Trial of the cultural ecosystem services and disservices variables

Together with participating in the second pilot of the Tzoulas-James method (see section 4.2.2); the ten second year University of Salford ecology undergraduates participated in a trial of the cultural ecosystem services and disservices variables appraisal method detailed in Figures 4.14 and 4.15 on 14/03/2014. They were supervised by their tutor during the whole process. The site of the trial is The

Meadow, which is the same as the second pilot of the Tzoulas-James method. They again surveyed the site in its entirety, and the raw data collected during the trial can be found in Table C5 to Table C10, in Appendix C. The aim of the analysis is to determine whether the cultural ecosystem services and disservices variables categories detailed in Figures 4.14 and 4.15 can be easily distinguished on-site or not, based on the information given in Figures 4.14 and 4.15. Table 4.7 illustrates the frequency analysis of the data in Table C5 to C10. The data contained in Table 4.7 allow an evaluation to be made concerning whether each cultural ecosystem service and disservice independent variables and associated categories (see Figures 4.14 and 4.15) can be easily distinguished on-site, given the information describing them in Figures 4.15 and 4.16.

Table 4.7 – Frequency analysis of data in Table C5 to C10.

Note: CES = Cultural Ecosystem Services, EDS = Ecosystem Disservices. LA = Legal Accessibility, PA = Physical Accessibility, RI = Recreational Infrastructure, PPT = Proximity of Public Transport, EofP = Ease of Parking, EI = Education Infrastructure, DF = Dog Faeces, SL = Street Lights, EofVM = Evidence of Vegetation Management, B = Bins, L = Litter, FL = Flowers

1. CES & EDS variables 2. No. of students responded 3. Percentage response

Confidence level based on students who responded 4. High (no. of students) 5. Percentage response 6. Medium (no. of students) 7. Percentage response 8. Low (no. of students) 9. Percentage response 10. Missing (no. of students) 11. Percentage response 1. LA 10 100 10 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. PA 10 100 6 60 4 40 0 0 0 0 3. RI 10 100 8 80 2 20 0 0 0 0 4. PPT 7 70 1 14.3 4 57.1 0 0 2 28.6 5. EofP 9 90 6 66.7 2 22.2 0 0 1 11.1 6. EI 8 80 4 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 7. DF 10 100 3 30 2 20 0 0 5 50 8. SL 10 100 5 50 0 0 0 0 5 50 9. EofVM 8 80 2 25 2 25 0 0 6 75 10. B 10 100 3 30 1 10 0 0 6 60 11. L 10 100 2 20 3 30 0 0 5 50 12. FL 10 100 2 20 1 10 2 20 5 50 154

The percentage of responses (third column), the confidence level percentages (fifth, seventh and ninth columns), and the percentages of missing responses (eleventh column) in Table 4.7 were evaluated according to the following rules:

• Independent variables with percentage of responds more than or equal to 80%, coupled with more than or equal to 80% of the students have high confidence and no one has low confidence in their choices of variable categories, were allowed to pass the trial and be appraised on-site with minimal changes required.

• Otherwise, the variables, variables categories and the definitions shown in Figures 4.14 and 4.15 were either abandoned or amended before the actual site survey.

Table 4.8 contains evaluations and conclusions drawn from Table 4.7.

Table 4.8 – Evaluations and conclusions drawn from Table 4.7.

Note: IV = independent variables, LA = legal accessibility, PA = physical accessibility, RI = recreational infrastructure, PPT = Proximity of Public Transport, EofP = Ease of Parking, EI = Education Infrastructure, DF = Dog Faeces, SL = Street Lights, EofVM = Evidence of Vegetation Management, B = Bins, L = Litter, FL = Flowers

1. IV 2. Evaluation 3. Conclusion 4. Changes

required (Y/N) 1. LA 100% of the students responded by choosing from the

three variable categories. All the students responded have high confidence in their choice of categories.

Legal Accessibility can be appraised on- site under the existing categories and definition.

N

2. PA 100% of the students responded by choosing from the three variable categories. 60% have high and 40% have medium confidence in their choice.

Physical Accessibility can be appraised on-site under the existing categories and definition, but with some difficulties. Further clarifications are required.

Y

3. RI 100% of the students responded by choosing from the three variables categories. 80% have high and 20% have medium confidence in their choice.

Recreational Infrastructures can be appraised on-site under the existing categories and definition.

N

4. PPT 70% of the students responded by choosing from the three variable categories. Only 14.3% (1 in 7) have high confidence and 57.1% (4 in 7) have medium confidence in their choice. 28.6% (2 in 7) did not state their

confidence.

Proximity of Public Transport cannot be appraised on-site under the existing categories and definitions. Changes to the categories and definitions are required.

Y

5. EofP 90% of the students responded by choosing from the three variable categories. 66.7% (6 in 9) have high confidence and 22.2% (2 in 9) have medium confidence in their choice. 11.1% (1 in 9) did not state their

confidence.

Ease of Parking can be appraised on-site under the existing categories and

definition, but with some difficulties. Further clarifications are required.

Y

6. EI 80% of the students responded by choosing from the three variable categories. 50% (4 in 8) have high

confidence and 50% (4 in 8) have medium confidence in their choice.

Education Infrastructure can be appraised on-site under the existing categories and definition, but with great difficulties. Further clarifications are required.

Y

7. DF 100% of the students responded by choosing from the six variable categories. Only 30% (3 in 10) have high

confidence and 20% (2 in 10) have medium confidence in their choice. 50% (5 in 10) did not state their confidence.

Dog Faeces cannot be appraised on-site under the existing categories and

definitions. Changes to the categories and definitions are required.

Y

8. SL 100% of the students responded by choosing from the four variable categories. 50% (5 in 10) have high confidence in their choice. 50% (5 in 10) did not state their confidence.

Street Lights can be appraised on-site under the existing categories and definition, but with great difficulties. Further clarifications are required.

Y

9. EofVM 80% of the students responded by choosing from the three variable categories. Only 25% (2 in 8) have high confidence and 25% (2 in 8) have medium confidence in their choice. 75% (6 in 8) did not state their confidence.

Evidence of Vegetation Management cannot be appraised on-site under the existing categories and definitions.

Changes to the categories and definitions are required.

Y

10. B 100% of the students responded by choosing from the four variable categories. Only 30% (3 in 10) have high confidence and 10% (1 in 10) have medium confidence in their choice. 60% (6 in 10) did not state their confidence.

Bins cannot be appraised on-site under the existing categories and definitions. Changes to the categories and definitions are required.

Y

11. L 100% of the students responded by choosing from the six variable categories. Only 20% (2 in 10) have high

confidence and 30% (3 in 10) have medium confidence in their choice. 50% (5 in 10) did not state their confidence.

Litters cannot be appraised on-site under the existing categories and definitions. Changes to the categories and definitions are required.

Y

12. FL 100% of the students responded by choosing from the six variable categories. 20% (2 in 10) have high confidence, 10% (1 in 10) have medium confidence and 20% (2 in 10) have low confidence in their choice. 50% (5 in 10) did not state their confidence.

Flowers cannot be appraised on-site under the existing categories and definitions. Changes to the categories and definitions are required.

Y

As illustrated in the fourth column of Table 4.8, only legal accessibility and

recreational infrastructures passed the trial with minimal amendments required (no changes are required). All the other variables have to be amended, with both changes to the categories and definitions enhancements made to them. Some variables were dropped all together because comments from the undergraduates indicated that these variables were too difficult to be appraised on-site.

4.3.4. Final cultural ecosystem services and disservices variables