Abstract
Nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly adopted across Africa to address water security challenges and biodiversity conservation and offer sustainable alternatives to traditional grey infrastructure. Government and non-governmental bodies have implemented interventions such as wetland restoration, afforestation, and rainwater harvesting in Kenya. However, published research outputs in peer-reviewed literature and academic documentation of long-term monitoring remain limited despite widespread field activity. Most data are confined to grey literature such as consultancy reports, donor dashboards, and internal evaluations, hindering comparative analysis, policy integration, and evidence-based scaling. This paper highlights Kenya as a case study to explore the disconnect between NbS implementation and scholarly dissemination. It identifies key challenges: lack of standardised monitoring protocols, fragmented institutional responsibilities, limited technical capacity, insecure data systems, and inadequate policy frameworks. Land tenure complexities and the underutilisation of community knowledge further constrain monitoring efforts. Additionally, the publication gap driven by structural barriers to academic writing and dissemination limits the visibility of local insights. To bridge these gaps, the paper proposes a strategic framework centred on three pillars: (1) institutionalising adaptive monitoring through living labs, (2) developing a national open-access NbS data repository, and (3) embedding standardised NbS indicators into policy, planning, and financing instruments. The paper calls for policy reforms, capacity building, and sustainable (long-term) financing to enable integration of grey literature into academic channels. Strengthening monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) systems is essential to mainstreaming NbS into Kenya’s water governance and achieving resilient, inclusive development outcomes.
1 Introduction: the monitoring disconnect in NbS for water security
Nature-based solutions (NbS) are actions that protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems and address societal challenges such as water security, climate change, disaster risk, and human wellbeing while providing biodiversity benefits and supporting ecosystem services. They rely on ecological processes to deliver co-benefits across environmental, social, and economic dimensions (). Over the past two decades, Africa has experienced a significant increase in NbS aimed at improving water security. Interventions such as wetland restoration, catchment afforestation, conservation agriculture, and decentralised rainwater harvesting have gained popularity as cost-effective and environmentally sustainable alternatives to traditional grey infrastructure (). Various government agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and international donors have widely adopted these methods in response to rising concerns about climate variability, hydrological stress, and the limitations of centralised infrastructure systems (; ; World Commission on Dams, 2001). Nevertheless, despite this practical progress, the academic literature on the topic remains limited and fragmented (). Monitoring data from these interventions is often restricted to consultancy reports, donor dashboards, and internal evaluations, which limits their use in comparative analysis, peer learning, and evidence-based policymaking. A review by the World Resources Institute found that across Sub-Saharan Africa, many NbS projects lack long-term monitoring frameworks and centralised data repositories, limiting data reuse, external verification, and policy application (). A robust monitoring framework is crucial for NbS because it provides evidence to demonstrate effectiveness, build stakeholder trust, and guide adaptive management for long-term success (). This gap between extensive field implementation and limited academic dissemination is a critical issue and is a barrier to the institutionalisation, replication, and upscaling of NbS across the continent.
Kenya presents a compelling case study of this gap. As a water-scarce country, Kenya’s per capita freshwater availability has fallen significantly below the United Nations threshold of 1,000 m3/year. It is expected to decrease further due to rapid population growth, faster urbanisation, and increasing climate variability (Winrock Inte rnational, 2017; ; ; ). Recurring droughts, rising irrigation demands, and urban water pressures have intensified the strain on already limited water systems (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ) (Supplementary Table S1). Various NbS initiatives have been introduced in response, especially in the country’s arid and semi-arid regions (ASALs), where hydrological extremes are most severe (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). These initiatives, mainly delivered through partnerships involving National and County governments, the Water Resources Authority (WRA), NGOs, and community-based organisations (CBOs), include sand dams, reforestation of degraded catchments, and agroecological land-use methods aimed at increasing infiltration, improving water retention, and reducing drought vulnerability (; ; ; ; ; ). While these efforts have demonstrated local benefits, the wider effectiveness, scalability, and long-term impact of NbS are still not well documented in academic literature. Monitoring tools such as Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) time series, flow gauges, and groundwater piezometers are commonly used to assess ecosystem responses and water availability. For example, NDVI has been utilised to monitor vegetation changes after sand dam construction and to support drought early warning systems (; ; ). However, much of this data remains unpublished or stored in non-public sources, hindering opportunities for cross-case analysis and reducing its influence on national policy or global discussions (). documented this gap by a recent systematic review that identified only 30 peer-reviewed publications on NbS and water resource management in Kenya’s ASALs.
This perspective paper argues that bridging the gap between implementation and scholarship is essential to realising the full potential of NbS for water management in Africa. Using case studies from Kenya, it highlights gaps between practice, monitoring, and peer-reviewed evidence that hinder institutional adoption and policy integration. It proposes a strategic framework that centres on adaptive monitoring and open-access data infrastructure, drawing lessons from global initiatives and local NbS pilots. It also incorporates standardised performance metrics into planning and decision-making to address these issues. They establish a foundation for more coherent, scalable, and evidence-based implementation, which can better inform national policies and international discourse by aligning monitoring protocols, encouraging co-publication models, and integrating grey literature into academic channels. Mainstreaming experiential knowledge into formal governance systems will be crucial for advancing inclusive and resilient water security across the continent.
2 Challenges and knowledge gaps in monitoring NbS in Kenya
Although Kenya has made notable progress in implementing NbS for water resource management, a persistent gap remains between practical field applications and the evidence documented in peer-reviewed literature (). Numerous projects at the local level have shown measurable improvements in water availability, ecosystem health, and community resilience. However, the monitoring data produced by these projects are mainly confined to internal reports and donor dashboards, restricting their utility in comparative analysis, policy formulation, and academic discussion. A series of documented restoration initiatives in Kenya exemplifies the challenges of disseminating ecological outcomes through peer-reviewed literature (Supplementary Table S1). The Yala Swamp Rehabilitation Project has focused on restoring degraded wetland ecosystems and promoting community-led conservation. Reports on it highlight the establishment of Community Conserved Areas and the use of satellite data alongside participatory assessments to monitor ecological change. However, much of this information remains in project reports (; ), with few, if any, can be found in academic journals. Various interconnected challenges limit the broader monitoring of NbS and hinder the development of a robust evidence base.
2.1 Lack of standardised monitoring protocols and indicators
One major obstacle is the lack of standardised monitoring protocols and indicators, which prevents effective comparison across sites (Wandera, 2017). For example, some projects measure turbidity using nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs), others assess sediment yield with manual grab samples, while some rely on remote sensing indices like NDVI or use soil-moisture sensors, often with inconsistent calibration and temporal resolutions (; ; ; ). This methodological diversity complicates data aggregation and the synthesis of results across interventions. Institutional fragmentation further hampers effective monitoring and coordination. In Kenya, the Forest Conservation and Management Act (2016) mandates the Kenya Forest Services (KFS) to oversee afforestation and wetland protection, while the Water Act (2016) assigns the Water Resources Authority (WRA) responsibility for regulating water-use permits and hydrological monitoring. Meanwhile, county governments, NGOs, and CBOs often operate independently, each with its own monitoring protocols. These overlapping mandates lead to duplicated data collection efforts, unclear custodianship of datasets, and a lack of consistent long-term monitoring, weakening the capacity to track NbS performance across regions systematically (; ).
2.2 Financial and technical gaps
Funding constraints substantially limit the ability to monitor NbS in Kenya and to convert monitoring results into peer-reviewed outputs. Robust biodiversity and hydrological monitoring are inherently time- and labour-intensive because valid inference often requires repeated, spatially extensive surveys and long temporal baselines, which multiply field costs and logistical complexity (Yoccoz et al., 2001). Many modern methods that reduce taxonomic bottlenecks also add laboratory and bioinformatics expenses and require specialist skills that are absent or costly to procure locally. Donor and project funding in Kenya is typically front-loaded toward capital works and short project cycles, leaving little secured financing for the sustained field teams, instrument maintenance, data curation and third-party verification that underpin publishable, high-quality datasets (). National and project reviews further document gaps in monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) budgets, fragmented financing lines across agencies, and the practical difficulty of sustaining trained staff beyond a project’s lifetime, all of which drive data into internal reports and grey literature rather than the peer-reviewed record (World Bank, 2019). Furthermore, funding mechanisms in many NbS projects favour initial capital investments, such as tree planting or water infrastructure, over continuous monitoring and data management (). As a result, when donor funding ends, systematic data collection often stops. Making this worse, many data repositories are stored on fragmented or insecure platforms, usually lacking metadata standards or public access, which limits data reuse, external verification, or policy application ().
Technical capacity constraints remain a significant barrier to implementing and monitoring NbS in Kenya. Many county-level water offices and local NGOs lack sufficient expertise in technical skills such as remote sensing analysis, hydrological modelling, and digital database management. This gap is worsened by frequent staff turnover, which weakens continuity in data collection and quality assurance protocols (). Limited technical training among project staff hampers the adoption of geospatial tools and adaptive monitoring systems. Additionally, high turnover among environmental officers and technicians, often driven by short-term project cycles, disrupts long-term data collection, especially for community-based water monitoring initiatives.
An additional challenge concerns the publication and communication of monitoring results. Many NbS practitioners, especially locally, rely on grey literature (e.g., internal reports, student theses, consultancy documents) rather than formal peer-reviewed publications. For example, noted that grey literature was vital in identifying 52 real-world NbS case studies across the Global South, highlighting its importance in capturing practical insights often absent from academic publications. This reliance stems from structural barriers, including time constraints, lack of academic writing experience, high publishing costs, lengthy peer-review processes and exclusion of academic reporting from donor funding requirements (Young et al., 2014; ; ). As a result, valuable project-level insights remain underrepresented in scientific literature, limiting their integration into policy and adaptive management frameworks (). Therefore, the combined effect of high recurring costs, technical capacity needs and short-term funding cycles makes long-term, publishable NbS monitoring in Kenya difficult without dedicated, sustained investment and explicit budget lines for data analysis and dissemination ().
2.3 Policy and regulation challenges
Gaps in policy and regulation complicate the technical and institutional challenges faced when monitoring NbS in Kenya. Although the Water Act (2016) mandates the MEL of water resources, it does not specify performance metrics specific to NbS, nor does it establish a centralised repository for MEL data or provide incentives for transparent reporting or data sharing (). Consequently, monitoring efforts by county water directorates and CBOs are mostly confined to internal reporting formats, such as annual work plans and County Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs). These datasets are rarely shared publicly or are difficult to locate, hindering national-level analysis and assessment (; WASREB, 2025). The complexity of land tenure further restricts sustainable environmental monitoring. In Kenya, the coexistence of customary and statutory tenure systems often leads to disputed access to monitoring sites. FAO’s KnoWat project demonstrates how overlapping water tenure arrangements (formal, customary, and indigenous) can create unclear rights and responsibilities, complicating long-term monitoring and community engagement (). Inconsistent or exclusionary engagement with local communities has been linked to mistrust, sporadic data collection, and withdrawal of consent (; ).
3 Regional and global lessons for advancing NbS monitoring frameworks
Kenya’s challenges in monitoring NbS reflect systemic issues common across many low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Multiple assessments, including those by , UNEP (2021a), and have documented similar monitoring shortfalls in Ghana, Ethiopia, Nepal, and Bangladesh. These include the lack of standardised indicators, fragmented interagency data-sharing, and the inadequate integration of indigenous knowledge, all hindering adaptive management and cross-site comparability. In South Africa, for example, the Water Research Commission’s WET-RehabEvaluate program found that decentralised rainwater harvesting and wetland rehabilitation projects often operate without consistent long-term monitoring protocols, limiting scalability and learning (Walters et al., 2019). The EMERALD programme, which worked to strengthen mental health systems in Ethiopia, India, Nepal, South Africa, and Uganda, found that weak governance, low resource bases, and poor information systems were common barriers to effective monitoring and evaluation across sectors (). India’s Namami Gange programme has struggled with integrating fragmented water quality data due to varying monitoring standards and a lack of interoperable systems (). Similarly, in Uganda, wetland restoration projects face difficulties due to limited ecological monitoring capacity and inconsistencies in data collection, affecting cross-site comparability and policy integration (). These patterns underscore the need for Kenya and comparable LMICs to establish context-sensitive but standardised monitoring frameworks, build sustained technical capacity at local and institutional levels, and invest in long-term financing mechanisms. Doing so is essential to enhance the effectiveness, comparability, and policy relevance of NbS for water resource management (NbS Knowledge Hub).
In contrast, several developed-country frameworks offer practical lessons that can inform Kenya’s NbS monitoring architecture. The EU’s Horizon 2020 OPERANDUM (https://www.operandum-project.eu/) and URBAN-GreenUP (https://www.urbangreenup.eu/) projects have developed standardised NbS performance metrics that span multiple biomes, focusing on co-benefits such as flood regulation, urban cooling, and biodiversity enhancement. The UK Environment Agency’s “Working with Natural Processes” framework () integrates hydrological and ecological indicators to assess NbS effectiveness at catchment scales, while the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Infrastructure Performance Measures framework (https://www.epa.gov/water-research/stormwater-management-research) provides standardised indicators for stormwater NbS performance. These established frameworks demonstrate how clear indicator definitions, cross-agency coordination, and open data infrastructure can enhance accountability, comparability, and adaptive management. LMICs can learn from these initiatives that demonstrate the value of mainstreaming NbS into land-use planning, developing integrated evidence bases and reference frameworks, strengthening market demand for NbS in climate adaptation and hydro-meteorological risk reduction, improving disaster risk management, and aligning NbS implementation with broader policy goals such as the SDGs, the EIP Water priorities, and disaster risk prevention frameworks.
4 Roadmap to improving Kenya’s NbS monitoring: tools and approaches
Effective implementation of NbS in Kenya requires a comprehensive MEL framework that addresses technical, institutional, legal, and financial challenges. This includes integrating biophysical indicators such as infiltration rates, flow-duration curves, and vegetation metrics with socio-economic measures, e.g., community engagement and livelihood outcomes (WRA, 2019; UNEP, 2021b). According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), effective NbS for water management must explicitly address the water–biodiversity–energy nexus, recognising that land cover and hydrological changes influence freshwater availability, ecosystem health, and energy production (; WRA, 2019; ).
To address the challenge of developing standardised monitoring protocols across diverse ecosystems, Kenya’s framework should adopt a tiered indicator system that balances national consistency with ecological specificity. This can be achieved by defining a core set of harmonised biophysical and socio-economic indicators (listed above) that are applicable across all NbS types. These core indicators would ensure comparability and facilitate aggregation of results at national and regional levels. Alongside these, ecosystem-specific add-on metrics (for example, wetland extent and sediment retention for wetlands, canopy cover and soil organic carbon for forests, or infiltration efficiency and vegetation recovery for rangelands) would capture local ecological processes more accurately. The co-development of these protocols through multi-stakeholder collaboration involving WRA, KFS, county governments, academic institutions, NGOs, and CBOs will help align methods, share resources, and promote interoperability of data systems while maintaining flexibility for site-level adaptation. An open-access NbS data repository, built upon the existing Kenya Open Data Portal, should facilitate cataloguing raw datasets, metadata, and technical reports under these standardised schemas with well-documented Application Programming Interfaces (API). This would promote secondary analysis and interoperability with global NbS platforms (). To ensure data security and usability, the repository must adopt metadata standards and include protocols for data verification, version control, and access permissions. The Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) provides frameworks for standardisation and quality assurance that could guide such efforts (https://www.kebs.org/).
Institutional fragmentation can be addressed by forming an NbS Monitoring Task Force under the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Forestry, coordinating data sharing, refining guidelines, and convening regular knowledge exchange workshops. Legal reforms are also necessary: while the Water Act (2016) mandates water resource monitoring, it does not include NbS-specific performance metrics or mandate a centralised MEL repository. Recent updates to the Water (Amendment) Act, 2024, and the Water Services Regulations 2025 emphasise intergovernmental coordination and citizen engagement, offering a foundation for such reforms (WASREB, 2025). Legal incentives for transparent reporting and data sharing should also be introduced to encourage compliance across agencies and projects. The Environmental Management and Coordination (Water Quality) Regulations 2023 already emphasise the role of lead agencies in maintaining monitoring records and ensuring compliance with quality standards (). Technical capacity must be strengthened through targeted training programs for county staff, CBO members, and citizen scientists. The WASREB Impact Report (2025) highlights ongoing efforts to build capacity at the county level and improve data accuracy and compliance (WASREB, 2025). These can be supported by regional centres of excellence at universities, providing support in remote sensing, hydrological modelling, and digital database management. Long-term contracts and institutional memory mechanisms should be prioritised to address high staff turnover. Equally important, grassroots and community participation must be central to Kenya’s NbS monitoring systems. Citizen-science and community-based MEL frameworks strengthen local ownership, trust, and data continuity beyond project lifecycles. Embedding these approaches within county and national programmes ensures that locally generated knowledge complements scientific data, fostering inclusive decision-making and sustained environmental stewardship. To overcome funding biases toward capital investments, project budgets should earmark at least 10%–15% of total funds for long-term MEL (). The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) advocates for strategic development assistance that funds infrastructure and supports long-term resilience through sustained investment in data systems, institutional capacity, and inclusive governance. This should be supported by multi-year grants and cost-sharing agreements among donors, government agencies, and communities (). Additionally, outcome-based financing models such as green bonds, impact-linked payments, and blended finance mechanisms should be explored to sustain monitoring beyond project lifecycles. UNDP’s work with Integrated National Financing Frameworks (INFFs) and SDG Investor Maps demonstrates how countries can align public and private investments with long-term sustainability goals ().
Land tenure complexities must also be addressed. Monitoring frameworks should include protocols for securing site access under customary and statutory tenure systems. This includes obtaining free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) from local communities and clarifying rights and responsibilities through participatory mapping and legal recognition of community monitoring roles. Complementing these safeguards, a bottom-up, co-creation approach across the entire NbS cycle, from problem framing and option scoping, co-design of interventions and indicators, co-implementation and capacity building, participatory monitoring, data stewardship and adaptive management, through to co-evaluation, dissemination, and benefit-sharing, can deliver multiple benefits, including citizen empowerment and social cohesion, knowledge co-production, environmental awareness, and strengthened green-economy and business cooperation. Together, these measures build trust, ensure continuity, and avoid conflicts that disrupt data collection while improving data quality and policy uptake.
To bridge the publication gap, funding agreements should allocate explicit resources for generating peer-reviewed outputs during and after each project cycle. This support should include writing workshops, mentorship programmes, and coverage of open-access fees for NGOs, governmental, and community partners. Encouraging co-authorship among practitioners, county officers, and researchers enhances data transparency, upholds academic integrity, and ensures that locally generated evidence informs policy and practice. The OpenScienceKE initiative in Kenya exemplifies this approach through its “sensitise-train-hack-collaborate” model, which builds capacity in open-science practices among early-career researchers (). Grey literature should also be systematically integrated into academic channels through co-publication models and institutional partnerships, increasing the visibility of practical insights and their uptake in policy processes. Platforms such as the University of Nairobi’s Digital Repository and the University of Bern’s BORIS Portal (https://www.ub.unibe.ch/service/open_science/boris_portal/index_ger.html) demonstrate how open-access systems can improve research transparency, foster collaboration, and make knowledge more accessible for evidence-based decision-making. Collectively, these efforts are vital for advancing inclusive and resilient water governance in Kenya by recognising and valuing the contributions of local practitioners within the scientific discourse ().
5 Recommendations
To unlock Kenya’s NbS potential for water security, we propose three strategic pillars grounded in global best practices and Kenya’s own pilots.
a. Living Labs for Adaptive Monitoring: Living labs (real-world co-designed testbeds) are powerful platforms to adapt NbS to Kenya’s diverse landscapes that foster co-management and real-time data for adaptive decision-making (). The Wyss Academy for Nature at the University of Bern is experimenting with such an approach with its semi-circular bunds project in the Naibunga Community Conservancy in Laikipia (Supplementary Table S1). In Peru, such labs have boosted water retention, flood resilience, and community buy-in .
b. Build an Open NbS Data Repository: A national platform following FAIR data principles (Wilkinson et al., 2016) would centralise geo-tagged NbS data on NDVI, infiltration, carbon fluxes, and socio-economic outcomes across sectors. Inspired by platforms like Global Water Observing System (GWOS) and South Africa’s Water Source Areas database, Kenya’s version should feature APIs, interactive dashboards, and links to global tools like the UNEP NbS Evidence Platform. CIFOR-ICRAF’s recent NbS Indicators Dashboard marks a step in this direction, but broader adoption and interoperability are still needed ().
c. Embed NbS Metrics into Planning and Finance: Robust, standardised NbS indicators—e.g., vegetation change, flow duration curves, household water access—should be hardwired into climate plans, development strategies, and budget tools. Tying these to green bonds and results-based financing (e.g., impact bonds in Latin America) can drive accountability and investment (; ). To ensure uptake and impact, governments must co-create these financing frameworks with investors and communities.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
CO: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. SS: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. MO: Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Project administration.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Wyss Academy for Nature at the University of Bern.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1702096/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AliS.SangY. F.PillaF.SinghV. P.DilawarA. (2025). Implementing urban rainwater harvesting systems: multiple potential performances, barriers, challenges, solutions, and future perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.218, 115793. 10.1016/j.rser.2025.115793
2
AnsarA.FlyvbjergB.BudzierA.LunnD. (2014). Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development. Energy Policy69, 43–56. 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.069
3
BruijnzeelL. A. (2004). Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees?Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.104 (1), 185–228. 10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.015
4
BuytaertW.ZulkafliZ.GraingerS.AcostaL.AlemieT. C.BastiaensenJ.et al (2014). Citizen science in hydrology and water resources: opportunities for knowledge generation, ecosystem service management, and sustainable development. Front. Earth Sci. (Lausanne)2, 104024. 10.3389/feart.2014.00026
5
CastelliG.PiemonteseL.QuinnR.AertsJ.ElsnerP.ErtsenM.et al (2022). Sand dams for sustainable water management: challenges and future opportunities. Sci. Total Environ.838, 156126. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156126
6
ChaussonA.TurnerB.SeddonD.ChabaneixN.GirardinC. A. J.KaposV.et al (2020). Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob. Chang. Biol.26 (11), 6134–6155. 10.1111/gcb.15310
7
ChristmannS. (2022). Regard and protect ground-nesting pollinators as part of soil biodiversity. Ecol. Appl.32 (3), e2564. 10.1002/eap.2564
8
Cohen-ShachamE.WaltersG.JanzenC.MaginnisS. (2016). Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature.
9
Cohen-ShachamE.AndradeA.DaltonJ.DudleyN.JonesM.KumarC.et al (2019). Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling nature-based solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy98, 20–29. 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.014
10
Darwin Initiative (2017). Balancing development and conservation in kenya’s largest freshwater wetland: final report. Available online at: https://www.naturekenya.org.
11
Diramo KofaA.SabalaK.MutungiJ. (2024). National food policies and food security in Kenya’s Arid and semi-arid lands. IJFMR6, 24523. 10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i04.24523
12
DroujkoJ.MolnarP. (2022). Open-source, low-cost, in-situ turbidity sensor for river network monitoring. Sci. Rep.12 (1), 10341–13. 10.1038/s41598-022-14228-4
13
DunnC.LlosaL.ReyesE. M.AgatonC. B.LlosaC. D. L.ReyesE. M.et al (2025). “Drivers of successful implementation of nature-based solutions initiatives: challenges and policy recommendations,” in Nature-based solutions for urban and peri-urban, 309–326.
14
EismaJ. A.SaksenaS.MerwadeV. (2021). Assessing the impact of land cover, soil, and climate on the storage potential of dryland sand dams. Front. Water3, 671455. 10.3389/frwa.2021.671455
15
Environment Agency (2018). Working with natural processes-evidence directory. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency/about/research.
16
FAO (2023). Knowing water better: towards fairer and more sustainable access to natural resources - KnoWat. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/in-action/knowat/wt-assessment/water-tenure/en/ (Accessed July 30, 2025).
17
FunderM.DanielsenF.NgagaY.NielsenM. R.PoulsenM. K. (2013). Reshaping conservation: the social dynamics of participatory monitoring in Tanzania’s community-managed forests. Conservation Soc.11 (3), 218–232. 10.4103/0972-4923.121011
18
FunkC.PetersonP.LandsfeldM.PedrerosD.VerdinJ.ShuklaS.et al (2015). The climate hazards infrared precipitation with stations—a new environmental record for monitoring extremes. Sci. Data2 (1), 150066–21. 10.1038/sdata.2015.66
19
GebrechorkosS. H.HülsmannS.BernhoferC. (2020). Analysis of climate variability and droughts in East Africa using high-resolution climate data products. Glob. Planet Change186, 103130. 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2020.103130
20
GiglerB. S.BailurS. (2014). Closing the feedback loop can technology bridge the accountability gap?
21
Government of Kenya (2016). The water act.
22
HerrickJ. E.SchumanG. E.RangoA. (2006). Monitoring ecological processes for restoration projects. J. Nat. Conserv.14 (3–4), 161–171. 10.1016/j.jnc.2006.05.001
23
HossainM.LeminenS.WesterlundM. (2019). A systematic review of living lab literature. J. Clean. Prod.213, 976–988. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257
24
HuhoJ. M.MugalavaiE. M. (2010). The effects of droughts on food security in Kenya. Int. J. Clim. Change Impacts Responses2 (2), 61–72. 10.18848/1835-7156/cgp/v02i02/37312
25
ICRAF (2025). Delivering Nature-based solution outcomes by addressing policy, institutional and monitoring gaps in forest and landscape restoration (FLR) Co-creation workshop for the NbS indicators dashboard.
26
IFAD (2019). Climate action report. Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development.
27
IlstedtU.MalmerA.VerbeetenE.MurdiyarsoD. (2007). The effect of afforestation on water infiltration in the tropics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. For Ecol Manage251 (1–2), 45–51. 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.014
28
IlstedtU.Bargués TobellaA.BaziéH. R.BayalaJ.VerbeetenE.NybergG.et al (2016). Intermediate tree cover can maximize groundwater recharge in the seasonally dry tropics. Sci. Rep.6 (1), 21930–12. 10.1038/srep21930
29
IPBES (2019). The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services summary for policymakers summary for policymakers of the IPBES global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Available online at: https://www.ipbes.net.
30
IPBES (2024). Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment report on the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES. Available online at: https://zenodo.org/records/13850290.
31
JacksonC. M.DurowojuO. S.AdelabuS. A.AdeniyiS. A. (2025). An assessment of Kenya’s forest policy and law on participatory forest management for sustainable forest management: insights from Mt. Kenya forest reserve. Trees, For. People19, 100770. 10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100770
32
JICA (2013). The development of the national water master plan 2030.
33
KimJ.KwonS.ChungS.KimY. D. (2025). Turbidity and suspended sediment relationship based on sediment composition and particle size distribution. Sci. Rep.15 (1), 16286–12. 10.1038/s41598-025-00435-2
34
KlischA.AtzbergerC. (2016). Operational drought monitoring in Kenya using MODIS NDVI time series. Remote Sens.8 (4), 267. 10.3390/rs8040267
35
KNBS (2019). 2019 Kenya population and housing census volume 1: population by county and sub-county, 49. Available online at: https://www.knbs.or.ke/?wpdmpro=2019-kenya-population-and-housing-census-volume-i-population-by-county-and-sub-county.
36
KundzewiczZ. W.DöllP. (2009). Will groundwater ease freshwater stress under climate change?Hydrological Sci. J.54 (4), 665–675. 10.1623/hysj.54.4.665
37
LalR. (2005). Forest soils and carbon sequestration. For Ecol Manage220 (1–3), 242–258. 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.015
38
LamM. R.MatanóA.Van LoonA. F.OdongoR. A.TeklesadikA. D.WamuciiC. N.et al (2023). Linking reported drought impacts with drought indices, water scarcity and aridity: the case of Kenya. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.23 (9), 2915–2936. 10.5194/nhess-23-2915-2023
39
LindenmayerD. B.LikensG. E. (2010). The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biol. Conserv.143 (6), 1317–1328. 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.013
40
LocatelliB.PavageauC.PramovaE.Di GregorioM. (2015). Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: opportunities and trade-offs. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change6 (6), 585–598. 10.1002/wcc.357
41
MaidmentR. I.GrimesD.BlackE.TarnavskyE.YoungM.GreatrexH.et al (2017). A new, long-term daily satellite-based rainfall dataset for operational monitoring in Africa. Sci. Data4 (1), 170063–19. 10.1038/sdata.2017.63
42
MajidH.JafriL.AhmedS.AbidM. A.AamirM.IjazA.et al (2022). Publication dynamics: what can be done to eliminate barriers to publishing full manuscripts by the postgraduate trainees of a low-middle income country?BMC Res. Notes15 (1), 249–6. 10.1186/s13104-022-06138-5
43
MarijuanR.DíezB.Peláez-SánchezS.SánchezC.IglesiasJ.ŞirinB.et al (2024). Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions on the provision of water-related and water-dependant ecosystem services. Nature-Based Solutions6, 100194. 10.1016/j.nbsj.2024.100194
44
MarshallS. (2011). The water crisis in Kenya: causes, effects and solutions. Glob. Major. E-Journal2, 31–45.
45
Meinzen-DickR.QuisumbingA.DossC.TheisS. (2019). Women’s land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: framework and review of available evidence. Agric. Syst.172, 72–82. 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.009
46
Ministry of Water (2021). The national water resources strategy (2020-2025). Available online at: https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC214249/.
47
MirsafaM.CastaldoA. G.Lemes de OliveiraF. (2025). Enabling nature-based solutions for climate adaptation in cities of the global south: planning dimensions and cross-cutting pathways for implementation. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1–25. 10.1007/s10668-025-06256-7
48
MulwaF.LiZ.FangninouF. F.MulwaF.LiZ.FangninouF. F. (2021). Water scarcity in Kenya: current status, challenges and future solutions. Open Access Libr. J.8 (1), 1–15. 10.4236/oalib.1107096
49
MuoriaP.FieldR.MatikuP.MungutuS.MatecheE.ShatiS.et al (2015). Balancing development and conservation in Kenya’s largest freshwater wetland - yala swamp ecosystem service assessment report. Available online at: https://www.naturekenya.org.
50
MwangiK. W.MainyeN.OusoD. O.EsohK.MurayaA. W.MwangiC. K.et al (2021). Open science in Kenya: where are we?Front. Res. Metr. Anal.6, 669675. 10.3389/frma.2021.669675
51
NdekeziM.KaluliJ. W.HomeP. G. (2023). Performance evaluation of sand dams as a rural rainwater conservation and domestic water supply technology in East-African drylands, a case-study from South-Eastern Kenya. Cogent Eng.10 (1), 2163572. 10.1080/23311916.2022.2163572
52
NelJ. L.RouxD. J.DriverA.HillL.MaherryA. C.SnaddonK.et al (2016). Knowledge co-production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans. Conserv. Biol.30 (1), 176–188. 10.1111/cobi.12560
53
NEMA (2023). Environmental management and coordination (water quality) regulations. Nairobi, Kenya: National Environment Managament Authority.
54
NettiA. M.AbdelwahabO. M. M.DatolaG.RicciG. F.DamianiP.OppioA.et al (2024). Assessment of nature-based solutions for water resource management in agricultural environments: a stakeholders’ perspective in Southern Italy. Sci. Rep.14 (1), 24668–18. 10.1038/s41598-024-76346-5
55
NicholsJ. D.WilliamsB. K. (2006). Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol.21 (12), 668–673. 10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.007
56
OkelloC.GithioraY. W.SitholeS.OwuorM. A. (2024). Nature-based solutions for water resource management in Africa’s Arid and Sem-Arid lands (ASALs): a systematic review of existing interventions. Nature-Based Solutions6, 100172. 10.1016/j.nbsj.2024.100172
57
OliverE.MarstersL. (2022). Nature-based solutions in Sub-Saharan Africa for climate and water resilience: a methodology for evaluating the regional status of investments in nature-based solutions from a scan of multilateral development bank portfolios. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
58
O’BrienC. M.MossmanM.ChamberlainL.JenkinsJ.WatsonJ.WilsonR.et al (2024). Community-centered instrumentation and monitoring of nature-based solutions for urban stormwater control. Front. Water6, 1370501. 10.3389/frwa.2024.1370501
59
Pahl-WostlC. (2019). Governance of the water-energy-food security nexus: a multi-level coordination challenge. Environ. Sci. Policy92, 356–367. 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.017
60
RowellD. P.BoothB. B. B.NicholsonS. E.GoodP. (2015). Reconciling past and future rainfall trends over East Africa. J. Clim.28 (24), 9768–9788. 10.1175/jcli-d-15-0140.1
61
Rucavado RojasD.PostigoJ. C. (2025). The cycle of underrepresentation: structural and institutional factors limiting the representation of global south authors and knowledge in the IPCC. Clim. Change178 (2), 19–11. 10.1007/s10584-025-03857-z
62
SavenijeH. H. G.Van der ZaagP. (2008). Integrated water resources management: concepts and issues. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C33 (5), 290–297. 10.1016/j.pce.2008.02.003
63
SemrauM.Evans-LackoS.AlemA.Ayuso-MateosJ. L.ChisholmD.GurejeO.et al (2015). Strengthening mental health systems in low- and middle-income countries: the Emerald programme. BMC Med.13, 79. 10.1186/s12916-015-0309-4
64
SrivastavaB.SandhaS.RaychoudhuryV.RandhawaS.KapoorV.AgrawalA. (2016). An open, multi-sensor, dataset of water pollution of Ganga Basin and its application to understand impact of large religious gathering. Available online at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.05626.
65
The World Bank Group (2021). Maximizing finance for development: impact bonds for water and sanitation in Latin America and the Caribbean. Available online at: https://www.worldbank.org.
66
TwinomujuniD.TumwebazeA.BalukuE.OgwalF. S.KomakechR. (2024). Wetland restoration and conservation. Case of Uganda. East Afr. J. Environ. Nat. Resour.7 (1), 391–400. 10.37284/eajenr.7.1.2153
67
UNDP (2022). Budgeting for SDGs: a modular handbook. Available online at: https://sdgfinance.undp.org.
68
UNDP (2025). Sustainable finance at UNDP.
69
UNEP (2021a). State of finance for nature tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Available online at: http://www.un.org/Depts/.
70
UNEP (2021b). Progress on integrated water resources management. Available online at: https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm.
71
WaltersD.KotzeD.CowdenC.BrowneM.GrewcockM.JanksM.et al (2019). WET-rehabevaluate version 2: an integrated monitoring and evaluation framework to assess wetland rehabilitation in South Africa report to the water research commission. Available online at: https://www.wrc.org.za.
72
WanderaM. (2017). Sustainable rain-water harvesting strategies: lessons and opportunities for developing societies Africa.
73
WASREB (2025). Impact report no. 17: a performance report of Kenya’s water services sector 2023/24.
74
WilkinsonM. D.DumontierM.AalbersbergI. J.AppletonG.AxtonM.BaakA.et al (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data3, 160018. 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
75
Winrock International (2017). Kenya water resources profile overview.
76
World Bank (2019). Kenya - country environmental analysis.
77
World Commission on Dams (2001). Dams and development: a new framework for decision-making overview of the report by the world commission on dams. Available online at: https://www.dams.org/report/.
78
WRA (2019). Water resources authority strategic plan 2018 – 2022.
79
YoccozN. G.NicholsJ. D.BoulinierT. (2001). Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol. Evol.16 (8), 446–453. 10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02205-4
80
YoungJ. C.WaylenK. A.SarkkiS.AlbonS.BainbridgeI.BalianE.et al (2014). Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers. Conserv.23 (2), 387–404. 10.1007/s10531-013-0607-0
Summary
Keywords
nature-based solutions (nbs), adaptive monitoring, sustainable water management, monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL), grey literature, water governance
Citation
Okello C, Sithole S and Owuor MA (2025) From grey literature to peer-reviewed evidence: bridging the monitoring gap of nature-based solutions for Kenya’s water resources. Front. Environ. Sci. 13:1702096. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2025.1702096
Received
09 September 2025
Accepted
15 October 2025
Published
28 October 2025
Volume
13 - 2025
Edited by
Buddhi Wijesiri, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Reviewed by
Kristina Cordero-Bailey, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Okello, Sithole and Owuor.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Cornelius Okello, cornelius.okello@wyssacademy.org, cbokello@gmail.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.