Preferred Attributes for Sustainable Wetland Management in Mpologoma Catchment, Uganda: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Abstract

Sustainable wetland management is a focus of many countries worldwide. These mainly use protection as a key policy directive for conservation. However, avoidance directives tend to disenfranchise local populations. Thus, such management is often resisted and rarely effective. Tailoring management strategies to user preferences allows conservation to support community livelihoods for sustainable development. This study employed a discrete choice experiment to determine the wetland management attributes preferred by residents of Mpologoma catchment as a prelude to developing a co-management system. Listed in descending order, attribute preferences were paddy farmers’ schemes, fish farming, education and research, protected wetland area, and recreation and tourism. Respondents’ characteristics influenced their choices. Older adults were more likely to support fish farming. In contrast, existing paddy farmers tended to resist such focuses and an increase in protected wetland area. Additionally, respondents with higher education were opposed to paddy farmers’ schemes, and the preference for education and research was positively influenced by respondents’ income. Respondents were willing to pay between $0.64 and $1.76 per household for each unit improvement in the preferred attribute. Our results underscore the role of DCEs in unlocking individuals’ attribute preferences, whose integration into co-management systems can be important for sustainable wetland conservation.

Stakeholders’ Use and Awareness of the Benefits of Wetland Management Practices in Ewaso Narok Swamp in Kenya

“…Speci cally, a movement higher, across education categories, decreased the likelihood of using soil and water conservation practices and conservative livestock keeping practices by 11 and 10 percent respectively with regard to non-use of wetland management practices. Contrary to this study, Bunyangha et al (2022) found a positive effect of education to wetland management. Shah and Atisa (2021) found education had no effect on wetland biodiversity conservation.…”

“…Description of variables Those with higher education were expected to use more practices to manage the wetland. AlthoughShah and Atisa (2021) found that education had insigni cant effect on changes in biodiversity,Bunyangha et al (2022) found education to have a positive effect on wetland management. Use of fertilizer was a dummy, one for use of fertilizer and zero otherwise.…”

“…Wetland users are free to adopt activities that suit them and consequently, the uptake of the WMPs is low with a high use of fertilizer, chemicals/ pesticides to boost productivity and this affects human and wetland health (WRUA, 2019). The WMPs offer social, ecological and economic bene ts which can be sensitized through public awareness and education campaigns (Macharia et al, 2010;Bunyangha et al, 2022). The awareness can be achieved through reviving dormant community groups or creating new ones to ensure all stakeholders are informed (Macharia et al, 2010).…”

The Mediating Role of Management Functions (Planning, Implementation, and Control) in Influencing the Restoration of Limoto Wetland

“…The human population density is moderate by national standards at 260 persons per km². The annual rainfall range is 900-1500 mm, and the vegetation is mainly composed of savanna species (Bunyangha et al, 2022). To understand the mediating role of management functions in influencing Limoto wetland restoration, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected using household interviews, key informant interviews, and field observations.…”

“…According to An & Verhoeven, (2019), ecological restoration is one of the fastest-growing fields in applied ecology providing new ideas and opportunities for biological conservation and natural resource management. However, despite countless attempts in the past (Roe et al, 2015), several restoration projects have fallen short of being considered successful (Bunyangha et al, 2022;Obubu et al, 2022). Kakuba & Kanyamurwa, (2021) note that these shortfalls could be as a result of one or a combination of the following mainly: unrealistic goals; inadequate restoration plans based on an ad-hoc approach; lack of explicit and quantified evaluation criteria for restoration success; lack of ecological understanding; social, economic, and political constraints.…”