Adapting to urban flooding: a case of two cities in South Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cities in South Asia are experiencing storm water drainage problems due to a combination of urban sprawl, structural, hydrological, socioeconomic and climatic factors. The frequency of short duration, high-intensity rainfall is expected to increase in the future due to climate change. Given the limited capacity of drainage systems in South Asian cities, urban flooding and waterlogging is expected to intensify. The problem gets worse when low-lying areas are filled up for infrastructure development due to unplanned urban growth, reducing permeable areas. Additionally, solid waste, when dumped in canals and open spaces, blocks urban drainage systems and worsens urban flooding and waterlogging. Using hydraulic models for two South Asian cities, Sylhet (in Bangladesh) and Bharatpur (in Nepal), we find that 22.3% of the land area in Sylhet and 12.7% in Bharatpur is under flooding risk, under the current scenario. The flood risk area can be reduced to 3.6% in Sylhet and 5.5% in Bharatpur with structural interventions in the drainage system. However, the area under flood risk could increase to 18.5% in Sylhet and 7.6% in Bharatpur in five years if the cities' solid waste is not managed properly, suggesting that the structural solution alone, without proper solid waste management, is almost ineffective in reducing the long-term flooding risk in these cities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".