Co-management Effects on Forest Restoration in Protected Areas of Bangladesh: A Remote Sensing and GIS-based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Co-management is increasingly recognized as an effective approach of forest governance while recognizing local people's forest dependency and traditional rights. Moreover, co-management is expected to positively impact forest cover and ecosystem health. Bangladesh, facing a rapid decline in forest cover, has one of the lowest per capita forest areas worldwide. For quite a while, co-management practices have been used to improve forest cover and the livelihoods of forest-dependent people in Bangladesh. Several studies have assessed the efficacy of co-management in different protected areas in Bangladesh from livelihood, social, and cultural aspects. However, the overall changes in forest cover due to co-management from the very beginning of co-management initiatives in the country have been overlooked. We used remotely sensed Landsat images to assess the changes in forest cover and overall land use in five forest protected areas where co-management was piloted. Three major vegetation indices (NDVI, EVI, and MSAVI) were examined to ensure the study's robustness. This study aims to assess the scope and weaknesses of the current policy that incorporates co-management in the country's first five protected areas (SNP, LNP, RKWS, TWS, and CWS), which were brought under co-management in 2003, and compare the efficacy of the co-management relative to non-comanaged protected areas (RRF). The land cover analysis based on NDVI, MSAVI, and EVI values indicated dominant dense forest coverage (41–71%) across five protected areas. During the co-management period (2004–2015), there was a significant decrease in the dense forest proportion, with slopes ranging from -3.7 to -0.96. Similarly, the RRF showed a decreasing pattern, with the slope of the decreasing trendline ranging from -0.48 to -0.62 across the three indices. Agriculture and forest-agriculture mosaics showed a significant increase, with varying slopes among protected areas in both co-managed and non-comanaged sites. Pixel-to-pixel changes revealed dynamic shifts in vegetation indices, and Global Forest Watch data highlighted forest cover losses, notably in CWS (158.77 ha) and SNP (0.49 ha).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".