Applying a science-forward approach to groundwater regulatory design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Groundwater sustainability is challenged by the difference between legal and scientific understanding of groundwater as well as the lack of focused attention to regulatory design in the literature on groundwater institutions, governance and management. The purpose of this paper is to use groundwater science to direct the necessary elements of regulatory design for the unique characteristics of groundwater. Using plain and interdisciplinary language that could be applied in any jurisdiction or region, the article describes seven groundwater characteristics as processes, functions, qualities, physical sustainability, scale, information and data, and physical state. Using the characteristics of groundwater embeds the scientific understanding of groundwater into regulatory design and enables the expression of new values, such as Indigenous rights to water. Applying these characteristics to a case study of new groundwater regulation in a sub-national jurisdiction in the global north - British Columbia, Canada - highlights the failure of regulatory design even in a well-resourced jurisdiction where environmental regulation is the norm. Groundwater in British Columbia is extremely heterogeneous in quality and function with low observation density and undefined sustainability goals where regulations are applied on uniformly. Looking forward, three recommendations can be drawn using the characteristics of groundwater to improve regulatory design in British Columbia: defining sustainability goals and ecological thresholds; regionalizing and prioritizing; and long-term planning. This science-forward and interdisciplinary approach has implications for legally pluralistic states with customary water entitlements. It also provides practitioners with an interdisciplinary language that can be useful for assessing current and future regulatory design.
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 | 0.039 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".