Tourism, conservation and livelihoods: the impacts of gorilla tracking at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated Conservation and Development (lCD) initiatives that seek to incorporate human needs into protected area management have become common conservation practice. A popular ICD tool is nature-based tourism, which should deliver funding for conservation and benefits to local people, thereby encouraging them to support sustainable resource management. This 'ecotourism' is attractive in theory, but its performance has been understudied ill practice. In particular, little is known about how benefits and costs of tourism are distributed within host communities, how tourism influences attitudes to natural resources, the environmental impacts oftourism, and how tourists differ in their impacts. This thesis investigates all of these issues, using gorilla-tracking at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP) in Uganda as a case study. The results show that whilst tourism at BINP resulted in measurable improvements in community development indicators, there were severe inequalities in the distribution of benefits between individuals according to age, gender, education, wealth, location and social networks. Tourism benefits generally outweighed tourism costs, encouraging positive attitudes to the industry. However, many people did not feel compensated for costs of conservation, because benefits were inappropriate or because they were not seen as linked to conservation. Tourism-paid for park management, buftourists were found to represent a greater disease threat to gorillas than previously realised because encounters were illegally close and some tourists were unwell. Comparing the performance of tourists, older women were found to leave the most money in the local economy, whereas younger tourists posed the greatest disease threat to gorillas. Overall, tourism at BINP delivered surprisingly well on some of the promises of ecotourism. . Nonetheless, considerable conflicts, risks and inequalities were identified. The thesis concludes by presenting a series of recommendations designed to improve the performance of tourism at BINP, and by discussing wider theoretical implications of the study.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".