Economics: 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?

People kill elephants not because they are evil and want to hurt them just for the sake of hurting them, they do it in order to make a profit. If the government can offer these people the opportunity to make money through tourism, they that should prevent them from killing the elephants and other wildlife. You have to remember that these people are extremely poor and their income earning alternatives are very scarce and limited.

The first option will work only if the government spends enough money hiring guards that keep the park safe for the animals. But even then, some animals will still be hunted. You must also remember that not only the people of these places are poor, the governments are extremely poor also.

On the other hand, the second option should work better because the villagers will have an incentive to keep the animals safe and not hunt them themselves. The villagers will also help to prevent other people from killing the animals since they earn money through tourism and tourists go there to see the animals.

i might look it up later.

answermarginal cost;