Sustaining indigenous Maasai Alalili silvo-pastoral conservation systems for improved community livelihood and biodiversity conservation in East African rangelands

FGD-MOND-22: “This Alalili system is privately owned by our clan and has existed for many years. Our grandparent narrated a brief history about it, whereby they have been keep- ing it since the colonial era in the late 1950s. Since that time, members of the clan have been using it not only for grazing purposes, but also for conducting rituals, cursing practices over the deviants from management norms of Alalili that built fear over our livestock herds and respect among the surrounding households. Some neighbour households also had their Alalili systems, but they did not manage to uphold them due to an introduction of the villagelization and communism policies in the 1970s which made them remain dependent on the communal grazing areas” (FGD/Alalili survey/Loosimingori village/June, 2022). FGD-LONG-24: “The large portion of this private Alalili that existed since 1970s, has been very important site of securing pastures that sustain our livestock especially the calves and lac- tating cattle in the long dry seasons. However, due to increased number of household mem- bers, we have changed a little portion (especially the eastern side you see) for residential purposes where my two sons have established their families. Due to a reduced grazing area, one of my grandsons is currently engaged in the mining activities at the nearby village of Matale A to sustain family needs. Some other households in the neighbourhoods have sold their privately owned grazing areas to immigrants who practice crop farming (maize, beans

and sunflower cultivation)” (FGD/Alalili survey/Kitumbeine village/May, 2022). Having an 18% of private Alalili systems, that are very recently established, is regarded as a newly emerging practice over the historical communal ownership of grazing lands by Maasai pastoralists [13, 17]. Although, from an opposite community perspective, it is regarded as a crucial restoration initiative whereby the Maasai pastoralists are securing the grazing areas that are likely being changed into protected areas, farmland, and settlements [18, 78]. They are turning into private ownership as a way to sustain their historical indigenous and traditional way of conserving pasture lands that used to support their grazing activities and rangeland management [17]. The changes are observed to be in transition in Maasai culture, eroding the key livelihood practices that is vital for the survival of these communities and sustainable use of the biodiver- sity [18]. Similarly, most of the private Alalili are smaller in size making them even more prone to vanish due to higher livestock herd size and grazing intensity compared to that of the communal Alalili systems [17, 25]. The findings suggest that communal Alalili systems are currently holding significant conservation potential than private Alalili. Regardless of the recent establishment of private Alalili systems, yet there is a radical shift of conservation prior- ity from these private to communal areas because, conservation agencies are highly promoting it through conservation incentives provided to community-based organizations for climate

private Alalili is notifying rangeland managers and experts on the communal Alalili systems that are predicted to face a risk of collapse with regard to the theory of “tragedy of the com- mons” [83, 84]. Efforts therefore should be directed towards increasing the number and size of private Alalili as well as their practices outside protected areas to ensure sustainable fodder and or pasture availability at private pasture land [6, 7, 85]. The existence of both communal and private Alalili would strengthen a sense of rangeland conservation advocacy among Maa- sai pastoralists who maintain their cultural heritage with minimum harmful threats to biodi- versity resources [5, 18, 44]. The observed transition from pastoralism to crop cultivation among Maasai pastoral com- munities has intensified losses in pasture resources with regard to reduced grazing land size and rangeland encroachment with less return on crops [45, 86]. Promoting Alalili would bring about ten times return when sustainable grazing is practiced [13, 17, 18, 23]. Utilization of Ala- lili systems do not only serve as useful in-situ fodder/forage banks but also useful drivers in reducing impacts of overgrazing and rangeland degradation for upgrading the health of biodi- versity and its associated ecosystem services [5, 13, 48]. They play multiple roles such as feed reserves, environmental and wildlife conservation, economic development, mitigating impacts of global climate change including soil erosion, invasive species, and bush encroachment as well as giving ecosystem services [1, 4, 17, 78, 79].

4.2 Occurrence of Alalili systems across land use categories We found that more than half of all Alalili systems in the rangelands of northern Tanzania are found in GCA. This trend suggests that, apart from the largest proportion of land surface occu- pied by GCA (45%) above NCA (20%), open areas (19%), and WMA (16%), promotion of this practice within the GCA might be the reason for this. Other works report that, being commu- nity-based initiatives for protecting wildlife from degradation and fragmentation, the formal institution of GCA and WMA are responsible for administering the limit in accessing the extreme dry season grazing areas [15, 78]. In the NCA there were no private Alalili and that the ownership of land is devoted to the Ngorongoro conservation area authority and not vil- lagers [12, 45]. In the open areas, there was no significant size variation between private and communal Alalili systems suggesting that they face similar encroachment pressures from vil- lagers and village governments [80]. Portions of communal and some private enclosures are changed to potential infrastructural areas where schools, health care centers, markets, and food stores are constructed to support services such as education, health, and other basic necessities [18]. This suggests that LULCC due to the cultural and traditional shift from graz- ing to crop cultivation among the Maasai society, especially in unprotected areas, poses a high pressure on traditionally conserved pastures leading to their loss [45, 46, 87]. Overall, the

potential of Alalili to act as a restoration pathway in the degraded rangeland patches can be a strategy with the potential to be up scaled particularly when the benefits of this practice are re- iterated to the community with a reflection made from Ngitili systems which are multi-func- tional ecosystems [5, 7, 16, 48]. This requires a need for the range map results on the status of Alalili types regarding their size, abundance, and distribution be communicated back to com- munities so they know their extent of disappearance as a wakeup call for them to take measures and action to restore this in their land. We emphasize the need for creating pastoral groups through community champions to promote the intensification of Alalili practices through incentive provisioning such as pay- ments and rewards for ecosystem services, green loans, REDD+, and subsidies [88]. Commu- nities should be proactively engaged and informed about the need to protect this cultural practice by describing the wisdom of ILK on rangeland management associating its values and PLOS ONE Sustaining Alalili systems in rangelands of East Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303649 May 16, 2024 18 / 24

benefits to avoid its collapse in the community. In promoting this practice to the household level, models that aim at managing rangelands and pasture should integrate this ILK and the economic, social, and environmental dimensions that are mutually dependent on one another [6]. The areas of implementation priorities should be known private lands where members of the households can easily be embraced when managing their pastureland. Furthermore, spe- cies that are native and palatable to livestock should be restored in the degraded Alalili as an incentive in addition to formulation and implementation of community by-laws that support its sustainable intensification. 5. Conclusion Approaches that are developed for managing rangelands in northern Tanzania are not neces- sarily developed based on indigenous cultural heritage such as Alalili, risking their success and sustainability [89]. Recognizing the Alalili in such approaches minimizes the risk of misjudg- ing their importance by outweighing the benefits and values that come up with the inclusion of Alalili, resulting in the wide-community level adoption and dissemination [26]. In contrast to modern natural science outputs, the presented results have indicated that Maasai Alalili silvo-pastoral conservation systems are still in existence but their sustainability is highly at risk, especially in private land areas. The generated results could facilitate the inclusion of their practices into core pasture production and management areas, facilitating their reinforcement

into policy and practices. We encourage the extended use of our survey results in further assessing the biomass and other compliance practices in screening the best management prac- tices when implementing Alalili in the landscape level. However, their size seemed to be decreasing signaling their possible loss in the near future, thus necessitating on a temporal analysis to determine the degree of sustainability risk. The stakeholders and communities should be informed about emerging effects of LULCC, growing population and environmental pressures such as climate change that threaten the sustainability of traditional conservation practices including the Maasai Alalili systems. Though the primary concern of establishing Maasai Alalili systems was to preserve pastures during the hardship times of pasture availabil- ity, the pastoral communities in rangeland areas need to be informed about extended benefits of Alalili systems. Despite the role played by private Alalili systems to the livestock and wildlife, they are faced with a confounding threat to deteriorate compared to communal Alalili. Further loss of Alalili conservation systems will not only lower down availability of pasture resources, but will also discourage initiatives for restoration of degraded rangelands through recovery of vegetation. Based on our findings, initiatives aimed at improving Alalili systems conservation and management strategies need to be considered. We recommend further assessment of the existing Alalili systems management typologies fitting to utilization compliance and that they

should be made formal. Such results highlight the need for incorporation of ILK in grassland conservation and management policies allowing and instructing on the call for frequency and extent of Alalili practices as a management tool for both rangelands and their community resil- ience in East African rangelands. Supporting information S1 Appendix. Alalili compiled data. (XLSX) PLOS ONE Sustaining Alalili systems in rangelands of East Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303649 May 16, 2024 19 / 24

Acknowledgments We owe our special gratitude to the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Tech- nology for granting the permission to conduct this research work. We are also very much indebted for the permit (2022-222-NA-2022-005 dated 20th April, 2022) we got from COST- ECH, TAWIRI, TAWA, NCAA, and Local government authorities of each district for allowing access to Alalili systems within rangelands throughout the study area. We would also like to acknowledge the field and support team - Mr. Emmanuel Mboya (Tanzania Plant Health and Pesticides Authority-TPHPA), Mr. John Erasto Sanare (Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute), Mr. Neovitus Siang’a and Mr. Kirerenjo Mereso (Tanzania People and Wildlife), Ms. Cather- ine Maembe, Mr. Emmanuel Lorru, Mr. Nganana M. Papalay and Mr. Lomayani Lukumay (District Game Officers), Mr. Birikaa R. Olesikilal, Mr. Danstan Mndolwa and Mr. Mamus Toima (District Rangeland Officers). Author Contributions Conceptualization: Elkana Hezron, Issakwisa B. Ngondya, Linus K. Munishi. Data curation: Elkana Hezron. Formal analysis: Elkana Hezron. Funding acquisition: Elkana Hezron. Investigation: Elkana Hezron, Issakwisa B. Ngondya, Linus K. Munishi. Methodology: Elkana Hezron, Issakwisa B. Ngondya, Linus K. Munishi. Project administration: Elkana Hezron, Issakwisa B. Ngondya, Linus K. Munishi. Resources: Elkana Hezron, Issakwisa B. Ngondya, Linus K. Munishi. Software: Elkana Hezron. Supervision: Issakwisa B. Ngondya, Linus K. Munishi. Validation: Elkana Hezron, Issakwisa B. Ngondya, Linus K. Munishi.

Visualization: Elkana Hezron, Issakwisa B. Ngondya, Linus K. Munishi. Writing – original draft: Elkana Hezron, Issakwisa B. Ngondya, Linus K. Munishi. Writing – review & editing: Elkana Hezron, Issakwisa B. Ngondya, Linus K. Munishi. References 1. Goldman MJ, Riosmena F. Adaptive capacity in Tanzanian Maasailand: Changing strategies to cope with drought in fragmented landscapes. Glob Environ Chang. 2013; 23: 588–597. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.010 PMID: 25400331 2. Hezron E, Munishi LK, Ngondya IB. Characterisation of Maasai Alalili Silvo-Pastoral Conservation Sys- tems of Northern Tanzania: The Final Project Report-Rufford Foundation; Nelson Mandela African Insti- tution of Science and Technology, Arusha, Tanzania. 2023. Available: https://ruffordorg.s3. amazonaws.com/media/project_reports/37388-1_Detailed_Final_Report.pdf 3. Saruni K. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Rangeland Governance in Northern Indigenous Knowl- edge Systems and Rangeland Governance in Northern Tanzania. Tanzanian J Popul Stud Dev. 2019; 23: 1–21. 4. Nassoro Z. Evaluation of nutritive value of browse tree fodder species indigenous to Kiteto and Kongwa districts (Master of Science in Biodiversity Conservation of the University of Dodoma, MSc. Disserta- tion). The University of Dodoma. 2014. PLOS ONE Sustaining Alalili systems in rangelands of East Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303649 May 16, 2024 20 / 24

5. Selemani IS. Indigenous knowledge and rangelands’ biodiversity conservation in Tanzania: success and failure. Biodivers Conserv. 2020; 29: 3863–3876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-02060-z PMID: 33052175 6. Chara´ J, Reyes E, Peri P, Otte J, Arce E, Schneider F. Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America. FAO, CIPAV and Agri Benchmark, Cali; 2019. Available: http://www.cipav.org.co/pdf/SPS_Report_ISBN_ FAO.pdf 7. Perez-alvarez R, Chara´ J, Snyder LD, Bonatti M, Sieber S, Martin EA. Global meta-analysis reveals overall benefits of silvopastoral systems for biodiversity. bioRxiv. 2023; 2023: 1–22. https://doi.org/10. 1101/2023.07.30.551160 8. Wiethase JH, Critchlow R, Foley C, Foley L, Kinsey EJ, Bergman BG, et al. Pathways of degradation in rangelands in Northern Tanzania show their loss of resistance, but potential for recovery. Sci Rep. 2023; 13: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29358-6 PMID: 36813819 9. Ca´mara-Leret R, Fortuna MA, Bascompte J. Indigenous knowledge networks in the face of global change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116: 9913–9918. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821843116 PMID: 31043567 10. Holechek J, Valdez R. Wildlife Conservation on the Rangelands of Eastern and Southern Africa: Past, Present, and Future. Rangel Ecol Manag. 2018; 71: 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2017.10.005 11. APW. Innovating for balance; African People and Wildlife, 2019 annual report. Arusha, Tanzania; 2020.

Available: https://www.africanpeoplewildlife.org/publications/ 12. Goldman MJ. Strangers in their own land: Maasai and wildlife conservation in Northern Tanzania. Con- serv Soc. 2011; 9: 65–79. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.79194 13. Olekao SK. The Role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Management of Dryland Ecosystems among the Maasai Pastoralists in Kiteto District, Tanzania. (Master of Science in Management of Natu- ral Resources for Sustainable Agriculture MSc. Dissertation), Sokoine Univ. Sokoine University of Agri- culture. 2017. 14. Mo¨rner S. The Maasai. Global Development. So¨ derto¨ rn University College. 2006. https://doi.org/10. 1177/004057360005700311 15. Sangeda AZ, Maleko DD. Rangeland condition and livestock carrying capacity under the traditional rotational grazing system in northern Tanzania. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2018; 30. Available: http://www. lrrd.org/lrrd30/5/sange30079.html 16. Malunguja GK, Rubanza CKD, Devi A. An assessment of the current status and regeneration potential of the traditional conserved forests (Ngitili)in Kishapu district, Tanzania. Trop Plant Res. 2020; 7: 336– 356. https://doi.org/10.22271/tpr.2020.v7.i2.040 17. Mpondo FT, Ndakidemi PA, Pauly A, Treydte AC. Traditional rangeland management can conserve insect pollinators in a semi-arid rangeland, northern Tanzania. Acta Oecologica. 2021; 113: 103790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2021.103790 18. NTRI. Rangelands in transition. Rangel J. 2019;41: 161–163. doi:10.1071/RJ19050

19. Mengistu A, Kabede G, Feyissa F, Assefa G. Rangelands Biodiversity Conservation and Management. Int J Agric Biosci. 2018; 7: 19–29. 20. TPW. Tanzania People & Wildlife Rangeland Management Approach and Lessons Learned. Arusha- Tanzania; 2020. 21. AET. Bringing Back Grasses and Forest Cover Campaign: Justdiggit’s Second Impact Report. Ambo- seli Ecosystem Trust, Loitokitok town-Kenya. Loitokitok Town-Kenya; 2022. 22. AET. Regreening Amboseli: Bringing Back Grasses and Forest Cover Campaign. In: Amboseli Ecosys- tem Trust: Our Campaigns [Internet]. 2022 [cited 23 Jan 2024] p. 1. Available: https:// amboseliecosystem.org/our-campaigns/#:*:text=01.-,Olopololi Plots 23. Mwilawa AJ, Komwihangilo DM, Kusekwa ML. Conservation of forage resources for increasing live- stock production in traditional forage reserves in Tanzania. Afr J Ecol. 2008; 46: 85–89. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.00934.x 24. Godde CM, Boone RB, Ash AJ, Waha K, Sloat LL, Thornton PK, et al. Global rangeland production sys- tems and livelihoods at threat under climate change and variability. Environ Res Lett. 2020; 15. https:// doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7395 25. Ameso EA, Bukachi SA, Olungah CO, Haller T, Wandibba S, Nangendo S. Pastoral resilience among the maasai pastoralists of Laikipia County, Kenya. Land. 2018; 7: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ LAND7020078 26. Babune GJ, Mshuda JN. Sustainability of Rangeland Management for Livestock Development in Lahoda and Pangarua Villages Kondoa District Tanzania. Tengeru Community Dev J. 2020; 7: 2013–2015. PLOS ONE

Sustaining Alalili systems in rangelands of East Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303649 May 16, 2024 21 / 24

27. Said M, Hyandye C, Komakech HC, Mjemah IC, Munishi LK. Predicting land use/cover changes and its association to agricultural production on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Ann GIS. 2021; 27: 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2020.1871406 28. Phelps LN, Kaplan JO. Land use for animal production in global change studies: Defining and character- izing a framework. Glob Chang Biol. 2017; 23: 4457–4471. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13732 PMID: 28434200 29. Sulle E. Development and Mitigation: Addressing land use change in South Africa. Provocateur Briefing Report - Poverty, Forum on Development and Mitigation. Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Stud- ies, University of Western Cape; 2014. 30. Msuha MJ, Carbone C, Pettorelli N, Durant SM. Conserving biodiversity in a changing world: Land use change and species richness in northern Tanzania. Biodivers Conserv. 2012; 21: 2747–2759. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0331-1 31. Duguma LA, Minang PA, Van Noordwijk M. Climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector: From complementarity to synergy. Environ Manage. 2014; 54: 420–432. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00267-014-0331-x PMID: 25047275 32. Agrawal A, Benson CS. Common property theory and resource governance institutions: Strengthening explanations of multiple outcomes. Environ Conserv. 2011; 38: 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0376892910000925 33. Malunguja GK, Devi A, Kilonzo M, Rubanza CDK. Climate change mitigation through carbon dioxide

(CO2) sequestration in community reserved forests of northwest Tanzania. Arch Agric Environ Sci. 2020; 5: 231–240. https://doi.org/10.26832/24566632.2020.050301 34. Abebe MH, Oba G, Angassa A, Weladji RB. The role of area enclosures and fallow age in the restora- tion of plant diversity in northern Ethiopia. Afr J Ecol. 2006; 44: 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2028.2006.00664.x 35. Olenasha W, William O, Kaisoe M. Case Study 4. International Journal of Game-Based Learning. 2001. pp. 98–100. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2017070111 36. Ray R, Chandran MDS, Ramachandra T V. Hydrological importance of sacredforest fragments in Cen- tral Western Ghats of India. Trop Ecol. 2015; 56: 87–99. 37. Khumbongmayum AD, Khan ML, Tripathi RS. Sacred groves of Manipur, northeast India: Biodiversity value, status and strategies for their conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2005. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10531-004-0530-5 38. Sukumaran S, Pepsi A, SivaPradesh DS, Jeeva S. Phytosociological studies of the sacred grove of Kanyakumari district, Tamilnadu, India. Trop Plant Res. 2018; 5: 29–40. https://doi.org/10.22271/tpr. 2018.v5.i1.006 39. Gari L. A history of the Himā conservation system. Environ Hist Camb. 2006; 12: 213–228. https://doi. org/10.3197/096734006776680236 40. Angassa A, Oba G. Herder perceptions on impacts of range enclosures, crop farming, fire ban and bush encroachment on the rangelands of Borana, Southern Ethiopia. Hum Ecol. 2008; 36: 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-007-9156-z

41. Rubanza CDK, Shem MN, Ichinohe T, Fujihara T. Biomass production and nutritive potential of con- served forages in silvopastoral traditional fodder banks (Ngitiri) of meatu district of Tanzania. Asian-Aus- tralasian J Anim Sci. 2006; 19: 978–983. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2006.978 42. Kilongozi N, Kengera Z, Leshongo S. The utilization of indigenous and local knowledgein range man- agement and forage plants for improving livestock productivity and food security in the Maasai and Bar- baig Communities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy; 2005. Available: https://www.fao.org/3/a0182e/a0182e.pdf 43. NCA. Submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for his report to the 77 th Session of the UN General Assembly: Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Not Our World Heri- tage Site Submitted by: Maasai indigenous residents of Ngorongor. 2022. Available: https://www.ohchr. org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/indigenouspeoples/sr/callforinputcovidrecoverysubmissions/ 2022-07-28 44. Saruni K. Indigenous Institutions and Rangeland Sustainability in Northern Tanzania. Tanzania J Sociol. 2018; 4: 90–106. https://doi.org/10.56279/tajoso.v4i.16 45. Homewood K, Kristjanson P, Trench PC. Staying Maasai? In: Bates DG, Lozny LR, editors. Studies In Human Ecology And Adaptation. Springer; 2009. pp. 0–64. Available: https://www.springer.com/ series/6877 46. Woodhouse E, McCabe JT. Well-being and conservation: Diversity and change in visions of a good life

among the maasai of northern Tanzania. Ecol Soc. 2018; 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09986-230143 PLOS ONE Sustaining Alalili systems in rangelands of East Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303649 May 16, 2024 22 / 24

47. Mbinile SD, Munishi LK, Ngondya IB, Ndakidemi PA. Conservation and management challenges facing a medicinal plant Zanthoxylum chalybeum in Simanjiro Area, Northern Tanzania. Sustain. 2020; 12: 1– 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104140 48. Mapinduzi AL, Oba G, Weladji RB, Colman JE. Use of indigenous ecological knowledge of the Maasai pastoralists for assessing rangeland biodiversity in Tanzania. Afr J Ecol. 2003; 41: 329–336. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2003.00479.x 49. Olarinoye T, Foppen JW, Veerbeek W, Morienyane T, Komakech H. Exploring the future impacts of urbanization and climate change on groundwater in Arusha, Tanzania. Water Int. 2020; 45: 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2020.1768724 50. Mwalyosi RBB. Land-use Changes and Resource Degradation. Environ Conserv. 1992; 19: 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900030629 51. URT. THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA VICE PRESIDENT ‘ S OFFICE National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). United Repub Tanzania Vice Pres ‘ S Off. 2015. 52. Manning PJSSKHJK. Vulnerability and Impact Assessment Ecosystem-based Adaptation for Rural Resilience (EbARR) in Tanzania Final Report Vulnerability and Impact Assessment Ecosystem-based Adaptation for Rural Resilience (EbARR) in Tanzania Final Report Client. 2020. 53. URT. The Kiteto district Council Five Years Strategic Plan 2016/17-2020/2021, President’s Office Regional Administration and Local Government(PO-RALG). 2018. 54. Nyaruhucha CN, Mamiro PS, Kerengi AJ. Prevalence of anaemia and parasitic infections among

underfive children in Simanjiro District, Tanzania. Tanzan Health Res Bull. 2005;vol. 7. 55. de Glanville WA, Davis A, Allan KJ, Buza J, Claxton JR, Crump JA, et al. Classification and characteri- sation of livestock production systems in northern Tanzania. PLoS One. 2020; 15. https://doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0229478 PMID: 33378382 56. URT. Land Act. 1999 p. 111. 57. URT. The Village Land Act. 1999 p. 79. 58. URT. The Local Government (urban authorities) Act, 1982. 1982 p. 59. 59. URT. Wildlife Conservation Act, Chapter 283,. 2022 pp. 1–16. Available: https://tanzlii.org/akn/tz/act/ gn/2022/461/eng%402022-06-24 60. Msalilwa UL, Ndakidemi PA, Makule EE, Munishi LK. Demography of baobab (Adansonia digitata L.) population in different land uses in the semi-arid areas of Tanzania. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2020; 24: e01372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01372 61. Leader-Williams N, Kayera JA, Overton GLE. Community-based conservation in Tanzania. Occasional papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. 1996. p. ix + 226 pp. 62. URT. The National Parks Act Cap. 282. 1959 p. 25. 63. Nyerere JK. An Act to amend the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Ordinance. 1963. 64. FAO. Orders of Wildlife conservation (Game controlled areas). 1997. 65. Shoo RA, Mtui EK, Kimaro JM, Kinabo NR, Lendii GJ, Kideghesho JR. Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania: Vulnerability and Survival Amidst COVID-19. Manag Wildl a Chang World. 2021; 0–17. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97396 66. Dudley N, Stolton S. Defining protected areas: An international conference in Almeria, Spain Mayo

2007. IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit. 2008. p. 220. Available: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/ downloads/almeria_proceedings_final.pdf 67. Npackd. QGIS 64 Bit 3.12.3. In: qgis64 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 31 Jan 2023]. Available: https://qgis.org/ downloads/QGIS-OSGeo4W-3.12.3-1-Setup-x86_64.exe 68. Elfil M, Negida A. Sampling methods in Clinical Research; an Educational Review. Emerg (Tehran, Iran). 2017; 5: 3–5. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325924/ 69. Showkat N, Parveen H. Non-Probability and Probability Sampling. In: Showkat N, Parveen H, editors. Communications Research. e-PG Pathshala; 2017. 70. Zhou Q. Ground Truthing: How Reliable Is It? Proceedings of Geoinformatics’96 Conference, 26–28 April 1996. West Palm Beach, FL; 1996. pp. 69–77. 71. Kariuki RW, Munishi LK, Courtney-Mustaphi CJ, Capitani C, Shoemaker A, Lane PJ, et al. Integrating stakeholders’ perspectives and spatial modelling to develop scenarios of future land use and land cover change in northern Tanzania. PLoS ONE. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245516 PMID: 33577608 72. Rono LDC. Microcredit and Its Relationship To the Growth of Small and Medium Enterprises in Konoin Subcounty, Kenya. Int J Adv Res. 2018; 6: 961–968. https://doi.org/10.21474/ijar01/6935 PLOS ONE Sustaining Alalili systems in rangelands of East Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303649 May 16, 2024 23 / 24

73. Feng C, Wang H, Lu N, Chen T, He H, Lu Y, et al. Log-transformation and its implications for data analy- sis. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2014; 26: 105–109. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2014.02. 009 PMID: 25092958 74. RCoreTeam. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. Available: https://www.r-project.org/. 75. Cordero RL, Suma M, Krishnan S, Bauch CT, Anand M. Elements of indigenous socio-ecological knowl- edge show resilience despite ecosystem changes in the forest-grassland mosaics of the Nilgiri Hills, India. Palgrave Commun. 2018; 4: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0157-x 76. Prist PR, Sangermano F, Bailey A, Bugni V, Villalobos-Segura M del C, Pimiento-Quiroga N, et al. Pro- tecting Brazilian Amazon Indigenous territories reduces atmospheric particulates and avoids associated health impacts and costs. Commun Earth Environ. 2023; 4: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023- 00704-w 77. Koka EG. The Impacts of Land Tenure Systems on Rangeland Productivity, Health, and Resource Use Conflicts In Northern Tanzania. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania. 2021. Available: http://suaire.suanet.ac.tz/bitstream/handle/123456789/4903/Eliengerasia G Koka_dissertation.pdf? sequence=1&isAllowed=y 78. Nelson F. Natural conservationists? Evaluating the impact of pastoralist land use practices on Tanza- nia’s wildlife economy. Pastoralism. 2012; 2: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-15

79. Robinson LW. Management and governance of pastoral rangelands: a review of recent CGIAR initia- tives. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.; 2020. doi:https://hdl.handle.net/10568/109533 80. Shivji I. Village governance and common pool resources in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; 2002. 81. Holechek JL, Cibils AF, Bengaly K, Kinyamario JI. Human Population Growth, African Pastoralism, and Rangelands: A Perspective. Rangel Ecol Manag. 2017; 70: 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama. 2016.09.004 82. FAO. Pastoralism in Africa’s drylands. 2018. Available: http://www.fao.org/emergencies/resources/ documents/resources-detail/en/c/1160694/ 83. Rankin DJ, Bargum K, Kokko H. The tragedy of the commons in evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007; 22: 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.009 PMID: 17981363 84. Ostrom E. Tragedy of the commons. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008. p. 12. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974912.t.33 85. Bolo P, Sommer R, Kihara J, Kinyua M, Nyawira S, Notenbaert A. Rangeland Degradation: Causes, Consequences, Monitoring Techniques and Remedies. CGIAR Work Pap. 2019; 23. Available: https:// hdl.handle.net/10568/102393 86. Archer SR, Andersen EM, Predick KI, Schwinning S, Steidl RJ, Woods SR. Woody Plant Encroach- ment: Causes and Consequences. 2nd ed. In: Briske DD, editor. Rangeland Systems: Processes, Management and Challenges. 2nd ed. Springer; 2017. p. 661. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 46709-2

87. Thonfeld F, Steinbach S, Muro J, Hentze K, Games I, Na¨ schen K, et al. The impact of anthropogenic land use change on the protected areas of the Kilombero catchment, Tanzania. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2020; 168: 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.07.019 88. Duguma LA, Minang PA, Kimaro AA, Otsyina R, Mpanda M. Shinyanga: blending old and new agrofor- estry to integrate development, climate change mitigation and adaptation in Tanzania. In: van Noordwijk M, editor. Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade Bogor, Indo- nesia: World Agroforestry (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program pp 139–151. Elsevier Ltd; 2019. p. 111831. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111831 89. Augustine DJ, Derner JD, Augustine DJ, Ii JCA, Ahuja LR. Opportunities for Increasing Utility of Models for Rangeland Management Opportunities for Increasing Utility of Models for Rangeland Management. 2012. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-11-00122.1 PLOS ONE Sustaining Alalili systems in rangelands of East Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303649 May 16, 2024 24 / 24