Community-based conservation and protected areas in Namibia : social-ecological linkages for biodiversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the premise that national park designations and management in Southern Africa decoupled indigenous communities from their local ecosystems.The research explores ways and means to recouple communities and national parks to promote biodiversity.The relationships are characterized between Namibia's community-based resource management program (CBNRM), conservancies, and protected areas system, with particular reference to the Ehi-rovipuka Conservancy and Etosha National Park in northern Namibia.This is a sparsely populated, arid region, marked by recurrent drought, a stunning wildlife spectacle, and ethnically diverse, communal area villages.The nature and consequences of decoupled social-ecological systems between community and national park are elucidated.lnstitutional linkages and interplay are identified and described in and between community-based conservation and national parks.Alternative approaches are suggested to the strict protection regimes that typify IUCN Category ll National Parks.A qualitative research approach is employed, featuring a case study and several different and interrelated methods of data collection and analysis.Fieldwork in Namibia was completed over a 6 month period.Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 51 different key informants representing a cross-section of NGOs, private enterprise, international donors, Namibia's Ministry of Environment and Tourism, communities and conservancies.Structured interviews were conducted in the case study community of Otjokavare with 40 Herero villagers in the Otjiherero language, employing a community interpreter and field assistant.Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods were also employed, including participant observation, memory mapping by 3 village elders, local knowledge mapping by 6 village men and women, and a national park and conservation awareness exercise by 34 Grade 7 pupils at the community primary school.Field research findings were supplemented and triangulated with park and wildlife legislative and policy analyses, as well as the extensive study of regional literature and data sources.and nature.Our sons Trent and Grant have provided constant encouragement and taken an abiding interest in my progress.My wife Leslie has accompanied me each step of the way, meticulously recording each interview I conducted with the villagers of Otjokavare and taking every twist and turn on the long road
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".