Valuation of consumptive wetland resources in the Nyando

Wetlands, Kenya.

BY
FRANCIS 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

 2

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.
 3

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

ABSTRACT
Wetland resources of Nyando support important economic and ecological activities. The Nyando
wetland is currently faced with multiple pressures from different anthropogenic activities within the
 4

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................2
DEDICATION...................................................................................................................... 3
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................3
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................ 4
 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................................5
1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................6
1.1 Problem statement ...............................................................................................10
1.2 Objective................................................................................................................11
1.3 Hypothesis............................................................................................................. 11
1.4 Scope of the study/Justification..............................................................................11
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................12
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Wetland definition .................................................................................................12
2.3 Wetlands Overview................................................................................................13
2.4 Importance of wetlands.........................................................................................13
2.5 Importance of valuation.........................................................................................15
2.6 Methods of valuation.............................................................................................16
2.7 Specific scenarios of valuation methods................................................................17
3.0 RESAERCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................18
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Area of study......................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Conceptual Framework..........................................................................................19
3.4 Methods of data collection.....................................................................................21
3.5 Methods of data analysis.......................................................................................22
4.0 EXPECTED OUTPUT................................................................................................... 22
REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 23
BUDGET.........................................................................................................................26
WORK PLAN..................................................................................................................... 27
QUESTIONNAIRE..............................................................................................................28

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I 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.
 6

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!!

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.
 7

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
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
 8

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.

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
 9

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
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.
 10

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
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.
 11

1.2 Objective
The 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/Justification

The 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
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
 12

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".

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
 13

• 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
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 wetlands

Wetlands 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
 14

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
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: ).
 15

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 valuation

Policy 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
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.
 16

2.6 Methods of valuation

The 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
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
 17

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 methods

In 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
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
 18

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
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 Introduction
This 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.
 19

3.2 Area of study

Nyando 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 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 Framework

Monetary 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
 20

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
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 = β (1+r) n - 1/r(1+r) n

Where: β = stream of annual consumptive use values

r = the discount rate
n = 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 = β / r n→∞
 21

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 collection

Data 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
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;
 22

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.

-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 analysis

Descriptive 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 OUTPUT

This 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
 23

consumptive use value will inform decisions and justify investments of financial resources to promote
the more sustainable use of the Nyando wetlands.

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.c
fm

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.
 24

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,
E. Maltby, and E. C. van Ierland. 2000. Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific
integration 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. New
York.

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: tracking
progress from the Rio Earth Summit to the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable
Development. 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
 25

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

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
 26

BUDGET
NO. ACTIVITY UNITS COST PER UNIT TOTAL AMOUNT
(Ksh) (Ksh)

1. Concept paper 6 300 1,800

production

2. Questionnaire 500 100 50,000

development

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

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

5. Enumerators 6 x 12 500 36,000

(Allowances) days

6. Thesis 4 5,000 20,000

TOTAL Ksh 287,800

 27

WORK PLAN

ACTIVITY 2011

FEB MA AP MA JUN JUL

R R Y E Y

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 each Education Level Primary Work

Sex (number in the household) Activity
10 1 19 Males females None Primar Secondary Certificate universit 1. Fixed
or 1 or y y salaried/employed
les to ove 2. Self employed
s 1 r 3. Farmer
8
 29

4. Farm laborer
5.Retired
6. Unemployed
7. Other

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 Construction Source of Material Value (Ksh)

Material
Floor 1.Earth
2.Cement
3. Tiles
4.Wood
5.Others(specify)
Wall 1.Earth
2.Cement
3. Tiles
4.Wood
5.iron sheet
6. bricks
7. stone
8. blocks
9. papyrus/reeds
10. Others(specify)
Roof 1.grass
2.iron sheet
3.wood
4.tiles
5. Others(specify)

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

Activity How often (tick one only)?

 30

Not at all Once a year Once a Month Once a week Every Day
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
i)Harvesting
fruits and plants
for food
ii) Fishing for
food
ii)Harvesting
papyrus to make
mats, fish traps,
brooms
iii)Hunting Wild
animals for
food
iv)Harvesting
grass for
thatching roofs
v)Harvesting
grass for making
baskets
vi)Harvesting
sand
vii)Mining mud
for making pots
viii)Collecting
juvenile fish for
bait
ix)Collecting
water for
domestic use
x)Collecting
water for
domestic use
xi)Rice farming
xii)Horticultural
farming/growing
vegetables
xiii)Collecting
firewood
xiv)Collecting
wild vegetables
for food
xv)Livestock
grazing in the
wetland
xvi)Beekeeping
xvii)Collecting
Medicinal Plants
xviii)Watching
 31

wildlife
xix)Children
Play outside

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 food
ii) Fishing for food
ii)Harvesting papyrus to make mats, fish traps, brooms
iii)Hunting Wild animals for food
iv)Harvesting grass for thatching roofs
v)Harvesting grass for making baskets
vi)Harvesting sand
vii)Mining mud for making pots
viii)Collecting juvenile fish for bait
ix)Collecting water for domestic use
x)Collecting water for domestic use
xi)Rice farming
xii)Horticultural farming/growing vegetables
xiii)Collecting firewood
xiv)Collecting wild vegetables for food
xv)Livestock grazing in the wetland
xvi)Beekeeping
xvii)Collecting Medicinal Plants
xviii)Watching wildlife
xix)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
 32

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.
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
 33

3. Disagree

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 Purpose for Last year’s Last year’s Amount Price / Kg
(acres) HH; yield yield sold (Ksh)
1.eat, from first from / year (Kg)
2.sell, crop (Kg) second
3.Livestock, crop
4.eat & sell, (Kg)
Maize
Rice
Sorghum
Millet
Beans
Cassava
Sugarcane
vegetables
 34

11 (a) Does your HH own livestock?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
(b) If yes:

Livestock Number Owned Purpose for HH; Amount sold Price of unit
Type (i) 0 1. to eat in HH, each year (Qty) sold
(ii) 1-3 2. to sell, (i) 0 (Ksh)
(iii) 4-6 3. to possess for social capital (ii) 1-3
(iv)7-10 (iii) 4-6
(v) 11-15 (iv)7-10
(vi)Over 15 (v) 11-15
(vi)Over 15
Cattle
Sheep
Goats
Chicken
Pigs
Bees
Donkey

12. Where do you graze your livestock in:

Type of livestock No. of livestock Where Livestock are Grazed
Dry season Wet season
Cattle
Sheep
Goats
Chicken
Pigs
Bees
Donkey

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 feed Quantity/yea Cost / kg Source of feed
1.Forage r (Kg) (Ksh)
2.Concentrates
3.Minerals
4. others (specify)
Cattle
Sheep
Goats
Chicken
Pigs
Bees
Donkey

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

Product Amount Purpose Who How far do Amount Price of

collected Collects? You travel sold unit
last 1.children from your (Ksh)
year 2.women House (hours)
3. men (i) 0-0.5
4.elderly (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
Wood for firewood
Wood for charcoal
Wood for construction
Medicine
Indigenous
fruits/spices/nuts
Papyrus
Thatching materials
Fodder/ grass
Clay for pottery
Mushrooms
Insects
Honey
Reeds
Game meat
Sand
Relish
 36

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

14. What amount of water does your household use for cooking, drinking and washing?
No. of household Water use Value of water Value of water per
members per person / per day (Kshs) year (Kshs)
day (litres)

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 Method of filtering Cost of filtering /
filtered / month (L) month
(Ksh)

16. What amount of water does your household use for crops?
crop type Amount of water used (L)
Rice
Maize
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
 37

Bees
Donkey

18. Please select which best describes how reliable all your water sources are:
1. all year plentiful
2. all year limited
3. seasonal but plentiful
4. seasonal and limited

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 food
ii) Fishing for food
 38

ii)Harvesting papyrus to make mats, fish traps, brooms

iii)Hunting Wild animals for food
iv)Harvesting grass for thatching roofs
v)Harvesting grass for making baskets
vi)Harvesting sand
vii)Mining mud for making pots
viii)Collecting juvenile fish for bait
ix)Collecting water for domestic use
x)Collecting water for livestock use
xi)Rice farming
xii)Horticultural farming/growing vegetables
xiii)Collecting firewood
xiv)Collecting wild vegetables for food
xv)Livestock grazing in the wetland
xvi)Beekeeping
xvii)Collecting Medicinal Plants
xviii)Watching wildlife
xix)Children Play outside
xx) 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 food
ii) Fishing for food
ii)Harvesting papyrus to make mats, fish traps, brooms
iii)Hunting Wild animals for food
iv)Harvesting grass for thatching roofs
v)Harvesting grass for making baskets
vi)Harvesting sand
vii)Mining mud for making pots
viii)Collecting juvenile fish for bait
ix)Collecting water for domestic use
x)Collecting water for livestock use
xi)Rice farming
xii)Horticultural farming/growing vegetables
xiii)Collecting firewood
xiv)Collecting wild vegetables for food
xv)Livestock grazing in the wetland
xvi)Beekeeping
xvii)Collecting Medicinal Plants
xviii)Watching wildlife
xix)Children Play outside
xx) water for irrigation
 39

Q3. In your own estimation, what amount of each is produced or generated by wetlands and what is
the value?
Activity Production / Value / Kg
year (Kg) (Ksh)
i) fruits and plants for food
ii) Fish
ii)papyrus to make mats, fish traps, brooms
iii)Wild animals for food
iv)grass for thatching roofs
v)grass for making baskets
vi)sand
vii)mud for making pots, bricks etc
viii)juvenile fish for bait
ix)water for domestic use
x)water for livestock use
xi)Rice farming
xii)Horticultural farming/growing vegetables
xiii)firewood
xiv)wild vegetables for food
xv)Livestock grazing in the wetland
xvi)Beekeeping
xvii)Medicinal Plants
xviii)Watching wildlife
xix)Children Play outside
xx) water for irrigation

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 food
ii) Fish
ii)papyrus to make mats, fish traps,
brooms
iii)Wild animals for food
iv)grass for thatching roofs
v)grass for making baskets
vi)sand
vii)mud for making pots, bricks etc
viii)juvenile fish for bait
ix)water for domestic use
x)water for livestock use
xi)Rice farming
xii)Horticultural farming/growing
vegetables
xiii)firewood
 40

xiv)wild vegetables for food

xv)Livestock grazing in the wetland
xvi)Beekeeping
xvii)Medicinal Plants
xviii)Watching wildlife
xix)Children Play outside
xx) water for irrigation

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
 41

(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

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?
 42

No of trips No of persons per Duration of stay per

trip 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 car
2 = PSV
4 = railway
5 = motorbike
6 = cycle
7 = walk
8=plane
9=railway-plan-vehicle
10=vehicle-plane-vehicle
11 = other (please state) ___________
6. (a) Was the route taken to get here the most nearest?
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = Don't know

(b) If No, why did you take a longer route?

1 = more interesting route taken
2 = more scenic route taken
3 = visited somewhere else first
4 = 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 -100
2=Ksh 101 -500
3=Ksh 501 -1000
4=Ksh 1001-5000
5=Ksh 5001-10000
6=Ksh 10001-25000
7=Ksh 25001-50000
8=Ksh 50001-100000
9=Ksh 100001 and above

10. (a) When you left your place of origin, was your trip destined to this wetland?
 43

i) Yes
ii) No

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

i) Yes
ii) 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)

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/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
 44

15. 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

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 _______