MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020026004 · doi:10.3390/rs12091376

Geospatial Assessment of Water-Migration Scenarios in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 6, 11, and 16

2020· article· en· W3020026004 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change, Adaptation, Migration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversityUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeospatial analysisSustainable developmentUrbanizationNexus (standard)GeographyEnvironmental planningContext (archaeology)Environmental resource managementPopulationUrban sprawlRegional scienceEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingPolitical scienceComputer scienceUrban planningEconomic growthCivil engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communities and countries around the world are gearing up efforts to implement the 2030 Agenda goals and targets. In this paper, the water and migration scenarios are explained with a focus on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 6 (water-related), 11 (urbanization), and 16 (peace and political stability). The study has two phases. The first phase illustrates the application of geospatial data and tools to assess the water-migration interlinkages (nexus) by employing a case study approach. Three case studies, Lake Chad, the Aral Sea region, and the Nile Delta, representing various geographic and socio-political settings, were selected to perform the multitemporal analysis. For this analysis, a mixed toolset framework that combined algorithmic functions of digital image processing, the Landsat sensor data, and applied a geographic information system (GIS) platform was adopted. How water-related events directly or indirectly trigger human migration is described using spatial indicators such as water spread and the extent of urban sprawl. Additionally, the geospatial outputs were analyzed in tandem with the climate variables such as temperature, precipitation data, and socio-economic variables such as population trends and migration patterns. Overall, the three case studies examined how water and climate crisis scenarios influence migration at a local and regional scale. The second phase showcases global-scale analysis based on the Global Conflict Risk Index (GCRI). This indicator reflects on the risks and conflicts with environmental, social, and political aspects and comments on the connection of these dimensions with migration. Together, the two phases of this paper provide an understanding ofthe interplay of water-related events on migration by applying the geospatial assessment and a proxy global index. Additionally, the paper reiterates that such an understanding can serve to establish facts and create evidence to inform sustainable development planning and decision making, particularly with regard to SDGs 6, 11, and 16. Targets such as 6.4 (managing water stress), 6.5 (transboundary challenges) and, 11.B (adaptation and resilience planning) can benefit from the knowledge generated by this geospatial exercise. For example, the high GCRI values for the African region speak to SDG targets 11.B (integrated policies/plans) and 16.7 (decision support systems for peaceful societies). Two key highlights from the synthesis: (a) migration and urbanization are closely interconnected, and (b) the impact of water and climate crisis is comparatively high for rural-urban migration due to the considerable dependence of rural communities on nature-based livelihoods. In conclusion, geospatial analysis is an important tool to study the interlinkages between water and migration. The paper presents a novel perspective toward widening the scope of remote sensing data and GIS toward the implementation of the SDG Agenda.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it