DOI: 10.5061/dryad.612jm64fs
title: Data from: Not always an amenity: Green stormwater infrastructure provides highly variable ecosystem services in both regulatory and voluntary contexts

description: Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) is advocated for its potential to
 provide multiple ecosystem services, including stormwater runoff
 mitigation, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic value. However, the provision
 of these ecosystem services depends on both facility design and
 maintenance, which may vary based on whether GSI was installed to fulfill
 regulatory construction permit requirements or implemented voluntarily as
 part of urban greening initiatives. We evaluated 76 GSI facilities
 distributed across Baltimore, MD, USA, comprising 48 voluntary and 28
 regulatory facilities. Each facility was scored on indicators related to
 the provision of stormwater, habitat, and aesthetic ecosystem services, as
 well as the presence of educational signage. Ecosystem service scores were
 highly variable, reflecting a wide range of quality and condition, but we
 found no significant differences between scores for regulatory and
 voluntary GSI. However, voluntary GSI scores tended to be higher in areas
 with greater socioeconomic status, while regulatory facilities showed an
 inverse relationship. Only voluntary facilities included educational
 signage. Our findings indicate that GSI facilities can degrade quickly,
 and that official maintenance requirements for regulatory facilities do
 not guarantee upkeep. Degraded GSI facilities may do more harm than good,
 becoming both unsightly and ineffective at providing intended stormwater
 or habitat benefits.
description: We identified GSI facilities to evaluate from datasets of
 regulatory and voluntary GSI installed in Baltimore through 2019. We
 limited our study to rain gardens, bioswales, and bioretention and
 micro-bioretention facilities, as these facility types are typically
 designed to have multiple co-benefits within discrete boundaries and could
 be compared using the same criteria. We also included similar facilities
 in the voluntary GSI dataset referred to as stormwater planters and curb
 bump-outs. There were 101 of these facilities in the regulatory dataset
 and 185 in the voluntary dataset, some of which were grouped within the
 same project (e.g., one parking lot might have four micro-bioretention
 facilities built at the same time). There were 41 regulatory projects and
 104 voluntary projects that included the designated facility types. We
 also limited our study to facilities that could be viewed from public
 areas, since the aesthetic qualities of these facilities would have
 community influence. We used aerial imagery and Google StreetView to
 identify publicly viewable facilities, yielding a set of 28 regulatory
 projects and 48 voluntary projects with at least one facility that met our
 criteria. We visited each of these projects in early
 autumn of 2019 (8–10 October) to do a visual condition assessment. For
 projects with multiple GSI facilities that fit our criteria, we scored
 only the one most visible from our point of access or chose one randomly
 if they were equivalently visible. We gave each facility scores for
 multiple variables chosen because of their relationship to stormwater,
 habitat, and aesthetic values.
description: # Not always an amenity: Green stormwater infrastructure provides highly
 variable ecosystem services in both regulatory and voluntary contexts
 Dataset DOI: [10.5061/dryad.612jm64fs](10.5061/dryad.612jm64fs) ##
 Description of the data and file structure These data support the paper
 "Not always an amenity: Green stormwater infrastructure provides
 highly variable ecosystem services in both regulatory and voluntary
 contexts" by Joanna P. Solins, Mary L. Cadenasso, Logan E. G.
 Brissette, and Steward T. A. Pickett, published in *Sustainability*. A
 detailed description of methods can be found in that open access
 publication. For questions, please contact
 [jsolins@ucanr.edu](mailto:jsolins@ucanr.edu). ### Files and variables
 #### File: Solins\_et\_al\_GSI\_condition\_field\_data.csv
 **Description:** Field data collected for 76 GSI facilities in Balitmore,
 MD, USA ##### Variables * dataset: Identifies whether the facility was
 part of the regulatory or voluntary dataset * facility_ID: Unique
 identifier for each facility * lat: Latitude in decimal degrees * lon:
 Longitude in decimal degrees * year_completed: Year the facility was known
 to be completed * date_of_assessment: Date the data were collected *
 bed_erosion: Score (1-4) for bed erosion * inlet_erosion: Score (1-4) for
 inlet erosion. No data means that the facility did not have an
 identifiable inlet. * inlet_obstruction: Score (1-4) for inlet
 obstruction. No data means that the facility did not have an identifiable
 inlet. * outflow_obstruction: Score (1-4) for outflow obstruction. No data
 means that the facility did not have an identifiable outlet. * trash:
 Score (1-4) for trash. * damage: Score (1-4) for damage. No data means
 that the facility did not have structural elements. *
 vegetation_maintenance: Score (1-4) for vegetation maintenance. *
 tree_canopy_in: Percent canopy cover from tree(s) &gt;1 m tall planted
 within the facility. Percent is the midpoint of a cover class. *
 tree_canopy_out: Percent canopy cover over the GSI facility from tree(s)
 whose trunks were outside the facility. Percent is the midpoint of a cover
 class. * shrub: Percent shrub cover within the GSI facility. Percent is
 the midpoint of a cover class. * forb: Percent forb cover within the GSI
 facility. Percent is the midpoint of a cover class. * graminoid: Percent
 graminoid cover (including turf grass) within the GSI facility. Percent is
 the midpoint of a cover class. * bare_soil: Percent bare soil within the
 GSI facility. Percent is the midpoint of a cover class. * mulch: Percent
 mulch cover within the GSI facility. Percent is the midpoint of a cover
 class. * rock_percentage: Percent rock cover within the GSI facility.
 Percent is the midpoint of a cover class. * organic_litter: Percent
 organic litter cover (leaves, dead plant material, etc.) within the GSI
 facility. Percent is the midpoint of a cover class. * flowering_plants:
 Percent cover of plants with showy flowers within the GSI facility.
 Percent is the midpoint of a cover class. * pet_waste: Presence of pet
 waste in the facility (Y = present, N = not present) *
 sediment_cake_crust: Presence of sediment caking or crust in the facility
 (Y = present, N = not present) * visible_slope_erosion: Presence of
 visible slope erosion in the facility (Y = present, N = not present, NA =
 no identifiable slope) * rocks_inlet: Identifies whether rocks at the
 inlet are in place (Y = rocks in place, N = rocks out of place, NA = no
 identifiable inlet or no rocks) * rocks_outlet: Identifies whether rocks
 at the outlet are in place (Y = rocks in place, N = rocks out of place, NA
 = no identifiable outlet or no rocks) * art: Presence of art associated
 with the facility (Y = present, N = not present) * education: Presence of
 educational signage at the facility (Y = present, N = not present) *
 responsibility: Indication of an organization responsible for the facility
 (Y = present, N = not present) * area_m2: Estimated total facility area in
 square meters ## Access information Data on the location and type of
 voluntary facilities were derived from the following source: * Solins, J.
 P., A. K. Phillips de Lucas, M. L. Cadenasso, and J. M. Grove. 2021. Green
 stormwater infrastructure projects voluntarily installed in Baltimore City
 through 2019.
 [https://portal.edirepository.org/nis/mapbrowse?packageid=knb-lter-bes.5015.1](https://portal.edirepository.org/nis/mapbrowse?packageid=knb-lter-bes.5015.1). DOI: 10.6073/pasta/8e958d6009ef7229dcbbf953d0bac7fd.