How Can Municipalities in British Columbia and Quebec Contribute to Flood Risk Reduction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flood-related losses are on the rise in Canada and private insurance remains costly or unavailable in high-risk areas. Despite the introduction of overland flood insurance in 2015, following the federal government’s invitation to the insurance industry to participate in flood risk-sharing, federal and provincial disaster financial assistance programs still cover a large portion of these costs. As the risks increase, governments are questioning the sustainability of using taxpayers’ money to finance such losses, leaving municipalities with significant residual risk. The growing number of people and assets occupying flood-prone areas, including public infrastructure, has contributed to the sharp increase in flood damage costs. Based on a literature review and discussions with experts, this paper describes the municipal role in flood-risk management, and shows how provincial and federal financial assistance to municipalities for flood damage in British Columbia and Québec may be counterproductive in fostering flood-risk management at the municipal level. We conclude that municipalities can play a more proactive role in incorporating risk reduction as the key objective of disaster financial assistance and propose three specific policy instruments to help reduce the growing number of people living in flood zones: flood mapping, land-use planning, and the relocation of high-risk properties.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".