Forest resource governance and the devolution of power through co-management approach: policy vs practice : a case study in Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh

In recent years co-management has been widely used as a strategy to address the challenges related to protected area governance, and devolution of power, management responsibility and empowerment of actors are recognized as central to this approach. This study examines the extent to which present co-management arrangements in Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary (RKWS), Bangladesh has achieved devolution of power, responsibility and resource use rights and what are the prevailing gaps between policy and practice. Lockwood’s good governance principles and Agrawal and Ribot’s power decentralization framework were adopted to analyse the governance reform process and present mechanism of power sharing at study site. Our findings reveals that, co-management program has been helpful in advancing forest conservation goals, reducing corruptions, creating social networks, changing the attitude of stakeholders and minimizing resource related conflicts. But unlike many cases around the world, outcomes of this decentralization process have not been systematically positive with regard to devolution of power and management responsibility from state to local co-management organizations. Additionally, this process is struggling to offer a meaningful reciprocal partnership between state and local community due to unequal power relations and top-down accountability mechanisms. Legislative and executive powers are still withheld by the state and important controls over decision making process were retained by government agencies. There is no proper arrangement regarding the sharing of benefits arising from co-management and this governance reform has failed to have a significant impact on the socio-economic development of the local communities. This paper concludes by pointing out that though co-management has showed its potential for solving some of the pressing contemporary forest governance challenges of Bangladesh, it is still operating as like a foster child of government without any legal policy backup and state’s support which has limited the devolution process and its outcomes. It is recommended that, policy interventions, capacity building of local actors, identifying context specific enabling conditions, enhancing downward accountability, and a shift from centralized regulatory frameworks are required for ensuring equitable and democratic power sharing process

Dimensions and barriers for digital (in)equity and digital divide: a systematic integrative review

Purpose – This integrative review was conducted to provide an overview of existing research on digital (in)equity and the digital divide in developed countries. Design/methodology/approach – We searched academic and grey literature to identify relevant papers. From 8464 academic articles and 183 grey literature, after two levels of screening, 31 articles and 54 documents were selected, respectively. A thematic analysis was conducted following the steps suggested by Braun and Clarke and results were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Findings – The results showed that most articles and papers were either from Europe or North America. Studies used a range of research methods, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. The results demonstrated four major dimensions of the digital divide among various vulnerable groups, including digital literacy, affordability, equity-deserving group-sensitive content and availability or access to infrastructure. Among vulnerable groups, low-income people were reported in the majority of the studies followed by older adults, racial and ethnic minorities, newcomers/new immigrants and refugees, Indigenous groups, people with disabilities and women. Most reported barriers included lack of access to the internet, digital skills, language barriers and internet costs. Originality/value – To the best of our knowledge, there have been limited attempts to thoroughly review the literature to better understand the emerging dimensions of digital equity and the digital divide, identifying major vulnerable populations and their unique barriers and challenges. This review demonstrated that understanding intersectional characteristics (age, gender, disability, race, ethnicity, Indigenous identity and immigration status) and their interconnections is crucial for analyzing the dynamics of digital (in)equity and divide

Addressing digital equity and the digital divide

This report summarizes existing research on digital (in)equity and the digital divide in developed countries, aiming to map emerging dimensions, identify vulnerable populations, and highlight barriers to digital inclusion. A comprehensive search of academic and grey literature yielded 31 academic articles and 54 grey documents after screening 8,464 academic and 183 grey sources. Thematic analysis results revealed four key dimensions of the digital divide which emerged: disparities in digital literacy, affordability, access to infrastructure, and equity-deserving group-sensitive content. Vulnerable populations most frequently studied included low-income individuals, followed by older adults, racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants/refugees, Indigenous communities, people with disabilities, and women. Common barriers included limited internet access, insufficient digital skills, language challenges, and high connectivity costs. This review underscores the scarcity of holistic analyses addressing the evolving dynamics of digital inequity and emphasizes the critical role of intersectionality, examining how age, gender, disability, race, ethnicity, Indigenous identity, and immigration status interconnect, in shaping digital exclusion. By consolidating evidence across disciplines, it advances understanding of systemic inequities and calls for targeted, inclusive policies to address the multifaceted barriers faced by marginalized groups in achieving digital equity.This study has been funded by The City of Calgary and Mitacs Canada.Othe