Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

The relationship between noise and privacy in UBC students' study spaces and reported stress levels Frackiewicz, Martina; Kim, Kate; Sandhu, Aman; Uy, Ellyce Apr 28, 2015

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Frackiewicz_M_et_al_SEEDS_2015.pdf [ 903.29kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0228115.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0228115-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0228115-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0228115-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0228115-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0228115-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0228115-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0228115-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0228115.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportAmanpreet Sandhu, Ellyce Uy, Kate Kim, Martina FrackiewiczThe Relationship Between Noise and Privacy in UBC Students’ Study Spaces and Reported Stress LevelsPSYC 321April 28, 201512831868University of British Columbia Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or a SEEDS team representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.Running head: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 1           The Relationship Between Noise and Privacy in UBC Students’ Study Spaces  and Reported Stress Levels Martina Frackiewicz, Kate Kim, Aman Sandhu, Ellyce Uy (The Green Beans) University of British Columbia     RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 2  Executive Summary We examined whether reported noise and privacy levels in University of British Columbia’s (UBC) students’ study spaces on campus are related to their levels of perceived stress through a quasi-experimental study. Data from N=101 UBC students were gathered through a survey at 3 different locations on campus: Irving K. Barber Learning Commons (IKBLC) Commons, IKBLC Silent Study, and Koerner Cubicles. As predicted, students studying in study spaces with higher noise and lower privacy levels (IKBLC Commons) reported higher levels of stress compared to students studying in spaces with lower noise and higher privacy levels (Koerner Cubicles). We found a moderate positive relationship between reported noise and stress levels and a moderate negative relationship between reported privacy and stress levels. Implications and limitations of the study are discussed, along with recommendations for UBC.    Keywords: stress, noise, privacy, study space, campus   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 3  The Relationship Between Noise and Privacy in UBC Students’ Study Spaces  and Reported Stress Levels  As part of the University of British Columbia (UBC) Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Wellbeing Initiative, we were asked to look into what it is about students’ academic environment that causes them stress. UBC’s Wellbeing Initiative (2015) conceptualizes wellbeing as a balance between different aspects of health such as academic and intellectual health, emotional health, personal health, physical health, play, social health, spiritual health, and work and financial health. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined stress as “a relationship between a person and their environment which is appraised as taxing and endangers his or her wellbeing” (as cited in Bell et al., 2012, p. 26). Negative impacts of stress on wellbeing have been researched and well-documented in the past. Previous research has found that stress has a major impact on mood, behaviour, sense of wellbeing and health (Schneiderman et al., 2005). In the learning environment, higher stress-induced cortisol levels are associated with impaired memory function (Conrad, 2012). In the work place, stress is correlated to poor work-life balance and conflicts between personal life and academic work (Bell et al., 2012). Studies have also found a causal relation between stress and major depression over time (Hammen, 2005). With these research findings in mind, we set out to identify what variables in students’ study environment are related to stress.  A study by Choi and McPherson (2007) found that irrelevant classroom noise impedes attention in a learning context. Guski (2001) found that an environmental stressor like noise leads to physiological and psychological discomfort. Other studies have shown that noise levels are one of the strongest correlates to psychological wellbeing (Klitzman & Stellman, 1989). Also, previous studies have found that perceived insufficient privacy is directly related to psychosomatic stress (Webb, 1978). Based on these previous findings, our research examined whether noise and privacy levels in UBC students’ study spaces are related to their reported stress levels. We hypothesized that students studying in locations with higher noise and lower privacy levels would report higher levels of stress than students studying in locations with lower noise and higher privacy.    Methods  Participants  Our participant population was UBC students (N=101; 95 undergraduate, 6 graduate) who were studying on the UBC Point Grey campus.   Conditions  Our study was a between-subjects, independent-measures design. We conducted our surveys at 3 different locations with varying noise and privacy levels. Our conditions were:  1) “IKBLC Commons”: We chose the third floor open study space at IKBLC (Irving K. Barber Learning Commons) as satisfying the high noise and low privacy condition (see Appendix A, Photograph A1). 2) “IKBLC Silent Study”: We chose the third floor Musqueam and Nass silent study rooms at IKBLC as satisfying the low noise and low privacy condition (see Photograph A2).   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 4  3) “Koerner Cubicles”: We chose the second floor silent cubicles at Koerner Library as satisfying the low noise and high privacy condition (see Photograph A3).  Unfortunately, we were unable to find a location on campus that satisfied the high noise and high privacy condition.      Measures  We designed a survey (see Appendix B) and developed our own set of questions that asked students to report their perceived levels of noise, privacy, and stress on a Likert scale of intensity (1 being lowest, 5 being highest). We asked students to report their stress levels and asked an open-ended question about what factors contribute to their stress on the first page to avoid being leading or suggestive. The second page included questions that asked students to report their perceived levels of noise and privacy in their study space to see if the locations satisfied the conditions of low versus high noise and privacy.   We also took objective measurements of noise and privacy at each location to see how they compared with the levels reported by students. To measure the noise, we used an app called SoundMeter to take decibel measurements from three different spots at each location and computed the mean average decibel level for that location. For privacy, we sat down at three different spots at opposing sides of the room at each location and counted the number of faces we could see. Then, we calculated the mean average number of faces for that location. We chose to use this method because it was a quick and efficient way to visually quantify the level of privacy from others’ presence.   Procedure  We asked students to fill out our survey on Tuesday, March 10th 2015 between 11:30am and 1:00pm. All participants provided verbal or written informed consent (see Appendix C) prior to completing the surveys and were given mini granola bars for their participation. We conducted 33 surveys from IKBLC Commons, 31 from IKBLC Silent Study, and 37 from Koerner Cubicles.   Results  We used inferential statistics to analyze our research findings. We used a one-way ANOVA for each variable (noise, privacy, and stress) to see if there were statistically significant differences between the mean levels reported at each location. Firstly, we analyzed reported noise and privacy to see if the locations that we chose satisfied our conditions. A one-way ANOVA for reported noise (see Appendix D, Table D2) found a statistically significant difference between locations (F(2,98) = 58.700, p = .000). A Tukey post-hoc test for reported noise (Table D3) revealed that reported noise was significantly higher in IKBLC Commons (3.48 ± .12) than Koerner Cubicles (1.58 ± .85, p = .000) or IKBLC Silent Study (1.58 ± .19, p = .000). No statistical difference was found for reported noise between IKBLC Silent Study and Koerner Cubicles (p = .207). A one-way ANOVA for reported privacy (see Appendix E, Table E2) revealed a statistically significant difference between locations (F(2,98) = 16.615, p = .000). A Tukey post-hoc test for reported privacy (Table E3) showed that reported privacy was significantly higher in Koerner Cubicles (3.26 ± .95) than IKBLC Commons (1.94 ± .93, p = .000) or IKBLC Silent Study (2.42 ± 1.03, p = .002). There was no statistical difference for reported privacy between IKBLC Commons and IKBLC Silent RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 5  Study (p = .123). In addition, there was a difference in objective measures of noise and privacy between IKBLC Commons and Koerner Cubicles (Appendix F). These combined findings confirmed that IKBLC Commons and Koerner Cubicles significantly differed on levels of reported noise and privacy, and therefore satisfied our conditions.  Secondly, a one-way ANOVA for reported stress (see Appendix G, Table G2) found a statistically significant difference between locations (F(2,98) = 4.501, p = .013). A Tukey post-hoc test for reported stress (Table G3) showed that reported stress was significantly higher in IKBLC Commons (3.45 ± 1.06, p = .011) than Koerner Cubicles (2.68 ± 1.06). There was no statistically significant difference for reported stress between IKBLC Commons and IKBLC Silent Study (p = .537), nor between IKBLC Silent Study and Koerner Cubicles (p = .170).  Finally, we calculated the two-tailed Pearson r and found a moderate positive correlation (r (99) = .314, p = .001) between reported levels of noise and stress (see Appendix H, Table H1) and a moderate negative correlation (r (99) = -.313, p = .001) between reported levels of privacy and stress (Table H2). The mean reported levels of noise, privacy, and stress at each study location is shown in Appendix I. This bar graph clearly shows two patterns: as reported noise levels go down, reported stress levels go down, and as reported privacy levels go up, reported stress levels go down.   Discussion  Our study results indicate that students’ reported levels of stress is associated with reported privacy and noise levels and thus supports our hypothesis that students studying in study spaces with reportedly higher noise levels and lower privacy levels would report higher stress levels compared to students studying in study spaces with reportedly lower noise and higher privacy levels.   Limitations and Challenges Some limitations in our study was that we did not consider other confounding participant variables that could have influenced our results such as gender, age, culture, familiarity with the UBC campus,  individual preferences of study spaces, and whether students had upcoming deadlines. Also, we only looked at two variables and did not take into account other variables besides noise and privacy that could have been related to stress. We didn’t differentiate between different types of noise and privacy, which could have produced different results. In addition, we cannot infer any causal directionality because our study was not an experimental design. This means that participants were not randomly assigned to conditions and we were not able to manipulate the independent variables.  Our measures of noise, privacy, and stress relied mainly on self-reports by students and hence were not objective. Our baseline objective measures of noise and privacy were not reliable as stand-alone variables, as we only took 3 measurements at each location. This also meant that our comparison of objective measures and reported measures of noise and privacy did not yield statistically significant correlations. Furthermore, our method of objective measurement for noise levels was not fully reliable since we used the app SoundMeter, which may not be as reliable as a higher functioning decibel measuring device. Our method of counting the number of visible faces for an objective measurement of privacy levels is also not an established, valid measure in experimental studies. Finally, our sample size of 101 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 6  participants was big enough to run a statistical analysis and test for significance, but was not representative of the entire UBC population.   Implications and Directions for Future Studies Despite these limitations, our study can provide the foundation for future research and can have implications for designing study spaces on and off campus. As our study has established a moderate correlational relationship between reported noise, privacy, and stress, this provides the basis for future research into a potential causal relationship. Therefore, an experimental design which utilizes random selection, random assignment, bigger sample size, independent variable manipulation, objective measurements of the three variables, and third variable controls may look at whether noise and privacy has causal effects on stress. Future studies may also research other variables besides noise and privacy that may be related to or influence stress, such as lighting, presence of greenery, or color scheme.  Some studies have reported that different types of noise, such as speech in informal learning spaces were not detrimental to students’ degree of wellbeing (Scannell et al., 2014). Another study found that the unpredictability of noise, not the actual decibel level, had negative effects on workers (Klitzman & Stellman, 1989). Based on these findings, a future study should research what it is about noise or privacy that is related to stress and whether different types of noise and privacy in study spaces could relate to different levels of stress. Therefore, examining alternative study locations not covered by our study, such as coffee shops and the outdoors, may also be of interest.  Other directions for future research include looking into ways for reducing stress-related variables like high noise and low privacy. For example, an experiment may test whether the use of dividers on tables in existing study spaces (thereby increasing privacy) leads to a decrease in stress. Therefore, our current study and future studies can have implications for designing workspaces on and off campus.   Recommendations for UBC While keeping the results of this study in mind, UBC may want to design future study spaces in a way that minimizes stress-related factors like high levels of noise and low levels of privacy. In addition, considering altering the physical layout of current study spaces to improve privacy and noise levels may prove beneficial. This could be done through either implementing dividers on existing surfaces in open study areas, larger room dividers around tables to minimize the travelling of sound, or the addition of more private cubicles. Another option for UBC to consider is to rearrange current study spaces to increase privacy and reduce noise by avoiding putting open study spaces in high traffic areas. For example, the hallways in the IKBLC Commons are lined with open tables and are situated where there is heavy foot traffic and are close in proximity to bathrooms that serve the entire floor, meaning less privacy due to consistent movement. In this case, the addition of dividers or cubicles to line the hallway may potentially increase privacy by obstructing the view of movement from those studying.  UBC may also want to consider the results of this study when deciding how to allocate floor space to study environments and when budgeting for renovations to minimize stress-related variables and to prioritize student wellbeing rather than the aesthetics of the building. Our study has only looked at noise and privacy but UBC students may have very different ideas about what constitutes an ideal study space. Therefore, establishing an open dialogue between RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 7  students and faculty to identify some of those other variables may be beneficial. This may be done through online surveys, polls, comment boxes on campus, or through other means.   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 8  References Assess your wellbeing. (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2015, from  http://students.ubc.ca/livewell/assess-your-wellbeing Bell, A. S., Rajendran, D., & Theiler, S. (2012). Job stress, wellbeing, work-life balance and  work-life conflict among Australian academics. Sensoria: A Journal of Mind, Brain & Culture, 8(1), 25-37. Choi, C. Y., & McPherson, B. (2005). Noise levels in hong kong primary schools: Implications  for classroom listening. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 52, 345–360. Conrad, C. D. (Ed.). (2012). Comprehensive name reactions, volume 6 : The handbook of  stress : Neuropsychological effects on the brain. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com Guski, R. (2001). Environmental stress and health. International Encyclopedia of the Social and  Behavioural Sciences, 4667-4671. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03832-8 Hammen, C. (2005). Stress and depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 293- 319. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143938 Klitzman, S., & Stellman, J. M. (1989). The impact of the physical environment on the  psychological well-being of office workers. Social Science & Medicine, 29(6), 733-742. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(89)90153-6 Scannell, L., Hodgson, M., Garcia Moreno Villarreal, J., & Gifford, R. (2015). The role of  acoustics in the perceived suitability of, and well-being in, informal learning spaces. Environment and Behavior, doi:10.1177/0013916514567127 Schneiderman, N., Ironson, G., & Siegel, S. D. (2005). Stress and health: Psychological,  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 9  behavioral, and biological determinants. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 607–628. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144141 Webb, S. D. (1978). Privacy and psychosomatic stress: An empirical analysis. Social Behavior  and Personality: An International Journal, 6(2), 227-234. doi:10.2224/sbp.1978.6.2.227   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 10  Appendix A Photographs  Photograph A1: IKBLC Commons         Photograph A2: IKBLC Silent Study              RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 11  Photograph A3: Koerner Cubicles                    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 12  Appendix B Survey RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 13    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 14  Appendix C Consent Form                        RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 15  Appendix D Tables on Reported Noise Levels (Statistical Analysis from SPSS)       Table D3 Tukey Post-Hoc Test on Reported Noise by Location Dependent Variable:   Reported Noise Level   Tukey HSD   (I) Location (J) Location Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound IKBLC Commons IKBLC Silent Study 1.58162* .19359 .000 1.1209 2.0423 Koerner Cubicles 1.90377* .18532 .000 1.4627 2.3448 IKBLC Silent Study IKBLC Commons -1.58162* .19359 .000 -2.0423 -1.1209 Koerner Cubicles .32214 .18846 .207 -.1264 .7706 Koerner Cubicles IKBLC Commons -1.90377* .18532 .000 -2.3448 -1.4627 IKBLC Silent Study -.32214 .18846 .207 -.7706 .1264 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Table D1 Descriptives Analysis on Reported Noise by Location Reported Noise Level    N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound IKBLC Commons 33 3.4848 .71244 .12402 3.2322 3.7375 2.00 5.00 IKBLC Silent Study 31 1.9032 .74632 .13404 1.6295 2.1770 1.00 3.00 Koerner Cubicles 37 1.5811 .84585 .13906 1.2991 1.8631 1.00 4.50 Total 101 2.3020 1.13596 .11303 2.0777 2.5262 1.00 5.00 Table D2  One-Way ANOVA on Reported Noise between Locations Reported Noise Level    Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 70.331 2 35.165 58.700 .000 Within Groups 58.709 98 .599   Total 129.040 100    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 16  Appendix E  Tables on Reported Privacy Levels (Statistical Analysis from SPSS)  Table E2 One-Way ANOVA on Reported Privacy between Locations Reported Privacy Level  Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 31.277 2 15.638 16.615 .000 Within Groups 92.238 98 .941   Total 123.515 100     Table E1 Descriptives Analysis on Reported Privacy by Location Reported Privacy Level  N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound IKBLC Commons 33 1.9394 .93339 .16248 1.6084 2.2704 1.00 5.00 IKBLC Silent Study 31 2.4194 1.02548 .18418 2.0432 2.7955 1.00 4.00 Koerner Cubicles 37 3.2568 .95468 .15695 2.9385 3.5751 1.00 5.00 Total 101 2.5693 1.11137 .11059 2.3499 2.7887 1.00 5.00 Table E3 Tukey Post-Hoc Test on Reported Privacy by Location Dependent Variable:   Reported Privacy Level Tukey HSD   (I) Location (J) Location Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound IKBLC Commons IKBLC Silent Study -.47996 .24266 .123 -1.0574 .0975 Koerner Cubicles -1.31736* .23229 .000 -1.8702 -.7645 IKBLC Silent Study IKBLC Commons .47996 .24266 .123 -.0975 1.0574 Koerner Cubicles -.83740* .23622 .002 -1.3996 -.2752 Koerner Cubicles IKBLC Commons 1.31736* .23229 .000 .7645 1.8702 IKBLC Silent Study .83740* .23622 .002 .2752 1.3996 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 17  Appendix F Tables and Figures on Objective Measures of Noise and Privacy  (Statistical Analysis from SPSS) Table F1 Correlations between Objective Measure & Reported Level of Noise  Objective Measure of Noise Reported Level of Noise Objective Measure of Noise  Pearson Correlation 1 .98 Sig. (2-tailed)  .141 N 3 3 Reported Level of Noise Pearson Correlation .98 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .141  N 3 3  Table F2 Correlations between Objective Measure & Reported Level of Privacy  Objective Measure of Privacy Reported Level of Privacy Objective Measure of Privacy Pearson Correlation 1 .99 Sig. (2-tailed)  .099 N 3 3 Reported Level of Privacy Pearson Correlation .99 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .099  N 3 3          RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 18  Figure F3.    Figure F4.       010203040506070IKBLC Commons IKBLC Silent Study Koerner CubiclesMean Noise Levels (dB)Objective Measures of Noise by Location024681012IKBLC Commons IKBLC Silent Study Koerner CubiclesMean Number of Visible FacesObjective Measures of Privacy by LocationRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 19  Appendix G Tables on Reported Stress Levels (Statistical Analysis from SPSS)  Table G2 One-Way ANOVA on Reported Stress between Locations Reported Stress Level    Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 10.883 2 5.441 4.501 .013 Within Groups 118.483 98 1.209   Total 129.366 100     Table G1 Descriptives Analysis on Reported Stress by Location Reported Stress Level    N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound IKBLC Commons 33 3.4545 1.06334 .18510 3.0775 3.8316 1.00 5.00 IKBLC Silent Study 31 3.1613 1.18594 .21300 2.7263 3.5963 1.00 5.00 Koerner Cubicles 37 2.6757 1.05552 .17353 2.3237 3.0276 1.00 5.00 Total 101 3.0792 1.13739 .11317 2.8547 3.3037 1.00 5.00 Table G3 Tukey Post-Hoc Test on Reported Stress by Location Dependent Variable:   Reported Stress Level   Tukey HSD   (I) Location (J) Location Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound IKBLC Commons IKBLC Silent Study .29326 .27502 .537 -.3613 .9478 Koerner Cubicles .77887* .26327 .011 .1523 1.4054 IKBLC Silent Study IKBLC Commons -.29326 .27502 .537 -.9478 .3613 Koerner Cubicles .48561 .26772 .170 -.1515 1.1228 Koerner Cubicles IKBLC Commons -.77887* .26327 .011 -1.4054 -.1523 IKBLC Silent Study -.48561 .26772 .170 -1.1228 .1515 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 20  Appendix H Tables on Correlations between Test Variables (Statistical Analysis from SPSS) Table H1 Correlations between Reported Stress & Noise  Reported Stress Level Reported Noise Level Reported Stress Level Pearson Correlation 1 .314** Sig. (2-tailed)  .001 N 101 101 Reported Noise Level Pearson Correlation .314** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001  N 101 101 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).  Table H2 Correlations between Reported Stress & Privacy  Reported Stress Level Reported Privacy Level Reported Stress Level Pearson Correlation 1 -.313** Sig. (2-tailed)  .001 N 101 101 Reported Privacy Level Pearson Correlation -.313** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001  N 101 101 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).        RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REPORTED NOISE, PRIVACY AND STRESS 21  Appendix I    

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0228115/manifest

Comment

Related Items