International experiences in stormwater fee
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stormwater management (SWM) includes a wide range of services aimed at environmental protection, enhancement of water resources and flood control. Local governments are responsible for managing all these aspects within their jurisdiction, but they often present limitations in generating revenues. Thus, many municipalities have been seeking a dedicated funding source for these programs and practices. This publication provides a brief overview of current legal issues associated with stormwater funding focusing on the most used method: fees. It is a successful mechanism to fund legal obligations of municipalities; however, it must have a significant value to motivate the reduction of runoff. Through literature, we found stormwater fees in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, France, Germany, Poland, South Africa and the United States (USA). France had the highest average monthly fee, but this financing experience was suspended in 2014. Brazil has the lowest fee by m², comparable to the US fee. While in Brazil overall SWM represents low priority investments, the USA represents one of the most evolved countries in stormwater funding practices. It was noticed by reviewing the international experience that charging stormwater fees is a successful mechanism to fund the legal obligations and environmental protection.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 it