Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Improving Maintenance Efficiency in Kelowna Parks using a Mobile Application Trenholm, Robert Ryan 2015

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2015_february_trenholm_robert_ryan.pdf [ 4.11MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0074405.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0074405-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0074405-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0074405-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0074405-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0074405-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0074405-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0074405-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0074405.ris

Full Text

Improving Maintenance Efficiency inKelowna Parks using a MobileApplicationbyRobert Ryan TrenholmB.Sc. Hons., The University of British Columbia, 2012A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Interdisciplinary Studies)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA(Okanagan)January 2015c© Robert Ryan Trenholm, 2015AbstractWater is our world’s most valuable resource, and the sustainable man-agement of that resource is increasingly important with human populationgrowth increasing the demand for water and climate change affecting itsavailability. While research efforts for irrigation sustainability have beensuccessful, they have traditionally focused on reducing water usage throughautomation and optimization, and have primarily targeted agricultural andresidential water users. Limited research has been done for municipalities,which use large amounts of water to irrigate parks, sports fields, and otherrecreation areas. Irrigation sustainability for city parks requires more thanjust efficient water usage; it needs continual maintenance of equipment, con-sideration of soil, vegetation, landscape, and climate at the parks, and acommitment from the irrigation technicians who maintain the parks.Advances in mobile technology provide new opportunities to support ir-rigation technicians with the management and maintenance of city parks.This thesis describes a mobile-friendly web application, the irrigation man-agement application, which was developed to provide irrigation technicianswith information on the parks they maintain and aid with maintenanceactivities out in the parks. A case study was performed with the KelownaParks Services department to evaluate the effectiveness of the application us-ing a hybrid approach of questionnaires and scenario-based testing of main-tenance activities. The results showed that irrigation technicians unfamiliarwith particular parks were able to complete maintenance activities fasterwhen using the irrigation management application than those without; inaddition, they performed on par with, and in many cases better than, tech-nicians with years of familiarity of those parks.The irrigation management application allowed irrigation technicians tobe more efficient with their time and resources at the parks, and simplifieddecisions regarding park irrigation and practices. The City of Kelowna ParksServices department was enthusiastic about using the irrigation managementapplication in the future.iiPrefaceThe study in this thesis was conducted with the approval of the UBCOkanagan Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) under the certificatenumber H13-03194.iiiTable of ContentsAbstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiTable of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivList of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiList of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiiAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixDedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xChapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Chapter 2: Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1 Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1.1 Automated Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1.2 Decision and Management Support . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2 Mobile Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.2.1 Features, Constraints, and Considerations . . . . . . . 102.2.2 Research Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.3 Usability Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.4 Mobile Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.5 Kelowna Parks Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Chapter 3: Irrigation Management Application . . . . . . . . 223.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.2 Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23ivTABLE OF CONTENTS3.3 Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.3.1 Sign In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.3.2 Park Listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.3.3 Park Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263.3.4 Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313.3.5 Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333.3.6 Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363.3.7 Administrative Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Chapter 4: Case Study: City of Kelowna . . . . . . . . . . . . 434.1 Study Procedures and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434.1.1 Participant Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434.1.2 Participant Testing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444.1.3 Park Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444.1.4 Pre-test Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464.1.5 Test Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464.1.6 Observation and Data Recording . . . . . . . . . . . . 494.1.7 Completion Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Chapter 5: Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515.1 Test Scenario Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515.1.1 Scenario 1: Routine Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . 515.1.2 Scenario 2: Watering Program Alterations . . . . . . . 545.1.3 Scenario 3: Tree Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565.1.4 Scenario 4: Repair Damaged Sprinkler . . . . . . . . . 575.1.5 Summary of Task Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595.2 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615.2.1 Participant Confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615.2.2 Participant Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625.2.3 Perceptions of Test Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645.2.4 Perceptions of Overall Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . 675.3 Further Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Chapter 6: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Appendix A: Letter of Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Appendix B: Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85vTABLE OF CONTENTSAppendix C: Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89C.1 Pre-test Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90C.1.1 Confidence using Mobile Devices and Apps . . . . . . 90C.1.2 Anxiety using Mobile Devices and Apps . . . . . . . . 91C.1.3 Familiarity with Selected Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93C.2 Completion Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94C.2.1 Unfamiliar parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94C.2.2 Familiar parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99C.2.3 Overall Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104C.2.4 Confidence using Mobile Devices and Apps . . . . . . 106C.2.5 Anxiety using Mobile Devices and Apps . . . . . . . . 107C.2.6 Open feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109viList of TablesTable 4.1 Addresses, irrigated areas, and number of irrigationzones of selected parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Table 5.1 Time results for Scenario 1 Task 1: find control cabinet 52Table 5.2 Time results for Scenario 1 Task 2: find connection point 53Table 5.3 Time results for Scenario 1 Task 3: find curb stopper . 53Table 5.4 Time results for Scenario 1 Task 4: find valve box forspecific zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Table 5.5 Time results for Scenario 2 Task 1: identify irrigationzone(s) with dry brown patch of grass . . . . . . . . . 55Table 5.6 Time results for Scenario 2 Task 2: report which irri-gation zone(s) had their watering time altered . . . . . 56Table 5.7 Time results for Scenario 3 Task 1: identify which ir-rigation zone(s) may be affected by planting a tree . . 56Table 5.8 Time results for Scenario 3 Task 2: decide where it issafe to plant a new tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Table 5.9 Time results for Scenario 4 Task 1: identify in whichirrigation zone(s) a damaged sprinkler is located . . . 58Table 5.10 Time results for Scenario 4 Task 2: identify which typeof replacement part(s) are required . . . . . . . . . . . 58Table 5.11 Time results for Scenario 4 Task 3: report the repairsthat took place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Table 5.12 Summary of percent changes in mean performance foreach task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Table 5.13 Survey results of participant confidence and self-efficacy 61Table 5.14 Survey results of participant anxiety . . . . . . . . . . 63Table 5.15 Survey results of participant perceptions as Expertversus Novice for test Scenarios 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . 65Table 5.16 Survey results of participant perceptions as Expertversus Novice for test Scenarios 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . 66viiList of FiguresFigure 3.1 Application architecture diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Figure 3.2 Login screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 3.3 Park listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 3.4 Search and filter tool bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 3.5 Park detail summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Figure 3.6 Log maintenance form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Figure 3.7 Park usage chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Figure 3.8 Park meters and readings list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Figure 3.9 Park equipment list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 3.10 Park maintenance log list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Figure 3.11 Map displaying all parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 3.12 Map zoomed into a specific park . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 3.13 Park water usage report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Figure 3.14 Park cost estimate report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 3.15 Park water use efficiency report . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 3.16 Maintenance logs page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Figure 3.17 Editing park details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Figure 3.18 Editing a maintenance log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Figure 3.19 Administrative meter readings page . . . . . . . . . . 39Figure 3.20 Administrative user management page . . . . . . . . 40Figure 3.21 Administrative park organizational options . . . . . . 41Figure 3.22 Administrative tools page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Figure 5.1 Sample participant completion curves from each testscenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69viiiAcknowledgementsFirst and foremost I would like to express my utmost gratitude to my su-pervisor, Dr. Ramon Lawrence, for his continued encouragement, guidance,support, and mentorship. I have learned so much from working with you,and I’m truly grateful for all the invaluable experiences that I have gained.Thank you very much!I would also like to thank the rest of my supervisory committee: Dr.Patricia Lasserre, Dr. Yves Lucet, and Dr. Bowen Hui for providing mewith excellent insight and suggestions, as well as reviewing my work, toensure that I worked to the best of my abilities.My gratitude also goes out to Ted Sophonow, Steve Koga, and the rest ofthe staff from the City of Kelowna Parks Services department for all of theircontinued cooperation and support during this project. Finally, I would liketo acknowledge UBC and the Natural Sciences and Engineering ResearchCouncil for their ongoing support.ixDedicationFor my family and friends; thank you for all of the love and support.xChapter 1IntroductionWater is our world’s most valuable resource. Population growth andclimate change are putting an increased demand on our water resources,making sustainable management of those resources incredibly important.This is particularly so for municipalities, where large amounts of water areused for the irrigation of city parks, sports fields, golf courses, and otherrecreation areas. While there has been significant research efforts madetowards improving irrigation sustainability, most of those efforts have beenfrom industry and commercial systems [Rai14, Ind14, Tor14]. As well, muchof the research has traditionally focused on agriculture and residential waterusers; there has been very little research done with regards to municipalwater users and city parks.Parks and other green spaces are an important component of cities, asthey are used for recreation, sporting events, outdoor activities, and en-tertainment venues. The turf grass and trees in parks have been shownto remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, filter air pollution, reduceair borne dust, capture organic chemical pollutants, and condition the soil[Car06]. Additionally, green spaces in cities have been shown to offer sig-nificant cooling effects by reducing the surface air temperatures of adjacentbuildings [Car06] and contribute to overall energy savings of nearby build-ings and homes [JB85, BG94]. Finally, parks and green areas in cities areknown to improve the health and quality of residents and make metropolitanareas more attractive to residents and tourists [OEC14].Most cities use commercial irrigation systems for watering their civicparks, and there have been efforts to improve the irrigation at parks throughthe use of automated control systems [FCTL12, ZBZ07]. However, theseprojects have focused primarily on automating and reducing water usagein the irrigated areas. Irrigation sustainability for city parks involves morethan just efficient water usage; it requires the proper maintenance of theequipment and layout of the irrigation system at each park, considerationof the soil composition, climate, plants, and landscape at the parks, andmost importantly, a commitment from the people who manage and main-tain those parks. Maintenance of city parks is an endless endeavour, and1Chapter 1. Introductionirrigation employees are the front line for any changes and improvements inthe sustainability and efficiency of the irrigation in city parks.In the City of Kelowna, located in the central interior of British Columbiain the Okanagan Valley, the Parks Services department is responsible formaintaining over 300 unique irrigation sites, which includes city parks. Witha small but dedicated staff of only six full-time irrigation technicians to main-tain these irrigation sites each year, the sustainable management of thesecity parks is a daunting task. While irrigation technicians can eventuallybecome very knowledgeable about the parks they are responsible for main-taining, including the layout of equipment and any irregularities such as arecurring wet or dry areas, they usually know little to nothing about thoseparks when they are first hired and very little about any parks outside theones they regularly maintain. Since each park is different in terms of layoutand landscape, it can take years for the irrigation technicians to learn allthe ins and outs of their parks.Advances in mobile and web technology provide new opportunities toaid irrigation employees in managing their resources and improving theirirrigation practices at the parks they maintain. An application was devel-oped in collaboration with Kelowna’s Parks Services department to provideemployees with information about the parks they maintain, including the ir-rigated areas, historic and expected water usage, and the global positioningsystem (GPS) locations and layouts of equipment at the parks. The appli-cation also features an interactive map allowing for real time positioning ofthe user in relation to equipment locations, and the ability to create, view,and edit maintenance notes for each park. It is believed that the applicationwill allow irrigation technicians to be more efficient with their time and re-sources while performing maintenance activities in city parks, and that theapplication will simplify decisions regarding park irrigation and practices.This thesis seeks to demonstrate that real time mobile access to parkdata will improve park maintenance efficiency. The contributions of thethesis are:− The collection and integration of park and irrigation data, includingthe GPS locations of equipment at each park in Kelowna− The development and testing of a mobile application for park mainte-nance and irrigation management− And the development and implementation of a user study to evaluatethe effectiveness of the application2Chapter 1. IntroductionThis thesis describes the irrigation management application that wasdeveloped for Kelowna Parks Services, and presents the sustainability andefficiency study that was performed with the irrigation technicians of thatdepartment. Chapter 2 provides an overview of current water use and irri-gation, research on existing irrigation solutions, advances in mobile technol-ogy, and usability concerns. Chapter 3 describes the irrigation managementapplication that was developed. The sustainability and efficiency study per-formed with Kelowna’s Parks Services department is presented in Chapter 4,and an analysis of the results of that study is discussed in Chapter 5. Finally,Chapter 6 provides conclusions and recommendations for future work.3Chapter 2BackgroundThis chapter covers the motivating factors and background researchwhich have contributed to this thesis. The first section focuses on irriga-tion, including water use, irrigation management, and research into irriga-tion management software, applications, and projects. The second sectiondiscusses mobile technology, including the opportunities and challenges thatit presents and some research projects which have used mobile technologyto aid employees out in the field. The next section presents usability con-cerns, including development and testing of applications for mobile devices.Finally, the last section discusses the Parks Services department of the Cityof Kelowna.2.1 IrrigationIt is estimated that over the last century, the growth in global waterdemand has been more than double the rate of global population growth[OEC14]. With world population levels expected to exceed 9 billion bythe year 2050 [OEC14], the demands for water are only going to continueto increase. As such, it is increasingly important to develop and imple-ment sustainable management and usage practices for our water resources.Worldwide, agriculture is the biggest water user, with irrigation accountingfor 70% of global fresh water usage [UNWWAP14]. Industry and munici-palities make up the remaining 30% of global fresh water usage, typicallydescribed as 10% and 20% respectively [UNWWAP14, Rai03].2.1.1 Automated Control SystemsAs agricultural irrigation accounts for the vast majority of fresh wateruse worldwide, it should come as no surprise that the majority of researchand development on irrigation management and sustainability has focusedon agriculture. There is a large selection of commercial irrigation systemsavailable providing a variety of different technologies and solutions, with thethree biggest names in the industry being Toro [Tor14], RainBird [Rai14],42.1. Irrigationand Hunter Industries [Ind14]. These companies offer several products andtechnologies for irrigation management, including simple automated irriga-tion timers and more sophisticated irrigation controllers. Many of these con-trollers calculate optimal watering time requirements based on local weatherconditions and evapotranspiration (ET), which is the expected water loss asa result of evaporation and transpiration from the plants, and automate theirrigation. Other controllers make use of sensor-based shut-off systems thatuse rainfall sensors or soil moisture sensors to apply water only as needed.These companies also offer wireless, centrally controlled irrigation systemsto handle irrigation over large areas. However, these commercial systems of-ten have issues in regards to deployment, expensive costs, tuning for optimalwater usage, interoperability with other systems, and maintenance.There has also been an extensive amount of work on agricultural irriga-tion systems [ABR+12, GVMNGPG14, KF13] from a research perspective.In [KF13], the authors describe an irrigation control system using a com-mercial irrigation controller and control software that they developed whichcalculates the watering requirements and optimal watering times based onmeteorological data collected from a weather station. The meteorologicaldata included barometric pressure, dew point, temperature, solar radiation,wind speed and direction, and rainfall amounts. They wanted to know ifthere would be any advantages to irrigation at certain times of the day, withan overall goal of preventing water loss due to evaporation when tempera-tures are high. They found that evaporation becomes a significant factor ofwater loss during daylight hours and that soil moisture levels peaked late atnight into early morning. The authors determined that approximately 20%savings in water and 24% savings in energy could be achieved by runningthe irrigation at night instead of during the day.In [ABR+12], the authors present a theoretical automated irrigation sys-tem for Boro rice cultivation. They suggest using a combination of soilmoisture and water level sensors to determine watering requirements andavailability, digital circuitry to control the irrigation and redundant watersources, and a control unit that would use short message service (SMS) tomonitor the entire system. The control unit would automate the irrigationbased on the readings from the soil and water sensors, and automaticallyalert managers of any failures in the system using the short message service.Finally, in [GVMNGPG14], the authors developed an automated irriga-tion system using a sensor network to determine watering requirements foragricultural irrigation. The system consisted of a distributed wireless net-work of temperature and soil moisture sensors in the field, and a controllerunit that automated the irrigation and controlled the amount of water used52.1. Irrigationbased on those sensor readings as well as predetermined threshold valuesof temperature and soil moisture. The authors also implemented a basicweb page that allowed users to view the collected data and program theirrigation scheduling. Their goal was to optimize water use for irrigatingagricultural crops. The automated system and sensor network were testedin a greenhouse for organic sage production, and they were able to achievea nearly 90% savings in water usage compared to the traditional irrigationpractices at the farm. The system was also tested at three additional nearbylocations, with an approximately 60% savings during those trials.There have been some research efforts that specifically target municipalirrigation in city parks and green spaces [FCTL12, ZBZ07]. In [FCTL12],the authors described an adaptive irrigation control system for city parksthat uses wireless soil moisture sensors to measure water content in the soiland dynamically calculate the watering requirements for the turf grass basedon those readings. The adaptive irrigation controller connects to existingcommercial irrigation systems and automatically applies the appropriateamount of water as needed, without any human intervention after initialset up. The motivation for this project was that a significant portion ofmunicipal water is used for irrigation, particularly city parks during summermonths. The goal of the project was to see if significant water savings couldbe achieved by deploying the adaptive irrigation controller in a city park, incomparison to the water usage of the existing irrigation system. The systemwas set up in a park in the City of Kelowna and several moisture sensor nodeswere installed at the park. The sensor nodes communicated wirelessly to theadaptive controller that was connected to the existing irrigation controllerat the park, which had the ability to override the watering events based oncalculations made from the sensor readings. The adaptive controller also sentall collected data wirelessly to a server, where the information was stored in adatabase. The status of each part of the system was monitored and analyzed,and the collected readings were displayed on a website interface. The systemran in two phases during the summer. The first phase was to monitorthe existing watering patterns of the commercial irrigation controller andcompare it against the readings from the soil moisture sensors. The secondphase had the adaptive irrigation controller in full control of the amountof water being used based on the real-time sensor readings. The volume ofwater used by the adaptive irrigation system was compared to the existingwatering trends at the park, and both of those were compared against theexpected water usage based on weather models. The usage for the existingwatering trends closely matched the expected usage for the park; however,the amount of water used by the adaptive system was significantly lower62.1. Irrigationthan both those values. The adaptive irrigation system reduced water usageby 50% over a two-month period, which resulted in 210,000 litres of waterbeing saved at the park, and these savings were achieved without notableimpact or stress to the turf grass. While the water savings from the adaptiveirrigation system were great, one significant issue was the cost of installationand maintenance of the system. These maintenance costs were larger thanthe cost of water, which resulted in the system being infeasible as a long-termsolution for irrigation at the park.In [ZBZ07], the authors describe an automated irrigation system thatcalculates and applies water to green spaces. Soil moisture sensors are usedto monitor water levels in the green space, and an irrigation controller calcu-lates the watering requirements based on preset thresholds and the readingsfrom the sensors. The controller automatically turns on the irrigation whensoil moisture levels reach the minimum threshold and turns off when themaximum threshold is reached. The authors tested the system in a greenspace located on the campus of Beijing Forestry University for six months.The system successfully applied only the amount of water required at thegreen space as measured by the soil moisture sensors for the duration of thetest.Each of the previously described irrigation systems have shown the abil-ity to reduce and regulate water usage when implemented, with varyinglevels of automation and human input required; however, these systems failto account for some of the other important resources that are required forsustainability and efficiency in irrigation systems. The costs of labour, de-ployment, and maintenance of these systems can often be more significantthan the costs of the technology itself, which is discussed in greater detailin the following section.2.1.2 Decision and Management SupportIrrigation sustainability involves the sensible irrigation of plants to meetcurrent watering needs without endangering the needs of future generations.Irrigation sustainability requires the continual maintenance of irrigationequipment, the proper layout of irrigation zones and sprinkler heads, andconsideration for the soil composition, climate, vegetation, and landscape atthe irrigation sites. Most importantly, sustainability requires commitmentfrom the people who manage and maintain the irrigation systems. For mu-nicipal irrigation of city parks in particular, these people are the irrigationtechnicians who regularly maintain the parks. They are the front line forany improvements in efficiency and continued sustainability of the irrigation72.1. Irrigationsystems within city parks. For irrigation technicians to make sustainable de-cisions in regards to the irrigation practices in city parks, they need to havethe resources available to make those decisions. As described in the UnitedNations Water Report for 2014, “lack of data puts water resources man-agement at a political disadvantage in terms of priority decision-making”[UNWWAP14]. This is particularly true for municipalities, where they needto justify their budget spending for city park maintenance each year.One of the most common tools used to aid in the management anddecision making of water and irrigation resources is geographic informationsystems (GIS). GIS is defined as technology that combines databases, maps,and modelling tools to allow users to query, analyze, visualize, and interpretdata to understand any relationships, patterns, or trends within those data[Esr14a]. The ArcGIS software by Esri [Esr14b] is one of the most popularcommercial GIS products, although there are several free and open sourcealternatives such as GRASS GIS [GIS14] and QGIS [QGI14]. The corestrengths of GIS are their geographic analysis and spatial modelling toolsthat allow for powerful calculations to be performed on data, such as thedata often associated with water use and irrigation. Most GIS software hastraditionally been limited to desktop computers, since they require a lot ofprocessing power to operate, but this is changing with advances in mobiletechnology and cloud computing. GIS can be a valuable tool to aid in thedecision making aspects of irrigation practices.There have been some research efforts that have used GIS to aid in themanagement of irrigation [ZXY09, AJS+12, TS03]. In [ZXY09], the authorsdeveloped a decision support system application to aid in the decision mak-ing and management of irrigation resources for optimal agricultural wateruse in arid regions. The motivation for this application was that increases inthe salt content of soil in arid areas as a result of improper or inappropriateirrigation practices are a leading cause of desertification. Desertification isthe process of fertile land losing its vegetation and transforming into a desert.The goal of the decision support system was to support analysts, planners,and managers in the decision making of their irrigation resources to miti-gate those issues. The decision support system application was developedusing GIS software and software from the United States Geological Survey(USGS) called MODFLOW [USG14] which is used for modelling, simulating,and predicting ground water and surface water interactions. The decisionsupport system application contained a database of relevant information forclimate, soil, land use, and irrigation, models for ground water flow andcalculating water storage, and an interface for planning, evaluating, calcu-lating, and visualizing the information. The authors performed a case study82.1. Irrigationin the Yutian Oasis in southern Xinjiang, China using their decision supportsystem. The system was useful for the organization and management of soildata mapped to areas throughout the oasis, hydrologic and ground waterquality data, climate data, and satellite remote sensing data. It was also use-ful for calculating the watering requirements for the area, and in particularfor decisions involving the different irrigation programs and schedules.In [AJS+12], the authors developed a tool to aid farmers in estimat-ing the water irrigation requirements for their fields. The application wasdeveloped using GIS software called MABIA-Region, which is a regional ir-rigation evaluation and scheduling tool that had been previously developed.The application uses databases of land use, climate, soil condition, and wa-ter allocation conditions to calculate irrigation requirements for each of thefarmers. Their goal was to enhance irrigation management and practices foragriculture by computing the irrigation requirements at a field and regionallevel for irrigation advisors. The authors performed a case study to evalu-ate the irrigation performance of sixty-three farms in the irrigation districtof Cherfech, Tunisia. They found the irrigation practices of the farmers tobe seasonally variable. During their winter, water usage far exceeded theestimated watering requirements as calculated by their application, whileduring the summer water usage was 44% of the calculated irrigation water-ing requirements. Their study also revealed a high variability in irrigationpractices between the different cultures and different farms in the region.This demonstrates the importance of making informed decisions in regardsto irrigation practices.In [TS03], the authors present an irrigation management system to beused by irrigation associates, departments, and institutions. The systemuses ArcGIS software to combine information about climate conditions, soiland water system characteristics, irrigation methods, and cropping patternsto estimate irrigation requirements for agricultural land in southern Italy.The goal was to provide an irrigation model and a crop productivity modelthat could be used to aid farmers in deciding how much water to use whenirrigating their crops. Since the application was developed as an extensionof the ArcGIS software, it can take advantage of many of the analytical andvisualization features of the underlying software.These research projects, while still targeted towards agriculture insteadof municipal irrigation, focus on providing the people who manage thoseirrigation systems with the resources for making better decisions about theirirrigation practices. One of the most obvious disadvantages presented inall of the above research efforts has been that the decision support toolshave been limited to desktop applications. While this can be beneficial to92.2. Mobile Technologymanagers in the office and aid in overall sustainable irrigation goals, theyare of little help with the day-to-day aspects of the irrigation techniciansout in the field. This is where advances in mobile technology can be usedto aid employees to be more efficient in their irrigation practices while outin the field.2.2 Mobile TechnologyThe biggest competitors in the mobile industry are Google’s Androidsmartphones and tablets [And14a], Apple’s iPhones and iPads [App14a],Microsoft’s Windows smartphones and tablets [Win14], and BlackBerry’ssmartphones and tablets [Bla14]. Advances in mobile technology and wire-less data communication services have made these mobile devices increas-ingly affordable and more widely available to the public. As well, dramaticimprovements in the ability to transmit data have allowed mobile devices tocompensate for many of their computational constraints [WD10], resultingin mobile phones and tablets becoming the primary computing devices fora rapidly growing number of users worldwide. Recent estimates have placedthe number of worldwide mobile subscriptions to be nearly 7 billion, which isequivalent to about 96% of the world population [Uni14]. However, as manypeople own and use multiple mobile devices, the actual number of mobileusers is smaller but still significant at 4.6 billion, which is approximately 65%of the world population [Eri14]. Mobile technology is becoming increasinglyintegrated into our society, and many of the unique features of mobile de-vices present new opportunities in aiding the sustainable management ofcity parks and green spaces.2.2.1 Features, Constraints, and ConsiderationsSome of the unique features of mobile technology include their porta-bility, location and spatial awareness, built-in cameras, touch screen inter-faces, and remote data access. Many mobile devices are small, thin, andlightweight, making them easy to carry and hold. This portability allowssmart phones and tablets to be used in places where other more cumber-some devices cannot. As well, most smart phones and tablets have a globalpositioning system (GPS) built into the devices, which allows for satellitenavigation for the user, and dynamic maps to display the user’s location inrelation to nearby places of interest. An internal gyroscope also allows thedevices to respond to changes in travel speed, direction, and orientation.Additionally, built-in cameras allow for pictures and video to be recorded102.2. Mobile Technologyeasily, and touch screen technology allows for new ways for users to interactwith the interfaces of the devices. Finally, mobile devices with data servicesallow for near instantaneous access to and sharing of information at thetouch of our fingers.Along with the unique features that mobile devices offer, there are sev-eral unique constraints and challenges that must be considered for the de-velopment of any mobile application. The authors of [WD10], [Chi06], and[PRR03] explore some of these challenges, which include data and networkissues, physical device limitations, and user expectations.The issue of network load and wireless spectrum allocation for data ser-vices is discussed in [WD10]. The authors explain that with the increasein the number of mobile devices being used, there has been an increase indata traffic and consumption of wireless bandwidth. Since there is only afinite amount of the wireless spectrum that is usable, telecommunicationcompanies and providers are being stretched to their limits and must focuson improving their data services to meet the increasing demand.There are several physical constraints that affect mobile devices, as cov-ered in [WD10, Chi06, PRR03]. Almost all of the physical constraints are aresult of the size limitations of the devices. To be small, thin, and lightweightfor portability, mobile devices must use smaller batteries and less powerfulhardware in comparison to larger devices such as desktop or laptop comput-ers. This means there is less memory and computational resources availableon the devices, which affects their ability to run more complicated appli-cations or tasks. Other physical constraints include smaller screen sizes,limited screen resolution, limited processing power, and variations in inter-face input methods such as small keypads or touch screens.The final and perhaps the most notable challenges are those based on theuser expectations of mobile devices and applications, as discussed by [WD10,Chi06]. Users expect that applications on mobile devices will respond totheir actions and requests accurately and in a timely manner, such as whentaking a photo, using the GPS to navigate, or changing the orientation ofthe device. They also expect a certain level of interactivity with mobiledevices, such as the ability to zoom or scroll when viewing content. Finally,users expect applications to be user friendly.In addition to these challenges and constraints, there are some otheraspects that must be considered for mobile applications. In [PRR03], theauthors address some significant factors that should be considered whendeveloping mobile applications. The first is that the way users input infor-mation and interact with applications on mobile devices differs significantlyfrom desktops or laptops. There is no standard input method such as the112.2. Mobile Technologykeyboard, mouse, or trackpad. Input mechanisms on mobile devices caninclude real and virtual keypads, touch screens, and even voice commands,and even these methods can vary greatly between the different models ofmobile devices. Several other considerations when developing mobile appli-cations involve the context of use, specifically the auditory environment, thevisual environment, and the level of attention. Desktop and laptop comput-ers are often used in controlled environments, whereas many mobile devicesare used in settings where the user has limited control of their surround-ings. Sound use may be limited if the mobile devices are used in public oroutdoor settings, where outside and background noises can prevent the userfrom hearing the intended sound. For the visual environment, mobile devicesmay be used in a variety of lighting conditions, ranging from total darknessto bright sunlight. Finally, the level of attention that users can devote tothe applications on their mobile devices may be limited due to interruptionsfrom the environment or other activities competing for the user’s attention.2.2.2 Research ApplicationsThere have been some recent research projects utilizing the advances inmobile technology and unique features of mobile devices to aid managersand workers out in the field with decision making and during their regu-lar activities [FXC13, KNYS11, LDK+13]. In [FXC13], the authors presentan iPad application that extends a previously developed Road ManagementSystem for road maintenance and management in China. Their motivationwas that although the Road Management System had been reasonably de-veloped over the past 20 years, further research was required to make thesystem more applicable and inexpensive for use in daily road maintenancemanagement and decisions. The authors wanted to combine the GIS dataprocessing functions of the existing Road Management System with themobility, user-friendliness, small-size, multi-function features, and remotetransmission capabilities of the iPad. Their goal was to provide managersand field workers with a tool to help them make better decisions and managethe roads better, particularly in the more remote areas of China. The au-thors developed hardware to sense road conditions out in the field, softwareto extend the existing GIS functionalities of the Road Management System,and an iPad application to remotely interact with the Road ManagementSystem. The authors claim that they were successful in implementing theapplication to provide real-time road maintenance information for industrymanagement departments.In [KNYS11], the authors developed a mobile-phone based system for122.2. Mobile Technologylogging field and fruit conditions to aid in high quality Satsuma mandarinproduction. The motivation is that it has been getting harder to share thespecialized agricultural skills needed for Satsuma mandarin production inrecent years as the number of household mandarin farmers has declined.Their goal was to see if the cultivation, production, and quality of Satsumamandarins could be improved by using a mobile phone application to recordfruit and field conditions about the crops, and then view that collected databoth in and out of the field. Modern information communication technologycould be used to aid this, but those technologies are expensive and unafford-able for most farm households. The system used a combination of low-costmeasurement tools in the field, a mobile phone application for logging thefield and fruit conditions, and a web-based interface for visualizing the data.The mobile application for logging fruit and field conditions was built usingJava with a simple interface for manually entering the observed data. Theweb interface for visualizing the collected data was developed as a Flashapplication with a time-series graph of conditions and a prototypical ad-visory system for determining watering needs. Field tests were performedat a Satsuma mandarin farm over a three month period with participationfrom farm workers and fruit tree researchers. The authors were successful indemonstrating a cost-effective solution for collecting and viewing Satsumamandarin field and fruit conditions during production by the field workers.A completion survey revealed it was important to store information aboutthe various fruit and field conditions, and in particular, to view that in-formation on a time-series graph. The greatest weakness with this systemwas the lack of usability and user-friendliness in the mobile application forrecording the data in the field. These usability issues were not addressedduring the development of the application, which may have a serious impacton whether farmers and field workers will continue to use this system.Finally, in [LDK+13], the authors developed a decision support systemfor sustainable irrigation water usage. The system features knowledge inte-gration and machine learning analysis of weather, soil moisture, and wateravailability data from three environmental sensor databases to calculate sug-gested daily irrigation watering requirements for farming areas in Australia.The system also features an Android application that provides that infor-mation to farmers and agricultural managers. The motivating factor forthis project is the lack of reliable surface water for irrigation in many partsof Australia, which means Australian farmers need to determine how muchwater they think they will need to use for their crops, and purchase it inadvance. Despite regular weather data being available to farmers, they typ-ically rely on their experiences and intuition to make their decisions, which132.3. Usability Concernsmay not result in the most efficient management of their water resources.The watering requirement calculations for this system are run on a cloudcomputing infrastructure, and the results are displayed on the mobile appli-cation.Each of these projects demonstrates how mobile applications can be usedto help with maintenance activities and management decisions, particularlyfor those people who are working in the field. This approach can easilybe used by municipalities to aid in the sustainable management of theircity parks and green spaces; however, as was discussed earlier, there aremany challenges and constraints that must be considered for any mobiledevelopment. To address these issues properly, we will need to explore theresearch into usability concerns and evaluating mobile applications.2.3 Usability ConcernsAdvancements in mobile technology are providing new opportunities toaid and improve maintenance and management practices in the field; how-ever, the usability of these mobile applications must be considered for usersto accept them or to be able to use them effectively. Usability can be de-fined as characteristics of a system that makes it easy to use, which includesfactors such as how quickly a task can be performed, how many mistakesare made, and how satisfied the users are when using the system. Usabilitytesting is a means of measuring the quality of the user experience when inter-acting with a system or application. There has been a significant amount ofresearch into usability and usability testing of computer applications, whichis a major component of the field of human computer interaction (HCI). HCIis the ‘discipline concerned with the design, evaluation and implementationof interactive computing systems for human use and with the study of majorphenomena surrounding them’ [HBC+14]. Some common methods for mea-suring the usability of applications from HCI include heuristic evaluation,scenario-based testing, and questionnaires [JMWU91, PHVS04, Sim11].Heuristic evaluation is a technique for finding usability problems by hav-ing a small number of experts or trained evaluators scrutinize the user in-terface or application using a set of relevant heuristics, which are broadguidelines, principles, or rules of thumb for identifying design problems.The results from the evaluators are combined and any problems found areprioritized based on their severity or level of impact on the usability of theapplication. Scenario-based testing is a technique of having users perform aseries of tasks while using the application. The scenario tasks are represen-142.3. Usability Concernstative of actual activities, work, and tasks that the users would conceivablyperform while using the application. Observations can be made by evalu-ators while the scenarios are taking place and users can provide feedbackduring testing and after completion. Scenario-based testing can help devel-opers determine usability issues that would only become apparent with realworld use, and can provide insight into how the application is changing theuser activities.Questionnaires are a series of questions that participating users answerto collect information about them such as their demographics, perceptions,views, and interests. They can also be used to gather information on theproficiency and skill level of each user regarding the application being tested(pre-test survey) or provide a comprehensive overview of the application oncetesting has been completed (post-test survey). One well known questionnaireis the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (CARS), developed and validated in[HJGK87], which is used to measure the self-efficacy, anxiety, and attitudesof users towards computers and the internet.As mobile technology has advanced and gained in popularity, HCI andusability research has expanded these techniques for measuring usability,and many others, to investigate the usability of mobile applications. Someof that research is explored in [CSS+04, ERdQSF09, LG04]. In [CSS+04],the authors discuss some of the major design requirements for developingefficient and user-friendly mobile applications. They recognise that mobileapplications with a well-designed user interface and high usability are eas-ier to learn and use, will reduce errors and training time, and will allowusers to be more productive, competent, and confident in their jobs. Theauthors identify four guiding principles for a good user interface: simple,aesthetic, productive, and customizable. Simplicity consists of minimizingthe number of steps to complete tasks, using symbols or terminology thatare obvious and meaningful, and reducing the opportunities for mistakes.Aesthetics refers to the design, which should be visually appealing and fol-low visual design guidelines such as clarity, consistency, alignment, contrast,and proportions. Productivity refers to the application being task sensitive,reducing work steps to a minimum, and providing convenience features. Fi-nally, customizability refers to allowing the user to set characteristics to suittheir preferences and needs. The authors recognize that following these de-sign principles is required to make the mobile application as user-friendly aspossible.In [LG04], the authors discuss general factors for usability testing andconsiderations for usability testing on mobile devices. As well, the authorssuggest a new usability testing method for mobile applications that is based152.3. Usability Concernson heuristic evaluation, questionnaires, and a scenario-based testing ap-proach. Five factors for usability testing that the authors describe are:1. learnability, which states that a system should be fairly easy to learn touse; 2. efficiency, which is that high levels of productivity should be possiblewhen using the system; 3. memorability, that the system should be easy toremember and not require retraining if not used after a period of time; 4.error forgiveness, which states that the system should have minimal errors,allow users to recover from errors easily, and prevent catastrophic errorsfrom occurring; and finally, 5. satisfaction, that the system should be pleas-ant to use and users will like using it. Some considerations for usabilitytesting on mobile devices that the authors mention include: context aware-ness, such as geographic location, spatial orientation, time and date, andenvironmental conditions; user familiarity and comfort with mobile devices;and user perceptions of relevance, appeal, and distraction potential. Theauthors recommend several steps for implementing their hybrid usabilitytesting method. Those steps include preparing guidelines for the heuristicevaluation, developing prototypes for early testing of the system, creatingscenario-based tasks for testing with users, preparing presentations to in-form evaluators and participating users, conducting the actual heuristic andscenario tests, and finally, debriefing the participants and evaluators andhaving them complete any post-test questionnaires.Similarly, the authors in [ERdQSF09] also suggest a hybrid strategy fortesting the usability of mobile applications including standard inspections,user performance measurements, and user inquiries. Standard inspectionis a method of determining whether a product, service, material, process,system, or application meets standard requirements. User performance mea-surements are techniques of monitoring user activities in real time to collectdata on the effectiveness and efficiency of a user with the application, muchlike the scenario-based approach. Finally, user inquiry is a broad methodof gathering user subjective satisfaction through the use of questionnaires,think-aloud comments, and unstructured interviews and dialogue. Each ofthese evaluation techniques provides different information about potentialusability problems with the applications, and when combined, they providea more comprehensive view of the usability of the system.While there has been a lot of research into the usability considerationsand testing approaches for mobile applications, these efforts have rarely beenapplied towards management and maintenance activities in the field. Oneexample that attempted to use these considerations and testing approachesfor the usability of mobile applications in a utility industry setting is pre-sented by the authors of [MDO04].162.4. Mobile DevelopmentIn [MDO04], the authors investigated the usability requirements for amobile field data collection application, developed a prototype applicationfor use in the utility industry, and performed a usability evaluation on theirprototype. The motivation for this research was that current paper-basedsystems for collecting field data are often time-consuming, prone to errors,and have difficulties when it comes to sharing that information, particularlywith the utility industries for water, roads, and electricity. Their goal was tosee if a mobile application could be used as a more efficient means to sharinginformation among the workers in the field and managers in the office. Theauthors reviewed several of the usability requirements that have been dis-cussed, and developed a prototype application for collecting UndergroundUtility Closure (UUC) field data for South Africa’s largest telecommunica-tion utility service provider Telkom. They performed usability testing onthe prototype mobile application with Telkom employees using a mixture ofscenario-based tasks and observations, as well as questionnaires, to gathertheir data. The authors found that the employees were able to use the pro-totype quite effectively despite only a short introduction to the application,and that the efficiency of the prototype was comparable to paper sourcingtechniques the employees had previously used. The feedback from the em-ployees was great; overall, they were very satisfied with the prototype andenthusiastic about using the mobile application in the field again since theemployees believed that it made their work easier and was more efficientthan their current practices.As demonstrated by [MDO04], mobile technology will undoubtedly beused to support management and maintenance employees in the field. Theapproach used for a mobile solution in the utility industry can easily beadapted and applied to the management and maintenance activities in cityparks and green spaces.2.4 Mobile DevelopmentAnother aspect to consider during the development of mobile applica-tions is the debate between native mobile applications and responsive webapplications for mobile devices, as each option presents its own advantagesand disadvantages. Native mobile applications are developed for partic-ular mobile platforms such as Google’s Android smartphones and tablets[And14a] and Apple’s iPhones and iPads [App14a] and are installed directlyonto the devices. Some of the advantages of native mobile applications in-clude: the ability to operate without an active internet connection; direct ac-172.4. Mobile Developmentcess to functions and features of the mobile device such as the camera, GPS,and list of contacts; the ability to incorporate gestures for touch screens;and use of the device’s notification system. The biggest disadvantage, how-ever, is that each mobile platform requires its own development tools andprocess. Android applications use the Android Standard Development Kit(SDK) and are written in the Java programming language [And14b], whileApple applications use the Xcode SDK and are written in the Objective-Cprogramming language [App14b]. If a developer wants to have an appli-cation that runs on multiple mobile platforms, they must write separatecode-bases and use multiple SDKs for each potential device the applicationmay have to run on.Web applications, on the other hand, are websites on the internet thatmimic the look and feel of native applications, and are accessible throughthe web browser on the mobile devices. They are typically written withweb programming languages such as PHP and JavaScript [PHP14, Net14b],use formatting languages such as HTML5 and CSS [Net14a, (W314], andare ‘installed’ onto mobile devices by creating a bookmark to the websiteon the home screen. The biggest advantage is that the developers can cre-ate a single web application and automatically have it run across manydifferent devices, making it easier and more manageable in terms of improv-ing existing features, implementing new functionality, and maintaining thecode for the application. As well, data can be stored on-line in a databasesuch as MySQL [Ora14] and any calculations or other functionalities canbe performed server-side, which reduces the amount of memory, storage,and processing power the application requires from the device itself. Thedisadvantages of web applications are that they require an active internetconnection, and they rely on the browser to support the web technologiesused by the application. Many older browsers do not fully support the fea-tures and functionality of HTML5 and JavaScript. Nonetheless, advances inmobile technology and the capabilities of modern web browsers makes webapplications a more feasible option than previous technology allowed. Forexample, the HTML5 Geolocation API now allows web applications to re-quest GPS information from the mobile device directly, whereas previouslyonly native device-based applications had that capability.Of course, with enough resources a developer could feasibly create bothweb and native device versions of their mobile applications if they felt itwas necessary and appropriate to do so. Ultimately, the decision to developeither a web application or a native device application depends on the needsof the users, the goals of the developers, and the intended purpose of theapplication.182.5. Kelowna Parks Services2.5 Kelowna Parks ServicesCanada has consistently ranked as one of the world’s largest consumersof fresh water, with a per capita water use of 1150 m3, which is muchhigher than many other industrialized nations [OEC14, Can11]. The Cityof Kelowna, located in the central interior of British Columbia’s OkanaganValley, has ranked among the highest water users within Canada itself forseveral years [oK10]. This is particularly alarming since the Okanagan Valleyis a semi-arid region with low annual rainfall. While efforts have been madeto significantly reduce residential water use in the city [oK10], a considerableamount of water is still used for irrigation, particularly for city parks andgreen spaces. Approximately 20% of peak summer time water usage can bedirectly attributed to park irrigation [Won08].The City of Kelowna Park Services department maintains over 300 uniqueirrigation sites. The majority of these sites, comprising approximately 200irrigated spaces, are city parks, green spaces, beach accesses, and sportsfields. The remaining irrigation sites include cul-de-sacs, road medians,boulevards, and other irrigated features. The irrigation systems typicallyrun from mid-April through the summer months until the end of Septemberwhen the systems are shut down for the winter.The Parks Services department includes six full-time employees, whoseresponsibilities include the management and maintenance of irrigation equip-ment in city parks. These employees have become very knowledgeable aboutthe parks they regularly maintain. They know all the ins and outs of theirparks, including layout of irrigation zones and equipment, the different typesof equipment that works best for various landscapes and plants, any trendsin usage over the course of the summer, whether the park has been requir-ing more water than historic or expected usage, and irregularities such asrecurring wet or dry areas in the parks. However, since each employee canbe responsible for up to 80 individual irrigation sites, it takes a significantamount of time for them to become knowledgeable and familiar with eachof the parks they maintain, and they often know very little when it comesto the other parks outside of their regular responsibilities.Irrigation technicians may be able to visit up to 20 parks during theirwork day to perform the minimum routine maintenance activities required.However, if greater maintenance is required for a specific park, then theymay only be able to visit that single park during a day, or they may have tospend several days at that park until the problems have been resolved. Someof the tasks that irrigation technicians commonly perform at city parks, asdetermined through the course of this research, include:192.6. Summary− Locating major pieces of equipment and irrigation lines− Identifying any problems or malfunctions with the irrigation system− Repairing or replacing damaged and worn-out equipment− Determining watering requirements for turf and plants− And ensuring new installations have minimal impact on equipmentAnother challenge the Parks Services department often faces is a highturn-over rate of new employees in their department. Employees will worka year or two maintaining the irrigation systems in city parks and thenmove on to other jobs or departments in the city. These new employeesspend a significant portion of their time learning about each park they areresponsible for, particularly during the first few months. As well, due to thisfrequent transition of new employees and steep learning curve, years can goby before fundamental issues at a park are actually identified and properlyaddressed, such as modifying the irrigation zone layout at a park to providebetter coverage and reduce unnecessary water waste.Despite these challenges, the City of Kelowna and the Parks Servicesdepartment are committed to sustainability in city parks [oK10, Can13,Wis14]. They have taken several approaches to use their water resourcesmore efficiently, including the addition of flow meters to measure waterconsumption, and local weather stations to aid in calculating expected waterusage requirements. As well, they have participated with previous researchefforts in reducing water usage in city parks [FCTL12].2.6 SummaryFrom an irrigation management perspective, sustainability and efficiencyin city parks is concerned with how to best manage all of the different re-sources for all of their parks. This includes the time and labour of the em-ployees in the field, the type and layout of equipment used in the parks, andof course, efficient water usage. Advances in mobile technology provide newopportunities for supporting management decisions, which will contributeto sustainable resource management, and will help with maintenance pro-cesses in the field. The increasing popularity and widespread use of mobiledevices means that they will no doubt play a crucial role in the mainte-nance and management of irrigation resources in agriculture, industry, andmunicipalities.202.6. SummaryThe usability of these mobile applications must be considered for theseapplications to be accepted or used effectively by users. Research effortshave suggested using a hybrid method that combines the aspects of dif-ferent usability testing methods to most effectively ensure the usability ofany developed mobile application. A usable mobile device may offer manybenefits for city park maintenance and irrigation management. For the ir-rigation technicians of the Kelowna Parks Services department, this wouldmean real time access to irrigation data and park information on the parksthey maintain.21Chapter 3Irrigation ManagementApplicationI developed a mobile application in collaboration with the Kelowna ParksServices department to provide employees with information about the parksin the City of Kelowna. This information includes the irrigated and total ar-eas of individual parks, categories and organizational classifications of eachpark, as well as the historic, current, and expected water usage. The applica-tion also includes descriptions, locations, and layout of irrigation equipmentin the field and features an interactive map that allows for real time GlobalPositioning System (GPS) navigation that positions the user in the parkin relation to displayed equipment locations. Additionally, the applicationallows the user to create, view, and edit maintenance notes for each parkusing text and images.3.1 DevelopmentThe irrigation management application was developed using an Agilesoftware development method involving frequent user contact and feedback.Monthly meetings with Kelowna Parks Services managers and supervisorswere used to demonstrate the application throughout the development stagesto receive feedback on the features, functionality, and appearance of the ap-plication, and to ensure the usability of the system. As well, irrigationtechnicians were provided a couple of opportunities to request features andprovide feedback on the appearance of the application, but were otherwisenot involved in the development process. The irrigation management appli-cation was developed as a web application using PHP and JavaScript, anduses Bootstrap [Boo14], a popular HTML, CSS, and JS framework for aresponsive layout on mobile devices. All information and data is stored ina MySQL database on a secure server. While the layout of the applicationwas optimized for the Apple iPad, the application works well on desktopcomputers and internet-capable mobile devices.223.2. ArchitectureThe decision to develop a web application instead of a native device ap-plication resulted from the intention of the Parks Services department to usethe irrigation management application on two different platforms: desktopcomputers in the office and cellular-network enabled iPads in the parks. Forthis research effort, the development of a single web application that auto-matically runs across many different computers and mobile devices was amore feasible option than developing separate native device applications foreach platform. If this application had been developed by a larger companywith more developers, then it would have been feasible to create separatenative device-based applications. Additionally, if the Kelowna Parks Ser-vices department decides to use different technology in the future, such asAndroid tablets or BlackBerry smartphones instead of iPads, then they cancontinue to use this application on the new devices immediately without anyadditional development or changes to ensure compatibility.All of the park information and irrigation data were collected and in-tegrated into the irrigation management application. The current, historic,and expected water usage for parks with irrigation meters was provided byKelowna Parks Services managers, as was other details for each park such asaddress, irrigated area, category classification, and water supplier. The parkboundaries were retrieved from the City of Kelowna Open Data Catalogue[oK14]. The GPS locations of equipment in several Kelowna city parks wereinitially collected by myself and a Kelowna Parks Services employee dur-ing the summer of 2013, and the GPS data for the remaining parks wascollected by the Kelowna Parks Services department during the summer of2014. The GPS data were collected using a professional Global Naviga-tion Satellite System (GNSS) handheld computer, the Trimble Geo 7 series,and the equipment locations were uploaded to the irrigation managementapplication through the administrative panel of the application.3.2 ArchitectureAn overview of the architecture for the irrigation management applica-tion is shown in Figure 3.1. The web application runs and is hosted on anApache web server, and the park information and irrigation data is storedin a MySQL database on that server. When a user logs into the irrigationmanagement application, data are retrieved from the database and displayedto the user. The irrigation management application uses a responsive layoutto adapt to the screen size of the device for each user.233.3. FeaturesFigure 3.1: Architecture diagram for the irrigation management applicationshowing the web application on two different platforms, one on a desktopcomputer in the office and the other on a mobile iPad.3.3 FeaturesThe irrigation management application possesses a number of featuresand functions to aid in the management and maintenance of the irrigationsystems in city parks, which are described below.3.3.1 Sign InFor any user to access the application, they must enter their usernameand password into the secure sign in screen, as shown in Figure 3.2. Anyattempts to bypass the secure login, or entering of the wrong information,will redirect the user back to the sign in screen with a notification of theincomplete login.243.3. FeaturesFigure 3.2: Secure login screen for the irrigation management application.3.3.2 Park ListingOnce signed in, the first thing the user sees is the main listing of allparks currently in the database (Figure 3.3). The list provides an overviewof details on each park such as the name, location, irrigated area, categoryof park, and last recorded visit by a user. All of the columns of the list aresortable by clicking on the title at the top of each column.Figure 3.3: Screenshot of the list of Kelowna parks with 2 filters applied.253.3. FeaturesAt the top of the list is the search and filters tool bar where the user cansearch for any park based on its name. As indicated by the arrow in Fig-ure 3.4, the filters button shows how many filters are currently being appliedto the list, and when the button is clicked, it toggles a panel where the usercan filter the list of parks based on the water supplier, the sector the parkresides in, and the park category. One usability improvement suggested byemployees, and implemented into the system, was to automatically filter thelist of parks to those for which the employee is responsible. The employeescan then remove or modify the filters as needed to search for other parksoutside of their normal responsibilities.Figure 3.4: The search tool bar and opened filters panel showing two activefilters.3.3.3 Park DetailsClicking on a single park, one row of the list, will bring up more informa-tion for that park. The information is divided into four categories: Details,Usage, Equipment, and Logs.DetailsThe Details tab displays the summary of information for the park, in-cluding the park name, location, WebWork id (an internal id to the City ofKelowna WebWorks management system), water supplier, irrigated and to-tal areas, number of irrigation zones, the current usage, and date of the lastvisit to the park (Figure 3.5). If the park has GPS information associatedwith it, a mini-map displaying the location of the park appears on the leftside, which links to that specific park on the Map page (see Figure 3.11).263.3. FeaturesFigure 3.5: Summary of park details for Tulameen Park and the mini-mapshowing the location of the park.Located above the park summary are two buttons, one for recording avisit to the park and the other for logging maintenance at the park. Click-ing on the ‘I was here’ button performs a one-time operation to record thecurrent date, time, and user identification of the employee that visited thispark into the database. As shown in Figure 3.6, when the button for log-ging maintenance is clicked, a form pops up that allows the user to recordmaintenance notes for a park. The user can select any number of activitiesperformed at the park, set the priority of the log, and include any additionalnotes that may be relevant. As well, the user can press the ‘Take pictures’button to use the camera on the device to capture as many new photos asneeded and attach them to the maintenance log.273.3. FeaturesFigure 3.6: Pop-up form for logging maintenance activities at TulameenPark, with the Maintenance activity selected and the priority set to Normal.UsageClicking on the Usage tab displays an interactive chart of the waterusage for the park (Figure 3.7). By default, the chart displays the mostrecent year’s water usage as bars by month, with date of consumption alongthe x-axis and volume in cubic meters (m3) along the y-axis. The optionsmenu on the left side allows the user to toggle which usage years are visibleon the chart. The three most recent years are available by default, butprevious years can be viewed by clicking on the More button to expand thelist. The expected water usage from different weather stations can also bedisplayed on the chart. Each weather station has a historic average usageand current expected usage option. Additionally, the user can toggle thechart between monthly or yearly time-scale, and toggle the units betweencubic meters and inches/acre.As highlighted by the first box in Figure 3.8, there is a table displayinga list of all the water meters associated with this park. Each meter hasa unique meter id, an account number, address, and a description of thephysical location. Clicking on a specific meter expands the table to includeall the readings from that meter, including the raw reading values, billedusage values, date the readings were measured, and the read type code for283.3. FeaturesFigure 3.7: Interactive chart for Tulameen Park displaying the 2013 waterusage based on monthly consumption in meters cubed (m3) and the expectedusage based on the Jack Brow weather station.how the reading was determined (for example, MR for manual read and CEfor calculated estimate) (Figure 3.8).Figure 3.8: List of all of the readings collected for each meter at this park.293.3. FeaturesEquipmentThe Equipment tab provides an overview of the equipment at the park,displayed as a table showing the different types of equipment at the parkand the count of each item (Figure 3.9).Figure 3.9: List of all the irrigation equipment at this park.LogsFinally, the Logs tab displays a list of all maintenance logs recordedfor this particular park. As shown in Figure 3.10, there is a search bar tofind a particular log by any keyword within the log, as well as buttons forsorting the logs based on either date or priority. Logs are colour-coded basedon a user-selected priority with normal or low priority being coloured grey,medium priority logs coloured blue, and highest priority logs coloured red.Activities for the logs are displayed as a bulleted list. Pictures associatedwith logs are displayed as well, and clicking on the picture thumbnail for alog will pop up a larger version of the image for viewing.Logs can be edited but only by the user who created them or by admin-istrators. Clicking on the edit button allows the user to change the message303.3. FeaturesFigure 3.10: List of maintenance logs associated with this park.content, the priority of the log, alter which activities occurred, and evenremove pictures from the log.3.3.4 MapNavigating to the map page, either by using the navigation menu alongthe top or clicking on the mini-map in the Park Details, will bring up anembedded, interactive Google map. As shown in Figure 3.11, the map dis-plays the locations and boundaries of all the parks in the system. Each parkis represented by a green rectangular icon labelled with the park’s three-digit quadrant ID. Parks that are close together on the map have their pinsclustered together into a circular icon, labelled with the number of parksin that cluster, to make it easier to see where parks are located and avoidovercrowding the screen.Any search or filters applied to the main list of parks is maintained onthis page, and the filters can be altered through the drop-down menu alongthe top-left corner of the map, highlighted by the box in Figure 3.11. Thefilter panel here also includes buttons to zoom out to view all the parksor zoom in to the user’s location. The user location is determined by the313.3. FeaturesFigure 3.11: Map displaying all the locations of the parks, with clustersindicating the number of parks that are close together at this zoom level.device they are currently using, so mobile devices with an internal GPSsuch as the iPad or smart-phones will have more accurate locations thanthe approximation from a desktop browser. The user location is displayedon the map as a blue compass icon that moves across the screen as theuser moves the device around in the park. Next to the filters button is adrop-down menu to toggle the visibility of icons for equipment at parks,including sprinklers, connection points, control cabinets and valve boxes(See Figures 3.11 and 3.12).Clicking on a park pin will zoom the map into that park, as shown inFigure 3.12, and will display a detailed pop-up with some brief informationabout the park, such as the address, irrigated area, and date of last visit.The name of the park can be clicked to take the user to the details pagefor that park. As well, there are buttons on this pop-up that allows theuser to record a visit or log maintenance, as previously described in thepark details page and shown in Figure 3.6. If the park has any location323.3. FeaturesFigure 3.12: Map zoomed into Tulameen Park. The panel to toggle the vis-ibility of equipment icons is highlighted, and the pop-up information windowfor this park is also displayed.data for equipment at the site, such as the location of sprinklers and zonelines, then the equipment is displayed on the maps; for example, sprinklersare displayed on the map using coloured circle icons labelled with theirzone number. Each icon for equipment can be clicked to bring up moreinformation for that equipment if it is available.3.3.5 ReportsThe reports page can generate and display several different reports thatare viewable by clicking on their respective tabs.333.3. FeaturesUsageBy default the Usage report is displayed, which contains the same in-teractive chart as described in the park details, shown by Figure 3.13. Ithas the same functionality for toggling usage years, expected usage fromweather stations, and toggling of time scale or units. Along the top of thechart is the search and filter tool bar again (see Figure 3.4), and any searchor filters applied from the list of parks or the map are maintained here aswell. The search and filter tool bar allows the user to generate usage reportsfor any individual park or groupings of parks based on the filters they apply.Figure 3.13: Reports page displaying the water usage for all parks in thecategory of Park and in the Southwest sector.343.3. FeaturesCostThe Cost report displays the parks similarly to the main list of parks butwith different columns of information such as the installation year, servicelife, historic and replacement costs, and year of cost estimate. This reportallows the user to review the additional information for all the parks, asshown in Figure 3.14.Figure 3.14: Reports page displaying the costs for all parks with twofilters applied. At the time of this screenshot, the Kelowna Parks Servicesdepartment had not finished adding the cost estimates to each of the parks.353.3. FeaturesEfficiencyThe Efficiency report displays a list of the parks with the lowest wateruse efficiency based on usage per area (Figure 3.15). The tool bar at the topallows any user to determine which year they want to view, switch betweenleast efficient to most efficient, and limits the number of parks to display.Clicking on a row in the list will bring the user to the details for that specificpark.Figure 3.15: Reports page displaying the 10 parks with lowest water useefficiency in 2014.3.3.6 LogsThe logs page displays all the logs for all the parks (see Figure 3.16) inthe same manner as the logs tab from the park details. Users can searchfor a particular log with the search bar or sort the logs by date or priority.363.3. FeaturesLogs are colour-coded based on priority, include the activities that occurreddisplayed in a bulleted list, and larger versions of the pictures can be viewedby clicking on the thumbnail. They also include a link to the details pagefor the park. Logs can also be edited only by the user who created them orusers with administrative privileges (Figure 3.18).Figure 3.16: List of all maintenance logs in the system recorded by all theusers, sorted by date.3.3.7 Administrative ToolsUsers with administrative privileges have additional features and toolsavailable for managing and maintaining the information in the system.Edit Park DetailsAdministrators have access to an additional button on the park detailspage which allows them to edit the information for each park (Figure 3.17).373.3. FeaturesFigure 3.17: Editing screen for Tulameen Park.Edit LogsIn addition to users being able to edit their own maintenance logs, ad-ministrators have the capability of editing any maintenance log to changethe message content, the priority of the log, alter which activities occurred,remove pictures from the log, or even delete the log entirely (Figure 3.18).Figure 3.18: Editing screen of a maintenance log.383.3. FeaturesMeter Readings ToolsAnother tool that administrators have for maintaining the information inthe system is the Readings Tool page, which allows them to import new wa-ter consumption readings or review previous imports. The ‘import readings’button allows the administrator to upload a comma-separated value (CSV)spreadsheet of monthly meter readings for city park water consumption.The system automatically inserts all the information into the databaseand associates known meters (and their readings) with the correct park. Ifa new meter is detected, then that meter is displayed in a table of importwarnings along with any other warnings or errors that may have occurredduring the import process. Administrators can then manually associate theunknown meter (and subsequent readings) with the correct park.Additionally, administrators can review any previous imports using thedrop-down selection list, which displays all the readings for that month andany import warnings which have not been resolved (Figure 3.19).Figure 3.19: The administrative page for importing and managing monthlymeter reading information. The water consumption readings for July 2014are displayed in the table.393.3. FeaturesUser ManagementAdministrators also have the ability to manage the users of the irrigationmanagement application. All users of the system are displayed in a table(see Figure 3.20), along with their contact email address, user role indicatingwhether they are an administrator, employee, or guest, and their status. Ad-ministrators can change each user’s role in the system, granting or revokingadministrative privileges, as well as deactivate or reactivate a user account.Only active users are allowed to log into and use the system; inactive userscannot log in or access any features of the application. Administrators canadd new users to the system with the ‘add new user’ button, which pops upa form for filling out the necessary information.Figure 3.20: List of users in the irrigation management application, withthe user ‘example’ edited by an administrator.Site and GPS ToolsThe last set of tools available to administrators is the Site and GPS Toolspage, which allows them to add new parks into the system, manage optionssuch as the types of sectors, categories, and water suppliers available, andto manage the location information associated with each park. Figure 3.21shows the interface for managing the different organizational options forparks including categories, sectors, and water suppliers. New items can beadded to the system with the ‘add new’ button, or existing items can beedited in-line or removed entirely by clicking on each item.Administrators can also use the ‘add new site’ button to enter a newpark into the system. Information for the new park such as name, address,water supplier, and irrigated area can be entered using the form that popsup or by editing the information in the park details page (see Figure 3.17).Finally, administrators can manage the GPS information associated witheach park using the ‘import/edit site GPS’ interface. The interface is splitbetween the tool panel for importing or editing GPS information shown inFigure 3.22, and an interactive map similar to the one previously shown in403.3. FeaturesFigure 3.21: Administrative options to edit the different park organizationoptions, with the site sector options tab current displayed.Figure 3.12. The panel has step-by-step instructions for importing collectedGPS data on equipment locations for a park. Administrators can manuallyadd or remove features at a park, and there is a simple ‘undo’ feature in casean item is accidentally removed. Each item can be selected to edit its details,such as the equipment type, the model information, whether it is associatedwith an irrigation zone, and any additional comments the administratorswish to include. As well, irrigation zone lines can be automatically addedfor parks and then manually edited to ensure the correct layout at the park.The map interface uses features of Google Maps to allow drag-and-dropplacement of zone lines and equipment at the parks.413.3. FeaturesFigure 3.22: Screenshot showing the tool panel for importing new GPSdata, manually adding or removing GPS data, and editing the informationfor equipment and zone lines at Tulameen Park.42Chapter 4Case Study: City of KelownaThe primary motivations for developing the irrigation management ap-plication were the high water usage by city park irrigation during the sum-mer and the daunting task of maintaining those irrigation systems by ir-rigation technicians. The hypothesis was that the irrigation practices andmaintenance activities at City of Kelowna parks could be significantly im-proved by providing field employees with information about the parks theymanage through the use of a mobile application for the iPad. Having thatinformation available out at the parks, in the form of a mobile applicationon the iPad, will help irrigation technicians to manage their time and re-sources better, and that they will be better supported in making decisionsregarding sustainable irrigation practices.This study was performed using a hybrid approach of questionnairesand scenario-based testing to measure the length of time to complete tasks(efficiency), number of incorrect actions, incorrect choices, and repeatederrors (effectiveness), and the perceptions of the participants (subjectivesatisfaction). Efficiency was determined by measuring the length of time tocomplete the assigned tasks, effectiveness was measured through user ob-servation while performing scenario-based tasks, and subjective satisfactionwas measured through formal pre-test and post-test questionnaires, docu-mented think-aloud comments, and unstructured interview responses.4.1 Study Procedures and Method4.1.1 Participant RecruitmentThe participant pool for this study was the full-time irrigation tech-nicians from the City of Kelowna Parks Services department, whose re-sponsibilities include the regular management and maintenance of irrigationequipment in city parks. After receiving support from the Kelowna ParksServices supervisor (see Appendix A), the irrigation staff who wished toparticipate were asked to read and sign the consent form (see Appendix B).Four full-time irrigation technicians who were primarily responsible for city434.1. Study Procedures and Methodparks, two full-time irrigation technicians who were primarily responsiblefor sports fields, and one temporary irrigation technician were recruited,for a total of seven participants overall. Due to the small sample size andthe closed environment of the Parks Services department, no demographicswere collected from the participants to ensure their privacy. Additionally,while some of the participants had an opportunity to request features andprovide feedback on the appearance of the application, none of them wereactively involved in the development process and none of them had any priorexperience with the application before the study.4.1.2 Participant Testing ConditionsFor this study, participants were asked to complete a series of tasks atthe parks with and without the use of the iPad and irrigation managementapplication. Participants were considered to be an ‘expert’ for parks whichthey regularly visited and maintained. For parks outside of their normal re-sponsibilities, participants were considered to be a ‘novice’; however, ‘novice’participants were still trained irrigation technicians from the Kelowna ParksServices department. Experts were used to provide a baseline of performancefor comparison against the two novice conditions during the study: noviceswith the iPad and application, and novices without. This resulted in threetesting conditions which were investigated:− Expert without the iPad as baseline of performance (E0)− Novice without the aid of the iPad and application (N0)− Novice with the iPad and application available (N1)Due to the small sample size of participants available, each participantwas asked to repeat all test scenarios in as many of the testing conditionsas possible at the selected parks.4.1.3 Park SelectionAs described previously, the Kelowna Parks Services department hasover 300 unique irrigation sites that its employees regularly maintain. Forthis study, we wanted to use a subset of these parks that were the mostrepresentative of the majority of parks in Kelowna. Three criteria were usedto select which parks would be most appropriate for this study; sites had tobe regularly maintained by irrigation staff, be average in terms of irrigated444.1. Study Procedures and Methodarea and zones, and needed to have recent GPS location data collected.These selections were done before the study was conducted.The first criterion for selecting appropriate parks for the study was thatthe parks had to be regularly maintained by irrigation technicians. This wasdefined to be parks that are visited by an irrigation technician at least threetimes per month throughout the summer work period, which would indicatethat the park is being actively maintained. This was to ensure that therewould be at least one participant familiar enough with each park to providea baseline of expert performance.The second criterion for selecting parks was that they had to be averagesized in terms of irrigated area and number of irrigation zones. The size ofthe park is important for this study as many of the common tasks that irri-gation technicians perform involve finding equipment and irrigation zones.Parks that are quite small make the completion of these tasks trivial, whereasparks that are very large require considerably more time to complete thosesame tasks. As well, there is significant variation in the layout of equip-ment and irrigation zones among the different sizes of parks in Kelowna.Irrigated areas range from a minimum of 0.06 acres to a maximum of 31.79acres, with an average irrigated area of 2.74 acres and standard deviation of4.98 acres. The number of irrigation zones at parks range from a minimumof a single irrigation zone to upwards of 70 irrigation zones at larger parks.The average number of irrigation zones was 13.17 with a standard deviationof 10.27.The last criterion for a valid park for the study was that the park neededto have recent GPS location data collected for the irrigation equipment. TheKelowna Parks Services department has undertaken the process of recordingthe GPS locations of all irrigation equipment for each of their irrigation sitesto provide an inventory of the equipment being used at the parks and toallow the generation of maps of the layout of equipment for the parks. At thetime of the study, only 70 of the 300 irrigation sites had GPS location datacollected for the irrigation equipment within the past six months; however,most of the remaining parks and irrigation sites have since had their locationdata collected.While several parks matched the above criteria, only four were deemedsuitable for the study by the Kelowna Parks Services management: BirkdalePark, Knowles Heritage Park, Tulameen Park, and Whitman Glen Park.The irrigated areas and number of irrigation zones for each park is shown inTable 4.1. All parks were within one standard deviation of the mean in re-gards to both irrigated area and number of irrigation zones, had recent GPSlocation data collected for their equipment, and were considered representa-454.1. Study Procedures and Methodtive of a typical park in Kelowna by Kelowna Parks Services management.Table 4.1: The street addresses, irrigated areas (in acres), and number ofirrigation zones for each of the selected parks in the study.Street Address Irrigated area ZonesBirkdale Park 363 Prestwick Street 1.42 23Knowles Heritage Park 888 Lawrence Avenue 0.95 22Tulameen Park 350 Providence Avenue 1.94 15Whitman Glen Park 308 Whitman Road 1.21 104.1.4 Pre-test SurveyParticipants were asked to complete a three section pre-test survey. Thefirst section was a series of questions to measure the participant’s initialconfidence and self-efficacy towards using technology, in particular mobiledevices such as iPads or smart phones (see Appendix C.1.1). The secondsection measured the participant’s initial anxiety towards using technologyand mobile devices (see Appendix C.1.2). The questions in these two sectionsof the pre-test survey were adapted from the questionnaire for measuringanxiety and self-efficacy when using computers and the Internet presentedin [DH02] and discussed in Chapter 2. The questions were modified to askabout mobile technology and mobile devices in addition to computers andtechnology in general. The third and final section asked the participant toindicate their familiarity with the selected parks to characterize them asexperts or novices for the selected parks (see Appendix C.1.3).4.1.5 Test ScenariosTo test how the iPad and irrigation management application would bemost effectively used at the parks, four test scenarios were developed toreplicate the different types of tasks that may be performed by irrigationtechnicians at city parks. Managers of the Parks Services department wereconsulted to determine the list of tasks for each scenario, as well as theviability of testing those tasks in a reasonable time-frame given the limitedavailability of the irrigation staff during the summer season.The tasks for the test scenarios were designed to be representative of thedaily routine at city parks, as well as other less common but still significant464.1. Study Procedures and Methodactivities that may occur at the parks. Several of these tasks asked par-ticipants to locate areas of particular interest such as dry brown patches ofgrass, potential tree planting locations, and damaged sprinkler heads. Theseareas of interest were indicated in the parks using different coloured flagsto mimic the conditions for each task without actually causing any damageto city property or equipment. The exact locations of the areas of interestwere different for each park, but the placement of the flags followed the sameguidelines:− Dry brown patches of grass needed to encompass at least two adjacentirrigation zones− Two potential tree planting locations needed to be placed in differ-ent irrigation zones where equipment could be damaged if a tree wasplanted there, while the other two needed to be placed in locationswhere no damage would be caused− Damaged sprinkler heads needed to be placed in an irrigation zoneseparate from any used in a previous taskScenario 1: Routine MaintenanceAs part of routine maintenance for a park, an irrigation technician needsto be able to locate all of the equipment at the park. Major items of equip-ment that they need to find include the control cabinet housing the irrigationcontroller, the points of connection to the main water line, the curb stop-pers for shut off and drainage of the main water line, and valve boxes forindividual irrigation lines. For this scenario, the participants were asked tocomplete the following series of tasks:− Find (1) control cabinet− Find (1) point of connection− Find (1) curb stopper− Find the valve boxes for (2) specific irrigation zonesScenario 2: Watering Program AlterationsDuring routine maintenance of a park, an irrigation technician may findthat particular areas of the turf grass to be brown and more dried out incomparison to the rest of the park. These dry brown patches of grass are474.1. Study Procedures and Methodusually the result of inadequate watering time or irrigation coverage fromthe surrounding sprinklers. Another possible explanation could be that thesprinkler head(s) may be damaged or failing to operate correctly. In eithercase, the employee must determine which irrigation zones are causing thedry brown patches, and make repairs or watering adjustments. For thisscenario, the participants were asked to complete the following tasks:− Identify in which irrigation zone(s) a dry brown patch of grass is lo-cated− Report or log which irrigation zone(s) had their watering time alteredScenario 3: Tree PlantingWhenever the city would like to plant new trees at a park or to installnew features such as a picnic table, bench, or garbage can, employees fromthe appropriate departments will go out to the park and indicate where theywould like to place the new trees or features. An irrigation technician mustthen go out to the park to ensure that no existing irrigation equipment orirrigation water lines will be damaged when planting the trees or installingthe new features. The two primary tasks the irrigation technicians needto do include identifying which irrigation zones may be affected by the newfeatures or trees, and where it will be safe to actually install the new featuresor plant the new trees to have minimal impact on the existing irrigationequipment or features. For this scenario, the participants were asked tocomplete the following tasks, which were repeated four times at each park:− Identify which irrigation zone(s) may be affected by planting a tree− Determine where it will be safe to plant a tree with minimal impactto existing irrigation equipmentScenario 4: Repair Damaged SprinklerWhenever sprinkler heads are damaged as a result of vandalism, accident,or general wear and tear, the irrigation technicians must perform a seriesof tasks to resolve the issue. They must first identify which irrigation zonesthe damaged sprinklers are located in, determine the replacement parts thatwill be required, retrieve the replacement parts and make the repairs, andthen finally make a report of the damage and repairs to their supervisorsand management. For this scenario, the participants were asked to completethe following tasks:484.1. Study Procedures and Method− Identify in which irrigation zone(s) the damaged sprinkler is located− Identify which type of replacement part(s) are required− Report or log the repairs that took place and the time spent doing so4.1.6 Observation and Data RecordingThe test scenarios were performed individually by the participants ateach of the selected parks throughout July and August of 2014. If a partic-ipant had enough familiarity to be considered an expert (E0 condition) at aselected park, then the participant was asked to complete all the scenariosfor that park without the use of the iPad and mobile application, in order toprovide a baseline of expected performance at that park. Otherwise, the par-ticipants were randomly assigned as either novice with the iPad and mobileapplication available to use (N1 condition), or as novice without the iPadand mobile application available (N0 condition). This led to a distributionof a single expert participant, three novice participants without the iPad orapplication, and three novice participants using the iPad and application ateach of the selected parks.During all test scenarios, the participants were allowed to use any re-sources they would normally have available, such as calling another em-ployee for advice. Participants using the iPad and mobile application (N1condition) were asked to use the iPad first before resorting to other tacticsto complete a task.The following parameters and observations were monitored during thetest scenarios: time to complete task, the types and number of errors ormistakes made, and any indications of frustration, confusion, or other com-mentary from the participant. The length of time to complete each taskfor each scenario was recorded using a stop watch, and the observationsof behaviour, errors made, and verbal comments from the participant werewritten in a notebook. Although the option was available, participants didnot make any phone calls to other irrigation technicians asking for assis-tance. Participants were encouraged to speak aloud their thoughts whilecompleting the tasks. At the end of the test scenarios, the task completiontimes and written observations were then transcribed onto a computer.4.1.7 Completion SurveyAfter the participants had successfully completed all of the test scenariosin each of the four parks, they were asked to answer another questionnaire.494.1. Study Procedures and MethodThe completion survey was divided into five sections. The first asked theparticipants about their perceptions for each test scenario they completedat parks which they were unfamiliar with (Novice testing conditions N0 andN1, see Appendix C.2.1). The second section was only to be completedby participants who had some familiarity with any of the parks during thetests (baseline Expert condition E0, see Appendix C.2.2). The third sectionasked the participants about their overall perceptions and experiences whileusing the mobile application out in the parks (see Appendix C.2.3). Thefourth and fifth sections repeated the same questions from the pre-test sur-vey to measure any changes in participant’s confidence and self-efficacy (seeAppendix C.2.4) and their anxiety towards mobile devices and technology(see Appendix C.2.5) after having used the mobile application in the field.An open feedback section was also included for any additional comments orconcerns from the participants (see Appendix C.2.6).50Chapter 5Results and DiscussionThe research hypothesis was that irrigation practices and maintenanceactivities at City of Kelowna parks could be significantly improved by provid-ing field employees with information about the parks they manage throughthe use of a mobile application for the iPad. As described in Chapter 4,the results and observations from the test scenarios at the parks, as well asparticipant perceptions from the pre-test and completion surveys, were col-lected for analysis. The time to complete tasks for the test scenarios at eachpark was recorded for each participant as either an Expert without the iPadfor baseline performance (E0 condition), Novice without the aid of the iPadand irrigation management application (N0 condition), and Novice with theiPad and application available to use (N1 condition). The distribution ofparticipants among the testing conditions was E0 = 1, N0 = 3, and N1 = 3for each park (Section 4.1.6). The mean and standard deviation for each ofthese participant conditions have been calculated at each park and for allparks overall. The mean values were used to measure the average completiontimes of the tasks, and the standard deviations were used to measure thevariability in the completion times, with higher values of standard deviationindicating a greater variability in the time to complete the tasks.5.1 Test Scenario Results5.1.1 Scenario 1: Routine MaintenanceIn Scenario 1 participants were asked to locate important equipment ateach park; an activity irrigation technicians typically perform during theroutine maintenance of parks. The first task was to find the control cabinetfor the irrigation system at the park (Table 5.1). While the mean completiontime is slightly faster for the novices with the iPad and application (N1)compared to novices without (N0), there is no significant difference overall.As well, N0 and N1 typically did not perform as well as experts (E0), whichwas expected since they are more familiar with these parks.515.1. Test Scenario ResultsTable 5.1: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for time to completeScenario 1 Task 1: find the control cabinet (in seconds).E0 N0 N1M SD M SD M SDBirkdale Park 0.92 N/A 11.41 9.14 16.53 4.38Knowles Heritage Park 41.75 N/A 82.60 91.30 39.07 33.05Tulameen Park 2.48 N/A 6.95 6.79 8.53 8.93Whitman Glen Park 22.90 N/A 58.72 49.59 43.22 22.07All parks 17.01 19.30 38.21 55.88 30.40 22.82What is interesting to note, however, is that the length of time requiredto complete this task varies greatly among the different parks across allparticipant conditions. This can be attributed to variations in layout ateach of these parks. It was observed that at Birkdale Park and TulameenPark, the control cabinets were located out in the open and were easilyseen from any location in the park, whereas the control cabinets at KnowlesHeritage Park and Whitman Glen Park were hidden amongst bushes andunderneath some trees respectively and required more time to find them,even for the experts who were more familiar with those parks.The second task of Scenario 1 was to find the point of connection forthe main water line at the park (Table 5.2). Once again, there is quite abit of variation in time to complete this task between the different parks asa result of the layout of the parks. N1 were on average a bit slower thanN0, who in turn were very similar to E0. This is likely due to the fact thatpoints of connection are typically located near to the control cabinets andboth the N0 and E0 participants simply looked around until they spottedthe equipment, whereas N1 participants used the iPad to navigate towardsthe equipment which caused them to perform slower in some cases.525.1. Test Scenario ResultsTable 5.2: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for time to completeScenario 1 Task 2: find the point of connection (in seconds).E0 N0 N1M SD M SD M SDBirkdale Park 0.83 N/A 11.49 9.46 29.80 17.23Knowles Heritage Park 31.16 N/A 30.16 9.77 27.20 2.43Tulameen Park 3.71 N/A 3.62 3.71 14.46 10.12Whitman Glen Park 9.47 N/A 3.39 0.08 7.32 3.65All parks 11.29 13.72 12.96 13.18 18.74 12.94The third task of Scenario 1 was to find the curb stopper for the waterline at the park (Table 5.3). Again there is not much difference in theoverall times to complete the task, as once more the layout of equipment atthe parks appeared to be the most significant factor in the time to completethis task.Table 5.3: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for time to completeScenario 1 Task 3: find the curb stopper (in seconds).E0 N0 N1M SD M SD M SDBirkdale Park 12.36 N/A 20.36 14.27 19.39 11.33Knowles Heritage Park 14.40 N/A 3.95 1.81 6.19 4.25Tulameen Park 4.85 N/A 9.20 9.51 17.93 16.32Whitman Glen Park 15.03 N/A 40.93 47.27 27.05 19.28All parks 11.66 4.68 16.58 21.68 17.64 14.26The final task of Scenario 1 was to find the valve box for a particularirrigation zone at the park. The task was repeated twice at each parkusing different irrigation zones (Table 5.4). Here we see more interestingresults. Novices using the iPad and application (N1) were on average fasterthan novices without (N0), and in many cases were actually faster than theexperts (E0) who are familiar with the parks. N0 and E0 participants onaverage took over two minutes to find the correct valve box for the indicatedirrigation zone, while N1 participants were typically able to complete thetask in under a minute.535.1. Test Scenario ResultsTable 5.4: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for time to completeScenario 1 Task 4: find the valve box for a specific zone (in seconds).E0 N0 N1M SD M SD M SDBirkdale Park 124.71 53.34 240.18 179.65 77.97 57.01Knowles Heritage Park 44.34 8.67 118.67 92.01 43.97 27.36Tulameen Park 18.53 19.55 127.50 65.40 44.00 16.40Whitman Glen Park 301.83 290.58 114.99 94.34 34.20 29.54All parks 122.35 162.97 153.55 122.31 48.63 36.85One reason why this task has very different results in comparison tothe previous three is that control cabinets, points of connection, and curbstoppers are typically easy to locate at parks, whereas valve boxes are adifferent matter. They are physically smaller, buried into the ground, andare often overgrown by turf grass or covered by dirt. As well, there areusually several valve boxes at each park, and each one may connect to oneor more irrigation zones. Locating valve boxes for particular irrigation zonesis a more labour intensive task than the three previous ones. The irrigationmanagement application greatly aided N1 participants in locating the valveboxes and correctly identifying the associated irrigation zones.5.1.2 Scenario 2: Watering Program AlterationsIn Scenario 2, participants were asked to identify which irrigation zonesmay be contributing to dry brown patches of grass, which may indicatethat the watering program for the affected irrigation zones may need tobe changed. The first task was to identify which irrigation zone(s) wereaffected by a dry brown patch of the grass, indicated by flags, at each park(Table 5.5). For this task, N1 consistently, and in most cases dramatically,outperformed N0. N1 participants on average were able to complete the taskin under 20 seconds, in comparison to over a minute for N0. Additionally,for most of the parks N1 performed on par or even better than the baselineof performance E0. To complete this task, most N0 participants turned oneach irrigation zone one by one until they could confirm which zone(s) wereaffected by the indicated problem area, which can be quite time consuming.Experts familiar with the park (E0), on the other hand, simply had to recallthe layout of the park if they could, whereas N1 were able to use the irrigationmanagement application to quickly determine the answer.545.1. Test Scenario ResultsTable 5.5: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for time to completeScenario 2 Task 1: identify in which irrigation zone(s) a dry brown patch ofgrass is located (in seconds).E0 N0 N1M SD M SD M SDBirkdale Park 69.91 N/A 115.91 58.15 29.77 4.18Knowles Heritage Park 3.89 N/A 73.97 59.86 24.35 11.65Tulameen Park 9.06 N/A 61.10 31.04 11.58 3.80Whitman Glen Park 15.40 N/A 20.69 13.35 12.98 4.96All parks 24.57 30.59 72.36 53.12 19.16 9.80One thing that should be noted, however, is that at Whitman Glen Parkboth N0 and E0 participants made use of a printed as-built map showing thelayout of equipment at the park. Only seven of the 200 parks in Kelownahave these as-built maps, and Whitman Glen Park happened to be one thatdid. While the map was out of date, as several pieces of equipment had beenchanged or removed entirely, it still provided the general layout of the parkand allowed N0 participants to complete this task (and subsequent ones)much faster at this park than compared to the others.The second and last task of Scenario 2 was to report which irrigationzones had their watering time altered. During the course of the study, itwas discovered that the irrigation technicians typically would not report anychanges made to the water programs for the irrigation zones at the parks.Some irrigation technicians claimed they would try to remember which wa-tering programs had been changed with varying success, while others didnot track that information at all. This information is something Parks Ser-vices managers have expressed interest in keeping, so while no data couldbe collected for the E0 or N0 conditions, the means and standard deviationsfor N1 are shown in Table 5.6.N1 participants were able to complete the task of creating a maintenancelog to record alterations in the watering program for irrigation zones in anaverage of 45 seconds, which included the time required to take a photoof the problem area using the camera on the iPad, and the time to typethe necessary information about which irrigation zones needed to have theirwatering programs changed.555.1. Test Scenario ResultsTable 5.6: Means (M) and standard deviation (SD) for time to completeScenario 2 Task 2: report or log which irrigation zone(s) had their wateringtime altered (in seconds).E0 N0 N1M SD M SD M SDBirkdale Park N/A N/A N/A N/A 29.44 16.82Knowles Heritage Park N/A N/A N/A N/A 47.09 32.03Tulameen Park N/A N/A N/A N/A 46.52 7.49Whitman Glen Park N/A N/A N/A N/A 50.57 44.47All parks N/A N/A N/A N/A 45.32 28.925.1.3 Scenario 3: Tree PlantingIn Scenario 3, participants were asked to complete tasks associated withthe installation of new features at parks, which were repeated four times.The means and standard deviations of the first task, identifying which ir-rigation zone(s) could be affected (Table 5.7). Once more, N1 participantsdrastically outperformed N0 participants with an average completion timeof 11 seconds for N1 compared to an average of nearly 100 seconds for N0.As well, N1 performed similar to the baseline of expected performance E0at 15 seconds on average.Table 5.7: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for time to completeScenario 3 Task 1: identify which irrigation zone(s) may be affected byplanting a tree (in seconds).E0 N0 N1M SD M SD M SDBirkdale Park 13.81 9.64 102.66 83.48 13.59 12.75Knowles Heritage Park 4.26 1.39 227.05 234.13 8.10 5.04Tulameen Park 34.04 33.21 41.69 29.67 13.27 10.29Whitman Glen Park 8.11 1.95 15.79 8.36 9.12 7.21All parks 15.05 19.51 95.17 138.50 10.82 9.10The last task of Scenario 3 was to determine where installing a newfeature such as a tree would have the least impact on existing equipmentand features (Table 5.8). Again, N1 performed better N0 at each park,565.1. Test Scenario Resultscompleting the task in an average of 6.6 seconds for N1 in comparison to 13seconds for N0. As well, N1 performed in line with E0 which completed thetask in just under 6 seconds on average.Table 5.8: Means (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) for time to completeScenario 3 Task 2: decide where it is safe to plant a new tree (in seconds).E0 N0 N1M SD M SD M SDBirkdale Park 2.99 1.34 17.36 21.67 7.69 6.23Knowles Heritage Park 3.56 2.46 15.11 15.84 5.55 4.73Tulameen Park 7.90 4.24 11.99 11.48 8.21 10.63Whitman Glen Park 9.26 0.76 6.23 3.63 5.52 3.52All parks 5.93 3.62 13.07 15.28 6.56 6.565.1.4 Scenario 4: Repair Damaged SprinklerIn the final test scenario, Scenario 4, participants were asked to performactivities associated with repairing damaged sprinklers. The first task wasto identify in which irrigation zone the ‘broken sprinkler’ was located (Ta-ble 5.9). N1 participants dramatically outperformed N0 participants acrossall of the parks, and performed on par with, if not better than, E0 partici-pants for the majority of parks. The identification of the irrigation zones isa time-consuming task for participants not familiar with the layout of thepark (N0) since they have to turn on each irrigation zone manually. In com-parison, the irrigation management application on the iPad allows noviceswith no familiarity of the layout of equipment (N1) to perform as well asexperts (E0) in those parks.For the second task of Scenario 4, participants were asked to determinewhich type of replacement parts would be required for the damaged sprinkler(Table 5.10). Once again, the average time to complete the task for N1 tendsto be faster than for N0, with 4.5 seconds on average for N1 compared to13 seconds on average for N0. As well, the mean completion time of N1 isslightly faster than E0 at 5.5 seconds, and N1 managed to outperform theexperts (E0) at half of the parks. This slight improvement in performance forN1 can likely be attributed to fact that E0 had to remember and recall thedifferent replacement parts needed for the specific sprinkler type comparedto N1 who only needed to look at the application for that answer.575.1. Test Scenario ResultsTable 5.9: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for time to completeScenario 4 Task 1: identify in which irrigation zone(s) the damaged sprinkleris located (in seconds).E0 N0 N1M SD M SD M SDBirkdale Park 3.76 N/A 99.97 97.03 3.14 1.14Knowles Heritage Park 4.53 N/A 58.21 33.65 2.58 0.52Tulameen Park 18.49 N/A 48.01 25.37 13.26 5.19Whitman Glen Park 3.31 N/A 8.34 2.75 4.21 2.90All parks 7.52 7.33 57.75 57.36 5.68 5.09Table 5.10: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for time to completeScenario 4 Task 2: identify which type of replacement part(s) are required(in seconds).E0 N0 N1M SD M SD M SDBirkdale Park 3.26 N/A 12.34 7.37 9.49 4.99Knowles Heritage Park 1.10 N/A 21.93 24.02 3.14 2.28Tulameen Park 9.16 N/A 9.13 7.43 2.27 1.53Whitman Glen Park 8.40 N/A 6.90 7.04 3.37 1.98All parks 5.48 3.92 13.03 12.92 4.48 3.84The last task of Scenario 4 was to record the repairs made at the park.As with the second task of Scenario 2, irrigation technicians do not activelyreport their maintenance activities at the parks, so data for E0 and N0 couldnot be collected (Table 5.11). Participants created maintenance logs withpictures and text in an average of 30 seconds. The decrease in time com-pared to the similar task from Scenario 2 (Table 5.6) could be attributedto the participants becoming more comfortable using the iPad and irriga-tion management application to create maintenance logs. Another potentialexplanation for the decrease in time could be that participants took fewerphotos when creating the maintenance logs for this task in comparison tothe previous task.585.1. Test Scenario ResultsTable 5.11: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for time to completeScenario 4 Task 3: report or log the repairs that took place and the timespent doing so (in seconds).E0 N0 N1M SD M SD M SDBirkdale Park N/A N/A N/A N/A 43.79 20.00Knowles Heritage Park N/A N/A N/A N/A 35.93 1.72Tulameen Park N/A N/A N/A N/A 33.33 18.71Whitman Glen Park N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.92 5.92All parks N/A N/A N/A N/A 30.12 16.445.1.5 Summary of Task PerformanceTo summarise the differences in performance across each task betweenthe novice conditions (N0 and N1) in comparison to the baseline of per-formance from the experts (E0), percent changes were calculated using themean values from the all parks for each task (Table 5.12). A positive per-centage in the table indicates that the task took longer to complete in com-parison to the baseline of performance, while a negative percentage indicatesthe task took less time to complete. The conditions that performed the bestin each task have been emphasized in the table. It should be noted that thepercent changes for Scenario 2 Task 2 and Scenario 4 Task 3 could not becalculated as no data were collected for the novices without the iPad (N0)or for baselines of performance (E0) to compare against.As seen in Table 5.12, novices using the iPad and irrigation managementapplication (N1) performed better than those without the iPad (N0) for themajority of tasks. The only tasks where N0 on average completed the tasksfaster than N1 were for Scenario 1 Tasks 2 and 3 (locating the point ofconnection and curb stopper respectively). These tasks involved locatingequipment that is large and typically easy to find at the parks by simplylooking around. For these tasks, N1 participants used the GPS of the iPadand the interactive map of the irrigation management application to navigatearound the park until they found the equipment, which slowed them downin comparison to N0 who simply looked around until they had spotted theequipment.595.1. Test Scenario ResultsTable 5.12: The percent change in mean performance between the respectivenovice conditions in comparison to the baseline of performance from expertsat all parks for each task.N0 N1Scenario 1 Task 1: find control cabinet +125% +65%Scenario 1 Task 2: find point of connection +15% +66%Scenario 1 Task 3: find curb stopper +42% +51%Scenario 1 Task 4: find valve boxes +26% -60%Scenario 2 Task 1: identify zone with dry patch +195% -22%Scenario 2 Task 2: report watering time changes N/A N/AScenario 3 Task 1: identify zones to plant trees +532% -28%Scenario 3 Task 2: determine if safe to install +120% +11%Scenario 4 Task 1: identify zone with damage +668% -24%Scenario 4 Task 2: determine replacement parts +138% -18%Scenario 4 Task 3: report on repairs N/A N/AAcross all tasks, N0 participants were slower than baseline performanceby experts, which was expected as the novices were unfamiliar with theparks; however, not only did N1 participants outperform N0 on the majorityof tasks, but they were actually able to complete half of the tasks even fasterthan the baseline of performance from experts. Furthermore, those sametasks also showed the greatest differences in performance between N0 andN1. The most dramatic example of this is for Scenario 4 Task 1, where par-ticipants were asked to identify in which irrigation zone a ‘broken sprinkler’was located. Novices using the iPad and irrigation management application(N1) were on average 24% faster than the expert performance for that taskacross all the parks, in comparison to novices without the iPad or applica-tion (N0) which were on average 668% slower than experts in completingthat task.The results from the test scenarios emphasize the significant improve-ment in maintenance efficiency that can be achieved when using the irri-gation management application for novice irrigation technicians unfamiliarwith the parks, as well as the potential benefit for expert technicians that areknowledgeable of the parks with many of the maintenance activities coveredby the test scenarios.605.2. Survey Results5.2 Survey ResultsThe results from the pre-test and completion surveys were analysed to seeif there were any changes in the anxiety and confidence of the participants,as well as to gather their perceptions of the test scenarios and of using theirrigation management application.5.2.1 Participant ConfidenceThe means and standard deviations of participant confidence and self-efficacy for using mobile technology and devices were calculated from thepre-test survey and completion survey (labelled as post-test) (Table 5.13).Table 5.13: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of participant confi-dence and self-efficacy for using mobile technology and devices (1 = stronglydisagree and 5 = strongly agree).Pre-test Post-testI feel confident when . . . M SD M SD1. Working on a mobile device (e.g. iPad,iPhone, Tablet, Smart Phone)3.43 0.79 4.00 0.582. Opening apps and using them 3.43 0.98 3.86 0.693. Using the users guide when help is needed 3.00 1.00 3.43 1.134. Learning to use a variety of apps 3.14 0.90 3.86 0.695. Learning advanced skills within an app 2.86 1.07 3.29 1.116. Writing simple apps for mobile devices 1.29 0.49 1.43 0.537. Using mobile devices to write an email ortake a picture4.14 0.90 4.86 0.388. Describing the function of mobile deviceinteractions (e.g. touch, swipe, pinch,double-tap)3.57 0.53 4.29 0.499. Getting help when encountering problemsin apps2.86 0.69 3.14 1.2110. Explaining why an app will or will notrun on a given mobile device (e.g. iPadvs. Android)2.14 0.69 2.71 1.2511. Troubleshooting mobile device problems 2.57 0.98 2.57 1.40615.2. Survey ResultsThe mean value of each of the responses increased by an average of 0.5in the post-test (completion) survey compared to the initial responses fromthe pre-test survey, with the exception of the last question which remainedthe same. The average response from the pre-test survey was 2.99 (neitherstrongly disagree nor strongly agree), while the average response from thepost-test (completion) survey was 3.49 (closer to strongly agree). Whilethe small sample size of participants prevents us from drawing too manyconclusions from these results, we can at least see that participants felt fairlyconfident about using mobile devices. Furthermore, the iPad and irrigationmanagement application does not appear to have had a negative impact onthe participants’ confidence for using mobile technology.5.2.2 Participant AnxietyThe means and standard deviations of participant anxiety towards usingmobile technology and devices were calculated from the pre-test survey andcompletion survey (labelled as post-test) (Table 5.14). When comparing thepost-test responses to the pre-test responses, we expect to see a decrease inthe mean values for negatively-framed questions (1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,and 16) and an increase in the mean values for positively-framed questions(2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 17), which would indicate a decrease in participantanxiety.As we can see from the results in Table 5.14, the mean values for ques-tions 1, 6, 10, 13, 15, and 16 have decreased as expected (by an overallaverage of 0.17), the mean values for questions 2, 4, 5, 7, 14, and 17 have in-creased as expected (by an overall average of 0.40), and the mean values forquestions 3, 8, and 12 have remained the same. There were two responseswhich did not remain the same or change as anticipated. Question 9, “Iwould dislike working with machines that are smarter than I am”, saw itsmean value increase by 0.29, while question 11, “I have difficulty in under-standing the technical aspects of computers or mobile devices”, saw a 0.14increase in its mean value. As with participant confidence in the previoussection, the small sample size of participants limits the conclusions whichcan be drawn from these results; however, they still indicate that overallparticipants rated their anxiety towards mobile technology as being lowerafter using the iPad and irrigation management application.625.2.SurveyResultsTable 5.14: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of participant anxiety for using mobile technology anddevices (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).Pre-test Post-testM SD M SD1. I do not think I would be able to learn a computer programming language 2.71 0.49 2.57 0.982. The idea of learning about computers and mobile devices is exciting 3.29 0.76 3.86 0.693. I am confident that I can learn skills for computers and mobile devices 4.00 0.82 4.00 0.584. Anyone can learn to use a computer or mobile device if they are patient andmotivated4.00 0.58 4.14 1.465. Learning to operate computers or mobile devices is like learning any new skill,the more you practice, the better you become4.14 0.69 4.86 0.386. I am afraid that if I begin to use computers and mobile devices more I willbecome more dependent upon them and lose some reasoning skills2.29 0.76 2.00 1.157. I am sure that with time and practice I will be as comfortable working withcomputers or mobile devices as I am in working by hand3.57 0.79 4.00 0.828. I feel that I will be able to keep up with the advances happening in the computerfield3.57 0.98 3.57 0.799. I would dislike working with machines that are smarter than I am 1.57 0.79 1.86 0.9010. I feel apprehensive about using computers or mobile devices 1.86 0.90 1.71 0.9511. I have difficulty in understanding the technical aspects of computers or mobiledevices2.43 0.98 2.57 0.7912. It scares me to think that I could cause the computer or mobile device to destroya large amount of information by hitting the wrong key1.86 0.90 1.86 1.2113. I hesitate to use a computer or mobile device for fear of making a mistake thatI cannot correct2.00 0.82 1.86 0.9014. If given the opportunity, I would like to learn more about and use computersand mobile devices more3.86 0.69 4.00 0.8215. You have to be a genius to understand all the special keys contained on mostcomputer terminals or mobile devices1.57 0.79 1.43 0.5316. I have avoided computers and mobile devices because they are unfamiliar andsomewhat intimidating to me1.57 0.98 1.43 0.7917. I feel computers and mobile devices are necessary tools in both educational andwork settings4.29 0.76 4.71 0.49635.2. Survey Results5.2.3 Perceptions of Test ScenariosThe completion survey asked participants about their perceptions foreach test scenario at parks they were unfamiliar with as Novices (conditionsN0 and N1), and then asked the same questions for participants who hadcompleted at least one test scenario as an Expert at a park (condition E0).The first question of this section asked participants about their experiencesduring Scenario 1 where they had to locate major pieces of equipment ata park (e.g. control cabinet, curb stoppers, points of connection, and valveboxes), and the second question asked about Scenario 2 where participantshad to determine which irrigation zones needed their watering time adjusteddue to a dry patch in the grass. The third question asked participantsabout Scenario 3 where they had to determine if no irrigation equipmentwould be damaged if a new feature like a tree was planted at indicatedareas, and then the fourth question asked about Scenario 4 which askedparticipants to identify which irrigation zone a damaged sprinkler was inand what replacement parts would be required. The means and standarddeviations of the responses to questions 1 and 2 have been calculated andare shown in Table 5.15, and the means and standard deviations for question3 and 4 are shown in Table 5.16, where 1 = significantly more time and 5 =significantly less time.As seen in the results, when comparing the mean values across ques-tions (a), (b), and (c) for each of the test scenarios (1, 2, 3, and 4), partici-pants consistently rated their experiences when using the iPad and irrigationmanagement application as being faster and taking less time in the parkswhen they did not have the application available. This pattern can be seenacross both expert and novice experiences. Furthermore, when comparingthe mean values between participants whom had expert and novice experi-ences versus only novice experiences, again participants consistently ratedtheir experiences when using the irrigation management application as beingfaster and taking less time as novices in comparison to experts.Question (d) for Scenarios 2 and 4 was used to determine how par-ticipants perceived the length of time spent creating maintenance logs asnovices (since as described previously, data could not be collected for E0and N0 conditions). Although participants did not have any previous ex-periences to compare against, the average mean response between the twoscenarios was still 3.38 (standard deviation of 0.26), which places it between3 = no noticeable difference and 4 = slightly less time on the 5 point scaleused.Additionally, when asked if there was any equipment that was easier to645.2.SurveyResultsTable 5.15: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for participant perceptions as Experts and Novices for testScenarios 1 and 2 (1 = significantly more time and 5 = significantly less time).As Expert As NoviceM SD M SD1.a Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain, how wouldyou rate the time spent completing these tasks without the iPad?2.75 0.50 1.86 0.691.b Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain, how wouldyou rate the time spent completing these tasks when using the iPad and irri-gation management app?3.25 1.26 4.29 0.951.c How would you rate the time spent completing these tasks when using the iPadand irrigation management app in comparison to when you completed thesesame tasks without the use of the iPad?3.50 1.00 4.57 0.532.a Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain, how wouldyou rate the time spent completing these tasks without the iPad?2.50 0.58 2.14 0.692.b Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain, how wouldyou rate the time spent completing these tasks when using the iPad and irri-gation management app?3.75 0.96 4.43 0.792.c How would you rate the time spent completing these tasks when using the iPadand irrigation management app in comparison to when you completed thesesame tasks without the use of the iPad?3.75 0.96 4.71 0.492.d When using the iPad and irrigation management app, you were asked to createa maintenance log for reporting which irrigation zone(s) required more water-ing. In comparison to how you would normally track or report which zonesneeded more water, how would you rate the overall time spent taking creatingthe maintenance logs using the iPad and app?N/A N/A 3.57 1.27655.2.SurveyResultsTable 5.16: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for participant perceptions as Experts and Novices for testScenarios 3 and 4 (1 = significantly more time and 5 = significantly less time).As Expert As NoviceM SD M SD3.a Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain, how wouldyou rate the time spent completing these tasks without the iPad?2.50 0.58 2.14 0.693.b Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain, how wouldyou rate the time spent completing these tasks when using the iPad and irri-gation management app?3.75 0.96 4.57 0.763.c How would you rate the time spent completing these tasks when using the iPadand irrigation management app in comparison to when you completed thesesame tasks without the use of the iPad?3.75 0.96 4.71 0.794.a Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain, how wouldyou rate the time spent completing these tasks without the iPad?2.50 0.58 2.14 0.694.b Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain, how wouldyou rate the time spent completing these tasks when using the iPad and irri-gation management app?3.75 0.96 4.43 0.794.c How would you rate the time spent completing these tasks when using the iPadand irrigation management app in comparison to when you completed thesesame tasks without the use of the iPad?3.75 0.96 4.43 0.794.d When using the iPad and irrigation management app, you were asked to createa maintenance log for reporting that the damaged sprinkler had been replaced.In comparison to how you would normally track or report which sprinklers hadbeen replaced, how would you rate the overall time spent taking creating themaintenance logs using the iPad and app?N/A N/A 3.20 1.30665.2. Survey Resultsfind in the parks when using the iPad and irrigation management appli-cation, the feedback from the participants was nearly unanimous: pointsof connection, valve boxes, curb stoppers, irrigation zones, and individualsprinkler head locations. This perception is supported by the results (forfinding valve boxes and irrigation zones) seen in Tables 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, and5.9. It is interesting to note that while the participants felt it was easier tofind the points of connection and curb stoppers when using the iPad andirrigation management application, the results from Tables 5.2 and 5.3 showotherwise; the average times when using the iPad and irrigation managementapplication (N1) were not significantly faster than without the application(N0) or compared to baseline expert performance (E0). When asked the op-posite question, if there was any equipment that was easier to find withoutthe iPad and application, the only response was control cabinets (from twoof the participants).5.2.4 Perceptions of Overall ExperiencesThe completion survey asked participants about their overall experiencesduring the test scenarios. The first question in this section asked participantsif they felt like they spent more time or less time overall in the parks whenusing the iPad and irrigation management application (1 = significantlymore time and 5 = significantly less time). The mean was 4.57 with astandard deviation 0.53, which indicates that overall participants felt theiPad and irrigation management application helped them spend less time atthe parks.The second question asked participants how useful (if at all) it was tohave the interactive map showing the locations and descriptions of the equip-ment in parks (1 = not useful at all and 5 = very useful). The mean was 4.86with a standard deviation of 0.38, strongly indicating that they found thisfeature to be very useful. The third question asked participants how usefulit was to have access to the park details. The mean of the responses was 4.29with a standard deviation of 0.49, once again indicating that participantsfound this feature to be very useful.The fourth question asked participants how likely it was that they wouldcontinue to use the feature that allowed them to create maintenance logs ofactivities performed at parks (1 = highly unlikely and 5 = highly likely).The mean was 3.71 with standard deviation 1.38, which indicates that whileparticipants may continue using this feature in the future, they are not asenthusiastic about it as the others in the irrigation management application.When asked how useful it was to have the iPad out in the parks (fifth675.3. Further Discussionquestion with 1 = not useful at all and 5 = very useful), the mean response ofparticipants was 4.86 with a standard deviation of 0.38. The sixth questionasked participants how difficult was it to carry the iPad around in the parks(1 = significant difficulty and 5 = significantly easy). The mean for thisquestion was 3.86 with standard deviation 0.90. The responses from thesequestions indicate that participants found the iPad to be a useful tool outin the parks and that it was relatively easy to carry it around with them.Finally, when participants were asked the seventh and last question ofhow likely are they to use the iPad and irrigation management applicationagain in the future (1 = highly unlikely and 5 = highly likely), the meanresponse was 4.86 with a standard deviation of 0.38. This provides furtherindications that participants found the iPad and irrigation management ap-plication to be useful and will likely use it again in the future.5.3 Further DiscussionLooking at the data from a different perspective by focusing on thevariations in completion times revealed additional insights into how the be-haviour of the participants was changed by using the iPad and irrigationmanagement application. As experts (E0 condition) are more familiar withthe parks than novices (N0 and N1 conditions), it was expected that theywould have the fastest time to complete the tasks in each scenario. Forsome of the simpler tasks (for example, the first three tasks in Scenario 1),that was the case; however, for every other task from each of the scenarios,the novices with the iPad and irrigation management application (N1) notonly performed as well as or faster than novices without the iPad available(N0), but in many cases actually outperformed experts (E0) as well. This isdemonstrated by the completion curves that have been generated for sam-ple tasks from each scenario, which show the percentage of participants thathave completed the task versus the length of time to complete the task (seeFigure 5.1). For example, by one minute (60 seconds), 74% of N1 partici-pants had completed Task 4 of Scenario 1, compared to 50% of E0 and 27%of N0 respectively, shown in Figure 5.1(a). These results demonstrate thatthe irrigation management application allows irrigation technicians who arenot familiar with the parks (novices) to perform as well as, or even betterthan, the irrigation technicians who have spent years of regular maintenanceat those parks to become familiar with them (experts). This highlights thebenefit of having the irrigation management application out in the parks,particularly for new irrigation technicians who are not yet familiar with the685.3. Further Discussionparks they are supposed to maintain.0 50 100 150 200020406080100Completion Curve of Participants at All Parks for Scenario 1 Task 4Time to complete task (seconds)Finished participants (%)l Expert without iPadNovice without iPadNovice with iPadl(a) Scenario 1 Task 4.0 50 100 150 200020406080100Completion Curve of Participants at All Parks for Scenario 2 Task 1Time to complete task (seconds)Finished participants (%)l Expert without iPadNovice without iPadNovice with iPadl(b) Scenario 2 Task 1.0 50 100 150 200020406080100Completion Curve of Participants at All Parks for Scenario 3 Task 1Time to complete task (seconds)Finished participants (%)l Expert without iPadNovice without iPadNovice with iPadl(c) Scenario 3 Task 1.0 50 100 150 200020406080100Completion Curve of Participants at All Parks for Scenario 4 Task 1Time to complete task (seconds)Finished participants (%)l Expert without iPadNovice without iPadNovice with iPadl(d) Scenario 4 Task 1.Figure 5.1: Sample completion curves for test scenarios, showing the per-centage of participants finished versus the time to complete tasks in seconds.The percent finished at 60 seconds for each participant condition is high-lighted by the respective symbols.695.3. Further DiscussionDuring the test scenarios, novices using the iPad and irrigation man-agement application (N1) made no mistakes or errors while completing thetasks, novices without the iPad (N0) made on average one to two mistakes,and the baseline of performance from experts (E0) only made a single mis-take on average. All of the mistakes occurred during Scenario 1 Task 4 whenthey were asked to locate the valve box for a specified irrigation zone. Forevery other task, the length of time to complete the task varied but theparticipants made no errors otherwise.To illustrate further the benefit of using the irrigation management ap-plication in the parks, the potential daily time savings can be calculated. Asdiscussed previously in Section 2.5, irrigation technicians can be responsiblefor upwards of 80 individual parks, and since each park can have upwardsof 70 unique irrigation zones, it is unrealistic to expect them to be able tomemorise all the details and layouts for each of their parks. The followingtasks are activities which irrigation technicians are most likely to performon a daily basis:− Locate valve boxes for particular irrigation zones (Scenario 1 Task 4)− Identify irrigation zones within a dry or wet patch (Scenario 2 Task 1)− Identify irrigation zones with damaged sprinklers (Scenario 4 Task 1)Tasks which are unlikely to occur on a daily basis, such as those fromScenario 1 Tasks 1, 2, and 3 and Scenario 3, are excluded from the potentialtime savings calculation. Using the average percent change of novices usingthe irrigation management application (N1) from Table 5.12 and the averagebaseline performance (E0) from Tables 5.4, 5.5, and 5.9, the average timesaved for each task is calculated at 73.41 seconds for Scenario 1 Task 1,5.41 seconds for Scenario 2 Task 1, and 1.80 seconds for Scenario 4 Task 1,for a total average savings of 80.62 seconds. Based on discussions with theirrigation technicians, it can be reasonably assumed that they perform thesetasks an average of five times per park and that they visit an average of 10parks in a single day. Using these assumptions, the total time savings canbe calculated at 4,031 seconds or just over one hour each day. This timesavings is in comparison to the baseline expert performance (E0) of irrigationtechnicians that are very familiar with their parks. If instead we comparethe time spent using the irrigation management application (N1) againstnew irrigation technicians unfamiliar with their parks (N0), and we use thesame numbers for times the tasks are performed and parks are visited, thenthe potential savings becomes 10,497 seconds or nearly three hours each day.705.3. Further DiscussionThese time savings are only an estimate as irrigation technicians can visitup to 20 or more parks each day during their regular maintenance duties.However they still serve to demonstrate the potential benefit from using theirrigation management application in city parks.An interesting observation that was noted during the test scenarios, andthrough the feedback from the completion survey, was the difference in at-titudes of the irrigation technicians who had been working at the KelownaParks Services for several years compared to those of the newer staff. Thelong-term employees commented that while the irrigation management ap-plication was helpful and would be beneficial for new staff, they probablywould not use it very much themselves. In comparison, newer employees re-peatedly stated that they loved the application and looked forward to usingthe irrigation management application in their own parks. This difference inattitude is likely a result of the years of experience. The long-term irrigationtechnicians have been doing their jobs for several years and are very famil-iar with the layouts at their parks, so they do not see as much benefit fromthe application, whereas newer irrigation technicians, who are still learningthe layouts of their parks, are excited for a tool that can help them becomefamiliar with their parks faster and aid them in their maintenance activities.Participants felt that the iPad and irrigation management applicationreduced the amount of time they spent in the parks, particularly for parkswhich participants were not familiar with and had no additional resources toaid them in their duties such as the as-built map at Whitman Glen Park. Aswell, the comments and feedback from the participants was overwhelminglypositive. Every participant stated that they recognized the potential of theirrigation management application to improve their irrigation practices outin the parks. Overall, participants found the application to be very usefuland would likely use it again in the future.71Chapter 6ConclusionThis thesis sought to demonstrate that providing real time mobile accessto park data for irrigation technicians out in the field would improve main-tenance efficiency in city parks. An overview of the commercial irrigationsystems and of existing research into irrigation sustainability was exploredin Section 2.1. While commercial systems offer a range of irrigation op-tions from simple automated timers to more sophisticated weather-basedcontrollers and sensor-based shut-off systems, they often have issues withdeployment, high costs, low interoperability, and maintenance. Researchefforts have seen success with automated irrigation systems that collect andmonitor data for irrigated areas, automate the process of calculating wa-tering requirements, and run the irrigation; however, these research effortshave focused more on agriculture and residential water users. There hasbeen little research towards municipal irrigation in city parks, and the fewprojects which do again focus on automation to reduce water usage.Irrigation sustainability in city parks requires more than just efficientwater usage. Irrigation equipment needs continual maintenance and properlayout; the soil, plants, landscape, and climate at the parks needs to beconsidered; and most importantly, there needs to be a commitment fromthe people who manage and maintain the parks. Irrigation technicians arecrucial for any improvements in efficiency and continued sustainability of theirrigation systems in city parks. However, they need to have the resourcesand tools available to them in order to make those decisions.As discussed in Section 2.2, advances in mobile technology and the ubiq-uity of mobile devices provide new opportunities for irrigation techniciansto manage their time and resources better out in the parks and help themimprove their irrigation practices. Research efforts to develop mobile appli-cations that aid field workers with management and maintenance activitieshave been quite successful, but they often fail to take into account usabilityconcerns for mobile applications. Further research in Section 2.3 suggestedusing a hybrid approach of heuristic evaluation, scenario-based testing, andquestionnaires as the best means for ensuring the usability of any developedmobile application. After considering the mobile development options in72Chapter 6. ConclusionSection 2.4, I developed a mobile-friendly web application for the employeesof the Kelowna Parks Services department.Described in Chapter 3, the irrigation management application providesirrigation technicians from the Parks Services department with real timemobile access to information on the parks that they maintain. That infor-mation included irrigated areas, categories and organizational classifications,and current, historic, and expected water usage for each park. As well, thedescriptions, layouts, and GPS locations of all equipment in the parks wascollected by myself and Kelowna Parks Services staff, and integrated intothe irrigation management application to provide interactive maps of eachpark and allow GPS navigation with the mobile device to position the userin relation to the displayed equipment. Finally, the application providedusers with the ability to create, view, and edit maintenance notes for eachpark using text and images.To evaluate the effectiveness of the irrigation management application inaiding irrigation technicians with their maintenance activities and irrigationdecisions in city parks, a user study was developed and performed with theKelowna Parks Services department. Presented in Chapter 4, the studyused a hybrid approach of questionnaires measuring participant confidence,anxiety, and perceptions (see Appendix C) and scenario-based tests whichmimicked regular maintenance activities (see Section 4.1.5) to measure thelength of time to complete tasks, the number of incorrect choices or errors,and the perceptions of the participants.As highlighted by the analysis of results in Chapter 5, the irrigationmanagement application allowed irrigation technicians unfamiliar with theparks to complete non-trivial tasks from the test scenarios much faster whenusing the iPad and application (N1 condition) than without (N0 condition).Furthermore, the irrigation management application allowed N1 participantsto perform as well as irrigation technicians with years of expertise at thoseparks (E0 condition, without the iPad and application as baseline of per-formance), and in many cases actually outperform them. Participants hadthe perception that the irrigation management application helped them tospend a lot less time in the parks, even for some cases where the time re-sults showed otherwise. The feedback from the participants was overall quitepositive, and they believe that the irrigation management application willbe a great tool to help new employees become knowledgeable about theirparks in a lot less time, as well as to help existing staff when they have tomaintain other parks outside of their regular responsibilities. The irrigationtechnicians of the Kelowna Parks Services department are excited to usethis application in the future.73Chapter 6. ConclusionFuture work and development of the irrigation management applicationwill offer more support with generating different reports for water usage,park costs, and water use efficiency (see Section 3.3.5), explore the potentialto adapt the application to work with mobile wearable technology such asGoogle Glass [Goo14], and examine the possibility of working with othercities to implement a version of the irrigation management application fortheir parks. As well, the study could be repeated with additional partici-pants or adapted to perform the test scenarios at other parks in Kelowna.In summary, the main contributions from this thesis include: the collec-tion and integration of park and irrigation data, including the GPS locationsof equipment at each park in Kelowna; the development and testing of a mo-bile application for park maintenance and irrigation management; and thedevelopment and implementation of a user study to evaluate the effective-ness of that application. In conclusion, by providing irrigation technicianswith real time mobile access to information on the parks they maintain, asdemonstrated by this thesis, they can improve the efficiency of their mainte-nance activities in city parks and simplify decisions regarding park irrigationand practices.74Bibliography[ABR+12] Md. Taslim Arefin, Mithun Banik, Imtiajur Rahim, Taw-fiqul Islam, and Tithi Biswas. Automated irrigation con-trol system: An advanced approach. In 2012 InternationalConference on Informatics, Electronics Vision (ICIEV),pages 516–520, May 2012. → pages 5[AJS+12] M. Allani, M. Jabloun, A. Sahli, V. Hennings, J. Mass-mann, and H. Muller. Enhancing on farm and re-gional irrigation management using MABIA-Region tool.In 2012 IEEE Fourth International Symposium on PlantGrowth Modeling, Simulation, Visualization and Applica-tions (PMA), pages 18–21, Oct 2012. → pages 8, 9[And14a] Android. http://www.android.com/, 2014. AccessedSeptember 23, 2014. → pages 10, 17[And14b] Android. Get the Android SDK.http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html, 2014.Accessed October 2, 2014. → pages 18[App14a] Apple. https://www.apple.com/ca/, 2014. AccessedSeptember 23, 2014. → pages 10, 17[App14b] Apple. https://developer.apple.com/technologies/ios/data-management.html, 2014. Accessed October 2, 2014. →pages 18[BG94] James B. Beard and Robert L. Green. The role of tur-fgrasses in environmental protection and their benefits tohumans. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23(3):452–460,1994. → pages 1[Bla14] BlackBerry. http://ca.blackberry.com/, 2014. AccessedSeptember 23, 2014. → pages 1075Bibliography[Boo14] Bootstrap. http://getbootstrap.com/, 2014. AccessedSeptember 1, 2012. → pages 22[Can11] Environment Canada. 2011 municipal water use report.2011. Technical Report. → pages 19[Can13] Environment Canada. Wise water use, 2013. → pages 20[Car06] Robert N. Carrow. Can we maintain turf to customers’satisfaction with less water? Agricultural Water Manage-ment, 80(13):117 – 131, 2006. → pages 1[Chi06] Luca Chittaro. Visualizing information on mobile devices.Computer, 39(3):40–45, March 2006. → pages 11[CSS+04] Peter H. J. Chong, Ping Lam So, Ping Shum, X. J. Li,and D. Goyal. Design and implementation of user inter-face for mobile devices. IEEE Transactions on ConsumerElectronics, 50(4):1156–1161, Nov 2004. → pages 15[DH02] Alan Durndell and Zsolt Haag. Computer self efficacy,computer anxiety, attitudes towards the internet and re-ported experience with the internet, by gender, in anEast European sample. Computers in Human Behavior,18(5):521 – 535, 2002. → pages 46[ERdQSF09] Jos Eustquio Rangel de Queiroz and Danilo Sousa Fer-reira. A multidimensional approach for the evaluation ofmobile application user interfaces. In Julie A. Jacko, ed-itor, Human-Computer Interaction. New Trends, volume5610 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 242–251. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009. → pages 15, 16[Eri14] Ericsson. Ericsson Mobility Report: August 2014, 2014.Interim Technical Report. Accessed October 1, 2014. →pages 10[Esr14a] Esri. GIS - GIS dictionary. http://support.esri.com/en/knowledgebase/GISDictionary/term/GIS, 2014. Ac-cessed November 19, 2014. → pages 8[Esr14b] Esri. GIS mapping software, solutions, services, map apps,and data. http://www.esri.com, 2014. Accessed September18, 2014. → pages 876Bibliography[FCTL12] Scott Fazackerley, Andrew Campbell, Robert Ryan Tren-holm, and Ramon Lawrence. A holistic framework for wa-ter sustainability and eduction in municipal green spaces.In 2012 25th IEEE Canadian Conference on ElectricalComputer Engineering (CCECE), pages 1–6, April 2012.→ pages 1, 6, 20[FXC13] WenSheng Fan, Jianping Xu, and CaiXia Chen. The re-search of GIS application of iPad-based road managementsystem. In 2013 4th IEEE International Conference onSoftware Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS), pages591–594, May 2013. → pages 12[GIS14] GRASS GIS. The world’s leading free GIS software.http://grass.osgeo.org/, 2014. Accessed September 19,2014. → pages 8[Goo14] Google. What it Does - Google Glass.http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/, 2014.Accessed October 25, 2014. → pages 74[GVMNGPG14] Joaquin Gutierrez, Juan Francisco Villa-Medina, Alejan-dra Nieto-Garibay, and Miguel Angel Porta-Gandara. Au-tomated irrigation system using a wireless sensor networkand GPRS module. IEEE Transactions on Instrumenta-tion and Measurement, 63(1):166–176, Jan 2014. → pages5[HBC+14] Thomas Hewett, Ronald Baecker, Stuart Card, TomCarey, Jean Gasen, Marilyn Mantei, Gary Perl-man, Gary Strong, and Williman Verplank. ACMSIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction.http://old.sigchi.org/cdg/cdg2.html, 2014. AccessedNovember 19, 2014. → pages 14[HJGK87] Robert K. Heinssen Jr., Carol R. Glass, and Luanne A.Knight. Assessing computer anxiety: Development andvalidation of the computer anxiety rating scale. Computersin Human Behavior, 3(1):49 – 59, 1987. → pages 15[Ind14] Hunter Industries. Where innovation meets con-servation. http://www.hunterindustries.com/en-77Bibliographymetric/conservation/overview, 2014. Accessed September10, 2014. → pages 1, 5[JB85] D. Johns and James B. Beard. A quantitative assessmentof the benefits from irrigated turf on environmental cool-ing and energy saving in urban areas. Texas TurfgrassResearch, (4330):134–142, 1985. → pages 1[JMWU91] Robin Jeffries, James R. Miller, Cathleen Wharton, andKathy Uyeda. User interface evaluation in the real world:A comparison of four techniques. In Proceedings of theSIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys-tems, CHI ’91, pages 119–124, New York, NY, USA, 1991.ACM. → pages 14[KF13] Naim Karasekreter and Ugur Fidan. Developing agricul-tural irrigation technology compatible with national en-ergy efficiency policy. In 2013 IEEE International Sympo-sium on Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applica-tions (INISTA), pages 1–5, June 2013. → pages 5[KNYS11] Toshiyuki Kamiya, Nagisa Numano, Hiroyuki Yagyu, andHideo Shimazu. A mobile-phone based field logging systemfor high quality satsuma mandarin production. In 2011Proceedings of SICE Annual Conference (SICE), pages2442–2445, Sept 2011. → pages 12[LDK+13] Cecil Li, Ritaban Dutta, Corne Kloppers, Claire D’este,Ahsan Morshed, Auro Almeida, Aruneema Das, and Ja-gannath Aryal. Mobile application-based sustainable irri-gation water usage decision support system: An intelligentsensor CLOUD approach. In SENSORS, 2013 IEEE, pages1–4, Nov 2013. → pages 12, 13[LG04] Kwang Bok Lee and Roger A. Grice. Developing a newusability testing method for mobile devices. In Inter-national Professional Communication Conference, 2004.IPCC 2004., pages 115–127, Sept 2004. → pages 15[MDO04] Kyaw H. Moe, Barry Dwolatzky, and Rex van Olst. De-signing a usable mobile application for field data collection.In AFRICON, 2004. 7th AFRICON Conference in Africa,volume 2, pages 1187–1192, Sept 2004. → pages 16, 1778Bibliography[Net14a] Mozilla Developers Network. HTML5.https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/HTML/HTML5, 2014. AccessedOctober 2, 2014. → pages 18[Net14b] Mozilla Developers Network. JavaScript.https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript, 2014. Accessed October2, 2014. → pages 18[OEC14] OECD. OECD Factbook 2014. pages 12–13, 168–169,2014. → pages 1, 4, 19[oK10] City of Kelowna. Water use statistics.http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/page2635.aspx, 2010. Ac-cessed September 10, 2014. → pages 19, 20[oK14] City of Kelowna. Open data catalogue.http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/Page3936.aspx, 2014. Ac-cessed September 1, 2012. → pages 23[Ora14] Oracle. MySQL: The world’s most popular open sourcedatabase. http://www.mysql.com/, 2014. Accessed Octo-ber 2, 2014. → pages 18[PHP14] PHP. http://php.net/, 2014. Accessed October 2, 2014.→ pages 18[PHVS04] Shirlina Po, Steve Howard, Frank Vetere, and Mikael B.Skov. Heuristic evaluation and mobile usability: Bridgingthe realism gap. In Stephen Brewster and Mark Dunlop,editors, Mobile Human-Computer Interaction - MobileHCI2004, volume 3160 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,pages 49–60. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004. → pages14[PRR03] Volker Paelke, Christian Reimann, and Waldemar Rosen-bach. A visualization design repository for mobile de-vices. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conferenceon Computer Graphics, Virtual Reality, Visualisation andInteraction in Africa, AFRIGRAPH ’03, pages 57–62, NewYork, NY, USA, 2003. ACM. → pages 1179Bibliography[QGI14] QGIS. Discover QGIS.http://www.qgis.org/en/site/about/index.html, 2014.Accessed September 19, 2014. → pages 8[Rai03] RainBird. Irrigation for a growing world. Rain Bird Cor-poration, USA irrigation planning. Company & OperationsResources, 2003. Accessed July 18, 2014. → pages 4[Rai14] RainBird. The intelligent use of water.http://www.rainbird.ca/corporate/IUOW/index.htm,2014. Accessed September 10, 2014. → pages 1, 4[Sim11] Doreen Ying Ying Sim. Emerging convergences of HCItechniques for graphical scalable visualization: Efficient fil-tration and location transparency of visual transformation.In 2011 7th International Conference on Information Tech-nology in Asia (CITA 11), pages 1–8, July 2011. → pages14[Tor14] Toro. Toro water smart - irrigation management.http://www.torowatersmart.com/, 2014. AccessedSeptember 10, 2014. → pages 1, 4[TS03] Mladen Todorovic and Pasquale Steduto. A GIS for irri-gation management. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth,Parts A/B/C, 28(45):163 – 174, 2003. Water ResourcesAssessment for catchment management. → pages 8, 9[Uni14] International Telecommunication Union. The World in2014: ICT Facts and Figures, 2014. Accessed September22, 2014. → pages 10[UNWWAP14] WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Pro-gramme). The United Nations World Water DevelopmentReport 2014: Water and Energy. 1:22–45, 62–68, March2014. → pages 4, 8[USG14] USGS. USGS MODFLOW and related programs.http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/modflow/, 2014. AccessedSeptember 20, 2014. → pages 8[(W314] World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Cascading StyleSheets. http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Overview.en.html,2014. Accessed November 19, 2014. → pages 1880Bibliography[WD10] Qian Wang and Ralph Deters. Mobile devices, scalabil-ity amp; digital ecologies. In 2010 4th IEEE Interna-tional Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies(DEST), pages 124–129, April 2010. → pages 10, 11[Win14] Windows. http://www.windowsphone.com/en-ca/phones,2014. Accessed September 23, 2014. → pages 10[Wis14] Okanagan Water Wise. Where does our water go?, 2014.Accessed September 10, 2014. → pages 20[Won08] Jennifer Wong. Get Water Smart, Kelowna, BC. The PO-LIS Project on Ecological Governance Water SustainabilityProject, 2008. Technical Report. → pages 19[ZBZ07] Yandong Zhao, Chenxiang Bai, and Bo Zhao. An auto-matic control system of precision irrigation for city green-belt. In 2nd IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronicsand Applications, 2007. ICIEA 2007., pages 2013–2017,May 2007. → pages 1, 6, 7[ZXY09] Leng Zhong-Xiao and Hamid Yimit. Decision support sys-tems for improving irrigation scheme management in aridarea. In First International Workshop on Education Tech-nology and Computer Science, 2009. ETCS ’09., volume 3,pages 332–335, March 2009. → pages 881Appendices82Appendix ALetter of Support83Appendix A. Letter of Support84Appendix BConsent Form85Appendix B. Consent FormParticipant Consent FormImproving sustainability and efficiency in City ofKelowna parks using a mobile applicationWho is conducting the study?Principal Investigator:Dr. Ramon LawrenceAssociate Professor - Computer ScienceUniversity of British Columbia OkanaganPhone: (250) 807-9390Email: ramon.lawrence@ubc.caCo-Investigator:Robert Ryan TrenholmGraduate Student - Computer ScienceUniversity of British Columbia OkanaganPhone: (250) 515-1332Email: ryan.trenholm@alumni.ubc.caWhy are we doing this study?We want to know if irrigation practices and maintenance efficiency can beimproved in city parks by providing you (the field employees) with informa-tion about the parks that you maintain on an interactive mobile applicationon the iPad. The goal of the study is to see if by providing you with theapplication, can you be more efficient with some maintenance tasks andsimplify decisions for the park irrigation.How is the study done?If you say ‘Yes’ to participate, you will be asked to complete a series oftasks related to your work. These tasks will mimic scenarios that you mightencounter during your regular work at a park; finding equipment for regularmaintenance, determining which irrigation zones may need additional water,whether it is safe for some trees to be planted in locations at the park, andrepairing a damaged sprinkler head.You will be asked to repeat these scenarios at up two parks which youregularly maintain, and at two parks which you do not. At one of eachof those pairs of parks, you will be encouraged to use a mobile applicationon an iPad that was developed to provide you with information about theirrigation at the parks you maintain. The co-investigator will accompanyyou during these scenarios to record notes, observations, and the lengthof time to complete the scenarios. The goal of the study is evaluate theeffectiveness of having information about the parks (via the application onthe iPad): we are not evaluating you or your ability to do your job.86Appendix B. Consent FormInitially you will be asked to complete a short survey to measure yourcomfort and confidence with using mobile devices. Then you will be giventwo hours to complete the scenarios at each park. After all of the scenarioshave been completed at all four parks, you will be asked to complete a secondshort survey. The tests may be spread across multiple days based on youravailability. The total time requirements will be a maximum of eight andthree-quarter hours, not including travel time between parks.What is done with the results?Please note that this research is being completed as part of a graduatedegree thesis. As such, the results will be reported in a graduate thesis(which is a public document) and may also be published in journal articlesand books. However, only aggregated data will be included in the results,and no information which could potentially identify you will be included.Are there any potential risks in participating?We do not think there is anything in this study that could harm you orbe bad for you. You will not be asked to perform any tasks or activities,or to use any equipment, that you would not normally encounter at yourwork and in your daily life. Additionally, we do not believe that any ofthe questions from the survey will upset you, but if you have any concerns,please let one of the staff know right away.Are there any potential benefits in participating?Taking part in this study may not directly benefit you, but the findingsfrom this study may help Kelowna and other cities to improve their irrigationpractices.Will you get paid for taking part in this study?To acknowledge the time you have taken out of your normal schedule tosupport this project, you will receive a $25 gift card for Tim Hortons.How will we maintain your privacy?All documents will be identified only by a code number (research ID) andkept in a locked filing cabinet. Participants will not be identified by name inany reports of the completed study. Additionally, no personal informationwill be collected during the study that could potentially identify you orconnect you to the data that was gathered.87Appendix B. Consent FormWho to contact if you have questions about the study?If you have any questions or concerns about what we are asking of you,please contact the primary investigator or the co-investigator. The names,emails, and telephone numbers are listed at the top of the first page of thisform.Complaints or concerns about the study?If you have any complaints about your treatment or rights as a researchsubject, you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in theUBC Office of Research Services at 1-877-822-8598 or the UBC OkanaganResearch Services Office at 250-807-8832.Participant Consent and SignatureTaking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right torefuse to participate in this study. If you decide to take part, you may chooseto pull out of the study at any time without giving a reason.− Your signature below indicates that you have received a copy of thisconsent form for your own records.− Your signature indicates that you consent to participate in this study.Participant Signature DatePrinted Name of the Participant SignatureResearch ID88Appendix CQuestionnaires89C.1. Pre-test SurveyC.1 Pre-test SurveyThis survey is to be completed before you begin any of the test scenariosin the parks. There are three sections to this survey. Please answer eachof the following questions honestly and to the best of your ability.C.1.1 Confidence using Mobile Devices and AppsPlease indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the state-ments listed below using the following 5 point scale, where 1 = stronglydisagree and 5 = strongly agree.I feel confident when . . . StronglydisagreeStronglyagree1. Working on a mobile device (e.g. iPad,iPhone, Tablet, Smart Phone)1 2 3 4 52. Opening apps and using them 1 2 3 4 53. Using the users guide when help is needed 1 2 3 4 54. Learning to use a variety of apps 1 2 3 4 55. Learning advanced skills within a specific app 1 2 3 4 56. Writing simple apps for mobile devices 1 2 3 4 57. Using mobile devices to write an email or takea picture1 2 3 4 58. Describing the function of mobile device inter-actions (e.g. touch, swipe, pinch, double-tap)1 2 3 4 59. Getting help when encountering problems inapps1 2 3 4 510. Explaining why an app will or will not run ona given mobile device (e.g. iPad vs. Android)1 2 3 4 511. Troubleshooting mobile device problems 1 2 3 4 590C.1. Pre-test SurveyC.1.2 Anxiety using Mobile Devices and AppsPlease indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the state-ments listed below using the following 5 point scale, where 1 = stronglydisagree and 5 = strongly agree.StronglydisagreeStronglyagree1. I do not think I would be able to learn a com-puter programming language1 2 3 4 52. The idea of learning about computers and mo-bile devices is exciting1 2 3 4 53. I am confident that I can learn skills for com-puters and mobile devices1 2 3 4 54. Anyone can learn to use a computer or mobiledevice if they are patient and motivated1 2 3 4 55. Learning to operate computers or mobile de-vices is like learning any new skill, the moreyou practice, the better you become1 2 3 4 56. I am afraid that if I begin to use computersand mobile devices more I will become moredependent upon them and lose some reason-ing skills1 2 3 4 57. I am sure that with time and practice I willbe as comfortable working with computers ormobile devices as I am in working by hand1 2 3 4 58. I feel that I will be able to keep up with theadvances happening in the computer field1 2 3 4 59. I would dislike working with machines thatare smarter than I am1 2 3 4 510. I feel apprehensive about using computers ormobile devices1 2 3 4 511. I have difficulty in understanding the techni-cal aspects of computers or mobile devices1 2 3 4 591C.1. Pre-test Survey12. It scares me to think that I could cause thecomputer or mobile device to destroy a largeamount of information by hitting the wrongkey1 2 3 4 513. I hesitate to use a computer or mobile devicefor fear of making a mistake that I cannotcorrect1 2 3 4 514. If given the opportunity, I would like to learnmore about and use computers and mobile de-vices more1 2 3 4 515. You have to be a genius to understand all thespecial keys contained on most computer ter-minals or mobile devices1 2 3 4 516. I have avoided computers and mobile devicesbecause they are unfamiliar and somewhat in-timidating to me1 2 3 4 517. I feel computers and mobile devices are neces-sary tools in both educational and work set-tings1 2 3 4 592C.1. Pre-test SurveyC.1.3 Familiarity with Selected ParksPlease note that this information is only being used to aid in the analysisof the collected data; it will not be used to identify you or to connect you toany collected results.Please indicate if you have any familiarity with the following parks.Specifically, are you currently responsible for any of these parks, have youhad any past responsibilities at any of these parks, or have you visited anyof these parks outside of your regular work. Check all that apply.Currentlyresponsibile?Had pastresponsibility?Have visitedoutside of work?BirkdalePark Yes  Yes  YesKnowlesHeritage Park Yes  Yes  YesTulameenPark Yes  Yes  YesWhitman GlenPark Yes  Yes  YesIf you answered yes to any of the parks above, please answer the ad-ditional questions where appropriate for those parks. Answer as best youcan (e.g. last week, one month ago, a year ago, daily, weekly, or never).How recentlyhave you beenresponsible?What was theduration yourresponsibility?How oftenhave youvisited?When wasthe last timeyou visited?BirkdaleParkKnowlesHeritage ParkTulameenParkWhitman GlenPark93C.2. Completion SurveyC.2 Completion SurveyThis survey is to be completed after you have finished performing allthe scenarios for each of the test conditions. There are five sections to thissurvey, in addition to an open feedback section at the end. Please answereach of the following questions honestly and to the best of your ability.C.2.1 Unfamiliar parksThis set of questions will be about your experiences during the testscenarios at the parks which you are not familiar with and have not regularlymaintained. Please indicate your perception of the time spent completingthe tasks using the following 5 point scale, where 1 = significantly moretime, 2 = slightly more time, 3 = no noticeable difference, 4 = slightly lesstime, and 5 = significantly less time.Question 1:Recall the first scenario for locating the major pieces of equipment at apark (e.g. control cabinet, curb stoppers, points of connection, and valveboxes).a.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks withoutthe iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timeb.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks whenusing the iPad and irrigation management app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless time94C.2. Completion Surveyc.) How would you rate the time spent completing these taskswhen using the iPad and irrigation management app in comparisonto when you completed these same tasks without the use of the iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timed.) Were there any specific pieces of equipment which were easier tofind in the parks when using the iPad and irrigation managementapp? If so, please list them.e.) Were there any specific pieces of equipment which were easier tofind in the parks without the iPad? If so, please list them and indicatewhy.Question 2:Recall the second scenario for determining which irrigation zones neededto have their watering time adjusted due to a dry patch in the grass.a.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks withoutthe iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless time95C.2. Completion Surveyb.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks whenusing the iPad and irrigation management app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timec.) How would you rate the time spent completing these taskswhen using the iPad and irrigation management app in comparisonto when you completed these same tasks without the use of the iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timed.) When using the iPad and irrigation management app, you wereasked to create a maintenance log for reporting which irrigation zone(s) re-quired more watering. In comparison to how you would normally track orreport which zones needed more water, how would you rate the overalltime spent taking creating the maintenance logs using the iPadand app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timeQuestion 3:Recall the third scenario for determining if it was safe (i.e. no equipmentwould be potentially damaged) to plant trees where indicated in the parks.a.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks withoutthe iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless time96C.2. Completion Surveyb.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks whenusing the iPad and irrigation management app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timec.) How would you rate the time spent completing these taskswhen using the iPad and irrigation management app in comparisonto when you completed these same tasks without the use of the iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timeQuestion 4:Recall the fourth scenario for identifying which irrigation zone the ‘dam-aged’ sprinkler was in and which replacement part(s) would be required forrepairs.a.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks withoutthe iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timeb.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks whenusing the iPad and irrigation management app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless time97C.2. Completion Surveyc.) How would you rate the time spent completing these taskswhen using the iPad and irrigation management app in comparisonto when you completed these same tasks without the use of the iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timed.) When using the iPad and irrigation management app, you wereasked to create a maintenance log for reporting that the ‘damaged’ sprin-kler had been replaced. In comparison to how you would normally trackor report which sprinklers had been replaced, how would you rate theoverall time spent taking creating the maintenance logs using theiPad and app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless time98C.2. Completion SurveyC.2.2 Familiar parksThis set of questions will be about your experiences during the testscenarios at the parks which you are not familiar with and have not regularlymaintained. Please indicate your perception of the time spent completingthe tasks using the following 5 point scale, where 1 = significantly moretime, 2 = slightly more time, 3 = no noticeable difference, 4 = slightly lesstime, and 5 = significantly less time.If you were not familiar with any of the parks (Birkdale, KnowlesHeritage, Tulameen, and Whitman Glen) used in the test scenar-ios, then you may skip this section.Question 1:Recall the first scenario for locating the major pieces of equipment at apark (e.g. control cabinet, curb stoppers, points of connection, and valveboxes).a.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks withoutthe iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timeb.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks whenusing the iPad and irrigation management app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timec.) How would you rate the time spent completing these taskswhen using the iPad and irrigation management app in comparisonto when you completed these same tasks without the use of the iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless time99C.2. Completion Surveyd.) Were there any specific pieces of equipment which were easier to findin the parks when using the iPad and irrigation management app?If so, please list them.e.) Were there any specific pieces of equipment which were easier tofind in the parks without the iPad? If so, please list them and indicatewhy.Question 2:Recall the second scenario for determining which irrigation zones neededto have their watering time adjusted due to a dry patch in the grass.a.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks withoutthe iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timeb.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks whenusing the iPad and irrigation management app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless time100C.2. Completion Surveyc.) How would you rate the time spent completing these taskswhen using the iPad and irrigation management app in comparisonto when you completed these same tasks without the use of the iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timed.) When using the iPad and irrigation management app, you wereasked to create a maintenance log for reporting which irrigation zone(s) re-quired more watering. In comparison to how you would normally track orreport which zones needed more water, how would you rate the overalltime spent taking creating the maintenance logs using the iPadand app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timeQuestion 3:Recall the third scenario for determining if it was safe (i.e. no equipmentwould be potentially damaged) to plant trees where indicated in the parks.a.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks withoutthe iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timeb.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks whenusing the iPad and irrigation management app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless time101C.2. Completion Surveyc.) How would you rate the time spent completing these taskswhen using the iPad and irrigation management app in comparisonto when you completed these same tasks without the use of the iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timeQuestion 4:Recall the fourth scenario for identifying which irrigation zone the ‘dam-aged’ sprinkler was in and which replacement part(s) would be required forrepairs.a.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks withoutthe iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timeb.) Compared to the time normally spent in parks that you maintain,how would you rate the time spent completing these tasks whenusing the iPad and irrigation management app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timec.) How would you rate the time spent completing these taskswhen using the iPad and irrigation management app in comparisonto when you completed these same tasks without the use of the iPad? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless time102C.2. Completion Surveyd.) When using the iPad and irrigation management app, you wereasked to create a maintenance log for reporting that the ‘damaged’ sprin-kler had been replaced. In comparison to how you would normally trackor report which sprinklers had been replaced, how would you rate theoverall time spent taking creating the maintenance logs using theiPad and app? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless time103C.2. Completion SurveyC.2.3 Overall ExperienceThese questions will be about your overall experiences at the parks dur-ing the test scenarios.Question 1:Consider the overall amount of time spent at the parks to complete thescenarios. Did you feel like you spent more time or less time atthe parks when using the iPad and irrigation management app incomparison to without the iPad at the parks? 1  2  3  4  5Significantlymore timeSlightlymore timeNo noticeabletime differenceSlightly lesstimeSignificantlyless timeQuestion 2:Recall the interactive map available on the iPad and irrigation manage-ment app showing the locations and descriptions of all the equipment at theparks. In your opinion, how useful (if at all) was it to have accessto this information? 1  2  3  4  5Not usefulat allSlightly notusefulNo opinioneither waySlightly use-fulVery usefulQuestion 3:Recall the additional irrigation information available through the iPadand irrigation management app, which included the address, number ofirrigation zones, irrigated and total area, and the current and historic waterusage for each park. In your opinion, how useful (if at all) was it tohave access to this information? 1  2  3  4  5Not usefulat allSlightly notusefulNo opinioneither waySlightly use-fulVery useful104C.2. Completion SurveyQuestion 4:Recall the ability to create maintenance logs using the iPad and irrigationmanagement app to report which irrigation zone(s) required more wateringand which ‘damaged’ sprinklers were replaced. How likely are you tocontinue using this feature of the app? 1  2  3  4  5Highly un-likelySlightly un-likelyNo opinioneither waySlightlylikelyHighlylikelyQuestion 5:In your opinion, how useful (if at all) was it using the iPad out in theparks? 1  2  3  4  5Not usefulat allSlightly notusefulNo opinioneither waySlightly use-fulVery usefulQuestion 6:In your opinion, how difficult or easy was it to carry the iPad aroundwith you while out in the parks? 1  2  3  4  5SignificantdifficultySlightly dif-ficultNo opinioneither waySlightlyeasySignificantlyeasyQuestion 7:How likely are you to use the iPad and this irrigation management ap-plication again in the future? 1  2  3  4  5Highly un-likelySlightly un-likelyNo opinioneither waySlightlylikelyHighlylikely105C.2. Completion SurveyC.2.4 Confidence using Mobile Devices and AppsNow that you have used the irrigation management application on theiPad at the parks, please indicate once more the extent to which you agree ordisagree with the statements listed below using the following 5 point scale,where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.I feel confident when . . . StronglydisagreeStronglyagree1. Working on a mobile device (e.g. iPad,iPhone, Tablet, Smart Phone)1 2 3 4 52. Opening apps and using them 1 2 3 4 53. Using the users guide when help is needed 1 2 3 4 54. Learning to use a variety of apps 1 2 3 4 55. Learning advanced skills within a specific app 1 2 3 4 56. Writing simple apps for mobile devices 1 2 3 4 57. Using mobile devices to write an email or takea picture1 2 3 4 58. Describing the function of mobile device inter-actions (e.g. touch, swipe, pinch, double-tap)1 2 3 4 59. Getting help when encountering problems inapps1 2 3 4 510. Explaining why an app will or will not run ona given mobile device (e.g. iPad vs. Android)1 2 3 4 511. Troubleshooting mobile device problems 1 2 3 4 5106C.2. Completion SurveyC.2.5 Anxiety using Mobile Devices and AppsNow that you have used the irrigation management application on theiPad at the parks, please indicate once more the extent to which you agree ordisagree with the statements listed below using the following 5 point scale,where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.StronglydisagreeStronglyagree1. I do not think I would be able to learn a com-puter programming language1 2 3 4 52. The idea of learning about computers and mo-bile devices is exciting1 2 3 4 53. I am confident that I can learn skills for com-puters and mobile devices1 2 3 4 54. Anyone can learn to use a computer or mobiledevice if they are patient and motivated1 2 3 4 55. Learning to operate computers or mobile de-vices is like learning any new skill, the moreyou practice, the better you become1 2 3 4 56. I am afraid that if I begin to use computersand mobile devices more I will become moredependent upon them and lose some reason-ing skills1 2 3 4 57. I am sure that with time and practice I willbe as comfortable working with computers ormobile devices as I am in working by hand1 2 3 4 58. I feel that I will be able to keep up with theadvances happening in the computer field1 2 3 4 59. I would dislike working with machines thatare smarter than I am1 2 3 4 510. I feel apprehensive about using computers ormobile devices1 2 3 4 5107C.2. Completion Survey11. I have difficulty in understanding the techni-cal aspects of computers or mobile devices1 2 3 4 512. It scares me to think that I could cause thecomputer or mobile device to destroy a largeamount of information by hitting the wrongkey1 2 3 4 513. I hesitate to use a computer or mobile devicefor fear of making a mistake that I cannotcorrect1 2 3 4 514. If given the opportunity, I would like to learnmore about and use computers and mobile de-vices more1 2 3 4 515. You have to be a genius to understand all thespecial keys contained on most computer ter-minals or mobile devices1 2 3 4 516. I have avoided computers and mobile devicesbecause they are unfamiliar and somewhat in-timidating to me1 2 3 4 517. I feel computers and mobile devices are neces-sary tools in both educational and work set-tings1 2 3 4 5108C.2. Completion SurveyC.2.6 Open feedbackIf you have any additional comments, concerns or feedback you wouldlike to give, please feel free to use the space provided below.109

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}]}"
                            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.24.1-0074405/manifest

Comment

Related Items