The management effectiveness of protected areas in Kenya

Kenneth Otieno Onditi,Xuelong Jiang,Esther Kioko,Quan Li,Simon Musila,Xueyou Li,Wenyu Song,James Mathenge

doi:10.1007/s10531-021-02276-7

Abstract

Merely designating new and/or expanding existing protected areas (PAs) does not guarantee the protection of critical ecosystems and species. The management of PAs must be effective to sustain meaningful conservational outcomes. We inferred the management effectiveness of PAs in Kenya based on the representation of ranges and distribution of multiple diversity dimensions of terrestrial mammals and their association with governance and designation types. We hypothesized that different governance types underlie variable management efficacies, such that stricter-managed PAs have better habitats that attract more wildlife, translating to higher species diversity compared to less strictly-managed PAs, especially for focal species groups (large carnivores, large herbivores, and endangered species). The results showed nearly all terrestrial mammals in Kenya represented in at least one PA. However, the relative proportion of represented ranges were low, and analysis of spatial conservation prioritization showed significant expansion beyond current PAs needed to achieve a one third coverage of focal species’ ranges in a best-solution reserve system. Differences in PA governance and designation types were not systematically associated with diversity variances, and while there were more unique species in state-managed PAs than in privately-managed ones, averaged diversity coefficients were comparable between categories. Diversity variances explained by PA size and status year were low in a combined species pool but increased in focal species groups. These findings suggest that success in terrestrial mammal conservation in PAs in Kenya require clearly and formally streamlined definition, performance feedback, and collaboration terms between state-managed and privately-managed PAs.

Highlights

The global proliferation of protected areas (PAs) is an enduring means of combating biodiversity declines and was a commendable tool towards achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 (Pimm et al 2014; Ceballos et al 2015; Saura et al 2019; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021b)
With recent studies showing increasingly high proportions of wildlife occurring outside existing PAs and populations declining within PAs (Craigie et al 2010; Ogutu et al 2016), Kenya is among the countries where understanding whether and how PA management relate to biodiversity distributions and welfare is pertinent
We investigated how ranges of terrestrial mammals are represented in PAs in Kenya, whether PA management and designation types influence diversity distribution patterns, and how state-managed PAs compare with privately-managed ones in the species representation

Summary

Introduction

The global proliferation of protected areas (PAs) is an enduring means of combating biodiversity declines and was a commendable tool towards achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 (Pimm et al 2014; Ceballos et al 2015; Saura et al 2019; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021b). The effectiveness of PAs in conserving biodiversity remains debated due to continued species declines and ecosystem degradations within them (Hockings et al 2006; Craigie et al 2010; Joppa et al 2016) This has intensified realizations that merely designating new and/or expanding existing PAs does not guarantee the protection of ecosystems and species (Barnes 2015; Geldmann et al 2019), rather, the PA management must be effective and equitable to guarantee meaningful long-term conservational success and viability. Evaluating such effectiveness remains integral to efforts towards curbing unnatural biodiversity declines (Coad et al 2015). The less strict restrictions to access by local communities in PPAs (Carter et al 2008; Stolton et al 2017) imply they might be less species-rich, especially for larger mammals that are more sensitive to humans (Riggio et al 2018)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion