History and Governance in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Tanzania: 1959-1966
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article investigates the early history of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), Tanzania, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, a period which has been overlooked in almost all the literature on the NCA. The article develops a governance perspective to argue that the NCA was heavily influenced by international thinking about wildlife conservation and Maasai pastoralism, and thus what was intended to be a multiple land use area was instead managed primarily as a national park. Several key episodes in this early history are dealt with in detail – the creation of the NCA; its early management difficulties; the role of Henry Fosbrooke, the NCA’s first Conservator; the impact of the international 1961 Arusha Conference on wildlife conservation; and the Canadian-funded management planning process of the mid-1960s. This leads to an exploration of some of the links between this period and contemporary practices in the NCA, and how practices of governance established over forty years ago still play a significant role in the present day. The case of the NCA illustrates the importance of appreciating the complexity of protected area governance and histories.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".