CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesUrban Arborization and Environmental Studies

Developing a framework for stormwater management: leveraging ancillary benefits from urban greenspace

Open access
Hoover, Fushcia-Ann, Hopton, Matthew E.·2019·Urban Ecosystems
DOI 10.1007/s11252-019-00890-6PMC PMC6913040
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Managing stormwater and wastewater has been a priority for cities for millennia, but has become increasingly complicated as urban areas grow and develop. Since the mid-1800s, cites often relied on an integrated system of underground pipes, pumps, and other built infrastructure (termed gray infrastructure) to convey stormwater away from developed areas. Unfortunately, this gray infrastructure is aging and often exceeds its designed capacity. In an effort to alleviate issues related to excess stormwater, many urban areas across the United States are interested in using green infrastructure as a stopgap or supplement to inadequate gray infrastructure. Green infrastructure and other greenspace promote interception and/or infiltration of stormwater by using the natural hydrologic properties of soil and vegetation. Furthermore, there are numerous ancillary benefits, in addition to stormwater benefits, that make the use of greenspace desirable. Collectively, these ecosystem services can benefit multiple aspects of a community by providing benefits in a targeted manner. In this paper, we present a framework for balancing stormwater management against ancillary benefits of urban greenspace. The framework is structured around the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ecosystem service categories: provisioning, cultural, regulatory, and supporting services. The purpose is to help communities better manage their systems by 1) allowing stakeholders to prioritize and address their needs and concerns within a community, and 2) maximize the ecosystem service benefits received from urban greenspace.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11252-019-00890-6

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Stormwater infrastructure across the US is rapidly aging past its intended lifespan.

    “Stormwater infrastructure across the US is rapidly aging past its intended lifespan (Keeley et al. 2013;Hoover and Hopton 2019;Vineyard et al. 2015;Meng and Hsu 2019).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Hoover and Hopton 2019

    The Introduction says aging infrastructure complicates stormwater management and that communities across the U.S. face outdated wastewater infrastructure. The paper also says gray infrastructure often exceeds its designed capacity, but it does not establish that it is aging rapidly or has passed its intended lifespan; designed capacity is not lifespan. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Achieving the benefit of local communities seeing stormwater systems as providing tangible local benefits requires managers to include communities in decision-making processes.

    “Achieving this benefit requires managers to include communities in decision-making processes and can help create resilient and effective programs with local social and ecological co-benefits (BenDor et al. 2018;Hoover and Hopton 2019;Miller and Montalto 2019).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Hoover and Hopton 2019

  • Including communities in decision-making processes can help create resilient and effective stormwater programs with local social and ecological co-benefits.

    “Achieving this benefit requires managers to include communities in decision-making processes and can help create resilient and effective programs with local social and ecological co-benefits (BenDor et al. 2018;Hoover and Hopton 2019;Miller and Montalto 2019).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Hoover and Hopton 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. Ahmed W, Zhang Q, Lobos A, Senkbeil J, Sadowsky MJ, Harwood VJ, Saeidi N, Marinoni O, and Ishii S. 2018. Precipitation influences pathogenic bacteria and antibiotic resistance gene abundance in storm drain outfalls in coastal sub-tropical waters. Environment International 116:308–318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Angelakis AN, Koutsoyiannis D, and Tchobanoglous G. 2005. Urban wastewater and stormwater technologies in ancient Greece. Water Research 39:210–220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Banzhaf E, Reyes-Paecke SM, and de la Barrera F. 2018. What Really Matters in Green Infrastructure for the Urban Quality of Life? Santiago de Chile as a Showcase City. Urban Transformations 10:281–300. [Google Scholar]
  4. Berland A, and Hopton ME. 2014. Comparing street tree assemblages and associated stormwater benefits among communities in metropolitan Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13:734–741. [Google Scholar]
  5. Berland A, and Hopton ME. 2016. Asian longhorned beetle complicates the relationship between taxonomic diversity and pest vulnerability in street tree assemblages. Arboricultural Journal 38:28–40. [Google Scholar]
  6. Berland A, Shiflett SA, Shuster WD, Garmestani AS, Goddard HC, Herrmann DL, and Hopton ME. 2017. The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape and Urban Planning 162:167–177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bieling C, Plieninger T, Pirker H, and Vogl CR. 2014. Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics 105:19–30. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bijker RA, and Sijtsma FJ. 2017. A portfolio of natural places: Using a participatory GIS tool to compare the appreciation and use of green spaces inside and outside urban areas by urban residents. Landscape and Urban Planning 158:155–165. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bixby H, Hodgson S, Fortunato L, Hansell A, and Fecht D. 2015. Associations between green space and health in English cities: an ecological, cross-sectional study. PloS One 10:e0119495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bryant GL, Kobryn HT, Hardy GES, and Fleming PA. 2017. Habitat islands in a sea of urbanisation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 28:131–137. [Google Scholar]
  11. Burian S, Nix S, Durrans R, Pitt R, Fan C-Y, and Field R. 1999. The Historical Development of Wet-Weather Flow Management. Cincinnati, Oh. [Google Scholar]
  12. Campisano A, Butler D, Ward S, Burns MJ, Friedler E, DeBusk K, Fisher-Jeffes LN, Ghisi E, Rahman A, Furumai H, and Han M. 2017. Urban rainwater harvesting systems: Research, implementation and future perspectives. Water Research 115:195–209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Camps-Calvet M, Langemeyer J, Calvet-Mir L, and Gómez-Baggethun E. 2016. Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: Insights for policy and planning. Environmental Science & Policy 62:14–23. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cole HVS, Garcia Lamarca M, Connolly JJT, and Anguelovski I. 2017. Are green cities healthy and equitable? Unpacking the relationship between health, green space and gentrification. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 71:1118–1121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Conway TM 2016. Tending their urban forest: Residents’ motivations for tree planting and removal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 17:23–32. [Google Scholar]
  16. Coutts C, and Hahn M. 2015. Green Infrastructure, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12:9768. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Czembrowski P, and Kronenberg J. 2016. Hedonic pricing and different urban green space types and sizes: Insights into the discussion on valuing ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 146:11–19. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dagenais D, Thomas I, and Paquette S. 2016. Siting green stormwater infrastructure in a neighbourhood to maximise secondary benefits: lessons learned from a pilot project. Landscape Research 42:195–210. [Google Scholar]
  19. De Feo G, Antoniou G, Fardin H, El-Gohary F, Zheng X, Reklaityte I, Butler D, Yannopoulos S, and Angelakis A. 2014. The Historical Development of Sewers Worldwide. Sustainability 6:3936–3974. [Google Scholar]
  20. de la Barrera F, Reyes-Paecke S, Harris J, Bascuñán D, and Farías JM. 2016. People’s perception influences on the use of green spaces in socio-economically differentiated neighborhoods. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 20:254–264. [Google Scholar] deGroot RS, Wilson MA, and Boumans RMJ. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dennis M, and James P. 2016. User participation in urban green commons: Exploring the links between access, voluntarism, biodiversity and well being. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 15:22–31. [Google Scholar]
  22. Egerer M, Ossola A, and Lin BB. 2018. Creating Socioecological Novelty in Urban Agroecosystems from the Ground Up. Bioscience 68:25–34. [Google Scholar]
  23. Egorov AI, Griffin SM, Converse RR, Styles JN, Sams EA, Wilson A, Jackson LE, and Wade TJ. 2017. Vegetated land cover near residence is associated with reduced allostatic load and improved biomarkers of neuroendocrine, metabolic and immune functions. Environmental Research 158:508–521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ekkel ED, and de Vries S. 2017. Nearby green space and human health: Evaluating accessibility metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning 157:214–220. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ellis JB 2013. Sustainable surface water management and green infrastructure in UK urban catchment planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56:24–41. [Google Scholar]
  26. Feng X, and Astell-Burt T. 2017. The Relationship between Neighbourhood Green Space and Child Mental Wellbeing Depends upon Whom You Ask: Multilevel Evidence from 3083 Children Aged 12–13 Years. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Fletcher TD, Shuster W, Hunt WF, Ashley R, Butler D, Arthur S, Trowsdale S, Barraud S, Semadeni-Davies A, Bertrand-Krajewski J-L, Mikkelsen PS, Rivard G, Uhl M, Dagenais D, and Viklander M. 2015. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – the evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water Journal 12:525–542. [Google Scholar]
  28. Francis LFM, and Jensen MB. 2017. Benefits of green roofs: A systematic review of the evidence for three ecosystem services. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 28:167–176. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, and Pauleit S. 2007. Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure. Built Environment 33:115–133. [Google Scholar]
  30. Gonzalez-Sosa E, Braud I, Becerril Piña R, Mastachi Loza CA, Ramos Salinas NM, and Chavez CV. 2017. A methodology to quantify ecohydrological services of street trees. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 17:190–206. [Google Scholar]
  31. Green OO, Garmestani AS, Albro S, Ban NC, Berland A, Burkman CE, Gardiner MM, Gunderson L, Hopton ME, Schoon ML, and Shuster WD. 2015. Adaptive governance to promote ecosystem services in urban green spaces. Urban Ecosystems 19:77–93. [Google Scholar]
  32. Green OO, Shuster WD, Rhea LK, Garmestani AS, and Thurston HW. 2012. Identification and Induction of Human, Social, and Cultural Capitals through an Experimental Approach to Stormwater Management. Sustainability 4:1669–1682. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hand KL, Freeman C, Seddon PJ, Stein A, and van Heezik Y. 2016. A novel method for fine-scale biodiversity assessment and prediction across diverse urban landscapes reveals social deprivation-related inequalities in private, not public spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning 151:33–44. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hansen R, and Pauleit S. 2014. From Multifunctionality to Multiple Ecosystem Services? A Conceptual Framework for Multifunctionality in Green Infrastructure Planning for Urban Areas. Ambio 43:516–529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hopton ME, Simon M, Borst M, Garmestani AS, Jarnagin T, Jacobs S, Lye D, O’Connor TP, and Shuster WD. 2015. Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Control: Gauging Its Effectiveness with Community Partners, Summary of EPA GI Reports. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoyle H, Hitchmough J, and Jorgensen A. 2017. All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landscape and Urban Planning 164:109–123. [Google Scholar]
  37. Knapp S, Haase D, Klotz S, and Schwarz N. 2018. Do Urban Biodiversity and Urban Ecosystem Services Go Hand in Hand, or Do We Just Hope It Is That Easy? Pages 301–312 Urban Transformations. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kondo MC, Low SC, Henning J, and Branas CC. 2015. The Impact of Green Stormwater Infrastructure Installation on Surrounding Health and Safety. American Journal of Public Health 105:e114–e121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kuo FE, and Sullivan WC. 2008. Environment and Crime in the Inner City. Environment and Behavior 33:343–367. [Google Scholar]
  40. Langemeyer J, Camps-Calvet M, Calvet-Mir L, Barthel S, and Gómez-Baggethun E. 2018. Stewardship of urban ecosystem services: understanding the value(s) of urban gardens in Barcelona. Landscape and Urban Planning 170:79–89. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lapham SC, Cohen DA, Han B, Williamson S, Evenson KR, McKenzie TL, Hillier A, and Ward P. 2016. How important is perception of safety to park use? A four-city survey. Urban Studies 53:2624–2636. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lindley S, Pauleit S, Yeshitela K, Cilliers S, and Shackleton C. 2018. Rethinking urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services from the perspective of sub-Saharan African cities. Landscape and Urban Planning. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lim TC, and Welty C. 2017. Effects of spatial configuration of imperviousness and green infrastructure networks on hydrologic response in a residential sewershed. Water Resources Research 53:8084–8104. [Google Scholar]
  44. Locatelli L, Mark O, Mikkelsen PS, Arnbjerg-Nielsen K, Bergen Jensen M, and Binning PJ. 2014. Modelling of green roof hydrological performance for urban drainage applications. Journal of Hydrology 519:3237–3248. [Google Scholar]
  45. Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, de Vries S, and Spreeuwenberg P. 2006. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 60:587–592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Maidment. 1993. HANDBOOK OF HYDROLOGY. McGRAW-HILL, INC, New York, NY. [Google Scholar]
  47. Makropoulos CK, and Butler D. 2010. Distributed Water Infrastructure for Sustainable Communities. Water Resources Management 24:2795–2816. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mazzotta M, Besedin E, and Speers A. 2014. A Meta-Analysis of Hedonic Studies to Assess the Property Value Effects of Low Impact Development. Resources 3:31. [Google Scholar]
  49. McDonnell MJ, and Hahs AK. 2013. The future of urban biodiversity research: Moving beyond the ‘low-hanging fruit’. Urban Ecosystems 16:397–409. [Google Scholar]
  50. McPherson G, Simpson JR, Peper PJ, Maco SE, and Xiao QF. 2005. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. Journal of Forestry 103:411–416. [Google Scholar]
  51. Melliger RL, Rusterholz H-P, and Baur B. 2017. Ecosystem functioning in cities: Combined effects of urbanisation and forest size on early-stage leaf litter decomposition of European beech ( Fagus sylvatica L.). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 28:88–96. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mexia T, Vieira J, Principe A, Anjos A, Silva P, Lopes N, Freitas C, Santos-Reis M, Correia O, Branquinho C, and Pinho P. 2018. Ecosystem services: Urban parks under a magnifying glass. Environmental Research 160:469–478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Mikenas KK 2017. The Potential of Green Roofs to Provide Habitat for Native Plant Conservation. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY. [Google Scholar]
  54. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Global Assessment Reports. [Google Scholar]
  55. National Research Council. 2009. Urban stormwater management in the United States. National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  56. Nesbitt L, Meitner MJ, Sheppard SR, and Girling C. 2018. The dimensions of urban green equity: A framework for analysis. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34:240–248. [Google Scholar]
  57. Nikodinoska N, Paletto A, Pastorella F, Granvik M, and Franzese PP. 2018. Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden). Ecological Modelling 368:411–424. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ning Z, Nowak DJ, and Watson G. 2017. Urban Forest Sustainability. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois. [Google Scholar]
  59. Nivala J, Zehnsdorf A, van Afferden M, and Müller RA. 2018. Green Infrastructure for Increased Resource Efficiency in Urban Water Management. Urban Transformations 10:133–143. [Google Scholar]
  60. Nutsford D, Pearson AL, and Kingham S. 2013. An ecological study investigating the association between access to urban green space and mental health. Public Health 127:1005–1011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Palla A, Gnecco I, and La Barbera P. 2017. The impact of domestic rainwater harvesting systems in storm water runoff mitigation at the urban block scale. Journal of Environmental Management 191:297–305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, and Bieling C. 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129. [Google Scholar]
  63. Prudencio L, and Null SE. 2018. Stormwater management and ecosystem services: a review. Environmental Research Letters 13:1–13. [Google Scholar]
  64. Pulighe G, Fava F, and Lupia F. 2016. Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning. Ecosystem Services 22:1–10. [Google Scholar]
  65. Reid CE, Clougherty JE, Shmool JLC, and Kubzansky LD. 2017. Is All Urban Green Space the Same? A Comparison of the Health Benefits of Trees and Grass in New York City. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Ren Y, Ge Y, Ma D, Song X, Shi Y, Pan K, Qu Z, Guo P, Han W, and Chang J. 2017. Enhancing plant diversity and mitigating BVOC emissions of urban green spaces through the introduction of ornamental tree species. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 27:305–313. [Google Scholar]
  67. Shih W-Y 2017. Bird diversity of greenspaces in the densely developed city centre of Taipei. Urban Ecosystems. [Google Scholar]
  68. Shuster W, Darner R, Schifman L, and Herrmann D. 2017. Factors Contributing to the Hydrologic Effectiveness of a Rain Garden Network (Cincinnati OH USA). Infrastructures 2:11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Shuster WD, and Garmestani AS. 2014. Adaptive exchange of capitals in urban water resources management: an approach to sustainability? Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 17:1393–1400. [Google Scholar]
  70. Song XP, Tan PY, Edwards P, and Richards D. 2018. The economic benefits and costs of trees in urban forest stewardship: A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29:162–170. [Google Scholar]
  71. Steele JA, Blackwood AD, Griffith JF, Noble RT, and Schiff KC. 2018. Quantification of pathogens and markers of fecal contamination during storm events along popular surfing beaches in San Diego, California. Water Research 136:137–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Taylor L, Hahs AK, and Hochuli DF. 2017. Wellbeing and urban living: nurtured by nature. Urban Ecosystems 21:197–208. [Google Scholar]
  73. Tuan Y-F 1975. Place: an experiential perspective. Geographical review:151–165. [Google Scholar]
  74. Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kaźmierczak A, Niemela J, and James P. 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81:167–178. [Google Scholar]
  75. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds; second edition. [Google Scholar]
  76. USEPA. 2013. Evaluation of Green Alternatives for Combines Sewer Overflow Mitigation: A Proposed Economic Impact Framework and Illustration of its Application. USEPA, University of Cincinnati. [Google Scholar]
  77. Wagner MM, and Gobster PH. 2007. Interpreting landscape change: Measured biophysical change and surrounding social context. Landscape and Urban Planning 81:67–80. [Google Scholar]
  78. Watkins SL, and Gerrish E. 2018. The relationship between urban forests and race: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 209:152–168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Wolch JR, Byrne J, and Newell JP. 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning 125:234–244. [Google Scholar]
  80. Wu J, Rappazzo KM, Simpson RJ Jr., Joodi G, Pursell IW, Mounsey JP, Cascio WE, and Jackson LE. 2018. Exploring links between greenspace and sudden unexpected death: A spatial analysis. Environment International 113:114–121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Yli-Pelkonen V, Scott AA, Viippola V, and Setälä H. 2017a. Trees in urban parks and forests reduce O 3 , but not NO 2 concentrations in Baltimore, MD, USA. Atmospheric Environment 167:73–80. [Google Scholar]
  82. Yli-Pelkonen V, Setälä H, and Viippola V. 2017b. Urban forests near roads do not reduce gaseous air pollutant concentrations but have an impact on particles levels. Landscape and Urban Planning 158:39–47. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoover, F.-A., & Hopton, M. E.
Affiliations
Environmental Protection Agency (US)
Corresponding author
Hopton, Matthew E.
ORCID
Venue
Urban Ecosystems
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-08-07
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
1139-1148
ISSN
  • 1083-8155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1642
DOI
10.1007/s11252-019-00890-6
PMC
PMC6913040
OpenAlex
W2965397811
Cited by
58
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Urban Ecosystems (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Urban Arborization and Environmental Studies
Keywords
stormwater management, urban green space, green infrastructure, ecosystem services, co-benefits, grey infrastructure, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, stakeholder prioritization, urban hydrology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review