Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Vancouver’s Urban Forests : Gauging Public Perceptions and Using Citizen Science to Monitor Ecological… Olia, Amani; Tam, Cherry; Hendry, Emma; San, Kimberly Apr 21, 2017

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52966-Olia_A_et_al_Vancouver's_urban_forests.pdf [ 6.29MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52966-1.0347236.json
JSON-LD: 52966-1.0347236-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52966-1.0347236-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52966-1.0347236-rdf.json
Turtle: 52966-1.0347236-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52966-1.0347236-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52966-1.0347236-source.json
Full Text
52966-1.0347236-fulltext.txt
Citation
52966-1.0347236.ris

Full Text

   Vancouver’s Urban Forests:  Gauging Public Perceptions and Using  Citizen Science to Monitor Ecological Health  Amani Olia, Cherry Tam, Emma Hendry and Kimberly San  University of British Columbia Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences ENVR 400: Community Project in Environmental Science Dr. Sara Harris 21/4/2017  2 Executive Summary   Healthy urban forests improve human health, provide a variety of ecosystem services, and support plant and animal diversity. It is critical to monitor the health of urban forests due to the anthropogenic stressors they face and their importance in urban environments, and citizen science has shown to be a valuable tool to accomplish this goal (Galloway, Tudor, & Vander Haegen, 2006). Citizen science involves engaging ordinary citizens to volunteer their time to collect scientific data, often in the form of educational events or meetups.   The city of Vancouver, Canada, has a large urban forest, with canopy cover making up 18% of the city area; however, canopy cover is declining due to development (City of Vancouver, 2014). The Vancouver Park Board is interested in increasing awareness about urban forests through educational opportunities, such as citizen science programs, that encourage the public to take part in helping to monitor the health of their local forests. To meet these goals, this project engaged citizens in Vancouver to reveal perceptions of urban forests, developed and tested a citizen science method to monitor aspects of urban forest health, and provided recommendations on how citizen science programs could be developed in the future.  This project has the following objectives:   1. To find out the perceptions of park users regarding: a. the value of urban forests; b. the most important health indicators in urban forests; and c. their interest in participating in citizen science 2. To develop a citizen science activity book for grade three students to collect data on six forest health indicators 3. To determine the accuracy of data collected by grade three students, compared to the same metrics collected by us, the research team   4. To determine if the chosen indicators are appropriate forest health indicators for grade three students to measure according to their teachers 5. To make recommendations on how the citizen science activity developed for grade three students can be adapted for the general public  The first aspect of our project was to deliver an intercept survey in Jericho Beach Park, a forested urban park located in Vancouver. We asked 51 park users to rate the importance of urban forests and forest health indicators, to select which aspects of an urban forest they valued the most, and to indicate if they were interested in participating in citizen science events.    The second aspect of our project was to develop and test a citizen science method for grade three students to help monitor urban forest health. We recruited 77 students to measure and record data in an activity book on six forest health indicators in Pacific Spirit Park, another forested park located on University Endowment Lands immediately to the west of Vancouver. The six indicators were Variety of Tree and Shrub Heights, Tree Size, Plant Diversity, Woody Debris, Soil pH and Animal Diversity. Data recorded from the various activities were collected 3 and compared against reference data collected by us, to determine if the students were able to collect accurate data, relative to fourth-year science students. Following the fieldtrip, we also interviewed four grade three teachers to obtain feedback on the effectiveness of the program, and to develop recommendations on how we could improve these activities in future citizen science programs. Analysis of the data collected by the grade three students showed that there is very high confidence in their identification of understory species and high confidence in their data collected on soil pH, predominant canopy tiers and tree circumference (Table 1). There is moderate confidence in their identification of tree species and canopy tiers and low confidence in the data they collected on animals, woody debris and understory coverage.    Table 1: Confidence in the data collected by grade three students using the activity book, and the average importance rating of the corresponding forest health indicator in the public perception survey. Error bars represent one standard deviation.      Results from the intercept survey revealed that park users valued plant and animal diversity as the most important indicators of forest health, while abiotic factors such as soil pH and woody debris were rated lower. The survey results also indicated that respondents’ interest in citizen science was mixed, but there was a notable interest from all respondents in attending events where they could find out more about biodiversity, and events where they would help to identify species (Figure 1). These findings could be incorporated into planning future citizen science programs, as they illustrate that the public is keen to engage in events where they could benefit by learning about biodiversity and organisms.  4  Figure 1:  Percentage of respondents’ interest in different events, according to how they ranked their interest in participating in citizen science (n=51).   Following the results of our survey and analysis of the activity book data supported by the teacher interview, we have made several recommendations for planning future citizen science programs, improving the activity book for future use with grade three students, as well as adapting it for the general public. These include:  ● Hosting citizen science programs and events in the future that place an emphasis on collecting data on plants and animals in order to attract interest, as people tended to care more about the biota in the park  ● Including an educational component in citizen science programs to explain or demonstrate why soil pH or woody debris habitats may be important for urban forest health ● Providing more context to show how the different forest health indicators monitored through the activities contribute to forest health and are interconnected ● Instructing participants to look in all directions when making qualitative observations of canopy tiers at a site ● Adding additional understory and tree species to the species identification field guide for the general public ● Creating a more detailed and quantitative activity to collect data on understory plant coverage ● Expanding the soil pH activity to include different types of soil in order to show the participants how soil pH varies across different habitats ● Using photos instead of drawings of different woody debris habitat types, in order to limit subjectivity in identifying woody debris habitats 5 Author Bios  Amani Olia is a fourth year Environmental Sciences student with a land, air, and water concentration. She has work experience in education at the Royal Tyrrell Museum, at Husky Energy where she developed her data analysis and research skills, and currently at UBC Sustainability & Engineering as Climate Planning Coordinator.  Cherry Tam is a fourth year student studying Ecology and Conservation as part of her B.Sc. Environmental Sciences degree. She has previous experience working in agronomy research in the field, as well as working in public outreach. Cherry has an interest in environmental education and conservation work.  Emma Hendry is a fourth year Environmental Science student in the land, air and water concentration. She has experience identifying tree and understory species, using transects and quadrats to collect forest data, and analyzing forest data. Emma has worked at APEGBC and the Ministry of Environment where she developed project management and coordination skills.   Kimberly San is a fourth year Environmental Science student interested in natural resource conservation. She has previous experience working in soils research, and volunteers on a regular basis to help monitor the health of urban watersheds.                         6 Table of contents   1. Introduction 9 2. Methods 11 2.1 Public Surveys 11 2.2 Citizen Science Activity Books 11 2.3 Data Analysis 15 Surveys 15 Activity Books 16 3. Results 17 3.1 Surveys 17 General perceptions of urban forests 17 Forest Health Indicators 19 Interest in Citizen Science 19 3.2 Activity Books 22 Canopy Tiers 22 Tree Experts 22 Understory Experts 25 Groundcover Experts 27 Animal Activity 29 Confidence in the Data Collected 29 4. Discussion 31 4.1 Surveys 31 General Perceptions of Urban Forests 31 Interest in Citizen Science 31 4.2 Activity Books 32 5.  Recommendations 34 5.1 Citizen Science Program 34 5.2 Modifications to Activity Book 34 6. Conclusion 36 Acknowledgements 37 References 38 Appendices 40 7 Appendix A: Public Perception Questionnaire 40 Appendix B: Activity Book 40 Appendix C: Teacher's Guide 56 Appendix D: Field Guide 60 Appendix E: Tree Data for All Groups 70 Appendix F: Average Understory Quadrat Data 72 Appendix G: Ground Cover Data for All Groups 76 Appendix H: Transcribed Teacher Interview 77 Appendix I: Public Perception Survey Data 85   List of Tables  Table 1: The six forest health indicators in our survey and the corresponding activity that allowed the students to collect data on that indicator. 12 Table 2: Combined quartile ranges for measured tree circumferences in all groups (n=26) compared to the ENVR reference data. 25 Table 3: Habitat type number correspondence to description of woody habitat 27 Table 4: The number of grade three students in each group that saw or heard each animal during data collection (nA=30, nB=21, nC=26). 29 Table 5: Confidence in the data collected by grade three students using the activity book and the average importance rating of the corresponding forest health indicator in the public perception survey. 30 Table 6: Suggested modifications to the activities to make them more appropriate for the general public and grade three audiences 35   List of Figures  Figure 1: Students using a tape to measure the circumference of a tagged tree. 14 Figure 2: Students shading the coverage and using the field guide to identify a Sword Fern. 14 Figure 3: Students collecting a soil sample to measure the pH for the ground cover activity. 15 Figure 4: Respondents’ view of importance of urban forests (n=51). 17 Figure 5: Word cloud of responses to the question on why they placed a particular level of importance on urban forests (n=51). 18 Figure 6: Percentage of respondents’ that value different aspects of the urban forest (n=51). 18 Figure 7: Mean ratings of respondents’ perceptions on the importance of forest health indicators. A rating of three indicates “moderately important”, a rating of four indicates “important”, and a rating of five indicates “very important”. 19 Figure 8: Percentage of respondents’ interest in participating in citizen science (n=51). 20 248 Figure 9: Percentage of respondents’ interest in different events, according to how they ranked their interest in participating in citizen science (n=51). 20 Figure 10: Number of respondents and their interest in participating in citizen science, according to how they ranked the importance of urban forests. 21 Figure 12: Percentage of students who correctly identified that there were plants in level 1, no plants in level 2 and plants in level 3 present at the site (n=77). 22 Figure 13: Percentage of respondents who correctly identified the five tagged trees for all groups (n=26). 23 Figure 14a & 14b: Box plot diagrams showing measured tagged tree circumference for 5 tagged trees across all groups combined (n=26) with (a) and without (b) outliers. 24 Figure 15: Percentage of grade three students who correctly identified Trailing Blackberry, Salal, Dull Oregon Grape and Sword Fern at each of the four quadrats (n = 25). 26 Figure 16: Percentage of squares that were shaded the same way as the ENVR students when all four ENVR students agreed (n=25). 27 Figure 17: Percentage of respondents who correctly identified woody debris types at sites 1-4 for all groups (n=23). 28 Figure 18: Combined percentage totals for pH values and descriptions across the five sites. 28                            9 1. Introduction    Urban forests are vegetated areas within an urban or built-up environment (McPherson, 1993). Healthy forests in urban parks play an important role in improving human health, providing ecosystem services, habitat for urban wildlife, and facilitating animal and plant species diversity. Studies have shown that green spaces can help decrease stress, lower depression, and promote positive emotions in individuals through increased access to nature and recreational opportunities (Barron, Sheppard, & Condon, 2016; Barton, Hine, & Pretty, 2009; Marselle, Irvine, & Warber, 2014). The loss of forests has even been linked to increased development of health problems, including higher mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in the United States (Donovan et al., 2013).  Moreover, urban forests have higher tree diversity and species richness compared to forests on the peripheral of urban areas and provide a number of ecosystem services such as air and water purification, cooling of air temperatures, and sequestration of greenhouse gases (Barron et al., 2016; Blood, Starr, Escobedo, Chappelka, & Staudhammer, 2016; Nowak, Hoehn, Bodine, Greenfield, & O’Neil-Dunne, 2016).  Compared to natural forests, urban forests are subject to a number of anthropogenic stressors from being in close proximity to development, noise pollution, foot traffic, and poorer air quality (Villaseñor et al., 2014).  It is crucial to monitor the health of urban forests because of their importance in urban environments, and citizen science has shown to be a valuable tool to accomplish this goal (Galloway, Tudor, & Vander Haegen, 2006). Citizen science involves engaging ordinary citizens to volunteer their time to collect scientific data, often in the form of educational events or meetups. Citizen science programs can have diverse stakeholders and goals ranging from public education and engagement, to taking advantage of the fact that volunteers can quickly and economically collect a lot more data than a small group of researchers (Crall et al., 2013; Vann-Sander, Clifton, & Harvey, 2016).   Citizen science has been used with elementary-aged students in previous studies to determine the accuracy of the data (Delaney, Sperling, Adams, & Leung, 2008; Fuccillo et al., 2015; Galloway et al., 2006). Delaney et al. (2008) found that grade three students were able to differentiate between two invasive crab species with over 80% accuracy. Galloway et al. (2006) also recruited professionals to collect the same data as students in grades three to ten on several randomly-selected forest transects, and they reported students were able to accurately measure oak tree diameter at breast height values. These two studies show that accurate results from are possible to obtain from data collected by young children in citizen science.   The urban forests in Vancouver, Canada consist of 140,000 street trees, 300,000 park trees, and an unknown number of trees on private property (City of Vancouver, 2014). Canopy cover makes up 18% of the total city area but has been declining in recent years due to land conversion for development and removal of trees on private properties (City of Vancouver, 2014). In 2011, Vancouver’s Urban Forest Strategy was set as a priority item under the Greenest City 2020 Action Plan (City of Vancouver, 2017). This strategy focused on increasing the canopy coverage in the city, updating management plans, policies, and practices, and developing strategies for ongoing public engagement (City of Vancouver, 2017). The creation of citizen science programs or events to monitor Vancouver’s forests could be a component of this 10 strategy, as it can engage the public to interact with local parks while helping the City to evaluate the health of its forests.   In partnership with the Vancouver Park Board, the purpose of our project was to develop a preliminary citizen science method that would achieve two overarching goals: to engage the public to think about the value of urban forests in parks, and to collect data on the ecological health of those forests. Firstly, we created and delivered a survey to gauge park users’ overall perceptions of urban forests and citizen science. Next, we produced and tailored a citizen science activity for a grade three student audience, because urban forests link to the biodiversity and ecosystems unit in the grade three BC school curriculum (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2016). The students were asked to collect data on the following forest health indicators: canopy tiers, tree circumference and diversity, understory plant abundance and diversity, woody debris coverage, soil pH, and animal abundance and diversity. We collected data on the same metrics to be compared to the students’ in order to determine the accuracy of their data. Additionally, the grade three teachers were interviewed to provide feedback on the activity books. The results from the survey, the activity book data, and the teacher interviews informed our recommendations for adapting the activity books for the general public.  Our project had multiple objectives:  1. To find out the perceptions of park users regarding: a. the value of urban forests; b. the most important health indicators in urban forests; and c. their interest in participating in citizen science 2. To develop a citizen science activity book for grade three students to collect data on six forest health indicators 3. To determine the accuracy of data collected by grade three students, compared to the same metrics collected by us, the research team   4. To determine if the chosen indicators are appropriate forest health indicators for grade three students to measure according to their teachers 5. To make recommendations on how the citizen science activity developed for grade three students can be adapted for the general public        11 2. Methods This study has three major components: a public perception survey, development and testing of an activity book for grade three students, and analysis of the data. The survey was used to gauge public perception of urban forests in Vancouver as well as interest in participating in citizen science. To investigate whether grade three students could collect accurate data on forest health indicators to monitor Vancouver’s urban forests, an activity book was developed and tested with four classes of grade three students. The teachers who supervised the activities provided their feedback in interviews, which supported our evaluation of the activities. This research was reviewed and approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia.  2.1 Public Surveys   In order to design an effective citizen science program, we determined that further research on public perceptions would be beneficial in understanding the general public’s current knowledge about urban forests. Intercept surveys were conducted in Jericho Park (2941 Point Grey Rd) in Vancouver on the afternoons of February 7th, and February 11th, 2017. In total, we surveyed 51 adults who were visiting the park for various reasons, such as walking their dogs, jogging, and walking. The written questionnaire took five to ten minutes to complete, and consisted of eight questions for respondents to answer (Appendix A). The first part of the survey helped us determine the demographics of our participants, by asking them to provide their age, their purpose for coming to the park, the number of times they visit the park, how much they value urban forests, and why they value urban forests. The second part asked them to rank six forest health indicators on a scale of “not important” to “very important”. Finally, we assessed their interest in participating in citizen science events. Respondents were asked about their overall interest in citizen science, and which kind of events they would be interested in participating in. Options included a bioblitz, which is an event where volunteers come together to identify species in a short period of time; a family friendly activity; an event where prizes could be won; and an event where citizens could learn more about biodiversity.  The six forest health indicators were: variety of tree and shrub heights, tree size, plant diversity, woody debris, soil pH, and animal diversity. They were chosen based on their ecological and social importance and relevance to our target audience, as determined from consultation with our partner and through our literature review. Results from the rankings and the definitions of an urban forest were used to identify participants’ current knowledge of key ecological concepts and knowledge gaps. These results were incorporated into recommendations for the adaptation of the citizen science activity book and creation of other events for the general public.   2.2 Citizen Science Activity Books   The next step of the citizen science component of our project focused on two main aspects: 1) education & engagement and 2) assessing the accuracy of the citizen science 12 method. We determined that a children’s activity book would be the best way to educate younger audiences, since it can be repeated annually to maximize outreach to students. This provided a fun and engaging activity to teach grade three students about their local urban forests, and to allow them to participate in citizen science data collection that can provide insight into the health of our urban forests. The activity book (Appendix B) consisted of a variety of activities and questions that prompted students to record quantitative and qualitative data on the forest health indicators. Results and recommendations from citizen science studies in our literature review were incorporated into designing our activity book; for example, we included measuring tapes and photo field guides, which Delaney et al. (2008) found contributed to increasing accuracy of their data.   Table 1: The six forest health indicators in our survey and the corresponding activity that allowed the students to collect data on that indicator.   Forest Health Indicator in Survey Corresponding Grade Three Activity Variety of tree and shrub heights Selecting the canopy tiers that were present at the site  Selecting the canopy tier with the most trees at the site  Tree size Measuring the circumference of 5 trees using a tape measure Plant diversity Identifying 5 tree species using a photo field guide Identifying 4 understory species using a photo field guide Woody debris Selecting the type of woody debris present at 4 sites by selecting the diagram that corresponded to visual observations Soil pH Measuring soil pH using pH strips and recording the colour of the pH strip  Animal diversity Recording the number of animals that were seen and heard Not applicable Estimating the coverage of understory species in 4 quadrats by shading in every square where the plant covered an area larger than the students’ fist      13 A supplementary teacher’s guide (Appendix C) was provided along with the activity book with additional resources and instructions on how to carry out the activity.  In addition, we created a vegetation field guide (Appendix D) for the students with pictures and descriptions to assist with the species identification activities. Throughout the development of the activity book, we gathered feedback from teachers, our research supervisor, and our project partner at the Park Board, in order to refine our methods and produce the version of the activity book that was tested with grade three students. Feedback also assisted with ensuring that the activity book could be independently led, was specific enough to collect valuable data, and broad enough to be used across multiple parks.  The first test of the activity book was conducted by the ENVR 400 team (hereafter indicated as ENVR) in Pacific Spirit Park (5495 Chancellor Blvd) in Vancouver on the afternoon of February 13th, 2017, and was used as a preliminary trial to generate a reference dataset. Five individual trees, four quadrat sites, four woody debris habitats and soil pH sites were tagged with flagging tape to ensure that student data was recorded at the same locations as the ENVR data.   The second stage of testing involved partnership with four classes of grade three students and their teachers from Norma Rose Point School, which is located on the University Endowment Lands. In total, 77 students participated in the citizen science activity. Students from four classes were randomly assigned a group: A, B, or C, and tested the activity books on the morning of February 14th, afternoon of February 14th, and morning of February 15th respectively. All students collected data on the canopy tiers and animal diversity at the site. However, within each of Groups A, B, and C, students were further split up into three smaller groups: “Tree Experts”, “Understory Experts”, and “Groundcover Experts”. The students followed the same methodology as the research team using the activity book, and recorded data on tagged trees, quadrats, or habitats at the same location selected for the reference dataset. On the day of the fieldtrip, we assisted the teachers in providing supervision and limited our involvement to reading out and reiterating the instructions in the activity book, to reduce data collection bias.  Photographs were also taken of the quadrats before each group collected data so that the accuracy of the understory coverage shading activity could be determined. At the end of the testing, the data was compiled and compared between the trials done by the research team and by the grade three students.  14  Figure 1: Students using a tape to measure the circumference of a tagged tree.    Figure 2: Students shading the coverage and using the field guide to identify a Sword Fern.  15   Figure 3: Students collecting a soil sample to measure the pH for the ground cover activity.      One week after the fieldtrip, we conducted a 30-minute in-person interview with four teachers who had participated in supervising the trials, to ask for feedback and recommendations they may have for improving our activity book. The feedback from this interview informed the evaluation of the activities for expansion to the broader public.  2.3 Data Analysis  Surveys   The responses for each survey question were compiled and summarized in order to find out the overall demographics of respondents, their general perceptions on the importance of urban forests, and the overall interest of park users in engaging in citizen science. In addition, the data was analyzed to determine which respondents would be more interested in citizen science based on how important urban forests were to them, and to identify differences in the rankings of forest health indicators between respondents who were interested and respondents who were not interested. 16 Activity Books   To analyze the data collected on the canopy tiers, the percentage of students who recorded presence of each of the canopy levels were calculated. This provides information on how the grade three students as a whole saw the canopy structure. Additionally, the percentage of students who said that the most plants were in levels 1, 2 or 3 was calculated and compared to ENVR data.   The accuracy of tree species identification was calculated as the percentage of students who correctly identified the right species at each site, using the appropriate tree species code (Appendix B).  All species codes were used as recorded in the activity book, with the exception of one entry that was written as WG (We assumed this to be taken as WH).  For tree circumference the data was analyzed across all groups using box plots, including outliers that fell outside 1.5 times the interquartile range.  Outliers were double checked to ensure that it was not a result of error in data entry.  To assess the accuracy of understory plant identification, the percentage of students who correctly identified the species in each group was calculated and compared across the four species. Due to the subjectivity of the understory coverage quadrat data, only squares where all four ENVR students agreed on the coverage were analyzed. The percentage of squares that the three groups shaded the same way as the ENVR students for each species was calculated and plotted.   In the groundcover activity, students identified woody debris habitats and tested soil pH.  In the woody debris activity, participants looked at different drawings of habitats, including areas with varying portions of bare ground, ground covered by plants, leaves, wooden branches and logs, and data was analyzed for percentage of correct responses in each group. pH was separated into three categories: percentage of respondents who got the correct pH value, those that fell within 1 pH unit of the correct value, and those that recorded values greater than 1 pH unit away from the correct value.  In addition to the pH value, we also asked students to record the colour of the pH strip as a qualitative description. Percentage of respondents who wrote the word “Yellow” (the correct colour) in their response was calculated and noted alongside the pH value. This was done to determine if descriptive colour or numeric values in a colour chart were more effective in obtaining accurate measurements of pH values.  To examine the presence of animals observed by the grade three students and the ENVR students, the data was examined for individual groups. The number of grade three students who saw or heard each animal were totaled and compared with qualitative observations made by the ENVR students.    17 3. Results 3.1 Surveys General perceptions of urban forests  Park users in Jericho Beach Park were found to highly value urban forests, as none had indicated that urban forests were only slightly important or not important to them (Figure 4). The reasons as to why these respondents valued urban forests is represented in the word cloud in Figure 5, with the size of the word corresponding to how often it was written. The most commonly used words were nature, space, wildlife, city, nice, and green. Responses to question five on the survey, where respondents selected what aspects they valued about urban forests, supported the written responses for why forests were important to them. The most valued aspects of the urban forest included both social and environmental aspects, with over 75% of respondents selecting them as important. They were habitat for wildlife, places of solitude/escape from urban landscape, access to clean air, and preservation of trees and plants. Trails with lots of people was the least valued aspect with 18% of respondents selecting it as important, as seen in Figure 6.    Figure 4: Respondents’ view of importance of urban forests (n=51).  18  Figure 5: Word cloud of responses to the question on why they placed a particular level of importance on urban forests (n=51). Figure 6: Percentage of respondents’ that value different aspects of the urban forest (n=51). 19 Forest Health Indicators  Respondents’ importance rankings of the six forest health indicators show that they perceived plant and animal diversity as the most important contributors to a healthy forest (Figure 7). Rankings were followed by soil pH, variety of tree and shrub heights, woody debris, and finally tree size. Generally, respondents felt that all the indicators were of moderate importance or greater, because average ratings were all above three, which indicates “moderately important”.   Figure 7: Mean ratings of respondents’ perceptions on the importance of forest health indicators. A rating of three indicates “moderately important”, a rating of four indicates “important”, and a rating of five indicates “very important”. Error bars represent one standard deviation. Sample sizes vary due to some respondents who did not answer the question. Interest in Citizen Science  Interest from all respondents in participating in citizen science methods is summarized in Figure 8. More than one-quarter of respondents (27%) were not at all interested in participating in citizen science but overall, 49% of respondents indicated that they were moderately or very interested. However, there was still an interest in specific citizen science events with those who stated they were not interested in participating in citizen science. The bioblitz and educational events were more popular with those who said they were not interested or only slightly interested in citizen science. The results also show that a citizen science event where a prize could be won was an unpopular choice across all respondents (Figure 9).   Figure 10 links how park users ranked the importance of urban forests to them to how likely they were interested in engaging in citizen science. Respondents who said that urban 20 forests were important or very important to them were more likely to say that they were “very interested” in citizen science. However, there was a notable proportion (29%) of respondents who found forests important, but were not at all interested in citizen science. Additionally, on average those respondents that were interested in citizen science ranked the importance of indicators higher than those that weren’t, with the exception of animal diversity. The largest difference in ranked importance was seen with woody debris (Figure 11).   Figure 8: Percentage of respondents’ interest in participating in citizen science (n=51).  Figure 9: Percentage of respondents’ interest in different events, according to how they ranked their interest in participating in citizen science (n=51).  21  Figure 10: Number of respondents and their interest in participating in citizen science, according to how they ranked the importance of urban forests. Sample size n=2 for respondents who found forests to be moderately important; n=49 for respondents who found forests to be important/very important.   Figure 11: Ranked importance of indicators by respondents who were interested in citizen science compared to respondents that were not interested in citizen science, with lower and upper bounds of answers shown (n=51). 22 3.2 Activity Books Canopy Tiers  As shown by Figure 12, 89.6% of students correctly identified the presence of plants/trees at level 1 (the height of a teacher) and 98.7% of students correctly identified that there were plants and trees at level 3 (the height of a building). This is consistent with our own site observations. 84.4% of students also recorded that there were trees around the height of a basketball hoop (level 2), but we did not observe trees at this height at the site. The majority (80.5%) of students correctly identified that level 3 contained the most plants, however 10.4% and 6.5% of students incorrectly identified that there were the most plants in levels 1 and 2, respectively.   Figure 12: Percentage of students who correctly identified that there were plants in level 1, no plants in level 2 and plants in level 3 present at the site (n=77).   Tree Experts  From the tree identification activity, results show that students were able to identify five tagged trees with an overall accuracy of 68.4%, compared to the ENVR reference dataset (Appendix E). Red Alder and the Western Red Cedar (#1) were the easiest to identify followed by Douglas Fir, Western Hemlock and Western Red Cedar (#2), with combined accuracies of 100%, 100%, 76.9%, 42.3%, and 23.1% respectively (Figure 13; Appendix E).  Consistency was lacking in the data across student groups in Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar #2 and Western Hemlock, particularly when identifying the second Western Red Cedar (Figure 13).  23   Figure 13: Percentage of respondents who correctly identified the five tagged trees for all groups (n=26). Box(a) shows a bar chart with the combined percentage totals for correct species identification across the five tagged trees.  In the second part of the activity, tree circumference data was highly spread, with both maximum and minimum values recorded, and outliers present in all groups across all sites (Figure 14a, 14b).  In student groups combined, the interquartile ranges (IQR) were found to be 3 cm, 2 cm, 3 cm, 5.5 cm and 9 cm for Red Alder, Western Red Cedar (#1), Western Red Cedar (#2), Douglas Fir and Western Hemlock respectively, with Western Hemlock having the highest IQR (Table 2).  Across most trees, the interquartile boundaries (Q1, Q3) are relatively evenly distanced from the median, with the exception of Western Hemlock, whose lower quartile is much larger than the upper quartile (Figure 14a, 14b).  Without outliers, the IQR is slightly lower, while the whisker range is considerably lower (Figure 14b; Appendix E).  In total, the students had less than 5% difference between the average value for their results and the average value for the ENVR reference data at all trees combined (Appendix E).              24   Figure 14a & 14b: Box plot diagrams showing measured tagged tree circumference for 5 tagged trees across all groups combined (n=26) with (a) and without (b) outliers. Red and blue boxes indicate upper and lower quartile boundaries respectively, while whiskers extend the data from the minimum to the maximum values recorded.  The 25 outliers present in the data are represented in hollowed circles.                       25 Table 2: Combined quartile ranges for measured tree circumferences in all groups (n=26) compared to the ENVR reference data.    Interquartile Range (Combined) (cm) Group Statistical measure  Red Alder Western Red Cedar (#1) Western Red Cedar (#2) Douglas Fir Western Hemlock All Groups (With Outliers) Interquartile Boundaries 71 - 74 63 - 65 147-150 114-119.5 25.6 - 35 IQR 3 2 3 5.5 9.4 All Groups (Without Outliers) Interquartile Boundaries 71-74 63 - 64.5 148-150 114-119.5 32 - 35 IQR 3 1.5 2 5.5 3 ENVR Reference data Interquartile Boundaries 72.8 - 73 64.8 - 65 149 -150.2 114.8-116.3 34 - 35 IQR 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.5 1  Understory Experts   As shown by Figure 15, at the sites where the quadrat contained Trailing Blackberry, Salal or Dull Oregon Grape, all students correctly identified the species using the field guide. The majority (88%) of students correctly identified Sword Fern, however three students confused Sword Fern with Spiny Wood Fern. 26  Figure 15: Percentage of grade three students who correctly identified Trailing Blackberry, Salal, Dull Oregon Grape and Sword Fern at each of the four quadrats (n = 25).  Figure 16 shows that squares in which students recorded the same values as the ENVR reference data (either by shading the square or leaving it blank) resulted in 51% to 78% accuracy across the different species. The highest agreement between the grade three students and ENVR data was for Salal, followed by Dull Oregon Grape, Sword Fern and Trailing Blackberry. Using the tested activity, where the students shaded in every square where the plant covered an area larger than their fist, grade three students did not accurately record the coverage of understory plants. The average data for each of the four species collected by groups A, B, and C is shown by Appendix F. 27  Figure 16: Percentage of squares that were shaded the same way as the ENVR students when all four ENVR students agreed (n=25).  Groundcover Experts  From the woody debris activity, results showed high variability among students’ abilities to identify woody habitat sites with a combined accuracy of 46.1% and no clear trends across particular groups or sites (Table 3). The combined groups showed the highest accuracy in identifying the woody habitat in Habitat 1, followed by Habitat 2, Habitat 3 and 4 (descriptions provided in Table 3), with combined percentages of 65.2, 47.8, 43.5 and 27.3 respectively compared to the ENVR baseline (n=23) (Figure 17; Appendix G).  Table 3: Habitat type number correspondence to description of woody habitat  Habitat Type Description of Woody Habitat (*For images of the identified habitats see Activity Book in Appendix G) 1 Ground covered mainly by plants 2 Ground mostly uncovered with a few leaves and branches 3 Ground covered by leaves with some branches and logs 4 Ground is completely covered by twigs, branches and logs  28  Figure 17: Percentage of respondents who correctly identified woody debris types at sites 1-4 for all groups (n=23).   In the pH activity, all five sites returned the same pH value of 6, on a scale ranging from 1-14.  A majority of the students were very successful in recording the correct pH value, but were less successful in recording a variant of “yellow” as the correct qualitative description for the pH colour, with combined percentages of 78.1% and 59.4% respectively (Table 5; Appendix G).  Of the students that answered incorrectly for the pH values, 16.7% of students wrote pH values of 6 or 7, and 5.2% recorded pH values lower than 6 or higher than 8, referred to as pH “Other” (Figure 18; Appendix G).   Figure 18: Combined percentage totals for pH values and descriptions across the five sites. Note that the correct answer was 6 and “yellow” across all five sites (n=24). 29 Animal Activity   The results for the animal activity do not appear to produce reliable data on the presence of animals, and the accuracy of the data is not consistent across the student groups (Table 4). In each of the groups, 4 students reported seeing or hearing ducks and in all groups at least two students reported seeing or hearing frogs. Our observations confirm that these animals were not present at the site during data collection, indicating the inaccuracy of the data collected. An activity with pictures of animals, with spaces for students to record how many times they see or hear the animal was not an effective way of monitoring animal diversity.   Table 4: The number of grade three students in each group that saw or heard each animal during data collection (nA=30, nB=21, nC=26).    Duck Squirrel Bird Raccoon Frog Group Seen Heard Seen Heard Seen Heard Seen Heard Seen Heard A 1 3 10 7 14 20 2 1 1 1 B 1 3 14 5 7 11 3 6 3 6 C 1 3 16 7 23 23 0 0 1 1  Confidence in the Data Collected  Using the calculated accuracies of the data collected by grade three students, the level of confidence in the data from each of the nine activities was established (Table 5). Each activity is linked to the average importance rating of the corresponding forest health indicator from the public perception survey. Plant diversity was rated as the most important indicator by citizens followed by animal diversity and soil pH. The activity where the students identified understory species produced data that can be relied upon with very high confidence and there is high confidence in the data collected on soil pH, predominant canopy tiers, and tree circumference.            30 Table 5: Confidence in the data collected by grade three students using the activity book and the average importance rating of the corresponding forest health indicator in the public perception survey. Error bars represent one standard deviation.                31 4. Discussion 4.1 Surveys  General Perceptions of Urban Forests  Our results indicate that urban forests are important to the park users in Jericho Park. Both social and environmental aspects of the urban forest were highly valued. Of the reasons discussed for why forests are important, most people expressed appreciation for green spaces as a place of relaxation in the city, and as places for wildlife habitat. These results are in line with what others have found in past studies on public perceptions of urban forests (Barron et al., 2016). For instance, Bowler, Buyung-Ali, Knight, & Pullin (2010) reported that study participants felt more tranquil after being exposed to natural environments than to outdoor built environments. Other public perception surveys have also shown that urban park users preferred trees that provide wildlife habitat (Jennings et al., 2016).  The average ratings for all six forest health indicators were “moderately important” or above. Park users particularly found plant and animal diversity important, which aligns with some of the results in Jennings et al.’s (2016) study, where park visitors had a higher preference for planting trees to increase species richness and wildlife habitat. These results suggest that park users are familiar with many forest health indicators, understand that parks are important for biodiversity, and believe both biotic and abiotic factors are necessary for forest health. However, they may place a heavier emphasis on the biota present in the park over abiotic factors like woody debris, which is important as habitat for small animals and insects, nutrient cycling, and seed germination (Pastorella et al., 2016). In addition, soil pH was generally ranked as important, but we noticed that many respondents did not fully understand what pH was and how it contributes to forest health.  In this case, they may have assumed that it would be important because it is a scientific term. They may not know that soil pH and overall soil quality is a major factor in determining urban tree health (Ghosh et al., 2016). Interest in Citizen Science  The respondents who were not interested in citizen science indicated that urban forests are either important or very important to them. This may imply that they appreciate urban green spaces, but a) did not have time to help collect data; b) did not understand what citizen science entails based on the survey question; and/or c) simply did not want to help collect data, among other reasons. For example, people may think that the citizen science data may not necessarily be used by the scientific community (Vann-Sander et al., 2016). We did not ask our respondents why they would not be interested in citizen science, so we were unable to gauge the reasoning behind the decision.   32 4.2 Activity Books  The results from the canopy tier activity indicate that although the majority of students correctly identified the canopy layer that had the most trees, many did not accurately identify the canopy layers that were present in the forest. Despite clear instructions directing the students to look towards the site, many of them chose to examine their entire surroundings, which is the likely cause for discrepancies in the accuracy of this activity.   For the tree identification activity, the results indicate that most students were successful in identifying species.  In speaking with the grade three teachers (Appendix H), we learned that the students had been exposed to species identification in the past, and that they often go into the Pacific Spirit Park forest for field trips, which could explain their familiarity with and knowledge of the species. With that said, many of the teachers also mentioned that the students were still encouraged to use the field guide even when already familiar with the species. Furthermore, the field guide contained five tree species and five trees to sample, which may have lead to the discrepancy with the second Western Red Cedar, where students could be under the impression that one species was designated to each site.   Students were able to measure the circumference of a tree within a small range of error. Students had larger interquartile ranges compared to the reference measurements done by the ENVR team, which was to be expected, given the larger sample size of the students and the variability of their heights when measuring at shoulder length. The spread of the whiskers and interquartile ranges in the box plot were shown to be larger at the sites with Western Red Cedar #2, Douglas Fir and Western Hemlock, which contained both the trees with the largest girth (Western Red Cedar #2 and Douglas Fir) and trees with the smallest girth (Western Hemlock). This trend is likely due to variability in circumference at different heights, which we observed to be most prominent in smaller trees.  Moreover, large trees are often more difficult to wrap a tape measure around, which may have increased the difficulty of the activity when working with younger students.  Despite this however, the students still had relatively small interquartile ranges compared to the sizes of the trees and had less than 5% difference between the average value for their results and the average value for the ENVR dataset, suggesting that there is high confidence in their ability to measure tree circumference.  For the understory identification data, most students were able to accurately identify Trailing Blackberry, Salal, Dull Oregon Grape and Sword Fern. The results show that grade three students can accurately identify 4 understory species when provided with a photo field guide that contains 5 understory species. This suggests that grade three students could monitor the diversity of understory plant species in a citizen science program. The teachers noted that many students had previous knowledge on the understory species from spending time in the forest for previous class activities, and were not using the field guide if they were already familiar with the species, which may have caused discrepancies in the accuracy of species identification. They suggested expanding the number of understory species that the students are asked to identify if there are enough species present at the site.   33 The inaccurate results from the quadrat shading part of the understory activity demonstrate that grade three students were not able to accurately collect data on understory coverage. These results are in line with comments made by the grade three teachers during the interview, who noted that the students were engaged with the quadrat shading activity but that many of them seemed to rush through the activity and did not understand the reasoning behind the activity. Students collected more accurate data for species with fuller leaves that cover more area, indicating that leaf shape may have an impact on coverage estimation. If understory coverage is a priority forest health indicator for a citizen science program, modifications to this activity are required.   For the groundcover experts data, students were only moderately able to identify woody habitats, with no clear distinction between particular groups or sites. All students who participated in this activity generated a response at each site, with the exception of one, implying that they understood the activity and what they were instructed to do. In discussion with the teachers, the students seemed actively engaged, and were comparing both the images and the description to the site they were looking at, suggesting that discrepancies may have arisen due to other factors besides lack of interest or abilities. In this case, subjectivity could have arisen from the way we designed the workbook, if the images were too similar to tell the difference among sites. A second, and more significant, cause of discrepancy is likely due to the groundcover conditions during the period of the field trip. Given that the ground was partially covered in snow during the field trip, it is reasonable to expect that the students would have difficulty distinguishing bare ground from sites covered in leaves, twigs and branches in the woody habitat activity.   Overall, students did considerably well on the soil activity. More students were able to record the correct pH value when matching the colour of litmus strips to a 0-14 scale, compared to providing a correct qualitative description of the colour. Although most of the respondents were able to successfully record the correct value across all the sites, sources of variation in answers could have arisen from the fact that the pH was the same across all sites. In the teacher interviews, we had discussed the fact that not many students had been introduced to both scientific data collection and pH before, and how the majority of students had been confused that the pH was similar across all sites. This may have translated into the data they recorded, if they felt the need to record different values for each site.  In the animal activity, students recorded the presence of animals that we did not observe or hear during the field trip. Our observations on the day of the field trip were that it was difficult to get the students to be quiet enough to hear any animals and that there were not many animals out due to the cold weather. The teachers agreed that it was difficult to get the students to stay quiet and that this activity would work better in spring or summer when more animals would be active.  34 5.  Recommendations 5.1 Citizen Science Program   Our survey results showed that respondents associated biotic indicators such as plant and animal diversity with forest health more than abiotic indicators such as soil pH and woody debris habitat. We recommend that citizen science programs recruit volunteers to collect data on indicators that people are more likely to find important, as this may help attract more interest and engage participants. On the other hand, the City may also want to consider educating the public on the importance of those often-overlooked abiotic indicators at future citizen science events.   To engage people with limited interest in citizen science, there should be a focus on activities such as species identification and biodiversity education. This is because almost 80% of respondents who were very interested in citizen science indicated interest in participating in an event where they could learn more about biodiversity, and almost 70% would take part in a bioblitz. Also, less than 25% of respondents were birdwatching at the park. If the City wants to create citizen science programming in the future, this result could inform them on the type of events people would and would not be interested in. The respondents who were not interested or slightly interested in citizen science also selected bioblitz and learning events as an event they may still be interested in. This may suggest that the label ‘citizen science’ may be off-putting or confusing to some people, but they might still attend an event that would benefit them by increasing their knowledge. We recommend that the Park Board should place a heavier emphasis on the educational and engagement components of citizen science, as these events have the potential to attract people with low or no interest in citizen science.  5.2 Modifications to Activity Book    As recommended by the grade three teachers, context should be provided to the participants to show how the different forest health indicators monitored through the activities are connected. Additionally, the teachers mentioned that many students wanted to be “experts” in everything and to complete all the activities in the book. Therefore, future applications of the activity book could dedicate a longer time period, or students could complete the activities over several weeks to allow them to be fully engaged in each aspect of biodiversity. These recommendations would serve to enhance the educational component of a citizen science program. Through analysis of the activity book data, feedback from the grade three teachers and observations made by the ENVR team, several modifications are recommended and summarized in Table 6 for repeating this activity book with the general public and/or a grade three audience in order to increase the data accuracy component of the citizen science method.    35 Table 6: Suggested modifications to the activities to make them more appropriate for the general public and grade three audiences  Activity Recommendations for Adaptation for the General Public Recommendations for Grade Three Audiences Selecting the canopy tiers that were present at the site Redesign the activity so that participants are instructed to look in all directions when recorded the presence of different canopy tiers Selecting the canopy tier with the most trees at the site Identifying 5 tree species using a photo field guide Include additional tree species in an expanded field guide so that participants can identify more than 5 tree species Provide instructions that emphasize that multiple species could be repeated in the forest  Measuring the circumference of 5 trees using a tape measure Provide longer tape measures so larger trees can also be measured Provide more measuring tapes so students remain engaged rather than having to wait  Provide longer tape measures so larger trees can also be measured Identifying 4 understory species using a photo field guide  Include additional understory species in an expanded field guide so that participants can identify more than 4 understory species  Modify the field guide so that the questions direct the students to observe how many times the leaf divides to reduce confusion when identifying fern species  Estimating the coverage of understory species in 4 quadrats by shading in every square where the plant covered an area larger than the students’ fist  Create a more detailed, quantitative, and clear activity to collect data on understory plant coverage, such as using percent coverage of a quadrat square, to obtain more reliable data Create a more clear and detailed drawing activity related to understory plant coverage  Selecting the type of woody debris present at 4 sites by selecting the diagram that corresponded to visual observations  Use photos instead of drawings of different woody debris habitat types, appropriate to the seasonal/weather conditions of the citizen science program, to help participants correctly identify woody debris habitats   Measuring soil pH using pH strips and recording the colour of the pH strip  Expand the soil pH activity to include different types of soil to show the participants how soil pH varies across different habitats (e.g. bogs) Recording the number of animals that were seen or heard    The expanded field guide could include common insect species found in the park so that participants can identify and count how many of each they see. Insects are important indicators that are easier to identify than bird species Allow students to also draw the animals that are seen or heard to increase student engagement 36 6. Conclusion  In summary, our research aimed to understand public perceptions of urban forests, to develop and test a citizen science method that would help monitor the health of urban forests, and to provide recommendations on how to implement citizen science programs in the future.  Results from the survey revealed that urban forests and green spaces are important to the general public because they are perceived as habitat for wildlife and a place of solitude from the city. Over a quarter of respondents were not interested in participating in citizen science, but had indicated that they would be most interested in participating in events where they could learn about biodiversity and identify species.  From the activity book, our results suggest that grade three students are able to record valuable data on various forest health indicators, but with varying degrees of accuracy. Data on predominant canopy tiers, tree circumference, undercover species and soil pH was shown to be collected with a high degree of accuracy, while the woody debris, understory coverage, and animal activity data was collected with a low degree of accuracy. With this, future activity books can be expanded to include more species as well as link the different activities and ecological indicators to provide a better understanding of the how they all contribute to the health of the forest ecosystem. Nonetheless, the activity book seemed to perform well in engaging students to think about forest indicators and enhanced their understanding of biodiversity concepts.  Overall, these findings can inform the kinds of citizen science and other public engagement events that the Vancouver Park Board may implement in the future. By combining the results of the public perception survey and the activity book, we can identify participants’ current knowledge of key ecological concepts and any areas where education is needed. Moreover, this activity can be adjusted with slight modifications to collect more accurate data, which could be adapted for the future citizen science programs that target the general public.              37 Acknowledgements  We would like to thank our community partners at the City of Vancouver and the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. In particular, Dana McDonald, our contact with the Park Board, who has been a great resource for feedback and ideas. Additionally, we appreciate the help from Robyn Worcester and Lori Bartley of Metro Vancouver Regional Parks, who were able to provide information regarding permits and park use etiquette.  Next, our project would not have been possible without the participation of grade three students at Norma Rose Point School. We appreciated their enthusiasm and participation in our citizen science activity book. In addition, grade three teachers Christine Uchida, Sharon Sahota, Michael Wilton, Leo Cheng, and Susanna Waltham were extremely helpful during the planning stage of our project, as well as in the implementation of the activity book with the students.  Next, we owe our sincerest gratitude to Dr. Sara Harris for her help in getting ethics approval, as well as her advice and feedback over the past seven months. We truly appreciate Sara’s support and encouragement throughout the project.   Finally, we would like to acknowledge the Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences at UBC for providing funding.              38 References   Barron, S., Sheppard, S.R.J., & Condon, P.M. (2016). Urban forest indicators for planning and designing future forests. Forests, 7(9), 208. doi:10.3390/f7090208 Barton, J., Hine, R., & Pretty, J. (2009). The health benefits of walking in green spaces of high natural and heritage value. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 6(4), 261-278. doi:10.1080/19438150903378425 Blood, A., Starr, G., Escobedo, F., Chappelka, A., & Staudhammer, C. (2016). How do urban forests compare? Tree diversity in urban and periurban forests of the southeastern US. Forests, 7(6), 120. doi:10.3390/f7060120 Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 456-456. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-456 British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2016). The British Columbia curriculum grade 3 science. Retrieved from: https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/science/3   City of Vancouver. (2014). Urban forest strategy presentation to Council. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Urban-Forest-Strategy-Draft.pdf   City of Vancouver. (2017). Developing Vancouver's urban forest strategy. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/urban-forest-strategy.aspx   Crall, A. W., Jordan, R., Holfelder, K., Newman, G. J., Graham, J., & Waller, D. M. (2013). The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 745-764. doi:10.1177/0963662511434894 Delaney, D. G., Sperling, C. D., Adams, C. S., & Leung, B. (2008). Marine invasive species: Validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biological Invasions, 10(1), 117-128. doi:10.1007/s10530-007-9114-0 Donovan, G.H., Butry, D.T., Michael, Y.L., Prestemon, J.P., Liebhold, A.M., Gatziolis, D., & Mao, M.Y. (2013). The relationship between trees and human health: Evidence from the spread of the emerald ash borer. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(2), 139–145.  Fuccillo, K. K., Crimmins, T. M., de Rivera, C. E., & Elder, T. S. (2015). Assessing accuracy in citizen science-based plant phenology monitoring. International Journal of Biometeorology, 59(7), 917-926. doi:10.1007/s00484-014-0892-7 Galloway, A. W. E., Tudor, M. T., & Vander Haegen, W. M. (2006). The reliability of citizen science: A case study of Oregon white oak stand surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(5), 1425-1429. doi:10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[1425:TROCSA]2.0.CO;2 39 Ghosh, S., Scharenbroch, B. C., Burcham, D., Ow, L. F., Shenbagavalli, S., & Mahimairaja, S. (2016). Influence of soil properties on street tree attributes in Singapore. Urban Ecosystems, 19(2), 949-967. doi:10.1007/s11252-016-0530-8 Jennings, T. E., Jean-Philippe, S. R., Willcox, A., Zobel, J. M., Poudyal, N. C., & Simpson, T. (2016). The influence of attitudes and perception of tree benefits on park management priorities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 122-128. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.021 Marselle, M. R., Irvine, K. N., & Warber, S. L. (2014). Examining group walks in nature and multiple aspects of well-being: A large-scale study. Ecopsychology, 6(3), 134-147. doi:10.1089/eco.2014.0027 Nowak, D. J., Hoehn, R. E., Bodine, A. R., Greenfield, E. J., & O’Neil-Dunne, J. (2016). Urban forest structure, ecosystem services and change in Syracuse, NY. Urban Ecosystems, 19(4), 1455-1477. doi:10.1007/s11252-013-0326-z  Pastorella, F., Avdagić,, A., Čabaravdić, A., Mraković, A., Osmanović, M., & Paletto, A. (2016). Tourists' perception of deadwood in mountain forests. Annals of Forest Research, 59(2), 311-326. doi:10.15287/afr.2016.482 Vann-Sander, S., Clifton, J., & Harvey, E. (2016). Can citizen science work? Perceptions of the role and utility of citizen science in a marine policy and management context. Marine Policy, 72, 82-93. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.026 Villaseñor, N.R., Driscoll, D.A., Escobar, M.A.H., Gibbons, P., & Lindenmayer, D.B. (2014). Urbanization impacts on mammals across urban-forest edges and a predictive model of edge effects.  PLoS ONE, 9(5), 1-12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097036.  40 Appendices  Please see the following in the appendix included below:  Appendix A: Public Perception Questionnaire Appendix B: Activity Book Appendix C: Teacher's Guide  Appendix D: Field Guide Appendix E: Tree Data for All Groups  Appendix F: Average Understory Quadrat Data   Appendix G: Ground Cover Data for All Groups  Appendix H: Transcribed Teacher Interview  Appendix I: Public Perception Survey Data           Vancouver’s Urban Forests:  Gauging Public Perceptions and Using  Citizen Science to Monitor Ecological Health    Appendix      41 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Version 2 January 18, 2016 Page 1 of 2 Public Perception and Valuation of Ecological Indicators in Jericho Beach Park   1. Which age bracket do you fall in?  19 to 24 years  25 to 34 years  35 to 44 years  45 to 54 years  55 to 64 years  Age 65 or older 2. Why are you visiting the park today? (Check all that apply)  Exercise  Walking the dog  Socializing with a friend  Birdwatching  Other _________________  3. How often do you come to this location?  Rarely (once a month)  Sometimes (2-3 times a month)  Often (1-3 times per week)  Very often (4-7 times per week)   4. How important are urban forests to you?  Not important  Slightly important  Moderately important  Important  Very important  Why? _________________________________________________________________  5. Which of the following aspects do you value most about urban forests? (Check all that apply)   Nice-looking plants and flowers  Lots of green leaves and foliage  Habitat for wildlife  Access to wildlife  Preservation of trees and plants  Variety of plants of different heights  Trails with lots of people  Trails with few people  Areas with dense vegetation  Clean trails (bare path)  Access to clean air  Places of solitude/escape from urban landscapes   Close to the city  Amenities (washrooms, playground)  Access to Lakes, rivers, waterbodies  Areas covered with woody debris (logs, fallen trees, twigs on the ground  Other ______________Appendix A: Public Perception Questionnaire42 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Version 2 January 18, 2016 Page 2 of 2   6. Of these six factors indicated below, how important do you think each contributes towards making the forest healthy? (Check ONE selection per row)   Not Important Slightly Important Moderately Important Important Very Important Soil pH      Tree size (diameter)      Variety of tree and shrub heights      Woody Debris      Animal Diversity      Plant Diversity        7. “Citizen Science” describes when members of the public volunteer their time to help collect and submit data. How interested would you be in collecting data on various forest health indicators in this park? (E.g. counting the number of a certain tree species that you see on your walk through the park)    Not at all interested   Slightly interested  Moderately interested  Very interested   Extremely interested     8. What kind of Citizen Science events would you be interested in participating in? (Check all that apply)    A “bioblitz” - an event where volunteers come together to identify as many species of plants, animals, microbes, fungi, and other organisms as possible on one day   A family friendly activity on a weekend   An event where I can win a prize   An event where I can learn more about biodiversity  Other:________________________________________________________________ 43Appendix A: Activity Book Appendix B: Activity Book 44Canopy Tiers - Group Activity IPlants, just like people, grow todifferent heights. Some aretaller, some are shorter, somegrow quicfcCy or s 1 o w 1 y,It's hard to tell sometimes howtall something is, so we usecanopy levels to group theseheights. Recording thisinformation is very helpful, as ittells us a lot about the ages andtype of plants in the forests.Your teacher is going to take you to a spot on the path and willpoint in one direction. Using the layer guide below, whichcanopy levels do you see in your view? (check the boxeso a oLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3—A*ODD]ODDDDDODQ"n*UvUWhich canopy level has the most plants? Level45Tree Experts ActivityHello Tree Experts!Today you will be working in groups to useyour field guides to identify and record:1. The type of tree (the tree species)2. The waist of the tree (the circumference)Tree circumference can tell us a lotabout a tree's age, and is a goodmeasurement that can help us calculatehow quickly a tree can grow and howmuch space it takes up. Use thefollowing instructions to help you inyour investigation, and good luck!Field Instructions:1. In your group, go to the nearest tree with a blue tag on it2. Look at the number on the tag. This will be the tree numberyou use to record your data3. Can you and your friends use your field guide to identifywhat type of tree it is?4. Once you have agreed what tree species it is, each personshould record the code in column 2 of your data table. Forexample, if the tree is a Douglas Fir you can write 'DF'5. Next, take turns to measure to measure the trunk of the treeat your shoulder height, this is called the circumference.Tip: Make sure your tape measurehas on the 'cm' side facing up andthat you start measuring from zero.The tape measure should also bestraight466. Record the circumference of the tree in column 3 of the datatable7. Continue to record the species and circumference for all thetrees with a blue tag. Work together, and look at the picturesand descriptions in the field guide if you get stuck!Codes for tree speciesWRC = Western Red CedarDF = Douglas FirWH = Western HemlockBC = Black CottonwoodRA = Red AlderTree Number12345Tree Code0WW14: vJtCf W> vsW, BC,, ftATree Circumference(cm)47I\y Experts ActivityHello Understory Eiperts!Today you will be working in groups touse your field guides to identify andrecord:1. The type of plants in your frame(your quadrat)2. How many squares in your quadrateach plant type (species) covers (theabundance).Understory species are smaller, shorterplants that stay close to the forest floor.Eventhough they may not be as large astrees, they still play an important role,providing shelter and food for manysmaller creatures. Use these instructionsto help you in your investigation, andgood luck!Field Instructions1. In your group, go to one of the quadrats with the green tag. Becareful not to move the quadrat.2. Look at the number on the coloured tag on the quadrat andfind that diagram on the following page - this is the one youwill use to record your data3. Make sure that you are standing at the bottom of the quadratso that the green tag is on the top edge of the quadrat like inthe diagram4. Look at the plant species you see inside the quadrat, can youand your team use the field guide to identify it? There is only485. Everyone in the group should write the code for the plantspecies next to the matching diagram6. Now look at how the plant takes up space inside each of the 16squares of the quadrat7. Compare the amount of space that the plant takes up in eachsquare to the size of your fist, if the area is larger than your fistthen colour in the entire square8. Repeat this for the four quadrats, remember to write down thecode for the species and colour in each square where the plantcovers an area that is larger than your fist for each of thequadratsQuadrat Diagrams - Record your data hereTip: Make sure that whenyou're looking at the quadrat,the number is at the top.Codes for Understory SpeciesSF = Sword FernTB = Trailing BlackberrySWF = Spiny Wood FernDOG = Dull Oregon GrapeS = SalalQuadrat number 1Species:49Quadrat number 2Species:Quadrat number 3Species:Quadrat number 4Species:50Ground Cover Experts ActivityHello Ground Cover Experts!Today you will investigate four siteswithin your study area and help us torecord two forest measurements thatmay be new to you, soil pH and woodyhabitats. pH is an important measurethat can tell us how acidic or basic thesoil is and how well the plants cangrow, while woody habitats areimportant to know for animals that usethem as homes! Use these instructionsbelow to help you in yourinvestigation, and good luck!WOODY DEBRIS ACTIVITY1. In your group, search for one of the sites labelled by a yellow tag.2. Look at the ground around the tag, and look at the pictures onthe next page - which picture best matches the area you see?3. Once you have decided which ground cover type matches whatyou see, circle the site number next to the picture (the sitenumber is written on the yellow tag)4. After you have circled the site number, scoop two spoons of soilinto your container with the correct site number (don't worry,we will use this later on!).5. When you're done with this activity, search for the nexttag and repeat the steps until you have completed all the sites.51uAjGround covered mainly by plants0 - ~.Ground mostly uncovered witha few leaves and branchessite1z340^/[0^ Qs?^& c^ \. <?Ground is covered by leaveswith a few branchesGround is covered by leaves,with some branches and logs/Ground is completely coveredby twigs, branches and logs52SOILS ACTIVITYWhat does the word Acidic and Basic mean?When you put something in your mouth, do you ever noticehow some foods taste sour and tangy, while others are soapyand bitter? Or how some items feel really slippery or slimy?Scientists use the terms Acidic and Basic to describe thesewords.You might be surprised to learn that many everyday objectsare Acidic or Basic, but it is not an easy thing to describe, evenfor scientists!6AK1M*SOOAThat s why we will be testing itusing chemical pieces of paper,called litmus strips. When thepaper is placed in a mixture ofsoil and water, they will react andchange colours!best! vuj5371VJ1cz>•>—1 1 u::32//////LDRemember all the soil youcollected in your containers?Add V^ cup of water to eachcontainer and stirWait until the mixture stopsswirling and some soilsettles at the bottomAsk your teacher for the litmus paperand dip it into the water. Did younotice the colour of the strip change?ompare it on the colour chart WhatH number did you get at each site?Record your data in the table below.SiteNumber1234Colour pH Value5455 Teacher’s Guide Please remind students to include their student number rather than their names on their activity book so we are able to return their books to them. Equipment: Tree experts group: ● Measuring tape ● Field guide ● Activity book ● Pencil Understory experts group: ● Quadrats will be at sites already ● Field guide ● Activity book ● Pencil Groundcover experts group: ● pH strips ● Distilled water ● Measuring cup ● Container ● Spoon ● Field guide ● Activity book ● Pencil Experimental set-up: ● Experiment will be set up by ENVR 400 students ● We will show you the set-up the morning of the 14th before the students arrive Procedure for activities: ● If you notice any groups crowding a station, you can encourage them to move to another one and come back later Appendix C: Teacher's Guide 56 Canopy layer activity ● Have students stand on the path, location will be provided by ENVR 400 students, and complete the activity while looking at the activity ● This acts as an introduction to the different layers before they are split up into groups Animal activity ● This is a wrap-up activity that can be done at the site once the expert group activity is completed ● Students will note if they see or hear any animals Tree experts group ● Students will rotate around to 5 different trees (each will be flagged with a number in blue) ● At each tree they will identify the tree species and measure the circumference of the tree at shoulder height using the measuring tape Understory experts group ● Students will rotate around to 4 different quadrats (each will be flagged with a number in green) ● At each quadrat they will identify the understory plant species and colour in the squares where the plant area is bigger than their fist Groundcover experts group ● Students will rotate around to 4 different sites (each will be flagged with a number in yellow) ● At each site they will measure the pH of the soil, using a scoop of soil in a container with distilled water ● They will also match the woody debris they see to one of the diagram it seems most similar to in the activity book      57 Activity Book Context: Urban forests ● Vancouver’s urban forest is made up of: ■ 140,000 street trees, ■ 300,000 park trees, ■ And an unknown number of trees on private property. ■ 18% of our total city area is covered by tree canopy. ● Urban forests provide benefits such as: ○ Cleaning the air – removal of extremely small particles from the air (particulate matter) ○ Absorbing carbon dioxide ○ Managing rainwater ○ Providing wildlife habitat ○ Providing access to nature ○ Sustaining a healthy community – both mentally and physically ■ People may use urban forests for exercise, exploring, and social events such as picnics Tree diversity ● Contributes to overall greater biodiversity ● Greater diversity means that the forest would be more resistant to effects of a natural disaster or disease ● Greater diversity makes the forest less vulnerable ● Greater diversity means a greater variety of habitat for animals Tree circumference ● Gives you an idea of the sizes of trees ● It can be used to calculate the tree height ● We can see the range of ages of the trees Understory plant diversity ● Contributes to overall greater biodiversity ● Greater diversity means that the forest would be more resistant to effects of a natural disaster or disease ● Greater diversity makes the forest less vulnerable ● Greater diversity means a greater variety of habitat for animals  58 Woody debris ● Decomposes to provide nutrients to the plants ● Big pieces of woody debris can provide habitat, especially for insects ● Makes the soil structure more stable Soil pH ● Different plants prefer different values, and need different values to grow successfully ● Value tells us which types of nutrients the soil can hold ● Pollution caused by humans can make the soil more acidic Animal diversity ● Contributes to overall greater biodiversity ● Healthy forest will have greater diversity ● Animals have different purposes, such as being pollinators       59  A Forest Explorer’s Guide to the Tree and Understory Species at Pacific Spirit Park  Winter Edition     Version 4 February 6,  2017 Page 1 of 10 Appendix D: Field Guide 60Table of Contents  Table of Contents 2 Tree Species 3 Western Red Cedar 3 Douglas Fir 4 Western Hemlock 5 Black Cottonwood 6 Red Alder 6 Understory Species 7 Sword Fern 7 Trailing Blackberry 8 Spiny Wood Fern 8 Dull Oregon Grape 9 Salal 9       Version 4 February 6,  2017 Page 2 of 10 61Tree Species  Western Red Cedar (WRC) Look up and follow the branches to the end so you can see the leaves:    Do they look and feel like scales?  Do some of them overlap?   Are they arranged on the twigs in flat, fan-like sprays?      Look closely at the bark:      Is it stringy?   Is some of the bark tearing off?     Version 4 February 6,  2017 Page 3 of 10 62Douglas Fir (DF) Look up and follow the branches to the end so you can see the leaves:   Are there flat needles with a pointed tip?   Is the top part  bright yellowish-green?  Is the bottom part paler?   Do the needles stand out around the twig?    Look closely at the bark:   Are there dark brown, slightly reddish ridges?    Is the bark very thick and deeply grooved?      Version 4 February 6,  2017 Page 4 of 10 63 Western Hemlock (WH) Look up and follow the branches to the end so you can see the leaves:   Are they needles that are nearly flat, glossy, and soft?   Yellow to dark green on the top and whitish underneath?  Is each needle a different length?     Look closely at the bark:     Is it dark brown to reddish-brown?   Is it thick and strongly grooved?     Version 4 February 6,  2017 Page 5 of 10 64  Black Cottonwood (BC) Look closely at the bark:    Is it grey?   Is it thick and deeply grooved?     Red Alder (RA) Look closely at the bark:   Is it dark brown?   Does it feel bumpy?        Version 4 February 6,  2017 Page 6 of 10 65Understory Species  Sword Fern (SF)  Are the leaves on either side of the stem and fairly symmetrical?   Are the leaves pointy?   Are they dark green?   Do the leaves have sharp slightly jagged edges?              Version 4 February 6,  2017 Page 7 of 10 66Trailing Blackberry (TB)   Are the leaves dark green?   Are they in groups of threes?   Do the leaves have saw-toothed edges?   Do the stems of the leaves look blue-ish?   Do the stems have prickles?   Does the plant trail along the ground?     Spiny Wood Fern (SWF)  Do the leaves look triangular?         Version 4 February 6,  2017 Page 8 of 10 67   Dull Oregon Grape (DOG)  Are the leaves shiny?   Do the leaves feel leathery?   Do they have spiny teeth like holly?   Are the leaves on alternate sides of the stem?      Salal (S)    Are the leaves spoon shaped?   Are they pointed and a shiny dark green?   Are they leathery and tough with finely toothed edges?     Version 4 February 6,  2017 Page 9 of 10 68Sources   The information in this field guide is derived from the following sources:   Parish, Roberta (1948). ​Tree Book: learning to recognize frees of British Columbia. ​ Retrieved from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations’ website: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/treebook/   Mackinnon, A & Pojar, J. (2004). ​Plants of Coastal British Columbia Including Washington, Oregon & Alaska​ . Vancouver, BC: Lone Pine Publishing.   Image sources   Western Red Cedar leaves:  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Thuja_plicata_7484.jpg   Western Red Cedar bark:  https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3705/10956428904_8e2c6d6cb9_b.jpg   Douglas Fir leaves:  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Abies_grandis_01248.JPG   Western Hemlock leaves:  http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01/37/15/1371579_c87d25f9.jpg   Western Hemlock bark:  http://fwf.ag.utk.edu/dendro/species/westhemlockyoungbk.jpg    Black Cottonwood bark:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Acer_rubrum(Bark).JPG   Spiny Wood Fern:  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Dryopteris_expansa_(16541244705).jpg   Sword Fern: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Polystichum_munitum_(Jami_Dwyer)_001.jpg   All other images were taken by Emma Hendry at Pacific Spirit Park.   Version 4 February 6,  2017 Page 10 of 10 69Appendix F: Tree Data for All Groups   Table A.1 & A.2: ​Total percentage of correctly identified tagged tree species and percentage of correctly identified tagged tree species across student groups.     Table A.3, A.4 and A.5: ​Interquartile results for all groups (with outliers), groups without outliers and ENVR reference data.    74ppendix E: Tr e D ta for All Groups 0  Table A.6: ​Total Percent error between tree circumference data collected by students and ENVR reference data.     751	 	Appendix E: Average understory coverage quadrat data collected by grade three students and ENVR students  	 		702Appendix F: Average understory coverage quadrat data collected by grade three students and ENVR students 	 			713	 		724	 		735Appendix G: Ground Cover Data for All Groups   Table G.1 & G.2: ​Total percentage of correctly identified woody habitats and percentage of correctly woody habitats across student groups.     Table G.3 & G.4: ​Total percentage of correctly identified pH values and colour descriptions, and percentage of correctly identified pH values and colour descriptions across student groups.          76Date and time:  Friday, February 24th, 11 am Location: Norma Rose Point School  Researcher​: Thank you for agreeing to meet us and give us feedback on the activity. We just have 10 questions that we’d like to go through and get your input. But we don’t have to stick to the questions very strictly, if you have things to add, that’s great too.   The first question is: ​Were the students able to follow the instructions in the activity book? Or did they require significant guidance as they worked through the activities?  Teacher 1 ​: I feel the majority were able to follow the instructions when you guys gave the verbal instructions; they were able to follow them. Some of our students who are English language learners, they needed a lot more hands on help, so that’s where I think some of us teachers helped guide those children, and then they kind of understood the concept? They did, like let’s say  measuring the circumference of the tree, but I don’t think they quite grasped the concept as much as some of the other kids might have.   Teacher 2 ​: Yeah, I think that the average student in grade three would have no problem with it. The ones who have special needs, or the ones who are still learning language needed support, but I think they need support in other things outside of the activities. The activities were good.  R​: Okay, great. So did you guys think ​the students were engaged throughout the activity?  T1​: The one with the tree experts, because you only had one tree, the kids waiting to measure the tree were kind of off task. Generally they were engaged and they were excited to measure the tree and take turns and things like that, but I think it would benefit from being a smaller group because a lot of them are kind of goofing off and playing in the forest, so that was hard. But it makes sense, because you only had one tree. So that’s something I found with that activity.  R​: So maybe if you had two trees next to each other or a smaller group?  T1​: Yep.   R​: Yeah, that’s a good suggestion.  T2​: And I thought that the groups that I were with in this activity seemed fine. It might have helped actually if they had another field guide, because there were three groups that were sitting and waiting, and one group I think was doing the measuring. But we had two field guides, so if there was a third one at least they could be having something to do while they’re waiting. But overall I thought it was fine. Appendix G: Transcribed Teacher Interview H77 T1​: And the groundcover, that was fine, because they were all able to see it. Sometimes logistically of where you guys positioned it, because if it was on a slope it was hard for them to kind of get around it. I think that logistic, just thinking about where you’re going to place the quadrat, I think that was the only thing with that. That one they were pretty engaged, but I found a lot of them also rushed through their drawings, and like okay, you told them where to stand, but then they kind of just scrambled through it, I don’t think they actually took the time to really look at it. When I looked at some of their sketches they kind of just scribbled them, and some of them were just doing it for the sake of doing it.   T2: ​Really liked this piece [woody habitat identification] where they had to look at the pictures and then circle the number. They all thought that was fun, I did that one twice, and that one they were really engaged in that one--  T3: ​Yeah I noticed some of the students really looking back and forth, checking each picture to see which they thought it corresponded with.  T2: ​And then reading underneath--This one in particular was totally engaging. The only thing with the acids, bases was that they were all the same, they ended up all the exact same, which they found a little bit confusing. [Mimicking students] “But it’s the same! But it’s the same!” But then once you brought in the lemon, they had something to compare it to, so--I think we talked about this--if there was another, well here’s soil from another area to kind of have something to compare it with… But they did like the actual physically doing the test. They like the hands on stuff, so that piece was good too.  T1: ​But hadn’t you made the suggestion that maybe they could have brought the soil into the classroom and done it…?  T2: ​Wasn’t me, I thought it was fine.  T1: ​Someone had made that suggestion, of if you took the samples from the forest and then they did it maybe in the classroom and maybe had more opportunities?   T2: ​Oh yeah, I think I said to follow up… What’s something we could do was to have a variety of different things for them to test on, because they really like the hands on piece, and they just got started in it, and then they were same, so then actually pull it, and go “Okay, well now we’ve done that activity, now let’s try some more pH testing” and kind of open it up to other things.  R: ​Okay, we kind of already discussed this, but ​was the group size effective? ​You said that for the tree activity, it would be better to have smaller groups. What about for the other activities? Do you think that would have also been a good idea?  78T2: ​I think if you guys haven’t had come, there wouldn’t have been enough adults for the groups. It was really good that you came, and that if we did it again, it would probably be good to have two adults, like to have parents come in, or to have more so that we could actually... one could be doing the activity and the other could be supporting the other kids, or helping them engage, or having conversations. So if I had to take my whole class out by myself to do the three groups, it would not work because they couldn’t focus. Because we had three people out there plus you guys out there, it was a good group number. But with any less adults, it would have been too hard to manage.  T1: ​Yeah, I think that the tree activity would benefit from smaller numbers. The understory or groundcover, that was fine, the numbers, and I don’t know about the soil--  T2, T3: ​That was fine as well  T1: ​--I think that should be fine as well.  R: ​What did you guys think about the ​number of activities that we had?​ Did you think that was appropriate, or more or less?  T2: ​I think that was good.  T1: ​Yeah.  T2: ​Kind of covered all bases.  R: ​And ​did you feel that the pre-field trip introduction was sufficient enough for them to carry out the activities? Or do you think they could have benefitted from more of an in-depth introduction before?  T1: ​I think a lot of them are confused as to what they were doing initially. They’re like, “Why are we going outside? What are we doing?” and we let them know that they would find out outside. Maybe a little bit more inside, before they went outside. Like, “You’re going to be split up into three groups.” We had done that, and maybe telling each group just--  T2: ​Which we couldn’t really do for the purpose of what we were doing anyways. We couldn’t have given them [instructions], but if we were to do it again, if we gave them some connection to “We are learning about this! And this is how it connects and why we’re doing that, and after we’re done, this is how we’re going to…”. So kind of giving them more connection would be useful but we didn’t do that because we couldn’t do that.  R: ​So for the tree and understory activities where they had to identify the species, ​did you think that the number of different species that they had to identify was appropriate? ​Do you think they could have identified more different species? 79 T1: ​I think it was manageable--I had that group. A lot of them had knowledge. They had that existing knowledge of... Because they’ve done a lot of stuff in the forest. If the species were available in your space--I don’t know what is available in that particular space--if it was, you could have broadened it, but at the same time I think the field guide was very well done, because they were able to take it and look at it and make the connection. I think it just depends on your area, whether you would broaden it or not.  T2: ​With this particular group in this particular school, we do spend a lot of time out there. The identifying piece--though again, the field guide was fantastic, for those who didn’t know, or for those who like confirming and having that, it is really great and I think I’ve talked to you guys about the field guide too, it’s a really good resource for them to be able to use when they go out, because it had the bark, it had the leaves, it had the descriptions. So it was amazing...  T1: ​It had great explanations.  T2: ​And it would have been cool to have some other things, even for those kids who were waiting and not doing things. “While you’re waiting, after you’ve identified this tree, look around. What are some other things that are in the area?”  T1: ​They could do a little scavenger hunt.  T2: ​Yeah, so while they were waiting they could look and see what else is there.  R: ​Great, so the next question is: ​Were there any activities that worked particularly well? Why? ​You mentioned that you liked the woody debris activity…  T2: ​Yeah, they really liked it because it’s visual, and same with the field guide, it’s visual and they have something to look at, and then they can look at real life to compare it.  T1: ​And I think measuring the trees, they were fascinated by the size and how it changed, how depending on their height, because you asked them to measure from the shoulders, how the measurements varied. I think they were fascinated by that and seeing discrepancies between there, because depending on the height. I think that was really neat for a lot of them, they were very curious about the size of the trees.   T2: ​Yeah the hands on and the visual and the putting of pH strips… Anything that they actually fully involved in, less discussion, more actual doing, was effective.   R: ​Okay great! ​If you were to repeat the activity, are there any activities that you would scrap?  80T2: ​The understory… I feel there needs to be some other component. I don’t know what it would be because they were just quickly… they sketched and moved on.  T1: ​There wasn’t enough....  R: ​Yeah, I feel that the shading part didn’t really work too well. The identification, they were really good…  T1: ​Maybe instead of shading, you could have asked them to draw and sketch it. Because they would have been able to do that. Yeah, maybe if they actually sketched it, because I felt like they just flew through that activity and didn’t really understand or take time to look at what was on the ground layer. If they actually sketched it out, and sketched out the boxes where there were actual plants, as opposed to shading, maybe that would have been more effective? And then listening for the animals, that was hard.   T2: ​Because there was nothing and they’re so loud!  T1: ​I guess that was a bit challenging for them. First, to be quiet, and second, to...  R: ​...to actually see or hear anything.  T1: ​But some of them were engaged, were able to actively search for squirrels and looked for things and trying to listen.  T2: ​But that’s just a time of year thing too though, if we did that again in the spring, then it would be a whole different…  T1: ​.... it might be more effective. [long pause] Sorry, what was the question again?  R: ​Would you get rid of anything? So maybe the animal activity? Or maybe some modifications to the…  T2: ​I like the animal activity…  T1: ​I think I like it, it’s just, yeah, the different time…  R: ​Just this time it didn’t work well…  T1: ​Yeah, and I think the modifications to the groundcover.  R: ​When we [the researchers] tested out the groundcover, we did actually do the sketching. We found between us we all got really different results. We’re trying to take out some of that subjectivity, but then I think the shading in the whole square that’s larger than your fist, which is maybe a little confusing for some of them. 81 T1: ​Yeah I think some of them just randomly [inaudible] instead of looking while they were shading, a lot them, I think, just random… were just shading. In general I don’t know if it was sufficient to what they were looking at.   R: Do you think that--the kids going out and doing these activities--do you think it significantly enhanced the understanding of biodiversity concepts?  T2: ​I think it allowed them to experience the forest in a way that we hadn’t done yet. So it allowed them to focus in on things that we particularly hadn’t taught. Like the trees, we’ve kind of talked about them, but we haven’t actually looked at them in depth. Like, “What is the circumference? What does the bark look like?” The identification part--yeah for sure that helped, and some of them knew it, but even if they knew it, it’s a reminder of what to look for when you’re out there, and how to identify things, so it definitely helped with strengthening their identification. Same with this one, the actual, again, taking time to look specifically at something, like in the woody habitat piece.   T3: ​I think with the woody habitat, this part was really interesting for them to compare the different areas. For the pH part, I felt like a lot of them didn’t have very much to connect that with. They hadn’t talked about pH before, so that was something cool to do and see, but it wasn’t something that they could connect to something they already knew. I think this part would have been interesting to do a little bit more talking about with them, and how that contributes to a forest and to biodiversity.   T2: ​Yeah, and then because they were all experts, more information on how do those connect. The “why” behind it; so now we know that it’s diverse, and now let’s look at the next step. We’ll go back, perhaps, as expert groups, and think about, “We have all this. Why is it there and why is it important to be there, and what would happen if it’s not there anymore? How would that affect the groundcover? How would it affect the trees?” So taking it to the next step so it’s, again, more connected instead of one-offs. But that’s a piece of learning for us too, because we didn’t know what it was, and so we couldn’t connect it until afterwards.  R: ​Okay great, and ​do you have any other feedback or suggestions?  T1: ​Maybe an opportunity to look at the booklet. Have some more time to actually spend looking through the booklet and get them to maybe pre-read it and then do the activity. Or going through it with them and having that opportunity to grasp the concept, then do the activity, as opposed to just… Because a lot of them, as you were explaining it, they were trying to read it, because they wanted to know what it said, but then you get that trouble of, they want to know what’s in the book, but they’re trying to listen to you.  R: ​So maybe if they had time to read it, and then…  82T2: ​Yeah, so start with the expert group inside, go through the activities, and then go outside. T1: ​I think a lot of the kids were just looking at their books when you were asking them to look at the canopy, look at the understory… So many of them were just busy looking at the books.  T4: ​If we built some time in, or even like… there’s that cover, it’s a beautiful cover but I don’t feel like our kids...  T2: ​A lot of kids are colouring and doodling on it.  T4: ​...our kids would love to colour it, so if we gave them half an hour to read the book and to colour the cover, then…  T1: ​Or go over it with them.  T4: ​...Then those kids who need more time to read can have more time, kids who want to colour can colour, and hopefully the novelty of the new book gets worn off.  T1: ​Everyone was curious about what it was and what all these things were. A lot of them were like, “Can we keep it?” and I’m like, “You will get it back at some point” but I think they want maybe more time with that. And I understand you’re restricted with time, but maybe coming in beforehand and then coming for a separate day for the activity.  T2: ​Well actually I think it would be really cool for them to do all the stations. They wanted to be experts in all of them.  T4: ​They don’t want to miss out; they want to have the same experiences.  T2: ​And they learned about it, but at the end, when we were all talking about what they knew, “What did you learn? What do you know?”, they were all done by that point. They weren’t listening, so again, “let’s come back inside, let’s have a chance to discuss it”, maybe in our small groups, and then go back to the big group like “what did you learn here”. Once they’re outside, it’s hard for them to focus in on what they’re doing.  T1: ​I can’t remember, is your target age grade three?  R: ​Yeah grade three.  T2: ​I think the activities are grade appropriate.  T1: ​Yeah, for sure.  R: ​So you were talking about how they wanted to be experts in all the activities. Each of the expert groups did four to five stations of the same activity. Would it have been better if they did 83one or two and just rotated throughout the different activities? They’d measure a tree, then they[‘d go] and measured the understory, then they[‘d look] at the woody debris, so they could have done different activities?  T4: ​So the same number of activities, just from each area?  T2: ​So rotate through the stations? I don’t know because I liked that the activities were good, I think it’s more a time thing, which would be hard for you guys. But in terms of like, “One day you’re going to do this, then the next day you’re going to do this station, and then the next day…” so it would have been...  T1: ​So they would have equal opportunity.  T2: ​… it would have been very involved for us, as it would be a week of forest experts, and then “Let’s, at the end, let’s talk about what we’ve learned, and how they connect.”...  T1: ​Then they can connect all the parts.  T2: ​...because it would be easier to have a whole group discussion, a whole class discussion on how they connect, because they’ve all done it, and so it’d be easier for them to know. So yeah, to rotate through all the stations would be fantastic.   R: ​Great, thank you! Do you guys have anything else you wanted to add?  T1: ​No, thank you for doing this! Thank you for making this awesome book, and it was cool for us to see.  R: ​This is our first time creating an activity like this, so all the feedback you’ve given us is really helpful.  T2: ​Although we had a lot of suggestions, it was enjoyable and we really had a great time.  T1: ​And the kids did have a good time. From when we asked them, they thought it was pretty cool to go out and do that, so it was neat. Usually we’ve just gone out to the forest and go look at things, or we sketch, but the hands-on stuff is good.   T2: ​We did not have the knowledge to do be able to do this!  T4: ​Yeah, the expertise. And the fresh faces too, they love learning from new people.     84Appendix I: Public Perception Survey Data    Figure I.1:​ Age demographics of survey respondents (n=51).    Figure I.2:​ Respondent's reasons for visiting the urban forest on the day of the survey (n=51).  85 Figure I.3:​ Respondents’ ‘other’ reasons for visiting the urban forest on the day of the survey.   Figure I.4: ​Frequency of park visits to Jericho Beach Park by respondents (n=51).     86Table I.1: ​Mean ratings of respondents’ rankings on the importance of forest health indicators, and frequency of distribution. Sample sizes vary due to some respondents who did not answer the question.  Indicator Average rating Not important (1) Slightly important (2) Moderately important (3) Important (4) Very important (5) Plant diversity (n=49) 4.41 0 0 3 23 23 Animal diversity (n=51) 4.27 0 1 7 20 23 Soil pH (n=51) 4.10 3 0 9 16 23 Variety of tree and shrub heights (n=50) 4.00 0 2 14 16 18 Woody debris (n=51) 3.80 0 6 15 13 17 Tree size (diameter) (n=50) 3.48 1 3 25 13 8    87

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.52966.1-0347236/manifest

Comment

Related Items