Sustainability Index of Tidal River Management: A Framework for Measuring Water Sustainability in Coastal Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Tidal River Management (TRM) approach plays a significant role in enhancing diversified services of the ecosystem in the ecosystem of rivers affected by tides and their floodplains and reducing coastal hazards in southwest Bangladesh. The main aim of this investigation was to complete the development of the Sustainability Index for Tidal River Management (SITRM) and to assess the sustainability of TRM in coastal regions. In the first stage, the key components along with indicators of the Sustainability Index of TRM were identified to address problems of the coast. In the second stage of this study, a five-point Likert scale was applied to gather responses from key informants. In addition, it includes direct field observations and consultation meetings to collect information concerning the SITRM indicators. The results showed that the framework of SITRM included several important indicators to solve coastal problems, including drainage congestion, waterlogging, rising sea levels, new land formation, compensation, alternative livelihoods, and terrestrial biodiversity as indicators. It also established standard tidal flow thresholds for the Hari–Teka River at 600 m3/s (maximum) and 250 m3/s (minimum) for high tide and 550 m3/s (maximum) and 200 m3/s (minimum) for low tide. Moreover, the results showed that the Canadian Water Sustainability Index (CWSI), West Java Water Sustainability Index (WJWSI), and Water Poverty Index (WPI) are suitable for overcoming coastal problems and climate change issues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".