https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2150-4120
Figures
Abstract
Alalili system is one among the fewest remnant African indigenous and local knowledge systems that is traditionally practiced by Maasai pastoral communities to conserve certain portions of rangeland resources such as pastures and water for subsequent grazing during dry seasons. Despite its existence, East African rangelands face diverse threats from tenure security, unsustainable practices, climate, and land-use change that are notably endangering the biodiversity, livelihoods, and ecosystems in the landscape. Like other indigenous conservation systems, the sustainability of Alalili systems is being threatened, as Maasai communities are in transition due to continuous socio-cultural transformations coupled with increased livestock and human populations. We aimed to capture and document the existing occurrence and potential of Alalili systems as a pathway to improve resilience and sustain both biodiversity conservation and community livelihoods in rangeland areas of northern Tanzania. A cross-sectional research design was applied with the adoption of both purposive and stratified random sampling techniques to distinctively characterize the Alalili systems by land use and tenure types. Our results identified the existence of both communal and private Alalili systems. Their sizes varied significantly across types (t = 4.4646, p < 0.001) and land uses (F = 3.806, df = 3, p = 0.0123). While many (82%) of these Alalili systems are found in the communal land, our observations show a re-practice of Alalili systems in the private land is considered largely a re-emerging strategy for securing pastures in the face of local and global change. More than half (73%) of Alalili systems were found within game-controlled areas with little representation (about 8%) in non-protected land. Therefore, their sustainability is threatened by anthropogenic and climatic pressures, making their persistence more vulnerable to extinction. We recommend mainstreaming these practices into core pasture production and management areas, facilitating their reinforcement into policy and practices.
Citation: Hezron E, Ngondya IB, Munishi LK (2024) Sustaining indigenous Maasai Alalili silvo-pastoral conservation systems for improved community livelihood and biodiversity conservation in East African rangelands. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0303649. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303649
Editor: Luca Nelli, University of Glasgow College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: October 24, 2023; Accepted: April 29, 2024; Published: May 16, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Hezron et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This work was funded by the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology through African Development Bank (AfDB) (Grant No: P-Z1-IA0-016), Higher Education for Economic Transformation (HEET) project (Grant No: IDA68870) as well as the Rufford small research grants (Grant No: 37388-1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
Alalili is a traditional silvo-pastoral conservation system indigenous to Maasai communities through which certain portions of rangelands are conserved during the wet season for improved natural regeneration of vegetative biomass useful for grazing during dry seasons [1–6]. Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) including traditional silvo-pastoral conservation systems, is important for promoting sustainable use of resources, supporting resilience, and preventing further damage to the natural world [7, 8]. This knowledge has been part of the co-evolutionary relationship with people, biodiversity, and the environment through enhanced carbon sequestration and storage, wildlife habitat, increasing livestock productivity, and strengthening rural livelihoods [6, 7]. Despite its vital role, this cultural component is missed in scientific studies, the absence of which may make it vanish in silence, jeopardizing biodiversity conservation and indigenous peoples’ livelihoods [9]. Alalili is one such traditional conservation system that is practiced by Maasai communities across East Africa to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable pasture management in rangelands [1, 4–6]. Having been practiced since the arrival of Maasai communities in East African rangeland around the 18th century [10–14], Alalili systems are currently regarded as useful traditional rangeland management initiatives [13, 15–17]. They are undertaken as alternative measures to alleviate the effects of declined pastoral mobility caused by land-use and land-cover changes (LULCC), population increase, and climate change [5, 18, 19]. They can play important roles in the phase of global changes by promoting resilience in community livelihood and biodiversity conservation which are significant economic dimensions for pastoral and agro-pastoral communities. They are useful fodder resources for both livestock and wildlife, potential pollinator conservation areas, climate change mitigation sites through carbon sequestration, and nature-based restoration solutions to degraded ecosystems [17, 20]. For instance, similar communal rangeland management systems, alternatively referred to as Maasai Olopololi, have been supportive of restoring the degraded grasslands during the regreening campaign of the Amboseli ecosystems in southern Kenya [21, 22]. They integrate human, livestock, and wildlife through the provisioning of useful habitats and breeding sites to thousands of organisms that depend on Alalili systems for their survival [11, 18]. They provide assurance to the endurance of wild space which maintains high levels of biodiversity while adding value to rangeland resilience over local climate change [15, 20, 23].
Having a close association with Alalili, the rangelands of northern Tanzania and southern parts of Kenya are significantly known to support millions of biota communities inclusive of the human population [5, 24, 25]. Community reliance on rangelands has been evident from the global, regional, and local perspectives whereby its average terrestrial landscape coverage is approximated to be 47% globally, 36% in Asia, 30% in Africa, and 74% of the total land in Tanzania [8, 25]. Although, recent studies report that rangelands are prone to global changes coupled with declined feed production, impacts of climate change, and loss of resistance as well as reduced sustainability [8, 26]. LULCC has led to intense environmental and socio-economic impacts that disrupt sustainable land use practices including rangelands leading to insufficient pastures [10, 27–31]. Pastoral communities adapted the traditional pasture conservation practices as an alternative measure for restoring and strengthening the health of rangelands to sustain their productivity and livelihoods [1, 31–35]. In Asia particularly India, the system known as “sacred groves” is preserved for the purpose of social-cultural and religious practice [33, 36–38]. In the Middle East on the other hand they practice ẖimā as a reserved pasture, whereby trees and grazing lands are secured from indiscriminate harvest on a temporary or permanent basis [39]. In Africa, Kalo is a silvo-pastoral conservation system practiced by the Borana communities of Southern Ethiopia [40]. In Tanzania, Ngitili is practiced by Sukuma pastoralists, Milanga is practiced by Gogo, Radanenda is practiced by Barbaig while Alalili is practiced by Maasai pastoral communities [5, 16, 23, 41, 42].
Although the indigenous Maasai Alalili silvo-pastoral conservation systems have been successful in the past depicting its long-term historical benefits within rangelands and ecosystem resources, its practice as a resilience back-up to rangeland degradation is not fully optimized [2, 3, 22]. The reduction in its practices is exacerbated by increased human and livestock population, socio-cultural transformations, changes in land tenure, and unpredictable land use and climate changes [8, 43, 44]. In addition, these socio-cultural changes and extreme events have accelerated the degradation of rangelands, making biodiversity, livelihoods, and ecosystems more threatened; this has pushed for more proactive measures in response to these pressures including relocating vulnerable pastoral communities in the Ngorongoro district to a much less degraded but more productive rangeland for livestock and settlement [12, 43]. Despite the importance of the Maasai Alalili silvo-pastoral conservation and management systems, their little recognition in literature and under-representation in the existing policies and regulatory frameworks might undermine their utility and importance in rangeland management practices, thus, threatening their value and sustainability in resilience management [1, 5, 17]. Additionally, Alalili practices are in the blink of extinction, as Maasai societies in most areas are in transition with respect to continuous socio-cultural transformation [17, 45–47]. A proven misconnection in the transmission of this traditional heritage from elders to the younger generation, who are gradually shifting to other economic activities in cities such as decorative saloons and security guards, exposes Alalili to encroachment threats [3, 5, 12]. The indeterminate decrease in size and abundance of Alalili systems, depicting their possible decline across the Maasai rangeland areas of northern Tanzania and southern Kenya, has been recently reported by rangeland ecosystem management stakeholders [22, 44, 48]. In the face of this, there is a need to have them documented and understand their current status that can be used as a potential pathway to promote both sustainable conservation of biodiversity and community resilience and livelihood development across Maasai land. This study provides information on the status of types, size, and distribution of Alalili in different land use systems across the rangeland of northern Tanzania. It provides useful recommendations utilized as a means to guide communities and other stakeholders toward the preservation and practice of this important heritage and how these can be sustained in the rapidly changing and uncertain world of the Anthropocene.
Therefore, being conducted for the first time, this study aimed to capture and document the potential Alalili silvo-pastoral conservation systems available in rangelands located within or adjacent to different land uses of northern Tanzania. Also, the study explored the livestock herd size featuring the surveyed Alalili systems and its relationship across size and age of Alalili systems to initiate future studies in the determination of biomass and stocking rate. This was achieved so that they can be promoted as a pathway to improve the resilience of pastures and sustain both biodiversity conservation and community livelihoods in rangeland areas.
2. Methods
2.1 Description of the study area
The study was conducted in Maasai pastoral society across the regions of northern Tanzania, located between 2°12’04’’ and 5°56’29’’ South and 36°11’43’’ and 36°51’30’’ East covering five sampled Districts. These included Longido, Monduli, and Ngorongoro districts for the Arusha region as well as Simanjiro and Kiteto districts for the Manyara region (Fig 1). The area is within the East African rift system, and its landscape lies at an elevation ranging between 659 and 2,123 m above sea level characterized by the highest mean monthly temperature of 33°C, while the lowest mean temperature is 13°C [15]. The mean annual rainfall ranges between 450 and 1,200 mm [49]. The region is featured with bimodal rainy seasons, with the short season falling between October and December, while the long rainy season falls between March and May [50, 51]. In normal years, the rainy season stretches from January to April [47, 52, 53]. The vegetation cover in the region ranges from grassland Maasai steppe to bushland in the lowlands and upland tropical thick forests growing on well-drained soils of fertile land, which is alternatively used for agriculture, mining activities, grazing, and game-controlled areas [47, 50, 54]. The vegetation cover in the low grassland and midlands of the region generally includes scattered trees and shrubs dominated by Acacia spp., Combretum spp., and Brachystegia spp. as well as grasses in the genus Cenchrus spp. and Cynodon spp. The dominant communities of the Maasai tribe in the villages are engaged in social-economic activities such as livestock keeping, agriculture, mining, jewelry, and beekeeping. Livestock keeping is an important and main economic activity that forms part of family wealth and savings [1, 35, 55].
2.2 Categorization of land uses and tenure types in northern Tanzania
The Land Act of Tanzania (enacted in 1999) clarifies that “all land in Tanzania is public and is vested in the President as a trustee on behalf of all citizens” [56]. The law under the Ministry of Lands, Housing, and Housing Development is in charge of facilitating an equitable distribution of and access to land by all citizens [56]. Therefore, the Land Act Cap. 113 classified the Tanzanian land tenure into three main categories; (a) general land, (b) village land, and (c) reserved land. The general land refers to all public land with the exception of village land (including unoccupied open areas or unused village land) and reserved land. Village land refers to any part of the general land other than reserved land transferred to a village [57]. Its establishment is aimed at providing access of land to indigenous people living within and around reserves for settlement, agriculture (crop production and pastoralism), and infrastructure (education, health, business, transport, and the related facilities). This is done with regard to the Local Government (District Authorities) Act Cap. 287 and the Land Tenure (Village Settlements) Act No. 27 of 1965 [58]. Reserved land refers to the land that is purposely utilized for fortification and conservation of biodiversity and its associated resources which are profoundly controlled by the State [56, 59]. These are comprised of strictly protected areas (PAs) such as national parks and game reserves (forestry and nature reserves) [60]. They are also comprised of non-strictly PAs such as the Ngorongoro conservation area, game-controlled areas, game-open areas, and wildlife management areas as defined in the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974[Cap. 283] and wildlife policy endorsed in 1988 [60, 61].
National parks and game reserves are defined as strictly protected areas whereby no activities other than wildlife conservation and game viewing are allowed [59, 62]. Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) is an area dedicated to multiple land uses including Maasai culture and tradition conservation, livestock grazing by pastoral communities, and temporary residence thus forming a peaceful co-existence with wildlife [56, 59]. However, in NCA villages are not permanently allowed to own the land, but rather, land tenure is generally devoted to the managing authority; the NCAA [61, 63]. A game-controlled area (GCA) refers to a type of protected area whereby a village’s land and resource use other than wildlife conservation is restricted by the law [59, 64]. Activities such as settlements, crop cultivation, and mining are restricted while livestock grazing and wildlife hunting can only be acceptable under license or written permission of the managing authority [59]. Wildlife management area (WMA) refers to an area established with regard to initiatives of implementing a community-based conservation of natural resources [59, 65]. The gazettement of WMA is done with the main purpose of securing wildlife buffer areas outside core protected areas, which are used by local community members and within the village land [59, 65]. In contrast to GCA, WMA comprises the portion of a village land through which communities have equitable access to the distribution of benefits from enterprises aimed at promoting wildlife conservation, enhancing economic development, and poverty reduction [56, 59, 65].
Therefore, being conducted in Alalili systems that form part of rangelands in northern Tanzania, the study covered two main land uses, i.e., protected areas vested to reserved land (comprised of WMA, GCA, NCA, national parks, and game reserves) and unprotected open areas vested to village land [66]. It considered Alalili systems located within or adjacent to reserved land and unprotected open areas predominantly utilized for pastoralism. For this study, unprotected open areas under the occupation of village lands will be termed “open areas” from now onwards. It is from these land use categories, the northern Tanzania regions for this study were clustered and mapped to capture Alalili systems that are practiced for grazing activities by the Maasai pastoral communities. The existence of Alalili systems in rangelands within studied land uses was approved by the government authorities.
2.3 Ethics statement
Access to Alalili systems in the studied land use categories received an approval from the Tanzanian Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) (permit number 2022-222-NA-2022-005 dated 20th April, 2022), Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism through Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) (permit number TWRI/RS/22“G”/21 dated 22nd April 2022), Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA) (permit number AE.542/712/01 dated 10th May 2022), and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA) (permit number BD.158/711/01-B/100 dated 09th May 2022). Permission for research in communities was obtained from relevant local and district authorities.
2.4 Research design and sampling techniques
Prior to main data collection, a reconnaissance survey was conducted to confirm the availability of Maasai Alalili systems within districts in the proposed study regions. The sampling in this study involved a cross-sectional research design whereby both purposive and stratified random sampling techniques were applied. Administrative boundaries of the Arusha and Manyara regions were marked through Quantum Geographical Information System (Q-GIS) software version 3.12.3 [67] to enhance the sampling process of the Maasai land with the assistance of shape files collected from Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI). Five districts from the two regions were sampled purposively, targeting pastoral and agro-pastoral Maasai communities (Fig 1). A purposive sampling of the five districts dominated by the Maasai communities was adopted to enhance the identification process of the Alalili systems and livestock herd size grazed in the sampled Alalili systems through key informant interviews and focused group discussion respectively [68, 69]. Key informant interviews were conducted in each district for the purpose of identifying villages that have Alalili systems as well as preparing the list of all Alalili systems from identified villages. Key informants included district game officers (DGOs), rangeland management officers (ROs), ward/village executive officers (VEO/WEO), and members of the village rangeland management committee. A total of 61 interviews were done in the study area whereby five were conducted at district levels and 56 at ward levels. DGOs and ROs from all five districts were consulted through direct physical meetings conducted at each district council office headquarters during a reconnaissance survey. WEO/VEO from a total of 88 wards of the sampled districts were contacted with assistance from DGOs and ROs via phone/mobile calls considering the limited time, available resources, and broader range of the study area. The interviews between DGOs, ROs, and WEO/VEO enhanced to reach out the leaders of the respective village rangeland management committees who gave the list of all Alalili systems present in their villages. A total of 298 Alalili systems were identified and numbered continuously, from which 40% (119 Alalili systems) were sampled to cover a wider range of the study area through randomization technique with the adoption of random number tables. Focused group discussion comprised of one member of the village rangeland management committee and two or three members of the pastoral households who graze livestock in the sampled Alalili systems for estimation of livestock herd size.
Stratification of the study area was conducted with regard to the existing land use practices in the Arusha and Manyara regions. Six types of land use strata were plotted through Q-GIS and distinguished using the topographic map of sampled regions. The land use strata were open areas, WMA, GCA, NCA, national parks, and game reserves. National parks and game reserves were not accounted for mapping of Alalili as Maasai Alalili silvo-pastoral conservation systems are not allowed in the national parks and game reserves. Stratification of the sampled villages that comprised the sampled Alalili systems was done based on different land-use systems with respect to their distribution. An empirical evidence-based method (Ground-truthing technique) was applied through field visitation and direct observation. DGOs and ROs assisted in verifying the exact land use types in the study area whereby GCA covered the largest proportion (45%) followed by NCA (20%), open areas (19%), and WMA (16%) [70].
2.5 Data collection
All Alalili samples were visited in each sample village and their respective locations were recorded at the center of each surveyed Alalili system with a GPS to enhance mapping through the Q-GIS platform. Since the specific boundaries and actual sizes (ha) of each Alalili were not known, four radii were recorded from the center of each visited Alalili system to the north, south, east, and west directions assuming that Alalili has an irregular polygon. The Alalili boundaries at each end of the four directions were demarcated with a help from the local field assistant for each specific village. The common local trails within the surveyed Alalili systems were considered as transects from which the radius was measured from the center to every end. A handheld GPS was used to measure the radius where we managed to walk toward the boundaries at each end for small-sized Alalili systems, while the boundaries of the large-sized Alalili systems were reached out by a field vehicle. The four radii were recorded in the field data sheet from which an average radius of each Alalili system was obtained. The radius was used to compute the actual ground area of a specific Alalili system (Eq 1). Moreover, Google background image in the Q-GIS environment was used to locate the extent in terms of sizes for each Alalili through digitization. The digitization of each Alalili polygon was done using Google Earth Pro with the image captured by Landsat/Copernicus from the baseline landcover maps taken between February 2018 to December 2020 [71]. The local field assistant helped to identify the boundaries of each Alalili in the zoomed satellite view on the screen. The two values were compared and the average was taken into consideration to decide the actual area covered by each Alalili system (Eq 2).
Whereby, A is the actual ground area of Alalili (km2) and r is an average radius of Alalili (km)
(Eq 2)
Data were collected from late April to early December 2022 whereby the types of Alalili systems (communal and private Alalili) were identified through participatory field visits and semi-structured interviews (SSI). The participatory field visits involved the research team comprised of a research team leader, research assistant, DGO/RO, a leader, and other two members of the village rangeland management committee (local field assistants). The leader of the village rangeland management committee helped to identify the type of the visited Alalili systems. SSI through focused group discussion with DGO/RO and the local field assistants, that adopted the guiding questionnaires and checklist [72], was used to determine other descriptive features of Alalili systems. This includes the approximated livestock herd size, livestock categories accommodated by each surveyed Alalili system, age, approximated distance to water sources, management modality, and allocated time to open the Alalili for grazing.
2.6 Data analysis
Mapping of the spatial distribution of the Alalili system across Alalili type, size, and land use categories was done in Q-GIS version 3.12.3. Prior to mapping, the area of Alalili was categorized into three classes (small, medium, and large). The class sizes were obtained via the standardization method whereby all Alalili systems that had an area below the mean range (mean ± SE) were considered small, Alalili systems with an area within a mean range were considered medium and those with above mean range were regarded as large. Excel spreadsheet for Windows 2011 was used in data processing, organization, and data sorting to ensure smooth analyses. The abundance and distribution of Alalili systems were presented in percentages and tabular forms depicting their proportional dispersion within the mapped rangelands of northern Tanzania and their respective land uses. The chi-square test was used to understand the variation of abundance and distribution across Alalili types and land use categories [33, 47]. Independent sample t-test was used to understand the variation of total area covered by Alalili systems across types while analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to understand the variation of total area covered by Alalili systems across land use and size categories. Prior to analyzing the effect of land use and types of Alalili on the size of Alalili systems, the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality was conducted. A homogeneity test of variance was also done by using Levene’s test. A generalized estimating equations (GEE) model was applied to assess the effects of land uses and Alalili types on the size of Alalili systems (Eq 3). Similarly, the GEE model was used to assess the relationship between Alalili size and livestock herd size (Eq 4) through the R version 4.2.3 [73, 74].
The GEE model equation considered the aspects of land use, type of Alalili, and size of Alalili as factors whereby the baseline variables were GCA, Communal Alalili, and Large size respectively. The dependent variables in the model equations comprised of size of Alalili systems in terms of area (ha) and livestock herd size (total number of livestock grazed in Alalili systems). The independent variables comprised of types of Alalili systems, land use categories, class size, and age of surveyed Alalili systems. A p-value of p < 0.05 was considered significant.
3. Results
3.1 Classification of Maasai Alalili silvo-pastoral conservation systems
Two types of Alalili systems; communal and private were identified in the Maasai pastoral communities in both Arusha and Manyara regions. Communal Alalili were reported to be silvo-pastoral systems owned and managed by a village or a village section for the purpose of providing fodder/forage to livestock during the acute dry season. Further classification of communal Alalili systems in terms of size determined three categories; small (1–924 ha), medium (925–1,320 ha), and large (above 1,320 ha). They are generally large in size compared to private Alalili and allow large numbers of livestock, weak and/or sick, as well as lactating herds to graze based on the rules and regulations set up by the village rangeland management committee. The livestock are allowed to graze in the communal Alalili during the acute dry season only in numbers ranging between 50–450 herds with respect to the size of the communal Alalili being grazed. Many of the communal Alalili (74%) were found far from the settlement areas, they were found in the wilderness (either on high or low land) and were not fenced (Fig 2). They were also reported to be found in the protected areas where they are utilized as shared grazing resources between livestock and wildlife. The majority of them were old (80 and 90 years) although some were reported to be established recently (10 or 15 years old).
Private Alalili on the other hand were reported to be silvo-pastoral conservation systems that are owned and managed by individual families or a clan referred to as a Boma. Some private Alalili were observed to be privately owned by investors who aimed at high production of livestock products. They are further classified into three size categories; small (1–156 ha), medium (157–261 ha), and large (above 261 ha). They are generally considered smaller in size compared to communal Alalili systems to enhance suitability and sustainable fodder availability to only a smaller number of livestock at a range of 30–150 herds. Occasionally, private Alalili owned by investors has a large size (250–1,000 ha) considering the large number of livestock being kept by an investor (500–3,000 herds). They are meant to provide fodder to calves, weak and/or sick, as well as lactating livestock. The grazing season allowed to feed such livestock in the private Alalili is determined by the Alalili owner. It was reported that private Alalili have no definite grazing season and the majority of them (94%) were closer to the residential area (around the settlement areas). In contrast to communal Alalili, private Alalili were found far from the wilderness and some of them were confined with a live or local fence for protection against wildlife encroachment and depredation (Fig 3). They are also utilized as shared grazing resources between livestock and wildlife that graze/hide within them during night hours especially when crossing from one PA to another. Most of them are up to 30 years old although some are aged up to 70 years.
3.2 Size of Alalili systems across types
The size of communal Alalili systems varied significantly (t = 4.4646, p < 0.001) from private Alalili systems. Communal Alalili conservation systems had the largest mean area coverage (1,122±198 ha) compared to private Alalili (209±52.1 ha) (Fig 4).
Furthermore, there was a significant variation in the size of Alalili between GCA and other land use categories (F = 3.806, df = 3, p = 0.0123). Alalili in GCA had the largest mean area (1409±307 ha) followed by those in WMA (608±224 ha), NCA (480±167 ha), and open areas (446±119 ha). There was a significant variation (F = 27.175, df = 2, p < 0.001) in area coverage across size categories of Alalili systems whereby large, medium, and small-sized Alalili had a mean area of 2773±522 ha, 985±106 ha, and 240±27 ha respectively (Fig 4).
3.2.1 Overall area coverage of Alalili silvo-pastoral conservation systems.
Generally, 119 Alalili systems covered an overall area approximated to only 3% of the entire study area (4,087,984 ha). Out of the pre-determined 3%, communal Alalili comprised 96% of the total area while private Alalili comprised 4% only of the total area. On the other hand, 73% of the overall Alalili area was covered by large-sized Alalili systems, followed by 16% of the total Alalili area covered by small-sized Alalili systems while medium-sized covered 11% (Table 1).
3.2.2 Size of Alalili systems within land use categories.
In GCA there was a significant variation in the size of Alalili between types (t = 3.7252, p < 0.001) whereby communal Alalili had a mean area of 1,700±374 ha while private Alalili was 271±85 ha (Table 1). In WMA, the size between communal and private Alalili systems varied significantly (t = 2.5073, p = 0.0319). Communal Alalili had a mean area of 964±339 ha while for private Alalili was 98.9±62 ha. Although, in the open areas, there was no significant variation in size between communal and private Alalili systems (t = 1.8904, p = 0.0759) whereby communal Alalili had a mean area of 490±139 ha while that of private Alalili was 215±44 ha. In contrast to other land use categories, NCA comprised of communal Alalili systems only with a mean area of 480±167 ha (Fig 5).
3.2.3 Overall area coverage of Alalili systems across land use and sizes.
Alalili systems in the GCA had the highest proportion area covering 73% of the total Alalili area and it was only 4.5% of the entire area shielded by GCA (1,850,000 ha). NCA had a total Alalili area whose proportion was 10%, approximated to only 1.4% of the entire area covered by NCA (809,440 ha). Alalili systems in WMA had a total area coverage whose proportion was 9% which was approximated to only 1.6% of the entire area covered by WMA (643,544 ha). The open areas on the other hand had a total Alalili area coverage whose proportion was 8% being approximated to only 1.1% of the general area covered by studied village lands (785,000 ha). In the GCA, about 81.8%, 10%, and 8.2% of its total Alalili area were covered by large, small, and medium-sized Alalili systems respectively. Likewise, in the NCA, about 44.2%, 34.0%, and 21.8% of its total Alalili area were covered by large, small, and medium-sized Alalili systems respectively. In the WMA, about 74.1% and 25.9% of its total Alalili area were covered by large and small-sized Alalili respectively while medium-sized Alalili systems were not identified. In the open areas, about 41.7%, 29.3%, and 29.0% of its total Alalili area were covered by small, large, and medium-sized Alalili systems respectively (Table 1).
3.2.4 Area coverage of communal Alalili systems across land use and size.
Communal Alalili systems in GCA had the highest area covering 73% of the total communal Alalili area. NCA was the second land use having communal Alalili systems with an area covering 11% of the total communal Alalili area. Communal Alalili systems in WMA covered an area equivalent to 9% of the total communal Alalili area while Alalili systems in the open areas covered an area equivalent to 7% of the total communal Alalili area (Table 1). Considering the area of communal Alalili systems across sizes within land uses, it was found that in GCA, about 81.6%, 10.0%, and 8.4% of its total communal Alalili area were covered by large, small, and medium-sized Alalili respectively. In NCA, about 44.2%, 34.0%, and 21.8% of its total communal Alalili area were covered by large, small, and medium-sized Alalili respectively. In the WMA on the other hand, about 74.6% and 25.4% of its total communal Alalili area were covered by large and small-sized Alalili systems respectively in the absence of medium size. In the open areas, about 43.5%, 28.3%, and 28.2% of its total communal Alalili area were covered by small, large, and medium-sized Alalili systems respectively (Table 1).
3.2.5 Area coverage of private Alalili systems across land use.
GCA had the highest area coverage of private Alalili systems with a total proportion of 71% of the total private Alalili area. WMA had private Alalili systems with an area covering 15% of the total private Alalili area while those in the open areas covered 14% of the total private Alalili area. On the other hand, no private Alalili systems were found in NCA. Considering the area of private Alalili systems across sizes within land uses, it was found that in GCA, about 84.9%, 9.3%, and 5.9% of its total private Alalili area were covered by large, small, and medium-sized Alalili systems respectively. In the WMA, about 67% and 33% of its total private Alalili area were covered by large and small-sized Alalili systems respectively and no medium-sized Alalili systems were observed. In the open areas, about 41.5%, 38.8%, and 19.7% of its total private Alalili area were covered by large, medium, and small-sized Alalili systems respectively (Table 1).
3.3 Overall abundance and distribution of Alalili enclosures
A total of 119 individual Alalili silvo-pastoral conservation systems were recorded in the study area. The identified traditional systems generally showed a spatial distribution across the study area (Fig 6).
3.3.1 Overall abundance and distribution across types of Alalili.
There was a significant variation (χ² = 47.3, df = 1, p < 0.001) of abundance between communal and private Alalili systems. The highest abundance of Alalili systems was recorded under the communal category which comprised 82% compared to 18% of Alalili systems that were recorded under the private category. Communal Alalili systems generally depicted the highest spatial distribution across land uses compared to that of private Alalili (Fig 6).
3.3.2 Overall Alalili abundance and distribution across land use and class-size.
The abundance of Alalili varied significantly (χ² = 39.2, df = 3, p < 0.001) from GCA to other land use categories whereby, 50% of Alalili systems were recorded from the GCA. The NCA had an overall abundance of 20% Alalili systems, open areas had 16% of Alalili systems, and WMA had 14% of Alalili systems. For each land use category, Alalili distribution varied with regard to class sizes whereby GCA had 51%, 37%, and 12% of small, large, and medium-sized Alalili systems respectively. NCA had 83.3%, 8.3%, and 8.3% of small, large, and medium-sized Alalili systems respectively while open areas had 74%, 16%, and 10% of small, medium, and large-sized Alalili systems respectively. WMA on the other hand had 76.5% and 23.5% of small and large-sized Alalili systems respectively and none medium-sized Alalili systems (Fig 7).
3.3.3 Abundance and distribution of communal Alalili systems across land use and size categories.
The highest abundance of communal Alalili systems was recorded in the GCA with a total proportion of 48% Alalili followed by NCA with an abundance proportion of 25% communal Alalili systems. The open areas comprised of 17% communal Alalili while WMA had the least abundance of 10% communal Alalili systems. An abundance within each land use depicted different distribution patterns of communal Alalili systems. GCA had 53.2%, 34.0%, and 12.8% of small, large, and medium-sized Alalili systems respectively. NCA had 83.3%, 8.3%, and 8.3% of small, large, and medium-sized Alalili respectively. Open areas were featured by 81.3%, 12.5%, and 6.2% of small, medium, and large-sized Alalili systems respectively. WMA on the other hand comprised 70% and 30% of small and large Alalili systems respectively and none of them was medium sized (Table 2).
Based on size categories, small size recorded the highest abundance of communal Alalili which was 67% followed by large size which comprised 23% of Alalili systems. Medium size recorded the least abundance of communal Alalili encompassing 10% of Alalili systems (Table 2). Further distribution analysis within each size category depicted that 38.5%, 30.8%, 20%, and 10.7% of small-sized Alalili systems are found in GCA, NCA, open areas, and WMA respectively. 72.7%, 13.6%, 9.1%, and 4.6% of large-sized Alalili systems are located in the GCA, WMA, NCA, and in open areas respectively. There were 60%, 20%, and 20% of medium-sized Alalili systems in GCA, NCA, and in the open areas respectively, and none in WMA (Fig 8A).
Distribution of Alalili systems across land use and size: (a) Communal (b) Private.
3.3.4 Abundance and distribution of private Alalili systems across land use and size categories.
GCA recorded the highest abundance of private Alalili systems which was 54% followed by WMA which comprised 32% of Alalili systems. Open areas recorded the least abundance with 14% of private Alalili systems (Table 2). In contrast to communal Alalili, private Alalili systems were not observed in the NCA. Further analysis within each land use depicted different distribution pattern with regard to class sizes. In GCA, there were 50%, 42%, and 8% of large, small, and medium-sized Alalili systems respectively. In WMA, there were 86% and 14% of small and large sized Alalili respectively and none was recorded under medium-sized category. In open areas, each category of the size comprised of 33.3% of private Alalili system (Fig 8B).
On the other hand, small size recorded the highest abundance of private Alalili which covered 55% followed by large size which comprised 36% of private Alalili systems. Medium size recorded the least abundance encompassing 9% of private Alalili systems. The distribution analysis of private Alalili within each size category was done with regard to land use where by 50%, 42%, and 8% of small-sized private Alalili systems were found in WMA, GCA, and open areas respectively. Moreover, 75%, 12.5%, and 12.5% of large-sized private Alalili systems were located in GCA, WMA, and open areas respectively. There was 50% of medium-sized private Alalili systems in both GCA and in open areas while none was recorded in WMA. NCA had no private Alalili silvo-pastoral conservation systems (Table 2).
3.4 Effects of land uses and Alalili types on the size of Alalili systems
There was a significant negative association of Alalili size between Alalili systems in the GCA and those in the NCA (β = -1081.51, S.E. = 183.00, p<0.001). But the association of Alalili size for GCA was not significant to that of both open areas (β = -292.47, S.E. = 172.53, p = 0.0900) and WMA (β = 53.45, S.E. = 293.42, p = 0.8555) (Table 3).
Land use, class size, and type of Alalili were defined as factors whereby the baseline variables are GCA, large size, and communal Alalili respectively.
Furthermore, a significant negative association of Alalili size between communal and private Alalili systems was observed (β = -1352.10, S.E. = 361.34, p<0.001). On the other hand, there was a significant negative association of Alalili size between large-sized Alalili systems and those of both small-sized Alalili systems (β = -2538.84, S.E. = 639.66, p<0.001) and medium-sized Alalili systems (β = -1795.52, S.E. = 615.46, p = 0.0035; Table 3).
3.5 Correlation effects of Alalili size and age on livestock herd size
A generalized estimation equation model revealed that the livestock herd size was positively correlated to both size and age of Alalili systems and the association was significant across the Alalili size but not significant along the age (Table 4). The livestock herd size was higher in the private Alalili systems compared to the reference category communal Alalili systems depicting a significant negative association between them (Table 4). On the other hand, the livestock herd size was higher and lower in the Alalili systems of the open areas and NCA respectively compared to Alalili systems of reference category GCA depicting a negative association. While the relationship of livestock herd size between Alalili systems in the NCA and GCA was significant, the association between Alalili systems in the open areas and GCA was not significant (Table 4). Although Alalili systems in WMA depicted a higher livestock herd size compared to Alalili systems in the reference category GCA, the association was not significant (Table 4).
Land use and type of Alalili were defined as factors whereby the baseline variables are GCA and communal Alalili respectively.
4. Discussion
Indigenous local knowledge (ILK) and research around it has emerged as an important area of sustainability science, informing and supporting pressing challenges of our modern times. It provides information and data that can increase resilience, promote sustainable restoration and rewilding for transforming communities in landscapes towards more resilient, sustainable, and equitable futures [8, 75, 76]. Many rangeland areas harbor communities with different socio-cultural practices most of which are not documented [16]. Due to lack of recognition of these, rangelands and their indigenous socio-cultural practices are rarely going to survive the current anthropogenic threats. This study was able to distinctively characterize Maasai Alalili by land use types, separating private and communal ones into three size categories named small, medium, and large Alalili systems. The documentation of this which had not been reported in the previous studies [5, 12, 17] are potential tools for facilitating management initiatives of the traditional fodder conservation systems. Through predicting the possible loss of Alalili systems, the majority of these being communal with reference made to private that vanished in non-protected land, their future practices may be prone to total loss and extinction.
4.1 Status of Alalili systems and the suggested changes across types
On average this study identified and categorized more communal Alalili (82%) than private (18%) throughout the studied rangeland area predicting that this practice at the household level is being threatened by various drivers that may include land use and socio-cultural changes [12, 18, 25, 50]. Although, the Maasai pastoral communities in northern Tanzania are reported to practice communal ownership of rangelands as the dominant system [18, 44], this work suggests the historical evolvement of private Alalili systems that was not documented for many years as supported by recent works [17, 18, 77, 78]. This is further supported by a few surveyed old-aged private Alalili systems reported to historically exist since the past 40 to 70 years as informed by the rapporteur in the focused group discussion;
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 keeping 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 lactating cattle in the long dry seasons. However, due to increased number of household members, 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 biodiversity [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 priority from these private to communal areas because, conservation agencies are highly promoting it through conservation incentives provided to community-based organizations for climate change mitigation [46, 78]. In the past three decades, numerous projects have been done for rangeland improvement through participatory rangelands management (PRM) exposing more conservation incentives to communal enclosures than in private [26, 79].
Additionally, policies for livestock, wildlife, tourism, and land sectors in Tanzania have prioritized measures that promote communal rangeland management through traditional land use practices [26, 50, 56–58, 63, 80]. Effects of poverty, climate change, and food insecurity are additional drivers that scale down the size of private Alalili systems, abundance, and distribution [7, 71, 81]. The growing population (both human and livestock) are in need of expanding settlement areas and farmlands for food crop production within the same land resources leading to competitive effect and degradation [71]. A portion of privately reserved pasture land is sold out for sustaining their livelihood [8, 82]. Thus, private Alalili systems are at risk of malpractices compared to communal ones. On the other hand, the decreasing number and size of 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 commons” [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 Maasai pastoralists who maintain their cultural heritage with minimum harmful threats to biodiversity resources [5, 18, 44].
The observed transition from pastoralism to crop cultivation among Maasai pastoral communities 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 Alalili 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 biodiversity 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 occupied 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 community-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 villagers [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 villagers 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 grazing 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-functional 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 communities 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 payments and rewards for ecosystem services, green loans, REDD+, and subsidies [88]. Communities 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 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, species 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 necessarily 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 misjudging 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 practices 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 availability, 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 resilience in East African rangelands.
Acknowledgments
We owe our special gratitude to the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology 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 COSTECH, 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. Catherine 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).
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. pmid:25400331
- 2. Hezron E, Munishi LK, Ngondya IB. Characterisation of Maasai Alalili Silvo-Pastoral Conservation Systems of Northern Tanzania: The Final Project Report-Rufford Foundation; Nelson Mandela African Institution 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 Knowledge 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. Dissertation). The University of Dodoma. 2014.
- 5. Selemani IS. Indigenous knowledge and rangelands’ biodiversity conservation in Tanzania: success and failure. Biodivers Conserv. 2020;29: 3863–3876. pmid:33052175
- 6. Chará 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, Chará 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.
- 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. pmid:36813819
- 9. Cámara-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. 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.
- 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. Conserv Soc. 2011;9: 65–79.
- 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 Natural Resources for Sustainable Agriculture MSc. Dissertation), Sokoine Univ. Sokoine University of Agriculture. 2017.
- 14. Mörner S. The Maasai. Global Development. Södertörn University College. 2006.
- 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.
- 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.
- 18.
NTRI. Rangelands in transition. Rangel J. 2019;41: 161–163. doi:https://doi.org/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. Amboseli Ecosystem Trust, Loitokitok town-Kenya. Loitokitok Town-Kenya; 2022.
- 22.
AET. Regreening Amboseli: Bringing Back Grasses and Forest Cover Campaign. In: Amboseli Ecosystem 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 livestock production in traditional forage reserves in Tanzania. Afr J Ecol. 2008;46: 85–89.
- 24. Godde CM, Boone RB, Ash AJ, Waha K, Sloat LL, Thornton PK, et al. Global rangeland production systems and livelihoods at threat under climate change and variability. Environ Res Lett. 2020;15.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 28. Phelps LN, Kaplan JO. Land use for animal production in global change studies: Defining and characterizing a framework. Glob Chang Biol. 2017;23: 4457–4471. 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 Studies, 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.
- 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. 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.
- 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.
- 34. Abebe MH, Oba G, Angassa A, Weladji RB. The role of area enclosures and fallow age in the restoration of plant diversity in northern Ethiopia. Afr J Ecol. 2006;44: 507–514.
- 35. Olenasha W, William O, Kaisoe M. Case Study 4. International Journal of Game-Based Learning. 2001. pp. 98–100.
- 36. Ray R, Chandran MDS, Ramachandra T V. Hydrological importance of sacredforest fragments in Central 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.
- 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.
- 39. Gari L. A history of the Himā conservation system. Environ Hist Camb. 2006;12: 213–228.
- 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.
- 41. Rubanza CDK, Shem MN, Ichinohe T, Fujihara T. Biomass production and nutritive potential of conserved forages in silvopastoral traditional fodder banks (Ngitiri) of meatu district of Tanzania. Asian-Australasian J Anim Sci. 2006;19: 978–983.
- 42. Kilongozi N, Kengera Z, Leshongo S. The utilization of indigenous and local knowledgein range management and forage plants for improving livestock productivity and food security in the Maasai and Barbaig 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 Heritage 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 50. Mwalyosi RBB. Land-use Changes and Resource Degradation. Environ Conserv. 1992;19: 145–152.
- 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 characterisation of livestock production systems in northern Tanzania. PLoS One. 2020;15. 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.
- 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.
- 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. 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.
- 73. Feng C, Wang H, Lu N, Chen T, He H, Lu Y, et al. Log-transformation and its implications for data analysis. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2014;26: 105–109. 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 knowledge show resilience despite ecosystem changes in the forest-grassland mosaics of the Nilgiri Hills, India. Palgrave Commun. 2018;4: 1–9.
- 76. Prist PR, Sangermano F, Bailey A, Bugni V, Villalobos-Segura M del C, Pimiento-Quiroga N, et al. Protecting Brazilian Amazon Indigenous territories reduces atmospheric particulates and avoids associated health impacts and costs. Commun Earth Environ. 2023;4: 1–12.
- 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 Tanzania’s wildlife economy. Pastoralism. 2012;2: 1–19.
- 79.
Robinson LW. Management and governance of pastoral rangelands: a review of recent CGIAR initiatives. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.; 2020. doi:https://doi.org/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.
- 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. 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 Encroachment: 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, Näschen 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.
- 88.
Duguma LA, Minang PA, Kimaro AA, Otsyina R, Mpanda M. Shinyanga: blending old and new agroforestry 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, Indonesia: World Agroforestry (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program pp 139–151. Elsevier Ltd; 2019. p. 111831. doi:https://doi.org/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.