MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406312254 · doi:10.1007/s10040-024-02870-3

Impact of urbanization on groundwater recharge: altered recharge rates and water cycle dynamics for Arusha, Tanzania

2025· article· en· W4406312254 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Kiflay, Mario Schirmer, Jan Willem Foppen, Christian Moeck

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrogeology Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwater rechargeEnvironmental scienceGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)Surface runoffUrbanizationEvapotranspirationDepression-focused rechargeWater resource managementAquiferGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The profound effects of urbanization on groundwater recharge rates are investigated by conducting a comprehensive land use and land cover analysis in Arusha, Tanzania, using the WetSpass model. Between 1995 and 2016, the urban area has expanded from 14 to 45% within the study area. This rapid urbanization has resulted in the conversion of forested areas, agricultural land, shrublands, and bare soil into urban zones. Results indicated that under preurban conditions, groundwater recharge from precipitation was ~116 mm/year, which increased to an average of 148 mm/year by 2016. When accounting for anthropogenic factors such as drinking water leakage and on-site sanitation, recharge further increased to 195 mm/year. These supplementary recharge sources, along with reduced evapotranspiration due to land-use changes, contributed to the increase, despite higher surface runoff. These findings underscore the significance of land use and leakage management in urban areas, as well as the spatial variability in groundwater recharge rates across different urban zones, emphasizing the importance of local factors. This study advances the understanding of the intricate relationship between urbanization and groundwater dynamics, and provides insights for future water resource management in rapidly growing urban regions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrogeology JournalSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207