Research

INTRODUCTION

Despite conservation’s crucial role in enhancing people’s quality of life (Turner et al. 2012), balancing conservation goals with the livelihood needs of local communities in and around protected areas remains challenging (Rodríguez et al. 2006). Understanding people’s needs and values of nature can help to support informed decision making for inclusive conservation that would effectively mitigate the social costs of conservation (McShane et al. 2011, Palomo et al. 2014). Nature’s contributions to people (NCP) and values of nature are increasingly considered essential to support informed decision making in conservation because both concepts contribute to understanding the diverse ways people benefit from and value nature (Palomo et al. 2014, De Vos et al. 2018, Villarreal-Rosas et al. 2020, Martinez-Harms et al. 2021). The concept of NCP is defined as all benefits and detriments of nature to people’s quality of life, including material NCP, such as food and energy; regulating NCP, such as water quantity and quality regulation; and non-material NCP, such as recreational and social-cohesion experiences (Díaz et al. 2018). Values of nature are broadly defined as the importance, worth, and usefulness ascribed to nature, including NCP (hereafter referred to as “nature’s values”; Díaz et al. 2015). Values of nature can be classified into intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values (Pascual et al. 2017). Intrinsic values refer to the inherent value of nature independent of any human experiences, instrumental and relational values are human-driven (Díaz et al. 2015). The notion of intrinsic values itself reflects morality and the expression of humans’ regard for nature (Arias-Arévalo et al. 2017, O’Connor and Kenter 2019). Instrumental values refer to the importance of nature and NCP as a means to achieve specific ends, such as fulfilling people’s basic needs or providing economic benefits (Arias-Arévalo et al. 2017). Relational values relate to the importance of nature for supporting meaningful relationships between people that are mediated by nature and between nature and people (Chan et al. 2016). Tailoring conservation planning to diverse people’s NCP needs, interests, and preferences (hereafter referred to as “demands for NCP”) and nature’s values creates the opportunity for conservation to become more inclusive and to transparently present diverse trade-offs between conservation and other social goals, such as livelihood security (Ban et al. 2009, McShane et al. 2011).

Numerous studies have shown that there are differentiated levels of dependence on ecosystems and biodiversity by different social actors and that subsistence farmers, herders, and fishers are often the most directly dependent on nature (Iniesta-Arandia et al. 2014, Cáceres et al. 2015, Martín-López et al. 2019). Farmers interact with nature in diverse ways depending on daily life experiences, cultural identities, and socio-demographic characteristics (Lazos-Chavero et al. 2016), which can result in unique and plural demands for NCP (Tauro et al. 2018) and values of nature expression (Topp et al. 2022, Chapman and Deplazes-Zemp 2024). As such, in a given landscape, farmers are rarely a homogeneous social actor group, especially with regard to their NCP demands and values of nature (Lakerveld et al. 2015, Cuni-Sanchez et al. 2019). For example, existing research shows that farmers demand NCP differently, often based on socio-demographic characteristics such as gender (Mensah et al. 2017, Lau et al. 2019), age (Schmitt et al. 2022), education (Tauro et al. 2018, Lau et al. 2019), or access to land (Caballero-Serrano et al. 2017); their perceptions of environmental change (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2014); pro-environmental behaviors, such as participation in environmental organizations (Martín-López et al. 2012); and geographical contexts, such as urban-rural gradients (Martín-López et al. 2012, Boafo et al. 2014) or altitudinal gradients (García-Llorente et al. 2015). Likewise, recent research shows that farmers value nature differently according to their farming practices (Topp et al. 2022) and their views about their own role in nature (Chapman and Deplazes-Zemp 2024). Nevertheless, empirical research often overlooks the interplay of factors that affect the heterogeneity of plural values (Jacobs et al. 2023) and NCP demands by local farmers (Tauro et al. 2018, Cuni-Sanchez et al. 2019), resulting in vague over-generalizations about how farmers express the importance of nature (Hicks et al. 2015, Tauro et al. 2018). Accounting for wider socio-demographic and geographical contexts that affect farmers’ demands for NCP is needed to support the design of more legitimate and inclusive conservation actions (Tauro et al. 2018, Cuni-Sanchez et al. 2019, CBD 2022).

To address this knowledge gap, we investigate the internal heterogeneity of NCP demands and expression of values of nature through a socio-cultural valuation approach in an iconic African mountain: the social-ecological system of Mount Kilimanjaro (hereafter referred to as Kilimanjaro). Mountains are considered pivotal ecosystems for supporting farming livelihoods (Iniesta-Arandia et al. 2014, Cuni-Sanchez et al. 2016, Masao et al. 2022) and fulfilling more intangible farmers’ needs such as cultural and spiritual meaning (Boelens 2014, Ndayizeye et al. 2020). We believe that Kilimanjaro provides an excellent platform to understand the internal heterogeneity of NCP demands and values expressed by farmers because their livelihood is connected in different ways with diverse ecosystems, such as forests, homegardens, or crop fields (Fernandes et al. 1985). At the same time, Kilimanjaro has passed through different conservation phases that have often entailed limiting resource access by local farmers (Sébastien 2010). Understanding the different farmers’ perspectives on the importance of nature and its NCP in Kilimanjaro can provide useful insights for designing inclusive conservation. Our main goal was to explore the internal heterogeneity of the NCP demands and values of nature expressed by a social actor group, i.e., farmers of Kilimanjaro, considering socio-demographic characteristics, pro-environmental behavior, and geographical context. We specifically aim to (1) identify the demands for NCP and expression of nature’s values along the altitudinal and longitudinal gradients; (2) detect “critical” NCP that are highly demanded and perceived as vulnerable because of loss or degradation along the altitudinal and longitudinal gradients; and (3) unravel bundles of NCP demands and nature’s values and determine the influence of respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, pro-environmental behavior, and geographical location. This study provides an understanding of NCP demands, perceived NCP supply trends, and values of nature, representing the significance of NCP on farmers’ livelihoods. This assessment would be essential for decision makers to elaborate evidence-based strategies for sustainable nature conservation.

METHODS

Study site

The targeted social-ecological system comprised the southern slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, the highest free-standing mountain in the world (5985 m.a.s.l.), which is located 300 km south of the equator in northeast Tanzania. Along its altitudinal gradient, the mountain is characterized by distinguishable ecosystems that range from dry and hot savannah (700–1000 m) to a nival zone, mainly bare vegetation and with the presence of glaciers (4600–5895 m) with submontane and montane Ocotea (Camphor) forests (1100–3100 m); Erica bushland and forest (3100–4000 m); and alpine Helichrysum vegetation (4000–4600 m; Hemp 2006) in between (Fig. 1). The mountain is within a global biodiversity hotspot: Eastern Afromontane (Hrdina and Romportl 2017).

The Chagga tribe mainly inhabits the southern slopes of Kilimanjaro. Chagga are Bantu speakers who migrated from multiple African tribes and settled in the once-forested Kilimanjaro foothills (Fernandes et al. 1985). Traditional Chagga livelihood is centered around the homegarden (Kihamba in Chagga) that consists of a multilayered coffee-banana agroforestry system with a vegetation structure similar to that of humid tropical forests containing trees, shrubs, herbs, lianas, and epiphytes (Hemp 2006, Mbwiga 2016). Homegardens are mainly found between 1200 and 1700 m (Von Clemm 1964), and their average size is 0.5–1.7 ha (Mdoe and Wiggins 1997). Good climatic conditions, fertile volcanic soils, and a dense network of streams and springs that feed an efficient furrow irrigation system favor biodiversity (Masao 1974, Fernandes et al. 1985) and the supply of various NCP. Other Tanzanian tribes settle in the lowlands below 1200 m for socioeconomic activities such as agriculture and livestock keeping (Kilima et al. 2015, Mushi et al. 2020).

Material NCP, such as food, medicine, feed, and firewood, are mostly supplied in the croplands located in the lower elevation (< 1000 m) and in the croplands and homegardens located at 1000–1700 m (Kilima et al. 2015). Regulating NCP, such as the regulation of freshwater quantity, climate, and air quality, is mainly provided by the submontane and montane forests located at 1100–3100 m (Hemp 2006, Kilima et al. 2015). However, in the last decades, some changes in climatic conditions have affected the supply of material and regulating NCP, such as food and energy (Said et al. 2019), soil fertility in homegardens (Ichinose et al. 2023), and water quantity regulation because of the near-total collapse of the irrigation furrow system (Kimaro and Bogner 2019). Finally, non-material NCP are associated with places and species with symbolic, cultural, and spiritual meaning, such as rituals and ceremonies, across elevations (Sébastien 2010, Mtallo and Rubagumya 2015). Tourism, particularly multi-day hiking to get to the highest peak in Africa, is an important source of income for local communities who are employed as guides, porters, park rangers, and other service providers in the hospitality industry (Adili and Robert 2016, Ngowi and Jani 2018).

Although our study site is located outside Kilimanjaro National Park (KINAPA), the park significantly affects access and user rights to forest-derived NCP since its gazetting. The conservation history of Kilimanjaro started during the colonial period (Fig. 2); in 1904, the German colonial government converted more than half a million hectares of crown land into forest reserve under the Forest Conservation Ordinance, however, active management of the forest reserve began in 1908 (Schabel 1990, Newmark 1991). In 1921, the British colonial government established all forests above 1700 m as a natural reserve, the Mount Kilimanjaro Forest Reserve (Wood 1965, Newmark 1991). The establishment of Kilimanjaro Forest Reserve started to limit local communities’ access to and use of NCP, leading to prolonged disputes over natural resource control (Bender 2013). In 1941, a Chagga council, a political body managed by Chagga chiefs, declared a social buffer zone and catchment forest of approximately 8800 ha, i.e., the Half Mile Forest Strip (HMFS), to grant local communities access to forest-related NCP with successful reforestation projects (Newmark 1991, William 2003). However, after Tanzania’s independence in 1961, authority over the HMFS shifted from local communities to district councils in 1962, emphasizing the commercial use of forest products. Still, the management faced the challenge of less profit success (Newmark 1991). In 1972, the central government took over the control of HMFS, emphasizing soil and water conservation, but the government collected revenues from the HMFS with less reforestation success. In 1973, KINAPA was established, and the HMFS was integrated into the national park in 2005 (KINAPA 2006). The independent government of Tanganyika justified banning local communities from accessing the HMFS based on population increase, encroachment, and overexploitation of forest resources (Sébastien 2010). In personal communication with a Kilimanjaro National Park Authority officer, he explained that local farmers adjacent to KINAPA struggled to fulfill their needs for forest-related NCP and demanded to re-open the HMFS. Consequently, between 2014 and 2019, only women were permitted access to the HMFS without cutting tools to gather firewood. Within this period, there were reforestation programs in the degraded areas of the HMFS and surrounding villages, reducing pressure on the forest-related NCP supplied by HMFS. After a period of assessing the status of the HMFS, an official ban on firewood collection, including women, was implemented in 2021 (Fig. 2).

Sampling strategy for villages and households

To unravel the heterogeneity of demands for NCP and values of nature expressed by farmers in Kilimanjaro, we applied a stratified sampling based on the longitudinal gradient based on the districts, i.e., East (Rombo district), Central (Moshi Rural district), and West (Siha and Hai districts) and the altitudinal gradient, according to the three agro-ecological zones (Soini 2005). The lowland zone extends below 1000 m and comprises intensive and mechanized cultivation of maize, beans, sunflower, sorghum, and extensive grazing pastureland. The natural vegetation of the lowland is savanna, and the average annual rainfall is 400–1500 mm. The midland zone is between 1000 and 1200 m and includes monocrops of maize and beans, with a few patches of monocrops of coffee and banana and open grazing pastureland. The natural vegetation of the midland is natural dry forest vegetation, bushland, and grassland, and receives an average annual rainfall of 1500 to 2000 mm. The upland zone is between 1700 and 1200 m and borders the National Park. It receives an average annual rainfall of 2000 mm and hosts most of the Chagga homegardens (Fig. 1).

To ultimately achieve a representation within the altitudinal and longitudinal gradients, we randomly sampled 14 out of 224 villages, ranging from 4 to 6 villages in each zone (Table 1). We calculated representative sample sizes of respondents to be surveyed at a 95% confidence level and with a margin of error between 8% and 11%. To identify respondents, we then used a geospatial sampling approach. We randomly selected coordinates in each village and chose the closest household, where the survey was administered to the head of the household when possible or, if the head of the household was absent, to any adult (18+ years old) present. We sampled 364 farmers evenly distributed across the altitudinal and longitudinal gradients (Table 1).

Questionnaire design and data collection

The questionnaire comprised three main sections: (1) demands for NCP, (2) expression of values of nature, and (3) respondent’s pro-environmental behavior, socio-demographic characteristics, and geographical location of the village (see Questionnaire in Appendix 1). We applied an interwoven approach to elicit NCP (Hill et al. 2021) that weaves the generalizing and context-specific NCP perspectives (Díaz et al. 2018). We first applied the context-specific perspective by conducting 130 semi-structured interviews from May 2021 to March 2022 with people residing in, working in, and traveling to Kilimanjaro. We provide the four versions of interview guidelines conducted with farmers (n = 44 ) in Kiswahili, nature conservationists (n = 28), tour guides (n = 20), and tourists (n = 38) in Appendix 2. For further detailed information about the interview collection and content analysis, see Appendix 3. Through these interviews, we identified 25 context-specific NCP provided by nature in Kilimanjaro, which we linked back to the generalizing classification of NCP (Díaz et al. 2018). We grouped them into regulating NCP (n = 10), material NCP (n = 6), and non-material NCP (n = 8). Intergenerational benefits of NCP, i.e., the capacity of nature to provide benefits to future generations, cuts across all three NCP groups (Díaz et al. 2018), hence, we did not associate with any NCP group (Fig. 3).

In the second phase (August–October 2022), we conducted face-to-face surveys using a Kiswahili-translated questionnaire implemented in ArcGIS Survey 123 (Version 3.15.165; ESRI 2021). The survey covered different topics, of which four were used to elicit the demands for NCP and plural values of nature: (1) NCP demands, (2) expression of nature’s values, (3) pro-environmental behavior, and (4) socio-demographic attributes (Appendix 1).

To detect NCP demands, we asked respondents to select the five NCP out of 25 NCP that are most important to them and which most contribute to their quality of life. To facilitate the exercise, we provided separate laminated A4 sheets with a list of the 25 NCP (Appendix 1), which included not only the NCP name but also an explanation with examples taken from the interviews and two photos illustrating each NCP (see, e.g., Iniesta-Arandia et al. 2014, Oteros-Rozas et al. 2014). After respondents selected an NCP, we asked them whether they perceived an “increasing,” “stable,” or “decreasing” trend in its local supply over the past 10 years. Although relying on respondents’ memory can lead to biases as the accuracy of the information collected is likely to decline with interviewees’ age, the 10-year time frame is considered a short enough period to reliably reflect respondents’ recent memories while long enough to capture potential environmental change (Castro et al. 2016).

To elicit the diverse values of nature in Kilimanjaro, we used 20 value statements related to intrinsic (n = 2), instrumental (n = 2), and relational values (n = 16; Table 2). The intrinsic values statements were derived from the notion that nature has the right to exist independently of its usefulness for humans (Díaz et al. 2015, Arias-Arévalo et al. 2018). The instrumental value statements refer to the notion that nature has value as a means to achieve specific ends, such as fulfilling people’s basic needs or providing economic benefits (Arias-Arévalo et al. 2017). Regarding relational values, we considered 16 statements representing meaningful relations between people and nature as well as those meaningful human-human relations mediated by nature (Chan et al. 2016), such as individual and collective identity, social cohesion, responsibility and stewardship, cognitive development, or aesthetics (Pratson et al. 2023).

We created the value statements based on a review of empirical research on the plural valuation of nature (Riechers et al. 2022a) and research targeting specific relational values, such as social cohesion (de la Torre-Castro and Lindström 2010, Riechers et al. 2022b), the maintenance of cultural and collective identities (McCright and Dunlap 2015, Schröter et al. 2020), and cultural heritage (Daniel et al. 2012, Pearson et al. 2019). We adapted the statements to the local context by relying on the information gathered through the 130 interviews (Appendices 2). For example, a farmer stated, “I feel also connected with nature because nature is me, and I am nature. Nature protects me, cares for me, and provides me with many things I need for my life ...” referring to their connectedness with nature. The selection of statements for each value was based first on previous empirical research (Arias-Arévalo et al. 2017, Riechers et al. 2022a, Schmitt et al. 2022). We later tuned the statements (including the number of statements) based on the nuances given by the former 130 interviews through content analysis (Appendix 3). For example, Arias-Arévalo et al. (2017) and Schmitt et al. (2022) coded instrumental values as a single category, however, through the content analysis we identified two different ways that they were expressed by interviewees: (1) nature as a means to satisfy basic needs, and (2) nature as a means to gain economic profit. Appendix 4 provides verbatim examples from the interviews representing each value statement. We asked respondents to assess the provided value statements using a four-point Likert scale, i.e., 4 = strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree (Appendix 1).

To generate information about respondents’ pro-environmental behavior, i.e., any action that might minimize any adverse effects on nature (do Paço and Laurett 2018), we asked whether they were engaged in conservation activities. Finally, the socio-demographic section included questions on age, level of formal education, the place of birth of respondents and their parents, religion, and whether respondents entered KINAPA and were members of any association.

Before fieldwork, we recruited field assistants through local announcements in newspapers, the College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, social media, and based on previous work experience in the project. We trained them during a six-day program that specifically focused on conducting face-to-face surveys, for instance, collecting data using the application Survey 123 (ESRI 2021) and research ethics. We pre-tested the questionnaire with the field participants in iterative rounds to make sure that the questions were well understood.

Ethical considerations

Before data collection, we informed respondents about our research aims and requested their verbal consent to participate in this study. We also informed them that all data would be treated confidentially and pseudo-anonymously. This research received ethical clearance from the Ethics Committee at the Leuphana University of Lüneburg (reference numbers: EB-Antrag_202104-07-Martin-Lopez_KiliSES; EB-Antrag_202111-17- Martin-Lopez_KiliSES-03; EB-Antrag_202109-12-Martin-Lopez_KiliSES-02; and EB-Antrag_202206-11-Martin-Lopez_KiliSES 02) Additionally, we were granted all necessary permits to conduct this research by the different Tanzanian institutions: i.e., Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH; reference number: 2021-363-NA-2021-09 and 2022-537-NA-2021-09), Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), and executive commissioners at regional, district and local levels.

Data analysis

We conducted descriptive analyses of pro-environmental behavior and socio-demographic variables to determine the proportion of respondents for each variable. We determined the relative share of respondents who selected each NCP as one of the five most important NCP for their quality of life for the total sample and according to the altitudinal and longitudinal gradients. We used a dummy entry to code “1” if the respondent selected the NCP and “0” otherwise. Furthermore, we used the four-point Likert scale of the value statements to determine the percentage of respondents who (strongly) agree or (strongly) disagree with each value statement for the overall sample and zones of the altitudinal and longitudinal gradient.

To explore whether the NCP demands were affected by the perceptions of changes in the NCP supply, we first estimated the perceived trend index proposed by (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2014):

(1)

Where I is the frequency of respondents who perceived an increasing trend, D is the frequency of respondents who perceived a decreasing trend, and S corresponds to the frequency of respondents who perceived no changes over the last 10 years. Second, we created biplots with the demand for NCP (y-axis) and the perception of NCP supply trends (x-axis) for the whole sample and the altitudinal and longitudinal gradients. Such biplots allow us to identify “critical” NCP, i.e., those NCP that are highly important for farmers’ quality of life and are perceived as decreasing in supply, and those “important but not vulnerable” NCP, i.e., those NCP that are highly important for farmers’ quality of life and are perceived as increasing in supply (Iniesta-Arandia et al. 2014).

Finally, to explore whether the NCP demands and values of nature were influenced by socio-demographic, pro-environmental behavior, and geographical variables, we conducted two redundancy analyses (RDAs): one for NCP demands and one for nature’s values. RDA is a multivariate analysis used to analyze the relationship between multiple response variables and several explanatory variables (Legendre and Legendre 1998). In this study, response variables were the demands for NCP and the agreement level of nature’s value statements. In the RDA regarding the NCP demands, we only considered those NCP selected by more than 10% of respondents, resulting in 15 NCP as response variables. To conduct the RDA for nature’s values, we transformed the four-point-likert-scale of the value statements to binary variables, whereby “1” represents overall agreement with the value statement, i.e., 4 = strongly agree or 3 = agree, and “0” represents overall disagreement, i.e., 2 = disagree or 1 = strongly disagree. The explanatory variables comprised seven socio-demographic variables, two variables representing respondents’ pro-environmental behavior, and the altitudinal and longitudinal location. Appendix 5 provides an overview of the variables used in RDAs. We log-transformed the variable age. The association revealed by both RDAs can be interpreted as bundles of NCP demand and nature’s values, respectively. Here, bundles refer to those NCP or nature’s values that repeatedly appear together because of diverging people’s preferences and interests that ultimately shape their socio-cultural and environmental context (Martín-López et al. 2012, Klain et al. 2014). In both RDAs, we performed Monte Carlo permutation tests (500 permutations) to determine the significance of the explanatory variables. We used XLSTAT software Version 2020.3.1 (Addinsoft 2020) for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Characteristics of respondents

Overall, 58.5% (n = 213 respondents) of the respondents were female and 39.3% (n = 143) were male. The average age of respondents was 55.3 years (SD = 14.9). Most respondents, 59.3% (n = 216), completed primary school, 18.4% (n = 67) did not have formal education, 14.0% (n = 51) attended secondary school, and 6.8% (n = 25) finished vocational training or an undergraduate program. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (62.6%, n = 228) were born in the surveyed village, and 87.9% (n = 320) stated their parents were born in Kilimanjaro. Only 21.4% (n = 79) of the respondents had entered Kilimanjaro National Park, and 24.7% (n = 90) of respondents were active members of any association. Most respondents were Christian (89.3%, n = 325). Only a quarter of (24.7%, n = 78) were actively engaged in conservation activities such as tree planting (see sample characteristics in Appendix 6).

Respondents’ demand for NCP: critical NCP

Respondents selected 24 out of 25 NCP as the most important for their quality of life. Respondents ranked material and regulating NCP above non-material NCP and intergenerational benefits (Fig. 4). Respondents mainly selected food (14.2%, n = 241), feed (10.5%, n = 177), and regulation of freshwater quality (11.1%, n = 188). We also found that these NCP were frequently selected across the altitudinal and longitudinal gradients (Fig. 5). Yet, some differences between zones emerged regarding regulation of air quality and, energy, and building materials (Fig. 5). Respondents living in upland, central, and eastern zones frequently selected regulation of air quality, while respondents in the midland and western zones prioritized medicine. In addition, respondents in the midland often selected energy, and those in the lowlands prioritized energy and material for building (Fig. 5). The respondents selected pollination (0.7%, n = 11), regulation of detrimental species (0.7%, n = 11), dispersal of seeds (0.7%, n = 12), recreation (0.8%, n = 13), and connectedness with nature (1.1%, n = 19) less frequently (Fig. 4). Overall, respondents did not select new and unique experiences, i.e., the ability of nature to provide opportunities for unique moments and experiences.

Except for habitat creation and maintenance, respondents perceived the 10-year supply trends of all material and regulating NCP as decreasing (Fig. 4). In contrast, they perceived the supply of most non-material NCP, except cultural heritage and identity and therapeutic and restorative benefits, as having increased in the same period (Fig. 4). This pattern of perception of NCP supply trend was almost consistent across altitudinal and longitudinal gradients (Fig. 5). Appendix 7 displays the relative share of respondents’ perception of NCP supply trends across altitudinal and longitudinal gradients.

Finally, we found that the supply of frequently selected NCP, such as food, feed, and regulation of freshwater quality, were almost consistently perceived to be decreasing. The NCP food and feed were often referred to as being “critical,” NCP that is highly important and perceived as decreasing in supply, across all altitudinal and longitudinal gradients (Fig. 5). The exception to this pattern was found only for the NCP “regulation of freshwater quality”: respondents in upland and western zones perceived it to be increasing in supply. Moreover, we found further differences across different altitudinal and longitudinal zones for regulation of air quality and medicine. Regulation of air quality was considered “critical” in upland, central, and eastern zones, and medicine in midland and western zones. Finally, we found differences in the perception of “critical” NCP across altitudinal zones for energy and building materials, whereby energy was considered “critical” in midland and lowland and building materials in lowland (Fig. 5).

Factors influencing the NCP bundles demanded by farmers

We found a significant association (p < 0.0001, from 500 permutations) between the selection of NCP (RDA response variables) and the respondent’s socio-demographic characteristics, pro-environmental behavior, and location (RDA explanatory variables; Table 3). The first four factors explained 69.6% of the total variance (Table 3). The positive scores of the first factor (F1; 27.5% of the total variance) revealed that those respondents living in the center and midland zone, who were active in conservation activities, and whose parents were born in Kilimanjaro were more likely to demand food, regulation of freshwater quantity, and intergenerational benefits (Table 3). This association conformed to an NCP bundle that we named “Food security for future generations” because it represents the importance of nature for future generations. In the negative scores of F1, we found that those respondents in the center and lowland zone, who belonged to any association and were born in the village, were more likely to demand building materials, feed, learning, social cohesion, and bonding (Table 3). We named this bundle “(Non-)materiality” because it comprises both material and non-material NCP.

The positive scores of the second factor (F2; 16.6%) revealed that regulation of air quality and freshwater quantity was more likely to be demanded by those respondents residing in the west and upland zones (Table 3). We named this bundle “Nature for Ecological Regulation in the Upland.” In contrast, the negative scores of F2 revealed that the material NCP energy, food, feed, and building materials, a bundle named “Nature for Materials,” were more likely to be demanded by respondents who live in the east zone. The third factor (F3; 14.3%) revealed the relationship between the demands for feed and cultural heritage and identity in its positive scores. These two NCP were more likely to be demanded by younger respondents with low levels of formal education and who live in the upland (Table 3). We named this bundle “Nature for Creating Identities” to highlight the connection between cultural identity and the use of nature. In the negative scores of F3, we found an association between the demands for regulation of climate, regulation of soil fertility and protection of soils, and regulation of hazards and extreme events, which was explained by older respondents who have a high level of education and live in the lowland. We named this bundle “Nature for Ecological Regulation in the Lowland.” The fourth factor (F4; 11.2%) revealed that those respondents who were born in the village and belonged to any association were more likely to demand medicine, learning, and social cohesion, a bundle named “The Intangibility of Nature in the Lowland.”

Respondents’ expression of nature’s values

Many respondents highly agreed with all value statements. We found the highest share of agreement for statements representing intrinsic value (97.1% of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed), followed by relational values (94.8%) and instrumental values (94.1%). Yet, the pattern for individual value statements varied slightly: the statement “I value each species at Kilimanjaro because it has its reason for its existence and is therefore worthy of conservation” referred to intrinsic values, and the statement “I value nature at Kilimanjaro because it contributes to meeting my/our basic needs such as clean air and water” referring to instrumental values were the most agreed upon (97.7% for both statements), followed by the relational value statement representing responsibility (97.4%) “I value being responsible for nature at Kilimanjaro and caring for it.” The statement representing the instrumental value “economic benefits derived from nature” scored the second lowest percentage of agreement (90.6%), followed by the statement representing the relational value of tradition (88.9%; Fig. 6). The level of agreement for each value statement is relatively homogeneous along the longitudinal and altitudinal gradient. Appendix 8 displays the agreement level of all value statements.

Factors influencing values of nature expressed by respondents

The values of nature expressed by respondents can be explained by socio-demographic, pro-environmental behavior, and geographical variables (RDA, p < 0.014, from 500 permutations). The first two factors explained 62.5% of the total variance (Table 4). The first factor (F1; 44.1%) in its positive scores indicated that those elders, i.e., respondents older than 58 years, who live in the village where they were born and reside in the midland zone were more likely to agree with the value statements representing the relational values of learning, cultural heritage, nature’s uniqueness, and individual identity (Table 4). The positive scores of the second factor (F2; 18.4%) indicated that those elders who are active in conservation and live in the upland and eastern zones were more likely to agree with the value statements referring to the relational values of nature’s uniqueness and responsibility (Table 4). The negative scores of F2 revealed that younger respondents, i.e., respondents younger than 45 years, who were born in the village where they live, had entered KINAPA, belonged to any association, and resided in the center were more likely to agree with statements referring to economic benefits, i.e., instrumental value, and the relational values of inspiration, cultural heritage, and learning (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

In the following sections, we discuss (1) the reasons why farmers in Kilimanjaro considered specific NCP as “critical,” i.e., NCP preferred as highly important and perceived as decreasing in their supply, (2) the significance of exploring the internal heterogeneity of demand for NCP, and (3) the need for recognizing the multiple values of nature that farmers hold.

“Critical” NCP for farmers: environmental and institutional reasons

Our study provides an overview of the importance of several NCP supplied by nature in Kilimanjaro for farmers. We found that three of the most important NCP for farmers, food, feed, and regulation of freshwater quality, were perceived as having a decreasing supply trend in the past 10 years (Fig. 4). This result aligns with that of other studies, which also reported decreasing supply trends of NCP that were considered important for people’s quality of life. For instance, Oteros-Rozas et al. (2014) found that the most important NCP were perceived as a decreasing supply trend in the transhumance social-ecological network in Spain. Hussain et al. (2023) found that villagers in a trans-Himalayan region of Ladakh, India, experienced a significant decline in most NCP.

The perception of food and regulation of freshwater quality as “critical” NCP is consistent with previous research that showed the relevance of mountains in providing food and clean water (Wangai et al. 2016, Ouko et al. 2018). Farmers’ high demands for food might reflect that Kilimanjaro is one of Tanzania’s largest food and cash crop producers (Sébastien 2010). The high demands for regulation of freshwater quality indicates farmers’ increased dependence on streams, rivers, and springs as sources of domestic and agricultural water use (Said et al. 2019). Finally, the high demands for feed underscores farmers’ importance on their stall-feeding livestock for their livelihoods, particularly in the absence of open areas for grazing (Soini 2005).

Previous studies revealed that the scarcity that people perceive in the supply of a particular NCP may influence the importance that they give to that NCP (Kaye-Zwiebel and King 2014, Quintas-Soriano et al. 2018). The scarcity of an NCP can result from the impact of environmental drivers, such as land use and climate change, and institutional drivers, such as policy changes (Díaz et al. 2018, Balázsi et al. 2019). For example, the fact that farmers perceived feed as a critical NCP in Kilimanjaro can be explained by the changes in legislation in 2005 (Fig. 2), when the social buffer forest known as Half-Miles Forest Strip (HMFS) was included in the national park, and hence, extracting feed was prohibited (Sébastien 2010, Kilima et al. 2015). Because of the change in conservation management of the HMFS, all consumptive use of resources and access to the park is restricted without a permit (Sébastien 2010). In an attempt to compensate local people for the loss of former rights, Kilimanjaro National Park Authority, through the Community Conservation Services (CCS), set up the “Ujirani Mwema” program (translated as Good Neighborhood in English) to provide alternatives for the feed supply through tree planting in the homegardens (Durrant and Durrant 2008) or buying feed from lowland farmers (Lukuyu et al. 2016). Despite these attempts by the National Park Authority, this study demonstrates that local farmers adjacent to KINAPA still consider feed a critical NCP because they continue struggling to fulfill their needs for forest-related NCP, as the national park officer personally communicated.

Geographical location may also influence people’s perception of NCP supply (Cuni-Sanchez et al. 2016). We found farmers residing in the upland zone perceiving regulation of freshwater quality as important but not vulnerable (Fig. 5), which environmental and institutional reasons might explain. First, the vegetation cover is higher in the upland than in the lowland, which allows natural filtering and purifying water (Ensslin et al. 2015). Second, establishing the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency (RUWASA) under the Water Supply and Sanitation Act No. 5 of 2019, an institution aiming to promote and sensitize rural communities to sanitation, as well as protect and conserve rural water sources, might contribute to providing clean water in rural areas in Tanzania (URT 2019). Under this program, farmers in the upland receive environmental education to understand the importance of the forests as water catchments that benefit all people.

Furthermore, farmers in the midland and lowland zones considered energy and building materials critical NCP (Fig. 5). We argue that environmental, social, and institutional factors might underpin this perception. First, the lower vegetation cover in these zones, compared to the upland, might raise the preference for energy, including firewood and building materials. Similar results were found in the Eastern Arc Mountains in Tanzania, showing the increased demands for energy in recent years (Schaafsma et al. 2014). Moreover, the forest cover on the southern slopes of Kilimanjaro has decreased by about 41.04 km² since 1950 (Yanda and Shishira 2001, Rutten et al. 2015), reducing their capacity to provide material goods to people. Second, the increasing demands for firewood as the main cooking fuel in Kilimanjaro and other rural areas of Africa has led to its scarcity (Cuni-Sanchez et al. 2019, Bär et al. 2021). Finally, the currently enforced bylaw in the region that bans tree harvesting for timber production and firewood has resulted in declined use and production of timber, leading to high demands for firewood and building materials (Lyimo 2015). This ban is implemented by the Village Environmental Committee (VEC), a local institution that penalizes those who harvest timber without a permit. Moreover, the VEC also contributes to raising awareness about the importance of conserving the environment through, for example, tree planting activities. Nevertheless, its activities have not helped to solve the challenge of increasing demands for firewood and building materials (Lyimo 2015).

Based on the discussion on the differential perception of critical NCP along the altitudinal and longitudinal gradient of Kilimanjaro, we argue that both environmental and governance reasons underpin not only how people demand NCP (García-Llorente et al. 2015, Tauro et al. 2018) but also how people perceive the capacity of the ecosystem to supply NCP sustainably. Moreover, this study also shows the relevance of understanding NCP demand to support informed decision making for sustainable and inclusive conservation with the aim of not only conserving biodiversity but more effectively tackling trade-offs and mitigating the social costs of conservation (McShane et al. 2011, Palomo et al. 2014, Martínez-Harms et al. 2024).

Understanding NCP demands through bundles

We found that combining socio-demographic characteristics, pro-environmental behavior, and geographical location variables can explain farmers’ differential demands for NCP in Kilimanjaro. Although previous research has acknowledged the importance of socio-demographic characteristics (Mensah et al. 2017, Lau et al. 2019, Porsani et al. 2020), pro-environmental behavior (Martín-López et al. 2007, 2012), and geographical location (García-Llorente et al. 2015, Cuni-Sanchez et al. 2016), our study examines the combination of all factors. Through the synergistic effect of these factors characterizing the internal heterogeneity, we identified seven bundles of NCP demand.

The bundle “Food security for future generations” refers to the importance frequently given to food, regulation of freshwater quantity, and intergenerational benefits by those farmers active in conservation, whose parents were born in Kilimanjaro. These farmers have a strong connection with their ancestral land, which has been conserved through traditional practices to preserve water sources and produce food (Kangalawe et al. 2014) that, in turn, might favor the supply of NCP for future generations.

The bundle “(Non-)materiality” represents the demand for material and non-material NCP by farmers born in the lowland and central zones who belong to any association. Although farmers in the lowland expressed high demand for material NCP, such as feed and building materials, because of the lower vegetation cover. They also demanded non-material NCP for learning, social cohesion, and bonding, possibly because their parents came to Kilimanjaro from other regions. Likewise, the bundle of “The Intangibility of Nature in the Lowland” indicates the importance of learning together and creating communities that foster social cohesion when a person emigrates from other regions of Tanzania (Gordon and Hale 2005). Moreover, the bundle “Nature for creating Identities” represents the need to continue embracing the cultural heritage and identity associated with the Chagga tribe by younger generations of the upland zone.

In addition to the consistent demands for non-material NCP, we also found bundles that mostly target material and regulating NCP. The bundle “Nature for Materials” represents those farmers living east of Kilimanjaro whose livelihood depends on selling their crops and timber in local and national markets (Schaafsma et al. 2014, Fundisha 2019). Finally, we found two bundles representing the demands for regulating NCP in the upland and lowland zones. Although the bundle “Nature for Ecological Regulation in the Upland” might represent the pride that Chagga farmers have for their homegardens and adjacent forest, the bundle “Nature for Ecological Regulation in the Lowland” represents those regulating NCP that are perceived as scarce, i.e., regulation of climate, regulation of soil fertility and protection of soils, and regulation of hazards and extreme events, because of the less vegetated landscapes of Kilimanjaro foothills (Hemp 2009).

These bundles provide evidence that farmers vary in their NCP demands, although farmers are usually studied through the lens of a single social actor group. Based on our results, we argue that we need to consider the internal heterogeneity within social actors and the factors underpinning that heterogeneity to foster meaningful inclusive conservation. This study shows that inclusive conservation planning needs to account for the diverse NCP demands represented in the different NCP bundles and the socio-demographic and geographical factors underpinning these demands. In the particular case of Kilimanjaro, this means, for example, pluralizing the management strategies to meet the diverse NCP demands across the altitudinal and longitudinal gradients and considering different sub-groups of farmers based on education, age or whether they and their families grew up in Kilimanjaro.

Nurturing values of nature: the role of farming practices

Farmers appreciate the nature of Kilimanjaro for multiple reasons, including the notion that nature has the right to exist by itself (intrinsic value), that nature is important to fulfill people’s needs (instrumental value), and that its importance relies on those meaningful relations with and fostered by nature (relational value). Respondents highly agreed with all the statements representing intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values (Fig. 6, Appendix 8). This result contradicts the findings of previous studies indicating that farmers of rural areas mostly expressed relational values (Arias-Arévalo et al. 2017, Klain et al. 2017, Riechers et al. 2021, Topp et al. 2022). Yet, farmers’ high appreciation of intrinsic values, alongside instrumental and relational values, can be explained by the role of diverse livelihoods and economies, such as one of the Chagga homegardens, in nurturing diverse values (Ortiz-Przychodzka et al. 2023, Riechers et al. 2025). It is important to note that the high level of agreement with all value statements can be a by-product of the Likert scale because after evaluating each statement, respondents could decide that they agree with the content of all items. However, this is partially mitigated through the RDA, which analyzes the relationship between multiple response variables and several explanatory variables (Legendre and Legendre 1998), which showed that agreement levels with the value statements differed among farmers. Older farmers residing in the midland zone were more likely to agree with the relational values of individual identity and nature’s uniqueness; younger farmers residing in the center who had visited the National Park and belonged to any association were more likely to agree with the importance of nature as a means for economic benefits and the relational value of inspiration (Table 4).

The coexistence of relational and instrumental values expressed by farmers living in the center zone and who were born in the surveyed village might support the notion that articulating a morality of care that considers ethical aspects for the conservation of nature is also possible in farming practices (Ortiz-Przychodzka et al. 2023). Farmers in Kilimanjaro simultaneously articulate plural values (Appendix 8), creating space to consider ethical reasons as a morality of care that comprises the importance of relations as ends-in-themselves and nature as a means-to-an-end. The existence of strong intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values expressed by farmers in Kilimanjaro offers opportunities to overcome the utilitarian narrative of farming practices, particularly mainstreamed in Western societies (Sørensen et al. 2023), that separates humans from nature and prioritizes human livelihoods over nature (Himes and Muraca 2018, Ortiz-Przychodzka et al. 2023).

Furthermore, older farmers in the upland who are engaged in conservation genuinely care about nature (Table 4). Chagga farmers have demonstrated a strong attachment to nature and even made concessions to ensure its conservation (Frömming 2009). The organization of the Chagga society is based on collaboration and cooperative principles to reach a balance between peoples’ demands and nature conservation (Frömming 2009). This narrative is represented not only by the values (Table 4) but also by the perception of the singular role of nature in preserving and regulating NCP, i.e., the bundle “Nature for Ecological Regulation in the Upland” (Table 3). Nevertheless, future research could further uncover the role of different farming practices in activating, nurturing, and sustaining plural values. For example, Riechers et al. (2025) have found in different local communities’ settings that, for instrumental values and livelihood practices to nurture and sustain relational values, the governance structure is essential. For nurturing and sustaining plural values, decision-making processes and governance need to give space for experiencing and expressing relational values (Harcourt 2023) and recognize property rights and access to natural resources in conservation policies (Riechers et al. 2025). This is especially important in Kilimanjaro and other social-ecological systems with protected areas where local communities are banned from accessing protected areas, ultimately leading to an erosion of relational values. Riechers et al. (2025) suggest that the empowerment of local communities in conservation planning can not only promote plural values but also foster transformative actions that strengthen people and nature connections. Therefore, we argue that inclusive conservation requires strategies and actions that purposefully activate, nurture, and sustain local communities’ relational values across different social-ecological contexts. In doing so, conservation planning should not only recognize plural values expressed by local communities but also include their knowledge in the design of conservation strategies and engage them in conservation activities (Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2023, Martínez-Harms et al. 2024).

CONCLUSION

With this study, we unraveled the internal heterogeneity of the NCP demands and values of nature expressed by farmers in Kilimanjaro. Although we found that farmers perceived food, feed, and regulation of freshwater quality as the most critical NCP because of the need to fulfill basic needs, we found that considerable differences in the demands for NCP emerged when considering socio-demographic, pro-environmental behaviors, and geographical characteristics. Based on the internal heterogeneity, we found a distinctive demand for NCP, represented by seven bundles: “Food security for future generations,” “(Non-)materiality,” “Nature for Ecological Regulation in the Upland,” “Nature for Ecological Regulation in the Lowland,” “Nature for Materials,” “Nature for creating Identities,” and “The Intangibility of Nature in the Lowland.” Likewise, we found that although farmers highly agreed (> 88% of respondents) with all the value statements representing intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values, some differences entailed mostly relational values based on socio-demographic, pro-environmental behavior, and geographical factors. These results might indicate that, although the reasons at a shallow level by which farmers in Kilimanjaro appreciate nature are related to the notion of nature as a means-to-an-end, there is an assembly of values at a deeper level. These values include ethical reasons and morality of care that co-exist with the importance of human-nature relations and human-human relations mediated by nature, as well as the relevance of nature as a means to fulfill basic needs.

Considering the heterogeneity of NCP demands and nature’s values within one local social actor group can contribute to inform conservation in three realms. First, knowledge of the NCP demands contributes to being explicit about the losses and costs for local communities and ultimately, tackling unresolved conflicts. Second, knowledge of the diverse NCP demands contributes to diversifying management strategies that account for different sub-groups of local communities based on socio-demographic and geographical factors. Third, knowledge of the plural values of nature held by local communities can contribute to identifying management strategies to activate, nurture, or sustain assemblages of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values (Riechers et al. 2025). For this to happen, conservation planning should not only respect plural values but also collaborate with local communities in the design, planning, and implementation of conservation strategies.

LITERATURE CITED

Addinsoft. 2020. XLSTAT Statistical and data analysis solution. New York.

Adili, Z., and N. Robert. 2016. Economic valuation of recreation use value of Kilimanjaro National Park, Tanzania. Journal of Ecosystem & Ecography 06(04). https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7625.1000220

Arias-Arévalo, P., E. Gómez-Baggethun, B. Martín-López, and M. Pérez-Rincón. 2018. Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: a taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environmental Values 27(1):29-53. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327118X15144698637513

Arias-Arévalo, P., B. Martín-López, and E. Gómez-Baggethun. 2017. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 22(4):43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443

Balázsi, Á., M. Riechers, T. Hartel, J. Leventon, and J. Fischer. 2019. The impacts of social-ecological system change on human-nature connectedness: a case study from Transylvania, Romania. Land Use Policy 89:104232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104232

Ban, N. C., C. R. Picard, and A. C. J. Vincent. 2009. Comparing and integrating community‐based and science‐based approaches to prioritizing marine areas for protection. Conservation Biology 23(4):899-910. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01185.x

Bär, R., J. Reinhard, A. Ehrensperger, B. Kiteme, T. Mkunda, and S. W. von Dach. 2021. The future of charcoal, firewood, and biogas in Kitui County and Kilimanjaro Region: scenario development for policy support. Energy policy 150:112067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112067

Bender, M. V. 2013. Being ‘Chagga’: natural resources, political activism, and identity on Kilimanjaro. Journal of African History 54(2):199-220. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853713000273

Boafo, Y. A., O. Saito, and K. Takeuchi. 2014. Provisioning ecosystem services in rural savanna landscapes of northern Ghana: an assessment of supply, utilization, and drivers of change. Journal of Disaster Research 9(4):501-515. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2014.p0501

Boelens, R. 2014. Cultural politics and the hydrosocial cycle: water, power and identity in the Andean highlands. Geoforum 57:234-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.02.008

Caballero-Serrano, V., J. G. Alday, J. Amigo, D. Caballero, J. C. Carrasco, B. McLaren, and M. Onaindia. 2017. Social perceptions of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Human Ecology 45(4):475-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9921-6

Cáceres, D. M., E. Tapella, F. Quétier, and S. Díaz. 2015. The social value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the perspectives of different social actors. Ecology and Society 20(1):62. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07297-200162

Castro, A. J., C. C. Vaughn, J. P. Julian, and M. García-Llorente. 2016. Social demand for ecosystem services and implications for watershed management. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 52(1):209-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12379

Chan, K. M. A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Gould, N. Hannahs, K. Jax, S. Klain, G. W. Luck, B. Martín-López, B. Muraca, B. Norton, K. Ott, U. Pascual, T. Satterfield, M. Tadaki, J. Taggart, and N. Turner. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(6):1462-1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Chaplin-Kramer, R., R. A. Neugarten, D. Gonzalez-Jimenez, G. Ahmadia, T. D. Baird, N. Crane, E. Delgoulet, H. N. Eyster, N. Kurashima, J. C. Llopis, A. Millington, A. Pawlowska-Mainville, J. Rulmal, F. Saunders, S. Shrestha, M. B. Vaughan, K. B. Winter, S. Wongbusarakum, and U. Pascual. 2023. Transformation for inclusive conservation: evidence on values, decisions, and impacts in protected areas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64:101347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101347

Chapman, M., and A. Deplazes-Zemp. 2024. Moving beyond stewardship to partnership with nature: how Swiss alpine farmers’ relationships to nature and relational values are co-constituted. Ecosystems and People 20(1):2374757. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2374757

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2022. Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. Fifteenth meeting. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Québec, Canada. https://www.cbd.int/gbf

Cuni-Sanchez, A., A. S. K. Ngute, B. Sonké, M. N. Sainge, N. D. Burgess, J. A. Klein, and R. Marchant. 2019. The importance of livelihood strategy and ethnicity in forest ecosystem services’ perceptions by local communities in north-western Cameroon. Ecosystem Services 40:101000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101000

Cuni-Sanchez, A., M. Pfeifer, R. Marchant, and N. D. Burgess. 2016. Ethnic and locational differences in ecosystem service values: insights from the communities in forest islands in the desert. Ecosystem Services 19:42-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.04.004

Daniel, T. C., A. Muhar, A. Arnberger, O. Aznar, J. W. Boyd, K. M. A. Chan, R. Costanza, T. Elmqvist, C. G. Flint, P. H. Gobster, A. Grêt-Regamey, R. Lave, S. Muhar, M. Penker, R. G. Ribe, T. Schauppenlehner, T. Sikor, I. Soloviy, M. Spierenburg, K. Taczanowska, J. Tam, and A. von der Dunk. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(23):8812-8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109

de la Torre-Castro, M., and L. Lindström. 2010. Fishing institutions: addressing regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements to enhance fisheries management. Marine Policy 34(1):77-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.04.012

De Vos, A., J. Carlos Bezerra, and D. Roux. 2018. Relational values about nature in protected area research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35:89-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.018

Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, A. Larigauderie, J. R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Báldi, A. Bartuska, I. A. Baste, A. Bilgin, E. Brondizio, K. M. Chan, V. E. Figueroa, A. Duraiappah, M. Fischer, R. Hill, T. Koetz, P. Leadley, P. Lyver, G. M. Mace, B. Martin-Lopez, M. Okumura, D. Pacheco, U. Pascual, E. S. Pérez, B. Reyers, E. Roth, O. Saito, R. J. Scholes, N. Sharma, H. Tallis, R. Thaman, R. Watson, T. Yahara, Z. A. Hamid, C. Akosim, Y. Al-Hafedh, R. Allahverdiyev, E. Amankwah, S. T. Asah, Z. Asfaw, G. Bartus, L. A. Brooks, J. Caillaux, G. Dalle, D. Darnaedi, A. Driver, G. Erpul, P. Escobar-Eyzaguirre, P. Failler, A. M. M. Fouda, B. Fu, H. Gundimeda, S. Hashimoto, F. Homer, S. Lavorel, G. Lichtenstein, W. A. Mala, W. Mandivenyi, P. Matczak, C. Mbizvo, M. Mehrdadi, J. P. Metzger, J. B. Mikissa, H. Moller, H. A. Mooney, P. Mumby, H. Nagendra, C. Nesshover, A. A. Oteng-Yeboah, G. Pataki, M. Roué, J. Rubis, M. Schultz, P. Smith, R. Sumaila, K. Takeuchi, S. Thomas, M. Verma, Y. Yeo-Chang, and D. Zlatanova. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R. T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill, K. M. A. Chan, I. A. Baste, K. A. Brauman, S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Larigauderie, P. W. Leadley, A. P. E. van Oudenhoven, F. van der Plaat, M. Schröter, S. Lavorel, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E. Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew, G. Erpul, P. Failler, C. A. Guerra, C. L. Hewitt, H. Keune, S. Lindley, and Y. Shirayama. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359(6373):270-272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826

do Paço, A., and R. Laurett. 2018. Environmental behaviour and sustainable development. Pages 1-6 in W. Leal Filho, editor. Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education. Springer International, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63951-2_14-1

Durrant, M. B. 2004. Communities, place, and conservation on Mount Kilimanjaro. Dissertation. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA.

Durrant, M. B., and J. O. Durrant. 2008. The influence of location on local attitudes toward community conservation on Mount Kilimanjaro. Society and Natural Resources 21(5):371-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701618187

Ensslin, A., G. Rutten, U. Pommer, R. Zimmermann, A. Hemp, and M. Fischer. 2015. Effects of elevation and land use on the biomass of trees, shrubs and herbs at Mount Kilimanjaro. Ecosphere 6(3):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00492.1

ESRI. 2021. Survey123 for ArcGIS. https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-survey123/resources

Fernandes, E. C. M., A. Oktingati, and J. Maghembe. 1985. The Chagga home gardens: a multi-storeyed agro-forestry cropping system on Mt. Kilimanjaro, northern Tanzania. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7(3):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/156482658500700311

Frömming, U. U. 2009. Kilimanjaro’s melting glaciers: on the colonial and postcolonial perception and appropriation of African nature. Etnográfica. Revista do Centro em Rede de Investigação em Antropologia 13(2):395-416. https://doi.org/10.4000/etnografica.1158

Fundisha, E. 2019. Local community perceptions on causes of climate change in dry areas of Rombo District, Tanzania. Huria: Journal of the Open University of Tanzania 26(2).

García-Llorente, M., I. Iniesta-Arandia, B. A. Willaarts, P. A. Harrison, P. Berry, M. del M. Bayo, A. J. Castro, C. Montes, and B. Martín-López. 2015. Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds. Ecology and Society 20(3):39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07785-200339

Gordon, E. T., and C. R. Hale. 2005. Rights, resources, and the social memory of struggle: reflections and Black Community land rights on Nicaragua’s Atlantic coast. Human Organization 62(4):369-381. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.62.4.7ca3b00qhkv955t2

Gross, M., D. Shepeleva, F. Vogel, T. H. Mwampamba, U. Arbieu, J. Pearson, J. K. Sesabo, F. Codalli, and B. Martín-López. 2025. The questions we ask matters: insights from place-based research on nature’s contributions to people. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01649-z

Harcourt, W. 2023. The ethics and politics of care: reshaping economic thinking and practice. Review of Political Economy 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2023.2241395

Hemp, A. 2006. The banana forests of Kilimanjaro: biodiversity and conservation of the Chagga homegardens. Biodiversity & Conservation 15:1193-1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-8230-8

Hemp, A. 2009. Climate change and its impact on the forests of Kilimanjaro. African Journal of Ecology 47(s1):3-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.01043.x

Hicks, C. C., J. E. Cinner, N. Stoeckl, and T. R. McClanahan. 2015. Linking ecosystem services and human-values theory. Conservation Biology 29(5):1471-1480. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12550

Hill, R., S. Díaz, U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, Z. Molnár, and J. Van Velden. 2021. Nature’s contributions to people: weaving plural perspectives. One Earth 4(7):910-915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.06.009

Himes, A., and B. Muraca. 2018. Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005

Hrdina, A., and D. Romportl. 2017. Evaluating global biodiversity hotspots - very rich and even more endangered. Journal of Landscape Ecology 10(1):108-115. https://doi.org/10.1515/jlecol-2017-0013

Hussain, S., S. Sharma, and A. N. Singh. 2023. Identification and prioritisation of ecosystem services based on the socio-economic perspectives of local people in a trans-Himalayan region of Ladakh, India. Anthropocene 44:100404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2023.100404

Ichinose, Y., T. Nishigaki, M. Shibata, M. Kilasara, H. Shinjo, and S. Funakawa. 2023. Carbon and nutrient budgets of the Chagga home garden system in the Kilimanjaro highlands, Tanzania. Soil Use and Management 39(3):1155-1171. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12923

Iniesta-Arandia, I., M. García-Llorente, P. A. Aguilera, C. Montes, and B. Martín-López. 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecological Economics 108:36-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028

Jacobs, S., E. Kelemen, P. O’Farrell, A. Martin, M. Schaafsma, N. Dendoncker, R. Pandit, T. H. Mwampamba, I. Palomo, A. J. Castro, M. A. Huambachano, A. Filyushkina, and H. Gunimeda. 2023. The pitfalls of plural valuation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64:101345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101345

Kangalawe, R. Y. M., C. Noe, F. S. K. Tungaraza, G. Naimani, and M. Mlele. 2014. Understanding of traditional knowledge and Indigenous institutions on sustainable land management in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. Open Journal of Soil Science 4(13):469-493. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2014.413046

Kaye-Zwiebel, E., and E. King. 2014. Kenyan pastoralist societies in transition: varying perceptions of the value of ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 19(3):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06753-190317

Kilima, F. T. M., M. J. Kadigi, J. J. Kashaigili, J. Abdallah, C. Steven, and S. Shimbe. 2015. Knowledge and perception of users on ecosystem services in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania and Taita Hills, Kenya. Journal of Continuing Education and Extension 5(2).

Kilimanjaro National Park (KINAPA). 2006. Kilimanjaro National Park. General Management Plan 2006-2015. Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA), Arusha, Tanzania.

Kimaro, J., and C. Bogner. 2019. Water management under traditional farming systems: practices and limitations of the Mfongo system around Mt. Kilimanjaro. Water Utility Journal 22:53-64.

Klain, S. C., P. Olmsted, K. M. Chan, and T. Satterfield. 2017. Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0183962. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962

Klain, S. C., T. A. Satterfield, and K. M. A. Chan. 2014. What matters and why? Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities. Ecological Economics 107:310-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.003

Lakerveld, R. P., S. Lele, T. A. Crane, K. P. J. Fortuin, and O. Springate-Baginski. 2015. The social distribution of provisioning forest ecosystem services: evidence and insights from Odisha, India. Ecosystem Services 14:56-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.001

Lau, J. D., C. C. Hicks, G. G. Gurney, and J. E. Cinner. 2019. What matters to whom and why? Understanding the importance of coastal ecosystem services in developing coastal communities. Ecosystem Services 35:219-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.012

Lazos-Chavero, E., J. Zinda, A. Bennett-Curry, P. Balvanera, G. Bloomfield, C. Lindell, and C. Negra. 2016. Stakeholders and tropical reforestation: challenges, trade-offs, and strategies in dynamic environments. Biotropica 48(6):900-914. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12391

Legendre, P., and L. Legendre. 1998. Numerical ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Lukuyu, M. N., A. Njehu, A. Mwilawa, B. A. Lukuyu, A. O. Omore, and E. J. O. Rao. 2016. A study to understand fodder markets and fodder trading patterns in MoreMilkiT sites and other selected regions in Tanzania.

Lyimo, E. E. 2015. Effects of government ban to harvest trees in agroforestry farms on household income in Moshi district, Tanzania. Dissertation. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.

Martínez-Harms, M. J., R. A. Estévez, and E. Álvarez-Miranda. 2024. Conservation triage in action: planning, governance and knowledge co-production for biodiversity protection. Journal of Applied Ecology 61(10):2328-2334. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14763

Martinez-Harms, M. J., K. A. Wilson, M. D. P. Costa, H. P. Possingham, S. Gelcich, A. Chauvenet, P. Pliscoff, P. A. Marquet, and B. A. Bryan. 2021. Conservation planning for people and nature in a Chilean biodiversity hotspot. People and Nature 3(3):686-699. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10200

Martín-López, B., I. Iniesta-Arandia, M. García-Llorente, I. Palomo, I. Casado-Arzuaga, D. G. D. Amo, E. Gómez-Baggethun, E. Oteros-Rozas, I. Palacios-Agundez, B. Willaarts, J. A. González, F. Santos-Martín, M. Onaindia, C. López-Santiago, and C. Montes. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7(6):e38970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970

Martín-López, B., I. Leister, P. Lorenzo Cruz, I. Palomo, A. Grêt-Regamey, P. A. Harrison, S. Lavorel, B. Locatelli, S. Luque, and A. Walz. 2019. Nature’s contributions to people in mountains: a review. PLoS ONE 14(6):e0217847. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217847

Martín-López, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. 2007. Influence of user characteristics on valuation of ecosystem services in Doñana Natural Protected Area (south-west Spain). Environmental Conservation 34(3):215-224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892907004067

Masao, C. A., G. W. Prescott, M. A. Snethlage, D. Urbach, A. Torre‐Marin Rando, R. Molina‐Venegas, N. P. Mollel, C. Hemp, A. Hemp, and M. Fischer. 2022. Stakeholder perspectives on nature, people and sustainability at Mount Kilimanjaro. People and Nature 4(3):711-729. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10310

Masao, F. T. 1974. The irrigation system in Uchagga: an ethno-historical approach. Tanzania Notes and Records 75:1-8.

Mbwiga, J. 2016. Classification of Chagga agroforestry homegardens and their contributions to food, income and wood energy to communities of Rombo District, Tanzania. Thesis. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.

McCright, A. M., and R. E. Dunlap. 2015. Comparing two measures of social movement identity: the environmental movement as an example. Social Science Quarterly 96(2):400-416. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12148

McShane, T. O., P. D. Hirsch, T. C. Trung, A. N. Songorwa, A. Kinzig, B. Monteferri, D. Mutekanga, H. V. Thang, J. L. Dammert, M. Pulgar-Vidal, M. Welch-Devine, J. Peter Brosius, P. Coppolillo, and S. O’Connor. 2011. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation 144(3):966-972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038

Mdoe, N., and S. Wiggins. 1997. Returns to smallholder dairying in the Kilimanjaro region, Tanzania. Agricultural Economics 17(1):75-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.1997.tb00465.x

Mensah, S., R. Veldtman, A. E. Assogbadjo, C. Ham, R. Glèlè Kakaï, and T. Seifert. 2017. Ecosystem service importance and use vary with socio-environmental factors: a study from household-surveys in local communities of South Africa. Ecosystem Services 23:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.018

Mtallo, G. R., and C. Rubagumya. 2015. The source of language variation among Chagga people in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. Journal of Arts and Humanities 4(7):68-78.

Mushi, H., P. Z. Yanda, and M. Kleyer. 2020. Socioeconomic factors determining extraction of non-timber forest products on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Human Ecology 48:695-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00187-9

Ndayizeye, G., G. Imani, J. Nkengurutse, R. Irampagarikiye, N. Ndihokubwayo, F. Niyongabo, and A. Cuni-Sanchez. 2020. Ecosystem services from mountain forests: local communities’ views in Kibira National Park, Burundi. Ecosystem Services 45:101171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101171

Newmark, W. D., editor. 1991. The conservation of Mount Kilimanjaro. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Ngowi, R. E., and D. Jani. 2018. Residents’ perception of tourism and their satisfaction: evidence from Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Development Southern Africa 35(6):731-742.

O’Connor, S., and J. O. Kenter. 2019. Making intrinsic values work; integrating intrinsic values of the more-than-human world through the Life Framework of Values. Sustainability Science 14(5):1247-1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00715-7

Ortiz-Przychodzka, S., C. Benavides-Frías, C. M. Raymond, I. Díaz-Reviriego, and J. Hanspach. 2023. Rethinking economic practices and values as assemblages of more-than-human relations. Ecological Economics 211:107866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107866

Oteros-Rozas, E., B. Martín-López, J. A. González, T. Plieninger, C. A. López, and C. Montes. 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Regional Environmental Change 14(4):1269-1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0571-y

Ouko, C. A., R. Mulwa, R. Kibugi, M. A. Owuor, J. G. Zaehringer, and N. O. Oguge. 2018. Community perceptions of ecosystem services and the management of Mt. Marsabit Forest in Northern Kenya. Environments 5(11):121. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5110121

Palomo, I., C. Montes, B. Martín-López, J. A. González, M. García-Llorente, P. Alcorlo, and M. R. G. Mora. 2014. Incorporating the social-ecological approach in protected areas in the Anthropocene. BioScience 64(3):181-191. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bit033

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, S. Díaz, G. Pataki, E. Roth, M. Stenseke, R. T. Watson, E. Başak Dessane, M. Islar, E. Kelemen, V. Maris, M. Quaas, S. M. Subramanian, H. Wittmer, A. Adlan, S. Ahn, Y. S. Al-Hafedh, E. Amankwah, S. T. Asah, P. Berry, A. Bilgin, S. J. Breslow, C. Bullock, D. Cáceres, H. Daly-Hassen, E. Figueroa, C. D. Golden, E. Gómez-Baggethun, D. González-Jiménez, J. Houdet, H. Keune, R. Kumar, K. Ma, P. H. May, A. Mead, P. O’Farrell, R. Pandit, W. Pengue, R. Pichis-Madruga, F. Popa, S. Preston, D. Pacheco-Balanza, H. Saarikoski, B. B. Strassburg, M. van den Belt, M. Verma, F. Wickson, and N. Yagi. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26-27:7-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006

Pearson, J., M. Gross, and J. Hofmann. 2024. Non-material contributions of nature expressed by former tourists of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. People and Nature 6(1):220–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10575

Pearson, J., K. E. McNamara, and P. D. Nunn. 2019. Gender-specific perspectives of mangrove ecosystem services: case study from Bua Province, Fiji Islands. Ecosystem Services 38:100970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100970

Porsani, J., L. Börjeson, R. Lalander, K. Lehtilä, and A. Martins. 2020. Enriching perspectives: experienced ecosystem services in rural Mozambique and the importance of a gendered livelihood approach to resist reductionist analyses of local culture. Ecology and Society 25(4):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11781-250420

Pratson, D. F., N. Adams, and R. K. Gould. 2023. Relational values of nature in empirical research: a systematic review. People and Nature 5(5):1464-1479. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10512

Quintas-Soriano, C., J. S. Brandt, K. Running, C. V. Baxter, D. M. Gibson, J. Narducci, and A. J. Castro. 2018. Social-ecological systems influence ecosystem service perception: a Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) analysis. Ecology and Society 23(3):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10226-230303

Riechers, M., Á. Balázsi, J.-O. Engler, G. Shumi, and J. Fischer. 2021. Understanding relational values in cultural landscapes in Romania and Germany. People and Nature 3(5):1036-1046. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10246

Riechers, M., L. Betz, R. K. Gould, T. K. Loch, D. P. M. Lam, N. Lazzari, B. Martín-López, and J. E. Sala. 2022a. Reviewing relational values for future research: insights from the coast. Ecology and Society 27(4):44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13710-270444

Riechers, M., B. Martín-López, and J. Fischer. 2022b. Human-nature connectedness and other relational values are negatively affected by landscape simplification: insights from Lower Saxony, Germany. Sustainability Science 17:865-877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00928-9

Riechers, M., J. Pearson, N. Diaz-Cruz, S. Ortiz-Przychodzka, and E. Topp. 2025. Interplays between relational and instrumental values: insights from research experiences on human-nature relations. Sustainability Science 20:287-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01559-6

Rodríguez, J. P., T. D. Beard Jr, E. M. Bennett, G. S. Cumming, S. J. Cork, J. Agard, A. P. Dobson, and G. D. Peterson. 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11(1):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01667-110128

Rutten, G., A. Ensslin, A. Hemp, and M. Fischer. 2015. Vertical and horizontal vegetation structure across natural and modified habitat types at Mount Kilimanjaro. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0138822. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138822

Said, M., H. C. Komakech, L. K. Munishi, and A. N. N. Muzuka. 2019. Evidence of climate change impacts on water, food and energy resources around Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Regional Environmental Change 19:2521-2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01568-7

Schaafsma, M., S. Morse-Jones, P. Posen, R. D. Swetnam, A. Balmford, I. J. Bateman, N. D. Burgess, S. A. O. Chamshama, B. Fisher, T. Freeman, V. Geofrey, R. E. Green, A. S. Hepelwa, A. Hernandez-Sirvent, S. Hess, G. C. Kajembe, G. Kayharara, M. Kilonzo, K. Kulindwa, J. F. Lund, S. S. Madoffe, L. Mbwambo, and R. K. Turner. 2014. The importance of local forest benefits: economic valuation of non-timber forest products in the Eastern Arc Mountains in Tanzania. Global Environmental Change 24:295-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.018

Schabel, H. G. 1990. Tanganyika forestry under German colonial administration, 1891-1919. Forest and Conservation History 34(3):130-141. https://doi.org/10.2307/3983902

Schmitt, T. M., R. Riebl, B. Martín-López, M. Hänsel, and T. Koellner. 2022. Plural valuation in space: mapping values of grasslands and their ecosystem services. Ecosystems and People 18(1):258-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2065361

Schröter, M., E. Başak, M. Christie, A. Church, H. Keune, E. Osipova, E. Oteros-Rozas, S. Sievers-Glotzbach, A. P. van Oudenhoven, et al. 2020. Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of life: the IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia. Ecosystems and People 16(1):50-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039

Sébastien, L. 2010. The Chagga people and environmental changes on Mount Kilimanjaro: lessons to learn. Climate and Development 2(4):364-377. https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2010.0055

Soini, E. 2005. Land use change patterns and livelihood dynamics on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Agricultural systems 85(3):306-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.013

Sørensen, I. H., M. Torralba, J. Muñoz-Rojas, L. S. Kristensen, and T. Plieninger. 2023. Embedding plural values in value chains to enhance sustainability in the management of cork oak landscapes. Landscape Ecology 38:3569-3587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01730-x

Tauro, A., E. Gómez-Baggethun, E. García-Frapolli, E. Lazos Chavero, and P. Balvanera. 2018. Unraveling heterogeneity in the importance of ecosystem services: individual views of smallholders. Ecology and Society 23(4):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10457-230411

Topp, E. N., J. Loos, and B. Martín-López. 2022. Decision-making for nature’s contributions to people in the Cape Floristic Region: the role of values, rules and knowledge. Sustainability Science 17:739-760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00896-6

Turner, W. R., K. Brandon, T. M. Brooks, C. Gascon, H. K. Gibbs, K. S. Lawrence, R. A. Mittermeier, and E. R. Selig. 2012. Global biodiversity conservation and the alleviation of poverty. BioScience 62(1):85-92. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.13

United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2019. Water Supply and Sanitation Act (No. 5). URT, Dodoma, Tanzania.

United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2022. Preliminary census results for population and housing in 2022. URT, Dodoma, Tanzania. https://sensa.nbs.go.tz/

Villarreal-Rosas, J., L. J. Sonter, R. K. Runting, S. López-Cubillos, M. C. Dade, H. P. Possingham, and J. R. Rhodes. 2020. Advancing systematic conservation planning for ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 35(12):1129-1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.08.016

Von Clemm, M. 1964. Agricultural productivity and sentiment on Kilimanjaro. Economic Botany 18(2):99-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02862706

Wangai, P. W., B. Burkhard, and F. Müller. 2016. A review of studies on ecosystem services in Africa. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5(2):225-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.08.005

William, C. M. 2003. The implications of changes in land use on forests and biodiversity: a case of the “Half Mile Strip” on Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. LUCID Working Paper. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.

Wood, P. J. 1965. The forest glades of West Kilimanjaro. Tanganyika Notes and Records 64:108-111.

Yanda, P. Z., and E. K. Shishira. 2001. Forestry conservation and resource utilisation on the southern slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro: trends, conflicts and resolutions. Pages 104-117 in J. Ngana, editor. Water resources management in the Pangani River Basin: challenges and opportunities. Dar es Salaam University Press, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.