Citizens’ viewpoints on stormwater Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floods are among the most dangerous and destructive hazards in the world. Stormwater Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) are a set of strategies that can assist in reducing urban floods and their damages by capturing surface runoff and promoting infiltration. Engagement of citizens in the selection of stormwater BMPs may facilitate the decision-making processes and increase the chance of adopting and maintaining them. Due to existence of catastrophic floods in Brazil, implementing BMPs is essential in the urban areas. The objective of this study is to understand the viewpoints of citizens about a set of stormwater BMPs in Brazil. Moreover, we aim to comprehend whether diverging viewpoints about the BMPs can be associated with existence of different layers in the society. For this purpose, online surveys were used to access wide and diverse groups of citizens from different ages, levels of education and income, as well as geographical location. The questions and descriptions of BMPs were prepared in an accessible language, and then disseminated through various platforms. The responses of more than 1000 participants were analyzed using descriptive and statistical methods. Our results show that the participants found the retention and detention basins, as well as permeable pavement as the most efficient BMPs. Moreover, considering the small-scale practices, although lot related BMPs are considered less efficient, citizens are willing to use green roof, bioretention, and rain barrels in their properties. In addition, most of the respondents support public investments on stormwater BMPs. Our analyses show that participants' age and level of education statistically influenced their choice of BMPs and willingness to pay for their maintenance and construction. These results can help Brazilian policy makers to prepare flood management plans by including stormwater BMPs that would be more accepted by the population. In addition, proposing practices that are aligned with citizens' perceptions creates a sense of responsibility, and is in accordance with the Brazilian New Framework of Sanitation that includes public participation in policy making.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".