The Open Collections website will be unavailable July 27 from 2100-2200 PST ahead of planned usability and performance enhancements on July 28. More information here.

Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

How do ponds on UBC’s campus play a role in the well-being of individuals? Sano, Keita; Munwar, Lamisah; Niyaz, Morsal; Ke, Shi 2018-04-09

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52966-Sano_K_et_al_ENVR_400_How_do_ponds.pdf [ 1.16MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52966-1.0366158.json
JSON-LD: 52966-1.0366158-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52966-1.0366158-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52966-1.0366158-rdf.json
Turtle: 52966-1.0366158-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52966-1.0366158-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52966-1.0366158-source.json
Full Text
52966-1.0366158-fulltext.txt
Citation
52966-1.0366158.ris

Full Text

 How do ponds on UBC’s campus play a role in the well-being of individuals?         Partnership: UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program & UBC Building Operations  Course: ENVR 400 Community Project in Environmental Science     Course: ENVR 400  Keita Sano                                              Research Advisor: Tara Ivanochko                                                        Lamisah Munwar Morsal Niyaz Shi Ke April 9, 2018  M.O.A Reflection Pond     2 TABLE OF CONTENTS     SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………….……………………3  RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………………………………………6  AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES………………………………………………………...……….………………...7  INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………….…………………….....8  METHODS……………………………………………………………8   SURVEY……………………………………..………………………………….…………………...8   WATER QUALITY...………………………………………...………….……………………...…...9  GREEN COVERAGE……………………………………………..……...………………….……..9  RESULTS…………………………………………….………………11   SURVEY……………………………………..…………………………………………….………..11   WATER QUALITY...………………………………………...…………………….…………...…..14  GREEN COVERAGE……………………………………………..……………....…….…..……..15  DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………………….……….16  CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………...…….17  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………………………..………..17  REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………...……………………....18  APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………...………………..….19  APPENDIX B…………………………………………………………………………...………………..….24       3 SUMMARY   The purpose of this project is to provide the UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program and UBC Building Operations analysis on what role water features/ponds have on individuals at UBC. The ponds on campus need to be consistently maintained by the UBC Building Operations but are often costly, making it difficult to receive aid for its maintenance. In order to achieve a wider perspective on the issue, Biodiversity and Water Quality, were broken down into Green Coverage and Turbidity. Green coverage was chosen because it was found that this particular topic is a factor that the general public cares about in terms of assessing how much they care about ponds (Ngiam 2017). Turbidity was chosen as it is a component of water quality that fit best to our project, as it is something that can be noticed by the general public and will contribute in the overall assessment of the value of a pond.  From 46 participants, the importance of water clarity was indicated to be 74% important. Almost 70% of survey participants responded the they enjoy ponds with more greenery and the exposure to green space was one of the top 4 reasons why people go to ponds. When asked how they felt around ponds at UBC: 96% chose relaxation, 91% chose enjoyment, 39% chose boredom and 17% chose disapproval (participants were able to choose one category or all that applied). This showed that more than 80% of the responses associated positive attributes towards ponds. The participants were also asked if they would favour the idea of having more ponds on campus. 43 of the participants did not hold a negative view. It is evident that people prefer to have more water features/ponds on campus or at least do not oppose greatly to the idea of it.   This outcome is going to allow UBC Building Operations to determine how often specific ponds should undergo maintenance as well as if the cost of maintenance and repair are being put towards the appropriate ponds.          4   Categories  Number of participants who chose this category  Number of participants  % of participants who chose this category Relaxation 44 46 96 Enjoyment 42 46 91 Boredom 18 46 39 Disapproval  8 46 17  Table 1. From 46 participants, when asked how they felt around ponds at UBC: 96% chose relaxation, 91% chose enjoyment, 39% chose boredom and 17% chose disapproval (participants were able to choose one category or all that applied). If a participant chose any subcategory with any frequency it was recorded as “1”, however if they chose ‘no emotion’ it was recorded as “0”; the number of people who chose a category were summed in the far left column and divided by the number of people in the study.       Categories  % of responses chosen for this category % of category out of the 4 categories % of positive responses versus negative responses Relaxation 83 49 83 Enjoyment 57 34  Boredom 20 12 17 Disapproval  8 5   Table 2. The % of responses chosen for each category, the % out of the 4 categories (relaxation, enjoyment, boredom, disapproval) and the % of positive responses (relaxation and enjoyment) versus negative responses (boredom and disapproval). The results were generated by totaling the number of responses for each subcategory and frequency over the total number of responses (See Appendix A, Table A ).    We found that the highest percentage of green cover was found around the Asian and Native ponds in the Botanical Gardens and that people found it more enjoyable when ponds on campus have more greenery. Overall the ponds that were examined had very low turbidity indicating that the water is very clear and people found that the clarity of the water play an important role in their perception of the ponds. More than 80% of the responses in our survey associated positive attributes (relaxation and enjoyment) towards the ponds on the UBC Campus.      5    PONDS OF INTEREST 1. Botanical Gardens Alpine    5. Botanical Garden Carolinian Pond 2. Botanical Gardens Asian    6. Koerner House Grad Center 3. Botanical Gardens Native Pond   7. Buchanan Courtyard Pond 4. M.O.A Reflection Pond  RESEARCH QUESTIONS:  • Do people on campus feel that green space around ponds play an important role in their well-being?  • Do people on campus feel that the clarity of ponds play an important role in their well-being?  • How do people generally feel around the ponds on campus?         6   Figure 1. How people on the UBC campus associate with ponds. This graph incorporates the four categories (enjoyment, disapproval, relaxation and boredom) that participants were able to choose from. Data collection was done from January 31, 2017 - February 26, 2018.      RECOMMENDATIONS  This project will be of potential use to the Faculty of Commerce through UBC Building Operations and UBC SEEDS for further recommended research on assessing the monetary value of the ponds around UBC from an environmental and social perspective. Majority of people felt neutral towards the importance of ponds on campus, while 70% enjoyed ponds with greenery; if there are any ponds implemented in the future it would be favoured that they contain green space. A future project may consider to examine ponds before and after maintenance to identify trends in survey responses - Does maintenance have a significant role in how people perceive ponds? Another future project might be to look at the differences in turbidity between ponds and if there are any spatial patterns on campus.       7 AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES  KEITA SANO Currently a 4th year Environmental Science Major with an Area of Concentration in Land, Air and Water. He has taken a Matlab course as his tools elective. He also has previous experience in measuring biodiversity using transects from Biology courses throughout his post secondary years.   LAMISAH MUNWAR A 4th year Environmental Science major concentrating on Land, Air and Water. Her interests lies in global warming, freshwater systems and sustainable waste management techniques. Previous experience involves researching about arsenic contaminated water and doing literature reviews to help create a survey to find the factors affecting people from utilizing safe water in arsenic contaminated areas.    MORSAL NIYAZ An Environmental Science Major with an Area of Concentration in Land, Air and Water who is in her 4th year at UBC. She is focusing her Tools Specialty to be in Geographical Information Science (GIS). Previous experiences have been assisting Ph.D. candidates on their research with invasive plant species adapting to varying climate changes as well as working in the Geographical Information Centre as a Student Assistant.   SHI KE  An Environmental Science major with a specialization in in Land, Air and Water. He is proficient in using computer software to analyze data.      8 HOW DO PONDS ON UBC’S CAMPUS PLAY A ROLE IN THE WELL-BEING OF INDIVIDUALS?  INTRODUCTION There are a total of 24 ponds around UBC Campus that are maintained by UBC Buildings Operation. These ponds around UBC campus are a very aesthetically pleasing feature visually and also contribute to the well-being of people on campus however, these ponds are very expensive to maintain and as a result, funds may be hard to obtain at times. The objective of this project is to provide UBC Building Operations data that will help them in building a case to obtain the necessary funds to keep maintaining the ponds around campus. The data that we will give to UBC Building Operations will be both social data in terms of how people feel around the ponds, what people do around the ponds and environmental data in terms of turbidity (water clearness) and green coverage percentage around the pond. The objective of this project provides an insight into what people like in the ponds around UBC and how some of these ponds can be improved upon.  METHODS SURVEY In order to address one of our objectives: providing data that will assist with value assessment of the ponds around UBC through a social perspective, a structured quantitative and qualitative survey was done. The questions in the survey were designed so that they could be easily distributed and completed in less than ten minutes. The purpose of making the survey only ten questions was to avoid participants from submitting incomplete surveys. The questions regarding the social aspect of these ponds are one out of the three themes of questions. Focusing on the seven ponds of interest: Botanical Gardens Alpine, Botanical Gardens Asian, Botanical Gardens Native Pond, Botanical Garden Carolinian Pond, M.O.A Reflection Pond, Koerner House Grad Center, Buchanan Courtyard Pond, chosen by UBC Buildings Operation.     9  We created a 10 question survey that addressed water quality, green space and the roles ponds at UBC had on individuals. The survey was completed for the Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) application and once it was approved, surveys were finalized through the online UBC Survey Tool. The distribution of the surveys was done through online platforms: email and UBC Facebook Groups. There were attached photos of the ponds on the survey for consistency. The final step was the collection of survey data and analysis.    WATER QUALITY  Samples were collected on February 12, 14 and 16, 2018.  Three of the seven ponds were empty during the sampling period.  Samples were taken from the Martha Piper Pond so we could make a comparison with the other four "natural" ponds. On each of the three collection dates, all samplings were completed within one hour. Water samples were collected by hand with glass sample tubes that had been rinsed three times with ambient water on site. Particular care was used so that sediment was not disturbed when samples were taken. Turbidity was measured immediately on site with a portable turbidimeter (LoMotte 2020we) calibrated with USEPA certified 0 NTU sample tube to encompass the expected range of sample values.   GREEN COVERAGE  According to Nowak & Greenfield, one of the best ways to assess overall tree canopy is through Google Earth imagery as it provides complete coverage with interpretable images (2010). Similar to their method, our project used interpretable images where random points had to be selected as Tree or Non-tree to represent the amount of canopy coverage.  First, aerial imagery from Google Earth was used to capture images of the ponds from a bird’s eye point of view. Using the software Google Earth Pro, the polygon tool was used to draw the boundaries of the pond freehand. Google Earth automatically calculates the area of the polygons drawn. Hence the polygons representing pond boundaries allowed Google Earth to calculate the surface areas of the ponds as well. To assess green space within relevant distance of each pond, a perimeter around each of these ponds had to be created as well. A perimeter 10m away from all sides of the pond was created for each of the selected ponds as shown in Figure 2. This    10 perimeter was also drawn using the polygon tool in Google Earth Pro. To ensure that this freehand drawn perimeter was actually 10 m’s away from each of the ponds, 10m lines were drawn away from the pond boundary from all sides. These 10m lines away from the pond were then joined together using the polygon tool to create one perimeter polygon that was 10m away from the pond from every direction.   The perimeter polygons were initially in kml format. Hence they had to converted into shapefiles (shp). After conversion, the perimeter polygon shapefiles were then uploaded onto the i-Tree Canopy site. i-Tree Canopy took these shapefiles and displayed the freehand drawn polygons on google maps. From there on, i-Tree Canopy’s unique software selected random points inside these polygons as shown in Figure 3. These random points had to manually be assigned with names such as Tree, Non-tree, Pond and Building. All points corresponding to trees, plants and shrubs were assigned as Tree. Points corresponding to grass was assigned as Non-Tree. After randomly assigning 100 points as Tree, Non-tree, Pond or Building, i-Tree canopy calculated the number of points assigned as Tree and calculated it as a percentage of the total number of points. This percentage was equal to the green coverage surrounding the area 10 m’s away from each pond.      Figure 2. How the perimeter boundary (outer white polygon) 10m away from all directions of the pond was drawn in Google Earth using 10m lines (red) drawn away from the pond.  Figure 3. How i-Tree Canopy randomly selected points within the perimeter (red line). Points had to manually be assigned as Tree, Pond, Non-tree and Building.     11   RESULTS SURVEY  From 46 of the participants in the survey, when asked how the ponds at UBC makes them feel, we found that 96% chose relaxation, 91% chose enjoyment, 39% chose boredom and 17% chose disapproval (participants were able to choose one category or all that applied). At some point, almost everyone stated that they have associated positive attributes (relaxation and enjoyment) towards the ponds on the UBC Campus.     Figure 4. How the UBC ponds make people feel when they are around them. This incorporates four categories (enjoyment, disapproval, relaxation and boredom), the emotions associated with those categories along with their frequencies.  The amount of times, on average, people have passed by the ponds on campus are shown in Table 3. These results were derived from participants who answered question 10 in our survey: Have often have you been passed X pond in a month? The ponds that had on average more people passing by them were the Buchanan Courtyard Pond, MOA Reflection Pond and Koerner Grad Center. The Botanical Garden Native, Asian and Carolinian Ponds were three ponds out of the seven surveyed that had 0 people pass by them on average in a month.       12   How often people have passed by the   ponds on campus in a month Number of times Botanical Garden Alpine 1 Botanical Garden Asian 0 Botanical Garden Native 0 Botanical Garden Carolinian Pond 0 MOA Reflection Pond 2 Koerner Grad Center 1 Buchanan Courtyard Pond 6  Table 3. Number of times people have passed by the ponds in a month, rounded to the nearest whole number.   Figure 5. shows the percentage of people who enjoy ponds that have more greenery (67%) along with the percentages of those who do not enjoy them (9%) and those who are neutral to the idea (24%). This information was gathered by the results from question 8 on the survey. From this data, we can conclude that people find it more enjoyable when ponds on campus have more greenery. Alongside that, people associated positive/neutral attributes when asked about the idea of more water features/ponds on campus (Figure 6).     Figure 5. The percentages of people who enjoy ponds with more greenery.         13  Figure 6. The number of participants who believe that there should be more water features/ponds on campus.  The reason many people would go by the water features/ponds were to relax, meet friends, take pictures and to be around green space. The table below shows the number of people out of 46 who take part in these activities.   Table 4. Reasons participants associate with when around ponds, in descending order.            14 WATER QUALITY   The survey that was conducted contained a question in which participants were asked to rate how important water clearness is to their overall perception of the pond and on average they scored a 7.4/10. The score indicates that people clearly believe that water clearness has an influence on the how people perceive the ponds on campus. Therefore, it is important to examine the turbidity for the ponds on campus.  The turbidity of a total of five ponds were examined during this project. Overall the turbidity of the ponds was very good with an average of 1.91 NTU. This would indicate that the right amount of water maintenance (i.e. filtration changes, surface vacuuming, draining and refilling) is done and should be maintained. Table 5 below shows the individual turbidity for each pond on the three different test days.   Pond  Trial1 (NTU) Trial2 (NTU) Trial3 (NTU) Average (NTU) SD Botanical Garden Alpine 1.07 1.09 1.13 1.10 0.03 Botanical Garden Asian 1.53  1.60 1.58 1.57 0.04 Botanical Garden Native 1.46 1.44 1.49 1.46 0.03 MOA Reflection 2.20  2.22 2.25 2.22 0.03 Martha Piper 2.86  3.42 3.45 3.24 0.33  Table 5. Turbidity measurement of UBC ponds.  When comparing the turbidity between ponds, some interesting trends can be observed. The Martha Piper fountain has a higher average turbidity than the ponds in the Botanical Gardens. The reason for this trend could be because of the proximity of the ponds to main campus as there is a higher chance of litter and other debris getting into ponds due the number of people who pass by the ponds. Also the influence of water features creating turbulence within the pond can suspend particles within the ponds which could explain the elevated turbidity level. However, the exact reason for this trend cannot be explained by this project.      15 GREEN COVERAGE Question 8 on our survey asks participants whether they enjoy ponds with more greenery around them. Responses indicate that an overwhelmingly large number (67%) of the surveyed population prefers green spaces around ponds. Along with that, exposure to green space ranked as one of the top four reasons why people want to visit ponds. Therefore, it is relevant to assess how much green space surrounds each of the selected ponds on campus.   The ponds in the Botanical Gardens has the highest amount of green coverage within a 10 m distance away from them. The Native and Asian ponds there has a green coverage percentage of 72.7% and 62.6% respectively. The pond behind the Museum of Anthropology (MOA) has the lowest green cover percentage of 13% even though it had the largest surface area and largest test perimeter used.     Figure 7: Green coverage (%) surrounding the area within 10 m from each of the selected ponds.            16 DISCUSSION We can confidently say that people on campus do enjoy the presence of water features/ponds. Majority of the participants in the survey have associated positive attributes (relaxation and enjoyment) when asked about how they feel around the ponds. They have shown to have agreement towards more water features/ponds on campus. Participants scored a 6.1/10 on how important the presence of ponds on campus are and they have indicated they enjoy ponds with more greenery (Appendix A). The factors that could explain the positive feelings people have towards ponds could be explained as many people use these spaces for relaxing, meeting friends, taking pictures and taking the time to be exposed to green space (Appendix A, Survey 6). This is something that can be important, especially for students, as these water features allow people to take a break from their busy lives and appreciate the space.   To tie in with the survey, the amount of green space surrounding ponds can play a role in how they affect the well-being of passerby’s. The majority of the surveyed population indicated that they prefer ponds with green space. From the assessment of green coverage around each pond, Botanical Native and Asian ponds should be more likely to induce positive feelings amongst passerby’s as they have the highest green cover numbers. Along with that the surveyed population also indicated that they prefer it when the water in the ponds are less turbid. Therefore the ponds at the Botanical gardens should also invoke positive feelings amongst passerby’s as they have the lowest turbidity values.                  17 CONCLUSION Overall the ponds currently on campus are enjoyed by the people who pass by them. Over 83% of the people surveyed associated positive attributes towards these ponds. Important factors in the continued enjoyment of these ponds are green coverage and water clearness (turbidity). However, there is no clear indication on whether or not people on campus would enjoy the addition of new water features on campus. According to the survey people scored an average of 7.4/10 on how important water clearness is to their perception of the ponds on campus. Additionally, 67% of people enjoy ponds with more greenery. Therefore, UBC Buildings Operations should maintain their current level of water maintenance with more time allocated towards ponds near the main campus and less on ponds away from campus due to water clearness being lower in those areas and less foot traffic around these ponds. Furthermore, UBC Buildings Operation could consider investing in more greenery around the ponds particularly in the MOA Reflection Pond and Buchanan Courtyard Pond as the green coverage percentage was only 13% and 25% respectively.   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work would not have been possible without the support of UBC's SEEDS Sustainability Program, UBC Building Operations and Environmental Science department of UBC. We would like to express our special thanks of gratitude to: Ed Domenco, Master Plumber of UBC Building Operations, for giving us field visits to some of the ponds around campus and providing us the detailed information on the water features. Kathleen Simpson, Project Coordinator of SEEDS, for providing feedback and helping us in finalizing this project within the limited time frame. Tara Ivanochko and Michael Lipsen, our instructors, for sharing their ideas and providing helpful guidance and reviews with us during the course of this project. We would also like to thank Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences for providing us with the funding for equipment rentals.         18  REFERENCES  Beil, K. and Hanes, D. (2013). The Influence of Urban Natural and Built Environments on Physiological and Psychological Measures of Stress— A Pilot Study. International Journal       of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(4), pp.1250-1267.  Carlson, Toby N. Remote Sensing of Environment: On the Relation between NDVI, Fractional Vegetation Cover, and Leaf Area Index. 62 Vol. Elsevier, 12/1997. Web. 6 Nov. 2017.  Kaplan, Rachel. “The Nature of the View from Home.” Environment and Behavior, vol. 33, no. 4, 2001, pp. 507–542., doi:10.1177/00139160121973115.  Manjare, S. A., S. A. Vhanalakar, and D. V. Muley. "Analysis of water quality using physico- chemical parameters Tamdalge tank in Kolhapur district, Maharashtra." International Journal of Advanced Biotechnology and Research 1.2 (2010): 115-119.  Ngiam, R.W.J., Lim, W.L. & Matilda Collins, C. Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20: 743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0635-0  Nowak, D.J. & Greenfield, E.J. Environmental Management (2010) 46: 378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9536-9  Smith, V. K., & Desvousges, W. H. (1986). Measuring water quality benefits. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.       19  APPENDIX A SURVEY    Question Response 1 Number of participants in the survey 46   Figure A. Participants in the survey. 2           Figure B. The distribution of people who feel that water features/ponds enhance space enjoyment on campus. 3 How important are the presence of ponds on campus to you on a scale of 1-10? (10 being the most important) Average: 6.1 4 On a scale of 1-10, how much does the water quality (in terms of turbidity/how clear the pond  is) affect your perception of the pond? Average: 7.4   Overall, the ponds enhance space      enjoyment on the UBC Campus?    20  5 How do the ponds make you feel when you are around them?   Figure C. Four categories (enjoyment, disapproval, relaxation and boredom) participants chose from, the emotions associated with those categories along with their frequencies. 6 Which of the following do you take part in when you are around the ponds?   Figure D. What participants associate with when around ponds, in descending order.  7 I would like to see more water features/ponds on campus?   Figure E. The number of participants who believe that there should be more water features/ponds on campus.     21   8 Do you enjoy ponds that have more greenery?   Figure F. The percentages of people who enjoy ponds with more greenery. 9 How many water features/ponds are there on campus?   Figure G. The responses for how many ponds there are on the UBC Campus. 10 Have often have you been passed the ponds in a month?   Figure H. Number of times people have passed by the ponds in a month, rounded to the nearest whole number.    22   Background Calculation for Table 2:         Table A. The number of responses for each frequency (a lot, quite a bit, a bit) were totaled to give the number of responses for each category; this excluded the ‘no emotion’ frequency. The number of responses for each category were then divided by the total number of responses including ‘no emotion’,138, to give the % of responses chosen for each category. The % of responses chosen for each subcategory is the sum of the frequencies excluding ‘no emotion’ over the number of participants in this study, 46. The participants in the study were able to choose one or all the categories that applied.      Categories  A lot  Quite a bit  A bit  No emotion % of responses chosen for each subcategory Number of responses (excluding No emotion)  % of responses chosen for each category Relaxed 10 15 17 4 91 114 83 Calm  10 14 19 3 93   Satisfied 7 8 14 17 63   Happy  5 12 24 5 89 79 57 Surprised  1 4 10 31 33   Amused 2 7 14 23 50   Anxious 0 0 3 43 7 28 20 Apprehensive  0 1 2 43 7   Grief  1 1 3 41 11   Bored 0 0 13 33 28 11 8 Tired 1 2 8 35 24   Spiritless 0 0 4 42 9       23 APPENDIX B  GREEN COVERAGE  Table B. Green cover percentages surrounding the area within 10m from each selected pond.             Pond    Pond surface area sqm Plot area sqm Green cover % ErrorGC % Building cover % ErrorBC% Botanical Garden Alpine   88.5 732 60 4.9 0 0 Botanical Garden Asian   134 1112 62.6 4.86 1.01 1.01 Botanical Garden Native   134 1112 72.7 4.48 0 0 Botanical Garden Carolinian   578 2630 50.5 5.02 0 0 MOA Reflection Pond   1551 4322 13 3.36 2 1.41 Koerner Grad Center   86.1 761 34.3 4.77 3.03 1.75 Buchanan Courtyard Pond   262 1198 25.3 4.37 3.03 1.75     24 Tree Benefit Estimates Provided by i-Tree Canopy Botanical Garden Alpine  Abbr. Benefit Description Value (CAD) ±SE Amount ±SE2 CO Carbon Monoxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 1.58 oz ±0.13 NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide removed annually 0.0127 ±0.00 8.59 oz ±0.70 O3 Ozone removed annually 0.4699 ±0.03 5.35 lb ±0.44 PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns removed annually 0.9779 ±0.06 4.16 oz ±0.34 SO2 Sulfur Dioxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 5.41 oz ±0.44 PM10* Particulate Matter greater than 2.5 microns and less than 10 microns removed annually 0.3429 ±0.02 1.79 lb ±0.15 CO2seq Carbon Dioxide sequestered annually in trees 24.384 ±1.57 1,088.99 lb ±88.92 CO2stor Carbon Dioxide stored in trees (Note: this benefit is not an annual rate) 614.68 ±39.52 13.73 T ±1.12  Table C1. Benefits of canopy coverage surrounding the area within 10 m away from the pond. Produced automatically by i-Tree Canopy.   Botanical Garden Asian  Abbr. Benefit Description Value (CAD) ±SE Amount ±SE2 CO Carbon Monoxide removed annually 0.0127 ±0.00 2.50 oz ±0.19 NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide removed annually 0.0127 ±0.00 13.62 oz ±1.06 O3 Ozone removed annually 0.7493 ±0.05 8.48 lb ±0.66 PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns removed annually 1.5621 ±0.10 6.59 oz ±0.51 SO2 Sulfur Dioxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 8.58 oz ±0.67 PM10* Particulate Matter greater than 2.5 microns and less than 10 microns removed annually 0.5461 ±0.03 2.84 lb ±0.22 CO2seq Carbon Dioxide sequestered annually in trees 38.6461 ±2.36 1,726.39 lb ±134.04 CO2stor Carbon Dioxide stored in trees (Note: this benefit is not an annual rate) 974.4583 ±59.57 21.76 T ±1.69  Table C2. Benefits of canopy coverage surrounding the area within 10 m away from the pond. Produced automatically by i-Tree Canopy.     25 Botanical Garden Native  Abbr. Benefit Description Value (CAD) ±SE Amount ±SE2 CO Carbon Monoxide removed annually 0.0127 ±0.00 2.61 oz ±0.16 NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide removed annually 0.0127 ±0.00 14.24 oz ±0.88 O3 Ozone removed annually 0.7874 ±0.04 8.86 lb ±0.55 PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns removed annually 1.6256 ±0.08 6.89 oz ±0.42 SO2 Sulfur Dioxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 8.97 oz ±0.55 PM10* Particulate Matter greater than 2.5 microns and less than 10 microns removed annually 0.5715 ±0.03 2.97 lb ±0.18 CO2seq Carbon Dioxide sequestered annually in trees 40.3987 ±1.96 1,804.47 lb ±111.06 CO2stor Carbon Dioxide stored in trees (Note: this benefit is not an annual rate) 1018.5273 ±49.36 22.75 T ±1.40  Table C3. Benefits of canopy coverage surrounding the area within 10 m away from the pond. Produced automatically by i-Tree Canopy.  Botanical Garden Carolinian  Abbr. Benefit Description Value (CAD) ±SE Amount ±SE2 CO Carbon Monoxide removed annually 0.0127 ±0.00 4.76 oz ±0.47 NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide removed annually 0.0254 ±0.00 1.62 lb ±0.16 O3 Ozone removed annually 1.4351 ±0.11 16.17 lb ±1.61 PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns removed annually 2.9718 ±0.23 12.57 oz ±1.25 SO2 Sulfur Dioxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 1.02 lb ±0.10 PM10* Particulate Matter greater than 2.5 microns and less than 10 microns removed annually 1.0414 ±0.08 5.42 lb ±0.54 CO2seq Carbon Dioxide sequestered annually in trees 73.6981 ±5.77 1.65 T ±0.16 CO2stor Carbon Dioxide stored in trees (Note: this benefit is not an annual rate) 1,858.28 ±145.58 41.50 T ±4.13  Table C4. Benefits of canopy coverage surrounding the area within 10 m away from the pond. Produced automatically by i-Tree Canopy.      26 MOA Reflection Pond  Abbr. Benefit Description Value (CAD) ±SE Amount ±SE2 CO Carbon Monoxide removed annually 0.0127 ±0.00 2.03 oz ±0.53 NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide removed annually 0.0127 ±0.00 11.10 oz ±2.87 O3 Ozone removed annually 0.6096 ±0.12 6.91 lb ±1.79 PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns removed annually 1.27 ±0.26 5.37 oz ±1.39 SO2 Sulfur Dioxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 6.99 oz ±1.81 PM10* Particulate Matter greater than 2.5 microns and less than 10 microns removed annually 0.4445 ±0.09 2.31 lb ±0.60 CO2seq Carbon Dioxide sequestered annually in trees 31.4833 ±6.41 1,406.27 lb ±363.52 CO2stor Carbon Dioxide stored in trees (Note: this benefit is not an annual rate) 793.7627 ±161.57 17.73 T ±4.58  Table C5. Benefits of canopy coverage surrounding the area within 10 m away from the pond. Produced automatically by i-Tree Canopy.   Koerner Grad Center  Abbr. Benefit Description Value (CAD) ±SE Amount ±SE2 CO Carbon Monoxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 0.94 oz ±0.13 NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 5.11 oz ±0.71 O3 Ozone removed annually 0.2794 ±0.03 3.18 lb ±0.44 PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns removed annually 0.5842 ±0.06 2.47 oz ±0.34 SO2 Sulfur Dioxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 3.22 oz ±0.45 PM10* Particulate Matter greater than 2.5 microns and less than 10 microns removed annually 0.2032 ±0.02 1.07 lb ±0.15 CO2seq Carbon Dioxide sequestered annually in trees 14.5034 ±1.59 647.84 lb ±90.03 CO2stor Carbon Dioxide stored in trees (Note: this benefit is not an annual rate) 365.6711 ±40.01 8.17 T ±1.13  Table C6. Benefits of canopy coverage surrounding the area within 10 m away from the pond. Produced automatically by i-Tree Canopy.       27 Buchanan Courtyard Pond  Abbr. Benefit Description Value (CAD) ±SE Amount ±SE2 CO Carbon Monoxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 1.08 oz ±0.19 NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 5.91 oz ±1.02 O3 Ozone removed annually 0.3302 ±0.04 3.68 lb ±0.64 PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns removed annually 0.6731 ±0.09 2.86 oz ±0.49 SO2 Sulfur Dioxide removed annually 0 ±0.00 3.73 oz ±0.64 PM10* Particulate Matter greater than 2.5 microns and less than 10 microns removed annually 0.2413 ±0.03 1.23 lb ±0.21 CO2seq Carbon Dioxide sequestered annually in trees 16.7767 ±2.28 749.63 lb ±129.62 CO2stor Carbon Dioxide stored in trees (Note: this benefit is not an annual rate) 423.1259 ±57.61 9.45 T ±1.63  Table C6. Benefits of canopy coverage surrounding the area within 10 m away from the pond. Produced automatically by i-Tree Canopy.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52966.1-0366158/manifest

Comment

Related Items