Integrating Nature-based Solutions for urban water security in global south
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nature-based solutions (NbS) leverage the power of ecosystems and biodiversity to address societal challenges. NbS for addressing water security challenges in cities are widely recognized for accelerating sustainability and delivering multiple co-benefits. However, peer-reviewed studies and implementation guidance have primarily focused on the Global North, necessitating adaptation for the Global South. While NbS could provide environmental and socio-economic benefits, the specific adaptations required for planning, designing, and implementing in the context of the Global South remain unclear. During the 6th Symposium on Urbanization and Stream Ecology (SUSE 6) held in Brisbane, Australia, in May 2023, a group of interdisciplinary experts discussed these challenges. This was followed by in-depth discussions with additional experts spanning various sectors across the Global South and a comprehensive literature review. This paper presents the outcomes of these efforts specifically focused on three objectives: understanding the NbS planning context in the Global South, identifying unique challenges for implementing NbS in these regions, and identifying “bright spots” as learning opportunities for implementation. We outline the contextual differences between the Global North and Global South in the context of water security and NbS, and then the challenges and opportunities to mainstream urban water NbS in the Global South are discussed across four thematic categories: environmental; socio-economic and perceptional; capacity, knowledge and expertise; and management and governance. We highlight select bright spots to foster a broader understanding of ongoing efforts in the Global South. Ultimately, we seek to highlight opportunities for more efficient and socially-just pathways for adoption of NbS to address urban water security in the Global South. We also recommend practical steps such as capacity building in NbS design and implementation, development of best practices and support tools, monitoring of outcomes, consideration of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM) as NbS and building partnerships for all of these with stakeholders.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".