Effects of Participatory Forest Management on the Livelihoods of Local Communities around Muguga Forest, Kiambu, Kenya

References

[1] Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S., Börner, J., Smith-Hall, C., & Wunder, S. (2014). Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis. World Development, 64, S12–S28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006. Accessed on 29th December 2025

[2] Blomley, T., & Ramadhani, H. (2006). Going to scale with Participatory Forest Management: early lessons from Tanzania. International Forestry Review, 8(1), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.8.1.93. Accessed on 20th November 2025

[3] Chomba, S., Treue, T., & Sinclair, F. (2015). The political economy of forest entitlements: can community-based forest management reduce vulnerability at the forest margin? Forest Policy and Economics, 58, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.011. Accessed on 24th July 2025.

[4] FAO. (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8753en. Accessed on 5th February 2025

[5] FAO. (2025). Community-based forestry | FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Forestry. https://www.fao.org/forestry/our-focus/forests-people/community-based-forestry. Accessed on 5th February 2025

[6] Farthing, L. (2024, May). Fewer wildfires, great biodiversity: what is the secret to the success of Mexico’s forests? The Guardian; The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/may/01/fewer-wildfires-great-biodiversity-what-is-the-secret-to-the-success-of-mexicos-forests? Accessed on 13th February 2025

[7] Humphrey, A., Moses, W., & Mugatsia Tsingalia. (2014). Community Forest Associations and Community Based Organizations: Redesigning their Roles in Forest Management and Conservation in Kenya. ResearchGate, 3(9). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266618503_Community_Forest_Associations_and_Community_Based_Organizations_Redesigning_their_Roles_in_Forest_Management_and_Conservation_in_Kenya. Accessed on 27th December 2025.

[8] Jackson, C. M., Durowoju, O. S., Adelabu, S. A., & Adeniyi, S. A. (2024). An assessment of Kenya’s forest policy and law on participatory forest management for sustainable forest management: Insights from Mt. Kenya Forest Reserve. Trees, Forests and People, 19, 100770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100770. Accessed on 24th July 2025.

[9] Kabasa, M. (2017). The Impacts of Participatory Forest Management Implementation on the Community Livelihoods around Eburu forest. Kenya Forestry Research Institute. https://www.2017.iasc-commons.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/11F_Maureen-Kabasa.pdf? Accessed on 12th April 2025.

[10] Lund, J. F., Rutt, R. L., & Ribot, J. (2018). Trends in research on forestry decentralization policies. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 32, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.003. Accessed on 15th March 2025.

[11] Matiku, P., Ogol, C., & Mireri, C. (2011). The impact of participatory forest management (PFM) on forest integrity and biodiversity in Arabuko-Sokoke forest, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology; Kenyatta University.https://irlibrary.ku.ac.ke/server/api/core/bitstreams/fc00e2e8-753f-4faf-8dfa-b2c63d73c9f4/content. Accessed on 10th December 2025.

[12] Mutune, J. M., & Lund, J. F. (2016). Unpacking the impacts of “participatory” forestry policies: Evidence from Kenya. Forest Policy and Economics, 69, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.03.004. Accessed on 9th May 2025.

[13] Njeru, C. (2021). Effect of Implementation of Participatory Forest Management on Conservation of Forests in Kenya: A Case of Kenya Forest Service, Kiambu County. Usiu.ac.ke. http://erepo.usiu.ac.ke/11732/7046. Accessed on 1st June 2025.

[14] Ochola. (2021). Impacts of Rongo University Establishment and Development on Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Rongo Municipality, Migori County, Kenya. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/George-Ochola/publication/339461903_How_University_Establishment_Influence_Land_Use_and_Land_Cover/links/64794a7779a7223765042b43/How-University-Establishment-Influence-Land-Use-and-Land-Cover.pdf

[15] Saigal, S. (2003). Improving forest governance: Experience of Joint Forest Management in India. Social Change, 33(2-3), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/004908570303300303. Accessed on 22nd May 2025.

[16] United Nations Development Programme. (2024). Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Development Programme; United Nations. https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals. Accessed on 2nd April 2025.

[17] Wunder, S., Angelsen, A., & Belcher, B. (2014). Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base. World Development, 64, S1–S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.007. Accessed on 1st April 2025.

@article{1716935,
      author = {Kiprono Gloria Jeptoo , Mireri Caleb},
      title = {Effects of Participatory Forest Management on the Livelihoods of Local Communities around Muguga Forest, Kiambu, Kenya},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {9},
      number = {10},
      pages = {4331-4339},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1716935.pdf},
      abstract = {Participatory Forest Management has been widely promoted as a strategy to enhance forest conservation while improving the livelihoods of forest-adjacent communities. This study evaluates the effects of PFM on the livelihoods of local communities surrounding Muguga Forest in Kiambu County, Kenya. A mixed-methods approach was adopted, combining quantitative and qualitative data collected from members of the Muguga Ecosystem Research Community Forest Association (MERCFA) through questionnaires, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. The findings indicate that PFM has contributed to livelihood improvement through income-generating activities such as tree nursery establishment, beekeeping, agroforestry, and controlled grazing. These activities have enhanced household income, promoted livelihood diversification and improved access to forest resources. However, the benefits remain modest and unevenly distributed due to constraints such as limited market access, inadequate financial support, weak institutional frameworks and low youth participation. The study concludes that while PFM positively influences livelihoods, its effectiveness is constrained by structural and governance challenges. Strengthening institutional support, enhancing market linkages and improving capacity building are critical to maximizing the livelihood benefits of PFM.},
      keywords = {Participatory Forest Management, Livelihoods, Muguga Ecosystem Research Community Forest Association Community Forestry, Muguga, Forest, Income Generation},
      month = {April},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I10-1716935}
  }