Assessing McGill’s Ecosystem Services Sophia Klumpp Andrea Lattik Ida Mak Elizabeth Moseman Mark Smith Anaïs de Valicourt Prof. Garry Peterson Client: SCE – McGill Sub-Committee on Environment

Outline of Presentation Research Statement Air Filtration Noise Reduction Recreational Opportunities Recommendations

Ecosystem Services Definitions: –“The benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions.” Costanza 1997 –“Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems.” Millennium Assessment 2003

Ecosystem Services Pollination Prevention of soil erosion Recreation Agriculture

ecosystems Ecosystem services humans Air filtration Noise reduction Recreational opportunities Context of Research

Research Statement Assess select ecosystem services as they currently exist and evaluate their enhancement in terms of tradeoffs.

Selection of Services Time constraints & feasibility of quantification Extensively researched with developed methodology Feasible to assess without prior knowledge

Context of Research Characteristics of the McGill Campus Ecosystem: -Urban environment -Human dominated ecosystem -Artificially maintained with constant inputs

Outline of Presentation Research Statement Air Filtration Noise Reduction Recreational Opportunities Recommendations

McGill Campus Stats Study area: 9 hectares acres Percent tree cover: 19%

Air Filtration on McGill Campus CARBON STORAGE: CITYgreen = 68 tons of carbon/ha UK Model = 20 tons of carbon/ha CARBON SEQUESTRATION: CITYgreen = 0.7 tons of carbon/ha/year UK Model = 0.16 tons of carbon/ha/year

Result Comparisons LOCATION% TREE COVER CARBON STORAGE (tons/ ha) CARBON SEQUESTRATION (tons/ ha/ yr) Connecticut South Dakota McGill

Outline of Presentation Research Statement Air Filtration Noise Reduction Recreational Opportunities Recommendations

Noise Reduction Literature Review –Physical noise reduction by vegetation –Psychological noise perception Methodology –Sampling at McGill Campus

Methodology BA SITE 4 SITE 3 SITE 2 SITE 1

Results: Sound Level vs Site #

Results & Conclusions: Trees do not physically reduce noise for McGill. Perceived effects of increased tree cover are significant. Number of trees along Sherbrooke should be increased.

Outline of Presentation Research Statement Air Filtration Noise Reduction Recreational Opportunities Recommendations

Assessing Recreational Opportunities Survey Goals: Determine perception of noise & air quality on campus Determine recreational use of campus Determine receptiveness to land cover changes

McGill Campus Survey Map

Survey Results: Perception of Noise and Air Quality on McGill Campus

Survey results: Frequency of Green Space Use

Survey Results Areas with high response relative to change

Survey Results Areas of high use Areas with high response relative to change

Outline of Presentation Research Statement Air Filtration Noise Reduction Recreational Opportunities Recommendations

The Concept of Tradeoffs To enhance air filtration and noise reduction without infringing on major recreational uses of campus

Turf Conversion Benefits: Decreased maintenance costs –Reduced labour & monetary inputs Lessen ecological impacts –Fewer inputs needed (fertilizers / pesticides) Shift to more naturally functioning systems Replacement of grass with alternative land cover

Turf Conversion Benefits: Potential to enhance ecosystem services –Noise reduction Decrease in perceived noise through additional plantings –Air filtration Increased plant biomass for carbon storage

Turf Conversion Recommendations Introduce plantings that: Are implemented in proper areas –Should not encroach recreational use of areas Do not restrict view –Preferred landscape –Security issues Do not appear “weedy” or poorly maintained –Defined border between plantings and lawn

Air Filtration & Noise Reduction Recommendations: Maintain and enhance existing tree cover Locate future plantings in strategic areas Plant tree species based on selective factors –Larger and longer-lived species –Greater pollutant uptake capacity per tree

Sophia Klumpp Andrea Lattik Ida Mak Elizabeth Moseman Mark Smith Anaïs de Valicourt Prof. Garry Peterson Assessing McGill’s Ecosystem Services Client: SCE – McGill Sub-Committee on Environment

Additional slides

CITYgreen Model Carbon Storage Capacity: = Study Area (acres) * % Tree Cover * Carbon Storage Multiplier McGill Campus = 68 tons of carbon Carbon Sequestration: = Study Area (acres) * % Tree Cover * Carbon Sequestration Multiplier McGill Campus = 0.7 tons of carbon/yr

CITYgreen Multipliers TYPE Diameter distribution Storage Multiplier Sequestration Multiplier TYPE 1< 10 inches TYPE inches TYPE 3> 20 inches AVERAGE

McGill’s Data Diameter Class Number of Trees Frequency (%) 1 (<10 in) (10-20 in) (> 20 in) Total262100%

UK Model Carbon Storage Capacity: = Carbon Storage Multiplier * % Tree Cover McGill Campus = 20 tons of carbon/ha Carbon Sequestration: = Carbon Sequestration Multiplier * % Tree Cover McGill Campus = 0.16 tons of carbon/ha/yr

UK Multipliers Carbon Storage Multiplier: Carbon Sequestration Multiplier:

Survey: Distribution of Student Respondents by Faculty

Total Campus Use by Area

Preference for Change Most Undesirable Most Desirable bushes trees flowers

Selecting Species Certain species live longer & grow bigger Certain species store & sequester more pollutants –Red Oak stores more than Maple & White Oak –Black Birch storage decreases after 50 years –Yellow Birch storage increases after 50 years