Migrant Land Rights Reception and ‘Clearing To Claim’ in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Deforestation Example From Southern Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between migration and deforestation in the developing world continues to receive significant attention. However beyond direct population increase, the precise mechanisms that operate within the intersection of migrant-host land rights remain largely unexamined. Where migrants are provided with land and rights by the state and/or local communities, how such rights are perceived by the migrants is of primary importance in their interaction with land resources, and in aggregate it impacts the development opportunities and environmental repercussions of migration. The authors analyze the operative aspects of land rights reception (as opposed to provision) by migrant populations, and the relationship between this reception and deforestation. The article examines a case in Zambia to analyze how tenurial constructs, emerging from the way rights are perceived by migrants, lead to the continued clearing of areas much larger than needed for cultivation, even when the arrangement appears counter-productive in terms of land rights provision and labour allocation. While valuable policy efforts have focused on providing resource rights to migrants, how such rights are received and the relationship of this reception to resource management needs greater policy attention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".