assessing mcgill’s ecosystem services sophia klumpp andrea lattik ida mak elizabeth moseman mark...
TRANSCRIPT
Assessing McGill’s Ecosystem Services
Sophia Klumpp
Andrea Lattik
Ida Mak
Elizabeth Moseman
Mark Smith
Anaïs de ValicourtProf. Garry Peterson
Client: SCE – McGill Sub-Committee on Environment
Outline of Presentation
• Research Statement
• Air Filtration
• Noise Reduction
• Recreational Opportunities
• Recommendations
Ecosystem Services• Definitions:
– “The benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions.”
Costanza 1997
– “Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems.”
Millennium Assessment 2003
Ecosystem Services
Pollination
Prevention of soil erosion
RecreationAgriculture
ecosystems
Ecosystem services
humans• Air filtration
• Noise reduction
• Recreational opportunities
Context of Research
Research Statement
Assess select ecosystem services as they currently exist and evaluate their enhancement in terms of tradeoffs.
Selection of Services
Time constraints & feasibility of quantification
• Extensively researched with developed methodology
• Feasible to assess without prior knowledge
Context of Research
Characteristics of the McGill Campus Ecosystem:
- Urban environment
- Human dominated
ecosystem
- Artificially maintained
with constant inputs
Outline of Presentation
• Research Statement
• Air Filtration
• Noise Reduction
• Recreational Opportunities
• Recommendations
McGill Campus Stats
Study area:
9 hectares
22.15 acres
Percent tree cover:
19%
Air Filtration on McGill Campus
• CARBON STORAGE:
CITYgreen = 68 tons of carbon/haUK Model = 20 tons of carbon/ha
• CARBON SEQUESTRATION:
CITYgreen = 0.7 tons of carbon/ha/yearUK Model = 0.16 tons of carbon/ha/year
Result Comparisons
LOCATION % TREE
COVER
CARBON
STORAGE
(tons/ ha)
CARBON
SEQUESTRATION
(tons/ ha/ yr)
Connecticut 21.80 20.2 0.7
South Dakota 19.20 17.8 0.6
McGill 19 20 0.7
Outline of Presentation
• Research Statement
• Air Filtration
• Noise Reduction
• Recreational Opportunities
• Recommendations
Noise Reduction• Literature Review
– Physical noise reduction by vegetation– Psychological noise perception
• Methodology– Sampling at McGill Campus
MethodologyBA
SITE 4
SITE 3
SITE 2
SITE 1
Results: Sound Level vs Site #
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
1 2 3 4
Site #
So
un
d L
eve
l (d
B)
Subsite B (trees)
Subsite A (no trees)
Linear (Subsite A (notrees))
Linear (Subsite B (trees))
Results & Conclusions:
• Trees do not physically reduce noise for McGill.
• Perceived effects of increased tree cover are significant.
• Number of trees along Sherbrooke should be increased.
Outline of Presentation
• Research Statement
• Air Filtration
• Noise Reduction
• Recreational Opportunities
• Recommendations
Assessing Recreational Opportunities
Survey Goals:
• Determine perception of noise & air quality on campus
• Determine recreational use of campus
• Determine receptiveness to land cover changes
McGill Campus Survey
Map
Survey Results:Perception of Noise and Air Quality on
McGill Campus
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
morequiet/
cleaner
neutral morenoisy/
polluted
noise
air
Survey results:Frequency of Green Space Use
05
101520253035404550
never everyday
# re
spon
den
ts
use when warm use when cold
Survey ResultsAreas with high response
relative to change
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
mostundesirable
neutral mostdesirable
bushes flowers trees
Survey Results
Areas of high useAreas with high response
relative to change
Outline of Presentation
• Research Statement
• Air Filtration
• Noise Reduction
• Recreational Opportunities
• Recommendations
The Concept of Tradeoffs
To enhance air filtration and noise reduction without infringing on major
recreational uses of campus
Turf Conversion
Benefits:
• Decreased maintenance costs– Reduced labour & monetary inputs
• Lessen ecological impacts – Fewer inputs needed (fertilizers / pesticides)
• Shift to more naturally functioning systems
Replacement of grass with alternative land cover
Turf ConversionBenefits:
• Potential to enhance ecosystem services
– Noise reduction • Decrease in perceived noise through
additional plantings
– Air filtration • Increased plant biomass for carbon storage
Turf Conversion Recommendations
Introduce plantings that:
• Are implemented in proper areas– Should not encroach recreational use of areas
• Do not restrict view– Preferred landscape– Security issues
• Do not appear “weedy” or poorly maintained – Defined border between plantings and lawn
Air Filtration & Noise Reduction Recommendations:
• Maintain and enhance existing tree cover
• Locate future plantings in strategic areas
• Plant tree species based on selective factors– Larger and longer-lived species– Greater pollutant uptake capacity per tree
Sophia KlumppSophia Klumpp
Andrea LattikAndrea Lattik
Ida MakIda Mak
Elizabeth MosemanElizabeth Moseman
Mark SmithMark Smith
AnaAnaïs de Valicourtïs de Valicourt
Prof. Garry PetersonProf. Garry Peterson
Assessing McGill’s Ecosystem Assessing McGill’s Ecosystem ServicesServices
Client: SCE – McGill Sub-Committee on Environment
Additional slides
CITYgreen Model
Carbon Storage Capacity:
= Study Area (acres) * % Tree Cover * Carbon Storage Multiplier
McGill Campus = 68 tons of carbon
Carbon Sequestration:
= Study Area (acres) * % Tree Cover * Carbon Sequestration Multiplier
McGill Campus = 0.7 tons of carbon/yr
CITYgreen Multipliers
TYPEDiameter
distributionStorage
MultiplierSequestration
Multiplier
TYPE 1 < 10 inches 0.3226 0.00727
TYPE 210-20 inches
0.4423 0.00077
TYPE 3 > 20 inches 0.5393 0.00153
AVERAGE 0.4303 0.00335
McGill’s Data
Diameter Class
Number of Trees
Frequency
(%)
1 (<10 in) 128 48.85
2 (10-20 in) 98 37.40
3 (> 20 in) 36 13.74
Total 262 100%
UK Model
Carbon Storage Capacity:
= Carbon Storage Multiplier * % Tree Cover
McGill Campus = 20 tons of carbon/ha
Carbon Sequestration:
= Carbon Sequestration Multiplier * % Tree Cover
McGill Campus = 0.16 tons of carbon/ha/yr
UK Multipliers
• Carbon Storage Multiplier: 1.063
• Carbon Sequestration Multiplier: 0.0018
Survey:Distribution of Student Respondents by Faculty
36%
3%
2%
6%10%2%
0%
41%arts
agr/env
education
engineering
management
music
religious studies
science
Total Campus Use by Area
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Areas of Campus
Nu
mb
er o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Study Smoke Walk Dog
Rest and Relax Eat Chat, Meet w ith Friends
Attend Event or Party Play a Sport
Preference for
Change
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
Most Undesirable Most Desirable
bushes
trees
flowers
Selecting Species
• Certain species live longer & grow bigger
• Certain species store & sequester more pollutants– Red Oak stores more than Maple & White Oak– Black Birch storage decreases after 50 years– Yellow Birch storage increases after 50 years