Economic valuation of benefits and costs associated with the coordinated development and management of the Zambezi river basin
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Zambezi river basin is of utmost importance to its riparian countries in terms of energy, food production and natural resources. Even though there is no legal agreement on the sharing of Zambezi waters, an assessment of basin-wide economically efficient allocation policies will provide valuable information at a time where water managers and policy makers in the region are negotiating the establishment of a unified river basin institution, called the Zambezi Watercourse Commission (ZAMCOM). That institution would be responsible for, amongst other things, the design of allocation rules. In this study, basin-wide allocation policies are derived from a hydro-economic model that considers the largest existing and planned hydraulic infrastructure and irrigation schemes in the basin. Our results illustrate that the economic value of water varies spatially, driven primarily by large changes in elevation and on the locations of existing or proposed dams. This observation may have implications for future decisions about the siting of expansions in irrigated agriculture. For example, some of the planned irrigation schemes in upstream countries are not economically sound if the power stations that are in an advanced planning phase are implemented. This study also reveals that the economic value of the three largest storage infrastructure (Kariba, Itezhitezhi, Cahora Bassa) is around US$443 million/year.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it