Municipal Asset Management Planning in Ontario: An Analysis of Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Asset Management Planning in Selected Ontario Municipalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2017, the Province of Ontario filed the Ontario Regulation 588/17: Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure (O.Reg.588/17) to promote the standardization and implementation of asset management planning practices in municipal infrastructure management. The regulation required all municipalities in Ontario to have developed an asset management plan for all infrastructure systems by 2021 (extended to 2022 due to the COVID pandemic). This study identifies the best practices associated with infrastructure asset management planning from the literature, and the requirements in O.Reg.588/17, and uses these criteria to analyze and compare these practices and strategies with the asset management planning practices implemented in selected Ontario municipalities (Guelph, Richmond Hill and Waterloo), specifically related to water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure sections in these plans. Semi-structured interviews of municipal asset managers were also conducted in order to further understand the implementation of asset management in Ontario’s municipalities and their water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure management. The key findings of this study suggest that the selected municipalities have successfully implemented the asset management requirements of O.Reg.588/17 but were missing some elements that the literature outlines as being best practices, particularly related to environment and climate change aspects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".