Revisiting the host–refugee environmental conflict debate: perspectives from Ghana’s refugee camps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the debate over refugee–host community environmental conflicts, refugees are often blamed, premised on the notion that refugees add substantially to anthropogenic activities as a result of both their demographic and socio-economic status. We employ political ecology to understand how power and economic considerations play out in the access to and use of environmental resources in Ghana’s refugee-hosting communities. Drawing mainly on qualitative data generated through group discussions and in-depth interviews, we propose an alternative position that environmental conflicts are driven by the inability of hosts to fulfil their economic interests from refugee activities. Where such economic interests are fulfilled, host–refugee environmental interactions are more likely to be devoid of conflicts even where environmental deterioration is pronounced. Negotiating how hosts and refugees collaborate in the use of, and returns from, environmental resource-related activities holds a central position in stemming environmental conflicts.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".