Options and Strategies for Planning Water and Climate Security in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Water security is at the front and center of climate change, human security, and sustainable development in regions and communities with competing water usage contexts, climate change effects, and cross-border water-sharing agreements, resulting in conflicts arising. Shared water agreements are affected by geopolitics, segregation, water availability, and access rights. Climate change can worsen water problems by changing precipitation trends or causing droughts. (2) Methods: Document and content analysis and primary and secondary data assessment were used to develop spatio-temporal patterns. In establishing a water security narrative for the region, the selection of SDG 6 (water) and SDG 13 (climate action) targets and indicators was also evaluated. UN-Water’s 2013 water security conceptual framework was used to examine water and climate security concerns and give a set of principles to assess gaps and fulfill needs toward a ‘water security future’ for communities and states in the region. Also, hydro-political perspectives in the region or state were evaluated using discourse analysis and guiding notes from emerging scholarship to support suggestions and prospective solutions toward mitigating water insecurity and risks from climate change and disasters, including resource (water) related conflicts. (3) Results: Hydro-hegemony keeps the water sector in one state under massive stress, and the lack of consensus-building for the regional water agenda continues to breed conflicts between communities and states. (4) Conclusions: We reiterate that the escalating water and climate crises will deepen, and at the national and local scale for OPT, the restrictions and geopolitical tensions about shared waters can render coping and adaptation mechanisms for people and stakeholders challenging.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".