Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation in Kilifi County, Kenya

Benjamin Mutuku Kinyili; Douglas Bwire; James Mburu; Mwamutsi Nasib Ali; Kioko Nzioki; Lorna Nyaga; Ivy Amugune; Safi Ibrahim; Eunice Maina

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13

Case Report |

| Peer-Reviewed

Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation in Kilifi County, Kenya

Benjamin Mutuku Kinyili^*

, Douglas Bwire, James Mburu, Mwamutsi Nasib Ali, Kioko Nzioki, Lorna Nyaga, Ivy Amugune, Safi Ibrahim, Eunice Maina

Published in International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management (Volume 11, Issue 1)

Received: 2 May 2025 Accepted: 13 May 2025 Published: 4 February 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Mangrove ecosystems face numerous conservation challenges due to human-induced pressures, climate change, and natural disruptions. This paper discusses the restoration initiatives and obstacles encountered in conserving mangroves in Kilifi County, Kenya. Between 2019 and 2024, significant progress was recorded in various restoration sites across the county, with the planting of over 16 million propagules and seedlings. The main species targeted for restoration included Ceriops tagal, Rhizophora mucronata, and Avicennia marina, with efforts largely centered on mangrove rehabilitation. Restoration activities were carried out in key areas such as Kanagoni, Ngomeni, Kilifi Creek, and Mida Creek. The adoption of innovative techniques, such as enrichment planting, contributed to the overall success of these initiatives. Despite these positive outcomes, several challenges emerged. Environmental pressures, including damage by crabs and grazing animals, negatively affected seedling survival. Limited resources hindered the expansion of restoration efforts, while poor access to remote areas posed difficulties for consistent monitoring. Additionally, the lack of structured collaboration frameworks often delayed stakeholder coordination, and illegal practices such as unregulated logging continued to threaten long-term sustainability. The paper recommends establishing clear and effective collaboration frameworks that outline stakeholder roles and responsibilities. This would improve coordination, and support timely execution of projects. Strengthening partnerships with local communities is also encouraged, as their involvement in sourcing planting materials and participating in restoration activities can foster a sense of ownership and motivate sustained engagement.

Published in	International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management (Volume 11, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13
Page(s)	23-34
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Mangrove Restoration, Mangrove Degradation, Forest Restoration, Forest Conservation, Kilifi County, Kenya

1. Introduction

Mangrove ecosystems occur in coastal zones at the interface between land and sea, primarily in tropical and subtropical regions across the globe. Significant mangrove areas are located in Africa, Asia, and South America

[1, 2]

. These ecosystems are distributed across 118 countries and territories, covering a total estimated area of 147,000 km² globally

[3]

. Mangroves are uniquely adapted to intertidal environments characterized by high salinity and fluctuating conditions. Their ecological significance stems from the wide array of ecosystem services they provide, including blue carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, habitat provision for fish and wildlife, support for coastal fisheries, shoreline protection, and tourism

[4, 5]

. In addition, mangrove forests support local livelihoods through aquaculture, agriculture, provision of fuelwood, building materials, and traditional medicines

[6, 7]

. Despite their importance, mangrove ecosystems face mounting ecological pressure. It is estimated that one-third of global mangrove cover has been lost over the past fifty years

[8]

. The main threats include habitat loss and degradation caused by human activities such as conversion for aquaculture and agriculture, coastal development, industrial and domestic waste discharge, and poor management practices

[9]

In Kenya, mangroves are found in protected deltas, bays, creeks, river estuaries, and lagoons along the country’s 600 km coastline

[10]

. These ecosystems are located within five coastal counties: Lamu, Tana River, Kilifi, Mombasa, and Kwale, collectively covering approximately 61,271 hectares across 18 forest formations

[11]

. Kenya hosts nine mangrove species, with Rhizophora mucronata and Ceriops tagal being the most dominant, accounting for over 70% of the formations. The zonation pattern typically includes a Sonneratia–Rhizophora–Avicennia community on the seaward edge, followed by Rhizophora–Bruguiera–Ceriops in the middle zone, and a dwarf Avicennia–Lumnitzera–Xylocarpus complex on the landward side

[10]

Kenya’s mangrove forests are increasingly under threat, mainly due to human activities such as overharvesting for timber and fuelwood, salt production, and land conversion for urban development, agriculture, aquaculture, and tourism

[12-14]

. Unsustainable harvesting, especially in densely populated areas, further accelerates degradation

[15]

. Furthermore, inadequate legal protection and enforcement have rendered some mangrove areas vulnerable to exploitation.

Recognizing these threats, Kenya has intensified mangrove conservation and restoration efforts, particularly through community-based initiatives

[16, 17]

. These initiatives aim to restore degraded mangrove areas by engaging local communities in planting and sustainable management, as well as promoting the sale of carbon credits from sequestered carbon. Public awareness campaigns and capacity-building programs are also underway to promote sustainable mangrove practices and highlight their ecological importance

[18]

. Key focus areas include preventing further degradation, promoting natural regeneration, and establishing mangrove nurseries. Traditional ecological restoration approaches often involve restoring environmental conditions to support natural regeneration. Engaging and empowering local communities with knowledge, skills, and alternative livelihoods is seen as a crucial strategy for the long-term success of restoration projects. Among the coastal counties, Kilifi has emerged as a focal point for restoration activities

[19]

. These efforts are crucial for achieving both national and global commitments to sustainable forest management and ecosystem restoration. However, the current status and effectiveness of mangrove restoration efforts in Kilifi County remain poorly documented. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore and assess the conservation and restoration of mangrove ecosystems in Kilifi County, located on the Kenyan coast.

2. Methodology

2.1. The Study Area

The study was carried out in Kilifi County (Figure 1). Kilifi County, located in the Coastal region of Kenya, is characterized by a diverse landscape, ranging from coastal plains and highlands to the Nyika Plateau. The county stretches along 65 km of coastline and extends 90 km inland, offering a variety of ecological zones. Its unique features include the Arabuko Sokoke Forest, Dakacha woodlands, and several creeks like Mtwapa, Kilifi, and Mida Creeks.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 1. Distribution of mangroves in Kilifi County with the different patches highlighted.

2.2. Mangrove Ecosystem Analysis

The analysis exercise was designed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of mangrove and terrestrial forest restoration efforts in Kilifi County. The exercise combined geospatial technologies, field-based assessments, stakeholder consultations, and community participation to ensure a detailed, data-driven, and participatory approach.

This analysis exercise initially planned to cover both Kwale and Kilifi counties. However, due to budgetary constraints, Kilifi County was selected as the pilot area, as it hosts the majority of ongoing restorative work. Key restoration sites, including Ngomeni, Kanagoni, Mida Creek, and Kilifi Creek, were selected for their ecological significance, extent of restoration activities, and stakeholder involvement.

Each site was assessed based on several key factors: Restoration Methods: The techniques employed, such as enrichment planting or direct seeding, were evaluated for their appropriateness and effectiveness; Success: Survival rates of restored species and observed ecological recovery were analyzed to gauge restoration outcomes; Extent: The size of the area under restoration, measured in hectares, was documented to establish the scale of interventions; Challenges: Issues such as environmental stressors, logistical constraints, and socio-economic conflicts were identified to understand barriers to success and Community Engagement: The extent to which local communities participated in restoration activities was assessed, including their roles in sourcing propagules, planting, and monitoring, as well as the benefits they accrued from these efforts.

2.3. Data Collection Techniques

A mixed-methods approach was employed, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods to capture the full scope of restoration efforts:

1) Geospatial Tools: Advanced tools such as Survey123, high-resolution satellite imagery, and GPS-enabled systems were used to monitor and map restoration activities. These tools provided real-time, actionable data on forest health, survival rates, and spatial coverage, enabling the mapping team to validate reported progress and identify restoration gaps.

2) Field Observations: On-the-ground assessments were conducted to observe and verify planting activities, survival rates, and the impact of environmental stressors, such as browsing by crabs and extreme weather. These observations were documented to ensure accuracy in mapping data.

3) Stakeholder Consultations: Structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with six (6) key stakeholders. These sessions explored stakeholder contributions, challenges encountered, and recommendations for enhancing restoration practices.

4) Community Involvement: Community participation was a key focus of the mapping exercise. The mapping team assessed the extent to which local communities were engaged in restoration activities, documenting their roles in propagule collection, planting, and monitoring. The team also captured demographic data on community participation, analyzing involvement by gender to highlight inclusivity in the restoration process.

The benefits accrued by the community were also documented. These included economic empowerment through the sale of seedlings, engagement in complementary livelihood projects such as beekeeping and ecotourism, and improved ecological services that directly benefited local households. This data provided insights into how restoration efforts aligned with community development objectives.

2.4. Monitoring and Evaluation

The effectiveness of restoration efforts was evaluated through several indicators:

1) Survival Rates: The percentage of surviving planted species, including Ceriops tagal, Rhizophora mucronata, and Avicennia marina, was monitored to assess the success of restoration interventions.

2) Stakeholder Engagement: The roles and contributions of stakeholders were assessed, highlighting successes and identifying areas for improvement in collaboration frameworks.

2.5. Challenges and Conflict Analysis

Challenges faced during restoration activities were systematically documented. These included:

1) Environmental Stressors: Issues such as browsing by crabs, extreme weather conditions, and soil salinity were recorded for their impact on propagule and seedling survival.

2) Logistical Constraints: Access to remote sites posed difficulties for monitoring and maintenance efforts.

3) Socio-Economic Conflicts: Conflicts over land use and resource allocation were explored to understand their impact on restoration progress.

2.6. Data Analysis

Quantitative data, such as survival rates, areas restored, and demographic participation figures, were statistically analyzed to identify trends and measure progress. Qualitative data from stakeholder consultations and field observations were thematically analyzed to capture insights into challenges, successes, and recommendations for improvement. The analysis aimed to provide a holistic understanding of restoration dynamics in Kilifi County.

3. Findings and Implications

3.1. Mapping of Restoration Areas in Kilifi County

Maps showing restored mangrove landscapes in selected areas of Kilifi County are shown in Figure 2.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 2. Maps showing restored mangrove landscapes in selected areas of Kilifi County.

The current project was undertaken to restore mangrove in Kenya and followed protocols in mangrove forests reported in other parts of the world

[20]

. The current map showed that between 2019 and 2024, a significant area of mangroves in Kilifi was restored, with a total of 640 hectares being targeted for rehabilitation and protection. This project, aims to restore and conserve over 2,550 hectares of mangroves (Mangrove Restoration Plan (2024-2028). Similar restoration efforts have been reported in Colombia

[21]

, Vietnam

[22].

3.2. Restoration Status of Mangrove Ecosystem Restoration

Status of mangrove ecosystem restoration in Kilifi County is shown in Table 1. The key restoration materials used are either propagules or seedlings as established in other countries. Propagules are often used in mangrove ecosystems forest restoration efforts, especially in mangrove ecosystems and capable of growing into mature plants in appropriate conditions

[23]

. They play a significant role in establishing new mangrove forests, particularly in areas where seedling availability is limited or where faster natural regeneration is desired. Meanwhile seedlings, mature young plants grown in controlled conditions, are frequently used for reforestation and restoration in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems

[24]

. They are often chosen when the goal is to ensure higher survival rates or when propagules are not readily available or suitable for planting.

The restoration methods employed were: enrichment planting, direct planting, hydrological Services Restoration (HSR) tree planting for active restoration. Enrichment planting involves planting additional propagules to increase the density or diversity of existing mangrove forests

[25]

. These restoration method have also been used in other restorations area such as has been used in countries across Southeast Asia and beyond, particularly in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and Myanmar

[26]

. It is aimed at enriching areas that are already under partial restoration, ensuring faster and more successful establishment of the ecosystem. Direct planting method involves direct planting of either propagules or seedlings in areas that have been degraded or where mangrove forests are absent. This method aims at re-establishing mangrove ecosystems by planting directly into the soil or aquatic substrates. It has been extensively employed by organizations and has been a primary restoration technique in Southeast Asia, including countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand

[27]

. This method also includes planting for hydrological services restoration, which has used both propagules and seedlings. Hydrological Services Restoration combined the use of propagules and seedlings specifically for hydrological services restoration, emphasizing the role of mangroves in controlling erosion, improving water quality, and mitigating coastal flooding

[28]

. This method is more widely practiced in several countries, particularly in regions with significant mangrove ecosystems like the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) and Southeast Asia

[29]

3.3. Forest Station and No of Seedling/Propagules Planted

Seedlings/propagules planted and survival of mangroves in three forest stations are shown in Table 2. The collected data shows the number of seedlings or propagules planted across different forest stations. This information highlights the variation in planting efforts, with some stations demonstrating substantial planting activity, while others report less frequent or smaller-scale planting efforts. Overall total estimates of seedlings/propagules planted across all stations: 16,000,000. Jilore has the highest number of seedlings/propagules planted across the dataset, with multiple records indicating large planting efforts, including figures like 10,000,000. The total number of seedlings planted here appears to be the most significant among all stations. Gede also shows considerable planting activity, although on a smaller scale compared to Jilore with notable records include 2,000,000 seedlings/propagules planted. However, Gede has some small-scale planting activities like the placement of a few thousand seedlings, which contrasts with Jilore’s large volumes. Sokoke, while showing a mixed range of planting efforts, also contributes notable numbers, including 2,117,950 and 837,491 seedlings. The survival rate at Jilore forest station has a high average survival rate of approximately 71.72%, indicating a relatively successful rate of plant survival. There are a significant number of entries with high survival rates (81-100%), but there are also moderate survival rates in the 41-60% and 61-80% ranges, along with a few lower rates at 21-40% and 0-20%. Gede forest station shows a strong average survival rate of approximately 72.22%. The majority of the survival rates are within the higher ranges (61-100%), with a strong presence of plants surviving in the 81-100% category. However, there are still some entries in the 41-60% range. Sokoke forest station has a moderate average survival rate of approximately 55.88%, which suggests that while a considerable number of plants survive (41-80%), there is room for improvement. The station has some entries with very low survival rates (0-20% and 21-40%), which could indicate challenges in those areas.

3.4. Assessment of Marine Forest Restoration with Stakeholder Integration

Status of marine forest restoration with stakeholder integration are shown in Table 1. Restoration initiatives in Kilifi County reflect a dynamic interplay between marine and terrestrial ecosystems, driven by a coalition of diverse stakeholders as in other restoration efforts

[26, 27]

. These efforts ensure that restoration not only supports ecological integrity but also aligns with the livelihoods, cultures, and aspirations of local communities. Their main roles was restoration prioritizes resilient species such as Ceriops tagal and Rhizophora mucronata in vulnerable coastal regions like Ngomeni, Mtwapa Creek, and Marereni. These initiatives combat shoreline erosion, enhance carbon sequestration, and safeguard critical fisheries.

Table 1. Status of mangrove ecosystem restoration in Kilifi County.

Organizations	Status Area restored	Restoration methods	Restoration materials	Number of Seedlings or propagules planted	Source of seedlings	Remark
NGO 1	20 ha.	Proposed to be planting	Propagules and seedlings	-		Not yet to started
NGO 2	2100 ha.	Reforestation (Planting)	Propagules	10,000 seedlings and propagules	Nurseries and specialized seed banks	Ongoing successful partnership with KFS and CFAs
CBO 1	150 ha.	Reforestation (Planting), Hydrological Services Restoration, Assisted Natural Mangrove Regeneration (ANMR)	Propagules and seedlings	3,000 to 8,000 seedlings per site	Local community nurseries, government-run nurseries, and seed banks	Allocated 785 ha. but restored 150 Ha
NGO 3	612 ha.	Reforestation (Planting), Hydrological Services Restoration, Assisted Natural Mangrove Regeneration (ANMR)	Propagules and seedlings	4,000 seedlings	Private-sector nurseries and community-based nurseries	Focus on improving protection and enforcement
NGO 4	7 ha.	Reforestation (Planting)	Propagules and seedlings	2,500 seedlings	Local nurseries managed	Allocated 100 Ha but managed to restore 7 ha.
NGO 5	15 ha.	Reforestation (Planting), Assisted Natural Mangrove Regeneration (ANMR)	Seedlings	2,000 seedlings	Government-run nurseries and community nurseries	Allocated 172 ha. but restored 15 ha. Need support
NGO 6	80 ha.	Mangrove Reforestation (Planting), Hydrological Services Restoration, Assisted Natural Mangrove Regeneration (ANMR)	Seedlings	1,500 seedlings		Allocated 100 ha. managed to restore 80ha.
NGO 7	45 ha.	Mangrove planting), Assisted Natural Mangrove Regeneration (ANMR)	Propagules and seedlings	3,000 to 5,000	Government-run nurseries and accredited private nurseries	Not yet started

The seedlings/propagules planted and survival of mangroves in three forest stations are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Seedlings/propagules planted and survival of mangroves in three forest stations.

Station	Seedlings/propagules planted	Survival
Jilore	10,000,000	71.72%
Gede	2,000,000	72.22
Sokoke	4,000,000	55.88%

Mangrove restoration efforts with stakeholder integration are shown in Table 3. The table shows that several stakeholders were involved in the mangrove restoration efforts. Mangrove restoration efforts in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) region often involve a wide range of stakeholders, including local communities, government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private sectors, and funding agencies

[28-30]

Table 3. Status of marine forest restoration with stakeholder integration.

Environment	Stakeholders Involved:	Roles
Marine Environment	NGO 1, CBO 1, CBO 4, CBO 7	These organizations spearhead large-scale mangrove planting projects, integrating local fishing communities for propagule collection, nursery management, and survival monitoring.
	Kenya Forest Service (KFS)	Plays a central role in technical oversight, policy integration, and harmonization with national frameworks such as the National Mangrove Management Plan (2017–2027).
	Local Communities:	Partner with NGOs and government agencies to execute restoration activities, contributing traditional ecological knowledge and fostering long-term stewardship.
Terrestrial ecosystem	Plan International:	Utilizes innovative tools like Survey123 for mapping and monitoring while engaging communities in participatory restoration.
	NGO 2, NGO 7, KFS:	Coordinate reforestation of degraded areas, with a focus on integrating ecological and cultural values.
	Local Communities and Kaya Elders:	Vital for restoration in culturally significant sites such as Kaya forests, ensuring that interventions respect sacred traditions and ecological balance.
	Kilifi County Government:	Provides logistical support, funding, and alignment with county-level conservation strategies.

3.5. Species Utilization and Survival During Restoration Efforts

Mangroves species planting density and survival in Kilifi County are show in in Table 4. Ceriops tagal is the most commonly planted and widely used in restoration efforts, often in combination with species like Rhizophora mucronata and Bruguiera gymnorhiza. Ceriops tagal is typically restored alongside Avicennia marina and Rhizophora mucronata, but it exhibits slightly lower survival rates due to its sensitivity to environmental stressors. Factors such as salinity, temperature fluctuations, and unstable water levels can negatively affect its growth

[31]

. Restoration partners like NGO 3 often select sites with suitable soil and water conditions for planting Ceriops tagal. Despite its lower resilience, this species is important for maintaining ecosystem biodiversity and stability when restored in optimal environments. Rhizophora mucronata is another staple in mangrove restoration, frequently planted alongside Ceriops tagal or Bruguiera gymnorhiza. Rhizophora mucronata, known for its iconic stilt roots, plays a vital role in stabilizing coastal soils and mitigating erosion

[32, 33]

. It is a priority species for restoration partners, valued for its shoreline protection capabilities and habitat provision for marine life. Though its survival rates tend to be slightly lower than those of Avicennia marina, Rhizophora mucronata remains a reliable option for coastal restoration. Environmental factors such as tidal flow, site accessibility, and competition with other vegetation influence its growth, emphasizing the importance of targeted site selection and management

[31]

. Avicennia marina is moderately utilized: While not as prevalent as Ceriops tagal and Rhizophora mucronata, Avicennia marina remains an important species in restoration efforts. Avicennia marina is one of the most commonly restored mangrove species due to its exceptional adaptability to a range of environmental conditions, including fluctuating salinity and waterlogged soils

[34]

. Restoration partners have consistently achieved high survival rates for this species, which thrives in dynamic coastal environments. Bruguiera gymnorhiza is frequently used is planted less frequently than Ceriops tagal and Rhizophora mucronata, often as part of mixed-species restoration. Though less commonly restored, Bruguiera gymnorhiza is vital for stabilizing coastal zones and enhancing biodiversity

[35]

. This species thrives under specific environmental conditions, including good water quality, nutrient levels, and suitable site locations. Partners have successfully restored Bruguiera gymnorhiza at sites such as Takaungu and Kizingitini, where moderate survival rates are achieved under favorable conditions. Sonneratia alba is well-suited for areas with higher tidal ranges and saline soils, making it an essential species for projects in dynamic coastal zones. Restoration efforts by partners have demonstrated the species' resilience in challenging conditions. While survival rates are influenced by factors like nutrient availability and tidal action, Sonneratia alba plays a critical role in enhancing coastal wildlife habitats and providing valuable ecosystem services. Mixed Species is used for diverse restoration efforts: Many restoration projects involve mixed-species plantings, which often include Ceriops tagal, Rhizophora mucronata, Avicennia marina, and Bruguiera gymnorhiza. Terminalia brownii, Allophylus ferrugineus, and Agauria salicifolia are less commonly used: These species are planted in smaller quantities, typically ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 seedlings/propagules. Their use tends to be more specialized, suited to specific ecological needs or restoration areas.

Table 4. Mangroves species planting density and survival in Kilifi County.

Species	Planting volume (seedlings/propagules)	Survival
Ceriops tagal	1.7 million	60%–75%
Rhizophora mucronata	1000 to 100,000	70%–80%
Avicennia marina	1,000 to 13,000	75%–85%
Bruguiera gymnorhiza	1000 to 100,000	60%–70%
Sonneratia alba		65%–80%
Terminalia brownii, Allophylus ferrugineus, and Agauria salicifolia		-

It was noted that the most common species: Ceriops tagal and Rhizophora mucronata, often in combination, dominate the planting efforts, making up the majority of seedlings/propagules. Moreover, moderately used species: Avicennia marina and Bruguiera gymnorhiza are less frequently planted but still crucial for ecosystem restoration. The least common species: Terminalia brownii, Allophylus ferrugineus, and Agauria salicifolia are used in smaller quantities, typically for niche restoration purposes or specific ecological roles.

3.6. Challenges Faced During Restoration

The challenges encountered in restoration of mangroves are show in in Table 5. Restoration efforts in these critical habitats encounter a range of challenges influenced by local conditions, socioeconomic dynamics, and environmental pressures. These challenges are mainly environmental, anthropogenic activities such as grazing, encroachment, illegal logging, and logistic challenges. These challenges have been reported in other mangrove restorations programmes in other countries

[36-38]

. Similar challenges related to climate variability, community engagement, and long-term sustainability of restoration projects have also been reported in large-scale mangrove rehabilitation programs across developing coastal regions

[39]

Table 5. Challenges encountered in restoration of mangroves.

Environment	Challenges
Marine Environment	Coastal erosion, salinity stress, competition with aquaculture, and land-use conflicts. NGOs fund innovative solutions like erosion barriers and nature-based approaches. KFS ensures regulatory compliance, while communities monitor restoration sites.
Terrestrial ecosystem	Encroachment, illegal logging, seasonal fires, and reliance on rainfall. NGO 5 uses digital tools for monitoring, while local groups engage in reforestation and fire management. KFS enforces conservation laws and provides technical guidance.
Jilore Forest Station	Site Species Matching: Issues with selecting appropriate species for specific sites, leading to potential mismatches in ecological suitability. Grazing: Livestock grazing has been noted as a significant threat to young seedlings and overall restoration success. Climate Change Impacts: Variability in weather patterns and rising sea levels affecting the growth and survival of planted species. Monitoring and Evaluation Gaps: Insufficient tracking of restoration progress and survival rates, leading to a lack of data for adaptive management. Limited Technical Expertise: Challenges in implementing best practices due to a lack of skilled personnel.
Sokoke Forest Station	Illegal Logging or Harvesting: Ongoing illegal activities threaten the integrity of restored areas and the survival of planted species. Community Engagement Challenges: Difficulty in effectively involving local communities in restoration efforts, which can lead to a lack of ownership and support. Seedlings Scarcity: Limited availability of quality seedlings hampers the scale of restoration efforts. Climate Change Impacts: Similar to Jilore, climate change poses risks to the success of restoration projects, affecting species survival and growth. Monitoring and Evaluation Gaps: Inadequate systems for tracking the success of restoration efforts, leading to challenges in assessing outcomes.
Gede Forest station	Grazing: Livestock grazing continues to be a significant challenge, impacting the survival of young plants. Climate Change Impacts: The effects of climate change are evident, with altered weather patterns affecting restoration success. Limited Technical Expertise: A lack of skilled personnel to implement effective restoration practices. Illegal Logging or Harvesting: Ongoing illegal activities threaten the restored areas and the overall ecosystem. Monitoring and Evaluation Gaps: Insufficient tracking of restoration efforts, leading to challenges in assessing the effectiveness of interventions.

4. Conclusions

The restoration efforts in Kilifi County represent a significant step forward in ecological recovery and sustainable development, demonstrating the transformative power of collaboration among stakeholders, local communities, and conservation organizations. With over 16 million propagules and seedlings planted, these initiatives have not only revitalized vital mangrove and terrestrial ecosystems but also generated economic opportunities and strengthened community resilience. However, challenges identified during the study, ranging from environmental stressors to logistical constraints highlighting the need for a proactive and adaptive approach to restoration.

Looking ahead, it is essential for stakeholders to apply the lessons learned and implement the strategic recommendations outlined in this report. By enhancing coordination, securing the necessary resources, and actively engaging local communities, the restoration efforts can be expanded and sustained, ensuring long-term ecological and socioeconomic benefits. The journey to restore Kilifi's forests goes beyond tree planting; it involves fostering a shared vision for a healthier environment and more empowered communities. As these initiatives continue to evolve, they have the potential to serve as a replicable model for other regions, proving that with commitment and collaboration, the initiatives can restore vital ecosystems and secure a sustainable future for generations to come. Through these collective efforts, stakeholders can further enhance the effectiveness of restoration activities in Kilifi County, ensuring that both ecological and socioeconomic goals are met in a sustainable and inclusive manner.

5. Recommendations

There is needed to develop clear and streamlined collaboration frameworks that define stakeholder roles and responsibilities. This will enhance coordination, improve communication, and facilitate timely project implementation. Foster partnerships with local communities to ensure their active involvement in sourcing planting materials and participating in restoration activities. This will promote ownership and incentivize community engagement.

Enhancing Monitoring and Evaluation through investing in robust monitoring and evaluation systems to track restoration progress, survival rates, and the effectiveness of different restoration methods. Utilize technology, such as mobile GIS applications and remote sensing, to gather real-time data. Conduct regular assessments to identify challenges and successes, allowing for adaptive management strategies that can be implemented in response to changing conditions.

There is need to secure funding and resources by actively seek additional funding sources to bridge existing gaps and scale up restoration initiatives. This could include partnerships with private sector organizations, government grants, and international funding opportunities. Allocate resources for critical infrastructure, such as Forest Ranger outposts, to safeguard restored areas from illegal activities and enhance monitoring and enforcement efforts.

Provide training and resources to Community Forest Associations (CFAs) and local groups to enhance their capacity for stewardship and engagement in restoration efforts. This will empower communities to take an active role in managing and protecting restored areas. Promote income-generating activities tied to restoration efforts, such as ecotourism, beekeeping, and sustainable harvesting practices, to provide economic incentives for community involvement.

There is need to address Illegal Activities. This can be achieved by collaborating with law enforcement agencies to strengthen the enforcement of regulations against illegal logging and unsanctioned harvesting. This will help protect restored areas and ensure the sustainability of restoration efforts. Increase community awareness and involvement in monitoring illegal activities, empowering local residents to act as stewards of their environment. Collaborate with local law enforcement and community leaders to develop proactive measures against illegal logging and unsanctioned harvesting. This could include community patrols, awareness campaigns, and stricter enforcement of regulations.

Abbreviations

ANMR	Assisted Natural Mangrove Regeneration
CBO	Community based Organizations
CFA	Community Forest Associations
GPS	Global Positioning System
KFS	Kenya Forest Service
NGO	Non Governmental Organization

Acknowledgments

The authors immensely thank the stakeholders and community members in Kilifi County for agreeing to take part in mapping, monitoring and evaluation of this study.

Author Contributions

Benjamin Mutuku Kinyili: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Douglas Bwire: Data curation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

James Mburu: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Mwamutsi Nasib Ali: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Kioko Nzioki: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Lorna Nyaga: Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Ivy Amugune: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Safi Ibrahim: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Eunice Maina: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Funding

This work was supported by Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and CIFOR-ICRAF on designing, planning, implementation and logistical materials.

Data Availability Statement

The data is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Kathiresan, K. and Dagar J. C. 2024. Mangroves and associated flora: prospects for utilization in coastal agriculture. In Halophytes vis-à-vis Saline Agriculture: Perspectives and Opportunities for Food Security (Springer, 2024), pp. 67-95.
[2]	Kitaya, Y. 2024. Mangrove Forests as Semi-closed Systems in Coastal Ecosystems. In Plant Production for Sustainable Society as a Semi-closed Ecosystem (Springer, 2024), pp. 5-36.
[3]	Ochiai, O., Tadono T., Hayashi M., Harada M., Hamamoto K., Rosenqvist A., et al. 2022. Satellite-based map of global mangrove extent and changes: Global Mangrove Watch (GMW). (2022).
[4]	Bimrah, K., Dasgupta R., Hashimoto S., Saizen I. and Dhyani S. 2022. Ecosystem services of mangroves: A systematic review and synthesis of contemporary scientific literature. Sustainability 14(19), 12051 (2022).
[5]	Qin, Y., Zhu G., Liang M. and Feng B. 2025. Exploring Global Research Trends in Mangrove Ecosystems: A Bibliometric Analysis of Key Issues and Future Directions (1996–2022). Land Degradation & Development (2025).
[6]	Sarkar, P., Banerjee S., Biswas S., Saha S., Pal D., Naskar M. K., et al. 2024. Contribution of Mangrove Ecosystem Services to Local Livelihoods in the Indian Sundarbans. Sustainability 16(16), 6804 (2024).
[7]	Ferreira, A. C., Borges R. and de Lacerda L. D. 2022. Can sustainable development save mangroves? Sustainability 14(3), 1263 (2022).
[8]	Gouvêa, L. P., Serrão E. A., Cavanaugh K., Gurgel C. F., Horta P. A. and Assis J. 2022. Global impacts of projected climate changes on the extent and aboveground biomass of mangrove forests. Diversity and Distributions 28(11), 2349-2360 (2022).
[9]	Akram, H., Hussain S., Mazumdar P., Chua K. O., Butt T. E. and Harikrishna J. A. 2023. Mangrove health: A review of functions, threats, and challenges associated with mangrove management practices. Forests 14(9), 1698 (2023).
[10]	Njiru, D. M., Githaiga M. N., Nyaga J. M., Lang’at K. S. and Kairo J. G. 2022. Geomorphic and climatic drivers are key determinants of structural variability of mangrove forests along the Kenyan Coast. Forests 13(6), 870 (2022).
[11]	Kairo, J., Mbatha A., Murithi M. M. and Mungai F. 2021. Total ecosystem carbon stocks of mangroves in Lamu, Kenya; and their potential contributions to the climate change agenda in the country. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 4, 709227 (2021).
[12]	Abuodha, P. and Kairo J. 2001. Human-induced stresses on mangrove swamps along the Kenyan coast. Hydrobiologia 458, 255-265 (2001).
[13]	Chisika, S. and Yeom C. 2023. The challenges of sustainable conservation and management of mangrove forests in Kenya. (2023).
[14]	Kirui, K., Kairo J. G., Bosire J., Viergever K. M., Rudra S., Huxham M., et al. 2013. Mapping of mangrove forest land cover change along the Kenya coastline using Landsat imagery. Ocean & Coastal Management 83, 19-24 (2013).
[15]	Ahmed, H. A., Mwaura F., Thenya T. and Kairo J. G. 2022. Coastal and mangrove economic valuation associated fisheries and problems in Kwale County, Kenya. Indo Pacific Journal of Ocean Life 6(1) (2022).
[16]	Kiprono, A. An assessment of the effectiveness of mangrove restoration projects along the Kenyan coast. 2021. University of Nairobi, 2021.
[17]	Kinya, G., Kairo J. G., Nyoike R. N., Nguu J. G., Githinji B. K. and Githaiga M. N. 2024. Eco-Engineering Mangrove Restoration at Gazi Bay, Kenya. Diversity 16(3), 135 (2024).
[18]	Kairo, J. G., Dahdouh-Guebas F., Bosire J. and Koedam N. 2001. Restoration and management of mangrove systems—a lesson for and from the East African region. South African Journal of Botany 67(3), 383-389 (2001).
[19]	Kinya, G. The success of eco-engineering mangrove restoration in a high energy area, at gazi bay, kenya. 2024. Gladys Kinya, 2024.
[20]	Gatt, Y. M., Andradi-Brown, D. A., Ahmadia, G. N., Martin, P. A., Sutherland, W. J., Spalding, M. D., Donnison, A. & Worthington, T. A. 2022. Quantifying the reporting, coverage and consistency of key indicators in mangrove restoration projects. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5, 720394 (2022).
[21]	Rodríguez-Rodríguez, J. A., Mancera-Pineda, J. E., & Tavera, H. 2021. Mangrove restoration in Colombia: Trends and lessons learned. Forest Ecology and Management, 496, 119414 (2021).
[22]	Tinh, P. H., MacKenzie, R. A., Hung, T. D., Vinh, T. V., Ha, H. T., Lam, M. H., Hanh, N. T. H., Tung, N. X., Hai, P. M. & Huyen, B. T. (2022). Mangrove restoration in Vietnamese Mekong Delta during 2015-2020: Achievements and challenges. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 104394.
[23]	van Bijsterveldt, C. E., Debrot, A. O., Bouma, T. J., Maulana, M. B., Pribadi, R., Schop, J., & van Wesenbeeck, B. K. 2022. To plant or not to plant: When can planting facilitate mangrove restoration?. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 690011 (2001).
[24]	Gorman, D., Vanderklift, M. A., & Lafratta, A. 2022. Quantitative analysis of methodological and environmental influences on survival of planted mangroves in restoration and afforestation. Forests, 13(3), 404 (2022).
[25]	Suwardi, S., Suwoyo, H. S., Sahrijanna, A., Fahrur, M., Mulyaningrum, S. R. H., Makmur, M., & Syah, R. (2025). Performance of mangrove seedling (Rhizophora sp.) planted on super-intensive shrimp pond solid waste as media. Aquaculture International, 33(3), 1-21.
[26]	Gerona-Daga, M. E. B., & Salmo III, S. G. 2022. A systematic review of mangrove restoration studies in Southeast Asia: Challenges and opportunities for the United Nation’s Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 987737 (2022).
[27]	Ferreira, A. C., Freire, F. A. M., Rodrigues, J. V. M., & Bezerra, L. E. A. 2022. Mangrove recovery in semiarid coast shows increase of ecological processes from biotic and abiotic drivers in response to hydrological restoration. Wetlands, 42(7), 80 (2022).
[28]	López-Portillo, J., Lewis, R. R., Saenger, P., Rovai, A., Koedam, N., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Agraz-Hernández, C. & Rivera-Monroy, V. H. 2017. Mangrove forest restoration and rehabilitation. Mangrove ecosystems: a global biogeographic perspective: structure, function, and services, 301-345 (2017).
[29]	28Marois, D. E., & Mitsch, W. J. 2017. A mangrove creek restoration plan utilizing hydraulic modeling. Ecological engineering, 108, 537-546 (2017).
[30]	Poti, M., Hugé, J., Shanker, K., Koedam, N., & Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2022). Learning from small islands in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO): A systematic review of responses to environmental change. Ocean & Coastal Management, 227, 106268.
[31]	Hattam, C., Evans, L., Morrissey, K., Hooper, T., Young, K., Khalid, F., & Hughes, A. (2020). Building resilience in practice to support coral communities in the Western Indian Ocean. Environmental Science & Policy, 106, 182-190.
[32]	Krauss, K. W., Lovelock, C. E., McKee, K. L., López-Hoffman, L., Ewe, S. M., & Sousa, W. P. 2008. Environmental drivers in mangrove establishment and early development: a review. Aquatic botany, 89(2), 105-127 (2008).
[33]	Manguriu, G., Oyawa, W., & Abuodha, S. 2013. Physical and mechanical properties of mangrove from Kilifi in Kenya. Global Engineers & Technologists Review, 3(3), 1-5 (2013).
[34]	Su, J., Yin, B., Chen, L., & Gasparatos, A. (2022). Priority areas for mixed-species mangrove restoration: the suitable species in the right sites. Environmental Research Letters, 17(6), 065001(2022).
[35]	Haseeba, K. P., Aboobacker, V. M., Vethamony, P., & Al-Khayat, J. A. (2025). Significance of Avicennia Marina in the Arabian Gulf Environment: A Review. Wetlands, 45(1), 1-27 (2025).
[36]	Kusmana, C., Hidayat, T., Istomo, I., & Rusdiana, O. (2018). Kusmana C, Hidayat T, Istomo, Rusdiana O. 2018. Growth performance of Bruguiera gymnorrhiza derived from cut-propagule seedling. Biodiversitas 19: 208-214. The availability and existence of Bruguiera gymnorrhiza seed sources is getting decreased.. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity, 19(1), 208-214.
[37]	Gerona-Daga, M. E. B., & Salmo III, S. G. (2022). A systematic review of mangrove restoration studies in Southeast Asia: Challenges and opportunities for the United Nation’s Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 987737.
[38]	Ngongolo, K., Mtoka, S., & Mahulu, A. (2015). Challenges and opportunities for restoring the threatened mangroves. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 5(5), 352-360.
[39]	Sasmito, S. D., Basyuni, M., Kridalaksana, A., Saragi-Sasmito, M. F., Lovelock, C. E., & Murdiyarso, D. (2023). Challenges and opportunities for achieving Sustainable Development Goals through restoration of Indonesia’s mangroves. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7(1), 62-70.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Kinyili, B. M., Bwire, D., Mburu, J., Ali, M. N., Nzioki, K., et al. (2026). Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation in Kilifi County, Kenya. International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 11(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Kinyili, B. M.; Bwire, D.; Mburu, J.; Ali, M. N.; Nzioki, K., et al. Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation in Kilifi County, Kenya. Int. J. Nat. Resour. Ecol. Manag. 2026, 11(1), 23-34. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Kinyili BM, Bwire D, Mburu J, Ali MN, Nzioki K, et al. Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation in Kilifi County, Kenya. Int J Nat Resour Ecol Manag. 2026;11(1):23-34. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13,
  author = {Benjamin Mutuku Kinyili and Douglas Bwire and James Mburu and Mwamutsi Nasib Ali and Kioko Nzioki and Lorna Nyaga and Ivy Amugune and Safi Ibrahim and Eunice Maina},
  title = {Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation in Kilifi County, Kenya},
  journal = {International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management},
  volume = {11},
  number = {1},
  pages = {23-34},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijnrem.20261101.13},
  abstract = {Mangrove ecosystems face numerous conservation challenges due to human-induced pressures, climate change, and natural disruptions. This paper discusses the restoration initiatives and obstacles encountered in conserving mangroves in Kilifi County, Kenya. Between 2019 and 2024, significant progress was recorded in various restoration sites across the county, with the planting of over 16 million propagules and seedlings. The main species targeted for restoration included Ceriops tagal, Rhizophora mucronata, and Avicennia marina, with efforts largely centered on mangrove rehabilitation. Restoration activities were carried out in key areas such as Kanagoni, Ngomeni, Kilifi Creek, and Mida Creek. The adoption of innovative techniques, such as enrichment planting, contributed to the overall success of these initiatives. Despite these positive outcomes, several challenges emerged. Environmental pressures, including damage by crabs and grazing animals, negatively affected seedling survival. Limited resources hindered the expansion of restoration efforts, while poor access to remote areas posed difficulties for consistent monitoring. Additionally, the lack of structured collaboration frameworks often delayed stakeholder coordination, and illegal practices such as unregulated logging continued to threaten long-term sustainability. The paper recommends establishing clear and effective collaboration frameworks that outline stakeholder roles and responsibilities. This would improve coordination, and support timely execution of projects. Strengthening partnerships with local communities is also encouraged, as their involvement in sourcing planting materials and participating in restoration activities can foster a sense of ownership and motivate sustained engagement.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY - JOUR
T1 - Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation in Kilifi County, Kenya
AU - Benjamin Mutuku Kinyili
AU - Douglas Bwire
AU - James Mburu
AU - Mwamutsi Nasib Ali
AU - Kioko Nzioki
AU - Lorna Nyaga
AU - Ivy Amugune
AU - Safi Ibrahim
AU - Eunice Maina
Y1 - 2026/02/04
PY - 2026
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13
DO - 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13
T2 - International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
JF - International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
JO - International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
SP - 23
EP - 34
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2575-3061
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13
AB - Mangrove ecosystems face numerous conservation challenges due to human-induced pressures, climate change, and natural disruptions. This paper discusses the restoration initiatives and obstacles encountered in conserving mangroves in Kilifi County, Kenya. Between 2019 and 2024, significant progress was recorded in various restoration sites across the county, with the planting of over 16 million propagules and seedlings. The main species targeted for restoration included Ceriops tagal, Rhizophora mucronata, and Avicennia marina, with efforts largely centered on mangrove rehabilitation. Restoration activities were carried out in key areas such as Kanagoni, Ngomeni, Kilifi Creek, and Mida Creek. The adoption of innovative techniques, such as enrichment planting, contributed to the overall success of these initiatives. Despite these positive outcomes, several challenges emerged. Environmental pressures, including damage by crabs and grazing animals, negatively affected seedling survival. Limited resources hindered the expansion of restoration efforts, while poor access to remote areas posed difficulties for consistent monitoring. Additionally, the lack of structured collaboration frameworks often delayed stakeholder coordination, and illegal practices such as unregulated logging continued to threaten long-term sustainability. The paper recommends establishing clear and effective collaboration frameworks that outline stakeholder roles and responsibilities. This would improve coordination, and support timely execution of projects. Strengthening partnerships with local communities is also encouraged, as their involvement in sourcing planting materials and participating in restoration activities can foster a sense of ownership and motivate sustained engagement.
VL - 11
IS - 1
ER -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Benjamin Mutuku Kinyili

Kenya Forest Service, Nairobi, Kenya

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3638-5753
Douglas Bwire

Center for Intentional Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya

Contact Email
James Mburu

Kenya Forest Service, Mombasa, Kenya

Contact Email
Mwamutsi Nasib Ali

Kenya Forest Service, Mombasa, Kenya

Contact Email
Kioko Nzioki

Kenya Forest Service, Nairobi, Kenya

Contact Email
Lorna Nyaga

Center for Intentional Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya

Contact Email
Ivy Amugune

Center for Intentional Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya

Contact Email
Safi Ibrahim

Kenya Forest Service, Mombasa, Kenya

Contact Email
Eunice Maina

Kenya Forest Service, Nairobi, Kenya

Contact Email

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Kinyili, B. M., Bwire, D., Mburu, J., Ali, M. N., Nzioki, K., et al. (2026). Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation in Kilifi County, Kenya. International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 11(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Kinyili, B. M.; Bwire, D.; Mburu, J.; Ali, M. N.; Nzioki, K., et al. Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation in Kilifi County, Kenya. Int. J. Nat. Resour. Ecol. Manag. 2026, 11(1), 23-34. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Kinyili BM, Bwire D, Mburu J, Ali MN, Nzioki K, et al. Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation in Kilifi County, Kenya. Int J Nat Resour Ecol Manag. 2026;11(1):23-34. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13,
  author = {Benjamin Mutuku Kinyili and Douglas Bwire and James Mburu and Mwamutsi Nasib Ali and Kioko Nzioki and Lorna Nyaga and Ivy Amugune and Safi Ibrahim and Eunice Maina},
  title = {Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation in Kilifi County, Kenya},
  journal = {International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management},
  volume = {11},
  number = {1},
  pages = {23-34},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20261101.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijnrem.20261101.13},
  abstract = {Mangrove ecosystems face numerous conservation challenges due to human-induced pressures, climate change, and natural disruptions. This paper discusses the restoration initiatives and obstacles encountered in conserving mangroves in Kilifi County, Kenya. Between 2019 and 2024, significant progress was recorded in various restoration sites across the county, with the planting of over 16 million propagules and seedlings. The main species targeted for restoration included Ceriops tagal, Rhizophora mucronata, and Avicennia marina, with efforts largely centered on mangrove rehabilitation. Restoration activities were carried out in key areas such as Kanagoni, Ngomeni, Kilifi Creek, and Mida Creek. The adoption of innovative techniques, such as enrichment planting, contributed to the overall success of these initiatives. Despite these positive outcomes, several challenges emerged. Environmental pressures, including damage by crabs and grazing animals, negatively affected seedling survival. Limited resources hindered the expansion of restoration efforts, while poor access to remote areas posed difficulties for consistent monitoring. Additionally, the lack of structured collaboration frameworks often delayed stakeholder coordination, and illegal practices such as unregulated logging continued to threaten long-term sustainability. The paper recommends establishing clear and effective collaboration frameworks that outline stakeholder roles and responsibilities. This would improve coordination, and support timely execution of projects. Strengthening partnerships with local communities is also encouraged, as their involvement in sourcing planting materials and participating in restoration activities can foster a sense of ownership and motivate sustained engagement.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download