exchange, provide agricultural extension services and capacity-building programs, and facilitate farmers’ access to markets. These results align with the findings of Onumah et al. (2023), who found that the Ministry of Agriculture in Ghana was the main stakeholder involved in agricultural development through the coordination of all agricultural policy issues.

Despite the role of MOALF in coordinating all agricultural policy issues, NOCD was noted to be specifically responsible for setting policy agendas for coconuts and other nuts and oil crops in Kenya (AFA-NOCD, 2018). NOCD is responsible for all policy directions from the production to the marketing of coconuts; this justifies why the respondents gave an influence score of 8. The autonomy given to NOCD positions them to play a key role in mobilizing other actors in the coconut value chain to create supportive regulatory frameworks, incentives, and standards that encourage the adoption of circular practices.

In addition to developing and promoting improved coconut varieties, KALRO plays a key role in improving farmers’ agricultural practices (Mwachofi, 2016). Respondents highlighted that KALRO is the backbone of the coconut sector in the development of innovations. They facilitate the transition towards a circular economy through research, extension, and coordination. As such they undertake research on various circular economy practices, such as performing nutrient analysis on cocopeat (propagation media). Further, KALRO provides farmers and other stakeholders with insights into the environmental and economic benefits of circular practices through educational programs, workshops, and extension activities, encouraging adoption. However, this was surprising because, traditionally, KALRO is mandated with research and not with the extension delivery of innovations to farmers.

Respondents from the meeting and key informant interviews (KIIs) mentioned farmers as key actors in transitioning towards a circular economy. This finding is similar to that of Weyori et al. (2018), in a study on agricultural innovation systems in the Ghanaian plantain sector. Kamara et al. (2023) emphasized that farmers were the ultimate target of innovation and, therefore, justified why the respondents assigned them an influence score of 8. This was attributed to the farmer’s role in adopting various circular economy activities at the farm level and providing feedback to research and extension agents to inform them of the challenges faced during the adoption of CE. As noted by Onumah et al. (2023) and Wood et al. (2014), giving feedback allows farmers to be part of the various innovations being developed, rather than playing a passive role.

Processors play a pivotal role in enhancing circular innovation within a coconut value chain. Processors were assigned a score of 6 because of their role in buying and utilizing coconut by-products previously considered waste, such as husks, shells, and even coconut water, for valuable applications, such as using activated charcoal for fuel rather than non-renewable sources. In addition, processors extend their influence by offering research and extension services to farmers. These efforts serve as educational platforms, empowering farmers with the knowledge of diverse circular economy activities, thereby leading to adoption. It was further noted that consumers, apart from creating a market for coconut waste value-added products, as indicated by respondents, could further promote circular economy practices by sorting and recycling coconut waste at the household level. These findings coincide with those of Karani (2021), who acknowledged that waste segregation is a prerequisite for sustainable agricultural waste management.

Further, it was noted that financial service providers also play a crucial role in the transition towards a circular economy and, therefore, assigned an influence score of 6. These actors encompass banks and microfinance institutions offering financial support to other actors, such as loans. According to Bryan et al. (2020), loans and credit offered enable value chain actors to modernize production; as such, they can acquire modern equipment and other complementary inputs for efficient coconut waste management and volarisation.

It is also worth noting that farmers form farmer groups and cooperatives to pool resources, granting members the ability to collectively access credit and markets (Hintz & Pretzsch, 2023; Muriithi et al., 2018). Additionally, farmer groups foster the implementation of circular practices on a larger scale, encouraging joint investments in waste volarization initiatives that prioritize resource optimization and minimal environmental impact. Further, cooperatives enable farmers to perform coordinated marketing of coconut waste-derived value-added products. Farmer groups also serve as platforms for knowledge exchange among peers, thus enabling the dissemination of circular practices.

The perceived benefits of circular economy in the coconut value chain

The respondents highlighted the various benefits associated with transitioning towards a circular economy in the coconut value chain. According to Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) and Velasco-Muñoz et al. (2021), through the adoption of circularity innovation value chain actors can repurpose coconut by-products once considered waste to produce food, fiber, and fuel. Value chain actors can sell eco-friendly products, bolster their financial inflows, and foster economic resilience. Furthermore, circular economy practices such as utilizing coconut husks for composting and organic farming not only reduce waste disposal costs but also increase soil fertility, whereby the waste is used as a factor of production that may have a lower average cost compared to other conventional inputs (Karani, 2021).

It has also been noted that a circular economy reduces environmental pollution and the burden on landfills. Resource depletion is reduced through waste volarization. According to Vinti and Vaccari (2022), most rural communities in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) often face energy constraints, most of which use firewood, contributing to air pollution and deforestation resource depletion, thereby amplifying the effects of climate change. Therefore, the utilization of coconut biomass offers a sustainable source of renewable energy with a low carbon footprint compared with non-renewable fossil fuels (Arena et al., 2016; Azeta et al., 2021).

Finally, the respondents elaborated that the utilization of coconut waste contributed to the destruction of habitats for pests and diseases. A study by Pole et al. (2014) revealed that 96% of farms had coconut waste that provided a suitable environment for the breeding of rhinoceros beetles. Therefore, coconut waste volarization acts as a natural deterrent, reducing the prevalence of pests and diseases.

Actor linkages

Figure 3 presents the complete coconut value chain network described by the participants at the stakeholder workshop. The information flow is represented by red ties, finance by blue ties, and product flow by black ties. Actors in the sociogram are sized by their influence on the transition towards a circular economy based on the perception of the respondents in the stakeholder meeting, where a larger node reflects a higher influence tower and vice versa. Further, Figure 4, 5, and 6 shows information, product, and finance flow net maps, respectively.

Figure 3. Overall coconut value chain network Visualization.

Figure 4. Information network visualization.

Figure 5. Product network visualization.

Figure 6. Finance network visualization.

Information flow

The information network map is shown in Figure 4 reveals that most actors in the network are linked, with the majority of nodes being around farmers and cooperatives. It was noted that there were more reciprocal linkages in the value chain. According to Onumah et al. (2023) and Schiffer and Hauck (2010), this implies that actor interaction in the value chain has more forward and backward linkages. Further, Net-Map reveals that government-owned stakeholders, such as MOALF, NOCD, and KALRO, play a key role in information dissemination.

Centrality measures shown in Table 2 reveal that farmers had the highest number of ties with other actors in the chain, confirming their important role in transitioning towards a circular economy. Cooperatives were the next set of actors with many connections in the chain, signaling their level of interaction with other actors. Furthermore, it was found that farmers and cooperatives have very high in-degree centrality, suggesting that many other actors connect to them. Bryan et al. (2020) noted that farmers and cooperatives were the main targets of both public and private extension and research actors. Information from various extension and research agencies was channeled through the cooperatives, which in turn provided information to farmers.

Table 2. Degree centrality scores.

	Information flow			Product flow			Finance flow
Actor	Degree	Out-Deg	In-Deg	Degree	Out-Deg	In-Deg	Degree	Out-Deg	In-Deg
MOA	15	7	8	3	3	0	1	0	1
KALRO	16	8	8	3	3	0	1	0	1
Processor	10	6	4	12	6	6	8	5	3
NOCD	15	8	7	2	2	0	1	0	1
Farmers	18	6	12	16	10	6	10	3	7
Traders	2	2	0	8	7	1	7	2	5
Cooperatives	17	6	11	13	6	7	11	5	6
Finance providers	0	0	0	0	0	0	10	8	2
Input suppliers	5	2	3	3	3	0	3	1	2
Aggregators	3	2	1	6	5	1	5	2	3
KEPHIS	10	5	5	0	0	0	1	0	1
KEBS	3	1	2	0	0	1	1	0	1
University	6	5	1	0	0	0	1	0	1
Exporters	3	2	1	8	1	7	7	6	1
KRA	0	0	0	0	0	0	12	1	11
Consumers	2	0	2	13	4	9	7	7	0
Supermarket	0	0	0	8	1	7	8	7	1
Curior shops	0	0	0	9	3	6	7	4	3
Nursery operators	8	4	4	6	0	6	2	1	1
Transporter	0	0	0	7	5	2	6	0	6
National govt	11	8	3	0	0	0	7	6	1

However, KALRO, MOALF, and NOCD had high out-degree scores, indicating their extensive outbound connections to many other nodes in the chain. This was attributable to the fact that they were tasked with policy formulation and dissemination of information to other actors in the chain, as stated earlier, which concurs with the findings of Magala et al. (2019) that actors with a higher degree of centrality are likely to be major channels of information and knowledge. Further, farmers and cooperatives have several outgoing connections that illustrate the role of giving feedback to research and extension agents, which is crucial for facilitating legitimate and equitable participation in agricultural technology development and opinion-driven policy (Lamb et al., 2016; Weyori et al., 2018). On the other hand, it is worth noting that financial service providers, supermarkets, Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), and curio shops had no relationship with the rest of the stakeholders regarding the information network, implying a weakness in the chain.

Product flow

For product flow, Net-Map (Figure 5) shows that the product flow was mostly one-way links, from farmers, cooperatives, or traders. It was also noted that Net-Map was dense around farmers and cooperatives. The degree centrality measures are presented in Table 2, we can confirm that farmers had the most ties to these actors, showing their influence in the chain. This could be because farmers produce the most value-added coconut waste products at the farm level. Consumers and cooperatives were the next set of actors with many connections in the system because of their role in marketing and purchasing coconut waste value-added products.

The high out-degree scores for farmers indicate extensive outbound connections to many other nodes. However, due to the lack of a ready output market, farmers usually sell the value-added through traders, cooperatives, and courier shops, with few selling directly to consumers. Government-owned institutions, such as NOCD, MOALF, and KALRO, had few linkages with other actors in the network, illustrating their relatively isolated roles or limited collaboration with other entities within the product network. Further, it was noted that the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) and Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS), who are tasked with standardization and certification, have limited linkages with other value chain actors. This can result in varying product quality and safety standards at different stages of the value chain, undermining consumer confidence and market competitiveness.

Finance flow

The findings of the sociogram (Figure 6) indicate that financial providers and the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) play a major role in finance flow in the coconut value chain. The centrality measures revealed that KRA had the highest number of ties in relation to finance flow. KRA had the highest number of in-degree ties compared to the other actors because of its active role in collecting taxes and levies from other value chain actors. However, the revenue collected from value chain actors was used by the national government to provide public services, infrastructure, and social programs; therefore, the out-degree ties with the national government.

Financial providers such as commercial banks also had high out-degree ties, indicating their role in providing loans and credit to other value chain actors. Further, consumers and supermarkets also had high out-degree ties, illustrating their integral role in purchasing various coconut waste value-added products. To enhance the research and dissemination of information through the extension agent, the national government provided financing to various organizations such as the MOA, KALRO, and NOCD. However, the sociogram shows that the national government does not provide any financial support to the private sector. The role of providing loans and credit was left to the hands of the private sector, such as banks and other microfinance institutions.

Constraints associated with circular economy

Respondents shed light on the constraints currently impeding the transition towards circular coconut production. The major constraint is the scarcity of technical expertise among value chain actors. Most actors lack the essential know-how and knowledge to effectively implement circular practices, hampering the adoption of innovative waste utilization techniques and hindering progress towards circularity. Guerrero et al. (2013) and Massoud et al. (2021) argued that providing waste management information to value chain actors may translate into improved sustainable waste management practices. However, due to inadequate institutional capacity, such as extension staff and resources in most developing countries, dissemination of information regarding sustainable waste management practices, such as circular economy, is limited. Kimani et al. (2016) and Weyori et al. (2018) stress that the resources and funding provided to extension agents are inadequate to meet the demands of local farmers and other actors.

Financial constraints limit the capacity of value chain actors to mechanize coconut production and processing and invest in circular innovations, thereby limiting the adoption of a circular economy. As mentioned earlier, only microfinance and banks provide funding to value chain actors, whereas government-owned institutions are not directly involved in any major way. This is consistent with the findings of Bryan et al. (2020), who found low government involvement in financing smallholder farmers. Finance from microfinance and banks is not sufficient to enhance the transition because they provide small loans with high interest rates. It is worth noting that this institution has the capability to offer larger, more attractive loans; however, providing adequate collateral becomes a challenge for coconut farmers. The results align with those of Elbasiouny et al. (2020), who found that low-cost biomass is underutilized in Egypt due to high and logistical costs.

Furthermore, low product awareness limits the market for value-added coconut waste products. Heavy reliance on local markets restricts opportunities for broader product distribution, thus hindering the economic potential of circular ventures. The scarcity of strong cooperatives further exacerbates price pressure. With limited collective bargaining power, farmers face diminished prices for their produce, undercutting their motivation to adopt circular practices. Further Importation of husked coconuts at lower prices poses a challenge, undercutting local production and discouraging circular endeavors that hinge on utilizing coconut by-products.

According to Adoyo (2022) and Mwachofi (2016), climatic changes, notably recurrent droughts, hamper coconut production. The resultant tree death leading to reduced yields undermines circularity efforts, compelling the need for climate-resilient strategies. Moreover, the presence of aging and senile coconut trees coupled with extensive logging further curtails the sustainable potential of the value chain, necessitating strategies for rejuvenation and sustainable harvesting.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the empirical literature on coconut value chain stakeholders’ perceptions of circular economy innovations in Kilifi County by exploring key actors, their roles, their influence levels, and their linkages as well as the perceived benefits towards innovation and potential constraints faced by the actors. Applying the Net-Map methodology resulted in the identification of 21 stakeholders and three network linkages, namely, information, product, and finance flow in the coconut value chain. In the information network, MOALF, NOCD, and KALRO are the main stakeholders in promoting innovation, although constrained by institutional capacity, the level of funding, and the limited role of extension services. In contrast, farmers and cooperatives are the main ones in the product network, while KRA and financial institutions, such as commercial banks and microfinance institutions, are the key and most influential in the finance network. The perceived benefits include reduction of environmental pollution associated with coconut waste disposal, as well as bolstering actors’ financial inflows and fostering economic growth. The study found that financial constraints and a scarcity of technical expertise limit the transition towards a CE in the coconut value chain.

The results suggest that, to enhance information dissemination, extension agents such as MOALF, KALRO, and NOCD should be targeted, as they are centrally positioned in information networks. Institutional support through allocation of resources may enhance dissemination of circularity information to value chain actors, thereby leading to the adoption of innovation. The study’s findings underscore the significance of enhancing farmers’ access to affordable loans by improving their access to financial markets, with a particular focus on commercial banks and microfinance institutions, as these entities are leading sources of credit and finance in the network. The allocation of resources to farmers and cooperatives may enhance the uptake of various CE practices and, therefore, enhance product flow in the chain. Furthermore, strategies to enhance partnerships among all value chain actors are necessary to strengthen actor linkages (knowledge, information, and product flow) for circular economy initiatives.

The formation of more inclusive farmer groups and cooperatives should be one of the strategies to enhance the transition towards a circular economy in the coconut value chain. Farmer groups and cooperatives can help overcome barriers to information, credit, and market access. As cooperatives are legal entities with bank accounts, they have better access to finance and market linkages than individual actors. National and county governments should implement policies encouraging waste volarization, such as high taxes on waste disposal and cocopeat imports, while subsidizing the cost of complementary inputs for coconut waste value-added products.

Authors contribution

The study was conceptualized and designed by all the three authors (Thuranira Evans Muriuki, Oscar Ingasia Ayuya and Bernard Odhiambo Oloo). The data collection was conducted by Thuranira Evans Muriuki and Bernard Odhiambo Oloo. Bernard Odhiambo Oloo was involved in fund raising for data collection. All the three authors (Thuranira Evans Muriuki, Oscar Ingasia Ayuya and Bernard Odhiambo Oloo) were involved in the drafting of the paper including analysis and interpretation of data. Oscar Ingasia Ayuya was involved as the lead supervisor of the work in charge of quality control from the design, data collection and analysis, and reporting. All the three authors (Thuranira Evans Muriuki, Oscar Ingasia Ayuya and Bernard Odhiambo Oloo) read and approved the final manuscript and were in agreement for its publication in this journal.

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of the ongoing Master of Science in the Collaborative Masters in Applied and Agricultural Economics program for the corresponding author. The authors wish to thank Cluster of cooperation (CLOC) Eastern Africa-Seed Money and the African Economic Research Consortium for funding this research through the Egerton University. Special thanks go to the workshop participants and key informants, who freely provided information. We also thank Elisha Gogo of Pwani University for his support in organizing the workshop.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data is available upon request to the corresponding author.

Additional information

Funding

The study benefited from funding by the CLOC Eastern Africa-Seed Money Grant (Grant: SMG-2022-PO7-KEN, Towards a Circular Coconut Production System through Better Utilization of (By) Products and Stakeholder Collaboration) and the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) [AERC Thesis Grant: RE46-00009-23/24].

Notes on contributors

Thuranira Evans Muriuki

Thuranira Evans Muriuki is an African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) scholar pursuing a Collaborative Master of Science degree in Agricultural and Applied Economics at Egerton University, Kenya and University of Pretoria, South Africa. He received his BSc degree in Agricultural Economics from Egerton University in 2019. His master’s thesis examines adoption of circular economy practices in the coconut value chain. His research interests include sustainable agricultural practices, agricultural innovations and technology adoption, agricultural marketing, food and nutrition security, and rural development.

Oscar Ingasia Ayuya

Oscar Ingasia Ayuya is a senior lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management, Egerton University. He holds a PhD in Agricultural Economics with teaching and research experience running for many years.

Bernard Odhiambo Oloo

Bernard Odhiambo Oloo (PhD Graduate) is a Lecturer of Food science and Technology at Egerton University focusing on food safety of different commodity value chains. He holds an MSc. Food Science and Technology from Egerton and completed his PhD work at the same university awaiting degree conferment. His PhD work focused on safety and quality of Indigenous chicken value chain in Kenya using metagenomics applications. Previously he has worked in the Food Industry both as a production supervisor, production manager and quality assurance manager. He is currently in charge of the Guildford Dairy Institute at Egerton University where he is serving as a Food Safety Team Leader implementing ISO 22000:2005, food safety Management System. Oloo’s areas of research include new product development, value addition, quality and safety. Some of the specific commodities he has worked with include fruits and vegetables, milk and milk products, potatoes, sweet potatoes, meat and meat products safety and quality and indigenous chicken quality and safety. He has earned several international awards including: Borlaug Fellowship (Michigan State University USA 2019), Emerging Leaders Network Award by Institute of Food Technology (IFT), USA 2018, PhD student exchange programme (Durban University of Technology, South Africa) and the African Biosciences Challenge Fund, 2017-2018 at ILRI, Kenya. He therefore brings international project experience to this research team. Oloo is also representing Egerton University in the food and nutrition research team in the Egerton University- SVU, India-MSU, Global Alliance on Sustainable Development project. He is the current editor of GHI Matters, a Bimonthly publication of the GHI international, Vienna Austria.