Stormwater management: municipal policies in Ontario for managing rain where it falls through green infrastructure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores the state of practice for managing rain where it falls in southern Ontario through green infrastructure policies. A literature review and first hand experience from municipalities provided the understanding of the issues to wide‐spread adoption. Stormwater runoff is a significant issue within urban settings, contributing to localized riverine and/or basement flooding that impacts municipal infrastructure, residences, and environmental quality of waterways. Traditional grey infrastructure, an engineered approach of collection and treatment facilities, addresses concerns with combined sewer overflow (CSO), but is not an effective system for Stormwater Management (SWM), evident by the increase in flooding and pollution from intensified rain events, with climate change. Supported by evidence in published literature over the last decade, Low Impact Development (LID) principles have demonstrated effective results for cold climates, provided life costs‐analysis, and a planning framework to determine suitable placement for installations. Co-benefits of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) are especially valued such as building great communities to live in with "high functioning" urban green spaces. This evidence suggests that managing stormwater runoff locally is a more cost effective and sustainable than end‐of‐pipe solutions. The study revealed best practices and lessons learned from municipalities implementing GSI for the Right‐of‐Way (ROW) though “Green Streets” and on private lands through LID to manage rain where it falls. In Ontario, GSI is at an early adoption stage. The findings support a planning rationale for a coordinated approach to implement, finance, and operate GSI programs for both private lands and in the public ROW for SWM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".