Probabilistic trade-offs analysis for sustainable and equitable management of climate-induced water risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pressures on water resources are fueling conflicts between sectors. This trend will likely worsen under future climate-induced water stress, jeopardizing food, energy and human water security in most arid and semi-arid regions. Probabilistic analysis using stochastic optimization modeling can characterize multi-sector vulnerabilities and risks associated with future water stress. This study identifies the probabilistic trade-offs between agricultural, urban and energy sectors in the Ebro Basin (Spain). Two intervention policies have been examined and compared: (i) agricultural priority, and (ii) energy priority, for two planning horizons 2040-2070 and 2070-2100. Results show that the human water security goal is achieved under both intervention policies. However, the achievement of the food and energy security goals depends on the policy objectives and on the spatial location of irrigation schemes and hydropower plants, which result in different stream flows across the basin. The policy choice results in substantially different benefit gains and losses by sector and therefore by location. None of the sectoral production priority policy provides an equitable sharing of benefits among all sectors and locations under climate change, which is an important issue, because the success or failure of policy interventions would depend on the distribution of the gains and losses of benefits across the basin. Policy uptake by stakeholders would depend on reaching win-win outcomes where losers are compensated, while delivering acceptable levels of food, energy and human water security in large river basins. Information on the probabilistic trade-offs contributes to design water management strategies capable of addressing the multi-sector vulnerability.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".