Atlas · Kenya / Recommendations
INTELLIGENCE

Recommendations

Insights computed from Atlas’ own data by a transparent rules engine. Each one shows its evidence, the calculation behind it and how confident Atlas is.

Needs attention
6
High priority
Worth acting on
5
Medium priority
For awareness
3
Low priority
Last computed 9 hours ago
HighGovernanceEVIDENCEConfidence 100%

Licence terms to be confirmed for 355 datasets

Licence terms are being confirmed with the publisher. Atlas holds the data for scientific and internal use and shows the original attribution, but cannot grant bulk redistribution rights.

Suggested action: Request written permission from WWF Kenya, KMFRI and KFS for redistribution and derivative products.
Evidence and method
datasets without licence
355.00
Calculation
Datasets whose licence status is "unspecified by publisher".
Sources
HighData_gapEVIDENCEConfidence 100%

2 of 9 themes have no data yet

Atlas holds no records for: Blue Carbon, Fire & Climate. Seagrass and salt marsh would come from UNEP-WCMC global datasets; carbon projects from the Verra and Gold Standard registries; community projects from partner programmes.

Suggested action: Ingest the planned sources listed in the Source Catalogue, starting with Global Mangrove Watch, UNEP-WCMC seagrass and salt marsh, and the carbon registries.
Evidence and method
Calculation
Modules with zero mapped features.
Sources
HighRestorationCALCULATEDConfidence 90%

Restoration sites: where degradation is highest

4 of 12 assessed sites are rated highly degraded (Matsangoni 1, Eagle camp 1, NjIa ya Ndovu, Maganga). Recommended approaches: Enrichement planting (5), Assisted planting (7).

Suggested action: Target the highly degraded sites for the next planting cycle.
Evidence and method
sites
12.00
high degradation
4.00
Calculation
Counts of assessed degradation level and recommended approach.
Sources
tbp-lcpm-planted-sites
HighPressureCALCULATEDConfidence 80%

A large share of mapped mangrove lies close to planned LAPSSET development

18,676 ha of mangrove (54.1% of the mapped total) sits within 10 km of the LAPSSET development footprint (port area, Special Economic Zone, corridor, airport). This is the largest identified development pressure in the dataset.

Suggested action: Run an impact screening for polygons in the ≤ 10 km bands and plan buffer and offset measures.
Evidence and method
share pct
54.10
within 10km ha
18,676.00
Calculation
Ellipsoidal distance from each polygon representative point to the union of LAPSSET footprint geometries.
Sources
lamu-mangroves-species-formation-2019, lapsset-footprint, lapsset-port-area
HighRestorationCALCULATEDConfidence 70%

Vegetation index fell in protection zone MIDA_2

NDVI in MIDA_2 declined from 0.649 (FY2023) to 0.536 (FY2025), a change of -0.113. A sustained fall can mean canopy loss, drought stress or harvesting.

Suggested action: Inspect the zone on the ground and with recent imagery.
Evidence and method
block
MIDA_2
ndvi fy23
0.65
ndvi fy25
0.54
Calculation
Difference of supplied NDVI values between fiscal years.
Sources
tbp-lcpm-nr-protection-zones
HighRestorationCALCULATEDConfidence 70%

Vegetation index fell in protection zone MIDA_3

NDVI in MIDA_3 declined from 0.757 (FY2023) to 0.673 (FY2025), a change of -0.085. A sustained fall can mean canopy loss, drought stress or harvesting.

Suggested action: Inspect the zone on the ground and with recent imagery.
Evidence and method
block
MIDA_3
ndvi fy23
0.76
ndvi fy25
0.67
Calculation
Difference of supplied NDVI values between fiscal years.
Sources
tbp-lcpm-nr-protection-zones
MediumBiodiversityCALCULATEDConfidence 100%

Sea-turtle tracking data ends in 2018

4 tagged turtles contributed 1,406 fixes between 2017-05-21 and 2018-10-30. There is no later tracking in Atlas, so recent turtle movements and nesting use of Lamu and Kilifi waters are unknown.

Suggested action: Seek newer tracking data from the programme and from Movebank / OBIS-SEAMAP.
Evidence and method
tags
4.00
fixes
1,406.00
last fix
2018-10-30 17:38:04+00
Calculation
Min/max of satellite fix timestamps (assumed UTC).
Sources
ckp-turtle-tags-2017-2018
MediumData_qualityCALCULATEDConfidence 100%

Impossible canopy-cover values were rejected in the field survey

3 plot(s) report canopy cover above 100% (largest 6070.0), which cannot be a percentage. Atlas rejected those values, kept the originals and flagged the plots.

Suggested action: Ask the survey team to re-check the data sheets for the flagged plots.
Evidence and method
valid
136.00
rejected
3.00
Calculation
Range check 0–100 on every canopy-cover observation.
Sources
lamu-mangrove-field-survey
MediumFragmentationCALCULATEDConfidence 90%

Most polygons are very small, but most area sits in large stands

63.2% of the 60,004 mapped polygons are under 0.1 ha, yet patches of 10 ha or more hold 52.4% of all mangrove area. Management and monitoring effort should focus on the large stands, while the small-patch tail needs checking against satellite imagery.

Suggested action: Prioritise field verification of large stands; review the sub-0.1 ha tail for mapping artefacts.
Evidence and method
polygons
60,004.00
tiny pct
63.20
area in ge10ha pct
52.40
Calculation
Counts and sums of geodesic polygon areas grouped by size class.
Sources
lamu-mangroves-species-formation-2019
MediumValidationCALCULATEDConfidence 75%

Field plots and the map: how well do they agree?

103 of 139 field plots fall on a mapped polygon; the dominant genus recorded on the ground matches the mapped formation in 52.4% of those (exact class label: 19.4%, because field and map name classes differently). 36 plots lie outside any mapped polygon.

Suggested action: Review disagreeing plots and plots outside the map; consider a formal accuracy assessment.
Evidence and method
plots
139.00
on map
103.00
agree exact
20.00
agree genus
54.00
genus agreement pct
52.40
Calculation
Point-in-polygon test of each field plot against the 2019 formation polygons; dominant genus (first genus named) compared between field label and map class.
Sources
lamu-mangroves-species-formation-2019, lamu-mangrove-field-survey
MediumCommunityCALCULATEDConfidence 70%

Mangrove close to villages is exposed to community use pressure

8,142 ha (23.6%) of mangrove lies within 2 km of a mapped village. Only 52 villages are mapped, so this is a lower bound.

Suggested action: Prioritise community-managed forest planning where village proximity is highest.
Evidence and method
share pct
23.60
within 2km ha
8,142.00
Calculation
Ellipsoidal distance to the nearest mapped village.
Sources
lamu-mangroves-species-formation-2019, lamu-villages
LowCompositionCALCULATEDConfidence 100%

Intertidal sand and mudflats cover about as much area as mangroves

Mapped sand and mudflats total 22,415 ha, compared with 34,514 ha of mangrove (ratio 0.65). Extensive mudflats beside mangroves are important feeding habitat and an expansion zone for natural colonisation.

Evidence and method
mudflat ha
22,415.00
mangrove ha
34,514.00
Calculation
Sum of geodesic areas of the two datasets.
Sources
lamu-sand-mudflats, lamu-mangroves-species-formation-2019
LowCompositionCALCULATEDConfidence 100%

Mangrove cover is dominated by a few formations

Rhizophora dominant covers 41.8% of mapped mangrove area. Shannon evenness by area is 0.86 (0 = one class dominates, 1 = perfectly even), so the seascape is fairly even.

Evidence and method
dominant
Rhizophora dominant
evenness
0.86
share pct
41.77
Calculation
Shannon index H = -Σ p·ln p on area shares; evenness = H / ln(k).
Sources
lamu-mangroves-species-formation-2019
LowChangeCALCULATEDConfidence 80%

Net gain of mangrove since 1996

Global Mangrove Watch maps 52,354 ha of mangrove in Lamu seascape in 1996 and 53,174 ha in 2025: a net gain of 820 ha (1.6%), about 28 ha per year. This is the net balance of total mapped area; gains and losses inside the country can cancel out, so real loss may be larger.

Evidence and method
last ha
53,174.00
net pct
1.60
first ha
52,354.00
last year
2,025.00
first year
1,996.00
Calculation
Sum of geodesic polygon areas per epoch, compared across years (Global Mangrove Watch v3.0, CC BY 4.0).
Sources
gmw-v4-1996-ke
Guest preview · 179s left Explore until the timer ends. Then you’ll be asked to log in or create an account (about two minutes) to keep going.
Ask Atlas