Skip to main content
Dryad

Data from: Evaluating biodiversity and socio-economic impacts of community-led mangrove restoration: a case study from Kenya

Sila, Julius1; McCarthy, Orion2; Mbatha, Anthony3; Mary, Kisilu3; Nzai, Johnson1; Kithi, Erastus1; Hays, Leah2; Stewart, Michael2; Whilden, Kevin2; Crosse, William4; Komu, Kenry5; Nadir, Stanley5; Mwamuye, Edward1

Published Jul 08, 2026 on Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.fj6q5749b

Data files

Jul 08, 2026 version files 473.24 KB

Click names to download individual files

Abstract

Introduction: Ongoing mangrove degradation has prompted restoration efforts to recover ecosystem services that support local livelihoods. Continued evaluation and learning are essential for adaptive management, yet studies rarely assess the combined biodiversity and social outcomes of restoration by integrating ecological monitoring with household-level livelihood and perception data.

Objectives: We present insights from community-led mangrove restoration in Kenya, evaluating biodiversity impacts of tree planting and community perceptions of mangroves and restoration.

Methods: We monitored 12 ecological metrics across a degradation gradient and conducted a survey of 383 local households.

Results: Vegetation metrics (canopy cover, aboveground biomass [AGB], diameter at breast height [DBH], tree density) showed clear trends across this degradation gradient, while invertebrate diversity and abundance did not. Previously restored sites were more similar to degraded than pristine sites, given the short time frame since planting (median 1.84 years, max 9 years). However, AGB, DBH, and tree density were significantly higher at older restoration sites, demonstrating the impact of restoration over time. Our household survey demonstrated community reliance on mangroves, with over half of respondents deriving greater than 25% of their income from mangrove-dependent livelihoods (primarily fisheries). Over 90% of respondents reported improved quality of life from restoration, with 35 and 34% of restoration income used for education and food, respectively. Community members provided substantive recommendations, including forest patrols to prevent illegal logging, continued tree planting, and community education.

Conclusions: Our results reveal a temporal mismatch between biodiversity improvements and social benefits, highlighting the need for sustained investment in communities to maintain social benefits until ecosystem service gains from restoration become evident.

Implications for Practice: Structuring restoration initiatives jointly around biodiversity uplift and community engagement can reinforce stewardship and increase the likelihood of lasting ecological success. Initiatives should explicitly account for the temporal mismatch between rapid social benefits and the slower pace of ecological recovery. More long-term funding mechanisms are needed to bridge communities through prolonged ecosystem recovery periods, reducing the risk of reversion to resource exploitation once external funding ends. Practitioners should integrate long-term ecological monitoring with socio-economic indicators to capture restoration outcomes more comprehensively, rather than relying solely on tree-based metrics.