A Multi-Dimensional Contribution-Based Framework for Evaluating Urban Stormwater Management Efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urbanization and climate change amplify urban flooding risks, demanding efficient, data-minimal tools to strengthen flood resilience. This study presents a pioneering multi-dimensional framework that quantifies the contributions of source reduction, stormwater pipes, and drainage/flood control systems, circumventing the need for intricate hydrological models. Leveraging rainfall depth (mm), runoff volume (m3), and peak flow rate (m3/h) provides a comprehensive evaluation of stormwater management efficacy. Applied to a hypothetical city, City A, under 30- and 50-year rainfall scenarios, the framework reveals efficiencies of 91.0% for rainfall depth and runoff volume, and 90.8% for peak flow in the 30-year case (9% shortfall), declining to 75.7% peak flow efficiency with a 24.3% deficit in the 50-year scenario, underscoring constraints in extreme-event response. Contributions analysis shows stormwater pipes (42.8–47.6%, mean: 46.0%) and drainage/flood control (40.8–43.2%, mean: 41.6%) predominate, while source reduction adds 11.6–14.0% (mean: 12.4%). A primary contribution lies in reducing data demands by approximately 70% compared to traditional approaches, rendering this framework a practical, scalable solution for flood management and sponge city design in data-limited settings. These findings elucidate system vulnerabilities and offer actionable strategies, advancing urban flood resilience both theoretically and practically.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".