Braiding the past and present for desirable futures: Insights from the Kilimanjaro social-ecological system

Braiding the past and present for desirable futures: Insights from the Kilimanjaro social-ecological system | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Braiding the past and present for desirable futures: Insights from the Kilimanjaro social-ecological system Neema Robert Kinabo, Dominic A. Martin, Berta Martín-López, Sophie Peter, and 5 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8068577/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Transformations toward desirable futures remain challenged by the complexity of social-ecological systems (SES), including the diverse actors’ perspectives -i.e., what they perceive as desirable futures and how to achieve them. Given that SES are also affected by multiple anthropogenic drivers of change, one-size-fits-all governing approaches fall short. Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) has proven useful in engaging actors in making sense of this complexity, although few PSP studies have been conducted in the Global South mountain SES. Therefore, we conducted three PSP workshops with smallholder farmers, business owners, and nature conservationists in the Kilimanjaro SES, Tanzania, to understand (1) which SES elements and drivers of change they perceive as characterizing the current SES conditions, (2) how they envision future scenarios based on SES dynamics and the interplay of multiple drivers, and (3) management actions toward desirable futures. Actors identified key SES elements: water resources, biodiversity, land use and agriculture, tourism, traditions and culture and drivers of change, including population growth, loss of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), technological development and climatic change. Actors envisioned four future scenarios, in which they identified key aspects of desirable futures: environmental protection, land use and agricultural management, and cultural preservation. Proposed management actions mapped onto different levels of governance, from those requiring national commitment to those requiring local collective actions. Based on actors’ reflections on their past and present experiences and their visions of desirable futures, our conclusion is twofold: (1) desirable futures require local agency, and (2) there is a need for polycentricity in governance. actors’ engagement agency Participatory Scenario Planning polycentricity Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Introduction Despite ongoing efforts across scales, transformations toward desirable futures remain challenged by the complexity of the social-ecological systems (SES) (IPBES et al., 2019; O’Brien et al., 2025 ). Central to this complexity is recognizing the diversity of actors’ perspectives on what constitutes desirable futures and how to achieve them (Caniglia et al., 2021 ; Cornell et al., 2013 ; Turnhout, 2019 ). This encompasses the various ways people interact with nature, shaped by their diverse needs, values, and knowledge, as well as institutional arrangements (Caniglia et al., 2021 ; Díaz et al., 2015 ; Ostrom, 2006 ; Tengö et al., 2014 ). At the same time, SES are challenged by the interplay of multiple drivers, including land-use change, climate change, population growth and socio-techno-economic changes (Egan & Price, 2017 ; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2019 ; Gupta et al., 2022 ; IPBES et al., 2019; Payne et al., 2020 ), causing non-linear outcomes (Bennett & Reyers, 2024 ; Ostrom, 1998 , 2009 ) that are difficult to govern using one-size-fits-all approaches. To this end, we need approaches that bring together diverse actors’ perspectives and recognize the institutional and social settings (Carpenter et al., 2009 ; Martín-López & Montes, 2015 ; Ostrom, 2009 ) that influence current and future SES, such as Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2015 ; Palomo et al., 2011 ; Rodríguez et al., 2023 ; Thorn et al., 2020 ). Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) has been successfully applied to envision future scenarios (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2015 ; Palomo et al., 2011 ; Rodríguez et al., 2023 ; Thorn et al., 2020 ), grounded in locally experienced challenges and opportunities and hence fosters bottom-up engagement of actors (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013 ; Plieninger et al., 2013 ). PSP enable actors to look beyond immediate pressures and reflect on long-term trajectories, thereby elaborating desirable futures against the backdrop of transformational changes required (Pascual et al., 2023 ). PSP has been widely applied in different SES. For example, it was used to collaboratively explore future scenarios in marine fisheries under climate and governance changes in the Barents Sea (Planque et al., 2019 ); it supported the co-production of scenarios with pastoralists in Spain to assess the impacts of land-use policies on ecosystem services in rangelands (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013 ); it helped smallholder farmers in Brazilian Amazon to envision land-use futures that balance agricultural development and forest conservation (Andreotti et al., 2020 ); and it facilitated multi-actor reflections on transformative pathways toward food security in South Africa (Freeth & and Drimie, 2016). However, only a few studies have applied PSP in SES of the Global South (Juri et al., 2025 ; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2015 ) and even fewer in SES of Africa (Johansson, 2021 ) where the livelihoods of local actors highly depend on nature’s benefits, i.e., Nature ’ s Contributions to People (NCP) (Gupta et al., 2022 ; IIED, 2016 ; Martín-López et al., 2019 ; Thorn et al., 2020 ). Mountain SES in Africa accounts for 11% of the world's mountains and are characterized by rich biological and cultural diversity (Nsengiyumva, 2019 ). They are home to more than 202 million people (FAO, 2015 ) and provide multiple NCP. In terms of regulating NCP, these mountains play a crucial role in regional and global hydrological cycles by regulating water flow, purifying freshwater, and capturing moisture from the air through cloud forests and alpine vegetation (Körner et al., 2005 ). Therefore, they ensure water security for millions living upstream and (far) downstream (Viviroli et al., 2007 ). Also, mountain slopes covered by forests and grasslands stabilize soils and provide vital protection from natural hazards (Brang et al., 2006 ; Olschewski et al., 2012 ). Regarding material NCP, mountains provide, for example, food, feed, timber, fuelwood, and medicinal plants, many of which sustain livelihoods and are sold on local markets (Martín-López et al., 2019 ; Thorn et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, mountains supply non-material NCP, including cultural heritage and spiritual connections (Berkes, 2017 ; Sarmiento & Cotacachi, 2019 ), aesthetic enjoyment, recreation, and learning (Beza, 2010 ; García-Llorente et al., 2012 ; Payne et al., 2020 ). Regardless of their importance, mountain SES in Africa are similarly under pressure from multiple drivers mentioned earlier, which collectively threaten people’s quality of life. Thus, PSP serves as a tool to unravel the complexity of SES and support relevant local actors who experience the impacts of these drivers, to understand the potential SES futures resulting from the interplay of these drivers. Substantial progress has been made in understanding these futures of complex SES by using PSP, yet, three critical research gaps remain in the scientific literature: (1) PSP in mountain SES remains biased toward the Global North, with little focus in the Global South, particularly African countries except Capitani et al., 2019 ; Enfors et al., 2008 ; Johansson, 2021 ; Malinga et al., 2013 ; (2) if PSP in mountain SES was applied, studies did not involve a great diversity of local actors across multiple governance levels (Thorn et al., 2020 ), especially local communities (Gupta et al., 2022 ); and (3) PSP in African mountain SES has tended to focus on one specific theme such as climate change, smallholder farming, or livelihoods e.g., Capitani et al., 2019 ; Enfors et al., 2008 ; Fisher et al., 2011 ; Malinga et al., 2013 . We addressed these three knowledge gaps by applying PSP with multiple relevant local actors for the futures of the southern slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania (hereafter Kilimanjaro SES). By applying PSP with multiple actors in Kilimanjaro, we aim (1) to understand which SES elements and drivers of change actors perceive as characterizing the current SES conditions, (2) how they envision future scenarios that account for complex social-ecological dynamics and the interplay of the drivers of change, and (3) to develop management actions key to transition toward desirable sustainable futures. With this study, we ultimately intend to contribute to the scientific literature on SES transformations by articulating diverse aspirations for SES futures, providing solutions-oriented knowledge grounded in local perspectives and accounting for SES complexity (Pereira et al., 2018 ). Methods This study is part of a collaborative research project entitled ( ). It includes several sub-projects that collect empirical data on the Kilimanjaro SES by operationalizing the “IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting people and nature” (Díaz et al., 2015 , p. 1). Findings from these sub-projects, such as actors’ NCP preferences (Gross et al., 2025 ; Pearson et al., 2025 ; Sanya et al., 2025 ), along with prior studies on drivers of change such as climate (A. Hemp, 2009 ; Peters et al., 2019 ; Said et al., 2019 ) and land use (Grossmann, 2008 ; Soini, 2005b ), and a “participatory assessment of local perspectives on nature, people and sustainability” (Masao et al., 2022 ) justified the study design and contributed to interpretation of the results of this study. Study area Kilimanjaro SES comprises the southern slopes of the biophysical unit of Mount Kilimanjaro, located in Tanzania, and its associated actors, including smallholder farmers, business owners, and nature conservationists. It covers approximately 4,000 km² from the lowlands at 700 meters above sea level (masl) to the summit at 5,895 masl (Fig. 1 ). The mountain's elevational gradient supports a range of ecosystems, making it a biodiversity hotspot (A. Hemp & Hemp, 2018 ). This includes a vast supply of regulating, material, and non-material Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP), which meet the needs and interests of various actors. Kilimanjaro SES supports the livelihoods of over one million people (National Bureau of Statistics, 2023 ), with the Chagga people being the dominant ethnic group (Mtallo & Rubagumya, 2015 ). Kilimanjaro’s conservation history dates back to the early 20th century, during colonial rule, when the foothills were officially designated as a game reserve and a forest reserve (Durrant, 2004 and references therein; Kivumbi & Newmark, 1991 ). In 1941, the social buffer forest, also known as the half-mile forest strip (HMFS) of approximately 88 km², was established to enable local communities to manage and benefit from the forest reserve (Kivumbi & Newmark, 1991 ). When authority over the HFMS changed repeatedly, local communities’ access to forest-supplied NCP was restricted. In 1973, Kilimanjaro National Park was established above the forest reserve (2,700 m asl), with the dual objectives of nature conservation and tourism. The park management follows a fortress conservation model, with strict protection and non-consumptive resource use (Durrant & Durrant, 2008 ; Holyroyd, 2016 ; Newmark, 1991 ). In 2005, overexploitation of forest-supplied NCP led to the incorporation of the remaining forest reserve and HFMS into the National Park, restricting local access (Frömming, 2009 ; Holyroyd, 2016 ; Sébastien, 2010 ). The ban was partially lifted between 2014 and 2020, permitting only women to collect firewood and feed NCP, but it was fully reinstated in 2021 (personal communication with Kilimanjaro National Park staff). Important economic activities in the Kilimanjaro SES include agriculture (Soini, 2005b ). In the lowlands (700–1,000 masl), small-scale maize and beans farms owned by Chagga people dominate (Misana et al., 2003 ; Soini, 2005a ), while the highlands (1,200–1,800 masl) feature both commercially grown coffee plantations leased to investors and a traditional Chagga agroforestry system ( Kihamba in Chagga) in small-sized homegarden (Fernandes et al., 1985 ; A. Hemp, 2006 ). The homegardens reflect the bio-cultural significance of smallholding in Kilimanjaro SES (C. Hemp et al., 2018 ; Sébastien, 2010 ) where coffee, banana, and a diverse mix of trees, shrubs, and crops, such as yams, are combined in a multi-layered, highly biodiverse structure (A. Hemp, 2006 ; Mdoe & Wiggins, 1997 ). Since the 1980s, homegardens have gradually shrunk in size and shifted in crop composition: Maize has gained prominence due to declining ownership of lowland farms and changing dietary preferences (Ichinose et al., 2020 ), while coffee cultivation has decreased due to falling market prices (Soini, 2005a , 2005b ), and overall vegetation cover has declined due to land fragmentation and increased settlement (Misana et al., 2012 ; Said et al., 2021 ). Besides farming, nature-based tourism in Kilimanjaro SES is crucial for the local and national economy. The mountain is among Tanzania’s top destinations, with climbing as the main attraction (Kilungu et al., 2019 ; Tanzania National Parks, 2023 ). It generates substantial revenue, reported up to US $ 51 million in park fees in 2013 (Christie et al., 2014 ; Musa, G et al., 2015 ). Locally, tour guides and operators get their salaries and tips (Christie et al., 2014 ; Peaty, 2012 ) by providing guided hikes inside KINAPA and other nature-based activities, such as visiting waterfalls or engaging in bio-agricultural experiences with the Chagga outside the park (Kilungu et al., 2019 ). Moreover, conservation efforts extend beyond park boundaries, with government, local and international community-based and non-governmental conservation organizations planting trees and protecting forests (Gross et al., 2025 ; C. Hemp et al., 2018 ). Despite these conservation efforts, anthropogenic drivers threaten both the ecological integrity and people’s quality of life (Peters et al., 2019 ; Said et al., 2019 ). These drivers include land cover changes such as the expansion of settlements and agricultural land, as well as shrinking per capita land due to population growth and inheritance-driven land division (Grossmann, 2008 ; Peters et al., 2019 ; Said et al., 2021 ; Soini, 2005b ). Together with climatic changes such as decreased precipitation and rising temperatures, these drivers fundamentally contribute to hydrological shifts in the region (A. Hemp, 2009 ), exacerbating the risk of forest fires (A. Hemp, 2009 ), and reducing water availability essential for agriculture and human well-being in the region (Agrawala et al., 2003 ; Said et al., 2019 ). Data collection We conducted three sequential PSP workshops in Moshi in early 2024, each contributing to the research questions (Fig. 2 ). The workshop participants represented three actor groups: smallholder farmers (n = 4), business owners (n = 9), and nature conservationists (n = 7). These actors collectively represent those who directly influence the SES, such as farmers through their farming practices, and those who indirectly influence management actions through the implementation of policies, programs, and restrictions, such as representatives from government institutions (Table S1). Initial actors’ analysis and engagement with some participants began in the broader project, through interviews (Gross et al., 2025 ; Pearson et al., 2024 ), focus group discussions (Pearson et al., 2025 ), and surveys (Sanya et al., 2025 ). These engagements made the workshops a natural extension of prior interactions, allowing us to build on established trust and mutual understanding. We engaged and maintained the same individuals throughout the workshops to ensure continuity and consistency. Workshop design For each workshop, we had guiding questions (Supplementary Material S1) focusing on specific objectives. Workshop 1 focused on the trends from the past to the present that characterize the current SES conditions (RQ 1). Workshop 2 centered around envisioning future scenarios and applying a backcasting exercise to identify relevant management actions that would achieve desirable futures (RQs 2 and 3). Workshop 3 focused on refining these management actions (RQ3). Participants discussed the questions within smaller working groups composed of members from the same actors (where in-depth discussions and experiences about the questions could be shared) or different actors (where social learning and knowledge co-creation could occur, as viewed in Palomo et al., ( 2011 ). This flexible design helped balance depth and breadth, thereby leveraging the strengths of both group compositions to foster mutual understanding and collective agency (Lang et al., 2012 ; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2015 ). At the end of each workshop, we conducted feedback surveys to improve subsequent workshops and to understand participants ’ views of the participatory process (survey questionnaire in Supplementary Material S2; results from the feedback survey in Supplementary Material S3, and Table S2). Additionally, three nature conservationists and two business owners who were unable to attend the workshops due to personal reasons were interviewed by the first author, ensuring that their perspectives were incorporated in the study. The semi-structured interviews were based on the guiding questions in Supplementary Information S4. The same individuals were interviewed in-between workshops to complement the outputs from the preceding workshops. After completing all workshops, we documented a report on the PSP workshop process in Swahili, which was shared with research participants to encourage further reflection, discussion, and potential adoption of identified management actions (see Supplementary Material S5). Workshop 1: Understanding the SES elements and drivers of change to characterize the current SES conditions We convened workshop 1 to understand how actors perceive the past and present conditions in the Kilimanjaro SES. Participants defined the past period (from 1975 to 2015), reflecting the timeframe during which they could recall significant land-use and environmental changes in the SES. This timeframe also aligns with agricultural expansion, where the area under cultivation increased from 54% in 1973 to 63% by 2000 (Misana et al., 2012 ). The present was agreed to be between 2016 and 2024 to emphasize recent and ongoing dynamics, including continuing land-use changes and their effects on NCP provision. We first shared an understanding of the workshop ’ s aim and the geographical scope of Kilimanjaro SES by showing a map (Fig. 1 ), as well as the NCP preferences of various actors. The NCP groups, i.e. regulating, material, non-material, and inter-generational benefits (Supplementary Information S6), were based on previous research by Gross et al. ( 2025 a), Pearson et al. ( 2024 ), and Sanya et al. ( 2025 ). Throughout the workshops, we displayed the map (Fig. 1 ), the context-specific NCP list with accompanying illustrative images and the NCP preferences of different actor groups (Meyer et al., 2023 ; Supplementary Information S6). These visualizations were essential to make the study area and concepts more tangible for the participants (Capitani et al., 2019 ; Kariuki et al., 2021 ) We guided participants in three smaller working groups, comprising individuals from the same social actor group, to characterize the current conditions of the Kilimanjaro SES. Participants discussed the following four aspects: (1) the main social and ecological elements shaping the SES; (2) the drivers of change that affected these elements over a 40-year period in the past (between 1975 and 2015); (3) the effects of these drivers of change on NCP provision; and (4) actors who influenced and amplified the identified drivers of change and those who became winners and losers, respectively, in regards to perceived changes in SES elements and NCP provision. In a subsequent plenary session, each working group presented the key SES elements and associated drivers of change, ranking them according to their importance and influence within the system as done in previous PSP studies (e.g., Palomo et al., 2011 ). For our study, five key SES elements with the highest combined ranking scores were considered sufficient to capture the complexity of the SES without overloading the scenario-building exercise. Additionally, four drivers of change with the highest combined ranking scores were selected as the most influential in shaping the current and future SES dynamics. Then, each smaller group discussed and shared how different drivers of change affect the key SES elements, information that was used to collaboratively depict a mind map of current social-ecological dynamics in Kilimanjaro (Fig. S1). Workshop 2: Future scenarios and management actions to move towards desirable futures Workshop 2 focused on envisioning future scenarios over a 20-year horizon and suggesting management actions to achieve the desirable futures. We selected this timeframe because socioeconomic and political conditions influencing the system can occur rapidly (Jiren et al., 2020 ), and offers a tangible period for participants to imagine future changes meaningfully. We first presented the four drivers of change identified in workshop 1: population growth, loss of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), increased technological development, and climatic change (Table S5). For the study, we defined each driver of change to fit the reality of Kilimanjaro SES. For example, climatic change was understood as the change in rainfall patterns and amount, extended periods of drought, rising temperatures, and the gradual retreat of the ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro (A. Hemp, 2009 ; Mulangu & Kraybill, 2013 ; Said et al., 2019 ). Then, we presented the five key elements identified in workshop 1: water resources (e.g., rivers, lakes, springs), biodiversity (e.g., forest, wildlife), land use (e.g., agriculture, settlement), tourism (e.g., tourist attractions such as Mount Kilimanjaro), and traditions and culture (e.g., Chagga ’ s deep-rooted land tenure system of their homegardens (A. Hemp, 2006 ; Mdoe & Wiggins, 1997 ) (Table S5). We then established four smaller working groups with participants from different actor groups. Each group were encouraged to think creatively and imaginatively (Pereira et al., 2019 ) and envision one distinct future scenario (Fig. 4 ), defined by two axes: high versus low population, and increased TEK versus an increase in technological development. Climatic change was considered to influence all four scenarios. Each group discussed how the futures might unfold for the five key SES elements under the intersecting pressures and possibilities of the drivers of change. They also considered how the key SES elements, NCP provision, and different quality of life dimensions (e.g., health, education, or employment opportunities) would evolve under each scenario and which actors would become winners and losers. Perceived changes in key SES elements, NCP provision and quality of life dimensions were qualitatively ranked on a scale from strong increase to strong decrease. Lastly, each working group drew their scenarios (Fig. S2a) and presented them in the subsequent plenary. Following the presentations, each participant used colour-coded sticky notes to identify desirable (green) and undesirable (pink) components in each scenario (Fig. S2b). Rather than categorizing entire scenarios as desirable or undesirable, participants selected specific components from each scenario that they perceived as desirable or undesirable in the future, as done in past PSP research, e.g., Kariuki et al., 2021 ; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013 ; Palomo et al., 2011 . In a plenary session, participants discussed and refined the desirable components, merging similar ideas and reaching a consensus on shared visions of desirable futures. Consensus building is crucial for managing the diverse interests of actors and supporting sustainable governance of complex systems (Palomo et al., 2011 ; Rist et al., 2007 ). To explore the management actions required to achieve desirable futures, we employed the backcasting approach (Dreborg, 1996 ). Each participant noted management actions (Fig. S2c) they perceived as effective and achievable based on their understanding of the context in which the action would be implemented (see Supplementary Material S1). The workshop concluded with a plenary session to consolidate the relevant management actions to achieve desirable futures. In the time between workshops 2 and 3, we commissioned an artist (Jelke Meyer) to visualize the four scenarios (Fig. 4 ) based on the scenario drawings and narratives discussed by the participants. The first author renamed the participants’ original scenario titles (in italics) to more intuitive names that capture and distinguish the features of each scenario: Scenario 1, 'Wrong Turn' became 'Crowded Kilimanjaro,' Scenario 2, 'Greater Life' became 'Urbanized Kilimanjaro,' Scenario 3, 'Happy Life' became 'The Chagga Traditional Life', Scenario 4, 'All is Well' became 'Kilimanjaro Techno Life.' Workshop 3: Refining the management actions Workshop 3 focused on refining the management actions. First, participants assessed the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed management actions by allocating 100 points across all management actions. This ranking aimed to identify potential group-specific preferences and actions seen as broadly viable. Following this assessment, participants in homogeneous working groups were assigned a subset of management actions to identify (1) enablers and barriers associated with the actions, (2) the actors responsible for each management action and (3) management action implementation scale: local, regional, national, or international. In a plenary session, each group presented their findings, allowing participants who had not previously worked on specific actions to contribute their perspectives, thereby enriching the findings and broadening the understanding of the management actions. Ethical consideration We obtained research permits from the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH ) and the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI). The research also followed the ethical guidelines of the Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities and the standards recommended by the German Data Forum ( 2017 ). All research participants provided written consent, acknowledging prior information about the study ’ s objectives, consent to audio recordings, and permission to appear in photographs. Data analysis We thematically analyzed the qualitative data collected from the workshops and interviews using MAXQDA 2022 (VERBI, 2018 ). First audio recordings from small group discussions, plenary sessions during the workshops, and interviews were transcribed and translated from Swahili into English. Guided by our research questions, we then inductively coded the data through an iterative process of code generation and theme identification (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). For example, from the scenario-developing exercise in workshop 2, we coded desirable components perceived by the participants in three themes: environmental protection, land use and agriculture management, and sociocultural preservation (Table S6). Similarly, we reviewed all proposed management actions, grouped similar concepts, and selected a category name that best represented the specific actions (Table S5). For example, we named ‘sustainable agriculture and diversification’ as the category for all actions related to agricultural diversification, sustainable farming practices, off-farm livelihood alternatives, and youth involvement in agriculture. Participants’ ranking points for the effectiveness and achievability of the management actions were combined and averaged across actors and presented as the mean effectiveness score in Table 1 . We also extracted exemplary quotes supporting participants' perspectives, which we anonymised using actor group codes and randomly assigned two-digit numbers, e.g., SF15 = smallholder farmers, BS17 = business owners, NC08 = nature conservationists (Table S5). For qualitative ranking of perceived changes on key SES elements, NCP supply and quality of life dimensions for each scenario conducted in workshop 2, we summarized the narratives in Table S7 and numbered the rankings: strongly increase (+ 2), increase (+ 1), no change (0), decrease (-1), and strongly decrease (-2) to generate a heatmap in Fig. 5 . Results Demographic profile of research participants The demographic information of the research participants showed that 65% of them were aged between 25 and 44 years, representing youth and middle-aged participants, while the rest were older individuals, up to 75 years old. Majority had vocational or undergraduate education, and fewer held postgraduate degrees. Ninety-five per cent of the participants were men, reflecting the gender composition of the positions they represented in institutions or companies. Among invited farmers, men attended as they are often considered the heads of households. Additionally, 65% of participants were native to the region, and 80% had lived there for over 15 years (Table S3). Current conditions of Kilimanjaro SES Participants identified five key elements of Kilimanjaro SES: water resources, biodiversity, land use and agriculture, tourism, and traditions and culture (Table S4). They reported significant changes in all elements over the past 40 years (Table S5). For example, participants recalled a past where wildlife was more present and natural systems more intact: “As a child, I remember seeing porcupines in our garden. We also used to hunt pigeons, but now you rarely see such wildlife” (BS17). Participants also remembered higher vegetation cover and abundant water resources: “When I grew up in a shanty town in the late 1980s, we even had a little channel (Mfongo in Chagga) running through our backyard, but now there is no water to flow in these channels” (NC08). Further, they mentioned low-volume tourism and that the Chagga traditions and culture fostered a close relationship between people and nature: “You had an attachment, like ‘oh my Kihamba’, you look after it, you have a sense of ownership and custodianship, especially on the mountain, these are resources supplied by God” (BS17). Participants perceived deforestation and biodiversity loss as resulting from population growth, which led to increased demand for land for agricultural expansion —a primary form of land use change. Water resources such as springs and rivers were perceived to have either disappeared or become polluted. They also noted that climatic change contributed to the drying of springs and altered river flow patterns, resulting in seasonal flow variations. Additionally, participants noted that the erosion of traditions and culture weakened societal connections to nature (Table S4). On the other hand, participants noted an increase in tourism, possibly due to improved facilities and infrastructure, as well as a diversification of tourism products. Similarly, while water resources were noted to decline, improvements in water supply infrastructure increased household access to water. The outcomes of these changes varied among different actors. For example, business owners in agriculture and tourism, as well as tourists, benefited from developments such as improved water supply and tourism infrastructure, as well as diversified tourism products. In contrast, other actors, such as smallholder farmers, resorted to unsustainable farming practices, e.g., farming near riverbanks due to decreased per capita land availability. These changes also altered NCP provision. Moreover, they led to an increased loss of cultural identity and a decline in connectedness with nature, particularly among the younger generation, due to westernization and lifestyle changes (Table S4). Figure 3 illustrates the current conditions of Kilimanjaro SES as perceived by participants in Workshop 1. Future scenarios The following sections provide brief descriptions of each scenario, focusing on key SES elements, NCP supply, quality of life dimensions, and the actors perceived as winners and losers. Table S7 provides a summary of these characteristics for each scenario. Scenario 1: Crowded Kilimanjaro scenario The Crowded Kilimanjaro scenario was characterized by a high population, ineffective legal and policy frameworks, and shrinking per capita land, leading to resource overexploitation and the potential displacement of people (Fig. 4 , top left). In this scenario, food and other goods were imported, while protected areas faced increasing pressure from human encroachment. TEK related to agriculture was retained primarily in fragmented homegardens. This scenario indicated a decline of key SES elements, most notably regulating NCP, and a deterioration in the quality of life dimensions for most actors (Fig. 5 ). While short-term economic benefits supported industries and businesses through activities like logging, most actors became losers in the long term (Table S7). Scenario 2: Urbanized Kilimanjaro scenario The Urbanized Kilimanjaro scenario envisioned a future of significant urban expansion alongside rapid development in infrastructure and technology (Fig. 4 , top right illustration). The scenario was characterized by improved social infrastructure and the adoption of advanced agricultural technologies. A technology-driven approach to conservation was implemented, including CCTV surveillance and fencing around Kilimanjaro National Park, except in designated wildlife corridors. Tourism flourished with the introduction of cable cars, bringing the mountain experience to more visitors. The scenario showed a declining trend in vegetation cover in areas outside the Park, along with other key SES elements, such as water resources, biodiversity, traditions, and culture. Additionally, material, regulating, and non-material NCP also declined (Fig. 5 ). By contrast, the amount of tourism and markets seemed increased. Yet, some of the quality of life dimensions for actors associated with markets and tourism seemed to deteriorate since the employment opportunities for those in the mountain business, and porters decreased due to a cable car (Table S7). Scenario 3: The Chagga Traditional Life scenario The Chagga Traditional Life scenario envisioned a positive future rooted in environmental stewardship (Fig. 4 , bottom left illustration). The scenario is characterized by a low population and a strong reliance on TEK, which fostered a culture of environmental stewardship. Sustainable land-use planning guided the development of agriculture through homegardens. Ecotourism and cultural tourism associated with the Chagga community thrived, although the social and communication infrastructure remained underdeveloped. Traditional customs and practices were upheld, reinforcing moral values within the close-knit community. The scenario demonstrated the preservation of key SES elements and a high supply of NCP, although access to roads and the educational dimensions of quality of life were perceived as decreasing (Fig. 5 and Table S7). Scenario 4: Kilimanjaro Techno Life scenario The Kilimanjaro Techno Life scenario envisioned a future of advanced technological development and new infrastructure (Fig. 4 , bottom right illustration). The scenario was characterized by a low population density, with prioritized agricultural production and industries focused on processing produce, such as coffee roasting and packaging. Conservation focused only inside the National Park, while technological development of the water system, such as water harvesting and innovative irrigation systems, helped mitigate the negative impacts of climatic change. Overall, the scenario had a positive outlook for most SES elements, including material and regulating NCP and the different dimensions of quality of life (Fig. 5 ), yet participants anticipated a decline in traditions and culture (Fig. 5 , Table S7). Shared visions of desirable futures In workshop 3, participants identified three aspects that are desirable for the future of Kilimanjaro SES: (1) environmental protection, (2) land use and agriculture management, and (3) cultural preservation. For environmental protection, participants identified the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems as a desirable element of the future, which required other elements, such as the reforestation of degraded lands and the efficient management of water resources. Concerning land use and agricultural management, participants reported a need for sustainable agricultural practices, effective land use planning, and socioeconomic development. Finally, regarding preserving Chagga culture, participants reported on desirable elements such as social harmony and conserving traditional practices. Moreover, participants identified undesirable elements that need mitigation actions, including limited financial resources, inadequate social infrastructure, displacement, and unemployment. Table S6 in the Supplementary Material provides an overview of all desirable and undesirable elements, along with exemplary quotes from the discussion. Transitioning towards the desirable futures: management actions. Participants identified seven broad categories of management actions to achieve the desirable futures. These ranged from legal and policy-related actions at the national level to environmental stewardship requiring local collective action. They included political support and conservation enforcement, sustainable agriculture and diversification, environmental education and awareness, community-led environmental stewardship, reforestation programs, traditions and culture preservation, and land use planning (Table 1 ). No important differences emerged across actor groups or between actions in terms of perceived effectiveness and feasibility of the management actions. However, all participants ranked political support and conservation enforcement highest, followed by sustainable agriculture and diversification. While not exhaustive, participants also identified actors responsible for implementing the management actions from the national level to village leaders and local communities. For example, actions such as reforestation and community-led stewardship were perceived to require collective actions at a local level, while others, like land use planning, required national-level financial investment and institutional support. In addition, participants identified a lack of financial resources and limited awareness as the most common barriers to implementing the management actions, as detailed in Table 1 . Participants perceived that for actions related to political support and conservation enforcement, there is a lack of coordinated, participatory, and community engagement in their implementation despite having supportive laws, policies, regulations, and guidelines for environmental protection and conservation. Participants raised concerns that local communities are excluded from decision-making and are at the receiving end. Regarding sustainable agriculture and diversification, participants mentioned initiatives like the Kweme (Oyster nuts) project, which aims to avoid deforestation while earning income, as oyster nuts require trees for support. In line with this, participants emphasized diversification through beekeeping and off-farm livelihood alternatives to reduce pressure on land. Participants also placed a special focus on engaging youth in agriculture by increasing their involvement and fostering pride in agricultural heritage. Participants also noted that continuous mass media campaigns were needed to raise awareness about environmental issues and conservation. For example, they suggested that social media campaigns with celebrity engagement to advocate for conservation could be effective in gaining the attention of young people. In addition, participants identified potentially productive actions, including hands-on environmental education. “We could engage our children in conservation through activities such as planting trees at home and making sure to report progress to the teacher. Children have faith in their teachers and can abide by their words rather than their parents” (NC05). Furthermore, participants highlighted the importance of preserving traditions and culture through community-led environmental stewardship. Participants proposed the idea of a living village exhibit, where most villagers promote sustainable agriculture and conservation. This includes maintaining local varieties of bananas in homegardens, many of which have medicinal significance, and planting native tree species. “Having a museum displaying Chagga traditional way of life and artifacts would not be enough to counteract the rate at which we are losing our culture... It will be important to make conscious decisions as a community to showcase our culture and preserve our traditions in our everyday life” (SF15). Participants acknowledged ongoing reforestation programs by local communities, public and private institutions, and conservation and development NGOs in Kilimanjaro SES. They mentioned tree planting programs near water sources and homesteads, and the establishment of tree plantations to satisfy material NCP demand and reverse the environmental degradation (Table S5). “We need a balanced ecosystem where human needs from nature can be met while we conserve, but accessing the half-mile strip forest in Kilimanjaro National Park is banned, people should focus on planting trees to meet their demand for fodder, poles and timber in their lands” (NC09). Participants also noted that land use planning was crucial, as many villages lacked proper plans, leading to environmental degradation. Participants acknowledged government efforts to conserve water sources through laws prohibiting agricultural activities within 60 meters of a riverbank or water source. Table S5 in Supplementary Material lists management actions under each category and exemplary quotes from the participants. Discussion In this study, we employed PSP to understand which SES elements and drivers of change actors perceive as characterizing the current SES conditions, how they envision future scenarios based on social-ecological dynamics and the interplay effects of multiple drivers, and the management actions toward desirable futures. Our results highlighted key SES elements such as water resources, biodiversity, land uses and agriculture, tourism, traditions and culture and most influential drivers of change, including population growth, loss of TEK, technological development and climatic change. Four future scenarios were developed and characterized based on the key elements and the interplay of these drivers: Crowded Kilimanjaro, Urbanized Kilimanjaro, The Chagga Traditional Life and Kilimanjaro Techno Life. Considering actors identified desirable futures and the multiple pathways through which they can be achieved, two major conclusions emerged for Kilimanjaro SES. From the past to desirable futures: the role of local agency “The conservation of a substantial proportion of the world’s biodiversity and NCP largely depends on the customary institutions and management systems of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs)” (IPBES et al., 2019, p. 914). This highlights the importance of local institutions and knowledge systems, also reflected in our PSP in Kilimanjaro SES, where transformation towards desirable futures emerged as a social process rooted in the lived experiences of the actors. PSP in Kilimanjaro SES unraveled who holds “the socioculturally mediated capacity to act” (Ahearn, 2001 , p.112) or agency, where it is expressed, and how it shapes the desirable futures. This was evident in the four scenarios developed in workshop 2, which all had three commonalities. First, the presence of the national park boundary shaped perceptions of actors regarding where their agency was limited and who held that agency. The PSP process revealed that participants largely imagined futures within the bounds of the existing institutional arrangement of the Kilimanjaro National Park (Fig. 4 ). Across all four scenarios, the Park ’ s continued existence was assumed, and its boundary was treated as fixed. No alternative governance models or uses for the National Park were envisioned. This situation may reflect, on the one hand, a general acceptance of the Park's continued existence, given its role in providing key NCP, such as climate regulation and water (Durrant & Durrant, 2008 ), and the fact that our PSP began at present, when the Park and its borders are well established. On the other hand, it may also indicate a perceived lack of opportunity to imagine alternative futures with other conservation models, such as community-based management or a Biosphere Reserve. As a result, the agency was perceived as being limited to areas outside the Park. This finding aligns with literature on the fortress conservation model (Goldman, 2003 ; West et al., 2006 ), which shows that protected areas often constrain local agency, as actors are not meaningfully included in decision-making (Andrade & Rhodes, 2012 ). This can lead to local communities focusing on spaces where they can exert greater autonomy (Morrison et al., 2019 ), such as outside the National Park. Nevertheless, current conservation policies in Tanzania direct park authorities to develop specific programs, such as support for community-led conservation initiatives and livelihood options, or conservation education, to ensure the engagement of local communities in conservation outside the protected area boundaries (Durrant & Durrant, 2008 ). Moreover, these policies include a benefits-sharing program through which local communities engage in Community Conservation Services, also known locally as “Ujirani mwema” in Swahili (Durrant & Durrant, 2008 ). Second, the presence of homegardens in all scenarios suggests a strong sense of agency in areas below the park boundary. This reflects how embedded practices and local knowledge play a central role in shaping desirable futures (Fig. 4 ). In the Chagga Traditional Life scenario, the dominant presence of the homegardens was accompanied by the preservation of TEK, and non-material NCP such as cultural heritage and identity or connectedness with nature (Fig. 5 ), while the Crowded Kilimanjaro only included some remnants of these. These homegardens, deeply rooted in Chagga tradition, are the bright spots for sustainable and self-sufficient futures (Bennett et al., 2016 ; A. Hemp, 2006 ). Their multi-layered structure of trees and bushes integrated with crops such as bananas, coffee, and yams, among others, represents a long-standing form of land use that is ecologically resilient and culturally meaningful (Fernandes & Nair, 1986 ; A. Hemp, 1999 , 2006 ) and they are highly valued by smallholder farmers (Sanya et al., 2025 ). As Kothari ( 2008 , p. 23) concluded, “ … the future of conservation lies, at least partly, in its past,” the management of homegardens for desirable futures in Kilimanjaro SES similarly reflects this conclusion. The Chagga homegardens are living archives of culture, TEK, and intergenerational care. These agroforestry systems, passed down through generations, reflect a deep-rooted commitment to tradition, where maintaining a homegarden is not only a livelihood activity but also a marker of identity. Within these spaces, families gather, rituals are held, and stories are shared, reinforcing ties between people and nature. The homegardens preserve a wealth of TEK, including medicinal plants used in animal husbandry and human health, local banana varieties with healing properties, and management techniques that have long supported sustainable land use (A. Hemp, 1999 , 2006 ; Mollel et al., 2017 ). The revival of crops like Kweme (Oyster nuts), which require trees for support, is helping reconnect people with forgotten uses while halting deforestation and biodiversity loss. The homegardens provide new meanings to old practices, and knowledge is not only conserved but also informs desirable futures. Third, across all scenarios, technology was perceived as a tool for exercising agency by either enhancing traditional knowledge or enabling more sustainable practices, thereby demonstrating its crucial role in shaping desirable futures. Across scenarios, participants recognized the need for technological innovations, such as water harvesting systems, greenhouses, improved road access, and processing facilities for their farming products (Fig. 4 ). Interestingly some of the technological developments such as water harvesting systems were envisioned for the management of homegardens. This points to the importance of braiding TEK with modern technological knowledge for fostering sustainable futures (Bennett et al., 2025 ; Ray, 2023 ; Tengö et al., 2017 ). Towards desirable futures for a complex SES: the role of polycentric governance “Any governance system designed to regulate complex biological systems must have as much variety in the actions that it can take as there exists in the systems that are being regulated” (Ostrom, 1998 ). This quote speaks directly to the challenge of governing complex SES, like Kilimanjaro where desirable futures reflect a high degree of complexity shaped by multiple interdependent elements such as the impact of diverse drivers of change on land use, biodiversity, water resources, traditions and culture, NCP supply or actors ’ quality of life (Table S4; Fig. 5 ). To achieve the consented desirable futures, multiple actors operating at different governance levels are required (Table 1 ) since no single actor possesses all the knowledge, tools, and capacity to govern SES complexity effectively. This result aligns with the need for polycentric governance, where multiple, overlapping decision-making centers operate with some degree of autonomy but are linked through cooperation, coordination, and mutual accountability (Ostrom, 2006 ). Importantly, polycentricity extends governance beyond formal institutions to encompass informal interactions and relationships crucial to achieving desirable futures, including information sharing, coordination, problem-solving, and even internal conflict resolution (Biggs et al., 2012 , 2015 ). Similarly, the PSP and backcasting applied in this study showed visions for desirable futures centered around environmental protection, land use and agriculture management, and cultural preservation. These results align with a recent study that showed the need to integrate multiple components across both ecological and social dimensions when designing desirable futures (Juri et al., 2025 ). Moreover, the management actions discussed in workshop 3 reinforced the complexity of Kilimanjaro SES, as actions ranged from the need for political support and conservation enforcement to sustainable agriculture and diversification, as well as reforestation programs (Table 1 ). The management actions were mapped onto different levels of governance, ranging from local to national levels (Table 1 ). For example, regarding environmental protection, management actions included reforestation and community-led stewardship, which were perceived as requiring the engagement of local communities and TEK at a local level. In contrast, land use planning necessitated financial backing and a higher-level policy commitment. This example illustrates the importance of involving various governance levels that also illustrates the need for formal (laws, policies) and informal institutions (customs, collective action, TEK) to represent the actors ’ diverse interests and needs (Chaffin et al., 2014 ; Martín-López & Montes, 2015 ; Morrison et al., 2019 ; Ostrom, 2006 ). These results support the claims for a governance system that embraces institutional diversity and polycentricity to foster desirable futures, which also aligns with the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment ’ s emphasis on inclusive, accountable, and adaptive governance as essential for addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss and enabling context-specific solutions across scales (O’Brien et al., 2025 ). Conclusion Research on social-ecological systems emphasizes the importance of engaging diverse actor perspectives and acknowledging the complexity of these systems (Biggs et al., 2022 ; Reyers et al., 2018 ). Using a Participatory Scenario Planning approach, we present actors' past and present perspectives and their visions of desirable futures shaped by complex social and ecological dynamics in Kilimanjaro SES underpinning two major conclusions: (1) desirable futures for Kilimanjaro SES require local agency, which is deeply rooted in actors ’ lived experiences and their relationship with nature and, (2) navigating the complexity of Kilimanjaro SES necessarily calls for polycentric governance whereby formal and informal institutions operating at different organizational levels and under the responsibilities of multiple actors respond to the effects of the diverse drivers of change on the intertwined social-ecological system components and processes. These findings cement the relevance of considering diverse actors (and their perspectives) across organizational levels as co-creators of locally grounded desirable futures and effective pathways in achieving them. Declarations CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare no conflict of interest relevant to the content of this article. AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS NK, DM, BML and PM conceived the study; NK and JS collected the data; NK performed the analyses. NK led the manuscript writing with support from DM, BML, MG, PM; All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the workshop participants, interviewees, and assistant workshop facilitators (Ester Mramba, Lusiano Mfalingundi, Rosemary Mgumya, Wakara Chamtigiti and Rehema Julius) for their collaboration. This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG: ). DATA AVAILABILITY Workshop recordings and actors ’ interview data will not be publicly available for confidentiality reasons. Nevertheless, large part of the materials from workshops and interviews has been synthesized and presented in the main text and in Supplementary Information. As per the explanation form and declaration of consent, data will be archived in a secure location and destroyed after a 10-year retention period. References Agrawala S, Moehner A, Hemp A, van Aalst M, Hitz S, Smith J, Meena H, Mwakifwamba SM, Hyera T, Mwaipopo OU (2003) Development and climate change in Tanzania: Focus on Mount Kilimanjaro [Working Paper]. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.taccire.sua.ac.tz/handle/123456789/442 Ahearn LM (2001) Language and Agency. Annual Review of Anthropology , 30 , 109–137. JSTOR Andrade G, Rhodes J (2012) Protected Areas and Local Communities: An Inevitable Partnership toward Successful Conservation Strategies? Ecol Soc 17(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05216-170414 Andreotti F, Speelman EN, Van den Meersche K, Allinne C (2020) Combining participatory games and backcasting to support collective scenario evaluation: An action research approach for sustainable agroforestry landscape management. Sustain Sci 15(5):1383–1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00829-3 Bennett EM, Biggs R, Calderón Contreras R, Golden Kroner R, Vianna Mansur A, Woroniecki S, Acar S, Aksoy Z, Alpizar F, Lam D, Horcea-Milcu A-I, Linnér B-O, Mehta L, Campos CM, Nishi M, Roskruge N, Richardson M, Sabinot C, Simão Seixas C, Chan K (2025) IPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Chap. 3. How transformative change occurs (Version 10.0.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.11382244 Bennett EM, Reyers B (2024) Disentangling the complexity of human–nature interactions. People Nat 6(2):402–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10611 Bennett EM, Solan M, Biggs R, McPhearson T, Norström AV, Olsson P, Pereira L, Peterson GD, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Biermann F, Carpenter SR, Ellis EC, Hichert T, Galaz V, Lahsen M, Milkoreit M, López M, Nicholas B, Preiser KA, Xu R, J (2016) Bright spots: Seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 14(8):441–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1309 Berkes F (2017) Sacred ecology. Routledge Beza BB (2010) The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: A study of the Mt. Everest Trek. Landsc Urban Plann 97(4):306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.003 Biggs R, Clements HS, Cumming GS, Cundill G, De Vos A, Hamann M, Luvuno L, Roux DJ, Selomane O, Blanchard R, Cockburn J, Dziba L, Esler KJ, Fabricius C, Henriksson R, Kotschy K, Lindborg R, Masterson VA, Nel JL, Reyers B (2022) Social-ecological change: Insights from the Southern African Program on Ecosystem Change and Society. Ecosyst People 18(1):447–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2097478 Biggs R, Schlüter M, Biggs D, Bohensky EL, BurnSilver S, Cundill G, Dakos V, Daw TM, Evans LS, Kotschy K, Leitch AM, Meek C, Quinlan A, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Robards MD, Schoon ML, Schultz L, West PC (2012) Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37(1):421–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836 Biggs R, Schluter M, Schoon ML (eds) (2015) Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social–Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240 Brang P, Schönenberger W, Frehner M, Schwitter R, Thormann J-J, Wasser B (2006) Management of protection forests in the European Alps: An overview. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Caniglia G, Luederitz C, von Wirth T, Fazey I, Martín-López B, Hondrila K, König A, von Wehrden H, Schäpke NA, Laubichler MD, Lang DJ (2021) A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4(2):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z Capitani C, Garedew W, Mitiku A, Berecha G, Hailu BT, Heiskanen J, Hurskainen P, Platts PJ, Siljander M, Pinard F, Johansson T, Marchant R (2019) Views from two mountains: Exploring climate change impacts on traditional farming communities of Eastern Africa highlands through participatory scenarios. Sustain Sci 14(1). Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0622-x Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, Defries RS, Díaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(5):1305–1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106 Chaffin BC, Gosnell H, Cosens BA (2014) A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecol Soc 19(3):art56. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356 Christie IT, Fernandes EH, Messerli HR, Twining-Ward LD (2014) Tourism in Africa: Harnessing tourism for growth and improved livelihoods (88656; Issue 88656). Africa development forum Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/738471468299123752 Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, Jäger J, Chabay I, de Wit B, Langlais R, Mills D, Moll P, Otto IM, Petersen A, Pohl C, van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Policy 28:60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008 Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, Bartuska A, Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, Chan KM, Figueroa VE, Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 Dreborg KH (1996) Essence of backcasting. Futures 28(9):813–828 Durrant MB (2004) Communities, place, and conservation on Mount Kilimanjaro [Brigham Young University]. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/143 Durrant MB, Durrant JO (2008) The Influence of Location on Local Attitudes Toward Community Conservation on Mount Kilimanjaro. Soc Nat Resour 21(5):371–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701618187 Egan PA, Price MF (2017) Mountain ecosystem services and climate change: A global overview of potential threats and strategies for adaptation Enfors EI, Gordon LJ, Peterson GD, Bossio D (2008) Making Investments in Dryland Development Work: Participatory Scenario Planning in the Makanya Catchment, Tanzania. Ecol Soc 13(2). Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02649-130242 FAO (2015) Mapping the vulnerability of mountain peoples to food insecurity . https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/fc51a31f-4d11-45da-a9f3-5d44277ab231/content Fernandes ECM, Nair PKR (1986) An evaluation of the structure and function of tropical homegardens. Agric Syst 21(4):279–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521X(86)90104-6 Fernandes ECM, Oktingati A, Maghembe J (1985) The Chagga Home Gardens: A Multi-Storeyed Agro-Forestry Cropping System on Mt. Kilimanjaro, Northern Tanzania. FoodNutr Bull 7(3). Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/156482658500700311 Fisher B, Turner RK, Burgess ND, Swetnam RD, Green J, Green RE, Kajembe G, Kulindwa K, Lewis SL, Marchant R, Marshall AR, Madoffe S, Munishi PKT, Morse-Jones S, Mwakalila S, Paavola J, Naidoo R, Ricketts T, Rouget M, Balmford A (2011) Measuring, modeling and mapping ecosystem services in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. Progress Phys Geography: Earth Environ 35(5). Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311422968 Freeth R,and, Drimie S (2016) Participatory Scenario Planning: From Scenario ‘Stakeholders’ to Scenario ‘Owners’. Environment: Sci Policy Sustainable Dev 58(4):32–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1186441 Frömming UU (2009) Kilimanjaro’s melting glaciers: On the colonial and postcolonial perception and appropriation of African nature1. Etnografica , vol. 13 (2) , Article 13 (2). https://doi.org/10.4000/etnografica.1158 García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, López-Santiago CA, Aguilera PA, Montes C (2012) The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. Environmental Science & Policy , 19–20 , 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006 German Data Forum (2017) Forschungsethische Grundsätze und Prüfverfahren in den Sozial-und Wirtschaftswissenschaften. [Für Sozial, Rat]. RatSWD Output Goldman M (2003) Partitioned Nature, Privileged Knowledge: Community-based Conservation in Tanzania. Dev Change 34(5):833–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2003.00331.x Grêt-Regamey A, Huber SH, Huber R (2019) Actors’ diversity and the resilience of social-ecological systems to global change. Nat Sustain 2(4):290–297. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0236-z Gross M, Shepeleva D, Vogel F, Mwampamba TH, Arbieu U, Pearson J, Sesabo JK, Codalli F, Martín-López B (2025) The questions we ask matter: Insights from place-based research on nature’s contributions to people. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01649-z Grossmann M (2008) The Kilimanjaro Aquifer: A Case Study for the Research Project:Trans Boundary Groundwater Management in Africa. German Dev Inst, 91–94 Gupta H, Nishi M, Gasparatos A (2022) Community-based responses for tackling environmental and socio-economic change and impacts in mountain social–ecological systems. Ambio 51(5). Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01651-6 Hemp A (1999) An ethnobotanical study on Mt. Kilimanjaro Ecotropica, 5 (2) Hemp A (2006) The Banana Forests of Kilimanjaro: Biodiversity and Conservation of the Chagga Homegardens. Biodivers Conserv 15(4):1193–1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-8230-8 Hemp A (2009) Climate change and its impact on the forests of Kilimanjaro. Afr J Ecol 47(s1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.01043.x Hemp A (2017) Kilimanjaro. Physiographic map with Land use and Vegetation. Scale 1:100,000 Hemp A, Hemp C (2018) Broken bridges: The isolation of Kilimanjaro’s ecosystem. Glob Change Biol 24(8):3499–3507. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14078 Hemp C, Böhning-Gaese K, Fischer M, Hemp A (2018) The KiLi Project: Kilimanjaro ecosystems under global change: Linking biodiversity, biotic interactions and biogeochemical ecosystem processes . 1. Auflage. Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Frankfurt/Main Holyroyd M (2016) The political ecology of tourism development on Mount Kilimanjaro. In Mary Mostafanezhad, Eric J. Shelton, Roger Norum, & Anna Carr (Eds.), Political Ecology of Tourism (pp. 251–269). Routledge Ichinose Y, Higuchi H, Kubo R, Nishigaki T, Kilasara M, Shinjo H, Funakawa S (2020) Adaptation of farmland management strategies to maintain livelihood by the Chagga people in the Kilimanjaro highlands. In AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS (Vol. 181). ELSEVIER SCI LTD. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102829 IIED (2016) Landscape approaches for mountain community sustainable development in a time of climate change: Policy Consultation and South-South Exchange Workshop and INMIP Mountain Community Exchange Walking Workshop. International Institute for Environment and Development. https://www.iied.org/g04062 IPBES, Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Guèze M, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, Garibaldi LA, Liu KIJ, Subramanian SM, Midgley GF, Miloslavich P, Molnár Z, Obura D, Zayas CN (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services (Version summary for policy makers). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3553458 Jiren TS, Hanspach J, Schultner J, Fischer J, Bergsten A, Senbeta F, Hylander K, Dorresteijn I (2020) Reconciling food security and biodiversity conservation: Participatory scenario planning in southwestern Ethiopia. Ecol Soc 25(3):art24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11681-250324 Johansson E (2021) Participatory futures thinking in the African context of sustainability challenges and socio-environmental change. Ecol Soc 26(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12617-260403 Juri S, Marais-Potgieter A, Achieng T, Gianelli I, Kabisa M, Nkgothoe B, Ojino J, Tcheton S, Carpenter-Urquhart L, Pereira L (2025) Transforming towards what? A review of futures-thinking applied in the quest for navigating sustainability transformations. Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adcbc4 Kariuki RW, Munishi LK, Courtney-Mustaphi CJ, Capitani C, Shoemaker A, Lane PJ, Marchant R (2021) Integrating stakeholders’ perspectives and spatial modelling to develop scenarios of future land use and land cover change in northern Tanzania. PLoS ONE 16(2):e0245516. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245516 Kilungu H, Leemans R, Munishi PKT, Nicholls S, Amelung B (2019) Forty Years of Climate and Land-Cover Change and its Effects on Tourism Resources in Kilimanjaro National Park. Tourism Plann Dev 16(2). Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2019.1569121 Kivumbi CO, Newmark WD (1991) The history of the half mile strip on Mount Kilimanjaro. The Conservation of Mount Kilimanjaro. IUCN Körner C, Ohsawa M, Spehn EM, Berge E, Bugmann H, Groombridge B (2005) Mountain Systems. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State & Trends Assessment. Island, pp 683–716. R , Ash Kothari A (2008) Protected areas and people: The future of the past. Parks 17(2):23–34 Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(S1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x . Article S1 Malinga R, Gordon LJ, Lindborg R, Jewitt G (2013) Using Participatory Scenario Planning to Identify Ecosystem Services in Changing Landscapes. Ecol Soc 18(4):art10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05494-180410 Martín-López B, Leister I, Lorenzo Cruz P, Palomo I, Grêt-Regamey A, Harrison PA, Lavorel S, Locatelli B, Luque S, Walz A (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, Montes C (2015) Restoring the human capacity for conserving biodiversity: A social–ecological approach. Sustain Sci 10(4):699–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0283-3 Masao CA, Prescott GW, Snethlage MA, Urbach DR, Torre-Marin Rando M, del Venegas AM, Mollel R, Hemp NP, Hemp C, A., Fischer M (2022) Stakeholder perspectives on nature, people and sustainability at Mount Kilimanjaro. People Nat 4(3):711–729 Mdoe N, Wiggins S (1997) Returns to Smallholder Dairying in the Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. Agric Econ 17:75–87 Meyer J, Gross M, Martín-López B, Pearson J, Sanya Julius J (2023) Outreach Posters for the Preliminary Results of the Project Demand and Values of Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) embedded within the DFG Research Unit The role of nature for human well-being in the Kilimanjaro Social-Ecological System (Kili-SES). Germany. Leuphana University of Lüneburg. 10.48548/pubdata-78 Misana SB, Majule A, Lyaruu H (2003) Linkages between Changes in Land Use, Biodiversity and Land Degradation on the Slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania [LUCID Working paper No. 38]. International Livestock Research Institute. Nairobi Misana SB, Sokoni C, Mbonile MJ (2012) Land-use/cover changes and their drivers on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. J Geogr Reg Plann 5(6). https://doi.org/10.5897/JGRP11.050 Mollel NP, Fischer M, Hemp A (2017) Usable wild plant species in relation to elevation and land use at Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Alp Bot 127(2):145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00035-017-0187-9 Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K, Lemos MC, Huitema D, Phelps J, Evans L, Cohen P, Song AM, Turner R, Quinn T, Hughes TP (2019) The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob Environ Change 57:101934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101934 Mtallo GR, Rubagumya C (2015) The Source of Language Variation among Chagga People in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. J Arts Humanit 4(7) Article 7. https://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v4i7.741 Mulangu F, Kraybill D (2013) Climate Change and the Future of Mountain Farming on Mt. Kilimanjaro. In S. Mann (Ed.), The Future of Mountain Agriculture (pp. 73–88). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33584-6_6 Musa G, Higham J, Thompson-Carr A (eds) (2015) Mountaineering Tourism . Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Mountaineering-Tourism/Musa-Higham-Thompson-Carr/p/book/9781138083936 National Bureau of Statistics (2023) Census Information Dissemination Platform. https://sensa.nbs.go.tz/ Newmark WD (1991) The Conservation of Mount Kilimanjaro (Vol. 16). Iucn Nsengiyumva P (2019) African Mountains in a Changing Climate: Trends, Impacts, and Adaptation Solutions. Mt Res Dev 39(2). https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-00062.1 O’Brien K, Garibaldi LA, Agrawal A, Bennett E, Biggs R, Calderón Contreras R, Carr ER, Frantzeskaki N, Gosnell H, Gurung J, Lambertucci SA, Leventon J, Chuan L, García R, Shannon V, Villasante L, Wickson S, Zinngrebe F, Périanin Y, Zaccagnini L (2025) M. E. IPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Summary for Policymakers (Version 10.2.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.11382230 Olschewski R, Bebi P, Teich M, Hayek W, U., Grêt-Regamey A (2012) Avalanche protection by forests—A choice experiment in the Swiss Alps. For Policy Econ 15:108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.10.002 Ostrom E (1998) Scales, Polcentricity, and Incentives: Designing Complexity to Govern Complexity. Guruswamy D. Lakshman, McNeely A. Jeffrey (Eds.) Protection of global biodiversity: Converging strategies. Duke University Press, pp 149–167 Ostrom E (2006) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400831739 Ostrom E (2009) A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325(5939):419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133 Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Daw TM, Bohensky EL, Butler JRA, Hill R, Martin-Ortega J, Quinlan A, Ravera F, Ruiz-Mallén I, Thyresson M, Mistry J, Palomo I, Peterson GD, Plieninger T, Waylen KA, Beach DM, Bohnet IC, Hamann M, Vilardy SP (2015) Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: Insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol Soc 20(4):art32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07985-200432 Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, López CA, Palomo I, González JA (2013) Envisioning the future of transhumant pastoralism through participatory scenario planning: A case study in Spain. Rangel J 35(3):251. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ12092 Palomo I, Martín-López B, López-Santiago C, Montes C (2011) Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas Management under the Ecosystem Services Framework: The Doñana Social-Ecological System in Southwestern Spain. Ecol Soc 16(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03862-160123 Pascual U, Balvanera P, Christie M (2023) Editorial overview: Leveraging the multiple values of nature for transformative change to just and sustainable futures — Insights from the IPBES Values Assessment. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 64:101359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101359 Payne D, Snethlage M, Geschke J, Spehn EM, Fischer M (2020) Nature and people in the Andes, East African Mountains, European Alps, and Hindu Kush Himalaya: Current research and future directions. Mt Res Dev 40(2):A1 Pearson J, Gross M, Hofmann J (2024) Non-material contributions of nature expressed by former tourists of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. People Nat 6(1):220–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10575 Pearson J, Massawe JJ, Mbaruku AP, Mramba EI, Mwampamba TH, Martín-López B (2025) Chagga women´s connections with nature: Fostering relationality through arts-based methods. Ecosyst People 21(1):2459108. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2025.2459108 Peaty D (2012) Kilimanjaro Tourism and What It Means for Local Porters and for the Local Environment. J Ritsumeikan Social Sci Humanit 4:1–11 Pereira LM, Karpouzoglou T, Frantzeskaki N, Olsson P (2018) Designing transformative spaces for sustainability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 23(4):art32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10607-230432 Pereira LM, Sitas N, Ravera F, Jimenez-Aceituno A, Merrie A (2019) Building capacities for transformative change towards sustainability: Imagination in Intergovernmental Science-Policy Scenario Processes. Elementa: Sci Anthropocene 7:35. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.374 Peters MK, Hemp A, Appelhans T, Becker JN, Behler C, Classen A, Detsch F, Ensslin A, Ferger SW, Frederiksen SB, Gebert F, Gerschlauer F, Gütlein A, Helbig-Bonitz M, Hemp C, Kindeketa WJ, Kühnel A, Mayr AV, Mwangomo E, Steffan-Dewenter I (2019) Climate–land-use interactions shape tropical mountain biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Nature 568(7750):88–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1048-z Planque B, Mullon C, Arneberg P, Eide A, Fromentin J-M, Heymans JJ, Hoel AH, Niiranen S, Ottersen G, Sandø AB, Sommerkorn M, Thébaud O, Thorvik T (2019) A participatory scenario method to explore the future of marine social-ecological systems. Fish Fish 20(3):434–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12356 Plieninger T, Bieling C, Ohnesorge B, Schaich H, Schleyer C, Wolff F (2013) Exploring Futures of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes through Participatory Scenario Development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecol Soc 18(3):art39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05802-180339 Ray S (2023) Weaving the links: Traditional knowledge into modern science. Futures 145:103081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.103081 Reyers B, Folke C, Moore M-L, Biggs R, Galaz V (2018) Social-Ecological Systems Insights for Navigating the Dynamics of the Anthropocene. Annu Rev Environ Resour 43(1):267–289. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349 Rist S, Chidambaranathan M, Escobar C, Wiesmann U, Zimmermann A (2007) Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: The role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. J Rural Stud 23(1):23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.02.006 Rodríguez T, Reu B, Bolívar-Santamaría S, Cortés-Aguilar A, Buendía C (2023) A framework for participatory scenario planning to guide transitions towards sustainability in mountain social-ecological systems: A case study from the Colombian Andes. Land Use Policy 132:106817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106817 Said M, Hyandye C, Komakech HC, Mjemah IC, Munishi LK (2021) Predicting land use/cover changes and its association to agricultural production on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Annals of GIS . https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ 10.1080/19475683.2020.1871406 Said M, Komakech HC, Munishi LK, Muzuka ANN (2019) Evidence of climate change impacts on water, food and energy resources around Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Reg Envriron Chang 19(8):2521–2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01568-7 Sanya J, Gross M, Mwampamba TH, Pearson J, Sesabo JK, Reichers M, Kinabo NR, Krail V, Martin López B (2025) Heterogeneity of demands for nature’s contributions to people and nature’s values by farmers: Insights from the Kilimanjaro social-ecological system. Ecology and Society (Accepted Sarmiento FO, Cotacachi C (2019) Framing cultural ecosystem services in the Andes: Utawallu as sentinels of values for biocultural heritage conservation. Thematic Rev 31:1–16 Sébastien L (2010) The Chagga people and environmental changes on Mount Kilimanjaro: Lessons to learn. Climate Dev 2(4). Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2010.0055 Soini E (2005a) Changing livelihoods on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania: Challenges and opportunities in the Chagga homegarden system. Agroforest Syst 64(2). Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-004-1023-y Soini E (2005b) Land use change patterns and livelihood dynamics on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Agric Syst 85(3):306–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.013 Tanzania National Parks (2023) KILIMANJARO NATIONAL PARK Celebrating the Golden Anniversary in Biodiversity Conservation and Tourism Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M (2014) Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. Ambio 43(5):579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M, Danielsen F, Elmqvist T, Folke C (2017) Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—Lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005 Terry N, Castro A, Chibwe B, Karuri-Sebina G, Savu C, Pereira L (2024) Inviting a decolonial praxis for future imaginaries of nature: Introducing the Entangled Time Tree. Environ Sci Policy 151:103615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103615 Thorn JPR, Klein JA, Steger C, Hopping KA, Capitani C, Tucker CM, Nolin AW, Reid RS, Seidl R, Chitale VS, Marchant R (2020) A systematic review of participatory scenario planning to envision mountain social-ecological systems futures. Ecol Soc 25(3):art6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11608-250306 Turnhout E (2019) Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration. In E. Turnhout, W. Halffman, & W. Tuinstra (Eds.), Environmental Expertise: Connecting Science, Policy and Society (pp. 152–164). Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/environmental-expertise/interdisciplinarity-and-the-challenge-of-knowledge-integration/F44EC8A7A62B89F9DEC4B1C378B91682 VERBI (2018) MAXQDA. Verbi Software Berlin Viviroli D, Dürr HH, Messerli B, Meybeck M, Weingartner R (2007) Mountains of the world, water towers for humanity: Typology, mapping, and global significance. Water Resour Res 43(7). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005653 West P, Igoe J, Brockington D (2006) Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas. Annual Review of Anthropology , 35 (Volume 35, 2006), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308 Tables Table 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files SupplementaryinformationMSfuturescenariosFINALEv02.docx Supplementary information for "Braiding the past and present for desirable futures: Insights from the Kilimanjaro social-ecological system" Table11.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8068577","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":542160986,"identity":"c2d09650-0544-4488-bba5-d1c7352c2f06","order_by":0,"name":"Neema Robert Kinabo","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5062-3172","institution":"Department of Wildlife Management, College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka Moshi, Tanzania","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Neema","middleName":"Robert","lastName":"Kinabo","suffix":""},{"id":542160987,"identity":"cc4e42bf-2fba-452a-9857-773c138f8ad7","order_by":1,"name":"Dominic A. Martin","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7197-2278","institution":"Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dominic","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Martin","suffix":""},{"id":542160988,"identity":"a6b59f61-ae4b-4bad-a085-f9971d93c335","order_by":2,"name":"Berta Martín-López","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2622-0135","institution":"Faculty of Sustainability, Social-Ecological Systems Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Berta","middleName":"","lastName":"Martín-López","suffix":""},{"id":542160989,"identity":"f8c86a58-1832-4aec-bc2c-93217ff424f3","order_by":3,"name":"Sophie Peter","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5262-6780","institution":"Institute for Social-Ecological Research, Frankfurt am Main, Germany","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sophie","middleName":"","lastName":"Peter","suffix":""},{"id":542160990,"identity":"ac0b8bbb-2578-4573-b9f0-92954429cb47","order_by":4,"name":"John Sanya","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2986-9813","institution":"Faculty of Sustainability, Social-Ecological Systems Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"John","middleName":"","lastName":"Sanya","suffix":""},{"id":542160991,"identity":"7d7ebc4c-15e0-4934-9af4-d4b6a9c469e8","order_by":5,"name":"Milena Gross","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Faculty of Sustainability, Social-Ecological Systems Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Milena","middleName":"","lastName":"Gross","suffix":""},{"id":542160992,"identity":"3ac403f3-dd0d-4fa2-a0d9-9b4c56327e83","order_by":6,"name":"Katrin Böhning-Gaese","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0477-5586","institution":"Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Katrin","middleName":"","lastName":"Böhning-Gaese","suffix":""},{"id":542160993,"identity":"4adf8201-ee83-4859-b6cb-c655337f421d","order_by":7,"name":"Markus Fischer","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5589-5900","institution":"Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Markus","middleName":"","lastName":"Fischer","suffix":""},{"id":542160994,"identity":"9528dceb-e7c3-402d-a8f8-7222cae6c989","order_by":8,"name":"Peter Manning","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7940-2023","institution":"Department of Biological Sciences, University ,of Bergen, Bergen, Norway","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Peter","middleName":"","lastName":"Manning","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-09 11:04:58","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8068577/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8068577/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95598398,"identity":"b08cb77a-6c2b-4381-a944-eb755792f78e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":12982325,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"MSFuturescenariosFINALEv02.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/dd59a5d65f8e135c0af31f78.docx"},{"id":95598384,"identity":"a678a6a8-6096-465a-bc0f-0b3bb986a2c5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:34","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs8068577.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/0002025513efc970668d5980.json"},{"id":95656201,"identity":"21429fa8-ea08-4c9a-bde3-6dd82f5c763c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:18:00","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":268120,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs80685770enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/2fe8b8e8cd1e287835c98e42.xml"},{"id":95656930,"identity":"ef1697a1-5085-4516-b449-8bfb8f841106","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:19:45","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6100428,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/4df7202b477f8b57c9f4c8be.jpeg"},{"id":95598390,"identity":"7557a2fe-0dcf-4823-9e59-c2d67d718f7a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:34","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1745,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/81d570d9c6ac5f558dd7f295.png"},{"id":95598397,"identity":"f3b90155-603d-465a-ae43-df8b12838bf2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":244309,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/78b7cdc46d6ea33e092a1b10.png"},{"id":95656242,"identity":"fafb6d94-d007-46c9-b63c-034ea61eec31","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:18:06","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1740238,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/ec629c709355dd9416251e37.jpeg"},{"id":95598400,"identity":"2d889a26-5915-48ca-a2d9-19b6d582cd85","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"jpeg","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3222073,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/64493ede03e40f0fe7f551ad.jpeg"},{"id":95598411,"identity":"6ff900ec-6570-43e2-a74b-6cf6095d3116","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1518530,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/c01e68e9cd2cd5d4a313f0d4.jpeg"},{"id":95655670,"identity":"354c41cb-65ed-46a5-8dc6-c941d2bada93","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:16:41","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1838,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/56a2176f4e98c62c789d2244.png"},{"id":95598388,"identity":"78d4f77a-f633-4f20-879f-de3c5282dce9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:34","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":2341,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/83bc8eee68956442829c8df8.png"},{"id":95655747,"identity":"ff835829-1535-45e6-9344-49a581d667b1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:16:50","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1767,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/31558d089c3b5f315ea88109.png"},{"id":95598392,"identity":"c61df9e2-2cdf-4247-9cfa-efaba808b210","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1674,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/66dabdf33aa6b1e9d9896e9f.png"},{"id":95598406,"identity":"d8413eb6-ce65-4bb9-92b8-37f4be5bc616","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":785661,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/b1c9df517256c07169195050.png"},{"id":95598408,"identity":"abe4d195-e8f2-49a7-846a-027f3688276c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":655,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/809f20dafcb04bc67e995eb3.png"},{"id":95598404,"identity":"b3c7a773-15f1-4af7-a40f-177ff5409c95","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"png","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":210046,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/9118e15f4f1b7c8191edd62f.png"},{"id":95655743,"identity":"8222eb1e-dbe9-49ef-a926-03b05652e68d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:16:50","extension":"png","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1000083,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/c589d9603582ea4630a99e51.png"},{"id":95598402,"identity":"3998ba95-e1f5-423c-9dfb-42b2dedb61d0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"png","order_by":17,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":238152,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/17275663c30a854f836e4f6e.png"},{"id":95598412,"identity":"b21a1b1e-0ef6-47cc-9043-756b7b59a111","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"png","order_by":18,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":169834,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/aead3b8b7ceee8105d27d683.png"},{"id":95656902,"identity":"c9539193-b186-413b-8625-b36f2b59bd88","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:19:42","extension":"png","order_by":19,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":547,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/53e19f617044d9681a9b58f2.png"},{"id":95598407,"identity":"9a31eb08-72ed-461c-a20d-54cc7b503cd1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"png","order_by":20,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":675,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/a3f60a63089017aedfcac00d.png"},{"id":95598414,"identity":"7a488aaf-d8f7-4d4f-b240-91950a2754cb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"png","order_by":21,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":596,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/533f537405bd709ac3d5b0ad.png"},{"id":95598410,"identity":"a30aee70-5c87-4f68-bae4-9bcfa2166a62","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"png","order_by":22,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":545,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/fa73ba8fe2bf6dc6680131d5.png"},{"id":95598415,"identity":"6b194fae-b003-44cc-a93e-b528299d322b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"xml","order_by":23,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":264706,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs80685770structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/1efb0ce0160ad96c9d3c2c2d.xml"},{"id":95657068,"identity":"9f9dc461-b5b9-4e37-b4f5-6db6c6962107","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:20:05","extension":"html","order_by":24,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":278853,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/eac28bc1f90db2e26ab92351.html"},{"id":95598385,"identity":"74b69f55-819f-4a78-8f4e-fbfb8224398b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:34","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1014255,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of Kilimanjaro SES showing major land uses, the villages where a social survey was conducted to understand the importance of Nature\u003cem\u003e’\u003c/em\u003es Contributions to People (NCP) for different actors, and the former half-mile forest strip buffer forest (light green dotted line) which was integrated into Kilimanjaro National Park in 2005. Modified from (A. Hemp, 2017) by Fabia Codalli.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/426b61044f01676767fc3e97.png"},{"id":95598386,"identity":"9e128846-6c1b-4b38-aeb2-0e4a0829c107","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:34","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":324717,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOverview of the focus, objective, and outputs, shown for each the Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) workshops, conducted in Moshi town in early 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/e6f7874484534a0994f7bb64.png"},{"id":95656572,"identity":"3e34c83c-cae2-4a07-8b29-08220929da6c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:19:05","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1383859,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCurrent conditions of Kilimanjaro social-ecological system (SES), as expressed by participants in workshop 1, reflecting changes between 1975 and 2015. Illustration by Jelke Meyer.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/60ca560b1f7c0a530b8b7639.png"},{"id":95598387,"identity":"53a5b3a8-02b4-4a9f-9149-df30bcace628","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:34","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1031841,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe four future scenarios of Kilimanjaro SES as envisioned by participants: Crowded Kilimanjaro, Urbanized Kilimanjaro, The Chagga Traditional Life, and Kilimanjaro Techno Life. Participants envisioned the scenarios, considering the impact of different drivers of change along the gradient axes alongside the influence of climatic change on all four scenarios—illustrations by Jelke Meyer.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/f4e33e1a555fde4d5cd3f15c.png"},{"id":95656619,"identity":"ca936512-4284-406f-88f1-3362f1d9934c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:19:12","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":161154,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSummary of perceived changes for key social-ecological system (SES) elements, Nature\u003cem\u003e’\u003c/em\u003es Contributions to People (NCP) supply, and Quality of Life dimensions in each future scenario. Participants qualitatively ranked the perceived changes on a scale from strong increase to strong decrease. Not reported indicates cases where participants did not discuss the perceived changes. Reg. = Regulating. Further details on the perceived changes are provided in Table S7 of the Supplementary Material.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/094dfd7e1efe0d33d45a3c03.png"},{"id":95660345,"identity":"f2a48837-6600-45a2-a5e1-43a216e00cc4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:31:51","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":5056451,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/0faa4826-cf4a-4e49-812f-ce16c5aad697.pdf"},{"id":95655664,"identity":"01a05b08-9123-4150-9903-47e11a7e6bd8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:16:40","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":6916325,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary information for \"Braiding the past and present for desirable futures: Insights from the Kilimanjaro social-ecological system\"\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryinformationMSfuturescenariosFINALEv02.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/912385f5455a8c493f178250.docx"},{"id":95598393,"identity":"cb98c399-8d87-4c01-91db-5b060d3b7f02","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 04:47:35","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":29131,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table11.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8068577/v1/e107b147bbeb85c646b5c48f.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBraiding the past and present for desirable futures: Insights from the Kilimanjaro social-ecological system\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDespite ongoing efforts across scales, transformations toward desirable futures remain challenged by the complexity of the social-ecological systems (SES) (IPBES et al., 2019; O\u0026rsquo;Brien et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Central to this complexity is recognizing the diversity of actors\u0026rsquo; perspectives on what constitutes desirable futures and how to achieve them (Caniglia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Cornell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Turnhout, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This encompasses the various ways people interact with nature, shaped by their diverse needs, values, and knowledge, as well as institutional arrangements (Caniglia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; D\u0026iacute;az et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Ostrom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Teng\u0026ouml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, SES are challenged by the interplay of multiple drivers, including land-use change, climate change, population growth and socio-techno-economic changes (Egan \u0026amp; Price, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Gr\u0026ecirc;t-Regamey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Gupta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; IPBES et al., 2019; Payne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), causing non-linear outcomes (Bennett \u0026amp; Reyers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ostrom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) that are difficult to govern using one-size-fits-all approaches. To this end, we need approaches that bring together diverse actors\u0026rsquo; perspectives and recognize the institutional and social settings (Carpenter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez \u0026amp; Montes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Ostrom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) that influence current and future SES, such as Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) (Oteros-Rozas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Palomo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Thorn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipatory Scenario Planning (PSP) has been successfully applied to envision future scenarios (Oteros-Rozas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Palomo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Thorn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), grounded in locally experienced challenges and opportunities and hence fosters bottom-up engagement of actors (Oteros-Rozas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Plieninger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). PSP enable actors to look beyond immediate pressures and reflect on long-term trajectories, thereby elaborating desirable futures against the backdrop of transformational changes required (Pascual et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). PSP has been widely applied in different SES. For example, it was used to collaboratively explore future scenarios in marine fisheries under climate and governance changes in the Barents Sea (Planque et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e); it supported the co-production of scenarios with pastoralists in Spain to assess the impacts of land-use policies on ecosystem services in rangelands (Oteros-Rozas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e); it helped smallholder farmers in Brazilian Amazon to envision land-use futures that balance agricultural development and forest conservation (Andreotti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e); and it facilitated multi-actor reflections on transformative pathways toward food security in South Africa (Freeth \u0026amp; and Drimie, 2016). However, only a few studies have applied PSP in SES of the Global South (Juri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Oteros-Rozas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and even fewer in SES of Africa (Johansson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) where the livelihoods of local actors highly depend on nature\u0026rsquo;s benefits, i.e., Nature\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003es Contributions to People (NCP) (Gupta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; IIED, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Thorn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMountain SES in Africa accounts for 11% of the world's mountains and are characterized by rich biological and cultural diversity (Nsengiyumva, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). They are home to more than 202\u0026nbsp;million people (FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and provide multiple NCP. In terms of regulating NCP, these mountains play a crucial role in regional and global hydrological cycles by regulating water flow, purifying freshwater, and capturing moisture from the air through cloud forests and alpine vegetation (K\u0026ouml;rner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, they ensure water security for millions living upstream and (far) downstream (Viviroli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR111\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Also, mountain slopes covered by forests and grasslands stabilize soils and provide vital protection from natural hazards (Brang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Olschewski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Regarding material NCP, mountains provide, for example, food, feed, timber, fuelwood, and medicinal plants, many of which sustain livelihoods and are sold on local markets (Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Thorn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, mountains supply non-material NCP, including cultural heritage and spiritual connections (Berkes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Sarmiento \u0026amp; Cotacachi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), aesthetic enjoyment, recreation, and learning (Beza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Garc\u0026iacute;a-Llorente et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Payne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegardless of their importance, mountain SES in Africa are similarly under pressure from multiple drivers mentioned earlier, which collectively threaten people\u0026rsquo;s quality of life. Thus, PSP serves as a tool to unravel the complexity of SES and support relevant local actors who experience the impacts of these drivers, to understand the potential SES futures resulting from the interplay of these drivers. Substantial progress has been made in understanding these futures of complex SES by using PSP, yet, three critical research gaps remain in the scientific literature: (1) PSP in mountain SES remains biased toward the Global North, with little focus in the Global South, particularly African countries except Capitani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Enfors et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Johansson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Malinga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; (2) if PSP in mountain SES was applied, studies did not involve a great diversity of local actors across multiple governance levels (Thorn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), especially local communities (Gupta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e); and (3) PSP in African mountain SES has tended to focus on one specific theme such as climate change, smallholder farming, or livelihoods e.g., Capitani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Enfors et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Fisher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Malinga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e. We addressed these three knowledge gaps by applying PSP with multiple relevant local actors for the futures of the southern slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania (hereafter Kilimanjaro SES).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy applying PSP with multiple actors in Kilimanjaro, we aim (1) to understand which SES elements and drivers of change actors perceive as characterizing the current SES conditions, (2) how they envision future scenarios that account for complex social-ecological dynamics and the interplay of the drivers of change, and (3) to develop management actions key to transition toward desirable sustainable futures. With this study, we ultimately intend to contribute to the scientific literature on SES transformations by articulating diverse aspirations for SES futures, providing solutions-oriented knowledge grounded in local perspectives and accounting for SES complexity (Pereira et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study is part of a collaborative research project entitled \u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;|project name removed for peer-review|\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;|project website removed for peer-review|\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e). It includes several sub-projects that collect empirical data on the Kilimanjaro SES by operationalizing the \u0026ldquo;IPBES Conceptual Framework \u0026mdash; connecting people and nature\u0026rdquo; (D\u0026iacute;az et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, p. 1). Findings from these sub-projects, such as actors\u0026rsquo; NCP preferences (Gross et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Pearson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Sanya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), along with prior studies on drivers of change such as climate (A. Hemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Said et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and land use (Grossmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Soini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005b\u003c/span\u003e), and a \u0026ldquo;participatory assessment of local perspectives on nature, people and sustainability\u0026rdquo; (Masao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) justified the study design and contributed to interpretation of the results of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy area\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eKilimanjaro SES comprises the southern slopes of the biophysical unit of Mount Kilimanjaro, located in Tanzania, and its associated actors, including smallholder farmers, business owners, and nature conservationists. It covers approximately 4,000 km\u0026sup2; from the lowlands at 700 meters above sea level (masl) to the summit at 5,895 masl (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The mountain's elevational gradient supports a range of ecosystems, making it a biodiversity hotspot (A. Hemp \u0026amp; Hemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This includes a vast supply of regulating, material, and non-material Nature\u0026rsquo;s Contributions to People (NCP), which meet the needs and interests of various actors. Kilimanjaro SES supports the livelihoods of over one million people (National Bureau of Statistics, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), with the Chagga people being the dominant ethnic group (Mtallo \u0026amp; Rubagumya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eKilimanjaro\u0026rsquo;s conservation history dates back to the early 20th century, during colonial rule, when the foothills were officially designated as a game reserve and a forest reserve (Durrant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e and references therein; Kivumbi \u0026amp; Newmark, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). In 1941, the social buffer forest, also known as the half-mile forest strip (HMFS) of approximately 88 km\u0026sup2;, was established to enable local communities to manage and benefit from the forest reserve (Kivumbi \u0026amp; Newmark, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). When authority over the HFMS changed repeatedly, local communities\u0026rsquo; access to forest-supplied NCP was restricted. In 1973, Kilimanjaro National Park was established above the forest reserve (2,700 m asl), with the dual objectives of nature conservation and tourism. The park management follows a fortress conservation model, with strict protection and non-consumptive resource use (Durrant \u0026amp; Durrant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Holyroyd, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Newmark, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). In 2005, overexploitation of forest-supplied NCP led to the incorporation of the remaining forest reserve and HFMS into the National Park, restricting local access (Fr\u0026ouml;mming, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Holyroyd, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; S\u0026eacute;bastien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). The ban was partially lifted between 2014 and 2020, permitting only women to collect firewood and feed NCP, but it was fully reinstated in 2021 (personal communication with Kilimanjaro National Park staff).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportant economic activities in the Kilimanjaro SES include agriculture (Soini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005b\u003c/span\u003e). In the lowlands (700\u0026ndash;1,000 masl), small-scale maize and beans farms owned by Chagga people dominate (Misana et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Soini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005a\u003c/span\u003e), while the highlands (1,200\u0026ndash;1,800 masl) feature both commercially grown coffee plantations leased to investors and a traditional Chagga agroforestry system (\u003cem\u003eKihamba\u003c/em\u003e in Chagga) in small-sized homegarden (Fernandes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e; A. Hemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The homegardens reflect the bio-cultural significance of smallholding in Kilimanjaro SES (C. Hemp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; S\u0026eacute;bastien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) where coffee, banana, and a diverse mix of trees, shrubs, and crops, such as yams, are combined in a multi-layered, highly biodiverse structure (A. Hemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Mdoe \u0026amp; Wiggins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Since the 1980s, homegardens have gradually shrunk in size and shifted in crop composition: Maize has gained prominence due to declining ownership of lowland farms and changing dietary preferences (Ichinose et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), while coffee cultivation has decreased due to falling market prices (Soini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005b\u003c/span\u003e), and overall vegetation cover has declined due to land fragmentation and increased settlement (Misana et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Said et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBesides farming, nature-based tourism in Kilimanjaro SES is crucial for the local and national economy. The mountain is among Tanzania\u0026rsquo;s top destinations, with climbing as the main attraction (Kilungu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Tanzania National Parks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). It generates substantial revenue, reported up to US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e51\u0026nbsp;million in park fees in 2013 (Christie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Musa, G et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Locally, tour guides and operators get their salaries and tips (Christie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Peaty, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) by providing guided hikes inside KINAPA and other nature-based activities, such as visiting waterfalls or engaging in bio-agricultural experiences with the Chagga outside the park (Kilungu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, conservation efforts extend beyond park boundaries, with government, local and international community-based and non-governmental conservation organizations planting trees and protecting forests (Gross et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; C. Hemp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these conservation efforts, anthropogenic drivers threaten both the ecological integrity and people\u0026rsquo;s quality of life (Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Said et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). These drivers include land cover changes such as the expansion of settlements and agricultural land, as well as shrinking per capita land due to population growth and inheritance-driven land division (Grossmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Said et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Soini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005b\u003c/span\u003e). Together with climatic changes such as decreased precipitation and rising temperatures, these drivers fundamentally contribute to hydrological shifts in the region (A. Hemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), exacerbating the risk of forest fires (A. Hemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), and reducing water availability essential for agriculture and human well-being in the region (Agrawala et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Said et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe conducted three sequential PSP workshops in Moshi in early 2024, each contributing to the research questions (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The workshop participants represented three actor groups: smallholder farmers (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4), business owners (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9), and nature conservationists (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7). These actors collectively represent those who directly influence the SES, such as farmers through their farming practices, and those who indirectly influence management actions through the implementation of policies, programs, and restrictions, such as representatives from government institutions (Table S1). Initial actors\u0026rsquo; analysis and engagement with some participants began in the broader project, through interviews (Gross et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Pearson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), focus group discussions (Pearson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), and surveys (Sanya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). These engagements made the workshops a natural extension of prior interactions, allowing us to build on established trust and mutual understanding. We engaged and maintained the same individuals throughout the workshops to ensure continuity and consistency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWorkshop design\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor each workshop, we had guiding questions (Supplementary Material S1) focusing on specific objectives. Workshop 1 focused on the trends from the past to the present that characterize the current SES conditions (RQ 1). Workshop 2 centered around envisioning future scenarios and applying a backcasting exercise to identify relevant management actions that would achieve desirable futures (RQs 2 and 3). Workshop 3 focused on refining these management actions (RQ3). Participants discussed the questions within smaller working groups composed of members from the same actors (where in-depth discussions and experiences about the questions could be shared) or different actors (where social learning and knowledge co-creation could occur, as viewed in Palomo et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This flexible design helped balance depth and breadth, thereby leveraging the strengths of both group compositions to foster mutual understanding and collective agency (Lang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Oteros-Rozas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). At the end of each workshop, we conducted feedback surveys to improve subsequent workshops and to understand participants\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e views of the participatory process (survey questionnaire in Supplementary Material S2; results from the feedback survey in Supplementary Material S3, and Table S2).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, three nature conservationists and two business owners who were unable to attend the workshops due to personal reasons were interviewed by the first author, ensuring that their perspectives were incorporated in the study. The semi-structured interviews were based on the guiding questions in Supplementary Information S4. The same individuals were interviewed in-between workshops to complement the outputs from the preceding workshops.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter completing all workshops, we documented a report on the PSP workshop process in Swahili, which was shared with research participants to encourage further reflection, discussion, and potential adoption of identified management actions (see Supplementary Material S5).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWorkshop 1: Understanding the SES elements and drivers of change to characterize the current SES conditions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe convened workshop 1 to understand how actors perceive the past and present conditions in the Kilimanjaro SES. Participants defined the past period (from 1975 to 2015), reflecting the timeframe during which they could recall significant land-use and environmental changes in the SES. This timeframe also aligns with agricultural expansion, where the area under cultivation increased from 54% in 1973 to 63% by 2000 (Misana et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The present was agreed to be between 2016 and 2024 to emphasize recent and ongoing dynamics, including continuing land-use changes and their effects on NCP provision.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe first shared an understanding of the workshop\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003es aim and the geographical scope of Kilimanjaro SES by showing a map (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), as well as the NCP preferences of various actors. The NCP groups, i.e. regulating, material, non-material, and inter-generational benefits (Supplementary Information S6), were based on previous research by Gross et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003ea), Pearson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and Sanya et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Throughout the workshops, we displayed the map (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), the context-specific NCP list with accompanying illustrative images and the NCP preferences of different actor groups (Meyer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Supplementary Information S6). These visualizations were essential to make the study area and concepts more tangible for the participants (Capitani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Kariuki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe guided participants in three smaller working groups, comprising individuals from the same social actor group, to characterize the current conditions of the Kilimanjaro SES. Participants discussed the following four aspects: (1) the main social and ecological elements shaping the SES; (2) the drivers of change that affected these elements over a 40-year period in the past (between 1975 and 2015); (3) the effects of these drivers of change on NCP provision; and (4) actors who influenced and amplified the identified drivers of change and those who became winners and losers, respectively, in regards to perceived changes in SES elements and NCP provision.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn a subsequent plenary session, each working group presented the key SES elements and associated drivers of change, ranking them according to their importance and influence within the system as done in previous PSP studies (e.g., Palomo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). For our study, five key SES elements with the highest combined ranking scores were considered sufficient to capture the complexity of the SES without overloading the scenario-building exercise. Additionally, four drivers of change with the highest combined ranking scores were selected as the most influential in shaping the current and future SES dynamics. Then, each smaller group discussed and shared how different drivers of change affect the key SES elements, information that was used to collaboratively depict a mind map of current social-ecological dynamics in Kilimanjaro (Fig. S1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWorkshop 2: Future scenarios and management actions to move towards desirable futures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkshop 2 focused on envisioning future scenarios over a 20-year horizon and suggesting management actions to achieve the desirable futures. We selected this timeframe because socioeconomic and political conditions influencing the system can occur rapidly (Jiren et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and offers a tangible period for participants to imagine future changes meaningfully. We first presented the four drivers of change identified in workshop 1: population growth, loss of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), increased technological development, and climatic change (Table S5). For the study, we defined each driver of change to fit the reality of Kilimanjaro SES. For example, climatic change was understood as the change in rainfall patterns and amount, extended periods of drought, rising temperatures, and the gradual retreat of the ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro (A. Hemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Mulangu \u0026amp; Kraybill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Said et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Then, we presented the five key elements identified in workshop 1: water resources (e.g., rivers, lakes, springs), biodiversity (e.g., forest, wildlife), land use (e.g., agriculture, settlement), tourism (e.g., tourist attractions such as Mount Kilimanjaro), and traditions and culture (e.g., Chagga\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003es deep-rooted land tenure system of their homegardens (A. Hemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Mdoe \u0026amp; Wiggins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) (Table S5).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e We then established four smaller working groups with participants from different actor groups. Each group were encouraged to think creatively and imaginatively (Pereira et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and envision one distinct future scenario (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), defined by two axes: high versus low population, and increased TEK versus an increase in technological development. Climatic change was considered to influence all four scenarios. Each group discussed how the futures might unfold for the five key SES elements under the intersecting pressures and possibilities of the drivers of change. They also considered how the key SES elements, NCP provision, and different quality of life dimensions (e.g., health, education, or employment opportunities) would evolve under each scenario and which actors would become winners and losers. Perceived changes in key SES elements, NCP provision and quality of life dimensions were qualitatively ranked on a scale from strong increase to strong decrease.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLastly, each working group drew their scenarios (Fig. S2a) and presented them in the subsequent plenary. Following the presentations, each participant used colour-coded sticky notes to identify desirable (green) and undesirable (pink) components in each scenario (Fig. S2b). Rather than categorizing entire scenarios as desirable or undesirable, participants selected specific components from each scenario that they perceived as desirable or undesirable in the future, as done in past PSP research, e.g., Kariuki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Oteros-Rozas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Palomo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e. In a plenary session, participants discussed and refined the desirable components, merging similar ideas and reaching a consensus on shared visions of desirable futures. Consensus building is crucial for managing the diverse interests of actors and supporting sustainable governance of complex systems (Palomo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Rist et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo explore the management actions required to achieve desirable futures, we employed the backcasting approach (Dreborg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Each participant noted management actions (Fig. S2c) they perceived as effective and achievable based on their understanding of the context in which the action would be implemented (see Supplementary Material S1). The workshop concluded with a plenary session to consolidate the relevant management actions to achieve desirable futures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the time between workshops 2 and 3, we commissioned an artist (Jelke Meyer) to visualize the four scenarios (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) based on the scenario drawings and narratives discussed by the participants. The first author renamed the participants\u0026rsquo; original scenario titles (in italics) to more intuitive names that capture and distinguish the features of each scenario: Scenario 1, \u003cem\u003e'Wrong Turn'\u003c/em\u003e became 'Crowded Kilimanjaro,' Scenario 2, \u003cem\u003e'Greater Life'\u003c/em\u003e became 'Urbanized Kilimanjaro,' Scenario 3, \u003cem\u003e'Happy Life'\u003c/em\u003e became 'The Chagga Traditional Life', Scenario 4, \u003cem\u003e'All is Well'\u003c/em\u003e became 'Kilimanjaro Techno Life.'\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWorkshop 3: Refining the management actions\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkshop 3 focused on refining the management actions. First, participants assessed the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed management actions by allocating 100 points across all management actions. This ranking aimed to identify potential group-specific preferences and actions seen as broadly viable. Following this assessment, participants in homogeneous working groups were assigned a subset of management actions to identify (1) enablers and barriers associated with the actions, (2) the actors responsible for each management action and (3) management action implementation scale: local, regional, national, or international. In a plenary session, each group presented their findings, allowing participants who had not previously worked on specific actions to contribute their perspectives, thereby enriching the findings and broadening the understanding of the management actions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthical consideration\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe obtained research permits from the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;COSTECH number removed for review process\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e) and the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI). The research also followed the ethical guidelines of the Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities and the standards recommended by the German Data Forum (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). All research participants provided written consent, acknowledging prior information about the study\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003es objectives, consent to audio recordings, and permission to appear in photographs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe thematically analyzed the qualitative data collected from the workshops and interviews using MAXQDA 2022 (VERBI, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). First audio recordings from small group discussions, plenary sessions during the workshops, and interviews were transcribed and translated from Swahili into English. Guided by our research questions, we then inductively coded the data through an iterative process of code generation and theme identification (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). For example, from the scenario-developing exercise in workshop 2, we coded desirable components perceived by the participants in three themes: \u003cem\u003eenvironmental protection, land use and agriculture management, and sociocultural preservation\u003c/em\u003e (Table S6). Similarly, we reviewed all proposed management actions, grouped similar concepts, and selected a category name that best represented the specific actions (Table S5). For example, we named \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;sustainable agriculture and diversification\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e as the category for all actions related to agricultural diversification, sustainable farming practices, off-farm livelihood alternatives, and youth involvement in agriculture. Participants\u0026rsquo; ranking points for the effectiveness and achievability of the management actions were combined and averaged across actors and presented as the mean effectiveness score in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. We also extracted exemplary quotes supporting participants' perspectives, which we anonymised using actor group codes and randomly assigned two-digit numbers, e.g., SF15\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;smallholder farmers, BS17\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;business owners, NC08\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;nature conservationists (Table S5).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor qualitative ranking of perceived changes on key SES elements, NCP supply and quality of life dimensions for each scenario conducted in workshop 2, we summarized the narratives in Table S7 and numbered the rankings: strongly increase (+\u0026thinsp;2), increase (+\u0026thinsp;1), no change (0), decrease (-1), and strongly decrease (-2) to generate a heatmap in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDemographic profile of research participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe demographic information of the research participants showed that 65% of them were aged between 25 and 44 years, representing youth and middle-aged participants, while the rest were older individuals, up to 75 years old. Majority had vocational or undergraduate education, and fewer held postgraduate degrees. Ninety-five per cent of the participants were men, reflecting the gender composition of the positions they represented in institutions or companies. Among invited farmers, men attended as they are often considered the heads of households. Additionally, 65% of participants were native to the region, and 80% had lived there for over 15 years (Table S3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCurrent conditions of Kilimanjaro SES\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants identified five key elements of Kilimanjaro SES: water resources, biodiversity, land use and agriculture, tourism, and traditions and culture (Table S4). They reported significant changes in all elements over the past 40 years (Table S5). For example, participants recalled a past where wildlife was more present and natural systems more intact: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;As a child, I remember seeing porcupines in our garden. We also used to hunt pigeons, but now you rarely see such wildlife\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (BS17). Participants also remembered higher vegetation cover and abundant water resources: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;When I grew up in a shanty town in the late 1980s, we even had a little channel (Mfongo in Chagga) running through our backyard, but now there is no water to flow in these channels\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (NC08). Further, they mentioned low-volume tourism and that the Chagga traditions and culture fostered a close relationship between people and nature: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;You had an attachment, like \u0026lsquo;oh my Kihamba\u0026rsquo;, you look after it, you have a sense of ownership and custodianship, especially on the mountain, these are resources supplied by God\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (BS17).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants perceived deforestation and biodiversity loss as resulting from population growth, which led to increased demand for land for agricultural expansion \u0026mdash;a primary form of land use change. Water resources such as springs and rivers were perceived to have either disappeared or become polluted. They also noted that climatic change contributed to the drying of springs and altered river flow patterns, resulting in seasonal flow variations. Additionally, participants noted that the erosion of traditions and culture weakened societal connections to nature (Table S4). On the other hand, participants noted an increase in tourism, possibly due to improved facilities and infrastructure, as well as a diversification of tourism products. Similarly, while water resources were noted to decline, improvements in water supply infrastructure increased household access to water.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe outcomes of these changes varied among different actors. For example, business owners in agriculture and tourism, as well as tourists, benefited from developments such as improved water supply and tourism infrastructure, as well as diversified tourism products. In contrast, other actors, such as smallholder farmers, resorted to unsustainable farming practices, e.g., farming near riverbanks due to decreased per capita land availability. These changes also altered NCP provision. Moreover, they led to an increased loss of cultural identity and a decline in connectedness with nature, particularly among the younger generation, due to westernization and lifestyle changes (Table S4). Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the current conditions of Kilimanjaro SES as perceived by participants in Workshop 1.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFuture scenarios\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe following sections provide brief descriptions of each scenario, focusing on key SES elements, NCP supply, quality of life dimensions, and the actors perceived as winners and losers. Table S7 provides a summary of these characteristics for each scenario.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eScenario 1: Crowded Kilimanjaro scenario\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Crowded Kilimanjaro scenario was characterized by a high population, ineffective legal and policy frameworks, and shrinking per capita land, leading to resource overexploitation and the potential displacement of people (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, top left). In this scenario, food and other goods were imported, while protected areas faced increasing pressure from human encroachment. TEK related to agriculture was retained primarily in fragmented homegardens. This scenario indicated a decline of key SES elements, most notably regulating NCP, and a deterioration in the quality of life dimensions for most actors (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). While short-term economic benefits supported industries and businesses through activities like logging, most actors became losers in the long term (Table S7).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eScenario 2: Urbanized Kilimanjaro scenario\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Urbanized Kilimanjaro scenario envisioned a future of significant urban expansion alongside rapid development in infrastructure and technology (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, top right illustration). The scenario was characterized by improved social infrastructure and the adoption of advanced agricultural technologies. A technology-driven approach to conservation was implemented, including CCTV surveillance and fencing around Kilimanjaro National Park, except in designated wildlife corridors. Tourism flourished with the introduction of cable cars, bringing the mountain experience to more visitors. The scenario showed a declining trend in vegetation cover in areas outside the Park, along with other key SES elements, such as water resources, biodiversity, traditions, and culture. Additionally, material, regulating, and non-material NCP also declined (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). By contrast, the amount of tourism and markets seemed increased. Yet, some of the quality of life dimensions for actors associated with markets and tourism seemed to deteriorate since the employment opportunities for those in the mountain business, and porters decreased due to a cable car (Table S7).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eScenario 3: The Chagga Traditional Life scenario\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Chagga Traditional Life scenario envisioned a positive future rooted in environmental stewardship (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, bottom left illustration). The scenario is characterized by a low population and a strong reliance on TEK, which fostered a culture of environmental stewardship. Sustainable land-use planning guided the development of agriculture through homegardens. Ecotourism and cultural tourism associated with the Chagga community thrived, although the social and communication infrastructure remained underdeveloped. Traditional customs and practices were upheld, reinforcing moral values within the close-knit community. The scenario demonstrated the preservation of key SES elements and a high supply of NCP, although access to roads and the educational dimensions of quality of life were perceived as decreasing (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e and Table S7).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eScenario 4: Kilimanjaro Techno Life scenario\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Kilimanjaro Techno Life scenario envisioned a future of advanced technological development and new infrastructure (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, bottom right illustration). The scenario was characterized by a low population density, with prioritized agricultural production and industries focused on processing produce, such as coffee roasting and packaging. Conservation focused only inside the National Park, while technological development of the water system, such as water harvesting and innovative irrigation systems, helped mitigate the negative impacts of climatic change. Overall, the scenario had a positive outlook for most SES elements, including material and regulating NCP and the different dimensions of quality of life (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e), yet participants anticipated a decline in traditions and culture (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, Table S7).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eShared visions of desirable futures\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn workshop 3, participants identified three aspects that are desirable for the future of Kilimanjaro SES: (1) environmental protection, (2) land use and agriculture management, and (3) cultural preservation. For environmental protection, participants identified the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems as a desirable element of the future, which required other elements, such as the reforestation of degraded lands and the efficient management of water resources. Concerning land use and agricultural management, participants reported a need for sustainable agricultural practices, effective land use planning, and socioeconomic development. Finally, regarding preserving Chagga culture, participants reported on desirable elements such as social harmony and conserving traditional practices. Moreover, participants identified undesirable elements that need mitigation actions, including limited financial resources, inadequate social infrastructure, displacement, and unemployment. Table S6 in the Supplementary Material provides an overview of all desirable and undesirable elements, along with exemplary quotes from the discussion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTransitioning towards the desirable futures: management actions.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants identified seven broad categories of management actions to achieve the desirable futures. These ranged from legal and policy-related actions at the national level to environmental stewardship requiring local collective action. They included political support and conservation enforcement, sustainable agriculture and diversification, environmental education and awareness, community-led environmental stewardship, reforestation programs, traditions and culture preservation, and land use planning (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). No important differences emerged across actor groups or between actions in terms of perceived effectiveness and feasibility of the management actions. However, all participants ranked political support and conservation enforcement highest, followed by sustainable agriculture and diversification. While not exhaustive, participants also identified actors responsible for implementing the management actions from the national level to village leaders and local communities. For example, actions such as reforestation and community-led stewardship were perceived to require collective actions at a local level, while others, like land use planning, required national-level financial investment and institutional support. In addition, participants identified a lack of financial resources and limited awareness as the most common barriers to implementing the management actions, as detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Participants perceived that for actions related to political support and conservation enforcement, there is a lack of coordinated, participatory, and community engagement in their implementation despite having supportive laws, policies, regulations, and guidelines for environmental protection and conservation. Participants raised concerns that local communities are excluded from decision-making and are at the receiving end.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding sustainable agriculture and diversification, participants mentioned initiatives like the Kweme (Oyster nuts) project, which aims to avoid deforestation while earning income, as oyster nuts require trees for support. In line with this, participants emphasized diversification through beekeeping and off-farm livelihood alternatives to reduce pressure on land. Participants also placed a special focus on engaging youth in agriculture by increasing their involvement and fostering pride in agricultural heritage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants also noted that continuous mass media campaigns were needed to raise awareness about environmental issues and conservation. For example, they suggested that social media campaigns with celebrity engagement to advocate for conservation could be effective in gaining the attention of young people. In addition, participants identified potentially productive actions, including hands-on environmental education. \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We could engage our children in conservation through activities such as planting trees at home and making sure to report progress to the teacher. Children have faith in their teachers and can abide by their words rather than their parents\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (NC05).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, participants highlighted the importance of preserving traditions and culture through community-led environmental stewardship. Participants proposed the idea of a living village exhibit, where most villagers promote sustainable agriculture and conservation. This includes maintaining local varieties of bananas in homegardens, many of which have medicinal significance, and planting native tree species. \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Having a museum displaying Chagga traditional way of life and artifacts would not be enough to counteract the rate at which we are losing our culture... It will be important to make conscious decisions as a community to showcase our culture and preserve our traditions in our everyday life\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (SF15).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants acknowledged ongoing reforestation programs by local communities, public and private institutions, and conservation and development NGOs in Kilimanjaro SES. They mentioned tree planting programs near water sources and homesteads, and the establishment of tree plantations to satisfy material NCP demand and reverse the environmental degradation (Table S5). \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We need a balanced ecosystem where human needs from nature can be met while we conserve, but accessing the half-mile strip forest in Kilimanjaro National Park is banned, people should focus on planting trees to meet their demand for fodder, poles and timber in their lands\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (NC09).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants also noted that land use planning was crucial, as many villages lacked proper plans, leading to environmental degradation. Participants acknowledged government efforts to conserve water sources through laws prohibiting agricultural activities within 60 meters of a riverbank or water source. Table S5 in Supplementary Material lists management actions under each category and exemplary quotes from the participants.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we employed PSP to understand which SES elements and drivers of change actors perceive as characterizing the current SES conditions, how they envision future scenarios based on social-ecological dynamics and the interplay effects of multiple drivers, and the management actions toward desirable futures. Our results highlighted key SES elements such as water resources, biodiversity, land uses and agriculture, tourism, traditions and culture and most influential drivers of change, including population growth, loss of TEK, technological development and climatic change. Four future scenarios were developed and characterized based on the key elements and the interplay of these drivers: Crowded Kilimanjaro, Urbanized Kilimanjaro, The Chagga Traditional Life and Kilimanjaro Techno Life. Considering actors identified desirable futures and the multiple pathways through which they can be achieved, two major conclusions emerged for Kilimanjaro SES.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFrom the past to desirable futures: the role of local agency\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The conservation of a substantial proportion of the world\u0026rsquo;s biodiversity and NCP largely depends on the customary institutions and management systems of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs)\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (IPBES et al., 2019, p. 914). This highlights the importance of local institutions and knowledge systems, also reflected in our PSP in Kilimanjaro SES, where transformation towards desirable futures emerged as a social process rooted in the lived experiences of the actors. PSP in Kilimanjaro SES unraveled \u003cem\u003ewho\u003c/em\u003e holds \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;the socioculturally mediated capacity to act\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Ahearn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e, p.112) or agency, \u003cem\u003ewhere\u003c/em\u003e it is expressed, and \u003cem\u003ehow\u003c/em\u003e it shapes the desirable futures. This was evident in the four scenarios developed in workshop 2, which all had three commonalities. First, the presence of the national park boundary shaped perceptions of actors regarding \u003cem\u003ewhere\u003c/em\u003e their agency was limited and \u003cem\u003ewho\u003c/em\u003e held that agency. The PSP process revealed that participants largely imagined futures within the bounds of the existing institutional arrangement of the Kilimanjaro National Park (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Across all four scenarios, the Park\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003es continued existence was assumed, and its boundary was treated as fixed. No alternative governance models or uses for the National Park were envisioned. This situation may reflect, on the one hand, a general acceptance of the Park's continued existence, given its role in providing key NCP, such as climate regulation and water (Durrant \u0026amp; Durrant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), and the fact that our PSP began at present, when the Park and its borders are well established. On the other hand, it may also indicate a perceived lack of opportunity to imagine alternative futures with other conservation models, such as community-based management or a Biosphere Reserve. As a result, the agency was perceived as being limited to areas outside the Park. This finding aligns with literature on the fortress conservation model (Goldman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; West et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), which shows that protected areas often constrain local agency, as actors are not meaningfully included in decision-making (Andrade \u0026amp; Rhodes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). This can lead to local communities focusing on spaces where they can exert greater autonomy (Morrison et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), such as outside the National Park. Nevertheless, current conservation policies in Tanzania direct park authorities to develop specific programs, such as support for community-led conservation initiatives and livelihood options, or conservation education, to ensure the engagement of local communities in conservation outside the protected area boundaries (Durrant \u0026amp; Durrant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, these policies include a benefits-sharing program through which local communities engage in Community Conservation Services, also known locally as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Ujirani mwema\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e in Swahili (Durrant \u0026amp; Durrant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, the presence of homegardens in all scenarios suggests a strong sense of agency in areas below the park boundary. This reflects \u003cem\u003ehow\u003c/em\u003e embedded practices and local knowledge play a central role in shaping desirable futures (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). In the Chagga Traditional Life scenario, the dominant presence of the homegardens was accompanied by the preservation of TEK, and non-material NCP such as cultural heritage and identity or connectedness with nature (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e), while the Crowded Kilimanjaro only included some remnants of these. These homegardens, deeply rooted in Chagga tradition, are the bright spots for sustainable and self-sufficient futures (Bennett et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; A. Hemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Their multi-layered structure of trees and bushes integrated with crops such as bananas, coffee, and yams, among others, represents a long-standing form of land use that is ecologically resilient and culturally meaningful (Fernandes \u0026amp; Nair, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; A. Hemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) and they are highly valued by smallholder farmers (Sanya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). As Kothari (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e, p. 23) concluded, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003ethe future of conservation lies, at least partly, in its past,\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e the management of homegardens for desirable futures in Kilimanjaro SES similarly reflects this conclusion. The Chagga homegardens are living archives of culture, TEK, and intergenerational care. These agroforestry systems, passed down through generations, reflect a deep-rooted commitment to tradition, where maintaining a homegarden is not only a livelihood activity but also a marker of identity. Within these spaces, families gather, rituals are held, and stories are shared, reinforcing ties between people and nature. The homegardens preserve a wealth of TEK, including medicinal plants used in animal husbandry and human health, local banana varieties with healing properties, and management techniques that have long supported sustainable land use (A. Hemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Mollel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The revival of crops like \u003cem\u003eKweme\u003c/em\u003e (Oyster nuts), which require trees for support, is helping reconnect people with forgotten uses while halting deforestation and biodiversity loss. The homegardens provide new meanings to old practices, and knowledge is not only conserved but also informs desirable futures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, across all scenarios, technology was perceived as a tool for exercising agency by either enhancing traditional knowledge or enabling more sustainable practices, thereby demonstrating its crucial role in shaping desirable futures. Across scenarios, participants recognized the need for technological innovations, such as water harvesting systems, greenhouses, improved road access, and processing facilities for their farming products (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Interestingly some of the technological developments such as water harvesting systems were envisioned for the management of homegardens. This points to the importance of braiding TEK with modern technological knowledge for fostering sustainable futures (Bennett et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Ray, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Teng\u0026ouml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTowards desirable futures for a complex SES: the role of polycentric governance\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Any governance system designed to regulate complex biological systems must have as much variety in the actions that it can take as there exists in the systems that are being regulated\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Ostrom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). This quote speaks directly to the challenge of governing complex SES, like Kilimanjaro where desirable futures reflect a high degree of complexity shaped by multiple interdependent elements such as the impact of diverse drivers of change on land use, biodiversity, water resources, traditions and culture, NCP supply or actors\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e quality of life (Table S4; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). To achieve the consented desirable futures, multiple actors operating at different governance levels are required (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) since no single actor possesses all the knowledge, tools, and capacity to govern SES complexity effectively. This result aligns with the need for polycentric governance, where multiple, overlapping decision-making centers operate with some degree of autonomy but are linked through cooperation, coordination, and mutual accountability (Ostrom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, polycentricity extends governance beyond formal institutions to encompass informal interactions and relationships crucial to achieving desirable futures, including information sharing, coordination, problem-solving, and even internal conflict resolution (Biggs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, the PSP and backcasting applied in this study showed visions for desirable futures centered around environmental protection, land use and agriculture management, and cultural preservation. These results align with a recent study that showed the need to integrate multiple components across both ecological and social dimensions when designing desirable futures (Juri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the management actions discussed in workshop 3 reinforced the complexity of Kilimanjaro SES, as actions ranged from the need for political support and conservation enforcement to sustainable agriculture and diversification, as well as reforestation programs (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The management actions were mapped onto different levels of governance, ranging from local to national levels (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). For example, regarding environmental protection, management actions included reforestation and community-led stewardship, which were perceived as requiring the engagement of local communities and TEK at a local level. In contrast, land use planning necessitated financial backing and a higher-level policy commitment. This example illustrates the importance of involving various governance levels that also illustrates the need for formal (laws, policies) and informal institutions (customs, collective action, TEK) to represent the actors\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e diverse interests and needs (Chaffin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez \u0026amp; Montes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Morrison et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Ostrom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). These results support the claims for a governance system that embraces institutional diversity and polycentricity to foster desirable futures, which also aligns with the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003es emphasis on inclusive, accountable, and adaptive governance as essential for addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss and enabling context-specific solutions across scales (O\u0026rsquo;Brien et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eResearch on social-ecological systems emphasizes the importance of engaging diverse actor perspectives and acknowledging the complexity of these systems (Biggs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Reyers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Using a Participatory Scenario Planning approach, we present actors' past and present perspectives and their visions of desirable futures shaped by complex social and ecological dynamics in Kilimanjaro SES underpinning two major conclusions: (1) desirable futures for Kilimanjaro SES require local agency, which is deeply rooted in actors\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e lived experiences and their relationship with nature and, (2) navigating the complexity of Kilimanjaro SES necessarily calls for polycentric governance whereby formal and informal institutions operating at different organizational levels and under the responsibilities of multiple actors respond to the effects of the diverse drivers of change on the intertwined social-ecological system components and processes. These findings cement the relevance of considering diverse actors (and their perspectives) across organizational levels as co-creators of locally grounded desirable futures and effective pathways in achieving them.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eCONFLICT OF INTEREST\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflict of interest relevant to the content of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAUTHORS\u0026rsquo; CONTRIBUTIONS\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNK, DM, BML and PM conceived the study; NK and JS collected the data; NK performed the analyses. NK led the manuscript writing with support from DM, BML, MG, PM; All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe thank the workshop participants, interviewees, and assistant workshop facilitators (Ester Mramba, Lusiano Mfalingundi, Rosemary Mgumya, Wakara Chamtigiti and Rehema Julius) for their collaboration. This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG: \u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;DFG grant number removed for review process\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDATA AVAILABILITY\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkshop recordings and actors\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e interview data will not be publicly available for confidentiality reasons. Nevertheless, large part of the materials from workshops and interviews has been synthesized and presented in the main text and in Supplementary Information. As per the explanation form and declaration of consent, data will be archived in a secure location and destroyed after a 10-year retention period.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgrawala S, Moehner A, Hemp A, van Aalst M, Hitz S, Smith J, Meena H, Mwakifwamba SM, Hyera T, Mwaipopo OU (2003) \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and climate change in Tanzania: Focus on Mount Kilimanjaro\u003c/em\u003e [Working Paper]. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.taccire.sua.ac.tz/handle/123456789/442\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.taccire.sua.ac.tz/handle/123456789/442\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhearn LM (2001) Language and Agency. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Anthropology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e, 109\u0026ndash;137. JSTOR\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndrade G, Rhodes J (2012) Protected Areas and Local Communities: An Inevitable Partnership toward Successful Conservation Strategies? Ecol Soc 17(4). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05216-170414\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-05216-170414\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndreotti F, Speelman EN, Van den Meersche K, Allinne C (2020) Combining participatory games and backcasting to support collective scenario evaluation: An action research approach for sustainable agroforestry landscape management. Sustain Sci 15(5):1383\u0026ndash;1399. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00829-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11625-020-00829-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBennett EM, Biggs R, Calder\u0026oacute;n Contreras R, Golden Kroner R, Vianna Mansur A, Woroniecki S, Acar S, Aksoy Z, Alpizar F, Lam D, Horcea-Milcu A-I, Linn\u0026eacute;r B-O, Mehta L, Campos CM, Nishi M, Roskruge N, Richardson M, Sabinot C, Sim\u0026atilde;o Seixas C, Chan K (2025) \u003cem\u003eIPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Chap. 3. How transformative change occurs\u003c/em\u003e (Version 10.0.0). Zenodo. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.11382244\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5281/ZENODO.11382244\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBennett EM, Reyers B (2024) Disentangling the complexity of human\u0026ndash;nature interactions. People Nat 6(2):402\u0026ndash;409. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10611\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pan3.10611\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBennett EM, Solan M, Biggs R, McPhearson T, Norstr\u0026ouml;m AV, Olsson P, Pereira L, Peterson GD, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Biermann F, Carpenter SR, Ellis EC, Hichert T, Galaz V, Lahsen M, Milkoreit M, L\u0026oacute;pez M, Nicholas B, Preiser KA, Xu R, J (2016) Bright spots: Seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 14(8):441\u0026ndash;448. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1309\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/fee.1309\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerkes F (2017) Sacred ecology. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeza BB (2010) The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: A study of the Mt. Everest Trek. Landsc Urban Plann 97(4):306\u0026ndash;317. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiggs R, Clements HS, Cumming GS, Cundill G, De Vos A, Hamann M, Luvuno L, Roux DJ, Selomane O, Blanchard R, Cockburn J, Dziba L, Esler KJ, Fabricius C, Henriksson R, Kotschy K, Lindborg R, Masterson VA, Nel JL, Reyers B (2022) Social-ecological change: Insights from the Southern African Program on Ecosystem Change and Society. Ecosyst People 18(1):447\u0026ndash;468. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2097478\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/26395916.2022.2097478\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiggs R, Schl\u0026uuml;ter M, Biggs D, Bohensky EL, BurnSilver S, Cundill G, Dakos V, Daw TM, Evans LS, Kotschy K, Leitch AM, Meek C, Quinlan A, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Robards MD, Schoon ML, Schultz L, West PC (2012) Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37(1):421\u0026ndash;448. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiggs R, Schluter M, Schoon ML (eds) (2015) Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social\u0026ndash;Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/CBO9781316014240\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrang P, Sch\u0026ouml;nenberger W, Frehner M, Schwitter R, Thormann J-J, Wasser B (2006) \u003cem\u003eManagement of protection forests in the European Alps: An overview.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol 3(2):77\u0026ndash;101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaniglia G, Luederitz C, von Wirth T, Fazey I, Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez B, Hondrila K, K\u0026ouml;nig A, von Wehrden H, Sch\u0026auml;pke NA, Laubichler MD, Lang DJ (2021) A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4(2):93\u0026ndash;100. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCapitani C, Garedew W, Mitiku A, Berecha G, Hailu BT, Heiskanen J, Hurskainen P, Platts PJ, Siljander M, Pinard F, Johansson T, Marchant R (2019) Views from two mountains: Exploring climate change impacts on traditional farming communities of Eastern Africa highlands through participatory scenarios. Sustain Sci 14(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0622-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 1. 10.1007/s11625-018-0622-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, Defries RS, D\u0026iacute;az S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(5):1305\u0026ndash;1312. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.0808772106\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChaffin BC, Gosnell H, Cosens BA (2014) A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecol Soc 19(3):art56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-06824-190356\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChristie IT, Fernandes EH, Messerli HR, Twining-Ward LD (2014) \u003cem\u003eTourism in Africa: Harnessing tourism for growth and improved livelihoods\u003c/em\u003e (88656; Issue 88656). Africa development forum Washington, DC: World Bank Group. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/738471468299123752\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/738471468299123752\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, T\u0026agrave;bara JD, J\u0026auml;ger J, Chabay I, de Wit B, Langlais R, Mills D, Moll P, Otto IM, Petersen A, Pohl C, van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Policy 28:60\u0026ndash;70. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD\u0026iacute;az S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, B\u0026aacute;ldi A, Bartuska A, Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, Chan KM, Figueroa VE, Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework\u0026mdash;Connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDreborg KH (1996) Essence of backcasting. Futures 28(9):813\u0026ndash;828\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDurrant MB (2004) \u003cem\u003eCommunities, place, and conservation on Mount Kilimanjaro\u003c/em\u003e [Brigham Young University]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/143\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/143\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDurrant MB, Durrant JO (2008) The Influence of Location on Local Attitudes Toward Community Conservation on Mount Kilimanjaro. Soc Nat Resour 21(5):371\u0026ndash;386. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701618187\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08941920701618187\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEgan PA, Price MF (2017) \u003cem\u003eMountain ecosystem services and climate change: A global overview of potential threats and strategies for adaptation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnfors EI, Gordon LJ, Peterson GD, Bossio D (2008) Making Investments in Dryland Development Work: Participatory Scenario Planning in the Makanya Catchment, Tanzania. Ecol Soc 13(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02649-130242\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 2. 10.5751/ES-02649-130242\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (2015) \u003cem\u003eMapping the vulnerability of mountain peoples to food insecurity\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/fc51a31f-4d11-45da-a9f3-5d44277ab231/content\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/fc51a31f-4d11-45da-a9f3-5d44277ab231/content\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFernandes ECM, Nair PKR (1986) An evaluation of the structure and function of tropical homegardens. Agric Syst 21(4):279\u0026ndash;310. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521X(86)90104-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0308-521X(86)90104-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFernandes ECM, Oktingati A, Maghembe J (1985) The Chagga Home Gardens: A Multi-Storeyed Agro-Forestry Cropping System on Mt. Kilimanjaro, Northern Tanzania. FoodNutr Bull 7(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/156482658500700311\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 3. 10.1177/156482658500700311\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFisher B, Turner RK, Burgess ND, Swetnam RD, Green J, Green RE, Kajembe G, Kulindwa K, Lewis SL, Marchant R, Marshall AR, Madoffe S, Munishi PKT, Morse-Jones S, Mwakalila S, Paavola J, Naidoo R, Ricketts T, Rouget M, Balmford A (2011) Measuring, modeling and mapping ecosystem services in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. Progress Phys Geography: Earth Environ 35(5). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311422968\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 5. 10.1177/0309133311422968\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreeth R,and, Drimie S (2016) Participatory Scenario Planning: From Scenario \u0026lsquo;Stakeholders\u0026rsquo; to Scenario \u0026lsquo;Owners\u0026rsquo;. Environment: Sci Policy Sustainable Dev 58(4):32\u0026ndash;43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1186441\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00139157.2016.1186441\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFr\u0026ouml;mming UU (2009) Kilimanjaro\u0026rsquo;s melting glaciers: On the colonial and postcolonial perception and appropriation of African nature1. \u003cem\u003eEtnografica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003evol. 13 (2)\u003c/em\u003e, Article 13 (2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4000/etnografica.1158\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4000/etnografica.1158\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a-Llorente M, Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez B, Iniesta-Arandia I, L\u0026oacute;pez-Santiago CA, Aguilera PA, Montes C (2012) The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u0026ndash;20\u003c/em\u003e, 136\u0026ndash;146. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGerman Data Forum (2017) Forschungsethische Grunds\u0026auml;tze und Pr\u0026uuml;fverfahren in den Sozial-und Wirtschaftswissenschaften. [F\u0026uuml;r Sozial, Rat]. RatSWD Output\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoldman M (2003) Partitioned Nature, Privileged Knowledge: Community-based Conservation in Tanzania. Dev Change 34(5):833\u0026ndash;862. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2003.00331.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1467-7660.2003.00331.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGr\u0026ecirc;t-Regamey A, Huber SH, Huber R (2019) Actors\u0026rsquo; diversity and the resilience of social-ecological systems to global change. Nat Sustain 2(4):290\u0026ndash;297. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0236-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41893-019-0236-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGross M, Shepeleva D, Vogel F, Mwampamba TH, Arbieu U, Pearson J, Sesabo JK, Codalli F, Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez B (2025) The questions we ask matter: Insights from place-based research on nature\u0026rsquo;s contributions to people. Sustain Sci. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01649-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11625-025-01649-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrossmann M (2008) The Kilimanjaro Aquifer: A Case Study for the Research Project:Trans Boundary Groundwater Management in Africa. German Dev Inst, 91\u0026ndash;94\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGupta H, Nishi M, Gasparatos A (2022) Community-based responses for tackling environmental and socio-economic change and impacts in mountain social\u0026ndash;ecological systems. Ambio 51(5). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01651-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 5. 10.1007/s13280-021-01651-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHemp A (1999) An ethnobotanical study on Mt. Kilimanjaro Ecotropica, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHemp A (2006) The Banana Forests of Kilimanjaro: Biodiversity and Conservation of the Chagga Homegardens. Biodivers Conserv 15(4):1193\u0026ndash;1217. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-8230-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10531-004-8230-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHemp A (2009) Climate change and its impact on the forests of Kilimanjaro. Afr J Ecol 47(s1):3\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.01043.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.01043.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHemp A (2017) \u003cem\u003eKilimanjaro. Physiographic map with Land use and Vegetation. Scale 1:100,000\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHemp A, Hemp C (2018) Broken bridges: The isolation of Kilimanjaro\u0026rsquo;s ecosystem. Glob Change Biol 24(8):3499\u0026ndash;3507. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14078\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/gcb.14078\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHemp C, B\u0026ouml;hning-Gaese K, Fischer M, Hemp A (2018) \u003cem\u003eThe KiLi Project: Kilimanjaro ecosystems under global change: Linking biodiversity, biotic interactions and biogeochemical ecosystem processes\u003c/em\u003e. 1. Auflage. Senckenberg Gesellschaft f\u0026uuml;r Naturforschung, Frankfurt/Main\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolyroyd M (2016) The political ecology of tourism development on Mount Kilimanjaro. In Mary Mostafanezhad, Eric J. Shelton, Roger Norum, \u0026amp; Anna Carr (Eds.), \u003cem\u003ePolitical Ecology of Tourism\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 251\u0026ndash;269). Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIchinose Y, Higuchi H, Kubo R, Nishigaki T, Kilasara M, Shinjo H, Funakawa S (2020) Adaptation of farmland management strategies to maintain livelihood by the Chagga people in the Kilimanjaro highlands. In \u003cem\u003eAGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 181). ELSEVIER SCI LTD. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102829\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102829\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIIED (2016) Landscape approaches for mountain community sustainable development in a time of climate change: Policy Consultation and South-South Exchange Workshop and INMIP Mountain Community Exchange Walking Workshop. International Institute for Environment and Development. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.iied.org/g04062\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.iied.org/g04062\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIPBES, D\u0026iacute;az S, Settele J, Brond\u0026iacute;zio ES, Ngo HT, Gu\u0026egrave;ze M, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, Garibaldi LA, Liu KIJ, Subramanian SM, Midgley GF, Miloslavich P, Moln\u0026aacute;r Z, Obura D, Zayas CN (2019) \u003cem\u003eSummary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services\u003c/em\u003e (Version summary for policy makers). Zenodo. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3553458\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5281/ZENODO.3553458\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiren TS, Hanspach J, Schultner J, Fischer J, Bergsten A, Senbeta F, Hylander K, Dorresteijn I (2020) Reconciling food security and biodiversity conservation: Participatory scenario planning in southwestern Ethiopia. Ecol Soc 25(3):art24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11681-250324\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-11681-250324\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohansson E (2021) Participatory futures thinking in the African context of sustainability challenges and socio-environmental change. Ecol Soc 26(4). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12617-260403\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-12617-260403\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJuri S, Marais-Potgieter A, Achieng T, Gianelli I, Kabisa M, Nkgothoe B, Ojino J, Tcheton S, Carpenter-Urquhart L, Pereira L (2025) Transforming towards what? A review of futures-thinking applied in the quest for navigating sustainability transformations. Environ Res Lett. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adcbc4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1088/1748-9326/adcbc4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKariuki RW, Munishi LK, Courtney-Mustaphi CJ, Capitani C, Shoemaker A, Lane PJ, Marchant R (2021) Integrating stakeholders\u0026rsquo; perspectives and spatial modelling to develop scenarios of future land use and land cover change in northern Tanzania. PLoS ONE 16(2):e0245516. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245516\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0245516\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKilungu H, Leemans R, Munishi PKT, Nicholls S, Amelung B (2019) Forty Years of Climate and Land-Cover Change and its Effects on Tourism Resources in Kilimanjaro National Park. Tourism Plann Dev 16(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2019.1569121\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 2. 10.1080/21568316.2019.1569121\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKivumbi CO, Newmark WD (1991) The history of the half mile strip on Mount Kilimanjaro. The Conservation of Mount Kilimanjaro. IUCN\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eK\u0026ouml;rner C, Ohsawa M, Spehn EM, Berge E, Bugmann H, Groombridge B (2005) Mountain Systems. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State \u0026amp; Trends Assessment. Island, pp 683\u0026ndash;716. \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAsh\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKothari A (2008) Protected areas and people: The future of the past. Parks 17(2):23\u0026ndash;34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(S1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Article S1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalinga R, Gordon LJ, Lindborg R, Jewitt G (2013) Using Participatory Scenario Planning to Identify Ecosystem Services in Changing Landscapes. Ecol Soc 18(4):art10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05494-180410\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-05494-180410\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez B, Leister I, Lorenzo Cruz P, Palomo I, Gr\u0026ecirc;t-Regamey A, Harrison PA, Lavorel S, Locatelli B, Luque S, Walz A (2019) Nature\u0026rsquo;s contributions to people in mountains: A review. PLoS ONE 14(6):e0217847. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217847\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0217847\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez B, Montes C (2015) Restoring the human capacity for conserving biodiversity: A social\u0026ndash;ecological approach. Sustain Sci 10(4):699\u0026ndash;706. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0283-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11625-014-0283-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMasao CA, Prescott GW, Snethlage MA, Urbach DR, Torre-Marin Rando M, del Venegas AM, Mollel R, Hemp NP, Hemp C, A., Fischer M (2022) Stakeholder perspectives on nature, people and sustainability at Mount Kilimanjaro. People Nat 4(3):711\u0026ndash;729\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMdoe N, Wiggins S (1997) Returns to Smallholder Dairying in the Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. Agric Econ 17:75\u0026ndash;87\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeyer J, Gross M, Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez B, Pearson J, Sanya Julius J (2023) \u003cem\u003eOutreach Posters for the Preliminary Results of the Project Demand and Values of Nature\u0026rsquo;s Contributions to People (NCP) embedded within the DFG Research Unit The role of nature for human well-being in the Kilimanjaro Social-Ecological System (Kili-SES).\u003c/em\u003e Germany. Leuphana University of L\u0026uuml;neburg. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.48548/pubdata-78\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.48548/pubdata-78\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMisana SB, Majule A, Lyaruu H (2003) \u003cem\u003eLinkages between Changes in Land Use, Biodiversity and Land Degradation on the Slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania\u003c/em\u003e [LUCID Working paper No. 38]. International Livestock Research Institute. Nairobi\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMisana SB, Sokoni C, Mbonile MJ (2012) Land-use/cover changes and their drivers on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. J Geogr Reg Plann 5(6). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5897/JGRP11.050\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5897/JGRP11.050\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMollel NP, Fischer M, Hemp A (2017) Usable wild plant species in relation to elevation and land use at Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Alp Bot 127(2):145\u0026ndash;154. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00035-017-0187-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00035-017-0187-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K, Lemos MC, Huitema D, Phelps J, Evans L, Cohen P, Song AM, Turner R, Quinn T, Hughes TP (2019) The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob Environ Change 57:101934. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101934\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101934\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMtallo GR, Rubagumya C (2015) The Source of Language Variation among Chagga People in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. J Arts Humanit 4(7) Article 7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v4i7.741\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18533/journal.v4i7.741\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMulangu F, Kraybill D (2013) Climate Change and the Future of Mountain Farming on Mt. Kilimanjaro. In S. Mann (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe Future of Mountain Agriculture\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 73\u0026ndash;88). Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33584-6_6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-642-33584-6_6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMusa G, Higham J, Thompson-Carr A (eds) (2015) \u003cem\u003eMountaineering Tourism\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.routledge.com/Mountaineering-Tourism/Musa-Higham-Thompson-Carr/p/book/9781138083936\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.routledge.com/Mountaineering-Tourism/Musa-Higham-Thompson-Carr/p/book/9781138083936\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Bureau of Statistics (2023) \u003cem\u003eCensus Information Dissemination Platform.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sensa.nbs.go.tz/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sensa.nbs.go.tz/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewmark WD (1991) \u003cem\u003eThe Conservation of Mount Kilimanjaro\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 16). Iucn\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNsengiyumva P (2019) African Mountains in a Changing Climate: Trends, Impacts, and Adaptation Solutions. Mt Res Dev 39(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-00062.1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-00062.1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Brien K, Garibaldi LA, Agrawal A, Bennett E, Biggs R, Calder\u0026oacute;n Contreras R, Carr ER, Frantzeskaki N, Gosnell H, Gurung J, Lambertucci SA, Leventon J, Chuan L, Garc\u0026iacute;a R, Shannon V, Villasante L, Wickson S, Zinngrebe F, P\u0026eacute;rianin Y, Zaccagnini L (2025) M. E. \u003cem\u003eIPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Summary for Policymakers\u003c/em\u003e (Version 10.2.0). Zenodo. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.11382230\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5281/ZENODO.11382230\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOlschewski R, Bebi P, Teich M, Hayek W, U., Gr\u0026ecirc;t-Regamey A (2012) Avalanche protection by forests\u0026mdash;A choice experiment in the Swiss Alps. For Policy Econ 15:108\u0026ndash;113. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.10.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.forpol.2011.10.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOstrom E (1998) Scales, Polcentricity, and Incentives: Designing Complexity to Govern Complexity. Guruswamy D. Lakshman, McNeely A. Jeffrey (Eds.) Protection of global biodiversity: Converging strategies. Duke University Press, pp 149\u0026ndash;167\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOstrom E (2006) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1515/9781400831739\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/9781400831739\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOstrom E (2009) A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325(5939):419\u0026ndash;422. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/science.1172133\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOteros-Rozas E, Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez B, Daw TM, Bohensky EL, Butler JRA, Hill R, Martin-Ortega J, Quinlan A, Ravera F, Ruiz-Mall\u0026eacute;n I, Thyresson M, Mistry J, Palomo I, Peterson GD, Plieninger T, Waylen KA, Beach DM, Bohnet IC, Hamann M, Vilardy SP (2015) Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: Insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol Soc 20(4):art32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07985-200432\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-07985-200432\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOteros-Rozas E, Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez B, L\u0026oacute;pez CA, Palomo I, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez JA (2013) Envisioning the future of transhumant pastoralism through participatory scenario planning: A case study in Spain. Rangel J 35(3):251. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1071/RJ12092\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1071/RJ12092\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePalomo I, Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez B, L\u0026oacute;pez-Santiago C, Montes C (2011) Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas Management under the Ecosystem Services Framework: The Do\u0026ntilde;ana Social-Ecological System in Southwestern Spain. Ecol Soc 16(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03862-160123\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-03862-160123\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePascual U, Balvanera P, Christie M (2023) Editorial overview: Leveraging the multiple values of nature for transformative change to just and sustainable futures \u0026mdash; Insights from the IPBES Values Assessment. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 64:101359. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101359\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101359\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePayne D, Snethlage M, Geschke J, Spehn EM, Fischer M (2020) Nature and people in the Andes, East African Mountains, European Alps, and Hindu Kush Himalaya: Current research and future directions. Mt Res Dev 40(2):A1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePearson J, Gross M, Hofmann J (2024) Non-material contributions of nature expressed by former tourists of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. People Nat 6(1):220\u0026ndash;229. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10575\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pan3.10575\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePearson J, Massawe JJ, Mbaruku AP, Mramba EI, Mwampamba TH, Mart\u0026iacute;n-L\u0026oacute;pez B (2025) Chagga women\u0026acute;s connections with nature: Fostering relationality through arts-based methods. Ecosyst People 21(1):2459108. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2025.2459108\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/26395916.2025.2459108\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeaty D (2012) Kilimanjaro Tourism and What It Means for Local Porters and for the Local Environment. J Ritsumeikan Social Sci Humanit 4:1\u0026ndash;11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePereira LM, Karpouzoglou T, Frantzeskaki N, Olsson P (2018) Designing transformative spaces for sustainability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 23(4):art32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10607-230432\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-10607-230432\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePereira LM, Sitas N, Ravera F, Jimenez-Aceituno A, Merrie A (2019) Building capacities for transformative change towards sustainability: Imagination in Intergovernmental Science-Policy Scenario Processes. Elementa: Sci Anthropocene 7:35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.374\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1525/elementa.374\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeters MK, Hemp A, Appelhans T, Becker JN, Behler C, Classen A, Detsch F, Ensslin A, Ferger SW, Frederiksen SB, Gebert F, Gerschlauer F, G\u0026uuml;tlein A, Helbig-Bonitz M, Hemp C, Kindeketa WJ, K\u0026uuml;hnel A, Mayr AV, Mwangomo E, Steffan-Dewenter I (2019) Climate\u0026ndash;land-use interactions shape tropical mountain biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Nature 568(7750):88\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1048-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41586-019-1048-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlanque B, Mullon C, Arneberg P, Eide A, Fromentin J-M, Heymans JJ, Hoel AH, Niiranen S, Ottersen G, Sand\u0026oslash; AB, Sommerkorn M, Th\u0026eacute;baud O, Thorvik T (2019) A participatory scenario method to explore the future of marine social-ecological systems. Fish Fish 20(3):434\u0026ndash;451. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12356\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/faf.12356\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlieninger T, Bieling C, Ohnesorge B, Schaich H, Schleyer C, Wolff F (2013) Exploring Futures of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes through Participatory Scenario Development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecol Soc 18(3):art39. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05802-180339\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-05802-180339\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRay S (2023) Weaving the links: Traditional knowledge into modern science. Futures 145:103081. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.103081\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.futures.2022.103081\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReyers B, Folke C, Moore M-L, Biggs R, Galaz V (2018) Social-Ecological Systems Insights for Navigating the Dynamics of the Anthropocene. Annu Rev Environ Resour 43(1):267\u0026ndash;289. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRist S, Chidambaranathan M, Escobar C, Wiesmann U, Zimmermann A (2007) Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: The role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. J Rural Stud 23(1):23\u0026ndash;37. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.02.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.02.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez T, Reu B, Bol\u0026iacute;var-Santamar\u0026iacute;a S, Cort\u0026eacute;s-Aguilar A, Buend\u0026iacute;a C (2023) A framework for participatory scenario planning to guide transitions towards sustainability in mountain social-ecological systems: A case study from the Colombian Andes. Land Use Policy 132:106817. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106817\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106817\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaid M, Hyandye C, Komakech HC, Mjemah IC, Munishi LK (2021) Predicting land use/cover changes and its association to agricultural production on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of GIS\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/19475683.2020.1871406\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/19475683.2020.1871406\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaid M, Komakech HC, Munishi LK, Muzuka ANN (2019) Evidence of climate change impacts on water, food and energy resources around Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Reg Envriron Chang 19(8):2521\u0026ndash;2534. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01568-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10113-019-01568-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSanya J, Gross M, Mwampamba TH, Pearson J, Sesabo JK, Reichers M, Kinabo NR, Krail V, Martin L\u0026oacute;pez B (2025) Heterogeneity of demands for nature\u0026rsquo;s contributions to people and nature\u0026rsquo;s values by farmers: Insights from the Kilimanjaro social-ecological system. Ecology and Society (Accepted\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSarmiento FO, Cotacachi C (2019) Framing cultural ecosystem services in the Andes: Utawallu as sentinels of values for biocultural heritage conservation. Thematic Rev 31:1\u0026ndash;16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eS\u0026eacute;bastien L (2010) The Chagga people and environmental changes on Mount Kilimanjaro: Lessons to learn. Climate Dev 2(4). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 4. https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2010.0055\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 4. 10.3763/cdev.2010.0055\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSoini E (2005a) Changing livelihoods on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania: Challenges and opportunities in the Chagga homegarden system. Agroforest Syst 64(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-004-1023-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 2. 10.1007/s10457-004-1023-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSoini E (2005b) Land use change patterns and livelihood dynamics on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Agric Syst 85(3):306\u0026ndash;323. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTanzania National Parks (2023) \u003cem\u003eKILIMANJARO NATIONAL PARK Celebrating the Golden Anniversary in Biodiversity Conservation and Tourism\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeng\u0026ouml; M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M (2014) Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. Ambio 43(5):579\u0026ndash;591. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeng\u0026ouml; M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M, Danielsen F, Elmqvist T, Folke C (2017) Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond\u0026mdash;Lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26\u0026ndash;27:17\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTerry N, Castro A, Chibwe B, Karuri-Sebina G, Savu C, Pereira L (2024) Inviting a decolonial praxis for future imaginaries of nature: Introducing the Entangled Time Tree. Environ Sci Policy 151:103615. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103615\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103615\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThorn JPR, Klein JA, Steger C, Hopping KA, Capitani C, Tucker CM, Nolin AW, Reid RS, Seidl R, Chitale VS, Marchant R (2020) A systematic review of participatory scenario planning to envision mountain social-ecological systems futures. Ecol Soc 25(3):art6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11608-250306\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-11608-250306\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurnhout E (2019) Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration. In E. Turnhout, W. Halffman, \u0026amp; W. Tuinstra (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Expertise: Connecting Science, Policy and Society\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 152\u0026ndash;164). Cambridge University Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cambridge.org/core/books/environmental-expertise/interdisciplinarity-and-the-challenge-of-knowledge-integration/F44EC8A7A62B89F9DEC4B1C378B91682\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/environmental-expertise/interdisciplinarity-and-the-challenge-of-knowledge-integration/F44EC8A7A62B89F9DEC4B1C378B91682\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVERBI (2018) MAXQDA. Verbi Software Berlin\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eViviroli D, D\u0026uuml;rr HH, Messerli B, Meybeck M, Weingartner R (2007) Mountains of the world, water towers for humanity: Typology, mapping, and global significance. Water Resour Res 43(7). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005653\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1029/2006WR005653\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWest P, Igoe J, Brockington D (2006) Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Anthropology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(Volume 35, 2006), 251\u0026ndash;277. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"actors’ engagement, agency, Participatory Scenario Planning, polycentricity","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8068577/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8068577/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTransformations toward desirable futures remain challenged by the complexity of social-ecological systems (SES), including the diverse actors\u0026rsquo; perspectives -i.e., what they perceive as desirable futures and how to achieve them. Given that SES are also affected by multiple anthropogenic drivers of change, one-size-fits-all governing approaches fall short. Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) has proven useful in engaging actors in making sense of this complexity, although few PSP studies have been conducted in the Global South mountain SES. Therefore, we conducted three PSP workshops with smallholder farmers, business owners, and nature conservationists in the Kilimanjaro SES, Tanzania, to understand (1) which SES elements and drivers of change they perceive as characterizing the current SES conditions, (2) how they envision future scenarios based on SES dynamics and the interplay of multiple drivers, and (3) management actions toward desirable futures. Actors identified key SES elements: water resources, biodiversity, land use and agriculture, tourism, traditions and culture and drivers of change, including population growth, loss of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), technological development and climatic change. Actors envisioned four future scenarios, in which they identified key aspects of desirable futures: environmental protection, land use and agricultural management, and cultural preservation. Proposed management actions mapped onto different levels of governance, from those requiring national commitment to those requiring local collective actions. Based on actors\u0026rsquo; reflections on their past and present experiences and their visions of desirable futures, our conclusion is twofold: (1) desirable futures require local agency, and (2) there is a need for polycentricity in governance.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Braiding the past and present for desirable futures: Insights from the Kilimanjaro social-ecological system","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-11 04:47:30","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8068577/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5b52e636-d290-43d7-942c-e52ff27de8c5","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-11T04:47:30+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-11 04:47:30","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8068577","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8068577","identity":"rs-8068577","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}