Implementation of Low Impact Development in Orange County, California: Challenges and Solutions in Implementation and Assessment of Progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses Orange County's transition from a conventional urban development approach that resulted in significant damages to natural stream morphology, habitat, and water quality to a more balanced approach that attempts to balance predevelopment and post-development hydrology to protect these resources. It then summarizes the framework and innovative approaches being undertaken to implement and assess the Low Impact Development (LID) in Orange County. Participating in the regional study to understand the effectiveness of LID, Orange County has developed guidance documents and created a systematic framework to assess the LID performance. These are aimed to standardize the LID approaches and develop alternative compliance program through water quality credit trading in the LID-restricted areas. Through two case studies, Glassell Campus Stormwater LID Retrofit Project and Legacy Campus Water Quality Credit Trading Program, we find out key factors to the success of LID implementation include: the site survey, modeling, and monitoring prior to the project design; the post-project standard monitoring and data sharing; and the flexible water quality credit trading system. China can potentially learn from Orange County's experiences for its implementation and assessment of LID.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".