Question

Consider two ways of protecting elephants from poachers in African countries. In one approach, the government sets up enormous national parks that have sufficient habitat for elephants to thrive and forbids all local people to enter the parks or to injure either the elephants or their habitat in any way. In a second approach, the government sets up national parks and designates 10 villages around the edges of the park as official tourist centers that become places where tourists can stay and bases for guided tours inside the national park. Consider the different incentives of local villagers - who often are very poor- -in each of these plans. Which plan seems more likely to help the elephant population?

Short answer

In conclusion, the second approach, where the government creates national parks and designates 10 villages as tourist centers, is more likely to help the elephant population. This plan provides positive incentives for local villagers through tourism and job opportunities, increasing their likelihood to actively protect the elephants and their habitat from poaching.

Step-by-step solution

Understanding the two approaches

In the first approach, the government establishes national parks for the elephants and forbids local people to enter or injure the elephants and their habitat. In the second approach, the government creates national parks and designates 10 villages as official tourist centers, where tourists can stay and go on guided tours in the parks.

Incentives of local villagers in the first approach

In the first approach, local villagers are excluded from the parks and have no direct benefit from the presence of the elephants. The villagers might even view the parks as a loss of valuable land and resources for their own use. This might lead to resentment towards the government and the elephants, causing some villagers to engage in poaching or to ignore the poaching activities taking place.

Incentives of local villagers in the second approach

In the second approach, the government designates 10 villages as tourist centers. This would increase tourism and create job opportunities for the local villagers, such as working in the hospitality industry or as park guides. The villagers would have a direct benefit from the presence of the elephants and the parks. As a result, they would have an incentive to protect the elephants and work with park authorities to prevent poaching.

Comparing the two approaches

Comparing the two approaches, in the second plan, local villagers have positive incentives to protect the elephants and their habitat because of the economic benefits from tourism. They are more likely to take ownership of the protection efforts and report or prevent poaching activities. In the first approach, incentives for villagers are either neutral or negative, leading to a higher likelihood of resentment and potential involvement in, or turning a blind eye to, poaching.

Conclusion

The second plan, in which the government sets up national parks and designates 10 villages as official tourist centers, seems more likely to help the elephant population. The positive incentives for local villagers created through tourism and job opportunities make them more likely to protect the elephants and their habitat actively.