Identifying priority areas for surface water protection in data scarce regions: An integrated spatial analysis for Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to develop an integrated analytical framework to identify candidate sites for surface water protection that is applicable at broad scales and in data scarce regions, using Zambia as a case study. In the Zambian Water Resources Management Act of 2011, Water Resource Protection Areas are defined as areas where special measures are necessary for the protection of a catchment, sub‐catchment, aquifer, or geographical area. Three specific selection criteria are listed for the definition of Water Resource Protection Areas: (i) areas of high importance in providing water to users in a catchment; (ii) aquatic areas of high ecological importance; and (iii) areas that are particularly sensitive to human impact. In this project, each sub‐catchment and river reach of Zambia was characterized for their importance regarding these three criteria. ‘Water provisioning’ was assessed by analysing patterns of runoff generation and human water use; ‘aquatic ecological importance’ was determined by conducting a freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem assessment using a systematic conservation planning approach; and ‘sensitive areas’ were identified by quantifying erosion potential and sediment transport. The work was supported by an assessment of free‐flowing rivers in Zambia, i.e., those rivers where aquatic ecosystem functions and services are largely unaffected by changes to fluvial connectivity through dams and other infrastructure. Highly ranked sub‐catchments were found in the Liuwa, Barotse, and Bangweulu floodplains and wetlands, and in the headwater regions of the upper Zambezi, Kafue, Chambeshi/Luapula, and Tanganyika catchments. The Luangwa was identified as the highest ranked candidate river for protection within Zambia. The resulting maps, data, and methods are intended to support national‐scale efforts to prioritize areas for surface water protection, identify catchments and rivers with high conservation value, optimize decision making for infrastructure development, and inform concerted strategies to maintain and restore freshwater ecosystem services in Zambia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".