Assessing McGill’s Ecosystem Services

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

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

3. 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

4. Ecosystem Services Pollination Prevention of soil erosion Recreation Agriculture

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

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

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

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

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

10. McGill Campus Stats Study area: 9 hectares 22.15 acres Percent tree cover: 19%

11. 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

12. Result Comparisons

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

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

15. Methodology A B SITE 4 SITE 3 SITE 2 SITE 1

16. Results: Sound Level vs Site #

17. 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.

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

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

20. McGill Campus SurveyMap

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

22. Survey results:Frequency of Green Space Use

23. Survey Results Areas with high response relative to change

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

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

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

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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. Additional slides

33. 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

34. CITYgreen Multipliers

35. McGill’s Data

36. 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

37. UK Multipliers • Carbon Storage Multiplier: 1.063 • Carbon Sequestration Multiplier: 0.0018

38. Survey:Distribution of Student Respondents by Faculty

39. Total Campus Use by Area

40. Preference for Change bushes trees flowers Most Undesirable Most Desirable

41. 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