Projected performance of green infrastructure strategies for flood mitigation in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna delta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) delta – the world’s most populous river delta – faces heightened susceptibility to the rise in flooding disasters due to climate change, impacting millions annually. Current flood management strategies are unsustainable and ineffective, and resilient flood management is needed. A promising alternative is the strategic implementation of green infrastructure (GI) applications, which have proven effective in flood management in other regions. Methods: An analysis of the region’s past and future vulnerability to flooding is conducted. Then, green infrastructure performance metrics from regions with similar climatic conditions are extrapolated for the GBM. Green roofs, permeable pavements, and rain gardens were identified as the most suitable GI types for the GBM. Finally, computer simulations were employed to analyze the performance of different implementations of GI within a model city. Results: The simulations showed that 0% green rooftop coverage, 100% permeable pavement coverage, and 40% rain garden coverage were the most feasible GI layout. This configuration resulted in the most preferable balance between cost effectiveness and reduced runoff. Green rooftops were minimized due to high installation costs relative to their retention capacity, whereas permeable pavements and rain garden coverage were maximized. Conclusions: The studies show GI’s potential for flood mitigation and resilience in the GBM region. GI initiatives align with the region's flood mitigation policies and are thus feasible to implement with aid from government incentives. Furthermore, the computer program developed for this analysis could serve as a valuable tool for assessing GI implementation limits and offering guidance to policymakers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".