 |
 |
City Parks Water Conservation Project - Summary
In summer 2007, the City of Kelowna Parks Division selected 12 neighborhood parks and reduced irrigation schedules by 15 to 35 percent over historic levels that were known to keep the grass lush and green throughout summer months. This was an experiment in water conservation with two purposes: 1) to determine at what threshold irrigation could be withheld before the turf grass began to suffer, and 2) to measure the reaction of nearby residents to the anticipated aesthetic changes in turf quality. The irrigation schedules were changed in June and surveys were distributed to nearby homes in July, by which time the grass in all 12 parks had begun to go brown.At the time of the survey, 4 per cent of respondents thought the turf grass quality was excellent and 20 per cent thought it was good, while 24 percent thought it was average and 17 per cent thought it was poor. This contrasted with the respondent’s expectations for green grass: 50 per cent expressed high expectations or somewhat high expectations, and 40 per cent had medium expectations, with just 6 per cent having low expectations for green grass. When asked if, in the interests of water conservation, they would be willing to see the grass in their local park go brown, 43 per cent of respondents were not interested, 16 per cent said that they were somewhat willing, and 30 per cent said they don’t mind a little brown grass, as long as it is not allowed to die. Only 2 per cent would be willing to see all the grass go brown. These responses indicate that residents living near neighborhood parks in Kelowna have relatively high expectations for green grass, and that those expectations were not being met when the grass in their park was allowed to go brown during the experiment. An overwhelming majority (92 per cent) of respondents said that water conservation was important or very important, and 76 per cent agreed that the Parks Division should look at more ways to conserve water, but there was disagreement on how this could be accomplished. Only 29 per cent of respondents said they would be willing to support a tax increase to help fund parks water conservation initiatives. Of course, letting grass go brown is not the only way for the parks division to save water. 46 per cent of respondents said they would be willing to support changes to the look of their park in the interests of water conservation, changes which could include removing grass, Xeriscaping, and creating more natural areas. An additional 28 per cent of respondents said they might be willing to support these kinds of changes if affected residents were given the opportunity to view proposed plans. One anonymous respondent provided this comment, which was echoed by several other respondents: In my opinion, if you decide to plant grass in a park, it should be kept green. However, I feel that the number of parks using grass should be dramatically reduced. Perhaps some could be grass while others could be xeriscaped or left in a natural state. I rarely see the grass used for play so we really don’t need so much of it. With more Xeriscaping and less grass we could keep the grass green and save water at the same time. The Kelowna experiment revealed that residents are concerned about the image of their neighborhoods, and many are not willing to see neighborhood parks go brown in fear that it will reduce the value of their homes. One respondent noted that they bought their house because it overlooked a beautiful park, and they are not willing to see any changes whatsoever. Residents also believe green parks make Kelowna beautiful and attract tourists to the area. Another resident commented that she would not like to see the city turn into a desert, which is ironic considering that Kelowna is, in fact, located in a desert. City Parks Water Conservation Project - Details
PurposeIn summer 2007 The City of Kelowna’s Water Smart program conducted a study of twelve parks in the City of Kelowna. The purpose of this project was to 1) see how the turf in the parks would respond to water reductions up to 35% below their historical irrigation levels, 2) conduct irrigation audits to test the efficiency of the irrigation systems and 3) survey public opinions and attitudes about these changes. Methodology The Parks Department chose twelve parks to reduce the historical irrigation levels by the figures listed below Table 1- Sample
Parks used in Parks Water Conservation Study
*Parks excluded from survey results section due to the flaw in the original survey methodology.
Results The results of the project came through general observation of the parks by Water Smart staff, along with quantitative data from the irrigation audits and surveys. Observations Water Smart staff observed the parks in early July. All turf areas had brown patch areas, none of which seemed to be related to the reduction in the percentage of irrigation water.
Parks Water Audits After completing the Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor course, Water Smart staff conducted irrigation audits at all twelve parks in the study sample. The purpose was to identify problems in the distribution uniformity of the irrigation system and suggest ways to make it run more efficiently to give the grass exactly the amount of water it needs. Methodology All water audits were conducted during the day between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm when wind speed was less than 5 km per hour. 20 catch devices were totaling 88 square inches were placed in a grid within the test area. Test areas were chosen based on available valves and open areas that were not obstructed by vegetation or signs etc. All tests were run for 10 minutes. Many test areas consisted of two zones, in which case each zone ran for 10 minutes. Pressure and rotation time was recorded during the test, and volume of water was recorded after the test. Thatch layer Thatch is the layer of decomposing grass and roots between the soil and living grass. A half inch of thatch is beneficial to the lawn by shading the soil and roots, providing insulation, inhibiting weed germination and cushioning the grass. An excess of thatch (more than 0.5 inch) can reduce water and nutrient penetration into the soil and block oxygen. Shallow watering and excessive fertilizing can result in increased thatch, which causes turf to dry out faster than they would with a normal thatch layer. Distribution Uniformity A sprinkler system with good distribution uniformity will have an almost equal amount of water distributed to every square foot of irrigated turf. Factors that can affect the distribution uniformity are damaged sprinkler heads, design and installation flaws, pressure changes, maintenance, spray interference and wind. Spacing is very important when designing an irrigation system to provide adequate head to head coverage to avoid areas with inadequate coverage. A good sprinkler system consisting of rotating heads should have a distribution uniformity of 70%. The following table lists the calculated distribution uniformity from our audits. Table 2- Parks
Water Audit Comparison
Winslow Park There was minor overspray on some of the rotating heads, but other than that there were no problems. This park was the greenest compared to the rest of the Kettle Valley parks, which is interesting since it received the highest water reduction of 35%. Providence Park The extremely low DU was due to the audit catch devices not catching much water near the sidewalk. It may be higher in other areas of the park. The large open areas of the park were very dry. Jewel Park The park consisted of rotating heads as well as a small section f vegetation on spray heads. Although the DU was good, the overall look of the park is very dry and yellow. Duggan Park The entire park consists of rotating heads in long lines of 8 or 9 heads. There was one broken head in the park, which looked like it had been vandalized. There were no problems with the heads in the test zone. Sonora Park No major problems identified. Only the slope was slightly brown at the time of the audit. Caro Park The only problem was the spray being blocked by the sign and mailbox causing dry areas. There were also dry areas along the cement of the basketball court. Millard Glen Park There are pressure issues relating to initial installation of the park. Neighbors are demanding something be done to allow a proper head to head coverage, which was not the case at this park. There are large brown areas on slopes and where the heads don’t reach, but there are also some very lush green areas. Newport Glen Park The multiple trees within the test area blocked the spray by the rotors creating a shadow effect and some inconsistent watering. The 180 degree heads along the side fence are putting out much more water, explaining the low distribution uniformity. Cross Glen Park There was decent head to head coverage in the test area, but again, inconsistencies between the 180 degree heads along the tennis courts and the 360 degree heads in the open area. Wigglesworth Park The low DU was due to one head that was not rotating. When we removed this number from the calculations, the DU was 77%. There was also overspray onto the fence and neighboring properties. Sumac Park The park irrigation system was in good condition besides slight overspray by a few heads onto the road. Hartman Park There were two heads that did not rotate, which changed the distribution uniformity by quadrupling the water in one or two catch devices. There were large brown areas due to the two heads that did not rotate, and the slope was very dry and brown as well. Survey Response
The survey results do not include online survey results from Duggan, Millard Glen and Cross Glen Parks. For the remaining nine parks, we had a total response rate of 42%, with the highest response rate from residents around Sonora Park (62%) and Caro Park (50%). The surveys revealed some interesting trends throughout all the parks around the City. All the surveys were handed out in July 2008 during the heat wave. Due to changing weather conditions, the look of the parks has changed since these surveys were filled. The following sections are ordered by question sequence on the surveys. Residential Park Use The majority of respondents visit their neighborhood park a few times a week, although 23% of respondents never visit the park but see it often. The main reasons all the parks were visited were for walking and playing. Rutland parks were visited less often on a daily or weekly basis than all other parks. Turf Grass Quality and Expectations 4% of respondents thought the turf grass quality in their park was excellent, 28% thought it was good, and 17% believed it was of poor quality at the time of the survey. Generally, respondents at all nine parks have high or somewhat high expectations in terms of green grass at their neighborhood park. In the interest of water conservation, respondents were asked if they would be willing to see the grass in their local park go brown. 43% of respondents are not interested in seeing their park go brown, although 30% said they don’t mind a little brown grass, but don’t want to see it die. 46% of respondents would be willing to support changes to the look of their park in the interest of water conservation, which could include removing grass, xeriscaping and creating more natural areas. This shows a willingness to change their attitudes towards parks to include more vegetation other than turf grass. 28% of respondents would also be willing to support these changes after they had viewed proposed plans for this alteration. Keep it green or let it go brown 57% of respondents believe that there are parks in the City of Kelowna that absolutely must be green such as waterfront parks, major City parks and sports fields. Many of the comments suggested that any park with turf grass should be kept green for everyone’s enjoyment and for aesthetic reasons. If there is going to be grass, it better be kept green. It is interesting to note that when asked if there are other parks in the City that could be allowed to go brown, many people said yes and suggested parks where tourists would not be visiting, such as neighborhood parks and dog parks. Contradicting this statement though, is the fact that most of these people suggested that their neighborhood park had to stay green but others could go brown. Views on Water Conservation When asked how important water conservation is to them personally, the overwhelming response from respondents was that it was important (32%), somewhat (29%) or very important (31%). Many people noted the things they do personally to save water, such as take shorter showers, turn the taps off when brushing their teeth and watering their lawn at night rather than during the day. But it seemed that people’s opinions of conserving water varied when extending to parks. 76% of respondents agreed that the Parks Department should look at more ways to conserve water, but people are not willing to see grass go brown to save water. Their suggestions range from ideas about irrigations scheduling such as watering at night and for shorter periods of time, to removing grass and planting more drought tolerant plants or alternatives to turf, to controlling development and population increase. But only 29% of respondents believed that a tax increase would be acceptable to allow for more water conservation measures by the City’s Parks Department. Conclusions
The park audits revealed slightly low distribution uniformities, which with minor adjustments could be brought up to at least 70% at each park. Some inconsistencies, such as broken or non rotating heads causing dry areas, found during the audits can be reflected by residential concern in the parks surveys.
This survey has revealed that people are very concerned with their neighborhood image, especially those respondents that overlook or back onto their neighborhood park. These people are not willing to see the park go brown in fear that it will reduce the value of their homes and neighborhood. One respondent noted that they bought their house because it overlooked a beautiful park, and they are not willing to see any changes happen to it whatsoever. People also see green parks as a sense of beauty. One respondent from Kettle Valley noted that “having beautiful parks is what makes Kelowna beautiful”. Many people feel that our green parks are what attract tourists to this area and we need to keep it that way. But people are not averse to seeing more xeriscaped and natural parks; they just don’t want to see brown grass. To quote a respondent from Winslow Park in Kettle Valley “In my opinion, if you decide to plant grass in a park, it should be kept green. However I feel the number of parks using grass should be dramatically reduced.” People are willing to see water conservation measures put into action, but it does not include seeing our lush green parks turn brown. Recommendations
We need to deal with three issues; 1) the problems of thatch build up, poor soil and shallow roots, 2) irrigation system maintenance and 3) Replace grass with natural and drought resistant plants.
|