Understanding Urban Water Sustainability Transitions to One Water Using Science-based Expert Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water management practices in cities around the world are faced with growing social and environmental pressures. Unfortunately, the linear “take-make-waste” approach, previously recognized as the most conclusive practice to address water-related issues, has been found to be unsustainable due to its dependence on the limited availability of energy and resources. It is, therefore, necessary to change the current linear approach dominant in most cities across the world to one that utilizes a high degree of reuse and recycling that is known as “One Water”. The goal of this study is to evaluate a series of expert interviews that were conducted with utilities across the US and Canada to gain insights into implementing One Water principles. Interpreting several interviews is the key step to provide water managers with an understanding of the perspective and required actions towards transitions in urban water management. The results indicated that although several pressures were described in the expert interviews responses, climate change was the most frequently described pressure, followed by water quality impairments and population growth. Moreover, it has been identified that the studied cities have implemented several strategies such as green infrastructure, recycled water, desalination, and stormwater management to achieve this holistic approach. The thematic analysis revealed that all cities demonstrated the importance of cultural change to break down silos and support various technological solutions. Further investigations revealed that cities encounter several barriers that inhibit the One Water transition. One of the most frequently discussed barriers was related to financial challenges in most cities, especially in light of the pandemic when substantial cities lost their revenue. In addition to the financial challenges, lack of regulatory process and framework, institutional barriers for expanding One Water strategies, short-term thinking, lack of collaboration, community resistance to change, lack of public support, and water rights were mentioned by participants as the top barriers.
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 | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".