Anticipatory Action in River Flooding Risk Management in Nigeria: An Assessment of Community‐Level Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Across the world, communities face annual and increasingly extreme flood events, yet there is a widespread lack of proactive preparedness. This failure to anticipate and mitigate flood risks deepens the damages experienced, stalling development, undermining environmental sustainability, and driving many communities deeper into poverty. Anticipatory action has emerged as a proactive strategy in river flood risk management, aiming to reduce vulnerabilities and enhance community resilience before disasters strike. This study assesses the implementation of anticipatory action strategies in Nigeria by building on qualitative data to assess community vulnerabilities and capacities. Findings indicate that over 70% of the total number of respondents in the selected nine communities in Nigeria lacked access to timely early warnings, and more than half viewed floods as unavoidable, reducing their engagement in long‐term resilience planning. Communities demonstrated a stronger preference for short‐term relief over proactive preparedness for disasters. Findings reveal a convergence of structural and behavioral vulnerabilities within the population. This highlights the study's contribution by connecting behavioral insights with anticipatory frameworks in high‐risk communities. The study shows that there is a clear need for community‐driven approaches that combine anticipatory action with economic support, sustained engagement, and other adaptive measures. By closing both behavioral and structural gaps, more effective anticipatory action policies can be institutionalized.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".