Question

31. 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?

Answer 1

One plan is about the poor villagers being forbidden to enter the area and poach and hunt animals. The other way is to let tourist centres be set up in these surrounding villages and let the villagers be employed.

In the first case , the villagers have no incentive to not hunt the elephants because though it is forbidden, they are poor and would have this as the source of income. So even if government does not allow it, they would resort to illegal ways to hunt and feed their families.

On the other hand, of the government gives the opportunity to the nearby villages to set up tourist centres and form bases for the tourists, it would provide employment opportunities and the incentive for the villagers to protect the elephant population because more the population, more will it attract the tourists. This would work in favour of both the villagers they get income and for elephants as they are protected.

So working out the second way would keep the elephants safe and help villagers earn.

(You can comment for doubts)