Valuation of consumptive wetland resources in the Nyando Wetlands, Kenya.

BYFRANCIS ONYANGO ODUOR

SBE/PGA/006/09

A Research Proposal submitted to the School of Business and Economics in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the award of the Degree of

Masters of philosophy in Agricultural Economics and Resource Management of Moi University

Department of Agricultural Economics and Resource Management

Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya

4th MARCH, 2011

1

DECLARATION This research proposal is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other

university. No part of this proposal may be reproduced without the prior permission of the author

and / or Moi University. All other sources of information cited herein have been duly acknowledged

Signature …………………………………

Date ………………………………………

Name: FRANCIS ONYANGO ODUOR

Registration Number: SBE/PGA/006/09

SUPERVISOR(S) DECLARATION

This research proposal has been submitted for review with my/our approval as university

supervisor(s).

Signature…………………………………

Date……………………………………….

Dr. Samuel Mwakubo

Department of Economics and Agricultural Resource Management, School of Business and

Economics, Moi University

Signature…………………………………

Date………………………………………

Dr. Phillip Raburu

Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, School of Natural Resource Management, Moi

University.

2

DEDICATION

To my dear wife Susan Juma, for standing by me all the way

To my parents, Michael Odhiambo and Josephine Oketch, for having nurtured me in my formative

years to be what I am today

To my son, John Hagee, for his inspiration

3

ABSTRACTWetland resources of Nyando support important economic and ecological activities. The Nyando

wetland is currently faced with multiple pressures from different anthropogenic activities within the

wetland and upstream. Conservation and preservation requires knowledge of the relative values of the

wetland resources, something which is still largely missing making it difficult to come up with

appropriate wetland conservation programmes in Nyando. Until some reasonable estimates of value

are established, wetlands policies will not be optimal for society. This research therefore identifies

key direct consumptive wetland goods and services, establish the value of direct consumptive use in

the wetlands and investigate the determinants of the direct consumptive value of the resources. The

study will be carried out in Nyando Wetlands. Primary data will be collected by means of structured

questionnaire, interviews and focus group discussion from households, key informants, relevant

government departments and development partner agencies. The secondary data will be obtained

from existing database. Three stage sampling technique will be used to select the divisions, sub

locations and respondents for the study. Systematic random sampling will be employed for selecting

about 300 households along Nyando Wetlands. Revealed preference methods, Market valuation

method and travel cost method, will be employed. The methods will result in determination of the

infinite present value while Tobit model will explain the determinants of the consumptive resources.

The study expects to inform decisions and justify investments of financial resources to promote the

more sustainable use of the Nyando wetlands.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTSDECLARATION......................................................................................................................................................1

DEDICATION.........................................................................................................................................................2

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................................3

TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................................................4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..........................................................................................................................................5

1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................6

1.1 Problem statement....................................................................................................................................9

1.2 Objective..................................................................................................................................................10

1.3 Hypothesis...............................................................................................................................................10

1.4 Scope of the study/Justification...............................................................................................................10

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................................................................11

2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................11

2.2 Wetland definition...................................................................................................................................11

2.3 Wetlands Overview..................................................................................................................................12

2.4 Importance of wetlands...........................................................................................................................13

2.5 Importance of valuation...........................................................................................................................14

2.6 Methods of valuation...............................................................................................................................15

2.7 Specific scenarios of valuation methods..................................................................................................16

3.0 RESAERCH METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................18

3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................18

3.2 Area of study...........................................................................................................................................18

3.3 Conceptual Framework............................................................................................................................19

3.4 Methods of data collection......................................................................................................................20

3.5 Methods of data analysis.........................................................................................................................22

4.0 EXPECTED OUTPUT......................................................................................................................................22

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................23

BUDGET.............................................................................................................................................................26

WORK PLAN.......................................................................................................................................................27

QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................................................................................28

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTI am highly grateful to the almighty God for all the love, kindness, guidance, knowledge and wisdom

in this academic work.

It is through the support, company, encouragement, suggestions and constructive criticisms by many

scholars that this proposal managed to come this far. In particular, I owe much gratitude to my

supervisors; Dr. Samuel Mwakubo and Dr. Phillip Raburu for the exemplary role they played in

guiding me through this proposal writing. I thank them for their invaluable advice, support, guidance

and patience throughout my proposal writing.

I sincerely appreciate the Master of Philosophy in Agricultural Economics and Resource Management

class of 2009 for their academic support in this proposal writing.

God Bless you all!!

6

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The rise in global population and wealth has not only increased the demand for ecosystem goods and

services, but also necessitated that this demand is met from increasingly degraded ecosystems. The

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment reports an unprecedented loss of biodiversity, the continuation of

which is predicted to increase poverty levels and threaten food security (MA, 2005). Thus,

conservation should be regarded as a vital tool in order to meet international development goals set by

the UN to be met in 2015 (UN, 2000). The World’s ecosystems, the goods and services that they

provide and human development are interlinked. Trade-offs have to be made and we must decide how

best to make them.

As humans strive for higher levels of welfare, their short-term, immediate demands are commonly

met through the conversion of natural ecosystems into human managed land-uses. Agricultural,

industrial and residential land cover dominates the developed World’s landscape. This has greatly

reduced the capacity of ecosystems to provide services fundamental to human welfare; those of

provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services (MA, 2005). This wide range of complex

goods and services arise from the multiple interactions of the components of biodiversity. The

outcome is a valuable flow of goods and services for which there is increasing scarcity, congestion

and conflict as a result of human pressure (IUCN, 2005).

Despite being valuable assets and contributing to a country’s economy, goods and services have not

historically, been adequately represented in markets. While many tangible products are commercially

exploited others are not and these, along with the more intangible services, are largely public goods.

This common property characteristic has, inevitably, meant that the true economic values to society

are either not accurately reflected in market prices, or are not present in markets at all. Prices have

signaled inappropriate values. This market failure, and inefficient allocation of resources, has led to

the overuse and exploitation of goods and services to such a level that it now threatens global

economic performance and a sustainable level of human wellbeing (Treasury, 2006).

The wetland consumptive resource valuation is founded in the principles of welfare theory, where an

individual’s wellbeing is composed of both the consumption of private goods and services, and the

quantity and quality of non-market goods and services from the resource-environment system

(Freeman, 2003). Values held are relative to other goods and services, and choices have to be made in

the allocation of limited resources. By assessing ecosystem goods and services in economic terms, the

7

benefits of conservation can be more adequately represented when trade-offs are made between

competing uses of financial resources, whether by private land users or public policy makers.

Competing claims for financial resources, such as health care, poverty, and education are often highly

politicized and publicized, compelling large portions of a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Conservation efforts also require financial backing and without the proper assessment of an

ecosystems contribution to economic activity, are perceived as marginal and so do not command the

financial resources it deserves.

Only the goods and services that enter the formal market are commonly used as economic indicators

in policy and management strategies, and the costs of depletion tend to be ignored. Through

ecosystem valuation, decision-makers are able to take more informed and transparent choices

between competing causes. The quantified values become more accessible to mainstream economics

and increasingly, we are seeing the aggregate value of goods and services being used in the

justification of policy decisions and long-term financial investment in resource management and

conservation initiatives (IUCN, 1998).

The proliferation of ecosystem valuation is changing the face of conservation. The protected area

approach is now being complimented by a more market-oriented approach. This is reflective of a

more general trend in policy away from traditional command-and-control towards incentive led

approaches (EEA, 2006). These, so-called, market-based-instruments (MBI) work by establishing

prices or markets for environmental services (MES), either directly or indirectly, reflecting the true

social costs and so correcting market distortions and reducing welfare losses overall. The strength of

this approach is that it has the potential to allow value to be realized in areas local to conservation

efforts. For example, establishing resource-user groups with enforceable property rights might create

an opportunity for profitable exchange and so an incentive for more prudent management (Landell-

Mills & Porras, 2002). Those local to conservation efforts are commonly rural populations. These

rural communities often depend heavily on natural resources for their livelihoods (Bishop, 1999) and

are vulnerable to political, economical and socio-cultural factors that affect resource access (Vedeld

et al., 2004). Ecosystem valuation then becomes a foundation from which local needs, activities and

dependency on natural resources can be assessed. Better assessment leads to more appropriately

designed mechanisms of management, either to capture the economic values, provide incentives to

conserve the resource base, or compensate for opportunities forgone. Ultimately ecosystem valuation

has the potential to reduce the conflict between development and conservation goals.

8

A broad range of valuation methodologies has been applied to value wetlands. The method most

commonly used in the literature (Woodward 2001) has been to observe the market prices of products

related to wetland functions and then ascribe the total revenue from the sale of such products as the

value of the wetland. Contingent valuation has also been widely used. As expected, the different

valuation methodologies have been applied to value different wetland functions. Contingency

Valuation Method (CVM), hedonic pricing and Travel Cost Method (TCM) have been applied to

value amenity and recreational values, replacement cost has largely been used to value the function of

wetlands in improving water quality, and the production function approach has been used to value the

habitat and nursery function of wetlands. The market price approach has been used to value most

wetland functions. This study will use market-value methods to assess the economic importance of

the wetlands consumptive goods and services supporting Nyando community livelihoods. Wetland

values have been reported in the literature in many different metrics, currencies and referring to

different years (e.g., WTP per household per year, capitalized values, marginal value per acre, etc). In

order to enable comparison between these values the study will standardized them to Kenya Shillings

per hectare per year, following Woodward and Wui (2001).

Consumptive and non-consumptive direct use values are generally estimated using Market Valuation,

based on estimates of quantities produced prices and costs of inputs. Quantification of use can be

complex if monitoring data are not available, and may involve key informant interviews, focus group

discussions and household surveys involving detailed questionnaires about resource use (Turpie

2010). Recreational value is measured in terms of tourism value and property value. Tourism value is

measured using the Travel Cost Method. Data on money and time spent by users visiting a

recreational site is used to construct a travel cost model from which a demand curve is derived. This

enables estimation of value including consumer surplus. The accuracy of this method is hampered by

complications such as multiple destination trips.

Though many types of value arise under the total economic value (TEV) framework, this study will

quantify only the direct consumptive use value provided to Nyando communities. The resultant

aggregated value elicited by this study will provide an idea of the magnitude of the contribution that

ecosystem goods and services make to the local economy and will highlight the economic value that

will be eroded if the Nyando wetland continues to be degraded. It should be noted that though not

quantified, further categories of ecosystem value provided by the Nyando Wetland are not considered

9

insignificant. The estimation of value of the key components of direct consumptive use values for a

typical household will allow us to calculate the annual value of the Nyando wetlands.

This study concentrates on the actual value realized by the communities. This is opposed to the

potential flow of ecosystem goods and services, which, when valued through market prices, must take

into account the increased supply of products that may result in price fluctuations. Thus we can be

confident in the application of the observed market prices in the methodology. The study will also

attempt to consider the value of the wetland over an infinite period for effective wetland

sustainability. Infinite time frame with a range of discount rates; 5%, 10% and 15% will be used. The

values will be expressed as a single value, the ‘present value’ for the infinite period. It should

however be noted that, valuation which, provides the efficient allocation aspects of resource use, is

but one aspect for decision for managing the wetlands; others will include the equity and

distributional aspects, political and ecological considerations.

1.1 Problem statement Reliance on natural resource exploitation for livelihood, always pose a great danger to the resources,

more so if their value is not known or appreciated by the stakeholders. The Nyando Wetland is

undergoing threats such as pollution from industrial waste, burning of papyrus, overgrazing,

reclamation for agriculture, over-fishing, over-exploitation of macrophytes, soil erosion and siltation,

among others. These threats are worse during the dry spell because the community rush to reclaim

land for agriculture and overgraze. Despite these threats, Nyando wetlands still provide a substantial

flow of ecosystem goods and services which forms the backbone of the wetland community

livelihood. The value of this flow has however not been established and as a result, management

decisions have not adequately considered the economic importance these goods and services provide

to the local community and the national economy. For this reason, they have not been given their due

importance in policy development and hence inadequate attention in their conservation and

management.

If the value of Nyando wetland goods is not established, management decisions will not adequately

consider their economic value. This is likely to lead to misallocation of resources and may cause

major ecosystem degradation. The numerous beneficiaries i.e. communities living within the

wetlands; communities outside the wetlands but benefiting from values that flow over, or travelling to

Nyando to enjoy them; consumers of goods from the ecosystem resources sold nationally or

internationally; and more global consumers of ecosystem services such as hydrological systems and

10

carbon sequestration will be lost. For example, Okana and Ombeyi wetlands both in the Nyando

River Basin had one of their ecosystem flows exhausted by the communities. Almost all their papyrus

had been harvested forcing the community to get the precious wetland commodities from Dunga

Wetland on the shores of Lake Victoria.

Valuation of the Nyando wetland will provide useful information for sustainable management and

policy decisions. The Information will also draw attention to the potential economic losses arising

from continued degradation and thus give an impetus for wise use of the wetland resources by the

community. Understanding the economic incentives that are driving resource use will also be helpful

in better management of the Nyando Wetland.

1.2 ObjectiveThe broad objective of the study is to determine the value of goods and services within the Nyando

wetland. The specific objectives are;

(1) To identify key direct consumptive wetland goods and services providing value to Nyando

communities.

(2) To estimate the value of consumptive wetland goods and services in Nyando wetland.

(3) To investigate the determinants of the direct consumptive value of the resources in Nyando

wetlands.

1.3 Hypothesis

1. The value of consumptive wetland resources is not significantly different from zero.

2. There is a no relationship between age, education and income and consumptive wetland

resources.

1.4 Scope of the study/JustificationThe rationale for valuing environmental resources is to ensure their wise use. Valuing Nyando

Wetland will draw attention to the potential economic losses of continued degradation. It will endorse

the call for improved resource management and will encourage support from government and donors.

Generally, it is desirable to ‘hold on’ to these resources un-degraded as opposed to depleting or degrading

them. Understanding the economic incentives that are driving resource use will assess of the level of

11

human dependency on access to these resources. This will enable a better prediction of the

development impact of projects, programs and policies to be implemented over the Nyando wetlands.

The valuation will provide tools to assist with the difficult decisions involved in the utilisation of our

environmental resources. Efforts to bring unsustainable resource use under control will also reduce

conflicts between development and conservation goals.

The valuation can also provide objective evidence of monetary and non-nonmonetary benefits of

wetlands to managers and public, and gain their support for conservation. In the case where wetlands

are being converted to other uses, valuation helps by facilitating comparison between the existing

value vis a vis the intended use so as to decide which one is most beneficial to the community or the

nation as a whole. This will aid in avoiding the loss of environmental resources especially those with

irreversible outcomes. It should however be noted that, economic valuation which, provides the

efficient allocation aspects of resource use, is but one aspect for decision for managing the wetlands;

others will include the equity and distributional aspects, political and ecological considerations.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Presented in this chapter are the reviews of the relevant literature pertaining to wetlands valuation,

theoretical background of valuation, superseded by review of studies which have attempted to value

wetlands, this in view to identifying research gaps for consideration in the study.

2.2 Wetland definition

Wetlands were the first ecosystem to receive international attention through the "Convention on

Wetlands of International Importance especially as Habitats for Waterfowls", opened for signature at

Ramsar, Iran, in February 1971. The convention defines wetlands as:"Areas of marsh, fen peatland or

water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing,

fresh, brackish or salt including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tide does not exceed

six metres. These areas may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and

islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres at low tide lying within the wetlands".

12

Vision 2030 embeds environmental concerns in the social pillar aimed at achieving a “just and

cohesive society enjoying equitable social development in a clean and secure environment.” National

Wetlands Standing Committee (NWSC year!!!) defined Kenyan wetlands as: "areas of land that are

permanently, seasonally or occasionally waterlogged with fresh, saline, brackish or marine waters at

a depth not exceeding six metres, including both natural and man-made areas that support

characteristic biota".

Wetlands, like other ecosystems, offer a range of goods, services and attributes that generate value

and contribute to human welfare (Barbier, 1994). Goods, services and attributes may be defined as

follows:

Goods are harvested resources, such as fish;

Services are processes that contribute to economic production or save costs, such as water

purification; and

Attributes relate to the structure and organization of biodiversity, such as beauty, rarity or

diversity, and generate less tangible values such as spiritual, educational, cultural and

recreational value.

Goods, services and attributes are often referred to collectively as ‘ecosystem services’, or ‘ecosystem

goods and services’. However this often results in the value of ecosystem attributes being overlooked

by those who are not aware of this. More recently, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003)

categorized the services obtained from ecosystems as follows:

Provisioning services such as food and water;

Regulating services such as flood and disease control;

Cultural services such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and

Supporting services, such as nutrient cycling, that maintains the conditions for life on Earth.

2.3 Wetlands Overview

Globally, wetlands occupy about 6% of the earth’s surface and the value of these wetlands and their

associated ecosystem services has been estimated at US$14 trillion annually (MA 2005). In Kenya,

they cover about 2-3% of the land surface (NEAP 1994) and provide many ecological and socio-

economic goods and services. These include water supply, food production, construction materials,

and products for the cottage industry, tourism and recreation. The ecological services comprise flood

control, water recharge and discharge, water filtration, nutrient storage and re-cycling and wildlife

habitats. According to Wetlands International (January 2010) Millions of people around the world

13

live in or adjacent to wetlands. They choose to do so because of the abundant resources within

wetlands that provide them with many of the basics of life including food, water and shelter.

2.4 Importance of wetlandsWetlands provide a range of goods and services and possess a variety of attributes of value to society

(Barbier 1993). They offer provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services (Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment 2005) that generate economic value from their direct, indirect, or potential

use. Nevertheless, despite legislation designed to protect them, wetlands continue to be degraded and

lost at an alarming rate (Turner et al. 2000). This is at least partly because of a lack of understanding

of their ecological and socioeconomic importance, which leads to distorted policy and decision

making regarding their use and management (Adaya et al. 1997, Smit and Wiseman 2001, Terer et al.

2004). Many wetlands have been lost or degraded as a result of increasing demands for land and

water. An understanding of the socioeconomic value of wetlands is crucial when deciding on

conservation and development priorities related to land use and the allocation of scarce water

resources. Therefore, the value of the natural resources that wetlands provide to poor communities is

a critical consideration. These resources include rich, moist soils for cultivation; grazing for livestock;

fisheries; reeds, sedges, and grasses for crafts and timber; and water for domestic use, watering

livestock, and irrigation (Kotze and Breen 1994). Wetlands also have less tangible values which may

be linked to cultural heritage or religious values associated with them (Turpie et al., 2006).

In order to make better decisions regarding the use and management of wetland ecosystem services,

their importance to human society must be assessed. The importance or “value” of ecosystems is

viewed and expressed differently by different disciplines, cultural conceptions, philosophical views,

and schools of thought (Groot 2006). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) defined value as

“The contribution of an action or object to user-specified goals, objectives, or conditions”.

‘Valuation’ is therefore defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) as “the process of

expressing a value for a particular good or service…in terms of something that can be counted, often

money, but also through methods and measures from other disciplines (sociology, ecology and so

on)” .

As most wetlands play a crucial role in maintaining local livelihoods and significantly contribute to

the regional, national and even global economy, it is important that information about the Total

14

Economic Value of wetlands is explained and communicated to all stakeholders and that the

boundary conditions for policy making are created that stimulate conservation and sustainable use of

this “natural capital” and prevent further degradation or (partial) destruction (Groot 2006). Total

Economic Value (TEV) (MA 2003) is divided into use-value and non-use-value. Use values are

composed of three elements: direct use, indirect use, and option values. Direct use value is also

known as extractive, consumptive or structural use value and mainly derives from goods which can

be extracted, consumed or enjoyed directly (Dixon & Pagiola 1998). The direct use value are fish,

agriculture, fuel wood, recreation, transport, wildlife harvesting, peat/energy, medicine, wild foods

(fruits, honey, vegetables e.g. mushrooms, insects, roots and shoots etc). According to Morison

(2002), Consumptive use value of wetlands resources results from agriculture, aquaculture, fishing,

mining, hunting etc.

The goods and services provided by ecosystems are critical to human welfare and potentially provide

an economic basis for conserving biodiversity (Constanza et al., 1997; Balmford et al., 2002: ).

However, net marginal benefits are usually compared between ecosystems in, at most, three or four

different states, such as intact vs intensively used or converted (Balmford et al., 2002 van Beukering

et al., 2003). In reality, the provision of goods and services changes continuously, although not

necessarily smoothly, in response to levels of resource use or habitat conversion. For the net benefits

of an ecosystem to be maximized, an appropriate balance must be struck between conservation,

conversion and utilization (Turner 1991). One solution to this problem is to devise policies that

ensure benefits to society, derived from ecosystem goods and services are maximized. However,

without markets and prices, the contribution of ecosystem services to the economy may not be

reflected in the choices made by individuals or in policy decisions. Thus, to maximize the potential

contribution of ecosystems to human welfare, the true value of goods and services should be

incorporated into decision-making processes. Despite technical and philosophical problems

associated with valuing Nature (Toman 1998), we argue that doing so can aid in making decisions

which increase the benefit of Nature to society. For example, public access to many ecosystems can

result in individuals overusing resources because each user ignores the costs on others (Hardin 1968).

2.5 Importance of valuationPolicy and decision making often fail to fully account for the contribution of wetlands to environment

sustainability and for human welfare. Many of the economic values are often overlooked due to their

15

public good character or market failures resulting from undefined property rights in or near the

wetland area. According to Vorhies 1999; Stuip et al. 2002) wetlands are still under-valued and over-

used because of: Market failure(public goods and externalities), Perverse incentives , Unequal

distribution of costs and benefits, No clear ownership and Devolution of decision-making away from

local users and managers. According to Barbier (1997), evaluating wetland services and goods is

done for at least two good reasons: First, to estimate ecosystem benefits to people and allows

financial experts to carry out a Cost-Benefit activity which might be in favour of environmental

investment. It is therefore an important tool for environmental managers and decision makers to

justify public spending on conservation activities and wetland management; secondly, people are not

always aware of the values of wetlands. Many think that they are no more than mosquito breeding

areas! By giving objective evidence to skeptical managers and the public of the monetary and non-

monetary benefits of wetlands, environmentalists will gain their support.

2.6 Methods of valuationThe economic value of resources such as wetlands is equal to the benefits (net of costs) that these

systems provide to humans (Freeman, 1993). The net factor income (NFI) method is most appropriate

when the wetland provides a service that leads to an increase in producer surplus. In the NFI method

the physical relationship between wetland area and the economic activity is estimated. It is then

possible to identify the increase in producer surplus associated with the wetlands area. In practice, it

is often assumed that demand is perfectly elastic so that the impact of the wetland on consumer

surplus can be ignored. Other times the producer surplus that is generated by a wetland is estimated

using the replacement cost (RC) method. This approach values the wetland’s service based on the

price of the cheapest alternative way of obtaining that service. For example, the value of a wetland in

the treatment of wastewater might be estimated using the cost of chemical or mechanical alternatives.

As noted by Anderson and Rockel (1991), the replacement cost method is actually an upper bound on

the true value since the producer may not choose to actually use that alternative considered.

Non-market values can be measured using travel cost (TC), contingent valuation (CV), or hedonic

pricing (HP) methods. While in principle each method can give a correct estimate of economic value,

it is easy to misuse the method and obtain results that may have little relation to the true value. Some

wetland values are obtained using methods that do not estimate economic surplus and, therefore, lack

a foundation in standard economic theory. Of the studies identified in our review of the literature, two

values were estimated using energy analysis in which the value is based on the gross primary

16

production of the ecosystem, and five values were obtained using the market value of the products

extracted. These methods have been strongly criticized (Anderson and Rockel, 1991). Energy

analysis equates the energy embodied in a wetland’s biota with the energy purchased in fossil fuels.

Since the correlation between energy content and consumer preferences is quite weak, the technique

is a poor predictor of economic value. The market value technique is also flawed since it cannot

capture consumer surplus and can lead to over-estimate producer surplus if cost of extracting the

valued products is not subtracted.

The synthesis wetland values from consumptive goods will annual value per acre in Kenya Shillings.

This distinguishes this research from other meta-analyses which typically use willingness to pay

(WTP) per person (Brouwer et al., 1997). WTP per person is not applicable here because some

methods (e.g. NFI) do not lead to a WTP per person measure. On the other hand, if WTP per person

is available, then value per acre can be calculated with knowledge of the relevant population and the

wetland’s size. Variability in wetland value can arise as a result of variation due to differing

characteristics of the wetlands, i.e. along the function; and variation due to error in the estimation of

the true value, i.e. deviations from the function.

2.7 Specific scenarios of valuation methodsIn developing countries crop production remains largely at subsistence levels making value

assessments problematic without substantial fieldwork. The studies that have attempted to assess the

value of crop productivity at this level are largely conducted in the context of rural livelihood analysis

(Shackleton et al., 2001). Through survey and questionnaire investigating both the outputs and inputs,

a monetary value can be assigned to crop production. These rural studies have valued mixed cropping

rather than larger-scale commercial valuation that is often focused on a single crop product. Dovie et

al. (2003) valued both the marketed and non-marketed values of crop production by HH in South

Africa. Finding an annual HH value of US$ 443.4 and costs of production inputs incurred low, they

suggest better accounting and resource availability investigation to make better policy and targeted

rural support.

Existing livestock valuations are split between those that look at the values derived directly from the

animals and those that value the land areas on which livestock forage. The attempts based on direct

values are again divided between those looking at conventional commercial outputs, and those that

encompass wider values. In general livestock valuations are often biased to a single marketed product

17

or limited to particular use values (Arntzen, 1998), often dealing primarily with private values. In

Zimbabwe, Scoones (1990) found that 57% of livestock value is derived from draught power, 22%

from milk and 16% from transport, with manure, sale and slaughter combined accounting for only the

remaining 5%. Similarly, Danckwerts (1957) cited in Barrett (1992) found that only 32% of the total

gros value of cattle production came from net sale of animals and ploughing accounted for 41%. This

is exemplified by a considering a study by Dovie et al. (2006) that valued the multiple benefits of

livestock production to rural households in South Africa at US$ 656 annually. This value excludes

the value for cattle savings, but is still substantially more than the value of annual marketed off-take

estimated by Nyariki (2004) in Davies (2006), of US$ 165 per HH in Kenya that drew on

Government statistics and did not consider further use values. Arntzen (1998), in a valuation of

Botswana rangelands, estimates the direct use value of rangelands considering three components:

livestock, wildlife utilisation, and gathering of natural products. Values were attributed through the

market prices of products and substitutes. The market value of livestock sold and home slaughtered

was established net of production and marketing costs. Draught power through substitution costs of

tractor power. Manure through the assumption that crop yields will increase by 25% through

application, and milk by replacement with long life milk. The per hectare value based on the size of

the communal lands, was found to be extremely low at Botswana US$ 1.35 per hectare.

In addition to discrepancies in definition, studies have employed a range of valuation methodologies

to assess the economic significance of Non-timber Forest Products (NTFP). Where NTFP are not

commercially available and cannot be valued through market prices, Delang (2006) suggests five

valuation methods: assessing the opportunity costs of time to collect products, contingent valuation

methods, PEV; substitute product values; and through exchange values where cash economies do not

exist. The paper goes on to compare the opportunity cost of time approach with the substitute

products approach in Thailand, finding a large discrepancy between methods. Through the valuation

of labour time spent collecting NTFP households extracted US$ 31 whereas the use of substitute

product methods estimated a value of US$ 303 annually. Without consistency across studies

comparisons of value is problematical, though not necessarily prohibitive, between local policy

contexts.

Since the study will use market prices, it will be important to ensure that market imperfections are

minimal or taken into account. Furthermore, as a demand-led assessment, this study concentrates on

the actual value realized by the communities. This is opposed to the potential flow of ecosystem

18

goods and services, which, when valued through market prices, must take into account the increased

supply of products that may result in price fluctuations. Thus the application of the observed market

prices in the methodology.

The Travel Cost Method is a revealed preference technique that uses the differences in costs to travel

to a site, something that can be observed, to help "reveal" the value of a site or amenity (Randall

1987). The travel cost method will be used to measure the value tourists give to the recreational

services wetland provides.

3.0 RESAERCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 IntroductionThis chapter presents the design that will be adopted for the study, types and source of data

collection, sampling techniques to be used, the study sample, methods for data analysis and the

theoretical and conceptual framework for the wetlands direct use method models to be used.

3.2 Area of studyNyando wetland is chosen not only due to its importance both in ecological and socio-economic

importance but also the pressures it faces

from utilization. The Nyando River basin

covers an area of 3500 km2 of western

Kenya, and has within it some of the most

severe problems of agricultural stagnation,

environmental degradation and deepening

poverty found anywhere in Kenya. The

Nyando River drains into the Winam Gulf of

Lake Victoria and is a major contributor of

sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus to Lake Victoria. About 750 000 people reside within the Nyando

basin, most of whom live in Nyando District in Nyanza Province and Nandi and Kericho districts in

Rift Valley Province. The incidence of consumption poverty is high, 66%. At the administrative

location level, the locations of Nyando District include both those with the lowest poverty rate in the

sugar belt of Muhoroni Division (36 percent) and those with the highest poverty rate in Upper

Nyakach Division (80 percent) for the entire basin (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2003). HIV/AIDS

19

prevalence varies among 28 percent in Nyando District, 7 percent in Nandi District, and 12 percent in

Kericho District.

Land-use and property rights vary across the basin. The upper part of the basin is comprised of

gazetted forests, commercial tea production and small-scale agriculture on steep hillsides that were

degazetted as forests during the last 40 years. Mid-altitude areas are a mixture of smallholder farms

(with maize, beans and some coffee, bananas, sweet potatoes and dairy) and large-scale commercial

farms (mostly sugar cane). The flood-prone lakeshore area is mostly used for subsistence production

of maize, beans and sorghum, combined with commercial production of sugar cane and irrigated rice.

There are clear differences in land use between long-settled areas and resettlement areas. The

irrigated areas are owned by smallholder farmers and the moribund National Irrigation Board.

3.3 Conceptual FrameworkMonetary measure of a change in an individual’s well being due to a change in environmental quality

is the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework. This approach distinguishes between use values and

non-use values, the latter referring to those current or future (potential) values associated with an

environmental resource which rely merely on its continued existence and are unrelated to use (Pearce

and Warford, 1993). Typically, use values involve some human ‘interaction’ with the resource

whereas non-use values do not. Use value is divided into two; direct use value and indirect use value.

Direct use value is also known as extractive, consumptive or structural use value and mainly derives

from goods which can be extracted, consumed or enjoyed directly (Dixon & Pagiola 1998). The

Direct use values are those uses which are most familiar to us: harvesting of fish, collection of

fuelwood and use of the wetlands for recreation. Direct uses involve both commercial and non-

commercial activities, with some of the latter activities often being important for the subsistence

needs of local populations. Most of the direct use values in this study are marketed hence their market

prices will be used.

The estimation of value of the key components of direct consumptive use values for a typical

household will allow us to calculate the annual value of the Nyando wetlands. The Direct Use

(consumptive) Value of Nyando wetland products will be calculated using the formula:

N

CV = ∑ γ(P * T * H) i=1

Where

20

CV - Consumptive Value γ - Percentage of households collecting a particular wetland product P - Mean value of wetland product collected per trip T - Mean number of trips made by a household for wetland product collection per year H - Total number of households

For an estimation of the wetland’s present value of finite annual streams of environmental net

benefits, the following formula is used:

PV = 1+rn - 1/r1+r) n

Where: = stream of annual consumptive use valuesr = the discount raten = number of year under consideration

For the infinite annual streams of environmental goods and services case, the assumption is that the

stream of benefits will flow constantly in the future due to sustainable utilization. In this case the PV

of these future benefits will be obtained through a simple expression that emerges when n approaches

infinity (URT 2003, Pearce et al 1995) i.e.

PV = / r n→∞

Determinants of consumptive value will be measured as follows;

Y = f(X1 +X2 +X3 + X4 + ……………….. +Xn)

Where;

Y = value of consumptive wetland resources

X1,2,3,4………n = Determinants of consumptive value such as household size, age of household head,

education of household head, flood crisis, gender of household head, farm size, household income,

access cost to the market, and so on. Tobit model will be used to analyze the function.

3.4 Methods of data collectionData will be collected by means of structured questionnaire, which will be pre-tested to increase its

reliability. Household surveys, by administering questionnaires, will be used to collect quantitative

data on natural resource use and other household activities (Turpie et al., 1999; Nhuan et al., 2003).

These surveys establish the household composition, location and employment status, obtain details on

each of the resources harvested, the equipment used, the amount harvested annually, the quantity sold

21

as raw produce and the selling price per unit, the number of products produced from natural products

and the amount sold and the selling price of these. Data will also be obtained on the areas of land

cultivated, the type of crops grown and amounts harvested, as well as livestock numbers and

production. Key informants, focus group discussion, relevant government departments and

development partner agencies will be enhanced. Focus group discussions and key informant

interviews will be held to collect information of a generally applicable nature, e.g. on seasonality,

markets and prices, as well as to collect sufficient information to be able to make preliminary

estimates of wetland resources harvesting and processing and associated economic values, in order to

assist with survey design. Information from projects document, annual reports, baseline data and

other relevant literature will be used. Market prices of wetland goods will be collected from the local

markets. Data on money and time spent by users visiting the beaches in the wetland will be collected

using travel cost method.

Whereas time series data on resource use is often available in developed countries, these data seldom

exist in a reliable form in developing country contexts (Eaton and Sarch, 1997, Emerton, 1998,

Turpie et al., 1999). This necessitates reliance on survey data, which means the study will rely on the

recall ability of respondents. For consumptive resources with no market prices, as is often the case in

subsistence economies, then surrogate prices will be used. According to Barbier et al (1997), this will

be done through;

1. Barter or trade value: If the resource is bartered or traded, e.g. fish for rice, then it will be

possible to estimate its value based on the market value of a commodity for which it is traded.

Information about the rate of exchange between two goods will be sought.

2. Substitute price: close substitute which has a market value will be used to assign the value as

the price of the substitute. Information about the degree of substitution between different goods will

be established.

3. Opportunity cost: the value derived from the next best use will be established. However, this

method may prove difficult when people do not harvest resources in a systematic way (e.g. people

collecting materials on their way home from working in the field) (Delang, 2006a).

4. Indirect substitute prices: In the absence of all the above possibilities, and when the substitute is

also unpriced, then use of the opportunity cost of the substitute as a proxy for the value of the

commodity in question will be done.

22

-Sampling procedure

Multistage sampling technique will be used. The first stage will be to purposively select the divisions

given their wetland sizes and population in the three districts; second will be to systematically select

sub-locations and lastly systematic random selection of wetland beneficiaries. Every third household

will be approached and if occupants are absent or unwilling to respond, the nearest neighbour will be

approached instead. This approach to reducing bias is logistically favourable than complete

randomization of households, which will require knowledge of number and identity of households in

the area prior to study commencement. A total of 300 households will be targeted.

3.5 Methods of data analysisDescriptive statistics to establish the characteristics of wetlands resource users will be analyzed by

use of computer statistical package such SPSS and excel. Infinite Present Value of Nyando wetlands

will be obtained by aggregating the values of the consumptive resources. Tobit model will be used to

analyze the determinants of direct consumptive value.

4.0 EXPECTED OUTPUTThis study will enable the research attain Masters Degree. It will also give a valuable insight into the

livelihood supporting goods and services provided by the Nyando Wetland. It will highlight the

considerable economic value that the wetland contributes towards the local economy. The direct

consumptive use value will inform decisions and justify investments of financial resources to promote

the more sustainable use of the Nyando wetlands.

23

REFERENCES.Adaya, A. L., H. Bdliya, H. Bitrus, M. Danjaji, D. Eaton, M. B. Gambo, M. Goggobe, A.Makinta, D. Okali, A. D. Omoluabi, G. Polet, M. Salisu, S. S. Sanusi, M. T. Sarch, and M. Shuaibu. 1997. Local-level assessment of the economic importance of wild resources in the Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands, Nigeria. Hidden Harvest Project, Research Series Volume 3 , No. 3. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Barbier, E. B. 1993. Sustainable use of wetlands; valuing tropical wetland benefits: economic methodologies and applications. Geographical Journal 159(1)

Bishop, J.T. (ed) (1999) Valuing Forests: A Review of Methods and Applications in Developing Countries. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

European Environment Agency (2006) Using the market for cost-effective environmental policy: Market based instruments in Europe. EEA, Copenhagen. Report: 1/2006.

Freeman, A.M. (2003) The measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Resources for the future, Washington, DC.

H.M.Treasury (2006) Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.[Online] Available from:http://www.hm-reasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

IUCN (1998) Economic Values of Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series. Number: 2.

IUCN (2005) Depend on Nature: Ecosystem Services supporting Human Livelihoods. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland.

Landell-Mills, N. & Porras, T. I. (2002) Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Kotze, D., and C. M. Breen. 1994. Agricultural land use impacts on wetland functional values.WRC Report No. 501/3/94. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.

Smit, L., and K. Wiseman. 2001. Environmental resource economics as a tool for environmental management in the City of Cape Town. Pages 190-218 in Forum for Economics and Environment: first conference proceedings. Available online at: http://www.econ4env.co.za/archives/ecodivide/Theme4e. pdf.

Turner, R. K., J. C. J. M. van den Bergh, T. Soderqvist, A. Barendregt, J. van der Straaten,

24

E. Maltby, and E. C. van Ierland. 2000. Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientificintegration for management and policy. Ecological Economics 35.

Terer, T., G. G. Ndiritu, and N. N. Gichuki. 2004. Socio-economic values and traditional strategies of managing wetland resources in Lower Tana River, Kenya. Hydrobiologia 527.

United Nations (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration A/RES/55/2, Section II. NewYork.

Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A., Sjaastad, E., & Berg, G.K. (2004) Counting on the environment: Forest incomes and the rural poor. Environmental Economics Series, [Online]

Woodward, R.T. & Wui, Y.S. (2001). The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 37.

Wynberg, R. 2002. A decade of biodiversity conservation and use in South Africa: trackingprogress from the Rio Earth Summit to the Johannesburg World Summit on SustainableDevelopment. South African Journal of Science 98:233-243.

Nakijoba, V. (1996). Effects of Wetland Reclamation on Women’s Socio-Economic Survival: A case Study of Kampala District. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, Makerere University,

Folke, C. (1991). Socio-Economic Dependence on the Life-Supporting Environment. In: C. Folke and T. Kåbeger (eds.), Linking the Natural Environment and the Economy: Essays from the Eco-Eco Group. Dordretcht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 77-94.

DIAMOND, P., and J. Hausmann. 1994. Contigent valuation: “is some number better than no number?” Journal of economic perspectives 8

Fox , J.A., J.F.Shorgen, D.J. Hayes, and J.B. Kliebenstien. 1998. CVM-X: Calibrating contigent values with experimental auction markets.” American journal of agricultural economics 80

Hanemann, W.M. 1994. VALUING THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH Contigent valuation”. Journal of economic perspectives 8

Cummings, R.G., and L.O. Taylor. 1999. “ unbiased value estimates for environmental goods:A CHEAP TALK DESIGN FFOR THE CONTIGENT VALUATION METHOD”. AMMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 89

Randall, A. 1987. Resource Economics: An Economic Approach to Natural Resource and Environmental Policy. New York: John Wiley & Son.

CARSON, R.T., N.E. FLORES, K.M. Martin, and J.L. Wright. 1996. “ contigent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing estimates for Quasi-Public Goods.” Land economics

25

Cameron, T.A., G.L. Poe, R.G. Ethier, and W.D. Schulze. 2002. “ alternative NON-Market value-Elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same?” journal of environmental economics and management

BUDGETNO. ACTIVITY UNITS COST PER UNIT (Ksh) TOTAL AMOUNT (Ksh)

26

1. Concept paper production 6 300 1,800

2. Questionnaire development 500 100 50,000

3. Transport (Trips) 40 3,000 120,000

4. Enumerators (Trainings) 6 10,000 60,000

5. Enumerators (Allowances) 6 x 12 days 500 36,000

6. Thesis 4 5,000 20,000

TOTAL Ksh 287,800

27

WORK PLAN

ACTIVITY 2011

FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY

Proposal writing

Proposal presentation

Data collection –Secondary

Questionnaire dev’t

Reconnaissance field visit

Enumerators’ training

Pretesting of questionnaire

Revision of questionnaire

Primary data collection

Data coding

Data analysis

Reporting

Thesis writing

Presentation

28

QUESTIONNAIRE

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE

Interviewer: ……………………………………………………

Time of interview start:………………………………............

Interview Area/Location: ……………………………………..

Time of interview end:………………………………………..

Date: Total time taken:……………………………………….

Interview Number:……………………………………………..

PART 1 - Household (HH) Composition

1. Please state your relationship to the head of the household of: ___1. Head of household; 2. Husband;3. Wife; 4. Child; 5. Grandchild; 6. Parents; 7. Other family members (includes household helpers);

2. Household size: ________

3. Land size (acres) ___________

3. Household composition:

Age Number of eachSex

Education Level(number in the household)

Primary WorkActivity

10orless

11to18

19orover

Males females None Primary Secondary Certificate university

1. Fixed salaried/employed2. Self employed3. Farmer 4. Farm laborer5.Retired 6. Unemployed7. Other

29

4. What is the average household income per month?

Ksh …………………………….

5. What is the average household food expenditure per month?

Ksh……………………………..

6. What is the building in which your household lives made of?

Structure Major ConstructionMaterial

Source of Material Value (Ksh)

Floor 1.Earth2.Cement3. Tiles4.Wood5.Others(specify)

Wall 1.Earth2.Cement3. Tiles4.Wood5.iron sheet6. bricks7. stone8. blocks9. papyrus/reeds10. Others(specify)

Roof 1.grass2.iron sheet3.wood4.tiles5. Others(specify)

7. Which of the following activities do you take part in and how often?

Activity How often (tick one only)?Not at all(a)

Once a year(b)

Once a Month(c)

Once a week(d)

Every Day(e)

i)Harvesting fruits and plants

30

for foodii) Fishing for foodii)Harvesting papyrus to make mats, fish traps, broomsiii)Hunting Wild animals forfoodiv)Harvesting grass for thatching roofsv)Harvesting grass for making basketsvi)Harvesting sandvii)Mining mud for making potsviii)Collecting juvenile fish for baitix)Collecting water for domestic usex)Collecting water for domestic usexi)Rice farmingxii)Horticultural farming/growing vegetablesxiii)Collecting firewoodxiv)Collecting wild vegetables for foodxv)Livestock grazing in the wetlandxvi)Beekeepingxvii)Collecting Medicinal Plantsxviii)Watching wildlifexix)Children Play outside

31

8. Rate how much these activities benefit you in terms of your generation of food, money and a

general feeling of happiness and health (1 is very important 2 important 3 fairly important 4

less important and 5 is not important at all).

Activity Ranking (1 -5)i)Harvesting fruits and plants for foodii) Fishing for foodii)Harvesting papyrus to make mats, fish traps, broomsiii)Hunting Wild animals for foodiv)Harvesting grass for thatching roofsv)Harvesting grass for making basketsvi)Harvesting sandvii)Mining mud for making potsviii)Collecting juvenile fish for bait

ix)Collecting water for domestic usex)Collecting water for domestic usexi)Rice farmingxii)Horticultural farming/growing vegetablesxiii)Collecting firewoodxiv)Collecting wild vegetables for foodxv)Livestock grazing in the wetlandxvi)Beekeepingxvii)Collecting Medicinal Plantsxviii)Watching wildlifexix)Children Play outside

9. How do you feel about this wetland you live and work in?

a. If no one uses a natural area it does not matter whether it has lost its cover or not.

1. Agree

2. Don’t know

3. Disagree

b. If a natural area that I do not use loses its cover, I am not concerned that others will not be

able to use it.

1. Agree

2. Don’t know

3. Disagree

c. It is worth the Kenyan government spending more money to look after natural areas as they

are as it attracts new business to the area.

32

1. Agree

2. Don’t know

3. Disagree

d. Even if I don’t use some natural resources now I would still like them to be available in case I

want to use them in future, even if that means I have to forgo some benefits of natural resources now.

1. Agree

2. Don’t know

3. Disagree

e. People have a responsibility to protect wetlands for our children and our children’s children,

even if that means I have to forgo some benefits of the wetlands now.

1. Agree

2. Don’t know

3. Disagree

f. The fact that some animal and plant species may disappear from the Nyando Wetlands due to

loss of the natural areas is a serious problem.

1. Agree

2. Don’t know

3. Disagree

g. The quality of natural areas should be maintained only if the costs to people are not very high.

1. Agree

2. Don’t know

3. Disagree

h. People have more important things to worry about than the quality of the natural resources.

1. Agree

2. Don’t know

3. Disagree

33

i. Is there anything about the environment and what is happening in it now that worries you? 1.

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

If yes,

Describe the problem and why it worries you.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

What do you perceive as the causes for these environmental problems?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

PART 2 – Household Crops and Livestock

10. (a) Did your household harvest crops last year?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

(b) If yes then;

Crop type Acreage(acres)

Purpose for HH;1.eat, 2.sell, 3.Livestock, 4.eat & sell,

Last year’s yieldfrom first crop (Kg)

Last year’s yieldfrom second crop (Kg)

Amount sold/ year (Kg)

Price / Kg(Ksh)

MaizeRiceSorghumMilletBeansCassavaSugarcanevegetables

34

11 (a) Does your HH own livestock?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

(b) If yes:

Livestock Type

Number Owned (i) 0(ii) 1-3(iii) 4-6(iv) 7-10(v) 11-

15(vi) Over

15

Purpose for HH; 1. to eat in HH,2. to sell, 3. to possess for social capital

Amount soldeach year (Qty)

(i) 0(ii) 1-3(iii) 4-6(iv) 7-10(v) 11-

15(vi) Over

15

Price of unit sold(Ksh)

CattleSheepGoatsChicken Pigs BeesDonkey

12. Where do you graze your livestock in:

Type of livestock No. of livestock Where Livestock are GrazedDry season Wet season

CattleSheepGoatsChicken Pigs BeesDonkey

12 (a) Do you provide your livestock with additional food than grazing?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

35

(b) If yes:

Livestock Type Type of feed1.Forage2.Concentrates3.Minerals4. others (specify)

Quantity/year (Kg)

Cost / kg (Ksh)

Source of feed

CattleSheepGoatsChicken Pigs BeesDonkey

13. Which of the following products do you remember your household collected from the wetlands in

the past one year?

Product Amountcollected lastyear

Purpose WhoCollects?1.children2.women3. men4.elderly

How far do You travelfrom yourHouse (hours)

(i) 0-0.5

(ii) 0.6-1.0

(iii) 1.1-2.0

(iv) 2.1-4.0

(v) 4.1-6.0

(vi) 6.1-8,0

Amount sold

Price ofunit (Ksh)

Wood for firewoodWood for charcoalWood for constructionMedicineIndigenous fruits/spices/nutsPapyrusThatching materials

36

Fodder/ grassClay for potteryMushroomsInsectsHoneyReedsGame meatSand Relish

Water Consumption (crops/livestock/cooking/drinking/washing):

14. What amount of water does your household use for cooking, drinking and washing?

No. of household members

Water use per person / day (litres)

Value of water per day (Kshs)

Value of water per year (Kshs)

15. Do you filter your water to remove sediment before drinking or cooking with it?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

If yes, how do you filter your water?

Amount of water

filtered / month (L)

Method of filtering Cost of filtering /

month

(Ksh)

16. What amount of water does your household use for crops?

crop type Amount of water used (L)

Rice

Maize

37

Vegetables

17. What amount of water does your household use to water livestock?

Livestock type No. of livestock Amount of water used (L)

Cattle

Sheep

Goats

Chicken

Pigs

Bees

Donkey

18. Please select which best describes how reliable all your water sources are:

1. all year plentiful2. all year limited3. seasonal but plentiful4. seasonal and limited

38

FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE:

Q1. What are the wetland goods and services that you consume or directly use?

Activity Rank (1-5)i)Harvesting fruits and plants for foodii) Fishing for foodii)Harvesting papyrus to make mats, fish traps, broomsiii)Hunting Wild animals for foodiv)Harvesting grass for thatching roofsv)Harvesting grass for making basketsvi)Harvesting sandvii)Mining mud for making potsviii)Collecting juvenile fish for bait

ix)Collecting water for domestic usex)Collecting water for livestock usexi)Rice farmingxii)Horticultural farming/growing vegetablesxiii)Collecting firewoodxiv)Collecting wild vegetables for foodxv)Livestock grazing in the wetlandxvi)Beekeepingxvii)Collecting Medicinal Plantsxviii)Watching wildlifexix)Children Play outsidexx) water for irrigation

Q2. Classify whether the wetland good and services are extracted or used for commercial or subsistence

purposes.

Activity Commercial Subsistence i)Harvesting fruits and plants for foodii) Fishing for foodii)Harvesting papyrus to make mats, fish traps, brooms

39

iii)Hunting Wild animals for foodiv)Harvesting grass for thatching roofsv)Harvesting grass for making basketsvi)Harvesting sandvii)Mining mud for making potsviii)Collecting juvenile fish for bait

ix)Collecting water for domestic usex)Collecting water for livestock usexi)Rice farmingxii)Horticultural farming/growing vegetablesxiii)Collecting firewoodxiv)Collecting wild vegetables for foodxv)Livestock grazing in the wetlandxvi)Beekeepingxvii)Collecting Medicinal Plantsxviii)Watching wildlifexix)Children Play outsidexx) water for irrigation

Q3. In your own estimation, what amount of each is produced or generated by wetlands and what is the

value?

Activity Production / year (Kg)

Value / Kg(Ksh)

i) fruits and plants for foodii) Fishii)papyrus to make mats, fish traps, broomsiii)Wild animals for foodiv)grass for thatching roofsv)grass for making basketsvi)sandvii)mud for making pots, bricks etcviii)juvenile fish for bait

ix)water for domestic usex)water for livestock usexi)Rice farmingxii)Horticultural farming/growing vegetablesxiii)firewoodxiv)wild vegetables for foodxv)Livestock grazing in the wetlandxvi)Beekeepingxvii)Medicinal Plantsxviii)Watching wildlifexix)Children Play outsidexx) water for irrigation

40

Q4. How do factors like age, income and education determine the value of these wetland goods and service?

Activity Age Income Education Others i) fruits and plants for foodii) Fishii)papyrus to make mats, fish traps, broomsiii)Wild animals for foodiv)grass for thatching roofsv)grass for making basketsvi)sandvii)mud for making pots, bricks etcviii)juvenile fish for bait

ix)water for domestic usex)water for livestock usexi)Rice farmingxii)Horticultural farming/growing vegetablesxiii)firewoodxiv)wild vegetables for foodxv)Livestock grazing in the wetlandxvi)Beekeepingxvii)Medicinal Plantsxviii)Watching wildlifexix)Children Play outsidexx) water for irrigation

41

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Kindly tell me about your organization? (a) background, (b) Act, regulations and Policy of your existence / operation(c) Role in wetlands(d) Achievement(e) Challenges

2. Kindly tell me about Nyando wetlands?(a) Characteristics(b) People and culture(c) Socio-economic activities(d) Past , current and future status of the wetlands(e) Programmes and projects in the wetlands(f) Threats / pressures facing the wetlands(g) Recommendations

42

RECREATIONAL SITES QUESTIONNAIRE (travel cost method)

1. Where do you come from?

Country / town …………………………

2. Roughly how far away is that?

………… Km

3. For the last one year, how many trips have you made to this wetland and how many persons in the trip?

No of trips No of persons per trip

Duration of stay per trip (Hrs)

4. (a)How many people, including yourself and children are in your group visiting the site with you today? _______

(b)And for how many of them did YOU pay the costs of the trip? _______

5. How did you travel here?1 = private car2 = PSV4 = railway5 = motorbike6 = cycle7 = walk8=plane9=railway-plan-vehicle10=vehicle-plane-vehicle11 = other (please state) ___________

6. (a) Was the route taken to get here the most nearest?1 = Yes2 = No3 = Don't know

43

(b) If No, why did you take a longer route?1 = more interesting route taken2 = more scenic route taken3 = visited somewhere else first4 = other reason (please state) _______

7. How long, approximately, did your journey take? _______ Hrs

8. Approximately how much did your journey cost? Ksh_______

9. Which category is the closest to your personal total expenses on travel, accommodation, visitor charges and equipment costs on this trip? Please exclude food and drink.

1=Ksh 0 -1002=Ksh 101 -5003=Ksh 501 -10004=Ksh 1001-50005=Ksh 5001-100006=Ksh 10001-250007=Ksh 25001-500008=Ksh 50001-1000009=Ksh 100001 and above

10. (a) When you left your place of origin, was your trip destined to this wetland?

i) Yes ii) No

(b) (1) if yes, do you intend to visit other places on your way back home?

i) Yesii) No

(2) If yes where will you visit and how long do you intend to take there?

Next place(s) of visit Intended duration of trip (Hrs)

(c) If No in 3 (a) above, where else did you visit;

Place(s) prior visited Duration of trip (Hrs)

44

11. What activity/activities do you/your family take or have or intend to take part in during your visit to this wetlands?

1. boating/sailing2. Surfing3. Swimming4. Paddling5. Other water sports6. Relaxing on the riverbank7. Getting a tan8. Fishing9. Walking10. Picnicking11. Camping12. Enjoying the scenery/view13. Bird watching14. Nature watching15. Other (please specify) _________

12. Kindly allocate your TOTAL TRIP TIME with percentages to the activity/ activities

1. boating/sailing __________%2. Surfing __________%3. Swimming __________%4. Paddling __________%5. Other water sports __________%6. Relaxing on the riverbank __________%7. Getting a tan __________%8. Fishing __________%9. Walking __________%10. Picnicking __________%11. Camping __________%12. Enjoying the scenery/view __________%13. Bird watching __________%14. Nature watching __________%15. Other (please specify) __________%

_______________________100 % TOTAL TIME

45

13. How much of your enjoyment of the day is due to the following (in % which should sum to 100)

1. Journey _______________2. Being here __________3. Being elsewhere _______