Isi daftar tersedia diScienceDirect

Jasa Ekosistem
homepagejurnal: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

konservasi hutan tropis dibandingkan konversi trade-off: Wawasan dari analisis jasa
ekosistem yang disediakan oleh Kakamega hutan hujan di Kenya
Morgan C. Mutoko a, b, n, Lars Hein b, Chris A. Shisanya c
a Kenya Pertanian & Peternakan Organisasi Penelitian (KALRO), PO Box 450, 30200 Kitale, Kenya b Sistem Lingkungan
Analysis Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, Belanda c Departemen Geografi, Kenyatta
University, PO Box 43844, GPO 00100 Nairobi, Kenya
artikel Info
Pasal sejarah: Diterima 23 April 2014 Diterima dalam bentuk direvisi 18 Desember 2014 Diterima 14 Maret 2015
Kata kunci: Keanekaragaman jasa Ekosistem valuasi ekonomi konservasi Kakamega hutan hujan
http: // dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.003 2212-0416 / & 2015 Elsevier All rights reserved.
abstrak
Jasa ekosistemyang disediakan oleh hutan tropis yang menjadi langka akibat deforestasi terus karena permintaan untuk manfaat
hutan meningkat dengan pertumbuhan populasi. Ada kebutuhan untuk penilaian yang komprehensif dari jasa ekosistem kunci
untuk menginformasikan kebijakan dan menerapkan sistem manajemen yang lebih baik untuk meningkatkan penyediaan jasa
ekosistem. Penelitian ini memperkirakan nilai ekonomi lokal jasa ekosistem kunci yang disediakan oleh Kakamega hutan hujan
dan meneliti bagaimana informasi tersebut dapat mendukung pengelolaan hutan lestari di Kenya. Ini adalah satu-satunya hutan
hujan di Kenya dan memiliki nilai keanekaragaman hayati yang luar biasa termasuk beberapa spesies unik yang tidak ditemukan
di tempat lain di negara ini. Kakamega hutan hujan juga menyediakan kasus klasik dari konflik antara tujuan konservasi dan
eksploitasi diberi padat penduduk di sekitarnya. Kami melakukan rumit rumah tangga dan pengunjung survei untuk
mengumpulkan data yang digunakan untuk memperkirakan nilai ekonomi dari tiga layanan ekosistem utama. Kami
memperkirakan nilai ekonomi total jasa ekosistem kunci (tidak termasuk nilai keanekaragaman hayati) sekitar US $ 7,4 juta per
tahun atau US $ 415 ha1 yr1. Manfaat ekonomi lokal jauh lebih kecil dari return yang hilang dari kegiatan pertanian jika
hutan yang akan dikonversi ke penggunaan pertanian terbaik. Diperdebatkan, lanjut perlindungan hutan ini dibenarkan atas dasar
nilai yang tidak diketahui keanekaragaman hayati dan kapasitas untuk menyerap COyang
2
kaya.Temuan empiris menunjukkan bahwa sistem pengelolaan hutan yang ada kurang efektif karena keterbatasan
sumber daya dan kelemahan institusional. Studi kami memberikan wawasan untuk kebutuhan untuk mengelola hutan ini untuk
beberapa kegunaan. Kami merekomendasikan strategi manajemen terintegrasi yang menyeimbangkan kebutuhan sumber daya
lokal dengan konservasi keanekaragaman hayati. Kami menyarankan bahwa peningkatan kolaborasi stakeholder dapat
memfasilitasi pengelolaan sumber daya hutan ini. Selain itu, pembayaran hati-hati dibuat untuk mekanisme layanan ekosistem
dan program pendidikan lingkungan yang luas dapat mendukung konservasi hutan lestari untuk ini dan ekosistem hutan serupa
lainnya di Afrika.
& 2015 Elsevier All rights reserved.
1.Pendahuluan
HutanAlam merupakan suatu ekosistem penting yang memberikan tidak hanya barang pribadi untuk digunakan manusia
langsung, tetapi juga pelayanan publik dengan penggunaan tidak langsung atau non-penggunaan manfaat (MA, 2005; Glenday,
2006;. Harian et al, 2009). Jasa ekosistem yang disediakan berkontribusi terhadap pemeliharaan baik fungsi ekologis dan
peningkatan kesejahteraan manusia di seluruh ruang dan waktu ke waktu. Jasa ekosistem sebelumnya telah didefinisikan sebagai
manfaat berwujud dan tidak berwujud yang berasal dari ekosistem yang "menghasilkan kesejahteraan manusia" (MA, 2005;
Fisher dan Turner, 2008; TEEB, 2010b). Tiga kategori utama
dibedakan: layanan pengadaan seperti kayu dan produk non-kayu yang diambil dari ekosistem; jasa mengatur seperti penyerapan
karbon dan jasa budaya termasuk manfaat tak berwujud orang berasal dari ekosistem untuk spiritual, warisan budaya dan rekreasi
tujuan (TEEB, 2010a; Haines- Young dan Potschin, 2011).
Jasa ekosistem yang disediakan oleh hutan tropis menjadi langka karena stres sisi penawaran dan tekanan sisi permintaan.
Misalnya, deforestasi mengancam penyediaan jasa ekosistem penting oleh mengorbankan kapasitas fungsional dari hutan. Pada
saat yang sama, populasi didorong permintaan untuk jasa ekosistem tekanannya belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya pada ekosistem
hutan (Lambin et al,di:..
n penulis Sesuai Kenya Pertanian & Livestock Research (KALRO), PO Box 450, 30200 Kitale, Kenya Tel .:254 721 593 111,
254 732 677 892
alamatE-mail: morgan.mutoko@kalro.org,
2003; MA, 2005; Morton et al, 2006; Schmook dan Vance, 2009).. Selain itu, penjatahan sumber daya publik anggaran untuk
program konservasi membatasi realisasi berkelanjutan pengelolaan hutan
mmutoko@gmail.com (MC Mutoko).
target di banyak negara berkembang. Telah mendalilkan bahwa
Jasa Ekosistem 14 (2015) 1-11
analisis dan penilaian jasa ekosistem dapat mendukung desain alternatif pengelolaan yang berkelanjutan (Freeman, 1991;
Bockstael et al, 2000;. Hassan, 2003; Glenday, 2006; Wunder, 2007; Ansink et al, 2008;. Benhin dan Hassan, 2008; Hein, 2011).
Namun, tidak selalu jelas bagaimana jasa ekosistem menerjemahkan ke insentif stakeholder dalam pengelolaan hutan dan apakah
pengetahuan nilai ekonomi dari jasa ekosistem cukup untuk memicu lebih baik ekosistem pengelolaan pemerintah praktek (Hein
et al, 2006;.. Harian et al, 2009).
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk memperkirakan nilai ekonomi lokal jasa ekosistem yang disediakan oleh Kakamega
hutan hujan di Kenya dan memeriksa bagaimana informasi ini dapat mendukung pengelolaan hutan yang berkelanjutan. Secara
khusus, kami menganalisis untuk apa gelar manfaat ekosistem lokal memberikan motivasi bagi konservasi dan pemanfaatan
berkelanjutan dari Kakamega hutan hujan. Kami pertama menganalisis manfaat nasional lokal dan dipilih yang disediakan oleh
hutan, dan kemudian menganalisis cara pemangku kepentingan yang terlibat dalam pengelolaan hutan. Hutan dipilih untuk studi
valuasi ini karena tiga alasan utama. Pertama, Kakamega hutan hujan menyediakan bundel layanan ekosistem penting. Ini
memiliki keanekaragaman hayati penting internasional, berfungsi sebagai objek wisata, adalah penyerap karbon, dan merupakan
sumber dari beberapa sungai yang mengalir ke Danau Victoria (Glenday, 2006; Ouma et al, 2011.). Oleh karena itu penting
konservasi tinggi dan memahami nilai moneter dari jasa ekosistem yang diberikannya dapat membantu dalam konservasi lestari
hutan ini. Kedua, daerah di sekitar hutan Kakamega hujan-memamerkan kepadatan penduduk yang tinggi (misalnya 1045 orang /
km2 di Vihiga County). Hutan terancam oleh eksploitasi berlebihan dan perambahan baru-baru ini didirikan pada analisis
perubahan penggunaan lahan berdasarkan citra penginderaan jauh dari 25 tahun terakhir (Mutoko et al., 2014a). Meningkatkan
ketergantungan penduduk lokal pada kayu bakar hutan-untuk, tiang, arang dan penggembalaan-menyediakan kasus klasik dari
konflik antara tujuan konservasi dan eksploitasi (Fashing et al., 2004). Trade-off yang melibatkan tujuan ini memerlukan analisis
mendalam bahwa kita dieksplorasi dalam penelitian ini. Ketiga, hutan Kakamega adalah patch paling timur hutan hujan
khatulistiwa Afrika yang pernah membentang dari Pantai Gading ke Kenya (Mller dan Mburu, 2009). Beberapa hutan tetap di
Gabon, Kongo dan Uganda (Lovett dan Wasser, 2008). Hutan Kakamega adalah satu-satunya yang tersisa Guineo-Congolian
hutan hujan di Kenya. Oleh karena itu, layanan ekosistem yang dihasilkan oleh hutan ini adalah regional perwakilan dan
penilaian komprehensif mereka memiliki kebijakan dan manajemen potensi implikasi untuk ekosistem hutan yang sama di
Afrika.
Kami melakukan analisis dari nilai ekonomi Kakamega hutan hujan berkaitan dengan dua lembaga yang mendorong
pengelolaan hutan: (i) manajemen resmi oleh instansi pemerintah, mengingat kepentingan nasional dari hutan; dan (ii)
masyarakat co- manajemen oleh banyak pemangku kepentingan lokal sebagai fungsi dari kepentingan masyarakat dan persepsi
lokal. Aspek inovatif dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa kita fokus pada sebuah ekosistem yang telah diterima sampai saat ini
sedikit perhatian dalam literatur jasa ekosistem, yang kita membandingkan manfaat ekonomi lokal dan biaya kesempatan
konservasi, dan bahwa kita meneliti kedua layanan ekosistem yang digunakan oleh masyarakat lokal dan kepentingan mereka dan
persepsi pengelolaan hutan lokal.
2. Bahan dan metode
2.1. Daerah studi kasus
Kakamega hutan hujan terletak di Provinsi Western Kenya. Hutan terletak antara garis lintang 01100 dan 01210 Utara dan
bujur 341.470 dan 341.580 East (Gbr. 1). Daerah ini memiliki ketinggian mulai dari 1500 to1700 m di atas permukaan laut,
menerima curah hujan tahunan rata-rata 2000mm dan suhu maksimum 26 1C (Mller dan Mburu, 2009; Ouma et al, 2011.).
Kakamega hutan hujan pertama kali ditetapkan sebagai Forest Reserve Pemerintah pada tahun 1933, kemudian mencakup sekitar
23.780 ha. Kawasan hutan lindung
MC Mutoko et al. / Jasa Ekosistem 14 (2015) 01-11 Februari
saat ini mencakup 17.838 ha dari yang asli daerah hutan sekitar 14.000 ha (Mller dan Mburu, 2009) Cagar Alam berusia .Dua
masyarakat mandat diciptakan in1967 di Isecheno dan Yala mencakup sekitar 700 ha . Ada dua Cadangan Nasional di Buyangu
dan Kisere ke bagian utara membentuk Kakamega National Forest Reserve yang diciptakan pada tahun 1985, di bawah
manajemen yang ketat dari Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). Daerah di bawah KWS adalah sekitar 4470 ha (Gambar. 1). Kenya
Forest Service (KFS) bersama-sama dengan masyarakat setempat mengelola sisa kawasan hutan terutama di bagian selatan dan
fragmen utara sekitar wilayah Malava (Ouma et al., 2011). Hutan diberkahi dengan keanekaragaman hayati yang kaya tanaman,
primata endemik, burung dan serangga. Nilai keanekaragaman hayati yang tinggi hutan ini penting untuk pariwisata internasional
dan lokal serta tujuan penelitian. Hutan juga wastafel alami untuk CO
2 penyerapan sehingga berkontribusi untuk mitigasi
perubahan iklim global (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Sumber Daya Alam, 1994).
 Masyarakat lokal mengandalkan hutan untuk jasa ekosistem seperti kayu bakar, arang, tiang kayu, padang rumput, ekstrak
obat dan madu liar yang melengkapi kebutuhan mata pencaharian mereka (Ouma et al., 2011). Mereka juga melakukan kegiatan
budaya seperti upacara sunat laki-laki di bagian terpencil dari hutan. Menurut sensus 2009 penduduk, lokasi administratif (unit di
bawah kecamatan) tetangga hutan dihitung 191.490 orang di sekitar 32.000 rumah tangga (KNBS, 2010).
Untuk mendapatkan sampel yang representatif untuk penilaian jasa ekosistem yang disediakan oleh Kakamega hutan hujan
dan efektivitas pengaturan pengelolaan konservasi yang ada, kami mencicipi dua situs: satu dikelola oleh KFS meliputi rumah
tangga hutan-berdekatan di sepanjang bentangan dari Chepsonoi, Jeptulu untuk Shinyalu batas dan yang lain di bawah KWS
meliputi wisatawan di Buyangu National Forest Reserve.
2.2. Definisi indikator untuk jasa ekosistem
kuantifikasi fisik yang tepat dan valuasi ekonomi dari jasa ekosistem yang disediakan oleh ekosistem hutan membutuhkan
hati-hati memilih indikator manfaat, klasifikasi dan identifikasi skala yang tepat dari penerima manfaat untuk penilaian (Harian et
al, 2000;. Hein et al, 2006;. TEEB, 2010a). Hal ini penting untuk penerapan teknik penilaian yang sesuai untuk mengambil
estimasi yang benar dari nilai moneter dari bundel lengkap layanan ekosistem yang disediakan. Berdasarkan pengetahuan yang
tersedia dan konsultasi stakeholder lokal, kita mendefinisikan tiga layanan yang berbeda ekosistem di seluruh kategori besar
ditemukan dalam literatur (MA, 2005; Brander et al, 2010;. TEEB, 2010a). Tersebut penyediaan jasa terdiri dari tujuh produk
non-kayu hutan (HHBK), jasa budaya pariwisata rekreasi dan ritual sunat, dan konservasi keanekaragaman hayati, termasuk kita
untuk mencerminkan nilai non-penggunaan hutan. Untuk setiap layanan ekosistem, kami mengidentifikasi indikator manfaat
terukur, kelompok konsumen utama dan jangkauan spasial mereka (Tabel 1). Kami kemudian merancang metode penelitian yang
sesuai untuk mengumpulkan data yang relevan untuk kuantifikasi yang tepat dan penilaian manfaat ekosistem kunci.
2.3. Pengumpulan data dan kuantifikasi jasa ekosistem
Kami mengadopsi kerangka kerja umum yang disediakan oleh Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2003) dan TEEB
(2010a). Layanan lokal dan dipilih skala nasional ekosistem dihasilkan dari Kakamega hutan hujan yang diukur dan dinilai
berdasarkan wawancara dengan masyarakat yang berdekatan hutan dan analisis data sekunder. Kami memilih jasa ekosistem
untuk analisis kami berdasarkan relevansi mereka untuk pengelolaan hutan lokal. Ini diberitahu oleh diskusi kelompok
sebelumnya terfokus yang didirikan jenis manfaat yang nity syarakat lokal yang berasal dari hutan dan tinjauan literatur pada
layanan rekreasi yang ditawarkan di Kakamega Forest National Reserve (Ouma et al, 2011;.. Mutoko et al, 2014b ). Secara
khusus, kami termasuk dalam analisis kami
semua layanan pengadaan lokal dan layanan budaya lokal (seperti dijelaskan di bawah). Analisis penyediaan layanan
dikecualikan kawasan hutan lindung di bawah Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) karena warga setempat secara ketat dilarang
mengakses daerah ini untuk mengekstrak hasil hutan. Sejak bagian dari hutan yang dikelola sebagai taman nasional, di bawah
tanggung jawab KWS, kami juga diperiksa pariwisata dan konservasi keanekaragaman hayati sebagai dua layanan utama yang
dipertimbangkan dalam pengelolaan taman. Kami tidak menganalisis jasa ekosistem penting yang disediakan oleh hutan seperti
karbon tion sequestra- dan pengaturan air karena mereka tidak memberi manfaat lokal atau disservices. Namun, kami
mendiskusikan bagaimana mereka dapat mempengaruhi pengelolaan hutan di bagian Diskusi.
Untuk menganalisis penyediaan lokal dan jasa budaya, kami melakukan survei rumah tangga masyarakat hutan yang
berdekatan, dari September hingga Desember 2011, menggunakan rinci, kuesioner pra-diuji.
MC Mutoko et al. / Jasa Ekosistem 14 (2015) 01-11 Maret
Gambar. 1. Peta menunjukkan lokasi Kakamega hutan hujan di Kenya Barat. Sumber: Mller dan Mburu (2009).
Tabel 1 Klasifikasi dan penilaian metode untuk jasa ekosistem yang disediakan oleh Kakamega hutan hujan.
Ekosistem indikator service Manfaat Metode Penilaian
Provisioning 1. Fuel jumlah pasokan kayu kayu bakar dikumpulkan survei rumah tangga 2. Arang jumlah produksi arang
diekstrak survei rumah tangga 3. padang rumput Alam survei rumah tangga penyediaan Ternak penggembalaan / hari 4.
Konstruksi bahan pasokan: jumlah kayu Polandia Pole diekstrak survei rumah tangga 5. bahan konstruksi pasokan: jumlah
rumput jerami rumput jerami diekstrak survei rumah tangga 6. edibles liar Buah penyediaan, sayuran, survei rumah tangga madu
7. Ethno-obatan obat Herbal diekstrak Rumah Tangga survei
Budaya 8. warisan budaya ritual Budaya dengan nomor / Rumah Tangga survei periode 9 . Rekreasi: melihat satwa liar, jejak
berjalan, berkemah nomor Tourist kunjungan, jarak tempuh, waktu yang dihabiskan, biaya langsung Tourist survei 10. konservasi
alam: Keanekaragaman spesies kekayaan, / spesies langka langka,survei rumah tangga kealamian
sumber sekunder
Klasifikasi yang didasarkan pada tipologi dalam literatur (MA, 2003; TEEB, 2010a).
Teknik stratified random sampling diterapkan dalam survei untuk memilih 240 warga dalam radius 10 km dari tepi Kakamega
hutan hujan di Vihiga County. Kami membatasi cakupan spasial survei dalam jarak 10 km jarak dari margin hutan karena
pengetahuan sebelumnya menunjukkan bahwa ketergantungan langsung pada hasil hutan tertinggi di kawasan ini (Guthiga,
2007). Menyadari sensitivitas dari kegiatan ekstraksi hutan ilegal umum di daerah penelitian, kami sengaja meyakinkan
responden tentang kerahasiaan informasi sebelum mereka setuju untuk memberikan itu. Selama survei, kami mengumpulkan data
pada semua aspek yang melibatkan interaksi masyarakat setempat dengan sumber daya hutan, seperti jenis dan jumlah produk
diekstrak, frekuensi dan intensitas akses dan jumlah orang dan waktu pengumpulan yang terlibat. Selain itu, kami termasuk
pertanyaan untuk memperkirakan manfaat ekonomi dari hutan sebagai tempat untuk ritual budaya seperti sunat. Hal ini
berdasarkan
dinilaijumlah orang yang terlibat, jarak yang ditempuh untuk situs-situs budaya di hutan, waktu yang dihabiskan untuk kegiatan
budaya. Semua manfaat ekosistem langsung diperoleh dengan nities syarakat hutan-berdekatan yang dihitung sebagai produk dari
jumlah diekstrak, frekuensi dan jumlah orang yang terlibat, lebih dari proporsi dari total populasi penerima manfaat. Untuk
ekstrapolasi data survei perkiraan tahunan untuk masing-masing manfaat hutan ini, kami meminta jumlah aktual bulan dalam satu
tahun yang setiap rumah tangga diakses layanan ekosistem tertentu. Informasi lain yang dikumpulkan termasuk persepsi lokal
pada ketersediaan dan driver jasa ekosistem dari waktu ke waktu, pandangan tentang efektivitas pengaturan manajemen yang ada
dan saran untuk menjaga pasokan yang berkelanjutan dari manfaat dari ekosistem hutan. Pertanyaan khusus untuk preferensi
mengungkapkan (yaitu berbasis pasar harga) dan menyatakan preferensi (yaitu berdasarkan kesediaan membayar) harga layanan
ekosistem yang built-in dalam kuesioner (Adamowicz et al., 1994). Survei rumah tangga yang dihasilkan data primer untuk seikat
penyediaan jasa ekosistem yang terdiri dari tujuh HHBK dan satu layanan-sunat budaya ritual lokal (Tabel 1).
Data pada layanan rekreasi dikumpulkan selama survei turis dari kedua pengunjung domestik dan internasional, yang
dilakukan antara Desember 2011 dan Agustus 2012 di Kakamega Forest National Reserve, Buyangu. Kami menerapkan langkah-
langkah dasar dari Metode zonal Biaya Perjalanan (TCM) untuk wisatawan domestik berdasarkan data survey pada jumlah
pengunjung, jarak yang ditempuh, biaya langsung dan waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk melakukan perjalanan ke taman, untuk
kuantifikasi dan penilaian layanan ini ( king dan Mazzota, 2000). Kami menghitung total kunjungan berdasarkan data survei
kami dan jumlah penduduk masing-masing kabupaten di mana para pengunjung datang dari. Seratus lima puluh sembilan
pengunjung domestik mengisi kuesioner survei. Kami mendefinisikan wisatawan domestik sebagai pengunjung yang
kewarganegaraannya adalah Kenya dan non pengunjung Kenya sebagai wisatawan internasional.
Selain itu, kita menghitung uang yang dihabiskan secara lokal oleh wisatawan internasional. Dalam survei itu, kami meminta
wisatawan asing untuk menunjukkan uang yang mereka habiskan lokal dalam hubungan dengan kunjungan mereka ke Kakamega
Forest National Reserve. Secara khusus, kami menimbulkan informasi pada biaya lokal pada transportasi, jasa parkir, makanan,
akomodasi dan pembelian souvenir. Karena kita tidak mendapatkan data yang relevan untuk mengoreksi biaya yang dikeluarkan
untuk menyediakan barang dan jasa ini, perkiraan ini hanya mencakup nilai kotor yang masih harus dibayar pada ekonomi lokal
disebabkan penga- laman rekreasi mereka dinikmati di hutan lindung ini. Lima puluh sembilan wisatawan internasional
berpartisipasi dalam survei.
Akhirnya, kami menganalisis layanan keanekaragaman hayati yang disediakan oleh Kakamega hutan hujan (misalnya Mace et
al., 2012). Namun, kami tidak mencoba melakukan penilaian moneter layanan ini karena kesulitan yang melekat dalam
monetising nilai spesies langka dan endemik dan ekosistem (Farley et al, 2010;. TEEB, 2010a). Keanekaragaman hayati hutan
dihargai di tingkat lokal, nasional lokal dan juga penting internasional (Manajer Kakamega Ekosistem Hutan et al., 2012), namun
kompleksitas tambahan menilai layanan keanekaragaman hayati adalah bahwa apresiasi mungkin bervariasi antara ini sisik.
Misalnya, masyarakat setempat juga dihadapkan dengan dampak negatif dari keanekaragaman hayati seperti kerusakan tanaman
dari satwa liar. Dalam penelitian kami, kuantifikasi pelestarian keanekaragaman hayati didasarkan pada kekayaan spesies,
kelangkaan spesies dan keberadaan spesies yang terancam punah di ekosistem tertentu (TEEB, 2010b). Kami menganalisis
layanan keanekaragaman hayati hutan berdasarkan tinjauan literatur (misalnya Ouma et al, 2011;. Manajer Ekosistem Hutan
Kakamega et al, 2012;. KWS, 2012), dan diperiksa persepsi lokal dalam survei pemangku kepentingan yang dilakukan antara
orang yang hidup berdekatan dengan hutan. Secara khusus, kami termasuk dalam survei pertanyaan pada aspek yang paling
penting dari hutan yang mereka anggap berharga untuk dipertahankan dan untuk tujuan apa.
Perhatikan bahwa tidak ada kayu logging di hutan 2011 (Kimkung, Desember 2012, komunikasi orang) karena penebangan
pohon di hutan adat dilindungi dilarang sejak 1986
MC Mutoko et al. / Jasa Ekosistem 14 (2015) 01-11 April
(Mller dan Mburu, 2009), hal itu tidak dilaporkan dalam survei dan karena itu kami tidak menganggap produksi kayu dalam
penelitian kami.
2.4. Penilaian jasa ekosistem
nilai ekonomi diperkirakan untuk jasa ekosistem yang disediakan oleh Kakamega hutan hujan, yang terdiri dari tujuh hutan
bukan kayu (HHBK), salah satu manfaat budaya dan pariwisata nasional recrea-. Konservasi keanekaragaman hayati tidak
dihargai karena kesulitan untuk menghasilkan perkiraan moneter terpercaya. Kami menerapkan pendekatan penilaian yang
berbeda untuk memperoleh nilai ekonomi manfaat ekosistem ini seperti yang dijelaskan dalam bagian ini.
Valuasi ekonomi jasa ekosistem perlu mempertimbangkan konsumen dan produsen surplus yang dihasilkan oleh pasokan dan
penggunaan layanan ekosistem, dan terbaik selaras dengan menghitung nilai perubahan marginal dalam penyediaan jasa
ekosistem (Pearce dan Turner, 1990;. Fisher et al, 2008). Analisis nilai ekonomi dari jasa ekosistem di margin ini penting karena
keputusan ekonomi dan intervensi kebijakan didasarkan pada off trade pada margin, antara negara ekosistem alternatif atau
penggunaan (Turner et al., 1998). Oleh karena itu, kita secara eksplisit dimasukkan konsep kesediaan marjinal untuk membayar
(WTP) dalam analisis kami nilai ekonomi (Balmford et al, 2002;. Turner et al, 2003;. Pearce, 2007;. Cho et al, 2011). Pendekatan
penilaian kami didasarkan pada Dewan Riset Nasional (2004) dan kami hanya menghitung manfaat tahunan yang dihasilkan oleh
hutan.
Untuk sebagian besar layanan provisioning, konsumen adalah total populasi yang berdekatan hutan dan produser adalah
Kenya Forest Service (KFS), yang mengelola Kakamega hutan hujan. Kami menghitung nilai moneter dari manfaat ekosistem
berharga berdasarkan surplus konsumen yang dihasilkan, dengan asumsi bahwa harga pasar mencerminkan kesediaan marjinal
benar membayar untuk kepentingan ekosistem. Secara khusus, pertama kita menganalisis pendapatan kotor dari layanan
pengadaan, berdasarkan mengalikan jumlah produk dipanen dan harga yang dibayarkan di pasar desa untuk produk ini seperti
dilansir responden. Untuk manfaat non-dipasarkan seperti padang rumput untuk penggembalaan ternak, kami menggunakan
harga untuk pengganti mereka (yaitu Napier grass) menurut responden survei. Kedua, kita dikurangi semua biaya yang berkaitan
dengan panen produk termasuk biaya tenaga kerja dan biaya izin bahwa penduduk desa yang dibayarkan kepada manajemen KFS
untuk akses ke hutan. Biaya akses ditanggung oleh konsumen dihitung dengan menilai total waktu yang dihabiskan untuk pulang-
pergi untuk ekstraksi hasil hutan menggunakan upah lokal rata-rata (senilai upah per jam dari KES 20 berdasarkan kegiatan
pertanian). Biaya perjalanan pulang-pergi dihitung dengan menilai total waktu yang dihabiskan per rumah tangga (bepergian ke
hutan, mengumpulkan hasil hutan dan kembali ke rumah) dalam setahun menggunakan upah lokal rata-rata yang diperoleh dalam
survei rumah tangga. Kami tidak mempertimbangkan biaya material lokal (tas misalnya goni, sabit, parang) sejak survei kami
menunjukkan bahwa biaya-biaya tersebut yang sangat kecil (o1%) dibandingkan dengan biaya lainnya.
Untuk layanan provisioning, kami juga meneliti surplus produsen diperoleh untuk manajemen KFS, dan diasumsikan bahwa
ini sama dengan biaya izin. Pengelolaan hutan tidak berinvestasi khususnya di regenerasi spesies yang digunakan untuk ekstraksi
penyediaan layanan (seperti kayu bakar atau rumput ilalang). Biaya pengelolaan yang dikeluarkan oleh KFS terkait untuk
sebagian besar untuk memfasilitasi pariwisata dan memantau dan melindungi keanekaragaman hayati. Selain itu, total
pendapatan yang dikumpulkan di izin merupakan keuntungan bersih untuk penyediaan HHBK ini karena masyarakat setempat
melalui asosiasi hutan kemasyarakatan (CFAS) juga ikut mengelola hutan. Oleh karena itu, kita mengasumsikan bahwa biaya izin
sama surplus yang dihasilkan melalui ekstraksi penyediaan layanan untuk pengelolaan hutan (yaitu 'produser').
Untuk mengambil nilai-nilai WTP marjinal untuk manfaat budaya yang valuasi berbasis pasar tidak dapat diterapkan
(Mitchell dan
Carson, 1989; Haab dan McConnell, 2003), kami menggunakan dihindari biaya, misalnya untuk memperkirakan nilai tanah hutan
untuk upacara tradisional seperti sebagai sunat, yang juga dilakukan di rumah sakit. Namun, kami menyadari bahwa nilai diambil
adalah di bawah perkiraan untuk layanan ini tetapi nilai-nilai ekonomi terpercaya bahwa responden bersedia menerima untuk
mengorbankan akses ke hutan untuk ritual sunat tradisional sulit untuk mengumpulkan.
Untuk jasa rekreasi, kami menganalisis dua aspek. Surplus konsumen yang dihasilkan bagi pengunjung domestik dan surplus
cer terse- but dihasilkan untuk pengelolaan hutan. Selain itu, kami mempertimbangkan manfaat dari wisatawan internasional
yang diperoleh untuk penyedia lokal sarana pariwisata, transportasi khususnya, restoran, hotel dan penjualan kerajinan.
Pendekatan ini konsisten dengan kepentingan kita dalam mengungkap nilai-nilai lokal yang dihasilkan oleh Kakamega Forest
National Reserve (yang berarti kita mengesampingkan surplus konsumen yang dihasilkan oleh bisnis pariwisata lokal). Kami
menerapkan TCM zonal untuk mengambil nilai rekreasi dalam negeri. Kami menerapkan lima langkah di TCM zonal berikut
Raja dan Mazzota (2000): (i) kami didirikan zona menurut jarak ke taman dan batas-batas geografis yang ada; (ii) diperkirakan
tarif kunjungan tahunan untuk setiap zona berdasarkan populasi zonal dan jumlah pengunjung domestik dari data survei kami.
(iii) dalam analisis regresi kami memperkirakan tingkat kunjungan sebagai fungsi biaya perjalanan yang sebenarnya terjadi
dengan biaya KESEMPATAN diasumsikan untuk waktu US $ 0,90 / jam, dihitung berdasarkan GDP per kapita US $ 1.700 untuk
Kenya pada tahun 2011; (iv) dibangun kurva permintaan dari persamaan regresi (lihat Persamaan. (1)) dengan memvariasikan
biaya masuk dan (v) diperkirakan daerah di bawah kurva permintaan untuk menghitung jumlah surplus konsumen dari taman.
Berdasarkan analisis regresi data pada Tabel 4, hubungan antara tingkat kunjungan dan biaya perjalanan total ditentukan dalam
persamaan. (1).
Kunjungi tingkat 1/4 5: 66E A0: 05nCost R
2
1/4 0:86 1
Dengan asumsi bahwa pengunjung melihat biaya masuk sebagai biaya perjalanan tambahan, kami membuat kurva permintaan
oleh hipotetis meningkatkan biaya gerbang dari US $ 5 untuk US $ 125 per kunjungan.
3. Hasil
3.1. Pasokan fisik jasa ekosistem
3.1.1. Non-kayu hasil hutan
masyarakat Forest-berdekatan diekstraksi tujuh HHBK dari Kaka- mega hutan hujan. Rumah tangga yang disurvei sekitar
hutan diperoleh rata-rata 240 banyak kepala kayu bakar per tahun (Tabel 2). Kayu bakar tetap menjadi sumber utama energi
untuk memasak di kebanyakan rumah. Arang pembakaran meskipun ilegal dilaporkan di lebih dari 20% dari rumah tangga
sampel dengan rata-rata tahunan sekitar 200 kantong per rumah tangga selama 20% dari total rumah tangga di daerah penelitian.
Produksi arang terus dikaitkan dengan permintaan yang tinggi di kota-kota terdekat.
Penggembalaan ternak di hutan dilaporkan oleh lebih dari separuh rumah tangga selama hampir sepanjang tahun. Rata-rata,
setiap rumah tangga merumput tiga sapi hampir setiap hari di hutan. Hal ini menunjukkan kelangkaan makanan ternak dan
padang rumput di pertanian karena ukuran ing tanah shrink dan tekanan penduduk yang tinggi (Mutoko et al., 2014a). Obat-
obatan herbal yang diekstraksi dengan sedikit lebih dari sepertiga dari rumah tangga. Praktek pengobatan tradisional mapan
antara orang-orang lokal dan mereka bergantung pada akar, daun dan kulit untuk pengobatan berbagai penyakit.
Lebih dari seperempat rumah tangga diperoleh buah-buahan liar, bles vegeta-, jamur, serangga dan madu dari hutan untuk tion
konsumsi. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa Kakamega hutan hujan merupakan sumber penting makanan liar yang melengkapi
produksi pertanian. Rumput ilalang dan tanah untuk ritual budaya dari bagian ini adalah manfaat hutan paling tidak pembangunan
rumah jerami saat
MC Mutoko et al. / Jasa Ekosistem 14 (2015) 01-11 Mei
Tabel 2 manfaat hutan non-kayu yang diperoleh oleh masyarakat lokal dari Kakamega hutan hujan.
Satuan manfaat hutan
ukuran
rumahtanggaPenerima (%)
Perjalanan / bulan
Bulan Quantity /
rumah tangga / tahun.
Jumlah total / yr. (000)
1. Kayu bakar Kepala banyak 95,8 11,5 8,1 241,2 7376 2. Arang Bag 21,3 5,2 7,8 192,5 1306 3. Grazing Jumlah 56,7 25,6 11,0
784,3 14.184 4. Poles Jumlah 13,8 4,1 3,6 334,4 1467 rumput 5. Thatch
Bale 7,9 1,7 1,8 12,3 31
6.herbal
obat
Kg 37,1 2,0 4,0 18,6 220
7.liar
edibles
Kg 26,3 8,8 6,7 41,6 348
sunat jarang dan tradisional tidak dilakukan di setiap rumah tangga. Umumnya, masyarakat setempat diperoleh terutama live-
saham penggembalaan dan kayu bakar manfaat dari hutan. Hal ini karena tekanan penduduk yang tinggi di tanah dan kemiskinan
yang membatasi kapasitas rumah tangga untuk alternatif akses dari peternakan dan melalui pasar.
3.1.2. Warisan budaya
sunat laki-laki tradisional dilakukan di tempat suci tertentu dalam Kakamega hutan hujan, yang dikenal sebagai Khavunyonje.
Alasan ini yang berjarak hutan di mana upacara sunat dilakukan menyediakan layanan budaya kepada masyarakat hutan yang
berdekatan. Berdasarkan survei kami, 9,6% rumah tangga memiliki seorang inisiat yang mendapatkan manfaat dari layanan ini.
Dua ratus ritual budaya dari bagian dilakukan dalam bagian terpencil dari hutan untuk jangka waktu rata-rata satu bulan.
3.1.3. Konservasi alam: keanekaragaman hayati
Kakamega hutan hujan diberkahi dengan keanekaragaman hayati yang tinggi dalam hal kekayaan spesies dan habitat jarang
(Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Sumber Daya Alam, 1994). Menurut bulat-Turner (1994) dikutip dalam Ouma et al.
(2011), lebih dari 50 pohon asli berkayu, 80 monokotil dan 90 tumbuhan dikotil ditemukan. Manajer Kakamega Ekosistem Hutan
et al. (2012) berisi daftar spesies tanaman langka sebagai 'African Mahogany' (Entandrophragma angolense), semak Vernonia
conferta, anggrek seperti Oeceoclades ugandae, spesies ramuan Aframomum zambesiacum, dan Ficus bubu. Spesies pohon
terancam ditemukan di hutan ini seperti Elgon jati dan Prunus africana, "adalah spesies perhatian konservasi khusus" (Manajer
Ekosistem Hutan Kakamega et al., 2012).
Selain itu, hutan ini terkenal karena burung yang beragam dan kupu-kupu yang terdiri dari sekitar 350 burung dan 400 spesies
kupu-kupu. Burung langka ditemukan di hutan meliputi Afrika abu-abu Bayan dan Black-Billed Turaco. Selain itu, burung
terancam sedunia seperti Chapin ini Flycatcher (Muscicapa Lendu) dan Turner Eremomela (Eremomela turneri) ditemukan di
hutan ini (Manajer Ekosistem Hutan Kakamega et al., 2012). The forest is also home to over 27 species of snakes and seven
species of primates (KWS, 2012). The rare de Brazza monkey (Cercopithecus neglectus) with a small population of only 30
animals is endangered in the country (Kakamega Forest Ecosystem Managers et al., 2012). Kakamega rainforest also provides a
habitat for rare primates such as the black and white Colobus monkeys, olive baboons, as well as the red-tailed and blue
monkeys. The Potto (Perodicticus potto ibea- nus), the world's slowest mammal, duikers and Dik diks are also found in this
forest. Kakamega rainforest therefore contains a rich diversity of fauna and flora species and is habitat for rare and threatened
species. Biodiversity conservation is of particular
national interest since this forest constitutes an important habitat for many species including the endangered Prunus africana, the
rare Black-Billed Turaco and about 46 bird species, which are only found in Kenya from this forest (Kakamega Forest Ecosystem
Managers et al., 2012).
3.1.4. Recreation
Both domestic and international tourists visit Kakamega rain- forest for viewing birds and butterflies, nature trail walks and
camping. Kakamega Forest National Reserve is a site solely reserved for recreational tourism activities. Visitors pay an entrance
fee at the gate to the park. The gate charges during the study period were KES 200 (about US$ 2.5) for domestic and US$ 20 for
international visitors (Okode, November 2011, personal communication). According to estimates based on visit rates from
various counties, 15,245 domestic tourists visited the park for recreational purposes during the year (see Table 4). In addition,
during the study period 215 international tourists visited Kaka- mega National Forest Reserve as one of their touristic sites. Based
on our survey data, eight in every ten visitors were Kenyans from several counties, indicating the growing domestic appreciation
for nature.
3.2. Economic valuation of ecosystem services
3.2.1. Non-timber forest products
Valuation of the provisioning ecosystem services derived from the forest by the neighbouring community was calculated
based on consumer and producer surplus (Table 3). The total consumer surplus generated by all the NTFPs obtained from
Kakamega rainforest by the local community is estimated at US$ 4.15 million per year (in 2011). Most of these economic
benefits accrued from livestock grazing, firewood collection and charcoal production in the forest excluding the inaccessible area
of 4,470 ha under KWS protection.
3.2.2. Cultural heritage
The local community also gained an additional US$ 21,000 for the cultural benefit from the forest. This economic value
translated to an equivalent of KES 5966 per household per year in avoided cost for male circumcision rites.
According to the KFS records, a total of US$ 38,850 was collected in permits. The local economic value generated by
Kakamega rainforest for the benefit of local community was therefore around US$ 4.21 million in 2011.
3.2.3. Recreation
The total recreational value for Kakamega rainforest was obtained by summing the producer surplus ie net revenue from gate
collec- tions and the consumer surplus generated using the zonal Travel Cost Method (TCM) for the local visitors (Table 4). In
addition, we also considered the local added economic value generated by international visitors attributable to this forest, even
though they also visited other tourist destinations in the country. We opted for this approach because only 25% of international
visitors indicated that this park motivated their travel to Kenya. Even those who visited spent on average only 7% of their tour
time visiting this forest. Besides, a majority (86%) of international tourists said that visiting alternative touristic sites in the
country would give them matching or higher recreational experience. The area under the demand curve in Fig. 2, equivalent to
the total consumer surplus from recreational service of the Kakamega Forest National Reserve is US$ 3.11 million per year. In
addition, international tourists contributed around US$ 38,600 to the local economy attributable to their visits to Kakamega
rainforest for recreational experience. The KWS collected US$ 35,868 from all
MC Mutoko et al. / Ecosystem Services 14 (2015) 111 6
Table 3 Economic value of forest benefits obtained by the local community from Kakamega rainforest.
Forest benefit Gross
value/yr. (KES)
Round-trip travel cost (KES)
Annual permit fee paid (KES)
Net value/ household/ yr. (KES)
Total annual value (US$ '000)a
1. Firewood 52,288 8582 605 43,101 1551 2. Charcoal 94,178 20,182 608 73,389 586 3. Grazing 118,177 42,446 1150 74,581
1587 4. Poles 22,243 1262 213 20,768 107 5. Thatch grass
1747 494 575 678 2
6. Herbal
medicines
1516 1056 283 178 2
7. Wild
edibles
37,144 4732 877 31,535 311
Total 4565 250,195 4146
a Indicative exchange rate: US$14KES 85.00.
Table 4 Domestic visitor rates and travel cost to Kakamega Forest National Reserve.
Zone (km) Populationa Visit rate/ 1000 people
Total visi- tors/ year
Transport cost (US$)
Cost of travel time (US$)
Travel cost/trip plus entrance fee (US$)
050 2,215,273 3.3 7,340 14.9 4.2 21.7 50100 4,748,979 0.8 3,576 26.0 5.4 33.8 100200 5,827,896 0.4 2,164 31.1 11.5 45.1
200400 3,043,413 0.5 1,600 40.5 12.3 55.3 >400 4,605,793 0.1 565 53.8 25.7 82.0 Total 20,441,354 15,245
a Calculated based on census figures by KNBS (2010).
tourists in gate revenues hence the total economic value for recreational service of the park is US$ 3.185 million per year.
The economic value for each of the ecosystem services is summarised in Table 5. The total economic value of key locally
beneficial ecosystem services provided by Kakamega rainforest is around US$ 7.4 million per year. Given that the forest covers
17,838ha, this translates to an average value of US$ 415ha1 per year.
3.3. Effectiveness of the current forest management arrangement
Improving the supply of the key ecosystem services estimated in this study is dependent on the nature and effectiveness of the
forest management system put in place. According to the views of the residents who participated in our 2011 survey, the
responsibility of conserving Kakamega rainforest is vested in two main institutions: the Kenya Forest Service (68%) and the local
community (29%). The KFS co-manages the forest together with surrounding community forest associations (CFAs).
Majority of the local people (77%) perceived a general decrease in availability of ecosystem benefits particularly for their
direct use during the past decade. Even though the decreased amount of obtainable benefits from the forest was attributed to the
high extraction rate by the increasing population, most of the respondents (about 90%) indicated that the main factor was the
decline in forest cover due to unregulated deforestation and encroachment. According to KFS records, an estimated 520 ha of the
forest has already been excised mainly for human settlement over time. Despite that, there is no clear indication of how much
forest cover would be adequate for the continued supply of which ecosystem service or whether some species
could disappear with decreased forested area. For the NTFPs, decreased forest area has led to less availability of firewood,
charcoal, medicinal herbs and natural pastures. This study found that about two-thirds of the local people are dissatisfied with the
performance of the current management system. This is because of poor enforcement of forest protection rules. We elicited
satisfaction levels for six management features by asking respondents to give a score from among five different ranks: 114very
poor, 214poor, 314fair, 414good and 514very good. The results of the weighted scores are provided in Fig. 3.
The management arrangement in place scored fairly on four aspects: community participation, clarity of rules on forest
utilisation, promotion of conservation programs and provision of livelihood alternatives to reduce dependency on the forest. This
is attributable to the existing forest policy and co-management institutional frame- work through CFAs that harness multi-
stakeholders' efforts towards fostering forest conservation. However, the respondents ranked the forest managers poorly on
conflict resolution due to lack of effective stakeholder involvement and compensation mechanisms. The respon- dents also
indicated that the forest management performed poorly on provision of conservation incentives. Except for the temporary
employment of few youths as forest guards and tour guides, the local community did not directly receive a share of income from
the forest. Moreover, when wild animals damage their crops and kill their livestock they get no compensation for the loss.
Under the prevailing management scenario, forest conservation is neither effective nor optimal for sustainable provision of
ecosystem services. The KFS management is blamed for continued illegal activities in the forest such as charcoal burning and
logging due to ineffective policing attributed to resource constraints. On the other hand, CFAs are perceived as institutionally
weak to make conservation rules binding on the neighbouring communities. According to Kakamega Forest Ecosystem Managers
et al. (2012), only five out of the 60 CFAs formed so far are active. Our results clearly show that CFAs lack the capacity to
control the illegal activities as some members feel
140
) $ SU ( tso
120
100
clev
80
artd
60
edd A
40
20
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Fig. 2. Derived demand curve for recreational service at Kakamega Forest National Reserve.
Table 5 Summary of economic value for ecosystem services provided by Kakamega rainforest.
Ecosystem benefit Total value (US$
'000)
Average value (US$ ha 1 yr 1)
1. Firewood 1,551 87 2. Charcoal 586 33 3. Grazing 1,587 89 4. Poles 107 6 5. Thatch grass 2 0.1 6. Herbal medicines 2 0.1 7.
Wild edibles 311 17 8. Cultural heritage 21 1.2 9. Recreation: wildlife viewing, trail
walks, camping
3,185 179
10. Nature conservation: biodiversity Not valued Not valued Total benefits 7391 415
MC Mutoko et al. / Ecosystem Services 14 (2015) 111 7
that there is no motivation for them to assist in forest patrols without any remuneration. Still most of the respondents (96%)
considered sustainable forest conservation essential not only for the maintenance of present livelihoods but also for bequeathing a
biodiversity legacy to the future generations.
3.4. Opportunity cost of forest conservation
Forest conservation is only one of the existing alternative economic land-use options in the study area. Maximisation of the
present value of societal welfare is dependent on choosing those land use patterns that are socially optimal. According to Bulte et
al. (2000), the net returns from sustainable forest management at the margins should compete with those of best alternative land
uses such as agriculture. The foregone benefits from using the forestland for alternative purposes constitute the opportunity cost
of conservation. The main opportunity cost for Kakamega rainforest is the foregone returns from farming (Mburu and Birner,
2002). Such opportunity cost can be substantial and if not fully considered could compromise the need for sustainable forest
conservation (Norton-Griffiths and Southey, 1995). Farmers around the forest produce tea and sugar cane for income generation.
According to local agricultural statistics (Government of Kenya, 2010), the average yields are 9tonha1 for tea and 60 ton ha1
for sugar cane, generating net income of about US$ 953 ha1 from tea cultivation and US$ 847ha1 from sugar cane
production. This translates to an average net income of about US$ 900 ha1 per year.
3.5. Possible economic value from carbon sequestration service
In our study, we did not estimate the economic value of carbon sequestration and storage service provided by Kakamega
rainforest since they did not result in local benefits. However, we demonstrate based on relevant literature the possible economic
value that would likely accrue locally, were there effective mechanisms for global beneficiaries to pay for this service. Glenday
(2006) estimated the total carbon stock of Kakamega rainforest at 5.770.6 million tons. This carbon stock is substantial and
continued preservation of the forest is necessary to avoid future emissions, but we did not value it because of uncertainties around
the distribution of carbon stocks, alternative land uses, soil carbon content and timeframe as carbon is gradually released over
time. Besides, there are no reliable estimates of mean annual biomass increment and therefore an indication of carbon
sequestration in Kakamega rainforest can be based on comparable studies. Clark et al. (2001) examined net primary production in
tropical forests around the globe and estimated average carbon sequestration of 3 ton C ha1 yr1, depending among others on
the
Community participation
5
4
Conflict resolution
3
Clarity of forest rules
2
1
Conservation
Conservation incentive
promotion
Livelihood alternatives
Fig. 3. A spider diagram showing satisfaction levels with the prevailing forest management system for the Kakamega rainforest.
forest type, the climate and soil conditions, and the health and condition of the forest. If this figure were used as a tentative
indication for carbon sequestration rate in Kakamega rainforest, the amount of C sequestered annually would amount to 14,000
ha of indigenous forest multiplied by 3 ton C ha1 yr1, ie 42,000 ton C yr1. Using marginal damage costs of carbon of US$
10 per ton CO
2
ie US$ 37 per ton C (Hein, 2011; Tol, 2005), a very tentative indication of the
potential value of carbon sequestration in Kakamega rainforest would be 37 42,00014US$ 1.554 million per year (ie US$
110ha1 yr1). Hence, the value of carbon sequestration could reduce the gap between local benefits and local opportunity costs
for a substantial part of the forest.
4. Diskusi
4.1. Uncertainties in calculations
The physical quantification and economic valuation of the ecosys- tem services was done with some degree of uncertainty.
The provi- sioning services obtained by the local community were quantified in a straightforward way even though the quantities
extracted each time could vary widely. The average economic value of non-timber forest products extracted from tropical forests
range from US$ 5 to over US$ 100 ha1 yr1 (Pearce, 2001; Guthiga, 2007). In this study, the highest values were for firewood
collection and livestock grazing estimated at around US$ 90ha1 yr1, comparable to about US$ 72ha1 yr1 found by
Guthiga (2007).
The estimation of the recreational value of Kakamega rainforest relied on information on actual travel cost provided by
individual visitors. Possible sources of uncertainty in the calculations include the estimated time allocated to visiting the site and
its valuation based on the national average wage. We attempted to minimise this uncertainty by excluding visitors with multiple
destinations during the analysis of average consumer surplus unlike the Mugambi (2007) study. Mugambi (2007), estimated the
recreational benefits of Kakamega rainforest at US$ 3.7 million per year. This economic value could be an over-estimate because
Mugambi's study was based on travel cost of predominantly international tourists and did not control for multiple sites that they
also visited. Cognizant of the difficulty to attribute correctly the consumer surplus by international tourists who also visited
multiple sites in the region, we only included the value added to the local economy as they visited Kakamega Forest National
Reserve. We applied this approach because we believe that if we were to estimate the consumer surplus for international visitors
based on the travel cost method, it would over-estimate the recreational value of Kakamega rainforest.
The application of avoided cost to estimate the economic value of circumcision rites conducted in the forest also had some
uncertainty because the actual value for traditional rites for boys is likely to be higher than that provided in hospitals, though the
latter is done under better hygienic conditions. Time spent in the forest during the rites is a reflection of higher benefit (than
opportunity cost of labour with- drawn from productive activities) that the participating households attach to this cultural activity
facilitated by the forested ground. In addition, failure to estimate the monetary value for the rich biodiver- sity conservation
service due to data limitations, excluded possibly a large portion of economic value provided by Kakamega rainforest. Recent
valuation studies also acknowledged the difficulty of retrieving the monetary value for biodiversity preservation (eg TEEB,
2010b; Hein, 2011).
4.2. Comparison of local benefits and opportunity costs
Despite the highlighted uncertainties, the information on ecosystem services generated in this study provides useful insights
MC Mutoko et al. / Ecosystem Services 14 (2015) 111 8
for decision-making concerning the trade-offs between forest conservation and conversion options in Kenya. The net economic
return from agricultural activities is more than double when compared with the average economic value of ecosystem services
obtained by the local community. This indicates that potential economic returns from agricultural uses (were the forest to be
converted) provides more incentives than the local value of ecosystem services provided by the forest in-situ. This finding clearly
show that based on economic motives alone, private entities will have less incentive to invest their resources in forest
conservation efforts. The implication is that the society should bear the greatest obligation in biodiversity conservation for the
benefit of the present and future generations.
However, our analysis did not include several important services. First, we did not include any timber extraction, which was
not reported to take place in 2011 in line with forest management regulations aimed to increase coverage of native trees for non-
extractive economic and environmental purposes. Nevertheless, the forest also has plantations of exotic species such as cypress
(Cupressus lustanica), pine (Pinus patula) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus saligna); hence, there is scope to generate additional formal
revenue from timber exploitation. This revenue stream however would not necessarily accrue to local residents, as currently there
is no clear revenue-sharing arrangement between the government and local community. Even though the Kenya Forestry Policy
(2007) envisaged protection of the interests and livelihoods of local forest-adjacent communities, this is yet to be implemented
for this forest ecosystem.
In addition, we did not consider the monetary value of biodiversity conservation and the services of CO
2
sequestration and carbon storage. Based on secondary data, we estimated a very conservative
figure of US$ 1.554 million per year (ie US$ 110 ha1 yr1) as the potential value of carbon sequestration in Kakamega
rainforest, which could also reduce the gap between local benefits and local opportunity costs for the forest. However, of course,
there is at present no payment for ecosystem services (PES) mechanism for carbon sequestration service in this forest. Since it is
a protected area, it is hard to make the case for a baseline involving extensive deforestation and thereby justifying a Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) project (Angelsen et al., 2012; Pistorius, 2012). Given that
enormous amount of carbon is stored in this forest and that real anthropogenic threats to deforestation could lead to emissions, we
expect that options could still be explored to consider REDD type funding for maintenance of carbon storage in Kakamega
rainforest.
According to the Kenya Forestry Master Plan (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, 1994), the forest has low
envir- onmental value for water catchment protection and it is likely that the water regulation service is less economically
valuable. The forest is a watershed for some rivers such as Yala and Isiukhu, which drain into Lake Victoria (Kakamega Forest
Ecosystem Managers et al., 2012). However, these rivers are not used for irrigation activities. In addition, owing to insufficient
understanding of the hydrology involved, it is not clear how they maintain the groundwater levels and thereby regulate water
levels in wells in Kakamega and Vihiga counties. Therefore, at present there is no compensating mechanism in the surrounding
areas, even though such mechanisms have been developed, in the form of PES schemes in other countries, in particular in Latin
America (Pagiola et al., 2005b; Wunder, 2006; Wunder, 2007; Pagiola, 2008). It is, however, a practical challenge to design and
set up such a PES mechanism in the study area due to institutional constraints and a lack of experience with PES in Kenya.
Besides, there are a large number of downstream water users each with different levels of benefits of this service, which would
make a PES system subject to high transaction costs (Pagiola, 2007; Engel et al., 2008). Given the high poverty levels in the
study area, around 62% in the case of Vihiga County (Government of Kenya, 2005a, 2005b; Claessens et al., 2008), most
of the downstream water users are likely poor and therefore have limited capacity to pay for maintaining the hydrological service
provided by Kakamega rainforest (Pagiola et al., 2005a).
Hence, a critical service in the economic justification of maintaining the forest is biodiversity conservation (Mace et al.,
2012). Clearly, Kakamega forest contains unique biodiversity found in Kenya and it is the only rainforest ecosystem in the
country. Even though this makes viewing wildlife more difficult compared to the open savannah systems, there is a general
interest in visiting this forest by the Kenyan people (as well as foreign visitors), as demonstrated by the significant, and
increasing visitor rates. Enjoying the biodiversity of the forest is one of the main reasons for visiting it because there are few
other recreational products offered in the park. Mace et al. (2012), reveal that the value of biodiversity or nature preservation per
se is the most important but often excluded in ecosystem services analyses; some- times it is argued that this is not an ecosystem
service. According to our study, the appreciation of the monetary value of the biodiversity conservation service would have to
amount to US$ 485 ha1 yr1 (or US$ 375 ha1 yr1 in case payment for carbon sequestration service is also considered), to
offset the difference between the local economic value generated by the forest and the opportunity costs. It is not possible with
our research to answer the question of whether this amount would be considered an acceptable compensation by Kenyans to
preserve the biodiversity in this forest. However, this finding does highlight one of the main weaknesses of the ecosystem
services approach: it does not allow valuing biodiversity conservation as such in a sufficiently scientifically robust way. After all,
the ecosystem services approach was designed to complement traditional methods of conservation, which are based on aesthetic
or moral approaches to conserving biodiversity. The ecosystem services approach was designed to capture other benefits of
natural ecosystems, which may be key to the justification of the conservation of biodiversity and the maintenance and sustainable
use of forest ecosystems (Naidoo and Adamowicz, 2005; Naidoo et al., 2011). This may in particular be the case in developing
countries, given that willingness to pay for tourism- related activities is relatively high in some OECD countries (eg Hein, 2011),
but funds for biodiversity conservation are relatively scarce in developing countries (Hein et al., 2013).
4.3. Policy and institutional implications
Kakamega rainforest is a valuable ecosystem generating varied ecological and economic benefits to beneficiaries at the local,
national and global levels. An integrated institutional framework is therefore required to ensure that conservation and livelihood
interests of stakeholders at multiple scales are considered. The management strategy should therefore balance local resource
requirements and the need for biodiversity conservation. Such a strategy should recognise the need to manage Kakamega
rainforest for multiple uses. Successful implementation of the strategy would depend on how effectively multiple stakeholders
get involved in the management activities to guarantee sustainable provision of both extractive and non-extractive ecosystem
services. Conservation of biodiversity and promotion of sustainable forest utilisation for economic and socio-cultural purposes
calls for an integrated management approach akin to the Biosphere Reserve model (UNESCO, 2011). The approach centres on
forest demarcation into protection zones with high concentration of biodi- versity for non-extractive uses and utilisation zones for
regulated extractive activities permitted to local communities. According the current forestry master plan (Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources, 1994), a multiple-use zoning management strategy has been proposed for all indigenous
forests, but since the 1990s it is yet to be fully implemented for this forest. There is urgency for implementing an integrated
management strategy given the increasing local dependence on extractive forest products. We expect that active participation of
the local people in planning activities, setting extractive rules and
MC Mutoko et al. / Ecosystem Services 14 (2015) 111 9
management decisions on the forest will likely empower them and increase their conservation awareness. In addition, promotion
of environmental education projects in the neighbouring community and schools may eventually achieve to reduce human
disturbances within the core zones (ECO2LIBRIUM, 2014; Mutoko et al., 2014b). There are dissemination and capacity-building
activities taking place in some parts of Kakamega rainforest. For example, Forest Again in collaboration with Eco2, KFS,
Kakamega Environmental Education Programme and a local CFA have been training and providing alter- native livelihood
opportunities aimed at promoting sustainable forest conservation (ECO2LIBRIUM, 2014). However, there is need for scaling- up
these efforts to cover a wide geographical area and involve many forest-adjacent households to achieve sustainable conservation
of this forest.
Reduced disturbances coupled with re-afforestation of degraded areas and increased forest patrols would enhance natural
regeneration of indigenous trees for non-extractive uses. Sizable areas of plantations could be managed mainly for extractive
purposes; harvested at a sustainable rate to help meet the local resource needs (Kakamega Forest Ecosystem Managers et al.,
2012). Planting fast-maturing species coupled with promotion of energy-saving technologies could help achieve sustainable
provision of both fuel wood benefits and biodiversity conservation service (Glenday, 2006). Besides, the on- going promotion of
agroforestry practices and tree farming initiatives on individuals' farms provide possibilities for reduced dependence of
households on Kakamega rainforest resource.
 The actual implementation of this kind of integrated forest management strategy requires a facilitative policy and institutional
environment. At the national level, the existing forestry policy (Government of Kenya, 2007) provides for systematic
participation of the local community in forest management and conservation for they are recognised to possess rich indigenous
knowledge. Co- management arrangements with the community and their leaders in all forestry activities would contribute to
sustainable forest con- servation in two ways: lessen population pressure on the forest through promotion of suitable farm
forestry technologies and control destructive activities in the protected core zones of the forest.
According to the Forests Act (Government of Kenya, 2005a, 2005b), the local community adjacent to Kakamega rainforest
are expected to organise themselves into CFAs to not only regulate extraction amounts but also enforce conservation rules in
their areas. The CFA members are also encouraged to undertake income-generating activities including eco-tourism, butterfly
and silkworm farming, bee-keeping and on-farm tree nurseries as alternative livelihood sources aimed at reducing pressure on the
forest. Our study found that the formation of CFAs around the forest is underway although what is required for their effective
participation is a clear institutional arrangement to coordinate with the forest managers and enforce conservation decisions.
Active participatory forest management is another essential approach for successful collaboration with communities in
conservation programs.
Effective stakeholder collaboration can enhance the implementation of on-going efforts, aimed at addressing sustainability
and poverty challenges, to achieve sustainable forest conservation and improve local livelihoods in the study area (Kakamega
Forest Ecosystem Managers et al., 2012; ECO2LIBRIUM, 2014; Mutoko et al., 2014b). The need for financial resources can be
met if the society pays the true amount for the non-marketed, non-extractive ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation
and CO
2
sequestration (Wunder, 2006; Pearce, 2007). The prospect to pay for ecosystem services
such as carbon capture can be explored through innovative PES mechanisms. Even though the forest is already a protected area,
resource constraints continue to compromise its proper management. For the case of Kakamega rainforest the lack of sufficient
information on carbon sequestration to estimate accurately the economic value of CO
2 sequestration and biodiversity services, and the protected
status of the area (possibly driven by the high biodiversity value of the forest)
are significant barriers for establishing a feasible PES mechanism. The rich biodiversity contained in Kakamega rainforest
certainly has its own economic value even as it also contributes to values of other ecosystem services. Conversely, correct
monitoring reporting and verification (MVR) is a constraint in general and actual data collection for this exercise is expensive for
these essential services (CO
2
seques- tration and biodiversity value). However, participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME) arrangement if organised in the
right way and implemented by the local community in partnership with civil society would considerably reduce MVR costs.
Exploration of such local PME framework would overcome some of these barriers and likely lead to establishment of effective
payment mechanisms, such as a PES for biodiversity conservation and a REDD type funding for carbon storage services
provided by Kakamega rainforest. Creating these payment mechanisms in Kenya would generate additional financial resources to
pay for the ecosystem services that the forest provides and to compensate the local people to improve their livelihoods as well as
motivate them to participate in sustainable forest conservation efforts. Notwithstanding the institutional challenges and a lack of
experi- ence with PES in Kenya, there is need to get an indication based on WTP values for biodiversity perhaps at the national
level to serve as a basis to craft PES mechanisms. There is now urgent motivation to start thinking innovatively about how to
design mechanisms to pay for biodiversity preservation because further delays will lead to more loss of the rare and valuable
biodiversity (Hein et al., 2013). PES is often seen as an approach to achieve sustainable ecosystem management (Wunder, 2006;
Farley et al., 2010). New PES arrangements would establish economic incentives for local land users to manage the forest
ecosystem in a sustainable manner or in a way that involves preser- ving it (Wunder, 2007; Murillo-Luna et al., 2011). In
particular, such arrangements would generate necessary funds for direct conservation efforts as well as creation of alternative
livelihood possibilities for the neighbouring community. In the fullness of time, the community would embrace and support
forest conservation as opposed to over- extraction or conversion to agriculture.
Finally, we suggest three areas for further research to extend frontiers of ecological and economic knowledge on Kakamega
rainforest. First, the calculated economic value of provisioning services could be over-estimated because it was based on extrac-
tion rates by a high population, which could be unsustainable in the long run. In our study, it was not possible to determine
whether the current extraction rates of NTFPs were sustainable or not. There is need therefore for further research in this area to
provide essential information to guide sustainable forest conser- vation for this and other similar forest ecosystems in Africa.
Second, given the lack of understanding of the role of the forest in providing and regulating water services, there is need for
research on the processes and beneficiaries of this important ecosystem service. Third, further work is also merited around the
WTP of Kenyans for biodiversity conservation service, to establish whether it amounts to an average economic value close to the
suggested amount of US$385ha1 yr1 that would be required to offset the difference between the local economic benefits and
the opportunity costs.
5. Conclusions
We estimated the local economic value of ecosystem services provided by Kakamega rainforest in order to inform policy
makers on the existing trade-offs involving this natural resource and suggest management alternatives that would enhance the
supply of multiple ecosystem services and improve social welfare of the local commu- nity. Local economic values were
analysed based on all the locally provided ecosystem services. The economic value for recreational service was analysed with a
travel cost method for domestic visitors
MC Mutoko et al. / Ecosystem Services 14 (2015) 111 10
to the park. At the local-level, the economic values of biodiversity and carbon sequestration were not estimated. Empirical results
show that the local economic value of ecosystem services generated from the forest in-situ was much lower than the potential
returns if the forest were to be converted to the best farming activities. Our study also established that the existing management
system was less effective in ensuring sustainable forest conservation. We conclude that the estimated local economic benefits are
insufficient to encourage sustainable conservation considerations but offers useful insights on real trade-offs concerning the
management of Kakamega rainforest. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation are important services provided by this
forest, but they do not yield local benefits. Besides, they are difficult to transform into a PES arrangement because of data
shortages and institutional constraints. Therefore, there is a need to design innovative PES mechanism for biodiversity
conservation and carbon capture at the national or global levels. We suggest a management strategy that balances local resource
require- ments and biodiversity conservation purposes in recognition of the need to manage this forest for multiple uses.
Acknowledgements
We carried out this research under the WOTRO-funded inte- grated project, Scaling-up Sustainable Land Management in the
Highlands of Kenya and Tanzania, Grant number 5120502-01. We remain grateful for the steady funding we received during
field- work. We highly appreciate the effective assistance we received from Mr Luvayo, Mr Inziani, Mr Muraguri, Mr Kimkung
and Mrs Okode, during data collection. We are grateful to Dr Groeneveld for constructive comments on an earlier draft of the
paper. We also acknowledge the special co-operation we received from the many respondents who actively participated in this
study. Finally, we recognize the three anonymous reviewers and an associated editor whose valuable comments and useful
suggestions improved the quality of this paper.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.003.
References
Adamowicz, WJ, Louviere, J., Williams, M., 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental
amenities. J. Lingkungan. Econ. Manag. 26, 271. Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, WD, Verchot, LV (Eds.), 2012.
Analysing REDD: Challenges and Choices. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. Ansink,
EJH, Hein, LG, Hasund, KP, 2008. To value functions or services? An analysis of ecosystem valuation approaches. Mengepung.
Values 17, 489503. Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Hijau, RE, Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P.,
Jessamy, V., Madden, J., Munro , K., Myers, N., Naeem, S., Paavola, J., Rayment, M., Rosendo, S., Roughgarden, J., Trumper,
K., Turner, RK 2002. alasan ekonomi untuk melestarikan alam liar alam. Ilmu 297, 950-953. Benhin, J., Hassan, R., 2008. A
dynamic analysis of trade and biodiversity loss in semi-arid Southern Africa: the role of grazing activities. Int. J. Ecol. Econ. Stat.
11, 3148. Bockstael, NE, Freeman, AM, Kopp, RJ, Portney, P., Smith, VK, 2000. On
measuring economic values for nature. Mengepung. Sci. Technol. 32, 1384. Brander, L., Gmez-Baggethun, E., Martn-
Lpez, B., Verma, M., 2010. The Econom- ics of Valuing Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. TEEB-The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Bulte, EH, Joenje, M., Jansen, HGP, 2000. Is there too much or too little natural forest in the
Atlantic zone of Costa Rica? Bisa. J. Untuk. Resour. 39, 495506. Cho, S.-H., Kim, SG, Roberts, RK, 2011. Values of
environmental landscape amenities during the 20002006 real estate boom and subsequent 2008 recession. J. Lingkungan. Plan.
Manag. 54, 7191.
Claessens, L., Stoorvogel, JJ, Antle, JM, 2008. Ex ante assessment of dual-purpose sweet potato in the crop-livestock system of
western Kenya: a minimum-data approach. Agric. Syst. 99, 1322. Clark, DA, Brown, S., Kicklighter, DW, Chambers, JQ,
Thomlinson, JR, Ni, J., Holland, EA, 2001. Net primary production in tropical forests: an evaluation and synthesis of existing
field data. Ecol. Appl. 11, 371384. Daily, GC, Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, PM, Mooney, HA, Pejchar, L., Ricketts, TH,
Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Depan. Ecol. Mengepung. 7, 21
28. Daily, GC, Sderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., 2000. The value of nature
and the nature of value. Science 289, 395. ECO2LIBRIUM, 2014. ECO2LIBRIUM for Sustainable Solutions.
/http://www.eco2li
brium.net/index.htmlS (last accessed 04.12.14). Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., 2008. Designing payments for
environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 65, 663-674. Farley, J., Aquino, A.,
Daniels, A., Moulaert, A., Lee, D., Krause, A., 2010. Global mechanisms for sustaining and enhancing PES schemes. Ecol. Econ.
69, 20752084. Fashing, P., Forrestel, A., Scully, C., Cords, M., 2004. Long-term tree population dynamics and their
implications for the conservation of the Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 753771. Fisher, B., Turner, K.,
Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., Groot, Rd, Farber, S., Ferraro, P., Green, R., Hadley, D., Harlow, J., Jefferiss, P., Kirkby, C., Morling,
P., Mowatt, S., Naidoo, R., Paavola, J., Strassburg, B., Yu, D., Balmford, A., 2008. Ecosystem services and economic theory:
integration for policy-relevant research. Ecol. Appl. 18, 20502067. Fisher, B., Turner, KR, 2008. Ecosystem services:
classification for valuation. Biol.
Conserv. 141, 11671169. Freeman, AM, 1991. Valuing environmental resources under alternative manage-
ment regimes. Ecol. Econ. 3, 247256. Glenday, J., 2006. Carbon storage and emissions offset potential in an East African
tropical rainforest. Untuk. Ecol. Manag. 235, 7283. Government of Kenya, 2005a. Vihiga District Strategic Plan 20052010
for Imple- mentation of the National Population Policy for Sustainable Development. National Coordination Agency for
Population and Development, Nairobi p. 55. Government of Kenya, 2010. Annual Agricultural Reports for Vihiga, Hamisi and
Emuhaya Districts, Kenya. Ministry of Agriculture, Mbale. Government of Kenya, 2005b. The Forests Act, 2005 No. 7 of
2005. In: Kenya
Gazette Supplement Acts. (Ed.) The Government Printer, Nairobi. Government of Kenya, 2007. Sessional Paper No. 1 of
2007 on Forest Policy. In: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Ed.). The Government Printer, Nairobi. Guthiga, PM,
2007. Economic Assessment of Different Management Approaches of Kakamega Forest in Kenya: Cost-benefit and Local
Community Satisfaction Analysis. Hohen Landwirtschaftlichen Fakultt. Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms- Universitt, Bonn p.
172. Haab, TC, McConnell, KE, 2003. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources:
The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2011. Common
International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): 2011 Update. Paper Prepared for Discussion at the Expert Meeting
on Ecosystem Accounts Organised by the UNSD, the EEA and the World Bank, London, December 2011. European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Hassan, RM, 2003. Measuring asset values and flow benefits of non-traded products and
ecosystems services of forest and woodland resources in South Africa. Environ., Dev. Menopang. 5, 403418. Hein, L., 2011.
Economic benefits generated by protected areas: the case of Hoge
Veluwe Forest, the Netherlands. Ecol. Soc. 16, 13. Hein, L., Miller, DC, de Groot, R., 2013. Payments for ecosystem services
and the financing of global biodiversity conservation. Curr. Opin. Mengepung. Menopang. 5, 8793. Hein, L., van Koppen, K.,
de Groot, RS, van Ierland, EC, 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 57, 209
228. Kakamega Forest Ecosystem Managers, KFE Stakeholders, KWS Biodiversity Plan- ning and Environmental Compliance
Department, Forest Planning and Infor- mation Systems Department, 2012. Kakamega Forest Ecosystem Management Plan
20122022. KFS and KWS, Kakamega, p. 172. /http://www.kenyaforestser vice.org/documents/kakamegaS (last accessed
04.12.14). King, D., Mazzota, MJ, 2012. Ecosystem Valuation. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington DC /http://www.ecosystemvalua
tion.org/travel_costs.htm#app_travelS (last accessed 06.06.13). KNBS, 2010. 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census.
Population Distribution by
Administrative Units. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), Nairobi p. 217. KWS, 2012. Kakamega Forest National
Reserve: Canopy of Natural Beauty. Kenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, /http://www.kws.go.ke/parks/parks_reserves/KNFR.
htmlS (last accessed 13.02.13). Lambin, EF, Geist, HJ, Lepers, E., 2003. Dynamics of land-use and land -cover
change in tropical regions. Annu. Rev. Lingkungan. Resour. 28, 205241.
MC Mutoko et al. / Ecosystem Services 14 (2015) 111 11
Lovett, JC, Wasser, SK, 2008. Biogeography and Ecology of the Rain Forests of
Eastern Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. MA, 2003. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. A Framework for
Assessment. Island
Press, Washington DC. MA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Pulau Press, Washington, DC. Mace, GM,
Norris, K., Fitter, AH, 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a
multilayered relationship. Tren Ecol. Evol. 27, 1926. Mburu, J., Birner, R., 2002. Analyzing the efficiency of collaborative
wildlife management: the case of two wildlife sanctuaries in Kenya. Int. J. Organ. Theory Behav. 5, 259298. Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources, 1994. Kenya Forestry Master Plan Development Programmes. Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources, Nairobi. Mitchell, R., Carson, R., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods, Washington, DC Morton, DC,
DeFries, RS, Shimabukuro, YE, Anderson, LO, Arai, E., del Bon Espirito-Santo, F., Freitas, R., Morisette, J., 2006. Cropland
expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 1463714641.
Mugambi, D., 2007. Using travel cost method to estimate the recreational benefits
of Kakamega forest, Kenya. Kenyatta University, Nairobi. Mller, D., Mburu, J., 2009. Forecasting hotspots of forest clearing
in Kakamega
Forest, Western Kenya. Untuk. Ecol. Manag. 257, 968977. Murillo-Luna, JL, Garcs-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., 2011.
Barriers to the adoption
of proactive environmental strategies. J. Clean. Melecut. 19, 14171425. Mutoko, MC, Hein, L., Bartholomeus, H., 2014a.
Integrated analysis of land use changes and their impacts on agrarian livelihoods in the western highlands of Kenya. Agric. Syst.
128, 112. Mutoko, MC, Shisanya, CA, Hein, L., 2014b. Fostering technological transition to sustainable land management
through stakeholder collaboration in the wes- tern highlands of Kenya. Land Use Policy 41, 110120. Naidoo, R., Adamowicz,
WL, 2005. Economic benefits of biodiversity exceed costs
of conservation at an African rainforest reserve. PNAS 102, 1671216716. Naidoo, R., Weaver, LC, Stuart-Hill, G., Tagg, J.,
2011. Effect of biodiversity on economic benefits from communal lands in Namibia. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 310316. National
Research Council, 2004. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environ-
mental Decision-Making. The National Academies Press, Washington DC Norton-Griffiths, M., Southey, C., 1995. The
opportunity of biodiversity conservation
in Kenya. Ecol. Econ. 12, 125139. Ouma, OK, Stadel, C., Eslamian, S., 2011. Perceptions of tourists on trail use and
management implications for Kakamega Forest, Western Kenya. J. geogr. Reg. Plan. 4, 243250. Pagiola, S., 2007. Guidelines
for Pro-Poor Payments for Environmental Services.
Environment Department, World Bank, Washington DC Pagiola, S., 2008. Payments for environmental services in Costa
Rica. Ecol. Econ. 65,
712-724. Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A., Platais, G., 2005a. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An
exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. Dunia Dev. 33, 237253. Pagiola, S., Paola, A., Gobbi, J.,
de Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E., Ramrez, E., Rosales, M., Ruz, JP, 2005b. Paying for biodiversity conservation
services: experience in Colombia, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. Mt. Res. Dev. 25, 206211. Pearce, D., 2007. Do we really care
about Biodiversity? Mengepung. Resour. Econ. 37,
313333. Pearce, DW, 2001. The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosyst. Health 7,
284296. Pearce, DW, Turner, RK, 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environ-
ment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Herfordshire. Pistorius, T., 2012. From RED to REDD: the evolution of a forest-based
mitigation
approach for developing countries. Curr. Opin. Mengepung. Menopang. 4, 638645. Schmook, B., Vance, C., 2009. Agricultural
policy, market barriers, and deforesta-
tion: the case of Mexico's Southern Yucatn. Dunia Dev. 37, 10151025. TEEB, 2010a. The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity: Ecological and
Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington DC#. TEEB, 2010b. The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recom- mendations of
TEEB. Progress Press, Malta. Tol, RSJ, 2005. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an
assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 33, 20642074. Turner, RK, Adger, WN, Brouwer, R., 1998. Ecosystem
services value, research
needs, and policy relevance: a commentary. Ecol. Econ. 25, 6165. Turner, RK, Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy,
V., Georgiou, S., 2003. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Econ. 46, 493510. UNESCO, 2011.
World Network of Biosphere Reserves 2010: Sites for Sustainable Development. United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation. /http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-s ciences/related-
info/publicationsS (last accessed 15.11.13). Wunder, S., 2006. Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom
for sustainable forest management in the tropics? Ecol. Soc. 11, 2344. Wunder, S., 2007. Efisiensi pembayaran untuk jasa
lingkungan dalamtropis.
konservasi Conserv. Biol. 21, 48-58.