Analysis of the Economic Benefits of Tourism in Contra-Distinction to Agriculture in Rural Boteti, Botswana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Despite numerous efforts to improve agricultural production as an alternative source of employment, the high poverty headcount is still a source for concern in rural Boteti. On average, agriculture contributes to less than 20% to household economies in rural Boteti. To date, no research has been done to assess and determine the factors that affect livelihood diversification among households in Boteti. This study, among other methods, adopts the Household Economy Analysis, Household Income Estimation and the Tobit regression model in order to determine how the economic benefits of tourism industry compare with those of the agricultural sector in Khumaga and Moreomaoto in Boteti sub-district, Botswana. This study argues that notwithstanding the livelihood diversification efforts displayed in the study area, agriculture continues to be a significant contributor of total household income. The improved performance of agriculture is crucial in the attainment of food security. This paper is aimed at making an assessment of the contribution of tourism in the selected areas Boteti sub-district in comparison to agriculture. There is a strategic need to educate the local communities in the study area on the importance of tourism and how they could use it effectively as a livelihood activity.</p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".