Main Article Content
The focus of the study is to examine the institutional arrangement for forests governance in Kenya to understand the important design issues that can improve their performance in the delivery of sustainable livelihoods and conserve forests as they have been previously regarded as problematic. The study uses the Delphi technique to assemble information from 46 experts with vast experience in collaborative governance of forests in developing countries. The researchers then developed four questions which were asked across all the study experts. In the second round, all the expert responded to the four open-ended questions and all the qualitative results were analyzed manually by grouping them into interquartile ranges and only those issues that were above the 75th interquartile range were retained. In the subsequent third round of the Delphi technique the experts gave their answers, the responses were collated and returned to each respondent who then was invited to revise his/her estimates or to specify the reasons for remaining outside the consensus. In the fourth and final round, again, the responses were assembled and reported back to the participants to justify his/her position, whether or not he wishes to change his/her position. The results show that the Delphi technique has the potential for studying institutional design for collaborative governance of forests. The study recommends that the important issues identified can be used to help in the formulation of collaborative governance institutional design policies.
Ansell C, Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2007;18(4):543–571.
Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2012;22(1):1–29. Available:https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
McGuire M. Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review. 2006;66:33–43.
Newig J, Fritsch O. Environmental governance: Participatory, multilevel, and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance, 2009;19:197–214.
Scott T. Does collaboration make any difference? Linking collaborative governance to environmental Outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2015;34(3):537–566.
Ostrom E. Reformulating the commons.In Burger J, Ostrom E, Norgaard RB, Policansky D, Goldstein BD (Eds.), Protecting the commons: A framework for resource management in the Americas Washington, D.C: Island Press. 2001;17-41.
Agrawal A. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development. 2001;29(10): 1649-1672.
Agrawal A. Common resources and institutional sustainability. In Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolsak N, Stern PC, Stovich SU. Weber E (Eds.), Drama of thecommons. Committee on the human dimensions of global change. Division of Behavioural and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002.
Ambika PG, Ganesh PS. Conditions for successful local collective action in forestry: Some evidence from the hills of Nepal. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal. 2005;18(2):153- 171.
Cox M, Arnold G, Villamayor Tomás S. A review of the design principles for community based natural resources management Ecology and Society. 2010; 15(4):38.
Ostrom E. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
Ashutosh S, Tadao I. Design principles in long-enduring institutions of Japanese irrigation common-pool resources. Agricultural Water Management. 2001; 48(2):89-102.
Kris AJ, Kristen CN Common property and conservation: The potential for effective communal forest management within a National Park in Mexico. Human Ecology. 2004;32(6):703-733.
Ming’ate FLM, Rennie HG, Memon A. Potential for co-management approaches to strengthen livelihoods of forest dependent communities: A Kenyan case. Land Use Policy. 2014a;41:304–312.
Baumann P. Sustainable livelihoods and political capital: Arguments and evidence from decentralization and natural resource management in India. (Working PaperNo.136). London: Overseas Development Institute; 2000.
Pagdee A, Kim Y, Daugherty PJ. What makes community forest management successful: A meta-study from community forests throughout the World. Society and Natural Resources. 2006;19:33– 52.
Be´ne' C, Neiland AE. Empowerment reform, yes but empowerment of whom? Fisheries decentralization reforms in developing countries: A critical assessment with specific reference to poverty reduction. Aquatic Resources, Cultureand Development. 2004;1(1):35–49.
Edmunds D, Wollenberg E. Local forest management: The impacts of devolution policies. London: Earthscan; 2003.
Jentoft S. Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management–prospects of user participation. Marine Policy. 2000; 24(2):141–148.
Johnston EW, Hicksy D, Ning N, Auer JC. Managing the inclusion process in collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Volume. 2011;21(4):699–721.
Sayer J. (Ed.). The Earth scan in forestry and development London: Earthscan; 2005.
Thoms CA. Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: A critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum. 2008;39(3):1452–1465.
Warner JF. More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment management. Water Resources Development. 2006;22(1):15-35.
Ming’ate FLM, Rennie HG, Memon A. NGOs come and go but business continues: Lessons from co-management institutional arrangements for governance of the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest reserve in Kenya. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2014b; 21(6):526–531.
Gray B. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multi-party problems San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass; 1989.
Jumbe CBL, Angelsen A. Forest dependence and participation in CPR management: Empirical evidence from forest co-management in Malawi. Ecological Economics. 2007;62(3-4):661-672.
Ming’ate MLF, Letema S, Obiero K. Designing a functioning community forest association: A case of Muileshi, Kakamega County, Kenya. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences. 2016;5(4):1209-1215.
Napier VR, Branch GM, Harris JM. Evaluating conditions for successful comanagement of subsistence fisheries in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Environmental Conservation. 2005;32(2): 165-177.
Government of Kenya. The Forest Act 2005. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer; 2005.
The World Bank. World Bank reviews global forest strategy. News Release No.2000/193/S; 2000.
[Retrieved 20/09/2010 from]
Patton M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd Ed.). Newbury Park: CA: Sage; 2002.
Patton M. Qualitative Research; 2005. Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0470013192.bsa514
Weaver TW. The Delphi Forecasting Method. The Phi Delta Kappan. 1971; 52(5):267-271.
Chia-Chien Hsu. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical research assessments and evaluation. A Peer-Reviewed Electronic Journal. 2007; 12(10).
Burger Joanna, Michael Gochfeld, Charles W. Powers, Lynn Waishwell, Camilla Warren, Bernard D. Goldstein. Science, policy, stakeholders and fish consumption advisories: Developing a fish fact sheet for Savannah River. Environmental Management. 2001;27: 501–14.
Lasker Roz D, Elisa S. Weiss. Broadening participation in community problem-solving: A multi disciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 2003;80:14–60.
Murdock, Barbara, Carol Wiessner, Ken Sexton. Stakeholder participation in voluntary environmental agreements: Analysis of 10 project XL case studies. Science, Technology & Human Values. 2005;30:223–50.
Ming’ate. Bollig local rules and their enforcement in the Arabuko- Sokoke forest reserve co-management arrangement in Kenya. Journal of East African Natural History. 2016;105(1):1– 19.