The influence of ecosystem service values on green infrastructure and urban development: insights from 5 Canadian municipalities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To restore critical ecosystem services (ES) often lost during urbanization, municipalities have begun to implement green infrastructure (GI). Much research has addressed the incorporation of ES science into policy. However, there is a paucity of research focused on how ES values, defined as the largely non-monetary preferences of certain ES over others, of private and public stakeholders influence the uptake, design, and mainstreaming of GI through urban development processes. This study uses key informant interviews (n = 28) and document analysis of municipal plans from five Canadian municipalities to understand the role ES values play in shaping urban land development, specifically as it relates to implementation of GI. This study finds that ES values found in planning policy are largely implicit; stakeholder- and context-specific; and, influence how different GI are implemented in decision-making. The two main drivers behind ES values are local ES demand and stakeholder profile. These then influence the type and design of GI. Grounded in urban planning and land use, this paper contributes to literature at the intersection of ES values and urban GI provision; and, aim’s to support policymakers and practitioners working in this space.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it