Rethinking Campus Landscapes
Arabia Alvarez, Kristen Avila, Joshua Chang, Sam Fragoso, Dana
Hoffenberg, Casandra Lee, Dan Lenz, Linh Pham
Chancellor’s Sustainability Internship
The Green Initiative Fund
Advisor: Katie Maynard
1
Introduction:
Rethinking Campus Landscaping (RCL) is an undergrad-lead project that seeks to
improve the sustainability of campus landscaping by both surveying campus landscaping and
educating the campus community about sustainable landscapes. The project aimed to analyze
landscapes for maintenance practices, ecological make-up, and human-values, advance the
educational capacity at UCSB on functional landscapes, and define what a “sustainable
landscape” actually is.
Education:
Six educational signs are in the process of being developed signifying sustainable landscape
features around main campus. The different features are:
Teaching Specimen: The sign will showcase the educational capacity of plants on campus,
and will focus on a special species to UCSB, the coral trees. A number of coral tree species exist
on campus and present an opportunity for students to see how evolution created
distinguishable species.
Reclaimed Water: With the majority of campus landscapes being watered with reclaimed
water, we plan to install a sign with the process of sewage treatment to recycle water along with
the consequences and benefits of using reclaimed water.
Storm water Management: Placed in the recently installed bioswale, the sign will
demonstrate how water from the library plaza is directed to the bioswale through permeable
pavement. The topography of the bioswale and vegetation help to filter the water of pollutants
before reaching the campus lagoon.
Edible Landscapes: The sign aims to highlight the growing capacity of Santa Barbara and
the local agriculture in the region. We also aim to emphasize how development has decreased
the availability of land for agricultural.
Alternative Transportation: The sign will present the different modes of transportation
prevalent on campus such as bikes, skateboards, MTD buses, and ZIP cars.
Campus Interactive Map:
For further education, RCL has created a campus map with the categories of landscapes,
and also is working with the Interactive Campus Map group to add a layer on sustainable
landscape features which would relay data about specific points on campus.
2
Map
Ecological Research:
Four main categories and four subcategories were created to organize campus
landscaping in order to evaluate ecological value. Representative sample plots were chosen
from each category on which tests were performed. These tests included plant diversity counts,
soil pH and organic matter content, animal use surveys, and insect biomass and diversity
counts.
Description of Sample Plots
Campus landscapes were divided into four main categories: Athletic Fields, Recreational
Lawns, Side Lawns, and Foundation Beds. Foundation Beds is further divided into the
following subcategories: California Natives, Ornamental, Teaching Specimens, Edible, and
Miscellaneous. The following is a brief description of the landscaping types and the specific
representative plots that were used as samples for testing.
3




Athletic Fields: Landscaped areas specifically meant for athletic activities
o Storke Field (All testing took place on the western half of the field)
o Softball Field
Recreational Lawns: Lawns created for recreational and aesthetic purposes.
o Physical Sciences Lawn (All testing took place on the center third portion of the
lawn)
o Commencement Lawn
Side Lawns: Lawns that are created mostly for aesthetic purposes. They are too small to
have any real recreational value
o Strip of lawn between the sidewalk on the north side of Theatre and Dance and
the main bike path.
o Northeastern lawn inside of the Girvetz courtyard.
Foundation Beds: Areas of landscaping surrounding buildings
o California Natives: Foundation beds composed of plants native to California.
They are drought tolerant.
 Southern half of Bioswale on east side of Girvetz. (Only the bottom,
center strip of the bioswale was tested, as the California native plants are
isolated to this area of the bioswale)
 Chumash garden, east side of the SRB
o Ornamental: Decorative plants that are not native to California. The plot of Ivy is
drought tolerant.
 Ivy, southwest corner of South Hall. (Only the western 180 m2 of this plot
was tested)
 Clivias, Physical Sciences Building South, North side of Broida
 Grasses outside of Bren Hall.
o Teaching Specimens: These plots contain exotic plants with a high educational
value. The plants at the Cheadle Hall plot are drought tolerant. The Biostore
plants for the most part are not drought tolerant.
 Foundation bed on the southeast side of Cheadle Hall. Contains several
Mexican plant species
 Landscaping across from the biostore building, facing west
o Edible
 Carissas, in the bike path median between Lot 22 and the Thunderdome
Ecological Value Rating
Each tested plot will be assigned a rating of ‘High,’ ‘Medium,’ and ‘Low’ Ecological
Value (EV) for each test performed. The top performing quarter of the plots will receive the
High rating and the bottom 25% will receive the Low rating. The remaining middle 50% will
receive the Medium rating. The parameters of being a top or bottom performer are dependent
on the test performed, and will be discussed in each respective test’s section.
4
Plant Diversity
For this test, we surveyed the plant diversity at each of the sample plots.
Methodology
CCBER Restoration Assistant Rachel Alford toured campus with a RCL team member
and counted the number of plant species represented at each plot. Only deliberately planted
species were counted; weeds were not included in the count.
Because the Girvetz Bioswale was chosen to represent California native landscaping,
only the California native species were counted. They are all congregated in the center strip of
the bioswale.
Data
Plant Species Diversity
Sustainability
Plot
Number of Species Rating
Biostore
38 High
Chumash Garden
19 High
Cheadle Hall
10 High
Bioswale
5 Medium
Bren Grasses
5 Medium
South Hall Ivy
4 Medium
PSB N Lawn
4 Medium
Clivias
2 Medium
Carissas
2 Medium
Commencement Lawn
2 Medium
Theatre and Dance Side Lawn
1 Low
Girvetz Side Lawn
1 Low
5
Softball Field
1 Low
Storke Field
1 Low
Table 1. Species Diversity
Analysis
Both sample plots within the side lawn category received a Low rating for plant
diversity. The other lawns and the Ivy plot received higher ratings because there are trees
scattered throughout the plot. Both plots within the Teaching Specimens category received a
High rating. One plot from the California Natives subcategory received a High as well.
Soils
RCL looked at three aspects of the soils: organic matter content, pH, and texture. All
testing of soil samples took place in the Schimel Lab.
Methodology
Samples at a depth of about 3-4 inches were taken from three different areas of each plot.
When possible, these samples were taken from varied, representative areas of the sample plot.
For example, some soil was taken from a sunny area, one form the shade, one near the edge, et
cetera. However, the soil of multiple plots was covered by weed-resistant tarps. This greatly
restricted where the samples could be taken within each plot as often times only the soil at the
edge of the plot could be reached, or only one area of the plot was not covered by the tarp. The
plots with the weed tarps are marked with an asterisk.
After soil was collected from multiple sites on each plot, the soil was mixed together in a
plastic bag. One quart of soil was collected at each plot.
Samples were not taken from the softball field as the field was in use at the time of
sampling.
Soil Texture
Soil Texture: Methodology
Professor Josh Schimel aided RCL in determining the soil texture of each of our samples.
Textures were determined by hand by wetting the soil and observing whether or not it could
form a ribbon or ball.
6
Soil Texture:Data
Plot
Texture
Storke Field
Heavy loam, clay loam
PSB N Lawn
Sandy loam
Commencement Lawn
Loam
Theatre and Dance Side
Lawn
Loam
Girvetz Side Lawn
Loam
Bioswale*
Sand
Chumash Garden
Sandy loam
South Hall Ivy
Sandy loam
Clivias*
Loamy Sand
Biostore
Loamy Sand
Cheadle Hall*
Sandy loam
Carissas*
Loamy sand/ Sandy loam
Bren Grasses*
Sandy loam
Table 2. Soil Texture.
* A weed tarp was present at the plot
Soil Texture: Analysis
Scores will not be assigned to plots based on soil texture. The textures are all too similar
for assigning a rating, as for the most part, the textures all fall within the loamy sand or sandy
loam range. The only true discrepancy was the Bioswale soil, which was almost entirely sand.
However, this is not surprising due to the bioswale’s expected function of capturing and
filtering water.
7
Soil pH
Soil pH:Methodology1
10 grams of soil were weighed for each sample and placed into a small plastic container
and added 50 mL of DI water. The pH meter used was calibrated by using standard solutions.
Each sample was mixed for 10 minutes with a magnetic stir bar. The pH probe was then
submerged into the mixture for exactly two minutes, allowing sufficient time for the pH reading
to stabilize. The pH probe was rinsed with DI water and lightly blotted it dry with a Kimwipe
between each sample.
Soil pH: Data
Plot
pH
EV Rating
Bioswale*
9.36 Low
Carissas*
9.20 Medium
PSB N Lawn
9.05 Medium
Cheadle Hall*
8.96 Medium
Chumash Garden
8.85 Medium
Clivias*
8.77 High
Theatre and Dance Side
Lawn
8.62 High
Bren Grasses*
8.61 High
Biostore
8.16 Medium
Girvetz Side Lawn
7.92 Medium
Storke Field
7.88 Low
Commencement Lawn
7.88 Low
South Hall Ivy
7.32 Low
1
Methodology for both pH and organic matter content testing was provided by Josh Schimel and
Dad Roux-Michollet. All soil testing was conducted in the Schimel Lab.
8
Table 3. Soil pH
* Denotes the presence of a weed tarp at the plot
Soil pH: Analysis
Although the soils in Isla Vista do tend to be alkaline, these readings appear to be high.
However, because the procedure for measuring the pH of all of the samples was identical, the
relationship of the values to each other is accurate. Those values closest to the median and
average values (8.62 and 8.51 respectively), received a High rating. The outlying values received
a Low rating.
Soil Organic Matter
Soil Organic Matter: Methodology
For each sample, a 100 mL glass beaker was weighed and filled with approximately 10g
of soil. Samples were then dried at 105 ˚C for 48 hours. The samples were put into an anti
humidity container after being removed from the oven while waiting to be weighed. All of the
samples were weighed to obtain the dry weight. The samples were then returned to the oven at
550˚C for 24 hours in order to burn all organic matter in the soil samples. The samples were
weighed again to obtain the ash weight. We used the equation (1) to calculate water content and
equation (2) to determine the organic matter content of the soils.
(1) [(Wet mass – Dry mass) / Dry mass]*100= grams of water per 100 grams of soil
(2) [(Dry mass – Ash mass) / (Dry mass – beaker mass)] *100= % Organic Matter
Soil Organic Matter: Data
Water Content (g water/100g
Plot
soil)
% Organic Matter
Storke Field
27.1
7.59
PSB N Lawn
27.0
6.06
Commencement Lawn
59.8
13.2
Side Lawn
21.1
5.95
Girvetz Side Lawn
42.5
9.44
Bioswale
18.4
0.971
Theatre and Dance
9
Chumash Garden
12.9
2.07
South Hall Ivy
12.1
2.24
Clivias*
19.3
5.36
Biostore
8.71
5.01
Cheadle Hall
16.2
3.22
Carissas
18.1
5.65
Bren Grasses
29.1
5.57
Averages
24.0
5.57
Table 4. Soil water and organic matter content
*Due to a small piece of broken glass falling into this sample, there is a <1% error for both
values of this sample
Soil Organic Matter: Analysis
During the process of weighing samples, a small piece glass fell into the soil sample
from the Clivias plot. Most of the glass was removed, but some may have remained in the
sample. The glass was so small however, that the error it causes is < 1%.
The average organic matter content of soil varies between approximately 2 to 6% (Brady
1984). Therefore, samples for the most part are within a normal range. Scores of High, Medium,
or Low ecological value will not be assigned for this test. However, a couple of the outlying
values will be discussed.
The Bioswale has a very low organic matter content of 0.97%. This could be due to the
fact that the Bioswale is extremely new and organic matter has not yet had time to build up in
the soil. The Commencement Lawn has an extremely high amount of organic matter, at 13.23%
this is over twice the upper limit of the standard range. This plot also has very high water
content. The high organic matter content and high water content are indicators that this plot
could be poorly drained (Brady 1984). Either the drainage problem can be fixed, or a plant
species with a better tolerance for poor drainage can be used on the plot instead.
Deep Soil
Deep Soil: Methodology
Jon Cook of Facilities Management informed Rethinking Campus Landscaping that
certain nutrients such as boron and sodium are present in reclaimed water which is used on
10
large portions of campus. Without proper soil drainage high concentrations of these and other
nutrients could adversely affect soil quality.
Four plots were chosen on campus: Environmental Health and Safety (EH & S), Girvetz,
Storke Field, and the Commencement Lawn. EH & S is watered with rainwater, Girvetz is
watered with potable water, and Storke Field and the Commencement Lawn are watered with
reclaimed water. Four samples were taken from each plot at depths of 6, 12, 24, and 36 inches.
Samples were sent to Fruit Growers Laboratory, Inc (FGL).
Deep Soil: Data
The three tables below are the data collected for exchangeable ions of sodium, soluble
sodium, and boron. A positive value is the amount of a nutrient in pounds per 1000 feet above
the upper limit of the optimum range. A zero value is a nutrient whose amount falls within the
optimum range. A negative value is the amount of a nutrient in pounds per 1000 feet below the
lower limit of the optimum range.
Exchangeable ions of sodium
Depth
6 inch
EH & S
Girvetz
Storke
Commence.
Field
Lawn
13.4
0
0
0
12 inch
0
0
0
20.3
24 inch
4.4
0
0.1
48.4
36 inch
11.8
0
5.7
38.6
Soluble sodium
Depth
EH & S
Girvetz
Storke
Commence.
Field
Lawn
6 inch
0
0
0
930
12 inch
0
0
0
481
24 inch
0
0
0
185
11
36 inch
0.7
0
8.8
64
Boron
Depth
EH & S
Girvetz
Storke
Commence.
Field
Lawn
6 inch
-0.006
0
0
0.058
12 inch
-0.008
0
0
0
24 inch
0
0
0
0
36 inch
0
0
0
0
Deep Soil: Analysis
The EH & S plot, which is watered solely by rainwater, was reported by FGL to have
very high levels of exchangeable sodium at the 6 inch and 36 inch depths. However, boron and
soluble sodium levels are all within, slightly above or slightly below the optimum range. The
Girvetz plot, which is watered with potable water, was reported by FGL to have an optimum
amount of all three nutrients at every level.
Storke Field, which is watered with reclaimed water, was reported by FGL at the 24 and
36 inch depths to have moderately high levels of sodium. Boron was within the optimum range
at every depth; however, at increasing depth levels, boron levels were in the upper limit of the
optimum range. The highest levels of nutrients in the Commencement Lawn occurred at
shallower depths, and the Commencement Lawn is the only plot to show levels of boron above
the optimum range, which were reported by FGL as very high.
The data shows that harmful levels nutrients can accumulate from use of reclaimed
water. Proper drainage can help reduce high levels of nutrients as evidenced at Storke Field.
Plots without proper drainage, such as the Commencement Lawn which is at water level, can
accumulate very high levels of nutrients at very shallow depths.
Insect Biomass and Diversity
12
Methodology
6x12 inch yellow sticky trap paper mounted on 12 inch wire spikes and anchored in the
ground was used to collect insects. One sticky trap was placed every 20 square meters on
sample plots. Not every sample plot was tested. However, at least one plot from each
landscaping category is represented. Because it was not feasible to place traps every 20 meters
on larger plots, 180 square meters were sampled of each large plot that were a fairly good
representative of the plot as a whole. Traps were placed at heights between 0-8 inches above
ground (measured from the bottom of the sticky trap). The traps were left out for 72 hours.
Sticky traps were covered in saran wrap during collection to prevent loss of data. All traps were
set out over the same 72-hour time period except for the traps on the Storke Field plot and the
Physical Sciences lawn plot. Traps were set up on these plots a few weeks later due to a
shortage of sticky traps.
To measure biomass dots of 1mm, 2mm, 4mm, 8mm, and 16mm in diameter were
drawn. This dot scale was suggested and provided by PhD candidate Denise Knapp. The size of
each insect on the traps was compared to the size of the dots and assigned the value closest to
its actual size.
Order-level diversity of the insects was also recorded. Dr. Adam Lambert of the
RIVRLab provided RCL guidance on what orders would likely be observed in our data and
how to identify the different orders. A count was then obtained of how many orders were
represented in each sample and how many specimens there were of each order.
Data
Average size
Plot
Average Specimens per
(Biomass) in
Orders represented
square meter
mm
per square meter
Storke Field*
6.4
2.7
0.15
PSBN Lawn*
7.7
2.5
0.13
Lawn
8.9
2.8
0.13
Bioswale
3.7
2.0
0.12
Chumash Garden
5.0
0.1
0.20
Theater and Dance Side
13
South Hall Ivy
5.4
2.7
0.17
Biostore
2.9
2.2
0.16
Cheadle
4.6
2.5
0.14
Carissas, Thunderdome
4.6
2.0
0.15
Table 5. Insects
*Sampling conducted from May 26 to May 29.Sticky traps were moved May 29 before 9:30
AM by Facilities Management and back to original location by 12:30 PM.
Analysis
Diptera was by far the most dominant of all the orders observed. The only plots with
less than 90% Diptera were the Chumash garden with 55% and the Ivy with 77%. The second
most dominant order at the Chumash garden was Coleoptera, which was composed mostly of a
native species of Lady Bug as well as other small beetles. The second most dominant order at
the Ivy plot was Homoptera. In contrast to the Chumash garden, the Homoptera order at the
ivy was composed entirely of one type of non-native hopper.
The total number of insects found at the Biostore was fairly low compared to the other
plots. This could be partially attributed to the placement of the traps in relation to the plants on
the plot. Most of the plants at this plot were very tall, so the ground did not have much plant
cover. Traps however could reach no more than18 inches above the ground. More accurate data
could likely be collected with hanging traps.
Animal Use
Methodology
For this test, an RCL team member or volunteer observed each plot and documented all
animals on the plot. Two 45-minute surveys were conducted at each plot, one at dawn and one
at dusk. Surveyors documented only those animals that interacted with the landscape; for
example, birds that happened to be flying overhead were not counted. For the lawn plots with
trees (Girvetz lawn, Physical Sciences Lawn, and the Commencement Lawn) and the Ivy plot,
birds interacting with only the trees on the plot were not counted in our final analysis. These
birds were not included because RCL is interested in the ecological value that the lawn and ivy
itself offers. The birds may have been interacting with the trees on the plot, but were in no way
interacting with the lawn or the ivy. Therefore, their presence was not drawn to the plot because
of the lawn and ivy, and so they are not counted towards the ecological value of those plant
types.
14
Data
Ecological
Plot
Chumash Garden
Birds
Mammals
Total
Animals Per
Value
square meter
Rating
5
0
5
0.2500 High
Biostore
17
2
19
0.1583 High
Cheadle
7
0
7
0.0875 High
Clivias, Broida
1
0
1
0.0667 Medium
Carissas, Thunderdome
1
0
1
0.0385 Medium
Bren Grasses
3
0
3
0.0050 Medium
Storke Field
36
0
36
0.0018 Medium
Commencement Lawn
3
0
3
0.0008 Medium
Softball field
1
0
1
0.0003 Medium
PSBN Lawn
0
0
0
0.0000 Low
Lawn
0
0
0
0.0000 Low
Girvetz courtyard lawn
0
0
0
0.0000 Low
Bioswale
0
0
0
0.0000 Low
South Hall Ivy
0
0
0
0.0000 Low
Theater and Dance Side
Table 6. Animal Use of Landscapes
*Birds in the trees of these plots were not counted. Ecological value of lawn and ivy
specifically is being evaluated, not that of the trees on the plot.
Analysis
Both plots in the Side Lawn category, the Theatre and Dance plot and the Girvetz
courtyard plot, received Low ratings. Both plots in the Educational category received High
ratings. While one plot in the California Natives category, the Chumash garden, earned the
Highest rating, the other Natives plot, the Bioswale received a Low rating. This may be
attributed to the fact that the Bioswale plot is very new and not yet well established. Another
15
factor, however, is the number of plant species at each plot. The three High scores also have the
highest number of plant species.
No mammals were observed during our surveys. A better method to evaluate whether or not
mammals use the landscapes would be to set up bait stations dusted with chalk. Footprints of
any animals on the plot could be used for a mammal count. For example, it is widely known
that rats inhabit the Ivy. This can be bad if the Ivy is right outside a building (like the South Hall
Ivy plot) because these rats could try to then get into the building. If any future surveys similar
to this one are conducted, it would be interesting to see how many rats inhabit the ivy and what
other mammals frequent different types of landscape plots.
Conclusions
The final analysis will evaluate the different landscapes based on their previous ratings.
Two points will be given for a High rating, one point for a Medium rating, and zero points for a
low rating. The points will then be divided by the maximum possible points the plot could have
received based on how many tests were conducted on the plot. This will be converted into a
percent.
Plot
Type of Landscaping
Maximum
Ecological
Points
possible
Value
earned
points
Score
Foundation Bed: California
Chumash Garden
Native
5
6
83.3
5
6
83.3
Foundation Bed: Teaching
Biostore
Specimens
Foundation Bed: Teaching
Cheadle
Specimens
5
6
83.3
Clivias, Broida
Foundation Bed: Ornamental
4
6
66.7
Foundation Bed:
Bren Grasses
Miscellaneous
4
6
66.7
Softball field
Athletic Field
2
4
50.0
Foundation Bed: Edible
3
6
50.0
Carissas,
Thunderdome
16
Commencement Lawn
Recreational Lawn
2
6
33.3
Side Lawn
Side Lawn
2
6
33.3
PSBN Lawn
Recreational Lawn
2
6
33.3
South Hall Ivy
Foundation Bed: Ornamental
1
6
16.7
lawn
Side Lawn
1
6
16.7
Storke Field
Athletic Field
1
6
16.7
1
6
16.7
Theater and Dance
Girvetz courtyard
Foundational Bed: California
Bioswale
Native
Table 7. Final Scores
Originally, we were planning on being able to rank the plots by their assigned
landscaping type. However, as the highest and lowest ecological value scores are both in the
same category, this does not seem possible. Too many factors must be taken into consideration,
such as the fact that the bioswale is so new that it probably has not yet had time to establish its
ecological functions yet. Additionally, there are other sustainable features of the landscape that
were not accounted for in this study. For example, the bioswale’s mechanical function of
capturing, slowing down, and filtering water was not taken into consideration. So even though
at this point in time it may not have a high ecological value score, it is still a sustainable
landscape performing very important functions.
What does seem to be rather apparent is that the plots with the highest ecological value
also have the highest diversity of plants. The top three scoring plots are also the plots with the
largest number of different plant species. The lawns and fields, although they had good soils,
overall did not score well.
Landscape Economic Analysis:
While RCL tested fourteen sample sites for their ecological value, the study was unable to
obtain maintenance cost information regarding the Chumash Garden and Bren Grasses.
Expenses were broken down into 5 major categories:
1. Irrigation
2. Machine Fuel
17
3. Labor
4. Machine Maintenance
5. Miscellaneous
Land Area
In addition to evaluating the overall costs of each landscape, it is important to analyze each plot
on a cost per square foot basis. This way, sample sites with different sizes are compared on the
same scale. To do this, RCL needed to measure the areas of the chosen testing locations. For the
Athletic and Recreational landscapes (Storke Fields, Softball Fields, PSBN Lawn, and
Commencement Lawn), the area was provided using GIS here at UCSB. For smaller sample
sites, RCL measured the area by measuring wheel and dividing the site up into simple
geometric shape. The following figures were used when calculating the cost per square feet of
the sample sites.
Storke Field
PSBN Lawn
Commencement Lawn
Softball Field
Bioswale
South Hall Ivy
Girvetz Side Lawn
Biostore
Theatre and Dance Side
Lawn
Cheadle Hall
Clivias
Chumash Garden
Carissas
Land Area (Sq Ft)
392612
89018
52463
40896
7882
5069
3582
2078
1173
953
675
670
411
1. Irrigation Costs
For this section, RCL obtained water meter statistics from Superintendent of Grounds, Rai
Calderon, to calculate the amount of water being used on the landscapes.
Methodology
There are two types of water used to irrigate the landscapes on campus, potable and reclaimed.
In 2010-2011, the average cost of potable water was $0.005349 per gallon and reclaimed water
was $0.006316 per gallon. The cost of potable water was relatively constant through the year
18
while the price of reclaimed was more varied. These rates were applied to the amount of
potable or reclaimed water used on each plot.
The volume of water required to irrigate each sample spot was calculated by combining (1) the
average number of minutes the sprinkler system was on a month and (2) the gallons per minute
the particular sprinkler nozzles distributed to the landscape. The majority of the spray heads
were Rain Bird sprinklers with a water flow rate within a range of 0.39-1.3 gallons per minute.
Data
At the time of the research project, the Commencement Lawn was not being watered because of
flooding so there was no data regarding the water cost of that plot.
Softball Field
Carissas
Clivias
Cheadle Hall
Storke Field
Theatre and Dance Side Lawn
Bioswale
South Hall Ivy
PSBN Lawn
Girvetz Side Lawn
Biostore
Commencement Lawn
Water Usage per Area
(Gal per Sq Ft)
74
14
7
4
3
3
1
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
n/a
Type of Landscape
Athletic
Edible
Ornamental
Teaching
Athletic
Side
CA Native
Ornamental
Recreational
Side
Teaching
n/a
Analysis
In terms of irrigation, the Athletic Fields consumed the majority of the water used by
landscapes in the study. The Softball Field and Storke Fields, covers approximately 80% of the
total area studied in the project but uses 98% of all the water recorded by RCL. The Softball
Field irrigation usage, at 74 gal per sq ft, is significantly higher than any of the other plots.
2. Machine Fuel Costs
RCL calculated the costs of fuel used to operate the consistent maintenance machinery.
Methodology
19
The machines used in the upkeep of the landscapes are separated into categories, mowers and
handheld power tools. Only the Athletic Fields, Recreational Fields, and Side Lawns required
frequent and significant amounts of machine use for their annual upkeep.
Mowers refer to the riding lawn mowers where the operator sits atop the machine, and does not
include the common household push mowers. The groundskeepers occasionally use the walk
behind mowers to cut the areas that the riding mowers can’t reach, however that cost was too
insignificant to record. In terms of riding lawn mowers, the two main models used are the Toro
4100-D model, with a wider deck, and the Toro-325D. The 4100-D used to mow the Athletic
Fields and Recreational Lawns has an average fuel consumption of 1.57 gallons per hour. The
325-D used on the Theatre and Dance Side Lawn and Girvetz Courtyard Lawn has an average
fuel consumption of 1.4 gallons per hour. The red dye diesel the mower run on cost $3.39 per
gal at the time of this report.
The handheld power tools the groundskeepers operate consist of: leaf blowers, weed whips,
and lawn edgers, and sweepers or debris movers. On average these machines have a fuel
consumption of 0.25 gallons per hour. The gasoline applied to these tools in this study was an
estimated annual value of $3.50 per gallon.
Data
$1,400
Yearly Machine Fuel Costs
$1,200
$1,000
$363
$800
$600
$400
$360
$806
$200
$346
$Athletic
Recreational
Mower
Handheld
$76
$122
Side
Analysis
The study shows that the fuel costs for mowing and maintaining a particular area of grass is
related to the size of the lawn. In general, the mowing fuel usage was greater than the hand
machinery fuel consumption. The only exception was found at the PSBN Lawn, where the
handheld power tools were used more actively than mowers. A possible explanation for the
increased cost is the abundance of lighting fixtures and trees on the lawn. With scattered
20
obstacles on the landscape, the groundskeepers must go to individual objects and trim around
the base. This necessity creates the increased amount of time used on handheld power tools.
Also, the PSBN Lawn is surrounded by sidewalks, which have to be cleared of all the debris
from mowing. The other grasses have less sidewalks around them so do not require as much
time with the blowers.
The Softball Field was also a unique case because it required machine time to maintain than
other lawns with a greater area. This may be due to the fact that the Softball Field is used for
athletic competitions and must be kept up to a better standard. There are regulations that
require the grass may be cut more often to ensure that it is kept at an acceptable height and
playing condition, whereas the other lawns do not have to meet these demands.
3. Labor Costs
In order to obtain the labor costs of the specific landscapes RCL is researching, the RCL team
met and interviewed the head of campus facilities at UCSB, the zone leads of campus facilities,
and the zone team individuals who maintain the RCL sample plots.
Methodology
The RCL firstly met with the head of campus facilities, Jon Cook, for the contact information of
the zone leads of campus facilities. The RLC team also discussed with Jon Cook the best
strategies for gathering information the team can use to efficiently find the labor and
maintenance cost of each sample plot.
The RCL team then contacted and met with the zone leads and zone team members. The team
interviewed each zone lead and zone team members that maintain the sample plots RCL is
researching. After the interviewing each member the RCL team determined the average hours
per week campus facilities dedicates to maintain to each sample plot. RCL then calculated the
cost of labor to maintain each sample plot per year by adding up the total hours dedicated to
each plot per year and multiplying the hours by the average campus facilities worker’s wage.
The following is the cost of labor to maintain each sample plot based on the average hours
dedicated to each plot per year and the average wage of a campus facilities worker:
Sample Plot
Land Area (Sq
Ft)
Hours/Week
Hours/ Year
Cost of Labor/Year
Cost/Sq Ft
Storke Field
12.25
637
$10,192.00
392,612.00
0.03
PSBN Lawn
10.5
546
$8,736.00
89,018.00
0.10
Softball Field
5.23
277
$4,426.24
40,896.00
0.11
21
Commencement Lawn
4.42
230
$3,674.67
52,463.00
0.07
Girvetz Side Lawn
3.33
173
$2,767.79
3,582.00
0.77
3
156
$2,496.00
7,882.00
0.32
2.67
139
$2,218.67
5,069.00
0.44
Cheadle Hall
2
204
$1,664.00
953.00
1.75
Clivias
1
52
$832.00
675.00
1.23
Biostore
1
52
$832.00
2,078.00
0.40
0.5
26
$416.00
411.00
1.01
0.25
0
13
0
$208.00
$0.00
117.33
528.33
1.77
0
Bioswale
South Hall Ivy
Carrissas
Theatre and Dance Side
Lawn
Chumash Garden
In order to retrieve accurate figures, the RCL team also requested each laborer record all the
hours, tasks, and equipment used to maintain each sample plot in a time-log for the period of
one week. The RCL found that the results collected from the interviews and time-logs are very
similar. The following this the labor costs calculated using the data collected from the time-logs:
Analysis
The data shows that the although it is costlier overall to maintain large opens lawns and athletic
fields such as Storke Field, smaller sample plots such as the foundation bed near Cheadle hall
are more expensive to maintain per square feet because small foundation beds require more
hours of maintenance, resulting in higher labor expense.
There is significant difference between the area in square feet of the sample plot of Clivias and
the Biostore, but both sample plots have the same labor costs. The Clivias requires more
maintenance and labor although it occupies a smaller area than the Biostore because clivias
require special maintenance since they are a delicate non-native flower species from Southern
Africa.
The Chumash Garden occupies an area larger than the Carrissas and the Theatre and Dance
Side Lawn. The reason the Chumash Garden has no labor costs must be due to the fact that it is
a California native plant. The difference in the cost of maintaining a sustainable native species
22
and a high maintenance species is evident in the data. Maintaining non-native species is costlier.
The labor cost of maintaining Clivias is $1.23 per square feet, while the cost of maintaining the
Chumash garden is $0 per square feet. Planting sustainable native species will require less
maintenance and labor and will ultimately cost less than planting non-natives species.
4. Machine/Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs include the cost of machinery, machine repairs, and equipment used to
maintain each sample plots.
Methodology
To fine the machine and maintenance costs of each sample plot, the RCL team interviewed the
zone leads and zone teams that work on each plot. Through the interviews, RCL determined
which machines and equipment were used to maintain each plot. The RCL team also gave the
workers a time-log to record the hours, tasks, and equipment used to maintain each sample plot
for one week. Every time the zone laborers worked on the plots, they recorded the amount of
time that each laborer spent doing a task and what machine was used during the task. The
following are tasks that zone laborers do frequently and the amount of time they spend on each
task:
tasks
Edging
Weeding Blowing
Pick-up
Trash
Mowing Sweeping Trimming
Raking
sample plots
Storke Field
x
4
4
3
2.25
2
x
x
PSBN Lawn
1
1.5
3
4
0.5
0.5
x
x
Softball Field
1
2
1
x
0.66
0.66
x
x
Commencement Lawn
0.083
0.25
0.08
1
1.5
1.5
x
x
Girvetz Side Lawn
0.17
2
0.5
x
0.33
0.33
x
x
Bioswale
x
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
South Hall Ivy
x
0.33
0.33
x
x
x
1
1
Clivias
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
Biostore
x
x
x
x
x
x
0.5
0.5
Carissas
Theatre and Dance Side
Lawn
x
x
x
0.5
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0.25
x
x
0.25
x
Cheadle Hall
23
Chumash Garden
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
The following is the amount of hours/square feet that each laborer spends maintaining the
sample plot:
Sample Plot
Storke Field
PSBN Lawn
Softball Field
Commencement Lawn
Girvetz Side Lawn
Bioswale
South Hall Ivy
Cheadle Hall
Clivias
Biostore
Carrissas
Theatre and Dance Side
Lawn
Chumash Garden
Hours/Week
Hours/ Year
Area (Sq Ft)
12.25
10.5
5.23
4.42
3.33
3
2.67
2
1
1
0.5
637
546
277
230
173
156
139
204
52
52
26
392,612.00
89,018.00
40,896.00
52,463.00
3,582.00
7,882.00
5,069.00
953
675
2,078.00
411
0.25
13
117.33
0
0
528.33
Hours/Sq
Ft (year)
0.001622
0.006134
0.006773
0.004384
0.048297
0.019792
0.027422
0.214061
0.077037
0.025024
0.06326
0.110799
0
The repair cost of machines was mostly all due to lawn mowers. Lawn mowers depreciate and
frequently need repair. To find the cost of lawn mower depreciation and repair, the RCL team
met with the head of campus facilities, Jon Cook, who had access to facilities equipment records.
The following are the depreciation for lawn mowers:
Depreciation
new big mower: $5400/year
Repair
big mower: $300/ month
small mower: $20/month
Analysis
The sample plots that take the most time to maintain overall are the large lawns but
small foundation plots require more time to maintain per square feet. The time dedicated to
maintain a square foot of a foundation bed such as the Clivias is less than the time dedicated to
maintain a square foot of a lawn such as Storke field. The reason foundation beds require more
24
time is because they require more special maintenance. Maintaining foundation beds require
raking, weeding, and trimming while lawns do not. Although large lawns take more time to
maintain, they are cheaper to sustain than foundation beds per square feet. Foundation beds
require more care per square footage than lawns.
5. Miscellaneous Costs
Miscellaneous costs also include the cost of pest control and the cost of herbicide for the softball
field.
Methodology
The RCL team obtained the cost of pest control by contacting Jon Cook, the head of campus
facilities. Cook gave RCL the total facilities cost of pest control. The RCL team then calculated
the costs of pest control for each sample plots by dividing the total cost by the square feet of all
the sample plots. The cost of pest control for the sample plots is 0.0021 per square feet.
The RCL team was able to find the cost of herbicide through financial records of campus
facilities. These records were provided by Jon Cook as well. The cost of herbicide for the
softball field is $1,025/ year.
Conclusion
The final analysis will combine the irrigation, machine, labor, extra costs and evaluate the
landscapes on a per square feet basis.
Total Cost ($)
Irrigation
Machine Fuel
Labor
Miscellaneous
7%
37%
53%
3%
25
Looking at the overall picture, labor costs had the biggest impact on the cost of maintaining an
area. About half of all the cost put into the landscapes was labor fees. Next most costly was
water used for irrigation taking up 37% of the total costs. The 9% miscellaneous costs include,
machine depreciation, pest control, and tasks specific to that sample site. The fuel used to
operate the machinery was the least costly activity in the report. Labor is clearly the driving
factor on the amount of cost to maintain each property.
Data
Overall Cost
Land Area (Sq
Cost per Sq Ft
($)
Ft)
($)
1690
953
1.77
860
675
1.27
420
411
1.10
25680
40896
0.63
1888
3582
0.53
2244
5069
0.44
840
2078
0.40
Cheadle Hall
Clivias
Carrissas
Softball Field
Girvetz Side Lawn
South Hall Ivy
Biostore
Theatre and Dance Side
Lawn
Bioswale
PSBN Lawn
Commencement Lawn
Storke Field
285
1743
10097
5598
22518
$1.20
1173
7882
89018
52463
392612
0.24
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.06
Type
Teaching
Ornamental
Edible
Athletic
Side
Ornamental
Teaching
Side
CA Native
Recreational
Recreational
Athletic
Cost per Sq Ft
$1.02
$1.00
$0.83
Grass Lawns
Foundation Beds
$0.80
$0.60
$0.54
$0.46
$0.40
$0.22
$0.20
$0.11
$0.06
$-
26
Breaking down the plots by type we see that the large lawns took the lease amount of money
per area to maintain. Grass lawns were in general cheaper to maintain compared to foundation
beds. The reason that grass is cheaper to maintain is because they tend to require more
irrigation and machine input in proportion to human labor. Water tends to be relatively cheap
and machines are able to cover large areas of grass in a short amount of time. As mentioned
earlier in the report, the main variable on the maintenance cost of a landscape is the amount of
labor hours. The human landscaping time spent on foundation beds could be significantly
reduced if there wasn’t as much time dedicated to picking up trash in the plot.
Grass lawns remain a popular landscape choice on campus because of the vast amount of area it
can cover and the relative ease for groundskeepers to maintain the area. These two factors
combine to make grass the least costly type of landscape on campus.
Survey Research:
As part of Rethinking Campus Landscapes, we conducted two different surveys
targeting affect towards and values of campus landscapes. Five questions about landscapes
were added on to the annual Sustainability Survey conducted by the UCSB Social Science
Survey Center. The Sustainability Survey was taken by the faculty, staff, and graduate students
of campus as referred to as campus elders throughout the report. With the help of Campus
Tours, we were able to survey tour-takers about landscapes. Tour-takers included prospective
students along with their parents. The two surveys differed, and the undergraduate population
was not surveyed.
The first question asked on the survey aimed towards getting information on people’s
affect towards the campus landscapes.
Tour-Takers
70
60
50
40
%
30
Tour-Takers
20
10
0
5
4
3
2
1
Attractiveness of Campus
27
Campus Elders
45
40
35
30
%
25
20
Campus Elders
15
10
5
0
A lot
Somewhat
Neither
Dislike
Dislike a
somewhat
Lot
Liking of Campus Landscapes
Generally, the landscapes on campus are liked and found to be attractive. A trend can be seen
that with more experience and time being surrounded by campus landscapes, the affect
decreases, but still tends to be positive.
The next two questions differed on the survey. Starting with the tour-takers, we asked
them about the importance of attractiveness and sustainability regarding their choice to attend a
college. 83.1% of tour-takers responded with yes when asked if the physical appearance in
regards to landscapes affects their decision to attend the school. A significant number of tourtakers found physical appearance to be a component that is considered in choosing a school.
Next, we asked if UCSB’s sustainability efforts affect their decision to attend the school, which
63.1% of respondents said yes to. The sustainability of the school affects a lower percentage of
people then the physical appearance of landscapes. However, a high percentage of people were
affected by UCSB’s sustainability efforts.
For the campus elders, we asked two questions geared more towards their experience and
knowledge of campus landscapes. They were first asked to rank their knowledge of sustainable
landscapes practices on campus. As shown below, the majority of campus elders find
themselves as having poor to fair knowledge of sustainable campus landscape practices.
28
8% Sustainable Landscape Practices
Self-Reported Knowledge of8,UCSB
30, 30%
26, 26%
37, 36%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Next we asked how landscapes were experienced and used. We gave them options and asked
them to check all uses and functions that applied to them.
100
How do you interact or use landscapes on campus?
90
80
70
60
%
50
40
30
20
10
0
Scenery when Place to sit and Quiet place to
walking around
interact
think or work
Recreation
Don't
notice/use
Landscapes are used by most of the surveyed faculty, staff, and graduate student populations.
Next we surveyed both campus elders and tour takers on what values campus should
prioritize for landscapes. Unfortunately, tour takers were not given the option of “supports
native species” and “storm water management.” Each survey displayed a list of values, and
participants were asked to check their top 3 values. The options listed were:
-Aesthetics
-Open Space for recreation and leisure activities
-Requires least amount of inputs/resources
-Creates healthy, diverse ecosystems
-Space to learn about plants and landscapes as an educational tool
-Edible plants and trees
-Supports native species (only on Sustainability Survey)
-Storm water management (only on Sustainability Survey)
29
90
Prioritizing Values
80
70
60
50
Percentage 40
(%)
30
Campus Elders
Tour-Takers
20
10
0
To those familiar to campus, landscapes that support native species, represent diverse
ecosystems, use of less resources, and are aesthetically pleasing are the most valued. To the
tour-takers, aesthetics, open space, and landscapes that don’t need as many resources were the
most valued. Landscapes as an educational tool and space for edible plants were the least
supported options. A reason we believe related to the lack of knowledge on landscapes capacity
to be learning tools or functional space to provide for snacks.
Lastly on the Sustainability survey, we showed the campus elders three pictures. The
pictures were shown and participants picked the landscape they thought was the most
sustainable landscape and the most aesthetically pleasing landscape out of the three. The two
questions were asked to see if the knowledge of the sustainability of a landscape had an effect
on what they found to be most aesthetically pleasing.
30
Pictures B and C are similar in their levels of sustainability as drought-tolerant plants, but
Picture B contains native cultivars of California. The similarities may confound the results.
Most Aesthetically Pleasing?
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
A
B
C
None
Most Sustainable?
100
90
80
70
%
Academic
60
Staff
50
Graduate Student
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
None
The UCSB Social Science Survey Center’s analyzed the data and found an upward trend for
individuals to find sustainable landscapes to be more aesthetically pleasing. However regarding
aesthetics, a third of respondents found the grass to be the most aesthetically pleasing despite a
low percentage of respondents finding the grass lawn to be sustainable.
Discussion:
At the start of this research project, we hypothesized that converting landscapes from
grass and ivy would be economically and ecologically beneficial because of the reduction in fuel
and machine usage coupled with increases in plant diversity. The goal was to reduce carbon
31
emissions through implementing landscapes that are not machine-intensive. Our hypothesis
was not fully supported by our research as we found that on average grass costs significantly
less to maintain compared to foundation beds. However, one location of foundation bed, the
Chumash Garden, effectively inquired a maintenance cost of zero. Our research did find that
conversions of lawn and ivy to more species-rich landscapes would be ecologically beneficial.
With cost being the more heavily weighed component to landscape decisions on campus, the
discussion will focus more on the maintenance costs. Overall, we discovered that grass was
overall cheaper, but was not the cheapest landscape on campus. The driving factor of cost of
landscapes was found to be the amount of human labor hours required by the landscape.
The Chumash Garden, consisting of native plants installed in 2008, was found to be the
cheapest landscape on campus as we could not attribute any maintenance to it. We were unable
to find one person on staff or at CCBER that maintained the landscape. We predicted the lowcost of the native foundation bed. Native plants are reasoned to require no maintenance due to
their adaptions to the area's climate. After establishment, native plants do not need to be
watered. Also, research shows how areas of higher diversity are more resistant to invasion
(Davis, Grime & Thompson, 2000). The diversity represented in the Chumash Garden as well as
other high diversity plots on campus are less likely to be invaded by weeds. High diversity
plots received the highest ecological scores through our research regarding wildlife and insect
use.
A variable missing from our research is the location of the landscape. Landscapes that
are more central to the major pathways on campus and that are viewed more are likely to be
maintained more. The focus of maintenance is unevenly distributed around campus. A reason
we believe may have to do with the maintenance cost of the Chumash Garden being essentially
zero. Another example would be of a landscape plot found next to the Biostore, amongst lots of
different buildings in a low trafficked area. The cost of the Biostore we found to be $0.40 per
square foot, in comparison to a foundation bed in front of Cheadle Hall that we found to cost
$1.77. The groundskeeper spent twice as much time at the foundation bed in front of Cheadle
Hall a week then at the Biostore plot. Location also plays a part in the amount of litter found on
a landscape plot. We found groundskeepers spent time picking up trash, and the level of
human traffic in an area as well as make-up of plants are likely to play a role in amount of trash.
The location of landscape influences the amount of time spent maintaining landscapes for
aesthetic purposes as well as time spent picking up trash.
A large landscape present on campus is grass. With machines, groundskeepers are able
to cover larger areas over shorter amounts of time. With no price for externalities such as carbon,
it is also a cheap landscape with the average cost of grass being $0.27 per square foot. The two
appear to be two separate methods of landscaping with the exception of the native plant bed.
32
There are 290, 648 meters of grass (athletic, recreational, side) on campus. The abundance of
grass does little to add to the dynamic capabilities of landscaping regarding plant diversity
especially in a Mediterranean climate. Another reason for the large presence of grass is its
ability to withstand the high-nutrient content of reclaimed water. Around 97% of campus
landscapes are watered with reclaimed water, and the university is under contract to use a
certain amount of reclaimed water. The mandate defers incentives to conserve water and
implement water-conservation landscapes. Grass thrives on the nutrient-rich water and requires
little attention to mitigate for the nutrient build-up in the soil. Lastly, grass caters to the people
who lounge on the grass, play Frisbee, and tend to trample on landscapes. Direct pathways do
little to deter people to not walk on landscapes. People are going in all different directions and a
good amount of them take the most direct path they are able to. We found grass to serve the
functions of a campus being watered with reclaimed water, and with a limited budget quite
well.
Grass brings up debates on economic sustainability versus environmental sustainability.
Sustainability aims to ensure resources are available to future generations while fulfilling
present needs. Grass represents a landscape choice that aims to fulfill solely the needs of
humans, a largely anthropocentric approach. Human society has destroyed and damaged so
many ecosystems and natural areas, that a process serving only humans and requiring inputs
such as machines and fuel is seen as widely unsustainable. However, that choice was found to
be cheaper. Morally,we feel resources should be designated to humans as opposed to fuel and
machines. Landscapes with higher plant diversity are ecologically beneficial, but require more
human hours to maintain. Lowering human labor costs associated to such landscapes is the key
to making what ecological economical.
Recommendations:
Decreasing human labor costs of high diversity plant beds would make ecologically
beneficial landscapes an economically more attractive choice. A few ways to lower the cost of
the plant beds would be to educate the campus community on the cost of litter. Through the
time-logs, we discovered that groundskeepers allocate time every week to picking up trash. By
reducing the amount of time groundskeepers' have to spend picking up trash, the cost of the
landscape plot will effectively decrease. Another way to lower the cost of human labor would
be to create programs on campus that involve the student body; labor is readily available at a
highly populated campus. Labor can be compensated for by meal plans, credit at corner stores,
volunteer hours or other privileges like a trip up Storke Tower. Paying for labor costs of
landscapes through meal plans would not increase costs to the campus because UCSB Dining
Services overproduce food, and make food waste. In essence, direct human labor costs to
landscapes can be reduced through programs that benefit student laborers in return of their
33
time spent maintaining their school. Creating more landscapes that require human labor would
benefit the school in numerous ways. Students would be more connected to their campus
through maintaining it. Learning about plants, and maintaining landscapes could provide
students with opportunities to discover, learn, and be outside. Also, food waste may be
reduced if the current level of food production continues and more students have access to the
food. Grass remains an important and vital landscape to a college campus, but increasing
dynamic foundation beds would provide ecological benefits and opportunities to students to be
involved in the process of how their school is run.
34