Ecotourism, Poverty and Resources Management in Ranomafana, Madagascar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores how the protection of natural resources is managed in Madagascar in order to understand how and why tourism development is part of the strategy to safeguard these resources. Based on a heterodox political economy approach and using documentary analysis as well as exploratory interviews, this paper focuses on the specific case of Ranomafana National Park showing how the environment, economic growth and poverty alleviation strategies are instrumental to a ‘development framework’ that envisions the rural poor population as a problem as well as a solution with respect to resource depletion. The analysis concluded that tourism is far from being an ‘axis of development’ for the Malagasy economy, and, thus, an insufficient alternative to address the destructive practices described in this paper. The case study shows that ecotourism creates few work opportunities for local people and does not absorb the job seekers who rapidly revert to survival techniques and anarchic use of resources, thereby threatening the integrity of the forest and the long-term survival of ecotourism activities. In this context, the place of tourism in general and of ecotourism, in particular, appears to have been highly exaggerated in Madagascar as the direct economic benefits of tourism at the local level remain minimal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".