Quantification of resilience to water scarcity, a dynamic measure in time and space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. There are practical links between water resources management, climate change adaptation and sustainable development leading to reduction of water scarcity risk and re-enforcing resilience as a new development paradigm. Water scarcity, due to the global change (population growth, land use change and climate change), is of serious concern since it can cause loss of human lives and serious damage to the economy of a region. Unfortunately, in many regions of the world, water scarcity is, and will be unavoidable in the near future. As the scarcity is increasing, at the same time it erodes resilience, therefore global change has a magnifying effect on water scarcity risk. In the past, standard water resources management planning considered arrangements for prevention, mitigation, preparedness and recovery, as well as response. However, over the last ten years substantial progress has been made in establishing the role of resilience in sustainable development. Dynamic resilience is considered as a novel measure that provides for better understanding of temporal and spatial dynamics of water scarcity. In this context, a water scarcity is seen as a disturbance in a complex physical-socio-economic system. Resilience is commonly used as a measure to assess the ability of a system to respond and recover from a failure. However, the time independent static resilience without consideration of variability in space does not provide sufficient insight into system's ability to respond and recover from the failure state and was mostly used as a damage avoidance measure. This paper provides an original systems framework for quantification of resilience. The framework is based on the definition of resilience as the ability of physical and socio-economic systems to absorb disturbance while still being able to continue functioning. The disturbance depends on spatial and temporal perspectives and direct interaction between impacts of disturbance (social, health, economic, and other) and adaptive capacity of the system to absorb disturbance. Utility of the dynamic resilience is demonstrated through a single-purpose reservoir operation subject to different failure (water scarcity) scenarios. The reservoir operation is simulated using the system dynamics (SD) feedback-based object-oriented simulation approach.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".