MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028946409 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v13n3p128

Value of the Storm-Protection Function of Sundarban Mangroves in Bangladesh

2020· article· en· W3028946409 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. H. M. Raihan Sarker, Mohammad Nur Nobi, Eivin Røskaft, David J. Chivers, Ma Suza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsMangroveTotal economic valueMangrove ecosystemGeographyEcosystem servicesStormEnvironmental protectionEcosystemEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally mangrove forests are among the most severely threatened ecosystems. The protection value of mangrove forests is important for policy makers as a means of increasing forestation in coastal areas. Only a few economic studies have estimated the protective value of mangrove ecosystems. None have estimated the value of this service in the Sundarban of Bangladesh. In this study, we estimated the economic value of storm-protection services of the Sundarban Reserve Forest during cyclone Sidr in 2007 by valuing and comparing the economic damage and losses of households at two sites (i.e., near the Sundarban and far from the Sundarban). In total, 1,525 households from 9 upazillas (sub-districts) were sampled, all located within 1 km distance of the embankment. Applying the Damage-Cost-Avoided (DCA) method, the storm-protection value of the Sundarban is estimated at USD 543.30 million. The estimated value of the damage cost avoided per household (as of 2015 consumer price) also implies that the installation of a one-km width of intact mangrove forest can save USD 396 to each household during cyclones and storm surges. Conservation and restoration of the ecological status of Sundarban is, therefore, urgently needed for the continued existence and sustainable use of Sundarban’s ecosystem services in the long term.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207