Co-Management Effects on Forest Restoration in Protected Areas of Bangladesh: A Remote Sensing and GIS-Based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Co-management is a promising forest governance strategy that integrates local communities’ traditional rights and forest dependencies while aiming to improve forest cover and ecosystem health. Bangladesh, facing high deforestation rates and limited per capita forest area, has implemented co-management initiatives since 2003 to restore forest cover and support the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities. While the socio-economic impacts of co-management are well studied, its effects on forest cover remain underexplored. This study addresses that gap by using three common spectral vegetation indices (NDVI, EVI, and MSAVI), calculated from Landsat 7 data, to analyze forest cover changes in five major protected areas under co-management. The results indicated that dense forest cover (41–71%) was initially prevalent in these areas, but a significant decline occurred between 2004 and 2015, with slope values ranging from −3.7 to −0.96. In contrast, the non-co-managed control site exhibited a much smaller decline (slope: −0.48 to −0.62) across all indices. Notable increases in agricultural land and forest–agriculture mosaics were also observed in the protected areas under co-management. Global Forest Watch data further confirmed substantial forest cover loss, particularly in CWS (158.77 ha) and SNP (0.49 ha). These findings highlight the need to reassess co-management strategies to address ongoing forest degradation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".