National parks and protected areas in African countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two primary options for the successful preservation of national resources in African national parks: centralized government management and decentralized privatized management. In this article we argue that a free market environmentalism approach to the management of national parks in Africa is preferable to centralized government management. We begin by discussing social, economic, and biophysical trends related to the operations of national parks in Africa. Next, we describe the institutional and political structures of management options, including the conventional centralized planning model, and present alternatives such as co-management and privatization. We then identify current conflicts and controversies regarding national park management in the African context, which include land tenure and expropriation, poverty, and the protection of large mammalian endangered species. Finally, we apply the free market environmentalism approach to African national park management and make a case for why this approach would allow for better protection of endangered large mammal species, benefit African citizens in the surrounding communities, eliminate the free-rider incentive which can lead to acts such as poaching, and create incentives that are necessary for the preservation of African national resources. We conclude that this market-based system is effective in protecting natural resources in areas of Africa where the private owners are willing to pay for the preservation of the environment, and on privatized and which can be successfully profitable through the aid of competition in the market. Keywords: national parks; Africa; free market environmentalism; sustainability (environmental, social)
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".