UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Old gas stations - new fuel for environmental awareness Man-Bourdon, Alexandre 2008

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2008_spring_man-bourdon_alexandre.pdf [ 39.64MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0066365.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0066365-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0066365-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0066365-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0066365-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0066365-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0066365-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0066365-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0066365.ris

Full Text

Old Gas Stations - New Fuel for Environmental Awareness by Alexandre Man-Bourdon B.L.A. Mississippi State University, 2006 A THESIS SUBMITTED  IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2008 © Alexandre Man-Bourdon, 2008 Abstract  According to Environment Canada, across the country there are currently over 1400 abandoned gas station sites that are contaminated. Unbeknownst to local residents, many of  these sites are undergoing remediation. Temporary interventions called remedial landscapes can be designed by landscape architects to communicate to the public the remediation activities, which are otherwise hidden from view. Environmental psychologists note that  pro-environmental behaviour stems from increased awareness of  environmental degradation. Furthermore, by presenting first hand information in the form of  a landscape, people can make their own decisions concerning their role in unsustainable practices.  This thesis posits that by experiencing remedial landscapes, people will change their environmental attitudes and or behaviours. Remedial landscapes also offer opportunities for public art and further exploration of  alternative forms of remediation. It includes not only precedent studies of  other remedial landscapes, but a public perception survey concerning a gas station undergoing remediation in Kerrisdale, Vancouver. The survey indicated that the remediation of  contaminated sites is a community concern and that the remediation should be made more visible. Participants also agreed that the use of  a designed landscape would be a viable tool for communicating the status of  the site.  This research informed a set of  design guidelines for the Kerrisdale ‘test site.’ A remedial landscape has been designed using these guidelines and is included as part of the thesis.                                                           ii Table of  Contents                 page no.  Abstract  ……………………………………… ii  Table of  Contents  ……………………………. iii  List of  Tables ……………………………………… iv  List of  Figures ……………………………………… v  List of  Drawings ……………………………………… vi  Acknowledgments    …………………………………… vii 1.0 Introduction  1.1 Defining Remedial Landscapes  ……………… 1  1.2 The Test Site ………………………………… 2  1.3  Goals and Hypothesis   …..………………….. 3  1.4 Public Perception Survey ………………….. 3  1.5  Summary   …………………………………... 4 2.0 The Remedial Landscape in a Larger Context  2.1 Brownfield Abundance   …………………….. 6  2.2 Opportunities Provided by the ………………. 6   Remedial Landscape 3.0 Contemporary Practices of  Remediation  3.1 Current Practices ……………………………. 8  3.2  Natural Alternatives   ………………………... 9  3.3 Reference to Test Site and Current Conditions  11  3.4 Aesthetics of  Remediation ………………….. 16  3.5 Possibility for Public Art   ……………………. 17  3.6 The Remedial Landscape as an Experience  ….. 18                                                           iii                page no. 4.0 The Role of  the Landscape Architect  4.1 Beyond Sustainable Design - Environmental … 20   Advocacy and Public Engagement  4.2 Eco-Revelatory Design   ……………………... 22 5.0 Public Awareness and Affecting Change in Perceptions,  Attitudes and Behaviours  5.1 Environmental Psychology - Affecting Behaviour 26  5.2 Public Survey   ………………………………. 26  5.3 Results of  the Survey   ……………………….. 31 6.0 Remedial Design interventions  6.1 Development of  Design Guidelines   ………… 40  6.2 Test Site Design Intervention   ……………….. 48 7.0 Conclusion   ………………………………………….. 51 8.0 Bibliography   ………………………………………... 53 9.0 Appendices  9.1 Appendix 1 Public Perception Survey  ......   57  9.2 Appendix 2 Additional Written Survey  ....            59     Responses  9.3 Appendix 3 Certificate of  Approval from 69     UBC Ethics Board                                                           iv List of  Tables              page no. Table 1  Initial Results of  Statistical Analysis  ..................            34 Table 2  Correlatory Results of  Statistical Analysis ...........       38                                                           v List of  Figures             page no. Figure 1  Evidence of  the pump and treat system   .......... 2   on the test site Figure 2  Chainlink fence and filter fabric that masks ........  2   the site at 41st and Larch’s current activities Figure 3  View of  the site looking east along 41st ave. .......  9 Figure 4  Medicago sativa  ...................................................     9 Figure 5  Lollium perenne  ...................................................          9 Figure 6  Context map indicating site location and  ...........        11   extents of  Kerrisdale Village Figure 7  View inside the chainlink fence from Larch St.. 11 Figure 8  Test site current conditions indicating locations 12   of  remediation equipment and treatment and   testing wells Figure 9  Removing a leaking underground tank .................          13 Figure 10 Contaminant storage tank ......................................     14 Figure 11 PVC pipes indicating locations of  pumping .......            15   and testing wells on test site Figure 12 The area surrounding the site included in  ..........      32   the survey area Figure 13 Alflafa  ...................................................................            45 Figure 14 Red Clover           .....................................................            45 Figure 15 Perennial Rye  ...........................................................      45                                                           vi List of  Drawings              page no. Drawing 1 Diagram Section Along 41st  .................................       42 Drawing 2 Schematic Pole Location Plan ................................        42 Drawing 3 Diagram Section Along Larch   .............................          43 Drawing 4 Test Site Landscape Plan ........................................   44 Drawing 5 Pole Location Plan ...................................................         45 Drawing 6 Section Elevations  ...................................................          46 Drawing 7 Site Furniture Construction  ...................................         46 Drawing 8 Perspective from 41st   ............................................         47 Drawing 9 Perspective from Larch ............................................   47  vii Acknowledgments  I would first like to thank my parents who provided me constant encouragement to not only pursue my education, but to create my own path within my field and follow it. I would like to thank my father, who although never pushed me into landscape architecture, I’m sure is happy seeing me continue the family business. This thesis for me was an opportunity to further pursue my own ambitions within the field, but to add to body of  work within the profession he has dedicated his life. To my mother, whose expectations I know I don’t have to meet, but take in pride achieving anyways.  Thanks to my advisor Susan Herrington, who’s judgement to this day has never been wrong and whose guidance has led me to accomplish my goals. Thanks to Jill Satin for the help with the statistical data. Lastly I want to thank my committee, Mari Fujita, Daniel Roehr, and Patrick Mooney for their patience and objective criticism.  viii 1.0 Introduction  1.1 Defining Remedial Landscapes  From stormwater to sewage treatment, recycled cans to garbage dumps, petroleum pumping to electric energy, we are rarely forced to examine the cycles and flows which shape the everyday urban experience. Invisible infrastructure and opaque processes contribute to a disconnected and disassociated public that is unaware of  the detrimental environmental and ecological impacts of  everyday actions (Strang 1996).  While landscape architects often discuss sustainable design, we should make it our responsibility to use the landscape as a tool to engage the public in discussions concerning hidden processes that comprise the contemporary urban experience. One such opportunity is provided by remedial landscapes. REMEDIAL LANDSCAPES are designed to repair contaminated sites and communicate the repair to the public. This communication to the public can potentially provide opportunities for inward reflection on our individual role in the contamination of  the land.  This landscape offers opportunities to daylight processes of  remediation on sites like abandoned gas stations and other sites within dense urban neighborhoods that often sit vacant for months, years or even decades. Using the remedial landscape to engage the public allows for an examination of  the sources of  contamination and our dependence on damaging industries and practices. Even when employed as temporary interventions, remedial landscapes can provide insight into our everyday actions and processes that result in devastating impacts within our communities and homes. By exposing contamination and remediation, the public is provided the opportunity to engage in community advocacy and lead more sustainable lifestyle.  Little research and design development has been devoted to examining the value of  landscapes established on sites undergoing remediation (Thayer 1998, Haag 1998). As the issue of  remediation of  contaminated properties moves to the forefront of  practice in landscape architecture, the development of  innovative design alternatives must be further explored to increase the effectiveness of  contaminated sites as models that elicit public awareness and action.                                   1  1.2 The Test Site  Throughout the following text many of  the arguments provided in support of remedial landscapes will be examined concurrently using a test site. The test site is a former gas station at 41st and Larch in Vancouver. It is representative of  thousands of sites across Canada that either stand in disrepair, or are being remediated without the public’s knowledge. Given the pervasiveness of  abandoned gas stations across Canada, it is hoped that this test site will also provide a model for similar sites.  The site is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons resulting from a leaking underground storage tank (LUST). Engineers have employed a standard pump-and-treat remediation system to remove the contaminants from the soils and underlying groundwater table. The site has been undergoing remediation for over 10 years and will continue into the undetermined future. In the meantime, the site occupies a corner lot and appears vacant except for a some equipment used in the remediation process. It is surrounded by a chain-link fence which is covered by opaque netting to partially block views into the site. The site resembles an abandoned lot and reveals little to the community regarding its status. Other reasons this site has been chosen include: ‣ according to Environment Canada and the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), approximately 60% of  contaminated sites suffer from issues pertaining to the release of  petroleum hydrocarbons from leaking fuel storage tanks; thus, the development of  a potential solution or model could be employed at any of the 1400 contaminated gas station sites in Canada (Canada Gazette 2007, USEPA 2007) ‣ the site is currently undergoing remediation using a pump and treat system which is the most commonly employed system for groundwater remediation (USEPA  2002) ‣ gas stations are often located within residential neighborhoods and occupy highly visible corner lots. In this case, the test site occupies a corner that serves as a transition zone from the residential development to a mixed use commercial development within a community with a strong identity ‣ need for the construction and maintenance of  gas stations is directly fed by the public’s need to consume fuel; therefore, a direct connection can be made between our individual consumption of  fuel and the contamination of  local sites                                  2 Figure 1: Evidence of  the pump and treat system on the test site Figure 2: Chainlink fence and filter fabric that masks the site at 41st and Larch’s current activities ‣  gas stations represent an integral part of  our current infrastructural system and as a land use represent a large portion of  service and support within the urban environment  1.3  Goals and Hypothesis  The goal of  this thesis is to propose a temporary landscape that will both help remediate on-site contaminants and communicate to the surrounding community the remedial process. This landscape acts as a pause between phases of  development, existing only between the commencement of  remediation and its conclusion. This provisional landscape offers opportunities for reconnecting observers to the land upon which they live and depend.  Will day-lighting the processes of  this temporary landscape: 1. influence the community’s attitudes and behaviours to act more pro-environmentally through the recognition of  local contaminated sites and by highlighting the individual’s role in the contamination process? 2. create a stronger sense of  community by revealing the remediation that benefits the entire community and reinforces shared values? 3. aesthetically enhance the site to make the landscape more readable and enjoyable for the public?  1.4 Public Perception Survey  To determine whether the recognition of  landscapes in repair would influence the behaviour of  local citizens and inspire them to think and act in a more environmentally conscientious manner, a survey was distributed throughout the community that surrounds the test site. The survey discussed the remediation of  a former gas station (although it does not specifically identify the test site). It has been designed to determine whether newfound knowledge of  the detrimental affects of  gas stations and leaking fuel tanks would affect participants’ fuel consumption. The public element is integral to the success of  the remedial landscape. The ability of  the remedial landscape to influence the attitudes and behaviours of  the public will be a direct measure of  the success of  this temporary landscape intervention. “[M]ore sustainable environments will not be created if  we only look at the environmental dimension: we                                  3 also have to address how people mix and connect, their motivations and whether they take responsibility and ‘own’ where they live and change their lifestyles appropriately (Landry 1995, 6).”  1.5  Summary a. Contemporary Practices of  Remediation  The first section will document current practices and techniques of remediation as well as their aesthetic impacts. It will discuss possibilities for enhancement of  both function and aesthetics in order to create more readable informative landscapes. This section will also discuss the role of  pubic art within the urban environment and how remedial landscapes can serve the same function as public art. b. Role of  the Landscape Architect  The second section will examine the role of  landscape architects in revealing the processes of  landscapes undergoing remediation by reintegrating lost, displaced, or forgotten space back into the public realm. Precedent studies in landscape architecture, or more specifically eco-revelatory design, will also be examined. c. Public Perception and Environmental Attitudes  The third section will discuss public perception and how remedial landscapes, can influence public opinions and instigate public response. By revealing the sources of environmental blight and the systems used to treat them, information accrued by environmental psychologists will be applied to affect change through the landscape medium. d. Public Perception Survey  Section four will provide an analysis of  the returned surveys. The surveys provide direct evidence that the local population believes that contaminated sites are a community concern and supports the use of  landscape interventions.                                  4 e. Development of  Design Strategies  Section five will outline 5 design strategies that have been developed throughout the research and design process to provide guidelines for designing successful remedial landscape interventions. f.  Test Site Design Intervention  Section six will provide information that pertains to the test site intervention. It will include conceptual information, plans, diagrams, images and a material palette pertaining to the design intervention.                                  5 2.0 The Remedial Landscape in a Larger Context  2.1 Brownfield Abundance  A brownfield site as defined by the British Columbia Ministry of  Environment is a site in which “abandoned, vacant, derelict or underutilized commercial and industrial properties where past actions have resulted in actual or perceived contamination and where there is an active potential for redevelopment (BCMoE 2007).” Legislation has been recently adapted to place blame as well as financial accountability on the individual or corporate entity responsible for the contamination. However, once commenced, the process of  remediation is often quite lengthy and takes years to complete. According to a USEPA study that examined 28 sites undergoing remediation using a pump and treat groundwater system (the most commonly used system for remediation and the one employed on the test site), the average time for remediation and post-remediation monitoring lasts between four and twelve years (USEPA 1999). During this time, the clean-up of  these sites is not announced to the surrounding community.  According to Environment Canada there are approximately 23 000 contaminated sites in Canada (Canada Gazette 2007). Of  these sites, the Ministry of Treasury indicates that approximately 1400 sites are former gas stations.  On-line databases of  the Canadian Treasury estimate that approximately 428 former gas station sites have moved beyond initial phases of  testing and are currently being remediated. This number is not precise because the federal government has not yet appointed a task force responsible for compiling data on all contaminated sites within the country.   2.2 Opportunities Provided by the Remedial Landscape  Sites undergoing remediation should be regarded as opportune “moments” for day-lighting and further examining the process of  remediation. As well, they provide opportunities to study the impacts of  contaminated sites on the local public. The presence of  a site undergoing remediation within local communities may also prompt indices for living more sustainable lifestyles.  Sites undergoing remediation should not stand as eye-sores or unproductive lands, but should be seen as an opportunity to educate the public and engage them in                                  6 pro-environmental discussion and action. By addressing non-sustainable lifestyles these sites should not act as a threat to the public, but act as a motivator to think and act in an environmentally conscience manner.                                  7 3.0 Contemporary Practices of  Remediation  3.1 Current Practices  “Historically public space has helped remediate its context at all levels of  society, whether it be commercial, cultural, educational, or reform based; the  critical question is how contemporary public space can be produced to safely  and responsibly enable a continuation of  its remedial and regenerative agency.  Remediation is an actively produced strategy (Benites and Lyster 2005, 8).”  Until now, “design” of  remediation strategies has not been an actively produced strategy, but strictly an engineered solution (Hill 1998). Contemporary systems of  remediation are not “designed” in the same sense that landscape architects design public spaces, or architects design a hotel lobby. Design in the sense of engineering concerns entering variables into mathematical formulas, determining the most time efficient, the most cost efficient manner in which to remediate the site. The systems designed and implemented by engineers do not act to recover lost landscapes or augment the landscape on a social level nor aesthetic level. The time has come to include an additional set of  variables into the “design” of  remedial systems. Although restoring soils and water quality can be quantified and calculated through complex equations, restoration of  the landscape cannot. The following section will further discuss contemporary practices in remediation as well as the use of  public art as a communicative tool.  It is not the position of  the landscape architect to question the process of remediation to remove contaminants specified by the consultants. However, there are ways to further increase chemical or contaminant restoration of  the site by using several methods of  treatment in unison. These secondary methods although not as effective as primary systems for contaminant removal, can augment the system in place and also fulfill the social values of  remediation. Unfortunately, the most common way to treat contaminated sites is to either remove the contaminants from the site through excavation, or to simply cap the site leaving the pollutants beneath the surface. These two methods are often chosen because they allow for rapid redevelopment of  the site. Although there are serious environmental implications resulting from both, the methods will not be further discussed since this research examines sites currently undergoing on site (in-situ) remediation where the community is provided opportunities to witness the contaminant removal process.                                  8  Sites undergoing remediation often stand idle for several years outside the visual and perceptual fields of  the public. Due mostly to issues of  client confidentiality, the existence of  contaminants as well as the process at work to remove them are masked behind opaque chain-link fences, gravel lots, and no trespassing signs. The processes at work to rid the community of  potential hazards should be made visible to the public as these are issues that directly affect their lives and homes. We should seek to employ more dynamic site design and remediation responses that provide general indices of  the process of  contaminant removal. The design and implementation of remediative systems should be further explored by landscape architects in collaboration with the environmental consultants and engineers who typically deal with contaminated sites. Exploration of  design interventions on sites undergoing remediation offer opportunities to expose additional layers of  meaning within the urban environment.   3.2  Natural Alternatives  An emerging approach to conventional remediation is the use of phytoremediation. Phytoremediation is a system by which the contaminants within the soil are treated by planting certain plant materials such as grasses, shrubs and trees. In the case of  former gas station sites, phytoremediation cannot be employed as the primary system for contaminant removal, but it can augment conventional remediation systems. Depending upon the contaminants present, there are documented plant materials responsible for the break-down or volatilization of  harmful chemical compounds. Secondly, the addition of  plants, especially grasses due to increased root surface area, greatly increases biotic activity within the organic layer of  the soil which also enhances the break-down or removal of  many contaminants. For example, in the case of  petroleum hydrocarbons (from fuel and oil based compounds) the use of  alfalfa grass and perennial rye greatly increases the propagation of  a certain bacteria that actually digests the hydrocarbons (Kirk at al. 2005). Thus the plant materials themselves are not only responsible for the removal of  contaminants, but are responsible for the development of  other soil organisms which increase the rate of  remediation.  Most engineered systems remove contaminants within the soils and groundwater of  a site and are designed to mitigate contaminant migration through these sub-strata. To protect the public from contaminants, the most common measure is the erection of  a fence. The chain link fence that often surrounds the site, separates it from the surrounding environment and prohibits the public’s ability to access the site. Although a fence will mitigate site disturbances by the public, contaminants can still                                  9 Figure 3: View of  the site looking east along 41st ave. Figure 4: Medicago sativa (Alfalfa grass) Photo from Figure 5: Lollium perenne (Perennial rye) Photo from leave the site via air-born particles from wind disturbance of  site run-off. The use of plant material reduces off-site migration of  contaminants by creating a vegetative cap.  The use of  phytoremediation as an additional system for remediation also fulfills the second goal of  this project/research which is to create community connections. A landscape that only consists of  an engineered solution can only be read and interpreted by engineers. The use of  plant materials exhibits the ability of  the site to support life. The re-inclusion of  natural activity and public space will encourage public use of  the site. However it is not simply in the recognition of  the site’s ability to support and sustain life that invites the observer to enter. The plant materials and other elements must be arranged in a manner that communicates visitors are welcome. Joan Nassauer notes that “a designed response with an established visual order further reintroduces the site as a viable public space” (1995 163).!  Why then, is the passive low-energy input approach of  using plants to enhance a system of  remediation not considered? Is it simply that there has not been enough success is the testing of  phytoremediative systems? Or is it simply that we as problem solving beings trust the abilities of  a human engineered system over that of  a natural system? According to Robert Thayer, the use of  nature (i.e. phytoremediation and plants) is counter-intuitive or even counter evolutionary. We have a “hard-wired predisposition to invent tools and use them creatively to solve problems” (Thayer 1994, 32). Since the emergence of  homo-sapiens, we have differentiated ourselves from the rest of  the animal kingdom through the use of  our ingenuity and tool manipulation. After thousands of  years it would seem that we have more trust in our own technologic processes that have allowed us “not only to survive, but to thrive overwhelmingly at the expense of  other species” (Thayer 32, 1994). However, with the continued success of phytoremediative systems, we can only hope that the use of  a system that requires a substantially lower energy input would become more common place.                                  10  3.3 Reference to Test Site and Current Conditions  The test site is located in a community called Kerisdale. Its location at the intersection of  Larch and West 41st marks the transition point from single family homes and park on the west side to the main commercial district containing mixed use multi story, commercial street-side and residential units above. This site, like many gas stations, occupies a corner lot, thus exposing two sides to the street. The community of Kerrisdale is the oldest community in the city.  The site is surrounded by a chainlink fence partially covered by a green vinyl tarp. A look inside the site reveals the remediation equipment against the wall of  the adjacent lot and several white pvc pipes emerging from the surface of  the site.  The former gas station was selected because it represents a typical corner lot station often found within residential neighborhoods. Because of  the mix of  land-uses that surround the site, migrating contaminants have the potential to affect a large portion of  the community through a variety of  channels and media. The site is also sloped sending surface and groundwater contaminants across the street to the park and                                  11 Figure 6: Context map indicating site location and extents of  Kerrisdale Village Figure 7: View inside the chainlink fence from Larch St. surrounding residences. Secondly, the site is currently undergoing remediation using a pump and treat system which is the most commonly employed system for groundwater remediation  at former gas stations (USEPA 2002).   After a preliminary investigation of  the site and through the survey, local residents indicated that the site had been in its current state for 15 to 20 years although many residents believed that the site had been abandoned. According to Wesley Joe, a representative of  the City of  Vancouver Planning Council, no permits or applications for development have been issued for the property.  Site History  According to the 1962 Fire Plan, the test site is only one of  four gas stations located along 41st Ave. However, throughout the 1970’s and 80’s the other gas stations were removed and replaced with the existing developments. Although there is a possibility that these gas stations also suffered from some of  the same contaminant issues (except methyl tertiary butyl ether which was not introduced to gasoline on a wide scale until the mid 90’s), no documentation indicating issues of  contamination from the other sites has been found. However, their redevelopment occurred in an era                                  12 Figure 8: Test site current conditions indicating location s of  remediation equipment and treatment and testing wells where site profiles, or soil and contaminant testing, was not a mandatory practice for redevelopment or property change of  ownership.  The gas station changed ownership on several occasions and according to the 1962 Fire Plan and aerial images from 1994, the location of  the pumps has changed. How many times the pumps changed location is undeterminable based on the sparsity of  historical information. However, ownership changes and the movement of  the pumps does not necessarily indicate that the underground storage tanks were replaced or moved.  The site is currently owned by Imperial Oil. According to Brenda Cantner of Devon Estates , a property management company under Imperial Oil, the site has been “sitting idle” since 1998. However, site information reports from the British Columbia Ministry of  Environment indicate that the site has been in its current condition since 1989, nine years longer than Mrs. Cantner indicated.  Due to issues of  confidentiality and public appearance, Imperial Oil, is not willing to share any information regarding the site history, contamination, remediation, or future development plans. Nonetheless, it can be inferred from on-site remediation equipment that this site suffers from situations similar to other former gas station properties.  Contamination  Leaky underground storage tanks, or LUST,  affects approximately 23% of underground tanks. According to the Environment Canada, approximately 66% of contaminated sites have underground petroleum tanks that are leaking (Canadian Centre for Energy, 2007). The issue is so widespread in the United States the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the Office of  Underground Storage Tanks in 1985 to be responsible for the remediation of  LUST sites. Since the majority of  underground tanks are located at gas station sites, they make up a significant portion of  LUST sites. Canada however, has not developed an agency solely responsible for LUST sites and sites are handled on a case by case basis dependent upon which ministry is responsible for the site.  According to the EPA, underground storage tanks have a high propensity to contaminate groundwater because the contaminants, BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl- benzene and xylene) and MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl-ether), move easily through the soil strata (USEPA 2007 ).                                  13 Figure 9: Removing a leaking underground tank Photo from U.S. E.P.A.  Primary Contaminants  As indicated, the two major contaminants that are potentially affecting the site are: •  BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and toluene 1,2,3 and 4) - BTEX makes up only 1% of  fuel however, it is the most dangerous element in gasoline in regards to human and animal health. Benzene is a known carcinogen and can have severe impacts on human health if  ingested in high enough quantities. However, benzene is not soluble in water therefore, if  BTEX is the only contaminant on site, it often passes through the groundwater table and collects in the soil strata (USEPA 2007 ). •  MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) - MTBE is an oxygenate, or a fuel additive that provides a more complete combustion of  fuels. MTBE was introduced to the majority fuels in the mid 90’s, but has been removed from most fuels and banned in many US states. MTBE has a very high propensity for moving to the groundwater table and traveling to municipal water supplies. Although at this point, there is no documentation indicating MTBE to be a major health risk, many municipalities have been increasingly cautious using MTBE because of  its incredible persistence in public water supplies. Secondly, when MTBE is in the presence of BTEX, MTBE causes the Benzene (carcinogen) to become soluble in water, thus severely increasing the possibility of  benzene being ingested by human and animals (USEPA 2007 ).  Remediation System  The site currently employs a groundwater pump and treat system to remove the contaminants from the soils and underlying groundwater table. As perviously stated, according to the USEPA, the pump and treat system is the most commonly employed system from treatment of  petroleum hydrocarbons and is relatively effective if  properly designed and installed. The system in the test site includes two supplemental treatment methods; a chamber for carbon adsorption which enhances the systems ability to remove MTBE and an air stripper which aids in the removal of  the BTEX.  The pump and treat system simply pumps water located within the groundwater system to the surface where it is treated and released into the municipal wastewater system. The system is also effective for ensuring that contaminants do not continue to leave the bounds of  the site. The individual pumps are located more densely                                  14 Figure 10: Contaminant storage tank on the test site near the edge of  the site where the groundwater exits the site. Thus, the cluster of pumps along the south-eastern boundary create a hydraulic trap which is quite effective at stopping further migration of  contaminants. The Local Community  According to the 2005 Community Vision document, Kerrsidale Village begins at the corner of  41st and Larch which includes the test site.  Currently the west entrance to the community is marred by the existence of  this vacant lot surrounded by a chain- link fence. Kitty-corner to the subject site is Elm Park, a large open space with a baseball diamond. The intersection, aside from the subject site is an excellent portrayal of  values shared by community members which includes an excellent blend of  public and private spaces. Several multi-story residential complexes surround the subject site. The towers which range from 7 to 18 stories in height are set back so as to not disturb the small town community feeling provided along 41st Ave.  Along the remainder of  41st Ave. throughout the commercial district are wide sidewalks, public benches and street trees planted along both sides of  the street. The former gas station site breaks up the visual continuity of  Kerrisdale Village along 41st because it has no street trees nor benches.  The side walks adjacent to the site on both of  its exposed faces are not intact because while the gas station was in operation, there were two entrance and exit ramps on the side of  41st Ave, and one on the side of Larch. The site, in general, stands in opposition to the shared values represented throughout the rest of  the community. While other commercial property owners have followed community guidelines for the aesthetic treatment of  individual sites, the subject site has not been forced to follow similar guidelines.  The neighborhood of  Kerrisdale is part of  a larger network of  connected communities known as ARKS (Arbutus Ridge, Kerrisdale and Shaughnessy). In 2005 City Council members with the Director of  City Plans,  local community officials, and community members developed the ARKS Community Vision Plan which outlines guidelines and necessary changes for the communities. The following points were highlighted in the Community Vision Plan and coincide with this thesis Public Art  The Community Vision Plan discusses the encouragement of  public artwork that promotes and reflects the history and heritage of  the community as well as public                                  15 Figure 11: PVC pipes indicating locations of pumping and testing wells on test site artwork that could be used to hide or defer attention from construction sites (ARKS 2005, 61). Good Environmental Practice  Under the heading “Environment,” the ARKS Community Vision plan approved a motion to promote good environmental practice. Through education and awareness the community encourages “publicity campaigns and demonstration displays” as well as “establishing an education centre promoting sustainable practices” (ARKS 2005, 78). Therefore, the document reveals that the intentions of  this thesis to provide opportunities for art and eco-education are in agreement with the intentions of  the ARKS plan.  3.4 Aesthetics of  Remediation  Since the public does not have the ability to recognize a site in repair or have information pertaining to local point sources of  contamination, a prominent issue to the local citizens concerning sites undergoing remediation is their existing aesthetic impact. According precedent studies, local residents often feel that the current process of  remediation marres the community by leaving the site in a state of  seeming abandonment for extended periods of  time. According to a survey conducted by the Energy, Environment and Resource Center at the University of  Tennessee,  after being provided substantial amounts of  information and options concerning the remediation of  a local site, the public preferred that the contaminated site be remediated in-situ instead of  having the soils removed and treated off-site (Feldman and Hanahan 1996). Residents chose this option fully understanding that in-situ remediation would take years to complete. Residents felt it necessary to display the remediation process for a period of  time to ensure outsiders and newcomers that the matter had been properly dealt with and any negative stigma associated with the site would be alleviated (Feldman and Hanahan 1996).  Although Feldman and Hanahan conclude that surveyed residents wanted to know and be involved in the remediation process, it is rare for site owners to divulge information concerning the remediation. The most likely reason for this is that sites in a state of  seeming abandonment draw little attention. After years of  vacancy, empty lots often fail to be cognitively recognized within our mental maps. On the other hand, the development of  the remedial landscape allows the possibilities for the creation of  site-                                  16 observer connections which create a stronger lasting impression on our community map. However, from the perspective of  the site owner, to publicly declare that a landscape is undergoing remediation implies that it is contaminated. This is the case of Imperial Oil and the test site.  3.5 Possibility for Public Art  Public art projects can communicate the four fundamental values of community development. Through shared history, identity, needs and aspirations, “public art can act as a vehicle through which a ‘sense of  community’ can be developed and promoted” (Hall and Robertson 2001, 10). Although all may not agree upon the four values as stated, these are crucial to the social connectivity of  the community which can be tied and strengthened through the use of  a public foci. “Such a foci, physical or otherwise, is said to possess a communicative function, generating and communicating ideas between people and across physical space” (Hall and Robertson 2001, 11). Arguments that contend that public art can be used to create social connections within the community can also be used to describe the connections created by a designed public space and a remedial landscape because discussion and action in both revolve around the focal point. As Nassauer states,  We need to recognize that the landscapes of  city dwellers’ homes,  neighborhoods, parks, roadsides, and businesses are public portraits of  themselves. The expectation that I represent myself  as a citizen in the  landscape of  my home is etched deeply into popular culture (Nassauer 1995,  162).  What then is the tie between public art and the remediation that the test site seeks to express? As previously discussed, the opportunities offered by remedial landscapes are rooted in re-establishing the broken social connections between the site and the public. Hall and Robertson state that “public art can intervene and help rejuvenate severed social connections... by promoting community discovery and awareness” (Hall and Robertson 2001, 10). It is through this stage of  discovery and awareness that the public is allowed an opportunity to discuss community held values. “Public art addresses community needs by helping communities understand their problems and facilitate their solutions” (Hall and Robertson 2001, 14).                                  17  As discussed by Robert France, art that acts not only to aestheticize the site but also acts to reveal the functional basis for the site through creative means has the potential to “inspire action beyond the bounds of  the site” (France 2002, 6). Regarding the individual elements of  the remediation system as parts of  a larger piece of  artwork adds public interest and is capable of  commandeering the attention of  the public simply through curiosity. “The roots of  [public art] lie in its visibility, which in turn influences how we perceive the urban environment” (Sharp et al. 2005, 1020). Secondly, the artwork instigates discussion among the public about meaning therefore acting as “both a catalyst and a conduit for the generation and communication of  public discourse” (Hall and Robertson 2001, 12). It is through this visibility that public art acts to articulate and respond to shared community values.  Robert Thayer differentiates between art that simply comments on and design that can solve environmental problems. He states, “art may be content only to comment on unstable, unsustainable, or consumptive conditions, responsible design should remedy them” (Thayer 1998, 118). Therefore designers must be certain that their remediation designs go beyond simply commenting on the unstable practices. The remediated landscapes then stand as an outward expression of  environmental stewardship and as a reminder of  past transgressions that imposed threats upon the community and guide the public in a common direction towards a more sustainable community.   3.6 The Remedial Landscape as an Experience  As previously stated, remedial landscapes are not simply public art projects that comment on sustainability or current trends in remediation. Remedial landscapes provide experiences that reveal layers of  information and meaning to be drawn out by the observer. These experiences are comprised of  both the aesthetic function of  the site as well as the educational or informative aspects of  the newly designed landscape. According to John Dewey this newfound aesthetic perception “enables art to reach more people and shape interests that are instrumental to their daily lives” (Herrington 2007, 24).  It is through the experience of  entering, passing, or being in the site that should act to set remedial landscapes apart from their surroundings. While immersed within this new environment the observer is provided an opportunity for a different perspective or reality of  the common practices that resulted in contamination of  local sites. According to Dewey “the work of  art - temple, painting statue, poem is not the work of  art. The work of  art takes place when a human being cooperates with the                                  18 product so the outcome is an experience” (Herrington 2007, 24). Remedial landscapes alone are simply materials arranged on a site undergoing remediation. However, it is the interaction between the site and the observer, the change incurred by the experience of the landscape that leaves the bounds of  the site and manifests itself  in the individual’s daily life.                                  19 4.0 The Role of  the Landscape Architect  4.1 Beyond Sustainable Design - Environmental Advocacy and   Public Engagement  As we enter the 21st century, landscape architects are actively engaged in promoting environmental and ecological sustainability. As designers with an understanding of  site interactions from the microcosms of  bacterial interactions, to the macrocosms of  regional planning, landscape architects sit at a critical junction for the implementation of  sustainable design and practice. However, the role of  eco-designer and enviro-advocate could extend this realm of  design into the lives of  the public to influence their individual environmental actions and awareness. In the case of  remedial landscapes, a form of  experiential education can be achieved by providing opportunities for observers to recognize the long-term results of  unsustainable practices through site interactions. Experiential education is a means by which design initiatives extend beyond the physical boundaries of  the site and reach into the lives of  the public in order to affect their awareness and behaviour.  Although landscape architects are not qualified to select the method of remediation, the contextual and planning strategies of  the landscape architect can be employed to properly design the site to maximize readability and usability. Also included in the skill set of  the landscape architect are the tools necessary for public engagement. Landscape architects are commonly involved in public workshops, charettes, and public perception surveys which grant them the ability to better determine the needs and desires exhibited by the public. These tools also provide landscape architects with the language necessary to properly communicate to the public through the landscape.  The concepts of  sustainable, regenerative, restorative,  and ecological design are implied and all fall under the umbrella of  the term landscape architecture. As stated by Robert France in his 2003 article “Green World, Gray Heart,” to add the term green or sustainable “before landscape architecture create[s] a redundancy or an oxymoron” (France 2003, 3). The public realm should be a multi-dimensional arena that provides access and function to not only accommodate for the needs of  the users, but must also educate and act to improve the quality of  the air, the soils, natural habitat, and more importantly, water. An additional layer of  information must also be inserted into all landscape designs that contain some message about our landscapes, a commentary on our use of  land resources. Thus, the landscape no longer acts “as a passive naturalistic stage but as a necessary player that actively contributes to the daily                                  20 operations of  the city with real pressure to conserve and remediate its context” (Benites and Lyster 2005, 5).  As landscape architects we have a duty not only to the public we serve, but to the environment. Design of  the built world through the eyes and hands of  landscape architects should not only represent, but promote stewardship of  land, water conservation and environmental protection and restoration. It is our responsibility to inspire the benefits of  environmental stewardship to the public who use the spaces we design. “The single most effective action that can be accomplished for the future of nature [and the environment] is to motivate and inspire large numbers of people” (France 2003, 4).  Due to an understanding of  not simply the system and process of remediation, but of  the larger picture in which remediation is established, landscape architects have the ability “to synthesize, to connect, to gauge impacts across different spheres of  life, to see holistically, to understand how material changes affect our perceptions, to grasp the subtle ecologies of  our systems of  life and how to make them sustainable” (Landry 1995, 11). Knowledge and understanding of  both natural systems and systems that restore nature should be treated as compositional elements that rest on our artistic palette, to be arranged and revealed in an artistic manner. It is by no means the single responsibility of  landscape architects to act as aesthetic translators of  the engineered world. However, the creative talents of  the landscape architect lay in understanding the function of  a system and is thereby granted the ability to aesthetically enhance the engineered to add new layers of  meaning. Robert Thayer, in Gray World Green Heart, states that “sustainable landscapes need conspicuous expression and visible interpretation, that is where the creative and artistic skills of  landscape architects are most critically needed” (1994, 102). By aesthetically revealing the process of remediation, sites can accommodate the public and create more points for connection between the public and their landscapes. Landscape architects should strive to not only promote sustainability through design of  the site alone, but should seek to engage the public with sustainable concepts they may apply elsewhere.  This thesis project calls forth the emerging role of  the landscape architect as a mediator between process and function, and a profession that reactivates sites within the community that previously acted as visual blights and unmapped properties.  A newfound level of  social and environmental awareness can be reached through experiential education or by directly engaging people in the recognition and repair of damaged landscapes. The creative abilities of  landscape architects to engage the public through direct exposure to remedial landscapes must be employed as a means of                                  21 informing the public of  the negative impacts of  their lifestyles and the direct impacts of these actions upon their community.   4.2 Eco-Revelatory Design  Eco-revelatory is design that reveals and interprets processes and relationships that exist within the landscape. Richard Haag describes eco-revelatory design as the “logical progression of  our profession (landscape architects), which was born of necessity in response to maltreatment of  the land by architects and engineers of  an earlier time (1998, 72).” The Eco-revelatory design that Haag describes is exhibited by the work of  Kristina Hill in Senftenberg, Germany and Julie Bargmann and Stacy Levy’s Vintondale Mine project. These two projects share a central theme; they arose out of  a need to remediate a contaminated site and resulted in creative works that supplemented remediation and communicated process to observers. In this sense, eco-revelatory designs share many similarities with remedial landscapes. Remedial landscapes carry the virtues of  these precedents into a more constrained urban environment but maintain the ability of  eco-revelatory design to communicate through the landscape. Remedial landscapes are a type of  eco-revelatory designs that are represented in the landscape in multiple instances like the gas station test site. More importantly, remedial landscapes are intended to address issues of  contamination and remediation in a manner that reveals the observer’s role in the creation of  the problem.  The following is a precedent study of  the eco-revelatory designs of  Kristina Hill and Julie Bargmann and Stacy Levy. They will be examined to provide a better understanding of  the implications of  my test site.                                  22 Kristina Hill - Ring Parks as Inverted Dikes - Senftenberg Germany  Ring Parks as Inverted Dikes is a response to the system of  remediation employed around Senftenberg Germany, a former mining city that although deserted after the Second World War, has been recently expanding. Functioning as a mine, the underlying water table was lowered by pumps to facilitate the extraction of  materials. However, since pumping ceased, the water table is incrementally returning to its original levels bringing with it a myriad of  toxic substances left-over from the mining operations. Surrounding the city are several mapped plumes of  contamination, but there are also many toxic dump sites that were buried and not recorded. To treat the plumes individually was ruled out because of  the danger posed by unknown dumping sites. Therefore, the system of  prevention installed is designed to protect the entire city from the possibility of  contaminant movement.  Hill’s design response was a series of  linear parks around the city along which are placed testing and monitoring wells. The parks are tree-lined raised berms laid in forms that mimic the landscapes cut by the heavy mining machinery. These parks serve as recreation corridors that allow local residents to explore the landscape surrounding the city. The wells act as a series of  alarms that can be converted into pumping wells if contaminants exceed certain levels. Several pumps acting together create a hydraulic trap, or a conical depression in the water table. This prevents contaminants from entering the city. Attached to each well is a series of  coloured flags which serve as indicators of  the water quality as tested at that particular well. Observers can then determine the quality of  the water surrounding the city as they move along the linear parks.  This project exhibits an innovative combination of  remediation techniques and landscape uses. The scale of  the project from wells to berms and trenches is reminiscent of  the dikes constructed in the Netherlands and surely provides local residents with the comfort of  knowing  that they are being protected. The flag system in place also allows the observer to make his/her own assumptions about their safety within the “walls” of  the landscape (Hill, 1998). As discussed in section 5.2, information collected directly by the observer is more likely to make an impact (Kollmus and Agyeman 2002).                                  23 Julie Bargmann and Stacy Levy - Testing the Waters - Vintondale, PA, USA  Ravaged by the mining processes, Vintondale is now contaminated by acid leaking from the mine. Acid mine drainage or AMD continuously leaks out of  the mine and affects local ecosystems and threatens the quality of  water bodies surrounding the mine. Bargmann and Levy’s design involves an innovative approach to what alternately would have been a highly engineered system of  remediation.  They designed a system of  six treatment ponds, each responsible for adjusting pH levels and removing heavy metals. The water flows through pond 1 (the holding pond) and then to ponds 2-4 (the wetland cells) which promote biological activity. The water then moves into pond 5 (the vertical flow pond) which removes heavy metals, and into pond six (the aerator and pH regulator). The water that leaves pond 6 has a pH of about 6.5 and is deemed clean. The passive system, which incurs substantially lowers financial and energy costs, has been designed to effectively treat the acid and provide substantial insight into how the system works.  This system is exhibited by the litmus garden. The garden runs parallel to the six ponds and through color illustrates the transformation of  the water as it passes from one stage to another. The plant palette in the garden and color of  the water transition from orange at pond 1 to blue-green at pond six. At each stage of  the garden and ponds there is a sign that briefly explains the activities of  the particular pond and how the water quality is enhanced (AMD and Art, 2007).  Gobster et al. present the argument that through a better understanding of ecological process, the aesthetic perception of  the observer is altered (2007). Bargmann and Levy’s project at Vintondale supports this argument. The litmus garden and treatment ponds take on an entirely different form of  beauty when the observer makes the correlation between their colors and their function. The ponds and associated plant materials are transformed in the mind of  the observer from typical landscape elements into natural “streamlined” machines, incrementally, methodically, and magnificently treating the water for the protection of  local communities and ecosystems.                                  24 Eco-Revelatory Design and Remedial Landscapes  As addressed by both the projects of  Hill and Bargmann / Levy, the key to eco-revelatory design lies in the ability of  the designer to use the landscape as a medium for communication about the remediation process. This adds an interpretive dimension to what could otherwise be a simply engineered system treating the ground and the water without the appreciation of  its onlookers. Eco-revelatory design aesthetically enhances the function of  the system, but more importantly, creatively informs the observer of  its function by making the information visible.  The success of  both projects lies in their ability to draw the user into the landscape and their ability to function as useable landscapes. The landscapes can be enjoyed independently of  the remediation process although the opportunities to engage in learning about the landscape abound. The designs also fulfill the public’s need for passive recreational green space. Secondly there are the indicators of  remediation found through further exploration of  the site. Indicators like Hill’s flags and Bargeman/Levy’s coloured ponds provide the first-hand information that is easy to understand and  allow the observer opportunities to understand on a basic level the function of  the remediation system.                                  25 5.0 Public Awareness and Affecting Change in Perceptions, Attitudes  and Behaviours  5.1 Environmental Psychology - Affecting Behaviour  The public as a whole, although perceptive, are often unaware of  the direct or secondary influences of  their actions upon their environment. As described in the following, one of  the major barriers between public perception of  environmental issues and public action is immediacy, both locally and temporally. Through the repair and remediation of  damaged landscapes the public can be exposed to the immediacy of environmental issues and potentially alter their current unsustainable lifestyles and chart a path towards both community and environmental stewardship. The following section describes the studies of  environmental psychologists and sociologists who have examined why people act pro-environmentally, what the barriers are to pro- environmental behaviour (behaviour which mitigates an individual’s impact upon the environment), and how landscapes can be used to highlight these issues and affect change on both an individual and community level.  Environmental psychologists do not address landscape architecture design in their research. However, their data can be examined in order develop a set of  guidelines that can be included as basic programmable elements in the design of  remedial landscapes. Just as the system imposed on the site for remediation will be calculated and specified by an engineer, the form and communicative properties of  the site rely upon the creative aptitude of  landscape architects.  To get people to change their attitudes or behavior one must first attract their attention. This has serious design implications. Remedial landscapes must draw people’s attention, then hold it. Although we often describe landscapes as passive or active in terms of  program, remedial landscapes must be active in the sense that they actively attract the attention of  the public and initiate the discussion between the site and the observers.  The information conveyed to initiate change must be provided vividly. “Vivid information increases the likelihood that the information will be attended to initially as well as recalled later. If  the information is only remembered fleetingly, it is not likely to have any lasting impact upon our attitudes and behavior” (McKenzine and Mohr 1999, 17). It is for this reason the outward appearance of  remedial landscapes must be designed to attract attention each time observers pass by. Constant repetition of  the                                  26 message communicated by the landscape will be more likely to affect change in the individual behaviour of  community members.  Although this primary initiative set by environmental psychologists doesn’t necessarily describe a design directive, it does suggest some design ideas for the site.  A highly visible aesthetic must set the remedial landscapes apart from the surrounding context, just as the invisible contamination has acted to silently differentiate the site from the surrounding landscape.  Direct Experience vs. Indirect Experience  Public education about environmental problems through secondary information generally leads to a weak change in attitude or behaviour when compared to experiencing the negative affects of  environmental degradation firsthand (Kollmus and Ageyman 2002). Contrary to initial beliefs, when the material is presented in a general or indirect manner, “only a small fraction of  pro-environmental behavior can be directly linked to environmental knowledge and environmental awareness” (Ibid., 250). Remedial landscapes provide direct experience and can be accompanied by education programs. For individuals to change their behaviour they must first recognize that a problem exists and more so, that it exists locally. Again, the distribution of  former gas station sites in neighborhoods provides opportunities to exploit the localness of contamination. Although placing signage around a site that is being remediated does fulfill the requirement of  the direct experience, it seems an ineffective way to invite the observer to enter the site and reclaim the landscape for public use.  The use of  gas stations as the medium for addressing our individual responsibility in the contamination of  the landscape is partially derived from Robert Thayer’s argument that we often create a mental separation between what he refers to as good technologies and bad technologies. In truth, there is no difference between good technology or bad technology. Good and bad are only labels we place on individual technologies that are dependent upon context and situation. In many ways, our separation of  technology into these categories falls in line with the NIMBY concept, or Not In My Back Yard. For example, we are fully willing to accept the positive aspects of a certain technology such as nuclear power which acts to make our lives easier, but often regard it as bad technology when the nuclear facility is erected near within our neighborhood. “By separating the personal, intuitive “good” realms of  technology upon which we individually depend from the intellectualized field of  “bad” technologies “out                                  27 there” which cause social and environmental problems, we dissociate personal technologies benefits from real costs” (Thayer 84, 1994). Remedial landscapes are a reconciliation of  both the good technology (gas station and associated benefits - automobiles) and the bad technology ( leaking fuels - contamination). This reconciliation offers opportunities for observer to recognize the advantages and costs of gasoline dependence.  This separation of  good and bad technology is exactly the issue explored through the survey. The survey asks whether residents, once recognizing local sources of  contamination from gas stations (bad technology), whether it would affect individual consumption of  fuels and the use of  a personal vehicle (good technology). Through direct experience, the often unrealized environmental responses to our actions, are made visible for observers to contemplate. It is believed that by reconciling the realms of  “good” and “bad” technology we can influence the individual to better weigh the benefits and pitfalls of  an individual technology use.  Locus of  Control  The locus of  control “represents an individual’s perception of  whether he or she has the ability to bring about change through his or her own behaviour. People with a strong internal locus of  control believe that their actions can bring about change” (Kollmus and Ageyman 2002, 253). People with an external locus of  control, on the other hand, feel that their actions are insignificant, and that change can only be brought about by others (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, 247). Can the redesign of  indicators on remedial landscapes affect the locus of  control? Ajzen and Fishbein state that people who don’t act environmentally often feel that they cannot influence the situation or should not have to take responsibility for it. This is difficult to accomplish with larger issues like ozone depletion. However, examining a more specific issue such as gas consumption could provide a more tangible example of  an individual’s role in environmental degradation. A site such as a gas station could influence individual locus of  control since community members most likely used the resources of  that particular gas station. Therefore, the individual may feel like they contributed to its prolonged existence and in turn, its negative environmental impacts. The contaminant type or process by which the land was degraded must however reach out to the individual on a personal level to create the connection necessary to establish a strong locus of  control. The locus of  control is affected most when the actions of  the individual are placed within the context of  a greater problem. This tactic is commonly used to relate large scale issues of  pollution or environmental degradation to individual habits.                                  28  Social norms and cultural traditions, according to Ajzen and Fishbein, are the ultimate determinants. Behavioural and normative beliefs concerning the consequences of  environmental action, both positive and/or negative, are strongly based upon the prescriptions of  other members of  one’s social network and environment (Ibid., 239). Therefore, if  normative influences affect attitudes and behaviours, the site must act to influence large numbers of  people to develop a recognizable trend among the local populous. According to Ajzen and Fishbein, a catalyst must be introduced to act as the epicenter around which both community engagement and pro-environmental behaviour can revolve (1980). remedial landscapes can provide a local focus around which the community acts by standing as both a physical representationof  environmental degradation and a symbol of  shared community values. Fuhrer et al. agree with the normative influences but ascribe a hierarchy based upon the size and relationship between the individual and his or her community (as quoted in Lehman 1999).  A person’s values are more influenced by the ‘microsystem’, which is  comprised of  the immediate social network family, neighbors, peer-groups.  Values are influenced to a lesser extent by the ‘exosystem’ such as media and  political organization. Least strong, but nevertheless important is the influence  of  the ‘macrosystem’, the cultural context in which the individual lives (Fuhrer  et al., as quoted in Lehman 1999).  Cognitive Limitations of  Environmental Awareness  In most cases, issues of  environmental degradation or deterioration are not tangible to the individual. The depletion of  the ozone or global warming, for example, are both issues that most people are aware of. However, because they are both intangible and invisible, the negative affects of  both often go unnoticed and therefore do not immediately impact our individual actions. As with both issues of  global warming and ozone depletion, their immediacy is reduced in scale, their rate of  change is incremental and their effects upon our immediate environment are virtually imperceptible to the lay-observer.  Secondly, due to their intangibility, for individuals to accept and act upon most environmental issues, they must rely upon secondary information. The issues then take on an almost abstract quality (Kollmuss and Agyeman 253, 2002). By removing the individual as the primary observer of  the action-causation relationship, emotional involvement is reduced or removed, resulting in less cause for pro-environmental action. Therefore, the immediacy of  visible degradation often provides enough incentives to influence pro-environmental behaviour (Kollmuss and Agyeman 253,                                  29 2002). By making environmental degradation both tangible and immediate (visible within the community) the public is more likely to react with positive environmental action.  Emotional Investment  “The emotional reaction is stronger when we experience the degradation directly” (Kollmus and Ageyman 2002, 255). In this case the emotional involvement stems from the public's tendency to protect the community in which they live, be it for the sake of  the community or for their own well-being. Although there may be no existing emotional tie between the remedial landscape and the observer, the design may prompt emotional responses and an emotional relationship may develop with other members of  the community  This research seeks to activate the public as an important member of  the remediation process. By exposing and unearthing issues of  contamination within the community, the consequences of  people’s daily actions and habits are also uncovered. The landscape should be used as tool for communication and should inspire us to live more sustainably. According to Kollmus and Agyeman, in order for individuals to change their habits, they must be able to focus beyond themselves and be concerned about the community at large (2002). By exposing problems within the direct vicinity of their homes and within their communities, the re-mediative landscape can provide indications of  the immediacy of  environmental issues.  5.2 Public Survey  According to Feldman and Hanahan (1996), contaminated sites undergoing remediation were a concern to people living around the site. Their study showed that when notified of  contamination and future plans for remediation, surveyed individuals were interested in the decision making process and the immediate future of  the site. However, what Feldman and Hanahan did not address is how the residents would be notified and through which medium site activities would be communicated to residents. This public survey is a means by which the results of  Feldman and Hanahan could be further tested within the context of  a former gas station and the subject site.  Secondly, the survey was designed to establish whether participants believed that the establishment of  a demonstration garden on the premises would be a viable tool for communicating site activity. The survey then determined whether the experience of  a demonstration garden on a former gas station site undergoing                                  30 remediation would influence the participants use of  gasoline and the automobile. Demonstration garden was substituted for remedial landscape because the general public is more aware of  this term.  The following section contains research by environmental psychologists regarding influencing environmental behaviour. The information was applied in both the development of  the survey and the development of  guideline for the test site’s design.  The survey findings and analysis are located in section 5.3 and a copy of  the survey and cover letter are  located in Appendix 1.   5.3 Results of  the Survey  Although the survey attempted to determine the applicability of  remedial landscapes, the term was replaced in the survey by “demonstration garden.” Since participants do not have access to this thesis, they are likely to not understand the implications of  remedial landscapes. The term demonstration garden is more commonly used.  Survey Hypothesis Hypothesis 1: Residents believe that they should be notified of  remediation within the community and that remediation of  a local property is a community concern. Hypothesis 2: Participants believe the remediation activities should be made more visible to the local community. Hypothesis 3: The use of  a demonstration garden would be supported as a viable tool for communicating site activities.  Hypothesis 4: Participants would indicate that a demonstration garden on a former gas station site would affect their gasoline and automobile dependence.                                  31  Methods  The survey, which consisted of  6 questions, was delivered to 500 residences surrounding the test site (see fig. 12). Participants were given one month to return the surveys. Of  the 500 delivered surveys, 86 surveys were returned however only 84 surveys were analyzed. Two surveys were excluded from the data sets due to incongruities in their answers. Additionally, 51 participants provided further written responses. Although the questions were designed for simple yes or no responses, many participants answered the questions with additional information. A record of  additional comments and responses can be found in Appendix 1.   Five surveys were received after the completion of  the analysis. The written responses to these surveys have been included in Appendix 2, however their responses were not included in statistical analysis.                                   32 Figure 12: The area surrounding the site included in the survey area The hypotheses yielded the following research questions that were then put into a survey: Question 1: Do you believe that the public, especially local residents, should be notified when a former gas station site is being cleaned? Question 2: Do you think that the clean-up process (remediation) should be made more visible to residents? Question 3: Would you be interested in learning about the clean-up process through a demonstration garden? Question 4: Do you think that a demonstration garden revealing the clean-up taking place at the site would lessen your dependance on gasoline and the car? Question 5: Do you think that a demonstration garden revealing the clean-up taking place at the site would increase your dependance on gasoline and the car? Question 6: Do you think that the issue of  a contaminated site in the neighborhood is a community concern? Data Analysis  If  the answer provided was clearly yes, no, or some variation ( i.e. positively, of course, surely), the data was kept. However, answers such as maybe, I’m not sure, or potentially, were not entered into the data set. These surveys however were not entirely discounted. In the case of  answers that were not simply positive or negative, no data was entered for that particular question. The data was entered and analyzed using SPSS statistical analysis program at the D.T. Kenny building on the U.B.C. Point Grey campus.                                  33 Initial Results Question Label Number of Responses Number of Positive Responses Percent of Positive Responses Question 1 Notify 81 68 83.95 % Question 2 Visible 75 55 73.33 % Question 3 Garden 78 49 62.82 % Question 4 Less Gas 66 8 12.12 % Question 5 More Gas 73 1 1.37% Question 6 Concern 82 74 90.24 %  Discussion:  Question 1  Of  the 84 surveys analyzed, 81 participants answered question number one. The results indicated in Table 1 demonstrate that a substantial majority, (84 %) of participants believe that local residents should be notified when a site in the community is remediated. These results partially validate hypothesis 1 and agree with the findings of Feldman and Hanahan. Through analysis of  additional written responses, it becomes more apparent that since most residents were unaware or unsure of  the site’s activities, they considered it dangerous or a health risk. One participant indicated the level of anxiety the site posed in her comments; “ I don’t want my kids biking or playing near it” (unknown participant).  Question 2  Of  the 84 surveys analyzed, 75 participants answered question number in manner that could be statistically analyzed. The results indicated in Table 1 demonstrate that a majority, (73 %) of  participants believe that the activities of  the site should be made visible to local residents. These results validate hypothesis 2 and agree with the findings of  Feldman and Hanahan which indicated that residents preferred methods of remediation that took place on site. According to their discussion, Feldman and Hanahan indicated that making the activities visible was a response to the desire of                                  34 Table 1 - Initial Results of Statistical Analysis community members to alleviate potential stigmas surrounding the site and contamination (Feldman and Hanahan 1996, 1349).   Question 3  Of  the 84 surveys analyzed, 78 participants answered question number three. The results indicated in Table 1 demonstrate that a majority, (63 %) of  participants would be interested in learning about the remediation of  the site through a demonstration garden. These results partially validate hypothesis 3. Although 63 % of respondents answered positively to question 3, the argument for the use of  a demonstration garden as a tool for communication could be improved upon. There are several reasons why the results were not as strong as desired. Six surveys provided answers to question 3 that could not be analyzed statistically. One of  the six surveys provided a written response that could perhaps provide insight into why  37% of respondents that did not answer this question positively.   “I’d be interested in learning about the process, but is a demonstration  garden the right vehicle? What does a demonstration garden have to do  with the clean-up process? Seems that there is a lot more to the process  than just a garden.”  unknown participant  The definition of  remedial landscapes is included within this thesis, however, for the purpose of  the survey, the term was replaced with the term “demonstration garden.” It is quite possible that participants understood a demonstration garden as a place that demonstrates how to garden, or how a gas station affects a garden. Unfortunately, the survey was not clear enough in its description of  what exactly a demonstration garden does or is. Inversely, the 63% of  participants that positively responded to question 3 may have done so simply because they preferred any type of garden over the current conditions of  the site. However, the question as posed on the survey discusses learning about processes of  the site through the use of  a demonstrative garden. Therefore, it can be inferred that most of  the positive responses were in support of  the garden as a communicative or educative tool. This inference is supported further by one participants additional comments: “the public deserves to be better educated and therefore informed as to how the system can and should work.” unknown participant                                   35  Question 4  Of  the 84 surveys analyzed, 66 participants answered question number four. The results shown in Table 1 demonstrate that only 8 % of  participants indicated that their dependence on gasoline would be lessened after experiencing a demonstration garden that reveals the clean-up process. These results do not validate hypothesis 4. Although the demonstration garden addresses issues of  the cognitive limitations of environmental awareness as discussed by Kollmus and Agyeman (2002), participants’ indicated viewing the clean-up process would not substantially decrease their gasoline dependence. There are several possible reasons why hypothesis 4 failed to be validated.  The lack of  desired results may be due to the distinction  between reading about a demonstration garden, and a first-hand encounter with a demonstration garden. As indicated by one participant, “ I would not be able to answer this until I had seen/ learned from the demo garden (unknown participant).”  It is also possible that respondents failed to make a clear connection between their individual use of  a car and dependence on gasoline and the cause of  site contamination. This potential pitfall is made more evident by a comment made by one participant; “I don’t see the link, except as a general recognition of  the need to lessen dependence of  fossil fuels (unknown participant).”  For remedial landscapes or demonstration gardens to be successful they must implicate the observer in the process of  remediation. As Kollmus and Agyeman (2002) state, experiencing the negative affects of  environmental degradation firsthand is a key to influencing individuals’ environmental behaviour. Although the experience of  a demonstration garden may achieve this, the results are not supported through the survey which discusses an unbuilt demonstration garden.  Question 5  Of  the 84 surveys analyzed, 73 participants answered question number five. The results indicated in Table 1 demonstrate that only 1 % of  participants indicated that their dependence on gasoline would be increased after experiencing a demonstration garden that reveals the clean-up process. As indicated in hypothesis four, the effects of the demonstration garden were to mitigate the observer’s dependence on gasoline. Therefore, having only 1% of  respondents indicate their gasoline dependence would increase does not support hypothesis 4. One explanation for why 1 respondent indicated that his/her gasoline dependence would be increased is that after experiencing                                  36 a garden that reveals remediation,  the observer may come to the conclusion that it can clean-up any contamination and there is no need to mitigate gasoline usage.  Question 6  Of  the 84 surveys analyzed, 82 participants answered question number 6. The results indicated in Table 1 demonstrate that a substantial majority (90 %) of participants believed the issue of  remediation to be a community concern. These results agree with the findings of  Feldman and Hanahan (2002), which indicated that residents felt it was a community issue since the remediation of  a contaminated site could potentially affect the community, but also the marketability of  the community and real- estate values. One participant’s comments provide insight into the extent to which the site was a local concern; “I had the health department check the water” (unknown participant).  However, 10 participants indicated that remediation was not a concern of  the community. Participants that answered no to question 6 offered explanations such as “it should be in the hands of  the experts” and “it is a concern of  the city council” (unknown participants).  Initial conclusions  The statistical analysis indicates that hypotheses one, two, and three are supported, Hypothesis four however is not supported by the data.  Several surveys recognized the test site although it was not discussed in the survey nor cover letter. The cover letter informed participants that my research was based on looking at former gas station sites being “cleaned” or remediated but does not name the test site. Fifteen percent of  the surveys had comments related to the test site providing information on their views of  site activities or questions pertaining to the site’s remediation. Through examination of  these comments, which can be found in Appendix 1, it becomes more clear that this particular site has been a mystery to local residents for over 2 decades and is a shared concern throughout the community.  Correlatory Results  The data entered from the surveys was then cross-correlated using a Pearson Correlation 2-Tailed test to determine what if  any were the trends that appeared in the statistical data. As indicated in Table 2, there was one positive significant correlation at the 0.05 level or 95 %, and 6 positive significant correlations at the 0.01 level, or 90 %.                                  37 1 2 3 4 5 6 Notify Visible Garden Less Gas More Gas Concern 1 Notify 1 .517** .305** .073 .054 .261* 2 Visible .517** 1 .373** 052 .073 .392** 3 Garden .305** .373** 1 .126 -.156 .360** 4 Less Gas .073 .052 .126 1 .334* -.041 5 More Gas .054 .073 -.156 .334** 1 .036 6 Concern .261* .392** .360** -.041 .036 1 *   Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)  Discussion  The most significant correlation is the participants belief  that they should be notified when a site undergoes remediation and that the issue of  remediation is a community concern.  The second most significant correlation is exhibited between question one and question three. This strong correlation indicates that over 90 % of  the participants believe the community should be notified of  remediation and that they would be interested in learning about the process through a demonstration garden. This correlation provides a strong argument for the development of  remedial landscapes on sites undergoing remediation.  There also existed a relatively high correlation between respondents who answered positively to question three and question six. Therefore, the majority of                                  38 Table 2 - Correlatory Results of Statistical Analysis respondents who believed that the contamination is a community concern, also indicated they would be interested in learning about the process through a demonstration garden.  Survey Conclusions  Although the statistics did not provide strong evidence that a demonstration garden would affect the observers’ dependence on gasoline, the fact that a high correlation exists between questions one, two , three and six indicates that the well- being of  the community ranks highly among resident’s concerns. Therefore it is quite possible that although participants did not indicate a change in their fuel consumption after attaining information in written form (survey), their gasoline dependence is subject to change through the direct experience of  the demonstration garden.  The data indicates that participants showed concern for the site and the community and they believed they should be informed when a site undergoes remediation. Residents most likely want to be informed about issues that pose potential health risks to their homes and community. It is also likely that residents did not indicate a change in their fuel consumption because they do not believe the leaking of fuel into the ground is their fault. Although their fuel needs support the sustained existence of  gas stations, residents are apt to place blame for leaking tanks on site owners.  Implications for Future Research  Research studying the type of  landscapes that might change environmental behaviour would be beneficial to landscape architecture and the planet. Although this thesis describes the use of  remedial landscapes to change observers’ behaviour, very little research has been conducted previous to the current survey.                                  39 6.0 Remedial Design interventions  6.1 Development of  Design Guidelines  Although hypothesis 4 was unsupported by the statistical data, research indicates that first-hand experiences of  the immediate effects of  environmental degradation have the potential to influence environmental behavior and attitudes (Kollmus and Agyeman, 2002). The survey results indicated that residents strongly believe they should be informed of  site activities and supported the implementation of a demonstration garden on a site undergoing remediation. Whether or not their fuel consumption will be affected after experiencing the remedial landscape could be later determined. The design of  the test site is therefore primarily meant to provide residents notification of  the remediation activities in the form of  a remedial landscape or “demonstration garden.” Nonetheless, cues taken from the research of  environmental psychologists have been included in the design to provide opportunities for an experience that may lead to changes in environmental behaviour.  The following guidelines have been developed for the test site. As stated in the definition of  remedial landscapes, the temporary design must “addresse both the existing processes of  remediation and the processes responsible for the contamination of  the site.” A measure of  success of  remedial landscapes lies in their ability to communicate through the landscape and potentially influence the attitudes and behaviours of  observers. This is where the creative talents of  landscape architects are the most needed. Through exploration of  the site, the observer should gain a basic understanding of  the message that lies in the landscape, or to use a term coined by a communications giant Marshal McLuhan, uncover the message that exists in the medium.  The following guidelines have been developed through a combination of research and precedent studies. These guidelines were used when designing the remedial landscape for the test site. 1. the design must attract people visually and invite them to spend time on the site 2. the information must be revealed in a manner that enables people to discover the extent of  remediation                                  40 3. the design should aid the observer in recognizing the scale and/or immediacy of  the issues addressed by the design ( i.e. contaminant type, responsible industry, etc.) 4. the design should include the use of  secondary or alternative methods of  remediation other than the primary system designed by the environmental engineers 5. since remedial landscapes are being used as models of  sustainability, they should employ as much recycled material as possible, especially when designed for temporary situations. These guidelines will be further explained using specific examples from the design of the test site found in section 6.2.                                   41  6.1 Test Site Design Intervention                                   42 Drawing 1 - Diagram Section Along 41st Drawing 2- Schematic Pole Location Plan                                  43 Drawing 3 - Diagram Section Along 41st                                  44 Drawing 4 - Test Site Landscape Plan                                   45 Drawing 5 - Pole Location Plan Figure 13  - Alfalfa Figure 14  - Red Clover Figure 15  - Perennial Rye                                  46 Drawing 6  - Section Elevations Drawing 7  - Site Furniture Construction                                  47 Drawing 8  - Perspective from 41st Drawing 9  - Perspective from Larch 6.2 The following is an explanation and description of  the elements included in the redesign of  the former gas station site at 41st and Larch.  The Poles  According to the Canadian treasury there are approximately 428 former gas station sites currently undergoing remediation in Canada. Each of  these sites is represented by a pole inscribed with its location. The poles provide an opportunity for the observer to recognize the scale of  the issue as it impacts the entire country.  The use of  pvc poles reference the poles that can be found extruding from the surface of  sites undergoing remediation. The poles used on sites undergoing remediation indicate the location of  pumping and monitoring wells. The pvc poles at the test site act as indicators so that the observer can begin to recognize other sites undergoing remediation.  The pole heights and arrangement density create a vertical profile of  the hydraulic trap created by the underlying groundwater table. The trap, which is generated by the pump and treat system, acts both a means of  collecting contaminants and preventing their migration off-site. The poles recreate this protective barrier on the site’s surface depicting the strongest part of  the trap which stops contaminants from moving across the street to Elm Park.   Due to their height and the quantity of  poles on the site, the design has the power to draw observers into the site primarily out of  curiosity. The attracting power of the poles fulfills guideline 1.  In passing, the dynamic pattern of  the poles as they fall in and out of  alignment creates the illusion of  movement on the site. This perceived activity should attract the attention of  the public.  In following guideline 2, the poles are arranged in increased density around the testing and monitoring wells that are part of  the site’s remediation system. The existing system of  remediation is then visually amplified by the added poles.  In following guideline 3, the quantity of  poles used on the site informs the observer of  the abundance of  similar sites throughout Canada. The connection between the 428 poles and other sites is strengthened by the address listed on each pole,                                  48 for example “41st and Larch, Vancouver B.C. Since many remediation systems include the use of  several pvc pipes on site, the pvc poles act as a material reference to other sites undergoing remediation. The observer is then informed on one way to recognize other sites undergoing remediation.  Tank Depression  The depressions in the ground reference the former fuel tanks which existed on-site and are responsible for the release of  gasoline into the ground. The volume of soil removed is equivalent to the volume of  gasoline the on-site tanks held. The size of the tanks also expresses the local community’s dependence on gasoline and the amount of  fuel that could be potentially released into the ground.  The tank depressions partially fulfill guideline 3 by providing evidence of  the source of  contamination.  Plant Materials  Two primary plant materials are arranged in rows to indicate the direction of groundwater flow, the primary agent of  both the contaminant movement off-site and the system of  remediation employed. The bands alternate between perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and alfalfa (Sativa medicago). The grasses are planted in bands measuring in multiples of  42”. The bands provide opportunities for the grasses to be removed by sod cutters to be transported to another remedial site. Besides creating a vegetative cap for the site, these two specific species promote the growth and development of  a bacteria that has been shown to dramatically reduce quantities of petroleum hydrocarbons in soils.  In following guideline 4, both plant species  promote a bacteria that greatly reduces the amounts of  petroleum hydrocarbons in the soils. Also, the tank depressions are planted with red clover (Trifolium pratense) which is commonly used on contaminated sites to return fertility to the soil and regulate pH. As described in section 3.2 , due to a large root surface area, grasses support greater bacterial activity than other plants. The grasses also create a thick vegetative cap that reduces the possibilities for the movement of  surface contaminants.  Circulation  The site provides two paths for circulation into and through the site. Both paths are made of  crushed gravel, a material permeable enough to allow rainwater to                                  49 flow through the soils, but sturdy enough to provide wheelchair or stroller accessibility. The primary circulation path cuts through the south-west corner of  the site creating a pedestrian connection between  Larch and 41st. This path provides entrance into the site and also invites local residents to use the site as a short cut through the corner lot. The secondary path is a thinner winding path that allows observers to pass by the equipment involved in the groundwater remediation system.  Observing and learning to recognize the equipment used in the remediation of contaminated sites partially fulfills the requirement set by guideline 2.  Seating  To invite people to stay, seating is provided along the primary circulation path and provides accommodations for individuals and groups. The seating is constructed of slabs of  concrete cut from the original concrete surface of  the former gas station. The concrete has been cut into slabs 6” thick and stacked to create backed and non-backed seating. The same type of  seating has been provided along the secondary path to provide seating near the remediation equipment.  The seating partially fulfills guideline 1 by providing opportunities for observers to spend time within the redesigned space. The recycled concrete from the site also fulfills guideline 5.                                  50 7.0 Conclusion  The goal of  this thesis was to develop a remedial landscape that would both help reduce on-site contaminants and communicate to the surrounding community the remedial process. Additionally, through research and a public survey this thesis attempted to establish that remedial landscapes could: 1. affect or influence the community’s attitudes and behaviours to act more pro- environmentally through the recognition of  local contaminated sites and by highlighting the individual’s role in the contamination process 2. create a stronger sense of  community by revealing the remediation that benefits the entire community and reinforces shared values 3. aesthetically enhance the site to make the landscape more readable and enjoyable for the public  This thesis primarily defined remedial landscapes as interventions designed to repair contaminated sites and communicate the repair to the public. The thesis then examined literature which indicated that increased awareness through exposure to environmental degradation could lead to changes in the public’s environmental attitudes and behaviors. A public perception study indicated that residents living around the test site in Kerrisdale also believed that the remediation process was a concern and believed that the landscape would act as a viable tool for communicating the site’s activities.  Possibilities for Future Research  Since abandoned, contaminated gas stations are so prevalent in Canada, remedial landscapes should be further explored as a tool for communication. Through an exploration of  other land-uses, it could become more clear to the public the quantities of  land that have been contaminated and allowed to degrade to a point that threatens surrounding communities.  Remedial landscapes also provide an opportunity for landscape architects to explore post-consumer pre-recycled prodcuts. Pre-recycled products require substantially less energy to construct compared to recycled materials that have been melted down or reprocessed. Secondly, pre-recycled items maintain some properties of their original function. Their past is left partially intact. The history of  the item provides                                  51 opportunities for the public to examine the extent of  our single-use materialistic needs. People are offered an opportunity to examine the quantities of  single-use materials as well as question where the goods would have otherwise ended up.  As discussed in the survey conclusion, further research is needed to study what elements or landscapes result in a change in environmental behaviour. Although this thesis describes the use of  remedial landscapes to change observers’ behaviour, very little research has been conducted previous to the current survey.  Contrary to some studies and research in environmental psychology, the survey conducted in Kerrisdale did not indicate that a demonstration garden would affect their gasoline consumption. However, as previously discussed, it is quite possible that observers would be affected by being exposed first hand to a demonstration garden or remedial landscape as opposed to exposure to a written description. Further study could measure the actual affects of  remedial landscapes on gasoline consumption or other issues that pertain to sustainability.  Future of  the Community  An analysis of  the written responses from the survey participants indicates that many of  the residents are aware of  the test site at 41st and Larch. The survey hopefully generated discussion among concerned residents. The survey could potentially act as a catalyst or a springboard for the community to demand information or action. The site owner is not required to disclose the remediation taking place and it is highly unlikely that Imperial Oil, the site owner, will take any action unless instigated by the municipality or public. The site will remain in its current condition until fully remediated. Perhaps after having read and contemplated the survey, when site in the community need remediation, the residents will demand that a remedial landscape or “demonstration garden” be established.                                  52 8.0 Bibliography Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentise Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. AMD and Art Webstie. 2007. The Treatment System. http://www.amdandart.org. Accessed March 30, 2008. ARKS Community Vision. 2005. Vancouver City Council. Banks et al. 2001. The Effects of  Plants on the Degradation and Toxicity of  Petroleum Contaminants in Soil: A Field Assessment. Advances in Biochemical Engineering. 78:75-96. Benites, Cecelia, Clare Lyster. 2005. Regarding public space. 306090 09 New York, N.Y.: 306090 Inc; distributed by Princeton Architectural Press. British Columbia Ministry of  Environment. 2007. Land Remediation: Brownfield and Brownfield Development. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/remediation/ brownfields/index.htm. Accessed February 3, 2008. Canada Gazette. 2007. Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Vol. 141, No. 14. http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2007/20070407/html/regle2-e.html. Accessed February 3, 2008. Canadian Center for Energy. 2007. Land: Underground Storage Tanks. http:// www.centreforenergy.com/silos/ong/ongEnvironment/ dsPetroleumIndEnvLand02.asp. Accessed February 3, 2008. Cantner, Brenda. Telephone interview conducted Nov. 14, 2007. Cranz, Galen, and Michael Boland. 2004. Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks. Landscape Journal 23, no. 2:102-120. Denes, Agnes. 1993. Notes on Eco-Logic: Environmental Artwork, Visual Philosophy and Global Perpective. Leonardo. 26, no. 5:387-395. Dewey John. 1934. Art as Experience. New York, New York. Minton Balch. Environment Canada Freshwater Website. 2000. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks and Piping. http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/nature/grdwtr/e_lust.htm. Accesses February 3, 2008. Feldman, David. Ruth A. Hanahan. 1996. Public Perceptions of  a Radioactively Contaminated Site: Concerns, Remediation Preferences, and Desired Involvement. Environmental Health Perspective. 104, no. 12: 1344-1352.                                  53 France, Robert. 2003. Green world, gray heart?: the promise and the reality of landscape architecture in sustaining nature. Harvard design magazine, no.18[30]-36. Galatowitsch, Susan M. 1998. Ecological Design for Environmental Problem Solving. Landscape Journal. 17, no. 2:99-107. Gobster et al. 2007. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology. 22:959-972 Haag, Richard. 1998. Eco-Revelatory Design: The Challenge of  the Exhibit. Landscape Journal 17, no. 2:72. Hall, Tim, and Iain Robertson. 2001. Public Art and Urban Regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates. Landscape Research 26, no. 1:5-26. Hill, Kristina. 1998. Ring Parks as Inverted Dikes. Landscape Journal. 17, no.2:35-41. Havemann, Antje, and Argit Schild. 2007. ‘You can use my tights’ or: The phenomenon of  temporary solutions. Landscape Research 32, no. 1:45-55. Herrington, Susan. When Art is a Garden - Benny Farms by Claude Cormier. Contemporary Garden Aesthetics: Creations and Interpretations. Dumbarton Oaks. Washington D.C. 2007. Jakle, John A. 1992. Derelict landscapes : the wasting of  America's built environment. Savage, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Kirk, Jennifer L., John N. Klironomos, Hung Lee, and Jack T. Trevors. 2005. The effects of  perennial ryegrass and alfalfa on microbial abundance and diversity in petroleum contaminated soil. Environmental Pollution, 133, no. 3:455-465. Landry, Charles. 1995. The creative city. London, England: Demos. Kollmus, Anja, Julian Agyeman. 2002. Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, no. 239-260. Korda et al. 1997. Petroleum hydrocarbon bioremediation: sampling and analystical techniques, in situ treatments and commercial microorganisms currently used. Applied Microbiological Biotechnology. 48: 677-686. Mckenzie-Mohr, D and Smith, W. 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behaviour: an introduction to community-based social marketing. New Society. Gabriola Island, Canada.                                  54 Mozingo, Louise A. 1997. The Aesthetics of  Ecological Design: Seeing Science as Culture. Landscape Journal 16, no. 1:46. Nassauer, Joan. 1995. Messy Ecosystems Orderly Frames. Landscape Journal. 14, no.2: 161-169. Riser-Roberts, Eve. 1998. Remediation of  Petroleum Contaminated Soils: Biological, Physical, and Chemical Processes. New York. Lewis. Sharp, Joanne, Venda Pollock, and Ronan Paddison. 2005. Just art for a just city: Public art and social inclusion in urban regeneration. Urban Studies 42, no. 5:1001-1023. Strang, Gary L. 1996. Infrastructure as Landscape. Places.10. 3: 8-15. Thayer Jr., Robert L. 1998. Landscape as an Ecologically Revealing Language. Landscape Journal 17, no. 2:118. Thayer, Jr., Robert L. 1994. Gray world, green heart : technology, nature, and sustainable landscape. New York: Wiley. Thayer, Jr., Robert L. 1989. Technophobia and Topophilia: The dynamic meanings of technology in the landscape. Delicate Balance: Technics, Culture and Consequence. Oct. 1989. 18-28. Thompson, Catherine Ward. 2002. Urban Open Space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning. 60. 59-72. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of  Underground Storage Tanks. 2005. http://www.epa.gov/OUST/. Accessed February 4, 2007. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether. 2007. http://www.epa.gov/MTBE/. Accessed February 4, 2007. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Elements for Effective Management of  Operating Pump and Treat Systems. U.S.  Cincinnati, OH. EPA National Service Center for Environmental Publications. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Groundwater Cleanup: Overview of  Operating Experience at 28 Sites. Cincinnati, OH. EPA National Service Center for Environmental Publications. Van Epps, Amanda. 2006. Phytoremediation of  Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.                                  55 Weisman, Wade. 1998. Analysis of  Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Environmental Media. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series Volume 1. Amherst Scientific.                                  56 9.0 Appendices  9.1 Appendix 1 - Public Perception Survey  Cover Letter Greetings, I	
 am	
 a	
 graduate	
 student	
 at	
 the	
 University	
 of	
 British	
 Columbia	
 preparing my	
 thesis	
 for	
 a	
 master	
 of	
 landscape	
 architecture	
 degree.	
 My	
 studies	
 are concerned	
 with	
 cleaning	
 up	
 contaminated	
 sites.	
 A	
 contaminated	
 site	
 is one	
 that	
 has	
 levels	
 of	
 toxins	
 in	
 the	
 soil	
 and	
 water	
 that	
 are	
 higher	
 than established	
 safety	
 standards.	
 For	
 my	
 research	
 I	
 am	
 examining	
 gas stations	
 that	
 are	
 no	
 longer	
 in	
 operation	
 and	
 are	
 being	
 cleaned. I	
 am	
 hoping	
 that	
 you	
 will	
 participate	
 in	
 my	
 research	
 by	
 answering	
 the following	
 questions.	
 All	
 individual	
 responses	
 will	
 be	
 confidential	
 and	
 will only	
 be	
 used	
 as	
 part	
 of	
 my	
 academic	
 study. If	
 you	
 are	
 at	
 least	
 18	
 years	
 old,	
 you	
 are	
 eligible	
 to	
 participate	
 in	
 the survey. If	
 you	
 agree	
 to	
 complete	
 the	
 survey,	
 please	
 do	
 NOT	
 write	
 your	
 name	
 on it.	
 By	
 filling	
 out	
 the	
 survey	
 you	
 are	
 consenting	
 to	
 participate. The	
 results	
 of	
 my	
 research	
 will	
 be	
 available	
 April	
 1,	
 2008.	
 	
 If	
 you	
 would like	
 a	
 copy	
 of	
 the	
 results	
 please	
 contact	
 me. I	
 realize	
 that	
 this	
 is	
 a	
 busy	
 time,	
 but	
 I	
 hope	
 that	
 you	
 will	
 return	
 this survey	
 in	
 the	
 provided	
 self-addressed	
 envelope	
 at	
 your	
 earliest convenience. Please	
 feel	
 free	
 to	
 contact	
 me	
 with	
 any	
 questions,	
 comments	
 or concerns.	
 I	
 also	
 encourage	
 you	
 to	
 add	
 comments	
 to	
 the	
 questionnaire as	
 any	
 information	
 you	
 are	
 willing	
 to	
 share	
 is	
 valuable. Sincerely, Alexandre	
 Man-Bourdon Graduate	
 Student	
 ,	
 Landscape	
 Architecture acm54@interchange.ubc.ca	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 or	
 at	
 home	
 :	
 778.737.7410                                  57 Survey 1.	
 Do	
 you	
 believe	
 that	
 the	
 public,	
 especially	
 local	
 residents,	
 should	
 be notified	
 when	
 a	
 former	
 gas	
 station	
 site	
 is	
 being	
 cleaned	
 up? 2.	
 Do	
 you	
 think	
 that	
 the	
 clean-up	
 process	
 (remediation)	
 should	
 be	
 made more	
 visible	
 to	
 residents? 3.	
 Would	
 you	
 be	
 interested	
 in	
 learning	
 about	
 the	
 clean-up	
 process through	
 a	
 demonstration	
 garden? 4.	
 Do	
 you	
 think	
 that	
 a	
 demonstration	
 garden	
 revealing	
 the	
 clean-up taking	
 place	
 at	
 the	
 site	
 would	
 lessen	
 your	
 dependence	
 on	
 gasoline	
 and the	
 car? 5.	
 Do	
 you	
 think	
 that	
 an	
 on-site	
 demonstration	
 of	
 the	
 clean-up	
 taking place	
 at	
 the	
 site	
 would	
 increase	
 your	
 dependence	
 on	
 gasoline	
 and	
 the car? 6.	
 Do	
 you	
 think	
 the	
 issue	
 of	
 a	
 contaminated	
 site	
 in	
 the	
 neighborhood	
 is a	
 community	
 concern? 7.	
 Additional	
 comments:	
 (feel	
 free	
 to	
 use	
 the	
 back	
 as	
 well)                                  58 9.2 Appendix 2 - Additional Written Survey Responses  The following is an account of  the additional responses provided by survey participants. As there was no demographic data nor were the surveys labeled or signed, the responses have been organized by question.  Question 1: Do you believe that the public, especially local residents, should be notified when a former gas station site is being cleaned? ‣ yes that was they would know and feel more comfortable with that ‣ yes, but only the neighbors of  the property being cleaned ‣ more important to know when it is contaminated. does the clean up process  cause a hazard ‣ yes; a notice similar to development permit sign could be placed at the site.  Mail outs on such matters are useless and only end up in the garbage or  recycling ‣ yes especially property owners beside gas station ‣ yes, signs at the site ‣ no, because environmental tests will be done as required by the municipality  for permits and the bank for loans ‣ yes residents need to feel secure in the knowledge that the soil in their  neighborhood is safe ‣ yes, but its not essential ‣ yes that way they would know and feel more comfortable with that ‣ yes, but only neighbors of  the property being cleaned ‣ no, only if  it represents an environmental hazard to the residents ‣ yes I think the health hazard is substantial and the site leeches to other areas                                  59 ‣ The one lot on 41st and larch was a former gas station closed in the 1980’s.  Ground is still contaminated. ‣ yes, through the media for example ‣ I don’t think it’s necessary. When the gas station i closed off, it’s obvious  what’s happening ‣ No, what good would that do maybe should should be notified when site is  declared contaminated ‣ yes in principle, but no in practice. That is to say, I think it would be  responsible to notify the public, but perhaps to much to ask of  the public is to  be notifies every time a site is being cleaned ‣ I don’t want my kids biking or playing near it Question 2: Do you think that the clean-up process (remediation) should be made more visible to residents? ‣ as long as its not an eyesore ‣ city should ensure its done correctly ‣ yes, in principle (especially for the residents who would be interested in  learning about the clean-up process), but in reality I don’t think most residents  want to be bothered with such issues ‣ no residents hopefully can trust the experts that they are doing their job ‣ In what sense? As long as one can see there is appropriate, effective activity on  the site. Perhaps understanding the steps being taken would help us to  understand what progress may be made ‣ yes as long as safety is still the primary concern ‣ yes it should be signed with info about the process and there should be a web  site with up to date information                                  60 ‣ we never were informed about the clean-up at the site north-east corner Larch  and 41st ave, it has been years !! ‣ no, if  a neighboring property wants to know more, they should take  responsibility for asking questions ‣ more visible as in noisier or messier??? How about more accountable? where is  the contaminated ground going, how is it being treated, what are and how  effective are the on-site remediation ‣ yes if  it is risk to them. More importantly, if  this is paid by taxpayers, they  should be notified ‣ yes and perhaps if  plants are involved, nearby residents should be  encouraged/helped to plant appropriate vegetation and warned not to eat their  produce Question 3: Would you be interested in learning about the clean-up process through a demonstration garden? ‣ I’d be interested in learning about the process, but is a demonstration garden  the right vehicle? What does a demonstration garden have to do with the  clean-up process? Seems that there is a lot more to the process than just a  garden. ‣ absolutely. The public deserves to be better educated and therefore informed  as to how the system can and should work ‣ no this would cost money ‣ No, as I suspect with most people, I think we are all too busy (and/or lazy)  with our lives to be bothered with such things ‣ it would be interesting but there are higher priorities on my time - not to  de-value the importance of  your work                                  61 Question 4: Do you think that a demonstration garden revealing the clean-up taking place at the site would lessen your dependance on gasoline and the car? ‣ no because we already are conscious about that: we only own/use one hybrid  car in our family of  4 ‣ yes- the reality of  the impact would make me think twice ‣ perhaps. However, I try to use the public transit and walk whenever I can. ‣ This would heighten awareness and possibly deter driving cars as much ‣ perhaps, but there are many other factors which contribute to car/gasoline use ‣ hopefully. I am already very concerned and use my bicycle instead of  my car  whenever possible ‣ no idea, I would not be able to answer this until I had seen/learned from the  demo garden ‣ No, I would use gasoline and my car to the same extent that I’ve always had  (for convenience sake) Until electric/hydro/etc. cars become the norm, I don’t  expect to cut down on gasoline ‣ our dependent on gasoline at 90 + yrs nil ‣ no, I have already made decision on this based on general environment  concerns and costs to travel ‣ probably not - although it might lead to a more fuel efficient purchase next  time ‣ no, as I do not have or need a vehicle. I have always tried to respect the  environment and be accountable for all my choices ‣ no I have already limited my dependance on a car for environmental and  health reasons (better to walk) ‣ it would be nice if  that was the case, but I can’t say that it would be enough                                  62 ‣ no we use our vehicle as little as possible and are already more than aware of  our “dependence” ‣ Hardly, as I use my car minimally, mostly to transport my ailing husband to  medical appointments, etc. ‣ I don’t know the answer to this because I haven’t seen a clean-up ‣ depends on what I learned there, but I’m not someone who would go to a  demonstrations garden (unless I lived next to a gas station!) ‣ No, sorry, but this is too naive. How many drivers would view a clean-up  garden? How many would take the bus? Unfortunately more negative info in  general will not stimulate positive attitudes. ‣ I don’t see the link, except as a general recognition of  the need to lessen  dependence of  fossil fuels Question 5: Do you think that a demonstration garden revealing the clean-up taking place at the site would increase your dependance on gasoline and the car? ‣ no, it will likely to reduce the dependance on gasoline and will likely to increase  interests in alternate bio-fuels/ energy ‣ no. It would, however, help people make wiser, informed decisions that may  impact the environment ‣ to know how electricity works...I just want the light it to come on when I flick  the switch Question 6: Do you think that the issue of  a contaminated site in the neighborhood is a community concern? ‣ yes, i like to know the effects of  a contaminated soil to the neighbouring  grounds                                  63 ‣ yes I think it would have benefit to residents to be aware of  what clean-up is  involved ‣ yes- some sites were never remediated and were redeveloped. Public should be  made aware of  these sites ‣ no, I think it’s more local than an entire community ‣ yes, but should be in the hands of  the experts ‣ yes, eg. 41st Ave and Larch, NE corner, former Texaco site. Hence the need  for information board with a time line for de-contamination ‣ I think it is a concern of  the city council ‣ very much, I garden and often get a bit of  something I like, I know soil/water  plants move ‣ yes because toxins in the soil and water will affect vegetation, air quality and  overall health ‣ Yes, I think it definitely is of  concern, but again, many people (like me) are too  busy/lazy to get involved in bettering our environment, but hope that the  government/laws and researchers like you take care of  it. Question 7: Additional comments: ‣ I think more fuss is being made than necessary ‣ considering that this site has been for the best part 8 to 25 years ? and we the  neighbours have been given no information except what we can see and the  odd reclamation team truck on the premises, I fear that we have been living on  a time bomb for some time. Consider also that there were 3 other stations in  the immediate vicinity where there was no rehabilitation and now the lots hold  commercial and residential buildings, one is left to wonder! i believe the  former Texaco site is the first or among the first gas stations in the country to  be found contaminated - but nobody ever said so!                                  64 ‣ I have owned a home in Kerrisdale for 22 years. The site on the north side of  41st and Larch, has been undergoing clean-up for about the last 15 - 20 years.  I do not recall getting any information about what has gone on at this site. I  have made my own assumptions, however, I do not know when the clean-up  will be done. Seems like a very long tim already. There was some activity at the  site about a month ago. I think there should be a sign in front of  the site  explaining to residents what is going on and the expected time line. ‣ why not clean up the site and bill the gas company? ‣ The city of  Vancouver who provides permits for building on former gas  station sites and financial institutions must have an environmental testing  approval on the land so that any potential soil/water contamination is not  overlooked. ‣ I have been extremely concerned since Jack the Texaco station was closed  down. The land slopes downhill form that site to my home at xxxx Larch. I  put in “raised beds” about 3 feet of  the ground for my vegetables. I am not  confident that the health of  people in the community are even of  the remotest  consideration for the property owners. ‣ I want to participate but I think that you should have given me a brief  introduction so I have something that helps me understand your questions  (2,4,5). I understand “a contaminated site” ex 41st and Larch ex Shell gas  station and a “demonstration garden” but for me the questions need  rephrasing to make them understandable. I don’t have time to phone an  advisor. Sorry! ‣ advertise your survey at Kerrisdale community centre freeboard between the  main and seniors corridor ‣ the contaminated site at 41st and Larch has sat unused for almost 20 years.  The contamination/seepage affected some old trees at Elm Park and along  42nd Ave. at Elm St. The result was that an arborist had to remove the trees  after determining why they died. Amazingly, 3 other gas stations on the south  side of  41st from Larch to Balsam were torn down, property cleaned and have  been developed (Van City on one site, apartments with shops on the other  two). Any information  the public receives may help put pressure on oil/gas                                  65  companies to store and utilize all their sites in a responsible and  environmentally appropriate manner. Stewardship is everyone’s responsibility. ‣ more information re any such concerns are always beneficial to the  neighborhood. I’m sure residents wonder why, after 2 decades, the old Texaco  gas station site is still behind fences. Demonstration gardens are always an  excellent idea regardless of  the reason. I am a fanatical gardener. ‣ remediation is a mystery, a gas station is closed fenced off  and sits for 10 - 15  years (41st and Larch, Davie and Howe). Helping the local residents  understand is important. These sites look ugly, “greening” them with the  garden or natural vegetation would benefit all including the environment. Over  a vacant decade maybe they become more carbon neutral ‣ there is a clean-up of  a former gas station site at the corner of  Larch and 41st  in Kerrisdale that has been going on for fifteen years at least. The remedial  mechanism has been on site all those years. Occasionally workmen visit and  check gauges. This is crazy!!! ‣ the former Texaco station in Kerrisdale has been undergoing “clean-up” for  years. When completed, the site will no doubt be covered with an ugly  highrise. In the meantime, it provides some welcome open and quiet space. I  think the ‘need’ for clean-up in greatly exaggerated ‣ generally a contaminated site is a community concern. My comments seem  contradictory as i don’t think residents need to be notified when a former gas  station is being cleaned. This is better then having a gas station. I am  somewhat familiar with this process and am comfortable that the clean-up  process is set at high standards. Other less obvious contaminants are an issue  for me. Also big ticket items should be flagged. ‣ this something which is very complicated no just one individual can change.  Very much it’s depend on city and community development planning. ‣ is a contaminated site contained within its boundaries (e.g.property lines)?  How do we know, as residents, if  contamination has spread beyond the site  boundaries                                  66 ‣ New stations should have better containment standards. General public does  not need to be involved with the site operations, professionals review cleanup.  Dependence will always remain a reaction to cost. ‣ We need more information on the issue: what or why is the site being  remediated, for how long, what are the remediation processes, what research  has been done, where, how far does the contamination spread ‣ we have a former gas station site in our immediate neighborhood that has  been vacant for at least 30 yrs +. I have always been concerned why this piece  of  prime property (41st and Larch) has not been developed and sits behind a  shrouded fence. This land is on a higher grade, what has happened to make it  unviable. ‣ are owners of  gas stations assessed in advance for possible future remediation ‣ demonstration garden near former gas station site, put it in the internet ‣ more aggressive and diligent application of  rules and how long tanks may  remain in ground, better rules around household storage tanks are needed ‣ cleaning up contaminated sites is important ‣ I don’t think I can change much about my gasoline dependence. I try to walk  as much as I can. I think a demonstration garden can bring a neighborhood  together. If  residents walk-by or visit the garden and begin talking to each  other. That will also improve the neighborhood and make it safer. What will  reduce my dependence on a car is moving the IGA/Safeway closer to  Kerrisdale. Those parking lots will make great gardens. Don’t you think. ‣ I believe more are need to be taken to notify residents and if  polluted  soil/water/leechins junk like oil/gas is a concern, adjacent residents should  assist/ and be assisted. planting species that help remove toxins would help us  all ( I think driveways/garages, roads). Especially if  there is the additional  pollution of  gas stations. Perhaps plants could be available. The demo gardens  could be  open for a few hours once or twice a week on site to encourage  residents to make a similar plantings ‣ how exactly does a demonstration garden reveal the clean-up taking place? It  demonstrates that a garden can grown on different types of  soil. It would                                  67  definitely make the site more attractive while clean-up takes place. These sites  are not public lands - so owners need to give permission for gardens ‣ I am moderately interested to learn about the process, but most of  all would  be reassured that experts in the field are doing a good job - as it should be the  case for any profession. I don’t think the public can give advice on any subject  that requires specialized knowledge and expertise. However, I appreciate the  availability of  objective information. ‣ I think its good that gas stations do clean up the soil after the in-ground tanks  have leaked, but it would be better if  the tanks didn’t leak at all! Homeowners  are required to remove and clean-up old tanks when selling their property so I  think it’s good business do too. ‣ The site at 41st and Larch has been behind a fence for years and years. It  hasn’t really affected us at all. Maybe would be useful to hav info on how the  contamination occurred and what exactly the danger is. ‣ I don’t have any knowledge of  the clean-up process: How long it takes, what  type of  testing is in place. etc. I would like to have a sense of  this (eg site at  Larch and 41st- when will it be available for use, if  ever ‣ I would love to the site at 41st and Larch converted into a garden ‣ I had the health department check the water, etc. There were originally two gas  stations. The one lot on 41st and Larch east side had condos built on top.  Hope soil was tested before! ‣ The site @ 42st and Larch became publicly known as contaminated about 1  month after we bought our home here. I believe there has been maybe two  articles about this site in the Courier in 20 yrs and one story on the news when  it was discovered that gas/oil as leaking under the street from the Texaco site.  To my knowledge, the company  never communicated directly with residents  in all this time.                                  68                                  69

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0066365/manifest

Comment

Related Items