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

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. # Data from: Evaluating biodiversity and socio-economic impacts of community-led mangrove restoration: a case study from Kenya Dataset DOI: [10.5061/dryad.fj6q5749b](doi.org) ## Description of the data and file structure Ecological and social surveys were conducted across three villages in the Magarini region of Kenya (Kadzyuni, Marereni, and Kibaoni) using a stratified random sampling design. A total of 67 10x10 m monitoring plots were established in this region along transects perpendicular to the waterline, spanning a gradient of forest condition (degraded, previously restored, and near-pristine sites) and tidal inundation zones. Ecological surveys assessed 12 metrics of vegetation structure and invertebrate community composition, including mangrove canopy cover, tree density, diameter at breast height (DBH), aboveground biomass (AGB), root and juvenile density, crab and snail abundance, burrow density, and invertebrate richness and diversity. Household surveys were conducted in December 2024 using structured interviews administered via KoboToolbox, sampling both community members directly involved in COBEC's restoration activities (n = 240) and adjacent non-participants (n = 143). Survey objectives included assessing awareness of mangrove ecosystem services, quantifying mangrove contributions to local livelihoods, evaluating community perceptions of the restoration project, and gathering input on challenges, opportunities, and strategies going forward. ### Files and variables #### File: Sila_et_al._(2026)_analysis_code.RMD **Description:** The R markdown file used to conduct all analysis and create all figures for the manuscript. #### File: COBEC_biodiversity_data_clean.csv **Description:** Ecological monitoring data collected from 10x10m permanent plots. ##### Variables: * uid: unique plot/survey identifier combining site code and survey date * region: broad survey region (e.g., Mida, Kadzyuni, Marereni, Kibaoni) * date_surveyed: date the plot was surveyed * observer: name of the field surveyor who collected the data * site_name: short site code for the monitoring plot (excluding the survey date) * latitude: plot latitude (decimal degrees) * longitude: plot longitude (decimal degrees) * site_type: survey classification of the plot (planted, baseline, or control) * forest_baseline: forest condition category (degraded, planted, or pristine) * tree_planting_date: date restoration planting occurred at the site, where applicable * inundation_zone: tidal inundation class (1–3) describing plot position relative to the waterline (1 = most seaward, 3 = most landward) * tide: tide height recorded at the time of survey * wind: wind speed or wind condition recorded at the time of survey * cloud_cover: cloud cover during the survey (%) * temp_C: air or water temperature recorded during the survey (°C) * salinity: salinity measured at the site * canopy_estimate: visually estimated canopy cover recorded as a percentage range * logged_stumps_count: count of logged or cut stumps observed in the plot * tree_species_observed: mangrove tree species observed in the plot * tree_species_richness: count of distinct mangrove tree species observed in the plot * tree_diversity_shannon: Shannon diversity index for mangrove tree species in the plot * tree_diversity_simpson: Simpson diversity index for mangrove tree species in the plot * tree_count: count of adult mangrove trees in the plot * tree_density: density of adult mangrove trees in the plot (trees per unit area) * H_litoralis_count: count of *Heritiera littoralis* individuals observed * R_mucronata_count: count of *Rhizophora mucronata* individuals observed * X_granatum_count: count of *Xylocarpus granatum* individuals observed * L_racemosa_count: count of *Lumnitzera racemosa* individuals observed * B_gymnorhiza_count: count of *Bruguiera gymnorhiza* individuals observed * S_alba_count: count of *Sonneratia alba* individuals observed * X_moluccensis_count: count of *Xylocarpus moluccensis* individuals observed * A_marina_count: count of *Avicennia marina* individuals observed * C_tagal_count: count of *Ceriops tagal* individuals observed * DBH_mean: mean diameter at breast height (DBH) of sampled trees (cm) * height_mean_in_situ: mean tree height measured in the field (m) * AGB_in_situ: aboveground biomass estimated from field measurements * root_density: density of mangrove prop or aerial roots in the plot * RC1: count of regeneration class 1 individuals (seedlings/saplings <40 cm tall) * RC2: count of regeneration class 2 individuals (saplings 40–150 cm tall) * RC3: count of regeneration class 3 individuals (>150 cm tall and <2.5 cm DBH) * total_juv: count of juvenile mangrove individuals (RC1 + RC2 + RC3) * burrows_under_1cm: count of invertebrate burrows <1 cm in diameter * burrows_over_1cm: count of invertebrate burrows >1 cm in diameter * burrows_total: total count of invertebrate burrows observed in the plot * fish_present: presence of fish in or near the plot (TRUE/FALSE) * birds_present: presence of birds in or near the plot (TRUE/FALSE) * baboons_present: presence of baboons in or near the plot (TRUE/FALSE) * invert_richness: count of distinct invertebrate genera observed * crab_richness: count of distinct crab genera observed * snail_richness: count of distinct snail genera observed * invert_diversity_shannon: Shannon diversity index for invertebrate genera * crab_diversity_shannon: Shannon diversity index for crab genera * snail_diversity_shannon: Shannon diversity index for snail genera * invert_diversity_simpson: Simpson diversity index for invertebrate genera * crab_diversity_simpson: Simpson diversity index for crab genera * snail_diversity_simpson: Simpson diversity index for snail genera * invert_count: count of invertebrate individuals observed * crab_count: count of crab individuals observed * snail_count: count of snail individuals observed * Amphibalanus: count of *Amphibalanus* individuals observed * Saccostrea: count of *Saccostrea* individuals observed * Cerithidea: count of *Cerithidea* individuals observed * Gibberulus: count of *Gibberulus* individuals observed * Littoraria: count of *Littoraria* individuals observed * Nerita: count of *Nerita* individuals observed * Terebralia: count of *Terebralia* individuals observed * Clibanarius: count of *Clibanarius* individuals observed * Dotilla: count of *Dotilla* individuals observed * Metopograpsus: count of *Metopograpsus* individuals observed * Pachygrapsus: count of *Pachygrapsus* individuals observed * Macrophthalmus: count of *Macrophthalmus* individuals observed * Astruca: count of *Astruca* individuals observed * Paraleptuca: count of *Paraleptuca* individuals observed * Tubuca: count of *Tubuca* individuals observed * Scylla: count of *Scylla* individuals observed * Cristarma: count of *Cristarma* individuals observed * Neosarmatium: count of *Neosarmatium* individuals observed * Paragrapsus_laevis: count of *Paragrapsus laevis* individuals observed * Parasesarma: count of *Parasesarma* individuals observed * Selatium: count of *Selatium* individuals observed * Unknown: count of unidentified invertebrate individuals observed * tree_size_class_diversity: diversity index across mangrove tree size classes * percent_juv_trees: percentage of mangrove trees classified as juveniles * years_since_planting: years elapsed since restoration planting, where applicable #### File: COBEC_household_survey_anonymized.csv **Description:** The response of 383 households to a survey completed in December 2024. ##### Variables: * UID: The unique numeric identifier associated with each survey response (no personally identifying information included). Question relevant for all respondents.  * Start: The date and time when the survey entry was initiated. Question relevant for all respondents.  * End: The date and time when the survey entry was concluded and submitted. Question relevant for all respondents.  * Questioner: The name of the COBEC team member who conducted the survey. Question relevant for all respondents.  * Q1_Consent: A yes/no response of whether the community member consented to participate in the survey. Question relevant for all respondents.  * Q2_Planter: A yes/no response to the following question: Do you belong to any conservation group directly involved in mangrove restoration activities? Question relevant for all respondents.  * Q2a_Group, Q2a_Role: A response to the following question, regarding Q2: If yes, Name of the group and your role in the group. Question relevant to tree planters only. * Q3_Restoration_awareness: A yes/no response to the following question: Do you know of any local efforts to conserve or restore natural ecosystems in this area? If respondents answered yes, they provided more detail in Q3a_Restoration_awareness. Question relevant to non-planters only. * Q4_Mangrove_awareness: A yes/no response to the following question: Are you familiar with mangroves and their role in the environment? If respondents answered yes, they provided more detail in Q4a_Mangrove_awareness. Question relevant to non-planters only. Question relevant to non-planters only. * Q5_Group_members: A numeric response to the following question: Total number of members. The number of males and females in the planting group were recorded in Q5a_Group_males and Q5b_Group_females. Question relevant to tree planters only. * Q6_Ward: The name of the ward in which the household was located. Question relevant to all respondents. *This field was removed to protect the identity of survey respondents. If you require this data for your analysis, please reach out to the corresponding author directly.*  * Q7_Forest_block: The name of the forest block located closest to the household. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q8_Residency: The residency status of the individual being surveyed. Options included permanent resident, recently settled, or immigrant. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q9_Gender: The gender of the respondent. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q10_Age: The age of the respondent. Question relevant to all respondents. *This field was removed to protect the identity of survey respondents. If you require this data for your analysis, please reach out to the corresponding author directly.*  * Q11_Household: The number of individuals in the household. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q12_Education: A response to the following question: What is your highest level of education? Options included no formal education, primary level, secondary level, college, and university. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q13_Marriage: The marital status of the respondent. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q14_Employment: A response to the following question: What is your main occupation? If other or self-employed was selected, respondents were asked to provide more information, which is shown in Q14a.  * Q15_Land_ownership: A response to the following question: What is your land ownership? Options included free hold, individual, communal, county government, and national government. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q16_Dist_to_mangroves_m: A response to the following question: What is the distance from your house to the mangrove forest (in m)? Question relevant to all respondents. * Q17_Mangrove_dependent_livelihoods: A response to the following question: Which of the livelihood activities of your household are dependent on mangrove forests? Options included fisheries, business, livestock, farming, beekeeping, tourism, employment, restoration, carpentry, none, or other. If other was selected, more information was provided in Q17a. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q18_Monthly_income: A response to the following question: What is your average household monthly income (in Ksh.)? Question relevant to all respondents. * Q19_Mangrove_dependent_income: A response to the following question: What % of your household monthly income comes from livelihood activities that are dependent on mangrove forests? Question relevant to all respondents. * Q20_Mangrove_income_use: A response to the following question: How is the income derived from the mangroves utilized? Options included education, food, healthcare, entertainment, no mangrove income, savings, livestock, reinvest, or other. If other was selected, more information was provided in Q20a. Question relevant to tree planters only.   * Q21_Days_planting_2023: A response to the following question: How many days per year were you involved in the project in 2023? Question relevant to tree planters only.  * Q21_Days_planting_2024:  A response to the following question: How many days per year were you involved in the project in 2024? Question relevant to tree planters only.  * Q21_Change: The difference in number of planting days between 2023 and 2024. Question relevant to tree planters only.  * Q22_Recommended_livelihood_activities: A response to the following question: What activities would you recommend, to improve local livelihoods? Options included fisheries, farming, business, livestock, beekeeping, tourism, sales, weaving, employment, and other. If other was selected, more information was provided in Q22a. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q23_Climate_impacts: A yes/no response to the following question: Have you experienced any environmental changes over the past few years that you believe are related to climate change? If respondents answered yes, they were asked to select what changes they'd observed from a list of options: changes in rainfall, temperature, sea level, fish stocks, crops, and forest cover.  Respondents could provide more detail in Q23a. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q24_Restoration_impact: A response to the following question: How has the mangrove restoration project impacted your livelihood or daily life? Options included improved income, better fishing, reduced sediment, improved environment, no impact, negative impact, or other. If other was selected, more information was provided in Q24a. Question relevant for tree planters only.  * Q25_Community_benefits_detailed: An open-ended response to the following question: Please describe in more detail the benefits you have observed in your community since the project began? Question relevant to all respondents. * Q26_Quality_life: A response to the following question on a Likert scale: Do you feel that the project has improved your quality of life since project started? Question relevant for tree planters only.  * Q27_Restoration_impacts: A yes/no response to the following question: Have you noticed changes in the mangrove ecosystem since the project began? Respondents who said provided more information in Q27a. Question relevant for tree planters only.  * Q28_Challenges: A response to the following question: What are the main challenges your community is facing? Options included drought, flooding, land disputes, housing, health, food and water availability, none, unemployment, poverty, availability of mangrove seedlings, availability of fishing gear, lack of access to education, or other. If other was selected, more information was provided in Q28a. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q29_Rainfall_change: A response to the following question: A response to the following question: How have you seen the rainfall patterns change over the years? Question relevant to all respondents. * Q30a_Scouts_reduce_logging: A Likert response of strong agreement to strong disagreement with the following statement: The community scouting program has helped reduce illegal activities in the mangrove forest ecosystem. Question relevant for tree planters only.  * Q30b_Scouts_duplicative: A Likert response of strong agreement to strong disagreement with the following statement: There is no need for community scouts because we have Kenya Forest Service rangers. Question relevant for tree planters only.  * Q30c_Logging_historic_problem: A Likert response of strong agreement to strong disagreement with the following statement: Illegal logging of mangroves has been a problem historically. Question relevant for tree planters only.  * Q30d_Logging_current_problem: A Likert response of strong agreement to strong disagreement with the following statement: Illegal logging of mangroves is currently a problem. Question relevant for tree planters only.  * Q30e_Continue_scouts: A Likert response of strong agreement to strong disagreement with the following statement: The community scouting program should continue. Question relevant for tree planters only.  * Q30f_Scouts_improve_security: A Likert response of strong agreement to strong disagreement with the following statement: The community scouting program has improved security in the local community. Question relevant for tree planters only.  * Q31_Medicine: A yes/no response to the following question: Are there mangrove species used for medicinal purpose? Species were indicated in Q31a. Question relevant to all respondents. * Q32_Recommended_conservation_activities: A response to the following question: What activities would you recommend that will benefit the conservation of the mangrove forest? Options included education, tree planting, forest patrols, climate adaptation, community engagement, or other. If other was selected, more information was provided in Q32a. Question relevant for tree planters only.  * Q33_Comm_benefits_1: A response to the following question: Which of the following community benefits do you think conservation activities would contribute to most? Options included alternative livelihoods, ecotourism, fisheries and biodiversity uplift, climate adaptation, financing, employment, unsure, or other. If other was selected, more information was provided in Q33a. Question relevant for tree planters only.  * Q34_Comm_benefits_2: A response to the following question: If an environmental project were to start in your area, which of the following benefits would you most hope to see for the community? Question relevant to all respondents.  * Q35_Concerns: A response to the following question, with reference to Q34: What concerns, if any, would you have about such a project? Question relevant to all respondents. * Q36_Barriers: A response to the following question, with reference to Q34: Are there any barriers that prevent you from participating in such project? Question relevant to all respondents. ## Code/software R Studio is required to run the code used to conduct analyses and make figures.  ## Human subjects data Household survey participants provided explicit consent before completing the survey, and the survey did not collect any personally identifiable information on participants.