[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
An Overview of Justicia adhatoda: A Medicinal Plant but Native Invader in India
Previous Article in Journal
Population Viability of an Endangered Population of Greater Gliders (Petauroides volans) and Management Implications
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Conservation
Volume 5
Issue 1
10.3390/conservation5010001
conservation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Community-Based Conservation Strategies for Wild Edible Plants in Turkana County, Kenya

by
Francis Oduor
1,2,*,
Dasel Mulwa Kaindi
2,
George Abong
2,
Faith Thuita
3 and
Céline Termote
1
1
Food Environment and Consumer Behavior, Bioversity International, Nairobi P.O. Box 823-00621, Kenya
2
Department of Food Science, Nutrition and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Nairobi, Nairobi P.O. Box 29053-00625, Kenya
3
Department of Public & Global Health, University of Nairobi, Nairobi P.O. Box 30197-00100, Kenya
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Conservation 2025, 5(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation5010001
Submission received: 15 August 2024 / Revised: 16 November 2024 / Accepted: 2 December 2024 / Published: 24 December 2024
Browse Figure
Figure 1
<p>Integrated community-led conservation strategy for WEPs in Turkana County, Kenya.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In arid Turkana County, over 90% of the population is food insecure, and wild edible plants (WEPs) provide 12–30% of dietary intake. However, climate change and overexploitation threaten these crucial resources. This study employed sequential qualitative methods to investigate community perceptions, conservation priorities for WEPs, barriers, and necessary actions in Turkana. It combined participatory community workshops and expert validation interviews. The research revealed critical threats to WEP availability, including climate change, shifting cultural practices, and a lack of natural regeneration. Key conservation barriers included intergenerational knowledge gaps, inadequate policy implementation, and conflicts between immediate needs and long-term conservation goals. In developing conservation plans, the stakeholders identified and prioritized WEP species based on food value, medicinal properties, cultural significance, utility, and drought resistance. The co-developed conservation strategy emphasized both in situ protection measures, such as community awareness programs and local policy enforcement mechanisms, and restoration actions that include planting prioritized WEPs in home gardens and community spaces. Collaborative roles for communities, non-governmental organizations, researchers, and government actors were identified to provide training, resources, and technical support. This strategy also emphasizes the need for incentivization through food/cash-for-work programs and small business grants to promote alternative livelihoods. The strategies align with some of the most-utilized conservation frameworks and principles, and present new ideas such as integrating indigenous knowledge. Expert validation confirmed the feasibility of proposed actions, highlighting the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches. This study contributes to expanding our knowledge base on community-based conservation and provides insights for policymakers, emphasizing WEPs’ critical role in food security, cultural preservation, and ecological resilience. The findings could serve as a model for similar initiatives in other arid regions facing comparable challenges.

1. Introduction

In Kenya, despite progress against hunger and malnutrition, food insecurity remains a critical issue, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions. Turkana County, with a population of approximately one million, is considered Kenya’s food insecurity hotspot [1], with over 90% of its population facing food insecurity [2] and significant child malnutrition rates [3]. This situation is exacerbated by climate change impacts [4,5,6,7,8], as evidenced by the severe 2020–2022 drought that led to massive crop failures and livestock losses [9].
Achieving food security under climate variability is a pressing challenge, where biodiversity plays a crucial role in filling seasonal food gaps and maintaining agricultural systems [10,11,12,13,14]. Wild edible plants (WEPs), especially tree and shrub species, significantly contribute to dietary diversity and micronutrient intake in Turkana, accounting for 12–30% of food consumption and providing an average of 76% of micronutrient intake [15] among consumers. WEPs also provide substantial support to local livelihoods in vulnerable communities [13,16,17,18]. Furthermore, these resilient and drought-tolerant WEPs provide a variety of ecosystem services, including shade, livestock fodder, and soil nutrient cycling. Many WEPs also hold cultural significance and serve sources of fiber, medicines, beverages, timber, fencing, and other valuable products. However, both WEPs and the traditional knowledge associated with them are disappearing from community landscapes [19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. According to Brummitt et al. [21], 25% of edible wild plants in the local red list are threatened due to overharvesting. In Turkana, key threats include climate-related factors, overgrazing, overharvesting, and species invasion [26]. Given their value for local communities, WEPs must be utilized in combination with efforts to ensure their sustainable management [20,23].
This study presents a novel, integrated approach to WEP conservation in Turkana County, addressing a critical gap in our understanding of how to effectively preserve these resources in arid environments. By combining participatory community workshops with expert validation interviews, we develop a comprehensive, community-driven conservation strategy that bridges local knowledge with scientific expertise. This approach not only advances our theoretical understanding of social-ecological systems (SESs) in resource-constrained environments, but also provides a practical framework for implementation.
Our research is grounded in the SES framework developed by Ostrom [27], which emphasizes the interconnectedness of social and ecological components in natural resource management. We extend this framework by integrating traditional ecological knowledge with contemporary conservation practices, creating a unique model for WEP conservation in arid regions.
This study aims to investigate stakeholders’ perceptions, priority species, conservation challenges, and required actions for effective WEP tree conservation in Turkana County, Kenya. Specifically, it addresses (i) stakeholders’ views on WEP tree availability, utilization, and conservation challenges, (ii) the priority WEP tree species and community criteria for prioritization, and (iii) necessary actions and strategies for effective WEP conservation.
This research fills several key research gaps. First, it offers one of the first comprehensive assessments of community perceptions, priorities, and strategies for WEP conservation in an arid African context. Second, it develops and validates a novel, integrated conservation framework that combines in situ conservation measures and restoration with livelihood diversification strategies, offering a novel context-specific solution. Third, it demonstrates the effective application of participatory methods to design conservation strategies that align with both community needs and broader ecological goals. Finally, this study contributes to the limited literature on the role of WEP conservation in enhancing food security and resilience to climate variability, providing insights on the bottlenecks, opportunities, and strategies critical to conserving Turkana’s WEPs.
The findings of this study have significant implications for food security, biodiversity conservation, and community resilience in the face of climate change. By providing a roadmap for WEP conservation that is both theoretically grounded and practically applicable, this research contributes to multiple sustainable development goals, including Zero Hunger (SDG 2), Climate Action (SDG 13), and Life on Land (SDG 15).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Context

This research is part of a broader project implemented by Bioversity International from 2019 to 2023, which piloted an integrated community-based approach to enhance dietary diversity through the use of local agrobiodiversity in Busia and Turkana Counties, Kenya [28]. Conducted within a cluster-randomized control study design, the project involved 17 communities units, with 10 randomized to receive a participatory intervention delivered in two phases: a co-creation of community action plans through workshops and an implementation of these plans with technical support from partner organizations [29]. The study aimed to improve farm resilience, food and nutrition security, and the dietary diversity of women and children. Turkana County, where the current study was conducted, was identified as a key study area due to its unique food systems and significant conservation challenges.
Turkana County, Kenya’s second-largest county, spans approximately 71,597.6 square kilometers in the northwestern part of the country, bordering South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Uganda. Administratively divided into seven sub-counties, the county has a population of 926,976 [30]. The predominantly rural population relies on diverse livelihood strategies, traditionally centered on pastoralism but increasingly including agro-pastoralism, fishing, small-scale commerce, and artisanal crafts due to climate pressures and the need for adaptation [2,31].
The region is characterized by a hot, dry climate with temperatures ranging from 20 °C to 41 °C. It experiences a bimodal rainfall pattern that is erratic and unreliable in both time and space [31]. The vegetation is diverse, dominated by drought-tolerant species adapted to the challenging environmental conditions. It includes desert scrub in low-lying plains, riverine forests along the Turkwel and Kerio Rivers, and Acacia-commiphora bushlands in slightly more elevated areas. This vegetation serves as a crucial source of fodder, firewood, and wild edible plants for local communities [2,32].

2.2. Sampling and Study Design

From the seven sub-counties, the current study focused specifically on Loima and Turkana South sub-counties. These sub-counties were purposively selected due to ongoing project operations in these areas, which provided established relationships with communities and a foundation for participatory research. These areas also represent diverse ecological zones, with Loima characterized by riverine ecosystems along the Turkwel River and Turkana South featuring dryland ecosystems, each supporting different patterns of WEP occurrence and utilization.
The current study employed a sequential qualitative design using a participatory approach [33], comprising two phases: community-based participatory workshops and in-depth expert validation interviews.

2.2.1. Participatory Community Workshops

The first phase consisted of nine workshops (six in Loima and three in Turkana South sub-county) conducted between 1 and 24 February 2023, with each workshop lasting two days. The participants were strategically selected through a purposive sampling approach, with assistance from local community leaders, ensuring representation from diverse stakeholder groups including representatives of charcoal burners groups, youth groups, women’s groups, community leaders, and influential persons such as religious leaders.
The workshops were structured following the Community-based Participatory Approach for Development [28], aimed at developing an integrated community-led strategy for WEP conservation. To ensure effective communication and participation, all workshops were conducted in the local Turkana language. Trained facilitators and note-takers, all native speakers of Turkana, managed the sessions, supported by three county extension officers specializing in environment, agriculture, and health. To maintain accurate records, all sessions were audio-recorded with the participants’ consent.
Day 1 began with a 90 min welcome and introduction session which provided an overview of the workshop objectives and set the stage for the participatory approach. This was followed by a 120 min educational segment on the forest-degradation–poverty cycle, illustrating how environmental degradation affects climate change and community livelihoods. The third session included an 80 min presentation of key findings from prior research on Turkana’s WEPs, focusing on dietary contribution and nutrient composition [15] and conservation threats [26,34]. This was followed by small group discussions which focused on the stakeholders’ perceptions of changes in WEP availability over time.
Day 2 opened with a community feedback session and proceeded with an action-planning for conservation, involving the identification of barriers and potential solutions, followed by an afternoon session (120 min) dedicated to the WEP prioritization process, a structured activity where each community selected priority species for restoration through planting.
Participants began by freely listing WEP species known to occur in their area. This was followed by participants working in small groups to brainstorm potential evaluation criteria for WEP prioritization. These group suggestions were then presented to the entire workshop, where through facilitated discussion, the participants collectively agreed upon a final set of evaluation criteria, with locally relevant symbols assigned to represent each agreed criterion. Following this consensus-building process, a visual assessment exercise began, where participants, in groups of 4–6, evaluated WEP tree species previously documented in a 2016 ethnobotanical study [35]. Each WEP was represented by laminated photographs displayed on a wall or table. Using a three-color card system (red = 1, yellow = 2, green = 3), the participants placed cards (10 cm × 10 cm) near each WEP photograph to score how well it met each criterion, with red indicating the lowest score and green the highest. This visual scoring system facilitated cross-group discussion and knowledge sharing. The process culminated in a collective tabulation of the cards, where species receiving the highest scores (most green cards) were considered the highest priority. Through facilitated discussion examining both the advantages and limitations of each highly ranked species, the participants reached consensus on three priority WEP species for immediate conservation action. The Supplementary Material included in this study provides a detailed description of the workshop methodology.

2.2.2. In-Depth Expert Interviews

The second phase, implemented between April and June 2024, involved in-depth interviews with local experts (n = 8) from Turkana County to validate and refine the outcomes from the community workshops. Experts were strategically selected through purposive and snowball sampling techniques [36] to represent diverse perspectives from government departments (n = 2), national research institutions (n = 1), NGOs (n = 2), CBOs (n = 1), and conservation enthusiasts (n = 2).
Interviews were conducted in Turkana, using a semi-structured guide designed to elicit detailed responses from experts’ perspectives regarding workshop findings, proposed conservation strategies, and broader contextual factors influencing WEP conservation in Turkana County. Six interviews were conducted in person, with two facilitated via Zoom due to logistical challenges. The interviews were conducted in a mix of English and Kiswahili, depending on the preference and comfort of the interviewee. All sessions were audio-recorded with participant consent. The recordings were later transcribed verbatim in English to ensure accuracy in subsequent analysis.

2.3. Data Analysis

Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used in data analysis of the community workshops and expert interviews. Qualitative analysis involved a deductive thematic analysis of workshop notes, captured quotes, and interview transcripts [37], identifying key themes related to stakeholders’ perceptions, conservation challenges, and proposed actions. This approach was guided by a predetermined analytical framework [27], based on the research objectives and existing literature on WEP conservation.
Quantitative analysis focused on WEP tree species’ prioritization using descriptive statistics. The frequency of species citations and prioritizations across locations was calculated using MS Excel, generating frequency tables of the most cited and prioritized species.
Data triangulation enhanced validity by comparing insights from workshops, interviews, and the existing literature. A participatory validation process was employed to ensure accurate interpretation of community perspectives. This involved sharing preliminary findings and interpretations with selected community representatives who had participated in the initial workshops. These representatives were asked to review the findings, provide feedback, and confirm whether the interpretations accurately reflected their views and experiences. This approach, often referred to as respondent validation or participant feedback, allowed for corrections, clarifications, or additional insights to be incorporated into the final analysis. This multifaceted approach provided a foundation for developing context-specific WEP conservation strategies in Turkana County.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

This study received ethical approval from the AMREF Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (ESRC P688/2019). Informed consent was obtained in two forms: orally for the workshop participants, and in writing for the in-depth interview participants prior to data collection. Oral consent was chosen for workshop participants due to varying literacy levels within the community. The oral consent process was explained and documented by the research team.
Participant anonymity and confidentiality were maintained throughout this study. All data, including audio recordings and transcripts, were stored securely and accessed only by authorized research team members. Personal identifiers were removed from all datasets and replaced with unique codes. Audio recordings were transcribed and securely filed, as per the approved ethics protocol.

3. Results

A total of 416 participants attended the workshops, with an average of 46 participants per workshop. The gender distribution was balanced, with 52% women (n = 217) and 48% men (n = 199). The participants ranged in age from 18 to 75 years (mean age = 38 years). The stakeholder composition included representatives of charcoal burners (15%), youth group members (29%), women’s group representatives (25%), community leaders (25%), and religious leaders (6%). Most participants (82%) had lived in their respective areas for over 20 years.

3.1. Stakeholders’ Perpectives on WEP Trees Availability and Conservation

3.1.1. Status of WEP Availability

Participants identified a potential risk of extinction for WEP trees in their communities, emphasizing the urgent need for conservation measures to mitigate threats. They reported diminishing WEP populations across their localities and outlined specific factors contributing to this decline:
(a)
Impact of changing weather patterns
Changing weather patterns were identified as a critical factor reducing WEP productivity. Participants noted that the decline in rainfall since January 2021 had severely affected fruit production, with many plants failing to bear fruit or yielding smaller, deformed fruits susceptible to pests and diseases. The species particularly impacted included the following: Ebei (Balanites rotundifolia), Ekalale (Ziziphus jujuba), Elemach (Balanites pedicellaris), and Esekon (Salvadora persica). These weather changes have disrupted seasonal availability, with the participants highlighting a shift from reliable WEP harvests during dry seasons to inconsistent and declining yields.
(b)
Other environmental and anthropogenic factors
The participants also identified additional environmental and human-induced factors contributing to WEP population declines. They reported the proliferation of Prosopis juliflora as a significant threat, competing with native species for resources and encroaching on natural habitats. They also noted increased agricultural activities, and human settlements had reduced WEP habitats. The disappearance of wild animals that historically served as seed dispersers was reported to hinder the reproductive cycles of many WEP species, limiting natural regeneration.
(c)
Cultural and dietary shifts
The participants highlighted changing cultural practices and dietary preferences as significant contributors to the reduced consumption and appreciation of WEPs. Younger generations were noted to favor modern fruits such as mangoes and avocados or processed foods like yogurt and lollipops over traditional wild fruits. The participants emphasized the diminishing cultural appreciation for WEPs, which were historically integral to traditional practices and ceremonies.

3.1.2. WEP Utilization

The participants recognized WEPs as essential sources of food and nutrition. They emphasized WEPs’ critical role during periods of food insecurity and their accessibility as a convenient source of nutrition for travelers. Communities identified specific uses of WEP species for food, medicine, and cultural practices. Many species were reported to serve as vital food sources for both humans and livestock, especially during droughts. Certain WEPs were identified for their traditional medicinal uses, treating various ailments in both humans and animals. Numerous species were reported to hold symbolic importance in traditional ceremonies and practices.

3.1.3. Conservation Challenges

(a)
Intergenerational knowledge gap
Participants noted a significant gap in WEP knowledge between generations. Younger community members were noted to have declining familiarity with WEP identification, preparation, and uses. This knowledge erosion was linked to shifting cultural practices and limited efforts to transfer traditional knowledge. Jobless youth and women were identified as primary groups involved in unsustainable practices such as tree felling for charcoal production, driven by immediate economic needs and a lack of alternative income sources.
(b)
Policy implementation issues
The participants identified several policy enforcement challenges. They reported the exploitation of permissions allowing for charcoal production from dead trees, with techniques such as bark peeling or salt application being used to accelerate tree death. In addition, they noted policies permitting charcoal trade contradicted conservation efforts. The participants also reported a decline in forest guards and extension officers’ presence, who previously enforced conservation policies and educated communities.
(c)
Difficulty balancing conservation and immediate needs
The participants noted the tension between addressing immediate livelihood needs and achieving long-term conservation goals. During periods of food insecurity, particularly in drought-affected seasons, community members often resorted to unsustainable harvesting of WEPs or to converting them to charcoal as a means of generating income. These actions, while addressing short-term necessities, have long-term negative impacts on WEP availability and sustainability.
(d)
Lack of information on the nutritional potential and conservation of WEPs
Communities identified a lack of awareness about the nutritional value of WEPs as a significant barrier to their conservation. The participants suggested that increased understanding of WEPs’ superior nutritional benefits compared to modern fruits could enhance their perceived value, particularly among younger generations. This could, in turn, encourage greater preservation efforts.
Additionally, participants emphasized the need for further research to document WEPs’ nutritional properties and support their integration into local diets. They believed that showcasing these nutritional benefits could promote WEP utilization and contribute to broader conservation efforts.

3.2. Community Action Planning for WEP Conservation Strategy

Participants actively engaged in developing actionable strategies to address the conservation and sustainability of WEPs. These strategies emerged from facilitated discussions and brainstorming sessions during the workshops, resulting in a community-driven conservation framework. This framework incorporates in situ conservation in natural habitats and supportive restoration in managed areas, knowledge transfer mechanisms, and collaborative governance involving multiple stakeholders.
The integrated framework, illustrated in Figure 1, represents the collective vision of the workshop participants. It highlights key components of WEP conservation and delineates the roles of various actors, including community members, NGOs, research institutions, civil society organizations, and government bodies.
The figure illustrates the interconnected components of in situ conservation within natural habitats and restoration through propagation and supportive cultivation of WEPs in managed areas. It also delineates the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders, emphasizing the synergy between active community participation and local leadership, complemented by technical support, capacity building, and policy formulation. This integrated approach aims to effectively address the multifaceted challenges of WEP conservation.

3.2.1. Conservation of WEPs in Their Natural Habitats

(a)
Awareness creation and sensitization
Participants across various communities proposed utilizing diverse platforms to educate people about the value of WEPs and the need for their conservation. These platforms included community gatherings such as barazas (public meeting organized at community), religious meetings, and schools.
Community-level Initiatives:
-
In Lokwatuba, Napeikar, Lorugum, and Nameyana, participants suggested using chiefs’ barazas to create awareness about tree conservation and sensitize the community to the importance of tree planting.
-
The Kalemunyang community proposed engaging church leaders in creating conservation awareness.
-
In Lochwa, participants recommended that the area chief, in collaboration with the “nyumba kumi policing initiative” leadership and natural resource management committees, develop policies to protect trees and act against illegal tree cutting (nyumba kumi policing initiative is a community policing strategy introduced in Kenya following the 2013 Westgate terror attack. It aims to anchor policing at the household level, with each cluster of 10 households (nyumba kumi) having representatives involved in maintaining security. The initiative is based on the African ubuntu philosophy emphasizing social connectedness, borrowed from Tanzania’s Ujamaa policy.)
Educational Institutions:
-
Engaging schools and young people was identified as a key strategy for awareness creation. In Lochwa, participants suggested sharing information about the potential and unique qualities of wild fruit with the younger generation.
NGO and Government Involvement:
-
The Lokwatuba community expected NGOs (such as Save the Children and Bioversity International) to assist in sensitizing the community to the importance of natural resources.
-
In Napeikar, participants suggested that the national government should conduct awareness training sessions.
(b)
Preserving and transferring traditional knowledge
The participants expressed concern about the potential loss of valuable indigenous knowledge held by elders and the lack of WEP information among the younger generation. To address this, they proposed strategies such as participatory knowledge documentation and encouraged using traditional avenues such as storytelling to pass the information to younger generations. In Lorugum, establishing tree nurseries was suggested as an opportunity to educate younger generations about the importance of trees and conservation.
(c)
Formulation and enforcement of community bylaws and policies
Participants emphasized the importance of formulating and enforcing community bylaws and policies to protect WEP resources, complementing awareness creation, sensitization, and intergenerational knowledge transfer efforts. This approach included strengthening indigenous natural resource governance institutions and establishing new community-based natural resource management committees.
Community-led Conservation Initiatives:
-
Atalokamusio, Lorugum, Namoruputh, and Napeikar communities proposed making use of community-identified volunteers or scouts and forming community-based organizations (CBOs) to enforce conservation and management, with community elders overseeing the implementation of these efforts.
-
The Nameyana community suggested implementing punitive measures against those who disobey conservation guidelines and introducing laws requiring individuals to plant two trees for every one cut down.
Government collaboration:
In Napusmoru, the area chief affirmed the illegality of forest destruction and expressed readiness to partner with the county government to combat forest destruction and sensitize people against ecosystem damage.
(d)
Alternative livelihood strategies
Communities across different locations proposed various alternative livelihood strategies that are compatible with WEP conservation as a key strategy to reduce over-reliance on and pressure on WEPs. In Nameyana, for instance, the community expressed interest in kitchen gardening as a means to avoid charcoal burning. Similarly, the Kalemunyang community discussed transitioning away from charcoal burning for survival and allocating land for food crops. They viewed these strategies as ways to combat climate change and reduce pressure on WEPs.
(e)
Economic opportunities through WEPs
Participants also highlighted the potential of WEPs themselves as a source of livelihood diversification, recognizing their economic value beyond subsistence use. In Lorugum and Lokwatuba, participants noted that WEPs could generate income through market sales. This approach could create economic incentives for conservation by directly linking WEP preservation to income generation. Furthermore, they suggested preserving WEPs for exhibitions as part of ecotourism initiatives, potentially creating additional income streams for the community.
(f)
Incentivizing conservation efforts
Participants proposed various incentive schemes to encourage sustained community participation in WEP conservation activities. These proposals include Food-for-Asset Programs and Cash-for-Work Schemes. Participants suggested that these schemes could be implemented through collaboration with NGOs, county government, and national government. According to the participants, such incentives would encourage community members to not only plant WEP trees, but also motivate ongoing care for planted trees, including protecting them from destruction by roaming livestock, removing weeds, and regular watering to increase survival rates.
Participants also advocated for cash incentives in the form of grants for those involved in WEP conservation and cultivation. They suggested these funds could be used to set up alternative livelihood schemes and create local employment opportunities, particularly targeting youth and women (many of whom are currently involved in charcoal burning).

3.2.2. Restoration and Supportive Cultivation of WEPs in Managed Spaces

In addition to conservation efforts within natural habitats, communities proposed restoration strategies focused on actively cultivating and managing WEPs in home gardens and designated community spaces, ensuring these efforts remain within their broader ecological regions. These strategies aim to bolster WEP populations, promote their sustainable use, and secure their survival for future generations.
(a)
Establishing community-managed tree nurseries
Participants emphasized the importance of establishing community-managed tree nurseries to support these planting efforts and provide a reliable source of seeds, seedlings, or other planting material for restoring degraded habitats. They suggested identifying suitable land for this purpose and called for technical and financial assistance from NGOs and county and national governments to acquire seeds, equipment, and other necessary resources. The communities also highlighted the potential of these nurseries to serve as platforms for educating younger generations about the importance of trees and conservation, as well as generating income through seedling sales and creating local employment opportunities.
(b)
Conservation facilities
In addition to nurseries, they highlighted the need for community-level gene banks to serve as repositories of genetic diversity, ensuring the availability of seedlings for future planting efforts, and to act as centers for research, education, and community engagement in WEP conservation.
(c)
Integration in managed spaces
WEP cultivation was recommended in homestead gardens, farming lands, institutional compounds (e.g., schools, churches, health centers), and other community-managed spaces to complement conservation efforts in natural habitats.

3.2.3. Prioritization Criteria for Selecting WEP Trees for Restoration and Supportive Cultivation

Participants identified the following key criteria for prioritizing species for conservation:
  • Food value for both humans and livestock: Participants emphasized the critical role of WEPs in providing sustenance, particularly during times of food scarcity. The fruits of Ebei, Edapal, Edome, Edung, Ekalale, Engol, and Esekon were described as essential components of the local diet, while the leaves of some species, such as Edung and Ekalale, were valued as nutritious vegetables. Additionally, species like Edapal and Engol were recognized for their importance in feeding livestock, contributing to the resilience of pastoralist livelihoods.
  • Medicinal properties: Participants highlighted the traditional knowledge associated with using these plants to treat various ailments in humans and livestock. For instance, the roots of Esekon were widely recognized for their medicinal properties across most of the communities, while Ebei leaves were used to prepare remedies for eye infections and skin conditions.
  • Cultural significance: Several species, including Edome, Edung, and Esekon, were described as being integral to cultural ceremonies, rites of passage, and spiritual beliefs.
  • Utility in construction and handicrafts: Participants noted the use of Edome trunks for the construction of huts and the importance of Engol fronds for thatching huts and weaving, commonly for making a wide array of artifacts including floor mats, table mats, and baskets.
  • Drought resistance: Given the arid conditions prevalent in Turkana County, communities placed high value on species that could withstand prolonged periods of water scarcity. The Atalokamusio and Namoruputh communities, for instance, selected Ebei, Echoke, and Ekalale as priority species, citing their drought-resistant nature.

3.2.4. WEP Tree Priority for Planting in Managed Spaces

The participants prioritized specific WEP species for planting, considering their food value, cultural significance, drought resistance, and economic importance. Table 1 presents the most frequently cited species across all locations and their prioritization for planting. Ekalale (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.), Edome (Cordia sinensis Lam.), Ewoi (Vachellia tortilis (Forssk.) Galasso & Banfi), Esekon (Salvadora persica L.), Edapal (Dobera glabra Juss. Ex Poir), and Ebei (Balanites rotundifolia (Tiegh.) Blatt.) were cited in all nine locations, while Epat (Grewia arborea (Forssk.) Lam.), Elamach (Balanites pedicellaris Mildbr. & Schltr.), Engomo (Grewia tenax (Forssk.) Fiori), and Edung (Boscia coriacea Pax) were cited in eight locations. However, the prioritization for plating differed among these species. Ekalale was consistently prioritized in all locations except Atalokamusio, highlighting its widespread importance. Edome, Esekon, and Ebei were also prioritized in most locations where they were cited, indicating their significant value to the communities. On the other hand, some frequently cited species, such as Epat and Elamach, were not prioritized for conservation in any of the locations where they were mentioned.
Several species were cited and prioritized in specific locations, suggesting their local importance based on the prioritization criteria. For instance, Echoke (Ficus sycomorus L.) was cited and prioritized in Kamarese and Lokwatuba, while Etete (Sterculia stenocarpa H.J.P.Winkl.) was only cited and prioritized in Napeikar. Other species, such as Eerut (Maerua decumbens (Brongn.) DeWolf), Ngapedur (Tamarindus indica L.), and Engol (Hyphaene compressa H. Wendi), were cited in multiple locations but only prioritized in one or two, indicating varying levels of local significance (Table 2).

3.2.5. Collaborative Roles and Responsibilities for WEP Conservation

The communities recognized that successful WEP conservation requires collaborative efforts from various stakeholders. They identified specific roles and responsibilities for different actors in the conservation process, emphasizing a multi-stakeholder approach to address the complex nature of WEP conservation.
At the community level, commitments included avoiding tree cutting and charcoal burning, creating awareness about conservation, planting and tending to trees, establishing conservation groups and bylaws, and identifying community-level scouts and elders to enforce these bylaws. These grassroots efforts form the foundation of the conservation strategy, ensuring local ownership and participation.
The role of NGOs and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) was seen as crucial in providing support and resources. Their responsibilities encompassed providing training, facilitating access to resources, supporting tree nurseries, drilling boreholes for community water supply, conducting awareness campaigns, enabling community exchange visits, and supporting community incentivization schemes and programs. These organizations were viewed as key partners in bridging knowledge gaps and providing technical expertise.
County and national government responsibilities were identified as deploying forest rangers to enforce laws and support community efforts, enforcing conservation policies, sensitizing communities about conservation, drilling boreholes for water provision, providing technical and financial support for WEP conservation initiatives, and supporting community incentivization schemes and programs.
To address the lack of information on WEPs’ nutritional value, communities recommended collaborating with researchers and extension workers aimed at documenting nutritional profiles of wild food sources and determining WEPs’ nutritional value as a management strategy to eliminate threats to their availability and sustainability.
Communities from Atalokamusio, Lokwatuba, Namoruputh, and Napeikar specifically identified this as a crucial management option. Participants recognized that increasing knowledge about WEPs’ nutritional benefits could enhance their appreciation and conservation. The Kamarese community echoed this sentiment, discussing how a lack of awareness about wild fruits’ importance has led to declining consumption, particularly among younger generations.

3.3. Validation of Conservation Action Plans

Expert interviews validated the conservation action plans developed through community workshops. The experts affirmed the relevance and appropriateness of these plans, emphasizing the critical importance of integrating local knowledge, priorities, and practices into conservation strategies.
The key aspects of expert validation included the following:
  • Criteria for WEP prioritization: Experts endorsed the community-identified criteria for prioritizing WEP species, including food value, medicinal properties, cultural significance, utility, and drought resistance. They recognized the multifaceted importance of these species in the lives and livelihoods of Turkana communities, underscoring the need to focus conservation efforts on these priority species.
  • Feasibility of proposed actions: Experts confirmed the viability of proposed conservation actions, such as establishing community-managed tree nurseries, promoting homestead cultivation of WEPs, and strengthening local governance structures for conservation.
  • Collaborative approach: The experts emphasized the importance of collaborative approaches in implementing these actions effectively. They stressed the need to involve various stakeholders, including government agencies, NGOs, and community groups.

4. Discussion

This study provides important insights into the dynamics of WEP conservation in Turkana County, Kenya, where over 90% of the population experiences food insecurity [1,2] and WEPs contribute significantly to the local diet, providing between 12% and 30% of dietary intake among consumers [15]. Through extensive community engagement, this study documents community perceptions, challenges, and potential strategies for WEP conservation.
A central community concern is the risk of WEP extinction, attributed primarily to shifting weather patterns that affect WEP availability and quality. Since January 2021, a marked decline in rainfall has been observed, particularly impacting key species like Ebei (Balanites rotundifolia), Ekalale (Ziziphus jujuba), Elemach (Balanites pedicellaris), and Esekon (Salvadora persica). This rainfall decrease mirrors trends seen in other arid and semi-arid regions, where climate variability increasingly threatens indigenous food systems [38,39]. Additionally, the community noted a decline in wildlife, which traditionally supports seed dispersal, further disrupting natural regeneration processes. These findings align with broader ecosystem degradation patterns across African drylands, highlighting the interconnectedness of local environmental challenges and the broader ecological context [40].
This study also reveals significant sociocultural barriers to WEP conservation, particularly an intergenerational gap in WEP knowledge. Stakeholders reported that younger generations show less appreciation for WEPs and more liking for the more modern trendy foods, and some youths and women engaging in charcoal burning and other destructive practices to meet immediate economic needs. This shift toward modern processed foods reflects a global trend in traditional communities [41,42], illustrating a broader challenge to sustaining indigenous food systems. Similar transitions have been documented elsewhere, where urbanization and changing food preferences threaten traditional food knowledge and practices [43,44].
Another major obstacle identified is the difficulty in policy enforcement. Despite the existence of foundational policies designed to protect WEPs, communities reported enforcement challenges, often citing instances of policy circumvention, such as exploiting allowances for charcoal burning from dead trees through practices like bark peeling and salt application. A reported decline in forest guard presence further compounds these issues, reflecting the broader challenges faced by resource-constrained environments in managing natural resources effectively [45,46].

4.1. Community—Driven Conservation Framework

The community-driven conservation strategy framework emerging from our research represents a comprehensive response to these challenges. While aligned with established theoretical models, the framework incorporates elements tailored to the specific needs of Turkana County. The variation in prioritized species across different areas, such as the Turkana doum palm (Hyphaene compressa) being valued by communities around the riverbed, reflects the framework’s adaptability to local ecological contexts [47,48]. This framework goes beyond traditional Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) approaches [49] by integrating ecological and social systems, assigning specific roles for stakeholders, and emphasizing traditional knowledge preservation. Research has shown that incorporating traditional knowledge in conservation enhances outcomes [50,51].
At the heart of the framework is Ostrom’s nested and polycentric governance model [27], where responsibilities are distributed among local communities, NGOs, and government agencies. Local stakeholders commit to avoiding tree cutting and raising awareness, NGOs provide training and resources, and government agencies are responsible for policy enforcement and technical support. This multi-layered structure not only grounds conservation efforts in local realities but also benefits from institutional backing, embodying the principles of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) by fostering local participation and decision-making [52].
By fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders, the framework acknowledges the complex, multi-dimensional nature of WEP conservation. Specific roles for different actors ensure that the strategy leverages diverse resources and expertise. For instance, communities are actively involved in setting conservation priorities and ensuring compliance with local practices, while NGOs and researchers contribute technical expertise and resources. The framework also emphasizes the value of research partnerships, particularly in documenting the nutritional properties of WEPs, which enhances their perceived importance and supports their conservation through scientific validation.
Our approach, however, distinguishes itself through several unique features: the explicit preservation of traditional knowledge, balanced in situ conservation in natural habitats and restoration in managed areas, including community gene banks, and integrated local-higher level policy frameworks. By bridging local and scientific knowledge systems, this framework reflects Turkana County’s complex socio-ecological landscape. The strategy’s focus on awareness creation, sensitization, and knowledge transfer aligns with the Social-Ecological System (SES) framework’s emphasis on user knowledge and the interconnectedness of ecological and sociocultural dimensions. The framework also prioritizes livelihood diversification and the incentivization of local conservation efforts, bringing to life the SES concept of resource importance to users. The emphasis on active planting and knowledge sharing echoes successful initiatives elsewhere [53,54,55], while the inclusion of livelihood diversification addresses the critical link between conservation and economic well-being [56]. By tying conservation to economic benefits, this approach aims to elevate WEPs’ perceived value within the community, fostering greater motivation for sustainable management.
While strategies to increase WEP consumption and appreciation are essential, they must be balanced with safeguards against the risks of commercialization. Research indicates that attaching high economic value to non-timber forest products, including WEPs, can sometimes lead to overexploitation rather than conservation [57,58,59,60]. Findings from our study—particularly the tension between immediate livelihood needs and conservation goals—highlight the need for carefully structured incentive systems. Therefore, any economic incentives or value-addition strategies for WEP conservation must include robust safeguards to prevent unsustainable harvesting practices. This balance is especially relevant in Turkana County, where immediate economic needs often compete with long-term conservation goals. Community-proposed incentive schemes, such as Food-for-Asset Programs and Cash-for-Work initiatives, illustrate a pragmatic approach to balancing short-term economic requirements with sustainable conservation goals.
This multifaceted approach to livelihood diversification reflects the communities’ understanding of the complex relationship between economic needs and environmental conservation. By proposing alternatives to destructive practices like charcoal burning and identifying innovative ways to derive economic value from WEPs without depleting them, communities aim to create a more sustainable balance between livelihood needs and conservation goals. The emphasis on WEPs as potential economic resources through market sales and ecotourism also demonstrates a forward-thinking approach that could enhance the perceived value of these plants within the community. This strategy not only provides economic incentives for conservation, but also has the potential to strengthen cultural pride and ecological awareness.
The proposal on incentivization, specifically for youth and women involved in charcoal burning, demonstrates a strategic approach to tackling one of the main threats to WEPs, while simultaneously addressing socio-economic issues within the community. If implemented effectively, these incentive schemes can create a positive feedback loop where conservation efforts lead to improved livelihoods, which in turn encourage further conservation. This approach could significantly enhance the sustainability and community buy-in for WEP conservation efforts in the long term.

4.2. Phased Implementation Aproach

To ensure effective translation of these findings into actionable strategies, we propose a phased implementation approach that is both flexible and adaptive. Recognizing that implementation pace may vary based on local conditions, community readiness, and resources, the initial phase should zero in on establishing the foundation for conservation efforts. This could include setting up community conservation committees to oversee local initiatives and launching awareness programs to build community understanding and support for WEP conservation. Concurrently, developing community nurseries will lay a foundation for future planting and propagation efforts.
In the intermediate phase, focus should shift to concrete conservation measures, such as establishing protected areas and implementing sustainable harvesting protocols. Livelihood diversification programs should be launched at this stage to provide alternative income sources, reducing pressure on WEP resources. Enacting community bylaws within this phase will further strengthen local regulatory frameworks for WEP management.
The advanced phase would ideally build on earlier efforts, scaling up restoration initiatives like seed banks and controlled WEP cultivation. This phase should also emphasize the importance of the evaluation and refinement of strategies based on outcomes from earlier phases, as well as establishing long-term monitoring systems. These systems will be crucial in tracking conservation impacts and adapting future strategies as needed. This phased approach facilitates adaptive management, allowing strategies to evolve based on effectiveness and shifting circumstances. Regular assessments of the implementation plan ensure that the approach remains responsive and context-specific for WEP conservation in Turkana County.

4.3. Methodological Rigor and Framework Robustness

The robustness of our community-driven conservation framework is rooted in a participatory, sequential mixed-methods approach that engaged 416 participants across diverse stakeholder groups. This aligns with best practices in community-based natural resource management research [61,62,63], highlighting the value of integrating local knowledge in conservation planning [64,65]. The sequential design, which included iterative refinement and expert validation at each stage, enhanced the framework’s credibility and practical applicability. Similar methodological approaches have proven effective in other conservation contexts, such as community-based forest management in Tanzania [41] and participatory water-resource management in India [54,55].
The validation process, involving local experts from CBOs, NGOs, government departments, and research institutions, strengthened the framework’s alignment with broader conservation principles while maintaining its local relevance. This rigorous process positions the framework to potentially impact food security, biodiversity conservation, and community resilience in Turkana County and similar arid regions. While long-term monitoring will be necessary to determine exact impacts, the framework’s comprehensive approach, combining traditional knowledge with modern conservation practices, suggests promise for increasing WEP availability and consumption, particularly among youth, while enhancing community resilience to climate change impacts.

4.4. Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings of this study have several important implications for policy and practice:
  • Policy implementation: There is a clear need for stronger implementation of existing conservation policies and the development of new, context-specific policies that address the unique challenges of WEP conservation in Turkana County.
  • Education and awareness: Targeted educational programs are needed to bridge the intergenerational knowledge gap and revitalize interest in WEPs among younger community members.
  • Research and documentation: Further research on the nutritional value and potential uses of WEPs is crucial to enhance their perceived value and promote their conservation.
  • Economic incentives with sustainability safeguards: Developing economic incentives for WEP conservation, including value-addition opportunities and ecotourism initiatives, could help align conservation goals with community economic interests. However, it is crucial to implement these incentives alongside robust sustainability plans to prevent potential overexploitation. This may include any combination of establishing harvest quotas, rotational harvesting systems, and protected areas. Regular monitoring and adaptive management should be integral to ensure that economic activities do not compromise the long-term viability of WEP populations.
  • Collaborative management: Strengthening collaboration between community institutions, government agencies, and NGOs is essential for the effective implementation of conservation strategies.
  • Multi-stakeholder collaboration: Our strategy places a stronger emphasis on multi-stakeholder collaboration compared to other participatory conservation frameworks. This reflects the recognition that effective WEP conservation in Turkana County requires coordinated efforts across multiple sectors and governance levels.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study demonstrates an urgent need for concerted efforts to conserve WEPs in Turkana County, Kenya. To achieve successful WEP conservation and enhance food security, several key actions are necessary. A more comprehensive list of recommendations can be found in the Supplementary Material.
The local government should implement community-developed conservation strategies, allocating resources and involving community members in decision-making processes. Simultaneously, NGOs and research institutions should provide technical support and capacity building for sustainable harvesting and the cultivation of WEPs.
It is imperative for the government, particularly at the county level, to incorporate WEP conservation into local policies and development plans, recognizing their significance for food security and cultural heritage. To ensure intergenerational knowledge transfer, educational institutions need to integrate traditional ecological knowledge about WEPs into local curricula. Furthermore, national and international conservation organizations should support the long-term monitoring of WEP populations and evaluate the effectiveness of conservation strategies.
The development and validation of this framework through a participatory, multi-stakeholder process significantly enhances its potential for successful implementation. By incorporating diverse perspectives and expertise, from community members to government officials and researchers, the strategy is well-positioned to address the complex challenges facing WEP conservation in Turkana County. This approach could potentially serve as a model for similar initiatives in other regions facing comparable socio-ecological challenges.
Ultimately, the conservation of WEPs in Turkana County is not just an environmental imperative, but a crucial step towards achieving sustainable development goals related to food security, climate action, and biodiversity conservation. The success of these efforts could serve as a model for similar initiatives in other regions, contributing to global efforts to preserve traditional food systems and enhance community resilience in the face of environmental change. By implementing these recommendations and leveraging the collaborative framework developed in this study, Turkana County has the opportunity to lead the way in community-driven conservation efforts, potentially influencing similar initiatives worldwide and contributing to a more sustainable and food-secure future.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/conservation5010001/s1, 1. Participant Quotes; 2. Comprehensive list of recommendations.

Author Contributions

F.O. and C.T. conceptualized this study, including the methodology. F.O. analyzed the data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. C.T., D.M.K., F.T. and G.A. contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript. Funding acquisition was handled by F.O. and C.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work received financial support from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, commissioned and administered through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Fund for International Agricultural Research, grant number: 81235248. The expert in-depth interviews were conducted with the generous support of the FEnDrylands Project (reference number 14/2022) through the funds from Fiat Panis Foundation. The funders did not, however, have any role in the design of this study or the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study received ethical approval from the AMREF Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (ESRC P688/2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions, as they contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants. Requests for aggregated or de-identified data may be submitted to the corresponding author for consideration, subject to institutional ethics committee approval.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Turkana community, particularly the sampled communities, for accepting this study and supporting it. We are grateful to all the research assistants and all the community health extension workers and volunteers who assisted with coordinating the community workshops and expert interviews. We thank Vincent Johnson, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT Science Writing Service, for English editing and the technical review of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. WFP; FAO. Hunger Hotspots. FAO-WFP Early Warnings on Acute Food Insecurity, June 2023 to November 2023 Outlook; WFP/FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/cc6206en/cc6206en.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2023).
  2. Oduor, F.O.; Kaindi, D.M.; Abong, G.O.; Thuita, F.; Termote, C. Diversity and utilization of indigenous wild edible plants and their contribution to food security in Turkana County, Kenya. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1113771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. KDHS; ICF. Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2022; Key Indicators Report: Nairobi, Kenya; Rockville, MD, USA, 2023; Available online: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/PR143/PR143.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2023).
  4. Calvin, K.; Dasgupta, D.; Krinner, G.; Mukherji, A.; Thorne, P.W.; Trisos, C.; Romero, J.; Aldunce, P.; Barrett, K.; Blanco, G.; et al. IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1st ed.; Core Writing Team, Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ (accessed on 11 June 2023).
  5. Ahmad, D.; Afzal, M. Impact of climate change on pastoralists’ resilience and sustainable mitigation in Punjab, Pakistan. Envrion. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 11406–11426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Uddin, M.E.; Kebreab, E. Review: Impact of Food and Climate Change on Pastoral Industries. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 543403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. FAO. The Impact of Disasters and Crises on Agriculture and Food Security: 2021; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/30c0d98d-1c21-48ef-b5d9-8d988e6fa6f2/content (accessed on 4 May 2024).
  8. Habib-ur-Rahman, M.; Ahmad, A.; Raza, A.; Hasnain, M.U.; Alharby, H.F.; Alzahrani, Y.M.; Bamagoos, A.A.; Hakeem, K.R.; Ahmad, S.; Nasim, W.; et al. Impact of climate change on agricultural production; Issues, challenges, and opportunities in Asia. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 925548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. ACAPS. Impact of Drought: Turkana and Marsabit Counties; ACAPS: Nairobi, Kenya, 2022; Available online: https://www.acaps.org/fileadmin/Data_Product/Main_media/20221207_acaps_thematic_report_horn_of_africa_impact_of_drought_in_kenya_0.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2024).
  10. Hall, C.; Dawson, T.P.; Macdiarmid, J.I.; Matthews, R.B.; Smith, P. The impact of population growth and climate change on food security in Africa: Looking ahead to 2050. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2017, 15, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. De Wrachien, D.; Schultz, B.; Goli, M.B. Impacts of population growth and climate change on food production and irrigation and drainage needs: A world-wide view*. Irrig. Drain. 2021, 70, 981–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Molotoks, A.; Smith, P.; Dawson, T.P. Impacts of land use, population, and climate change on global food security. Food Energy Secur. 2021, 10, e261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Muluneh, M.G. Impact of climate change on biodiversity and food security: A global perspective—A review article. Agric. Food Secur. 2021, 10, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Oduor, F.O.; Boedecker, J.; Kennedy, G.; Termote, C. Exploring agrobiodiversity for nutrition: Household on-farm agrobiodiversity is associated with improved quality of diet of young children in Vihiga, Kenya. Cardoso MA, editor. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0219680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oduor, F.; Keding, G.; Kaindi, D.M.; Abong, G.; Thuita, F.; Termote, C. Quantifying Turkana’s wild edible plants’ contribution to critical micronutrient and dietary diversity among women of reproductive age. CyTA-J. Food 2024, 22, 2413949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Feyssa, D.H.; Njoka, J.T.; Asfaw, Z.; Nyangito, M.M. Seasonal availability and consumption of wild edible plants in semiarid Ethiopia: Implications to food security and climate change adaptation. J. Hortic. For. 2011, 3, 138–149. [Google Scholar]
  17. Tebkew, M.; Asfaw, Z.; Zewudie, S. Underutilized wild edible plants in the Chilga District, northwestern Ethiopia: Focus on wild woody plants. Agric. Food Secur. 2014, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sina, B.; Degu, H.D. Knowledge and use of Wild Edible Plants in the Hula District of the Sidama Zone. Int. J. Bio-Resour. Stress Manag. 2015, 6, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Belcher, B.; Ruíz-Pérez, M.; Achdiawan, R. Global patterns and trends in the use and management of commercial NTFPs: Implications for livelihoods and conservation. World Dev. 2005, 33, 1435–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Borelli, T.; Hunter, D.; Powell, B.; Ulian, T.; Mattana, E.; Termote, C.; Pawera, L.; Beltrame, D.; Penafiel, D.; Tan, A.; et al. Born to Eat Wild: An Integrated Conservation Approach to Secure Wild Food Plants for Food Security and Nutrition. Plants 2020, 9, 1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Brummitt, N.A.; Bachman, S.P.; Griffiths-Lee, J.; Lutz, M.; Moat, J.F.; Farjon, A.; Donaldson, J.S.; Hilton-Taylor, C.; Meagher, T.R.; Albuquerque, S.; et al. Green Plants in the Red: A Baseline Global Assessment for the IUCN Sampled Red List Index for Plants. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Duguma, H.T. Wild Edible Plant Nutritional Contribution and Consumer Perception in Ethiopia. Int. J. Food Sci. 2020, 2020, 2958623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Khoury, C.K.; Amariles, D.; Soto, J.S.; Diaz, M.V.; Sotelo, S.; Sosa, C.C.; Ramírez-Villegas, J.; Achicanoy, H.A.; Velásquez-Tibatá, J.; Guarino, L.; et al. Comprehensiveness of conservation of useful wild plants: An operational indicator for biodiversity and sustainable development targets. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 98, 420–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mishra, A.; Swamy, S.L.; Thakur, T.K.; Bhat, R.; Bijalwan, A.; Kumar, A. Use of Wild Edible Plants: Can They Meet the Dietary and Nutritional Needs of Indigenous Communities in Central India. Foods 2021, 10, 1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mutie, F.M.; Rono, P.C.; Kathambi, V.; Hu, G.-W.; Wang, Q.-F. Conservation of Wild Food Plants and Their Potential for Combatting Food Insecurity in Kenya as Exemplified by the Drylands of Kitui County. Plants 2020, 9, 1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Oluoch, W.A.; Whitney, C.; Termote, C.; Borgemeister, C.; Schmitt, C.B. Indigenous communities’ perceptions reveal threats and management options of wild edible plants in semiarid lands of northwestern Kenya. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2023, 19, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ostrom, E. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Oduor, F.; Induli, I.; Aluso, L.; Jordan, I.; Termote, C. Community-Based Participatory Approach for Development: Implementation Manual; Bioversity International: Nairobi, Kenya, 2024; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/141551 (accessed on 19 July 2024).
  29. Oduor, F. Improving Dietary Quality and Livelihoods Using Farm and Wild Biodiversity Through an Integrated Community-Based Approach in Kenya and Ethiopia. ISRCTN Registry. 2020. Available online: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11778499 (accessed on 29 November 2023).
  30. KNBS. 2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census: Volume III; KNBS: Nairobi, Kenya, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  31. County Government of Turkana. Turkana County Integrated Development Plan 2018–2022. 2018. Available online: https://repository.kippra.or.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/2832/Turkana_CIDP_2018-2022.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  32. County Government of Turkana. Turkana County Strategic Environment Action Plan–July 2020–July 2024; County Government of Turkana: Lodwar Town, Kenya, 2020; Available online: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ken212169.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2024).
  33. Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA; London, UK; New Delhi, India; Singapore; Washington, DC, USA; Melbourne, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  34. Oluoch, W.A.; Borgemeister, C.; de Deus Vidal Junior, J.; Fremout, T.; Gaisberger, H.; Whitney, C.; Schmitt, C.B. Predicted changes in distribution and richness of wild edible plants under climate change scenarios in northwestern Kenya. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2024, 24, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Induli, I. Agro Biodiversity (ABD) Data from Turkana (Kenya). Harvard Dataverse. 2019. Available online: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/BF6EM3 (accessed on 11 June 2019).
  36. Goodman, L.A. Snowball Sampling. Ann. Math. Stat. 1961, 32, 148–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. McNeely, J.A. Biodiversity in arid regions: Values and perceptions. J. Arid. Environ. 2003, 54, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, Y.; Tariq, A.; Hughes, A.C.; Hong, D.; Wei, F.; Sun, H.; Sardans, J.; Peñuelas, J.; Perry, G.; Qiao, J.; et al. Challenges and solutions to biodiversity conservation in arid lands. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 857, 159695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Schunko, C.; Li, X.; Klappoth, B.; Lesi, F.; Porcher, V.; Porcuna-Ferrer, A.; Reyes-García, V. Local communities’ perceptions of wild edible plant and mushroom change: A systematic review. Glob. Food Secur. 2022, 32, 100601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Onyango, K.; Njagi, T.; Kinyumu, N.; Kirimi, L. Consumption Patterns; Egerton University: Njoro, Kenya, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bandara, S.; Kumara, T.; Dharmadasa, S.; Samaraweera, R. Changes in Food Consumption Patterns in Sri Lanka: Food Security and Sustainability: A Review of Literature. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2021, 9, 213–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kariuki, L.W.; Maundu, P.M.; Morimoto, Y. Some intervention strategies for promoting underutilised species: Case of local vegetables in Kitui district, Kenya. Acta Hortic. 2013, 979, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bioversity International Conserving Local Crop Varieties in School Gardens: Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition. Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition. 2018. Available online: http://www.b4fn.org/case-studies/case-studies/conserving-local-crop-varieties-in-school-gardens/ (accessed on 1 July 2024).
  45. Jamkar, V.; Butler, M.; Current, D. Barriers and Facilitators for Successful Community Forestry: Lessons Learned and Practical Applications From Case Studies in India and Guatemala. Case Stud. Environ. 2023, 7, 1827932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ombogoh, D.B.; Mwangi, E.; Larson, A.M. Community participation in forest and water management planning in Kenya: Challenges and opportunities. For. Trees Livelihoods 2022, 31, 104–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Garibaldi, A.; Turner, N. Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological Conservation and Restoration. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, art1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Infield, M.; Entwistle, A.; Anthem, H.; Mugisha, A.; Phillips, K. Reflections on cultural values approaches to conservation: Lessons from 20 years of implementation. Oryx 2018, 52, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Long, R.D.; Charles, A.; Stephenson, R.L. Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Mar. Policy 2015, 57, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Swiderska, K.; Argumedo, A.; Song, Y.; Rastogi, A.; Gurung, N.; Wekesa, C.; Li, G. Indigenous Knowledge and Values: Key for Nature Conservation; IIED: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  51. Usman, I.; Samaila, G.; Jibrin, A. Importance of Indigenous Knowledge in Biodiversity Conservation: A Case Study of Communities Surrounding Kpashimi Forest Reserve, Niger State, Nigeria. IOSR J. Environ. Sci. Toxicol. Food Technol. 2023, 6, 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  52. Dressler, W.; Büscher, B.; Schoon, M.; Brockington, D.; Hayes, T.; Kull, C.A.; Mccarthy, J.; Shrestha, K. From hope to crisis and back again? a critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. REFOREST Programme B. Community-Based Forest Management for Sustainable Forest Management and inclusive Growth in Southern Tanzania. REFOREST–Regional Research School in Forest Sciences. 2021. Available online: https://www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz/reforest/community-based-forest-management-for-sustainable-forest-management-and-inclusive-growth-in-southern-tanzania/ (accessed on 23 June 2024).
  54. Chattopadhyay, S.; De, I.; Mishra, P.; Parey, A.; Dutta, S. Participatory water institutions and sustainable irrigation management: Evidence and lessons from West Bengal, India. Water Policy 2022, 24, 667–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gupta, J.; Ahmad, O. India: Community Participation Is a Must for Water Management. 2019. Available online: https://www.preventionweb.net/news/india-community-participation-must-water-management (accessed on 23 June 2024).
  56. Hoffmann, S. Challenges and opportunities of area-based conservation in reaching biodiversity and sustainability goals. Biodivers. Conserv. 2022, 31, 325–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ticktin, T. The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. J. Appl. Ecol. 2004, 41, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sharma, N.; Kala, C.P. Harvesting patterns, risk of harvesting and sustainability of medicinal and aromatic plants in Kangra district of Himachal Pradesh in India. J. Appl. Res. Med. Aromat. Plants 2022, 26, 100367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Belcher, B.; Schreckenberg, K. Commercialisation of Non-timber Forest Products: A Reality Check. Dev. Policy Rev. 2007, 25, 355–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nasi, R.; Taber, A.; Van Vliet, N. Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. Int. For. Rev. 2011, 13, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Milupi, I.; Somers, M.J.; Ferguson, J.W. A review of community-based natural resource management. Appl. Ecol. Envrion. Res. 2017, 15, 1121–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fabricius, C. Community-based natural resource management: Governing the commons. Water Policy 2007, 9, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Baddianaah, I.; Baaweh, L. The prospects of community-based natural resource management in Ghana: A case study of Zukpiri community resource management area. Heliyon 2021, 7, e08187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Pieroni, A. Traditional uses of wild food plants, medicinal plants, and domestic remedies in Albanian, Aromanian and Macedonian villages in South-Eastern Albania. J. Herb. Med. 2017, 9, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Haq, S.M.; Pieroni, A.; Bussmann, R.W.; Abd-ElGawad, A.M.; El-Ansary, H.O. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge into habitat restoration: Implications for meeting forest restoration challenges. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2023, 19, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Conservation 05 00001 g001
Figure 1. Integrated community-led conservation strategy for WEPs in Turkana County, Kenya.
Figure 1. Integrated community-led conservation strategy for WEPs in Turkana County, Kenya.
Conservation 05 00001 g001
Table 1. Prioritization of the most-frequently cited WEP species across the study locations.
Table 1. Prioritization of the most-frequently cited WEP species across the study locations.
SpeciesCommon/Other NamesScientific NameCited LocationsPrioritized Locations
EkalaleJujubaZiziphus jujuba Mill.98
EdomeGray-leaved saucer berryCordia sinensis Lam.96
EwoiUmbrella thornVachellia tortilis (Forssk.) Galasso & Banfi94
EsekonToothbrush treeSalvadora persica L.97
Edapal Dobera glabra Juss. Ex Poir94
Ebei Balanites rotundifolia (Tiegh.) Blatt.96
Epat Grewia arborea (Forssk.) Lam.80
ElamachSmall green thorn/Small green torchwoodBalanites pedicellaris Mildbr. & Schltr.80
Engomophalsa cherry, white crossberry, raisin bushGrewia tenax (Forssk.) Fiori83
Edung Boscia coriacea Pax80
Table 2. Wild edible plant species cited and prioritized in specific locations.
Table 2. Wild edible plant species cited and prioritized in specific locations.
SpeciesCommon/Other NamesScientific NameCited LocationsPrioritized Locations
EchokeSycamore fig; Fig-mulberry Ficus sycomorus L.Kamarese, LokwatubaKamarese, Lokwatuba
Etete Sterculia stenocarpa H.J.P.Winkl.NapeikarNapeikar
Eerut Maerua decumbens (Brongn.) DeWolfNamoruputh, LorugumNamoruputh
NgapedurTamarindTamarindus indica L.Lochwa, Namoruputh, Lorugum, NameyanaLochwa, Lorugum
EngolEast African doum palmHyphaene compressa H. WendiLokwatuba, Namoruputh, Lorugum, Nameyana, Napeikar, NapusmoruNameyana, Napeikar
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oduor, F.; Kaindi, D.M.; Abong, G.; Thuita, F.; Termote, C. Community-Based Conservation Strategies for Wild Edible Plants in Turkana County, Kenya. Conservation 2025, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation5010001

AMA Style

Oduor F, Kaindi DM, Abong G, Thuita F, Termote C. Community-Based Conservation Strategies for Wild Edible Plants in Turkana County, Kenya. Conservation. 2025; 5(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation5010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oduor, Francis, Dasel Mulwa Kaindi, George Abong, Faith Thuita, and Céline Termote. 2025. "Community-Based Conservation Strategies for Wild Edible Plants in Turkana County, Kenya" Conservation 5, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation5010001

APA Style

Oduor, F., Kaindi, D. M., Abong, G., Thuita, F., & Termote, C. (2025). Community-Based Conservation Strategies for Wild Edible Plants in Turkana County, Kenya. Conservation, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation5010001

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop