ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024
Private management of African protected areas improves wildlife and tourism outcomes but with security concerns in conflict regions.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mass support for conserving 30% of the Earth by 2030: Experimental evidence from five continents.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- A dataset of pre-pandemic African protected area visitation.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Snaring and wildlife wastage in Africa: drivers, scale, impacts, and paths to sustainability.Bioscience · 2025Review
- Collaborative management partnerships strongly decreased deforestation in the most at-risk protected areas in Africa since 2000.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Estimating the impact of airport wildlife hazards management on realized wildlife strike risk.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Protected areas can conserve wildlife and benefit people when managed effectively. African governments increasingly delegate the management of protected areas to private, nongovernmental organizations, hoping that private organizations' significant resources and technical capacities actualize protected areas' potential. Does private sector management improve outcomes compared to a counterfactual of government management? We leverage the transfer of management authority from governments to African Parks (AP)-the largest private manager of protected areas in Africa-to show that private management significantly improves wildlife outcomes via reduced elephant poaching and increased bird abundances. Our results also suggest that AP's management augments tourism, while the effect on rural wealth is inconclusive. However, AP's management increases the risk of armed groups targeting civilians, which could be an unintended outcome of AP's improved monitoring and enforcement systems. These findings reveal an intricate interplay between conservation, economic development, and security under privately managed protected areas in Africa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.