Downloads.Gigl.Org.Uk/Website/Parks People and Nature1.Pdf 8 Flores, T

AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF

Michelle Lee Talal for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science presented on May 7, 2019

Title: Exploring Urban Parks: Plant Communities, Visitor Experiences, and Manager Perspectives in Portland, Oregon

Abstract approved: ______Mary V. Santelmann

Urban parks are biodiversity hotspots within cities and have the potential to provide a range of socio-cultural benefits for people, but may not always meet the needs and desires of park visitors. A variety of land use practices and environmental factors affect urban park biodiversity and vegetation structure, composition, and ecological function, but more studies are needed to compare plant taxonomic composition, biodiversity patterns, and species traits across different types of urban green spaces. Additionally, there is a lack of research that explores park user experiences, vegetation perceptions, and accessibility issues in a range of urban park types interspersed throughout Portland using qualitative methods to observe and interview visitors on-site. More research is also needed that focuses on interviewing park managers about their perspectives on park benefits and management. The findings of my interdisciplinary dissertation may assist managers in their aims to achieve various ecological goals, as well as meet the needs and desires of park visitors within increasingly developed urban areas. The purpose of this research is three-fold, and includes examining: 1) The relationships between plant community

composition, biodiversity patterns, environmental variables, and species traits in a range of urban parks in Portland, Oregon; 2) how the vegetation in these urban parks currently meets the needs and desires of visitors; and 3) how park managers currently manage vegetation in the parks to meet the needs and desires of visitors. We used a stratified random sampling design to select 15 urban parks of different types based on use, which included natural-passive use parks, recreational-active use parks, and multi-use parks. Multivariate analyses were used to explore plant composition data and associations. One-way analysis of variance was used to test hypotheses about variables associated with diversity. Significant differences in plant species richness and biodiversity indices were found between different park types. More native species were found in natural-passive use parks than other park types, more non-native species were found in multi-use parks than other park types, and more invasive species were found in natural passive-use parks than in recreational-active use parks.

Attributes such as natural-passive use park type, wetland habitat, steep slopes, native species origin, non-native species origin, and vine and tree plant forms were most strongly correlated with the non-metric multidimensional scaling ordination, indicating that they exert the strongest influence on species abundance and distribution. These findings may assist managers in their aims to promote native species cover, reduce invasive species presence, or achieve additional management goals. For the second research question, I used qualitative research methods, including observation and semi-structured interviews, with 43 park visitors in the same 15 urban parks. Vegetation was often related to the reasons why people visited parks, which sometimes varied based on park type. Plants influenced how accessible

the park was to some participants, including sufficient maintenance along trails/paths, shade, and/or open space. Across park types, visitors discussed trees, plant size, colors, and diversity as their favorite aspects of the plants. Trees were especially important to recreational-active use and multi-use park visitors who commented on their size and shade. Plant diversity appeared to be more important to natural-passive use and multi-use park visitors than those of recreational-active use parks. While the plants met the preferences of many visitors, more than half of them recommended changes. The recreational-active use and multi-use parks visitors wanted more colorful vegetation, flowers, middle-growth/shrubs, and improved placement of plants, while visitors of natural-passive use parks wanted removal of invasive and/or harmful plants. Overall, the participant demographics were relatively similar to

Portland, but differed in terms of park type (e.g., fewer women and racial/ethnic minority individuals in natural-passive use parks), which implied that the range of potential socio-cultural benefits of parks may not be shared equitably. Managers should consider these findings to improve urban parks and vegetation planning and maintenance. Management actions are needed to better integrate plant preferences into park design and improve accessibility for women, ethnic/racial minorities, and individuals with disabilities. For the third research question, I conducted a total of 21 semi-structured interviews with managers of the same 15 parks. I also used a mixed methods approach to evaluate the manager interviews alongside the visitor interviews and quantitative plant community composition data collected at the parks. Non-metric multidimensional scaling ordinations were created to evaluate perspectives of plant management that were most strongly correlated with different urban parks. The

managers’ favorite aspects of plant management were related to maintenance (e.g., weed/invasive management) across park types and ecosystem management in natural- passive use parks. Most managers indicated they would not make changes to plant management, but others discussed improving maintenance, increasing staffing, adding plants, updating infrastructure, and improving species selection. The ways in which managers perceived how visitors interacted with the vegetation and visitor comments influenced many plant choices and/or design such as eliminating hiding/camping places, improving aesthetics, selecting hearty plants to withstand trampling, and removing hazardous plants. However, not all visitor feedback from previous interviews was fully represented in the park visitor comments provided to managers, which implies that managers should solicit more feedback. Managers also described limitations such as funding and budget, staff resources, and unfavorable visitor behaviors that prevented them from managing in the ways they might prefer.

There are opportunities to meet both the needs of managers and visitors by continuing to manage trails/paths in natural-passive use parks, removing weeds/invasive plants in all park types, and selecting a diversity of plants for recreational-active use and multi- use parks that have more color and flowers, but are also more climate-adapted, disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and/or provide habitat for pollinators. Future research should investigate how manager and visitor preferences can be better integrated to maximize ecosystem services and benefits for both people and the environment. Ultimately, it is important to increase communication and collaboration between government agencies, non-profit organizations, and community members, as well as continue to invest in the many social and ecological benefits of urban parks.

Exploring Urban Parks: Plant Communities, Visitor Experiences, and Manager Perspectives in Portland, Oregon

by Michelle Lee Talal

A DISSERTATION

submitted to

Oregon State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Presented May 7, 2019 Commencement June 2019

Doctor of Philosophy dissertation of Michelle Lee Talal presented May 7, 2019

APPROVED:

Major Professor, representing Environmental Science

Director of the Environmental Sciences Graduate Program

Dean of the Graduate School

I understand that my dissertation will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my dissertation to any reader upon request.

Michelle Lee Talal, Author

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to the Urban Water Innovation Network (UWIN) National Foundation

Grant Award #1444758 for providing financial support for my research, and to the organizations that also provided support for writing my dissertation, software, equipment, travel grants, training, and/or conference registration grants to present my research: Oregon State University Graduate School, Oregon State University

Environmental Science Graduate Program, Oregon State University Department of

Geography (Muckelston Award), Oregon State University Coalition of Graduate

Employees, Ecological Society of America Student Section, and University of

Washington Botanic Gardens. Many thanks to the City of Portland, who authorized research permit #1484773 for data collection on park properties, as well as the many thoughtful urban park visitors and Portland Parks and Recreation staff who shared their perspectives and time with me.

I am grateful for the many professors, committee members (Dr. Mary Santelmann

[advisor], Dr. Jonathan Kaplan, Dr. Robert Kennedy, Dr. Vivek Shandas, and Dr.

Jenna Tilt), fellow graduate students, and my undergraduate biology students who helped me grow as an environmental scientist and teacher during my time at Oregon

State University. Dr. Mary Santelmann has been an incredible mentor and met with me weekly to discuss research ideas, provide encouragement, and keep me motivated!

Thank you to Dr. Santelmann and Dr. Jenna Tilt for helping to develop my semi- structured interview questions and providing validation of my interview data codebooks, as well as to Dr. Bruce McCune for his multivariate statistics advice.

I appreciate all of my dear friends who helped during my data collection: Hattie

Greydanus, Samuel Hedine, Grant Loomis, Hadas Moalem, Daniel Pearl, Sylvia

Singer, Stevie Taylor, Michael Tchintcharauli-Harrison, and Ariel Willey. Thank you to Dr. Mauricio Dorfman-Pesso for translating the interview materials into Spanish, and to Hannah Herman for being a joy to chat with between site visits. And last, but not least, thank you to my amazing parents, Gennady and Irina, sister Annette, grandmother Celia, baby (puppy) brother Pufik, my extended family, and all the incredible friends from near and far that are endlessly supportive, entertaining, and continue to make life more beautiful and wonderous! I love you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 Chapter 1 – General Introduction.………….……….……………………………1 1.1 General Introduction.……………………………………...…………….. 1 1.2 References...……………………………………………….…………….. 5 2 Chapter 2 – Plant Community Composition and Biodiversity Patterns in Urban Parks of Portland Oregon……………………………………………………….. 7 2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………..10 2.2 Methods...………………………………………………………………..18 2.2.1 Study Area…………………………………………………...18 2.2.2 Research Sampling and Design…………………………….. 19 2.2.3 Data Structure………………………………………………. 21 2.2.4 Data Analysis……………………………………………….. 24 2.3 Results...………………………………………………………………… 26 2.3.1 Taxonomic Composition……………………………………. 26 2.3.2 Species Richness……………………………………………. 27 2.3.3 Diversity Indices……………………………………………. 29 2.3.4 Structural Complexity………………………………………. 31 2.3.5 Community Composition and Multivariate Analysis…...….. 31 2.4 Discussion...…………………………………………………………….. 38 2.5 Conclusions...…………………………………………………………… 44 2.6 Acknowledgements...…………………………………………………….45 2.7 References...……………………………………………….……………..46 3 Chapter 3 – Urban Park Visitor Experiences and Perceptions of Vegetation in Portland, Oregon…...………………….………………………………………....50 3.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………...…...53 3.2 Methods...... ……………………………………………………………..60 3.2.1 Study Area………………………………………………...... 60 3.2.2 Research Design……………………………………………..63 3.3 Results...…………………………………………………………………70 3.3.1 Overall Demographics...……………………………………..71 3.3.2 Natural-Passive Use Parks….………………………………..74 3.3.2.1 Demographics………………………………………..77 3.3.2.2 Reasons for Visiting and Accessibility…..…………..78 3.3.2.3 Vegetation Perceptions…..…………………………..80 3.3.2.3.1 What Visitors Liked About Plants..……...80 3.3.2.3.2 What Visitors Would Change about Plants……………………………………..82 3.3.3 Recreational-Active Use Parks...…………...………………..83 3.3.3.1 Demographics………………………………………..87 3.3.3.2 Reasons for Visiting and Accessibility…..…………..87 3.3.3.3 Vegetation Perceptions…..…………………………..90 3.3.3.3.1 What Visitors Liked About Plants..……...90

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

3.3.3.3.2 What Visitors Would Change about Plants…………………………………… 91 3.3.4 Multi-use Parks...…………...…...………………………….. 93 3.3.4.1 Demographics………………………………………..96 3.3.4.2 Reasons for Visiting and Accessibility…..…………..97 3.3.4.3 Vegetation Perceptions…..…………………………..99 3.3.4.3.1 What Visitors Liked About Plants..……...99 3.3.4.3.2 What Visitors Would Change about Plants…………………………………....101 3.3.5 Summary…………………………………………………....102 3.4 Discussion...…………………………………………………………….108 3.5 Limitations……………..……………………………………………….115 3.6 Conclusions...……………………………………………………...……116 3.7 Acknowledgements...………………………………………………...…119 3.8 References...……………………………………………… ……………121 4 Chapter 4 – Vegetation Management for Urban Park Visitors in Portland, Oregon…....…………………………………………………………………….125 4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………....128 4.2 Methods...………………………………………………………………132 4.2.1 Study Area………………………………………………….132 4.2.2 Research Design……………………………………………134 4.2.2.1 Qualitative Methods for Park Managers……………135 4.2.2.2 Mixed Methods……………………………………..140 4.2.2.2.1 Data Structure……...…………………...140 4.2.2.2.2 Data Analysis……...…………………....145 4.3 Results...………………………………………………………………..146 4.3.1 Park Manager Qualitative Results….………………..……..146 4.3.1.1 Natural-Passive Use Parks....………………..……...148 4.3.1.1.1 What Managers Liked About Plant Management….………………..……...... 149 4.3.1.1.2 What Managers Would Change About Plant Management ..…………..……...... 150 4.3.1.1.3 Manager Perspectives on Park Accessibility for Visitors ……..……...... 152 4.3.1.1.4 Manager Perspectives on How Visitors Interact with Plants..…………..……...... 153 4.3.1.1.5 Comments from Park Visitors About Plants……...….………………..…….....154 4.3.1.1.6 How Park Visitor Experience Influences Vegetation Management…..…..……...... 155 4.3.1.1.7 Limitations to Park Management…...... 157 4.3.1.2 Recreational-Active Use Parks.……………..……...159

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

4.3.1.2.1 What Managers Liked About Plant Management….………………..……...... 159 4.3.1.2.2 What Managers Would Change About Plant Management ..…………..……...... 161 4.3.1.2.3 Manager Perspectives on Park Accessibility for Visitors ……..……...... 163 4.3.1.2.4 Manager Perspectives on How Visitors Interact with Plants..…………..……...... 164 4.3.1.2.5 Comments from Park Visitors About Plants……...….………………..……...... 166 4.3.1.2.6 How Park Visitor Experience Influences Vegetation Management…..…..……...... 167 4.3.1.2.7 Limitations to Park Management…...... 169 4.3.1.3 Multi-use Parks…...... 170 4.3.1.3.1 What Managers Liked About Plant Management….………………..…….....171 4.3.1.3.2 What Managers Would Change About Plant Management ..…………..……...... 173 4.3.1.3.3 Manager Perspectives on Park Accessibility for Visitors ……..……...... 174 4.3.1.3.4 Manager Perspectives on How Visitors Interact with Plants..…………..……...... 176 4.3.1.3.5 Comments from Park Visitors About Plants……...….………………..……...... 177 4.3.1.3.6 How Park Visitor Experience Influences Vegetation Management…..…..……...... 178 4.3.1.3.7 Limitations to Park Management…...... 180 4.3.1.4 Summary of Park Manager Qualitative Results….....181 4.3.2 Mixed Methods Results…..…..………………………….....194 4.4 Discussion and Conclusions……….....…..………………………….....204 4.5 Limitations……….....…..…………………………...……………….....209 4.6 Acknowledgements……….....…..…………………………...……...... 210 4.7 References………...... …..…………………………...……...... 211 5 Chapter 5 – General Conclusions...………………….…………………………215 5.1 General Conclusions…...………………………………….……………215 5.2 References...……………………………………………….……………220 6 Bibliography.………………………………..……….…………………………221 7 Appendices.………………………………..……….…………………...……...229

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 Portland park study sites by type…………………….…………………………..20

2.2 Number of plant species by plant family………………………………….……..27

2.3 Number of plant species by park. ………………………………….……………28

2.4 Average number of plant species that were: (A) native, (B) non-native, (C) invasive, and (D) total for each park type (N – natural-passive use, M = multi- use, R = recreational-active use). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.….…………………………………………………………………….29

2.5 Hierarchical cluster analysis for the urban parks in species space…..…………..32

2.6 NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. Environmental variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines). .….………………………………..34

2.7 NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. Environmental variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines). .….………………………………..35

2.8 NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. Trait variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines)....….…………………………………………...36

2.9 NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. Trait variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines)...….…………………………………………....37

2.10 Hilltop plots for the presence/absence NMS ordination. Each colored area is a hilltop that shows the optima of a variable, and the multiple partially transparent hilltops show the overlap of variable optimas for (A) native, non- native, and invasive species, (B) herb, vine, sapling/shrub, and tree strata, (C) dicot, monocot, gymnosperm, fern, and horsetail, and (D) select invasive species...….…………………………………………...... 38

3.1. Age and gender demographic information of the 43 study participants…..…….72

3.2. Educational demographics of study participants………………………….…….73

3.3. Common reasons why participants visited all parks, and by park type....……..104

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Page

3.4. Common accessibility issues in all parks, and by park type…………..…..…...105

3.5. What participants commonly liked about plants in all parks, and by park type….….………………………………………...... 106

3.6. What participants commonly would change like to about plants in all parks, and by park type.…………………………………...... 108

4.1. Attributes that managers commonly liked about how the plants are managed in all parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) …...... 184

4.2. Attributes that managers commonly would like to change about how the plants are managed in all parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) .…...... 186

4.3. Visitor accessibility issues commonly perceived by managers in all of the parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) .………………………………….187

4.4. Comments that managers commonly receive from visitors about plants in all of the parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) .……………………...... 190

4.5. Common ways that visitor perception of plants influences plant choice and/or design in all parks and by park type (n = 21 interviews) .……………..192

4.6. Common limitations to managing the parks in the way the managers might prefer for all parks, and by park type (n = 21) .…………………...... 193

4.7. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. “Likes” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines)...………………………………………………………………………....195

4.8. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. “Likes” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).……………………………………………………………………....196

4.9. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. “Changes” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines)..………………………………………………………………...…....197

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Page

4.10. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. “Changes” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines). ………………………………………………………………...…....198

4.11. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. “Access” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).………………………………………………………………...….....199

4.12. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. “Access” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines)……...... 200

4.13. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. “Visitor Perception Influences Plant Mgmt” (Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines)…………………………………………...…...... 201

4.14. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. “Visitor Perception Influences Plant Mgmt” (Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).………………………………………....…...... 202

4.15. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. “Comments” and “Limitations” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines)………..………………………………….………...…...... 203

4.16. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. “Comments” and “Limitations” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines)…………...………………………………………...…...... 204

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Environmental variables, including habitat and park characteristics.………..23

2.2 Trait variables for plant species……………………………………………...23

2.3 Diversity indices for each park and park type (natural-passive use = N, multi-use = M, recreational-active use = R).. ……………………………… 30

2.4 Number of species and percentage of invasive, native, non-native, unknown, and total species by plant form (herbaceous, sapling/shrub, tree, vine). Eleven species occupy both sapling/shrub and tree strata…..…...31

3.1 Demographics information for Portland, all parks in the study, and by park type...………………………...... …………………...71

3.2 Common reasons why participants visited all parks, and by park type (not all subgroups for recreation and accessibility are shown)..…..………..103

3.3 Common accessibility issues in all parks, and by park type…..…..………..105

3.4 What participants commonly liked about the plants in all parks, and by park type. ……………….……………...... ………………….106

3.5 What participants commonly would like to change about plants in all parks, and by park type…….……………...... ………………….107

4.1 Park visitor interview response variables, including accessibility issues, what they liked or would like to change about the plants. (V) is for visitor response…………….……………...... ………………….142

4.2 Park manager interview response variables, including what they liked or would like to change about plant management, visitor accessibility issues, how visitor perceptions influenced plant management, and limitations. (M) is for manager response. …………...... …………………..144

4.3 Park visit, average number of years at Portland Parks and Recreation and in profession for park managers and by park type……………………..148

4.4 Attributes that managers commonly liked about how the plants are managed in all parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) ………….…....183

4.5 Attributes that commonly managers would like to change about how the plants are managed in all parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews)……..185

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

4.6 Visitor accessibility issues commonly perceived by managers in all of the parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) ………………………...... 187

4.7 Common manager perceptions of how visitors interact with plants in all the parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) ……………………...…….189

4.8 Comments that managers commonly receive from visitors about plants in all of the parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) …………………..190

4.9 Common ways that visitor perception of plants influences plant choice and/or design in all parks and by park type (n = 21 interviews) …………...191

4.10 Common limitations to managing the parks in the way the managers might prefer for all parks, and by park type (n = 21) ………………..……..193

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo Page

3.1 George Himes Park.………………………………………………………….75

3.2 Forest Park……………………………………………...... 75

3.3 Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge………..………………...... 76

3.4 Woods Memorial Natural Area………………………...... 76

3.5 Big Four Corners Natural Area………..………………...... 77

3.6 Wallace Park………..…………………………………...... 84

3.7 Brentwood Park….....…………………………………...... 85

3.8 North Swan Island Boat Ramp…………………..……...... 85

3.9 Jamison Square….....…………………………………...... 86

3.10 Khunamokwst Park…………………..……...... 86

3.11 Plaza Blocks…………………..……...... 94

3.12 Columbia Park…………………..……...... 94

3.13 Rose City Park…………………..……...... 95

3.14 Patton Square Park…………………..……...... 95

3.15 Ed Benedict Park…………………..……...... 96

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. Park Sampling Plots and Coordinates (SE Corner) ………………...... 230

B. Plant Species List …………………………………………………...... 232

C. Institutional Review Board Instrument for Park Visitors…………………….....239

D. Urban Park Visitor Responses for Analyzed Questions……………...... 252

E. Park Visitor Interview Codebook…...………………………………...... 279

F. Institutional Review Board Instrument for Park Managers...…………………...284

G. Park Manager Interview Codebook…..………………………………………....291

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate my dissertation in honor of my grandmother, Celia

Perelstein, and in memory of my grandparents, Iosef and Khaya Talal, and great- grandmother Mina Onikul. Their courage, faith, and good sense of humor allowed their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to have a better life and pursue their dreams.

Exploring Urban Parks: Plant Communities, Visitor Experiences, and Manager Perspectives in Portland, Oregon

Chapter 1:

General Introduction

1. CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1. General Introduction

Urban parks are biodiversity hotspots within cities (Alvey, 2006; Nielsen, van den

Bosch, Maruthaveeran, & van den Bosch, 2014; Savard, Clergeau, & Mennechez, 2000;

Threlfall et al., 2016) and have the potential to provide a range of socio-cultural benefits for people (Benedict & McMahon, 2012; Lovell & Taylor, 2013; Svendsen, Campbell, &

McMillen, 2016), but may not always meet the needs and desires of park visitors (Byrne,

2012; Frumkin et al., 2017; Weems, 2016). Managers of urban parks are often tasked with meeting the needs and desires of visitors while also maintaining the ecological function and quality of parks (Budruk, Center, & Manning, 2003). A variety of land use practices and environmental factors affect urban park biodiversity and vegetation structure, composition, and ecological function, but more studies are needed to compare plant taxonomic composition, structural complexity, and species traits across different types of urban green spaces (Threlfall et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2010). Additionally, there is a lack of research that explores park user experiences, vegetation perceptions, and accessibility issues in a range of urban park types using qualitative methods to observe and interview visitors on-site. More research is also needed that focuses on interviewing park managers about their perspectives on park benefits and management (Moyle,

Weiler, & Moore, 2014). The purpose of this interdisciplinary dissertation is three-fold, and includes examining:

• The relationships between plant community composition, biodiversity patterns,

environmental variables, and species traits by using a standardized data collection

method across a range of urban parks in Portland, Oregon; and to examine the

potential ways that different types of urban parks preserve native species and/or

harbor non-native and invasive species;

• How the vegetation in urban parks currently meets the needs and desires of

visitors by interviewing them about their experiences, perceptions of vegetation,

and accessibility on-site at a range of urban parks across Portland;

• How park managers currently manage vegetation to meet the needs and desires of

park visitors by interviewing managers of a range of urban parks across Portland.

To select the urban parks for this study, we used a stratified random sampling design to select 15 parks of different types based on use: 1) natural-passive use parks, 2) recreational-active use parks, and 3) multi-use parks (Weems, 2016). Within Chapter 2 of this dissertation, I assessed the plant community composition data in terms of its taxonomic composition, species richness, diversity, and structural complexity. I then used multivariate analyses, including ordination with non-metric multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis to explore vegetation composition data and associations of different species assemblages with environmental variables (Kruskal, 1964; McCune & Grace,

2002). I also used one-way analysis of variance to test hypotheses about variables associated with diversity. The findings of this study may be used assist park managers in their aims to promote native species cover, reduce invasive species presence, or achieve additional management goals for urban parks.

For the second research question (Chapter 3), I used qualitative research methods, including observation and semi-structured interviews (Rossman & Rallis, 2003), with 43

4 visitors within the same 15 urban parks. Research with human subjects required Oregon

State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. I asked the participants a range of questions related to their reasons for visiting the parks, any accessibility issues, and what they liked or would like to change about the vegetation in the parks. The results of this study included detailed responses from participants, which were coded for themes and meanings. The results described the key reasons for park visitation, accessibility issues, and which vegetation preferences were consistent or tended to vary across park types. Park managers should consider these findings and apply them toward improving urban parks and vegetation planning and maintenance.

For the third research question (Chapter 4), I conducted a total of 21 semi-structured interviews with the urban park managers of the 15 parks. The results included detailed responses from participants, which were coded for themes and meanings. I then used a mixed methods approach to evaluate the manager interview data alongside visitor interviews and quantitative plant community composition data collected at the parks.

Non-metric multidimensional scaling ordinations (Kruskal, 1964; McCune & Grace,

2002) were created to evaluate manager and visitor perspectives of plant management that were most strongly correlated with the different types of urban parks. Overall, the findings of this interdisciplinary dissertation may assist park managers in their aims to achieve various ecological goals, as well as meet the needs and desires of urban parks visitors within increasingly developed and human-populated urban areas.

1.2. REFERENCES

Alvey, A. A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(4), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003 Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2012). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Island Press. Budruk, M., Center, A., & Manning, R. (2003). Indicators and standards of quality at an urban-proximate park: litter and graffiti at Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. 9. Byrne, J. (2012). When green is White: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum, 43(3), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.002 Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Lawler, J. J., … Wood, S. A. (2017). Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663 Kruskal, J. B. 1964. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27 Lovell, S. T., & Taylor, J. R. (2013). Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology, 28(8), 1447–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y McCune, B., & Grace, J.B. (2002). Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design. Gleneden Beach, Oregon. Moyle, B. D., Weiler, B., & Moore, S. A. (2014). Benefits that matter to managers: an exploratory study of three national park management agencies. Managing Leisure, 19(6), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2014.910003 Nielsen, A. B., van den Bosch, M., Maruthaveeran, S., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2014). Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosystems, 17(1), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0316-1 Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the Field: and Introduction to Qualitative Research (2nd Edition). United States: Sage Publications. Savard, J.-P. L., Clergeau, P., & Mennechez, G. (2000). Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00037-2 Svendsen, E. S., Campbell, L. K., & McMillen, H. L. (2016). Stories, Shrines, and Symbols: Recognizing Psycho-Social-Spiritual Benefits of Urban Parks and Natural Areas. Journal of Ethnobiology, 36(4), 881–907. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-36.4.881 Threlfall, C. G., Ossola, A., Hahs, A. K., Williams, N. S. G., Wilson, L., & Livesley, S. J. (2016). Variation in Vegetation Structure and Composition across Urban Green Space Types. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00066

Weems, C. M. (2016). Examining the Spatial Distribution of Park Access and Trajectories of Gentrification in Seattle, Washington 1990 - 2010. Zhao, J., Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., Zhou, W., Wang, X., Xu, W., & Ni, Y. (2010). Plant species composition in green spaces within the built-up areas of Beijing, China. Plant Ecology, 209(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-009-9675-3

Chapter 2:

Plant community composition and biodiversity patterns in urban parks of Portland, Oregon

Michelle L. Talal1, Mary V. Santelmann2 1Environmental Sciences Graduate Program, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, 2College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA Correspondence: Michelle L. Talal [email protected]

Key words: plant communities, biodiversity, urban ecology, urban parks, green infrastructure, native species, invasive species, multivariate analysis

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution Submission Accepted May 15, 2019 (Additional data are included in the supplemental material of the publication)

ABSTRACT

Urban parks are biodiversity hotspots and are integral components of green infrastructure in urban areas. A variety of land use practices and environmental factors affect urban park biodiversity and vegetation structure, composition, and ecological function, but few studies have compared plant taxonomic composition, structural complexity, and species traits across different types of urban green spaces. The purpose of this study was to better understand the relationships between plant community composition, structural patterns, and environmental and species traits by using a standardized data collection method across different types of urban parks in Portland,

Oregon. We examined the potential ways that different types of urban parks preserve native species and/or harbor non-native and invasive species. We used a stratified random sampling design to select 15 parks of different types based on use: 1) recreational-active use parks, 2) natural-passive use parks, and 3) multi-use parks. We found a total of 178 plant species belonging to 141 genera and 65 families. Multivariate analyses, including ordination with non-metric multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis, were used to explore vegetation composition data and associations of different species assemblages with environmental variables. One-way analysis of variance was used to test hypotheses about variables associated with diversity. Statistically-significant differences in species richness and biodiversity indices were found between different park types. More native species were found in natural-passive use parks than other park types, more non-native species are found in multi-use parks than the other park types, and more invasive species were found in natural-passive use parks than in recreational-active use parks. Attributes

9 such as natural-passive use park type, wetland habitat, steep slopes, native species origin, non-native species origin, and vine and tree plant forms were those most strongly correlated with the non-metric multidimensional scaling ordination, indicating that these attributes exert the strongest influence on species abundance and distribution with

Portland’s urban parks. The findings of this study can assist park managers in their aims to promote native species cover, reduce invasive species presence, or achieve additional management goals for urban parks.

2. CHAPTER 2 – Plant Community Composition and Biodiversity Patterns in Urban Parks of Portland, Oregon

2.1. INTRODUCTION

Urban parks are important as biodiversity hotspots within cities. Not only do parks help preserve biodiversity in urban areas (Alvey, 2006; Nielsen et al., 2014; Savard et al.,

2000; Threlfall et al., 2016), they also help to connect people with nature. These connections may be critical for public support of policies and actions whose goal is conservation of biodiversity. With over 55 percent of the world’s population living in cities at present1, urban parks can allow opportunities for frequent nature interactions

(Church, 2018). Urban parks can also harbor rare species and help protect important populations of vulnerable species. They may be critical components of corridors needed for habitat connectivity and dispersal among metapopulations (Ignatieva et al., 2011).

Parks also play a role in people’s efforts to fulfill ethical responsibilities to be good stewards of the planet (Dearborn & Kark, 2010).

In addition to their role in conservation of biodiversity, urban parks are also integral components of green infrastructure in urban areas (Cornelis & Hermy, 2004; Nielsen et al., 2014; Pataki et al., 2011; Savard et al., 2000; Turner, Lefler, & Freedman, 2005). In the broad sense, green infrastructure has been defined as an interconnected system of natural areas, human-designed elements, and open spaces that not only conserves natural communities, biodiversity, and ecosystems, but also promotes clean water and air, and improves human physical and psychological well-being (Benedict & McMahon, 2012;

1 United Nations Division of Economic and Social Affairs. (2018). Revision of world urbanization prospects. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018- revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html

Lovell & Taylor, 2013; Tzoulas et al., 2007). Natural communities can be described as assemblages of self-organizing and coevolved native species that are appropriate to local environmental conditions (Turner et al., 2005). While green infrastructure is designed to provide direct benefits, such as stormwater management or recreation opportunities, it can also provide many co-benefits. It reduces energy use, increases economic growth, and assists with climate change adaptation and mitigation (European Commission, 2013).

However, green infrastructure is not always considered an amenity. While some types of green infrastructure may increase land and property values (Bolitzer & Netusil, 2000;

European Commission, 2013), other studies have noted a small, but significant decrease in property value directly adjacent to green street facilities (Netusil, et al., 2014).

Multifunctional green infrastructure strategies aim to provide a holistic framework with flexible options that increase various co-benefits such as biodiversity conservation and social and ecological connectivity. These co-benefits extend beyond traditional green infrastructure uses that focus on a single benefit such as stormwater management2 (Lovell

& Taylor, 2013; Meerow & Newell, 2017). However, there are often tradeoffs between maximizing these co-benefits, maximizing overall diversity, and increasing the presence of non-native and invasive species (Dearborn & Kark, 2010; Gaertner et al., 2017;

Threlfall et al., 2016). For example, maximizing stormwater connectivity can result in decreases in landscape connectivity (Meerow & Newell, 2017). Additional studies are needed to better understand the role that different types of urban parks play in both

2 Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). What is green infrastructure? Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure

12 promoting biodiversity and meeting other park management goals. To better inform and guide the multiple goals of park managers, such studies should include comparison not only of native species richness in parks, but also plant taxonomic composition, structural complexity, and species traits across different types of urban green spaces (Threlfall et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2010).

While urban parks are some of the most species-rich urban green spaces (Alvey,

2006; Cornelis & Hermy, 2004; Nielsen et al., 2014; Savard et al., 2000), species richness tends to increase with moderate levels of urbanization, often as a result of the introduction of non-native species (McKinney, 2008; Tait et al., 2005). A variety of factors, including roads and impervious surface, distance to city center, human population size, and other land use activities are also associated with the success of non-native species (Gaertner et al., 2017; Kuhman et al., 2010; Pyšek, 1998). There is substantial controversy about whether the benefits of non-native species outweigh their negative impacts. One the one hand, many non-native species may increase urban biodiversity, provide a “sense of place” (e.g., Portland, Oregon is known as “The Rose City”), and a range of aesthetic and socioeconomic benefits for people (Gaertner et al., 2017; Zengeya et al., 2017). Introduced species may sometimes require less water than native species

(i.e., species that evolved locally), and may survive the harsh conditions present in built green infrastructure facilities such as bioswales or detention ponds better than native species. Non-native species may also have a better chance of surviving fluctuations in climate (Morgenroth et al., 2016) and adapting to the altered physical conditions of urban environments (Alvey, 2006; McKinney, 2008).

The perceived potential and actual benefits as compared to the negative impacts of particular invasive species can vary significantly depending on context and local perspectives (Zengeya et al., 2017). Invasive species are defined by U.S. Executive Order

13112 (Section 1. Definitions) as non-native species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic, environmental, or human health harm3. Many non-native species do not cause harm to the economy, environment, or human health, but some non- native species are redefined as invasive species if and when they homogenize communities, replace native species, and promote a range of other ecosystem disservices

(Alvey, 2006; Gaertner et al., 2017; McKinney, 2008). Undesirable attributes of invasive species include increasing the intensity or frequency of fires and floods (Pejchar &

Mooney, 2009), or degradation of habitat for native fauna. Furthermore, even if urban areas are biologically diverse, important functions of the vegetation can be lost when native species are replaced by non-natives. A synthesis of several plant studies showed that exotic species (i.e. both non-native and invasive) accounted for an average of 41.8 percent of urban park woody species and 42.6 percent of all vascular species (Nielsen et al., 2014). Native herbaceous species were more likely to be lost than native woody species, in part due to competition with non-native species. Urban parks can play a role in limiting the spread of invasive species, depending on their disturbance history and management practices. Invasive plant species are found more frequently in landscapes historically altered by human disturbances (Kuhman et al., 2010), while “semi-natural” areas can represent a barrier to invasions (Celesti‐Grapow et al., 2006).

3 U.S. Department of Agriculture (2019). What are invasive species? Retrieved from https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/what-are-invasive-species

The City of Portland has an on-going investment in green infrastructure such as parks to improve the ecological health, community livability, and environmental equity in

Portland, Oregon (City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, 2010; Portland

Parks and Recreation, 2015a, 2015b). Although many of its sustainability successes are not distributed homogeneously throughout the city (Goodling et al., 2015), Portland is still an important place to study as an example of including green infrastructure into urban environments, because it has been named as one of the most sustainable cities in the United States (Portney, 2005). There are some publicly-available plant community composition data resources for the Portland metropolitan area4 (Christy, et al., 2009; City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, 2008; Oregon iMapInvasives Resources,

2018; Portland Parks and Recreation, 2018, 2019). An extensive set of vegetation surveys

(e.g., community and site characteristics, ecological health, management concerns, etc.) were previously completed for 8,213 acres of natural area park properties in Portland between 2003 and 2008 to help with city-wide urban ecosystem planning and management (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2018). However, these studies did not compare plant taxonomic composition or species traits across the different natural properties. The surveys also only included natural area parks and did not address the influence of park type on the conservation of plant biodiversity. More recently, an inventory is being completed for Portland’s urban park trees. These inventory data are currently publicly available for 11 parks (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2019). Although

4 Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. (2018). About ORBIC. Retrieved from https://inr.oregonstate.edu/orbic/about-orbic

15 this inventory will extend across multiple park types in Portland, it will only include information for trees and not shrubs, herbaceous, or vine species.

Although numerous studies have identified a variety of land use practices and environmental factors that affect urban park biodiversity, there have been very few studies that use a standardized method to compare plant taxonomic composition, structural complexity, environmental variables, and species traits across different types of urban green spaces. The purpose of this study is to better understand the relationships between plant community composition, structural patterns, environmental variables, and species traits in different types of urban parks in Portland, Oregon. A systematic study can improve our understanding of the degree to which parks of different types fulfill the various goals that people have for urban parks. These goals may include conserving biodiversity, meeting the needs and desires of park users for access to nature, and enhancing community livability and environmental equity.

We used a stratified random sampling design to survey different types of urban parks, including natural-passive use parks (i.e., generally more passively used and do not have formal fields for active play), developed recreational-active use parks (i.e., highly developed with facilities that promote active play, and 3) multi-use parks with a general mix of active and passive uses (Weems, 2016). We characterized the different park types and evaluated their contribution to the conservation of biodiversity by describing the plant taxonomical composition and structural complexity in Portland’s urban parks, as well as comparing species richness across the different park types. In this study, we addressed the following research questions:

1) To what extent do plant species richness, biodiversity, traits, and structural

complexity vary across different park types?

2) How can different urban parks be classified by their plant community

composition?

3) What are some of the relationships between parks and a range of environmental

variables and plant species traits?

We examined potential ways in which different types of urban parks preserve native species and/or harbor non-native and invasive species. We hypothesized that:

• Hypothesis 1: Natural-passive use parks have the highest species richness and

biodiversity, followed by multi-use and then recreational-active use parks. This

hypothesis is based on the idea that larger, intact natural areas tend to have more

biodiversity (Alvey, 2006; Celesti‐Grapow et al., 2006; Dearborn & Kark, 2010;

Whittaker, 1970), while more disturbed areas are likely to have lower species

richness (Celesti‐Grapow et al., 2006).

• Hypothesis 2: Natural-passive use parks have the most native species, followed by

multi-use parks, and then recreational-active use parks. This is based on the

premise the that more natural, remnant, and less disturbed sites tend to have

increased native species richness (Celesti‐Grapow et al., 2006; Highland et al.,

2015; Taylor & Santelmann, 2014).

• Hypothesis 3: Multi-use parks have the most non-native species compared to the

other park types, because areas with moderate levels of disturbance tend to be

accompanied by the addition of non-native species (McKinney, 2008).

• Hypothesis 4: Recreational-active use parks have the most invasive species,

followed by multi-use parks and then natural-passive use parks. This hypothesis is

based on research that invasive species are more frequently found in historically-

altered landscapes with human disturbances (Kuhman et al., 2010), which are

most similar to recreational-active use parks. Additionally, “semi-natural” areas

(i.e., which are most similar to natural-passive use parks) can often represent a

barrier to invasions, and so are likely to have fewer invasive species (Celesti‐

Grapow et al., 2006).

In order to address these research questions and hypotheses, we sampled the vegetation cover and assembled relevant environmental data for fifteen urban parks; sampling five parks in each of three different park types within Portland. The data were then evaluated for taxonomic composition, species richness, species diversity, and structural complexity for each of the parks and across the three park types. We explored how the different urban parks can be grouped by their plant community composition, as well as how the relationship between parks, environmental variables, and plant species traits can be characterized using non-parametric statistical methods (McCune & Grace,

2002). Improved understanding of the vegetation structure associated with parks of different types will help characterize not only their contribution to urban biodiversity, but also their utility in providing access to nature and the contribution made by different park types to livability and environmental equity. The results of this study may assist

Portland’s urban planners and land managers by providing an assessment of urban park vegetation in relation to current and future management goals.

2.2 METHODS

2.2.1 Study Area

Portland, Oregon is approximately 376 km2 and is located within Multnomah County in the Willamette Valley region of the Pacific Northwest at the confluence of the

Columbia and Willamette Rivers. The physical geography of the Portland metropolitan region was shaped by a variety of geological events such as volcanic activity, catastrophic floods, ice ages, and thawing over hundreds of years, which contributed to the creation of sloughs, rivers with broad floodplains, various sizes of channels, rolling hills, steep mountainous areas, and marshy outlets (United States Department of

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1983). These landforms provide the basis for many of Portland’s more than 4,047 hectares of parks, which include wetlands and river floodplains (e.g., Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge, Big Four Corners Natural Area, North

Swan Island Boat Ramp, etc.), steep forested hillsides (e.g., Forest Park, Woods

Memorial Natural Area, George Himes Park, etc.), and gentle rolling hillslopes (e.g., Ed

Benedict Park, Brentwood Park, Rose City Park, etc.) (City of Portland, Oregon, 2018).

In addition to these physiographic features, the high yearly precipitation

(approximately 100-125 cm), moderate temperatures, and mix of nutrient-rich and hydric soil formations of the area provided conditions for a wide range of tree, shrub, vine, and herbaceous species to evolve in and/or inhabit in the area (United States Department of

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1983). Some of the common native plant species found in Portland’s parks today include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), big-leaf maple

(Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), Pacific dogwood (Cornus sericea), vine maple (Acer circinatum), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Oregon oxalis (Oxalis oregana), Western sword fern (Polystichum munitum), willows (Salix sp.), and a variety of grasses (Christy et al., 2009; Hitchcock & Cronquist, 2018; Pojar & MacKinnon,

2016; Portland Parks and Recreation, 2011; United States Department of Agriculture Soil

Conservation Service, 1983). The vegetation, as well as the climate, physical geography, and natural disturbance (e.g., fire, wind, animal grazing, etc.) of the region act to support a variety of cultural and ethnobotanical uses (Pojar & MacKinnon, 2016), as well as ecosystem processes such as the flow of nutrients, water, and other materials (Turner &

Gardner, 2001; Swanson et al., 1988).

2.2.2 Research Design and Sampling

A stratified random sampling design was used to select 12 urban parks within the

Portland city boundary (Figure 2.1) (City of Portland, Oregon, 2018). The sites included four parks of each of three park types that were interspersed within each of the city’s quadrants and had a range of sizes comparable to that of all Portland’s parks. A park typology (Weems, 2016) was used to ensure that the examined parks were representative of Portland parks. This typology included the following three general park types based on use: 1) recreational-active use parks that are highly developed with facilities that promote active play such as sports fields and play equipment, 2) natural-passive use parks that are generally more passively used with benches, viewing areas, and trails, but do not have formal fields for active play, and 3) multi-use parks with a general mix of active and passive uses (Weems, 2016). An additional natural-passive use park, Forest Park, was

20 added to the list of sampled parks because it is the largest and most iconic park in

Portland (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2011). In order to have a more balanced study design, an additional recreational-active use park and a multi-use park were added to the list of sampled parks, for a total of fifteen parks with five parks of each type.

Figure 2.1. Portland park study sites by type

Within each of the selected parks, data were collected in five 400-m2 square plots that were identified using randomly selected pairs of coordinates placed at their southeastern corner. This allowed all areas within each park to be equally likely to be selected for sampling and to likely average any potential effects related to the variation of human management and/or landscape design within each park. A list of the sampling plots in each park and their geographic coordinates is provided in Appendix A. Field data

21 included the general vicinity, landform, slope, overall bare ground, tree species (diameter breast height [DBH] of at least 15 cm) and cover, sapling/shrub species (DBH < 15 cm) and cover, and woody vine species and cover. Species that occupied more than one plant form were recorded with their cover for each plant form. Additionally, five 1-m2 square subplots with randomly selected locations were sampled for herbaceous species and cover within each of the 400-m2 plots. Plant trait data were obtained from the Plants

Database (United States Department of Agriculture, 2018) and other local guides (Christy et al., 2009; Hitchcock, & Cronquist, 2018), and the wetlands data were collected from the US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Mapper (United States Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2018). Field data were collected June 28, 2017 to September 17, 2017, while much of the vegetation was at its peak phenological development for identification purposes.

2.2.3 Data Structure

The species matrix (15 sample units x 189 species) contained percent cover data for trees, saplings/shrubs, and vines averaged for the five 400-m2 square plots within each park. There were 11 species that occupied both the tree and sapling/shrub plant forms and were counted as different taxonomic units for the multivariate analysis, but not as different species for the calculations of species richness and taxonomic composition. The herbaceous species cover data within the matrix were the average percent cover for all of the 1-m2 square plots sampled within each of the 400-m2 square plots of each park.

The environmental matrix (15 sample units x 17 variables) contained measurements of habitat variables and park characteristics such as park type, wetland presence (National

Wetland Inventory [NWI]) within each park (United States Fish and Wildlife Service,

2018), landform, local relief, percent slope, percent bare ground, elevation, establishment date, irrigation, total park acreage, and beta diversity (Table 2.1). In order to calculate beta diversity (half changes), a measure of heterogeneity for the 400-m2 plots (total of 75 plots for all 15 parks) was calculated by finding the average within group distance

(Sørensen) for each of the parks. Half-changes were then calculated (McCune & Grace,

2002) using the following formula:

βD = log (1-퐷̅)/log(0.5)

The traits matrix (189 species x 16 traits) contained trait information for each of the plant species, which included: growth form, group (e.g., fern, horsetail, etc.), status (e.g., native, non-native, invasive, etc.), and growth duration (Table 2.2). In this study, we separately analyzed native species, non-native non-invasive species (hereon classified as non-native species), and non-native invasive species (hereon classified as invasive species). A SU x traits matrix was calculated using the original abundance data using weighted averages, and standardizing the traits by minimum to maximum in PC-ORD

Version 7 (MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon). An outlier analysis was also performed to identify any potential outliers with an average Sørensen distance of more than two standard deviations from the grand mean of distances among sample units. No outliers were identified.

Table 2.1 Environmental variables, including habitat and park characteristics. Variable Type Natural-passive use park Binary Multi-use park Binary Recreational-active use park Binary Wetland (NWI) presence Binary Majority hillslope landform Binary Majority terrace landform Binary Concave local relief Binary Flat local relief Binary Convex local relief Binary Irrigation Binary Percent slope Numerical Percent bare ground Numerical Elevation (meters) Numerical Date of Park Establishment Numerical Total Park Acreage Numerical Beta diversity (half changes) Numerical

Table 2.2. Trait variables for plant species. Variable Type Herbaceous Binary Vine Binary Sapling/shrub Binary Tree Binary Fern Binary Horsetail Binary Gymnosperm Binary Monocot Binary Dicot Binary Native Binary Non-native Binary Invasive Binary Unknown status Binary Annual Binary Biennial/combination of growth patterns Binary Perennial Binary

2.2.4 Data Analysis

The data were evaluated for taxonomic composition, species richness, species diversity, and structural complexity for each of the parks and across the three park types.

Species diversity is composed of species richness, which is the number of species in a sample unit or area, as well as evenness (e.g., equitability) of abundance (McCune &

Grace, 2002; Whittaker, 1970). In general, if two sample units have the same number of species, then the sample unit with a more even distribution of species would be considered to have higher species diversity. Diversity for each of the parks was measured using the Shannon-Weiner Index (e.g., for equitability) and Simpson Index (e.g. for dominance concentration) (Whittaker, 1970). One-way analysis of variance was used to test hypotheses about variables associated with plant species traits and diversity.

Hierarchical agglomerative clustering was then used to construct groups of the parks by their plant community composition (McCune & Grace, 2002). The original data were transformed into presence-absence data, in which all occurrences received equal weighting regardless of abundance. This transformation was selected because it reduced skewness of species, beta diversity (half changes, βD), and coefficient of variation for columns as compared to the to the original data and a square root transformation. The hierarchical agglomerative clustering was performed in PC-ORD Version 7, using the

Sørensen (Bray-Curtis) distance measure with Flexible Beta (beta of -0.25) and a group membership level of 5, which provided a good compromise between the interpretability of groups and information loss (approximately 55 percent retained). The Sørensen distance measure was selected because it is one of the most effective measures for

25 ecological community data (McCune & Grace, 2002). The Flexible Beta (beta of -0.25) was selected because it helped to avoid distortion in the clustering and it has less of a propensity to chain (McCune & Grace, 2002). The data were not relativized. Multi- response permutation procedure (MRPP), a non-parametric procedure, was then used to test the hypothesis of no difference between species composition by a priori park groups

(e.g., natural-passive use, multi-use, and recreational-active use parks). The MRPP for this analysis included the Sørensen (Bray-Curtis) distance measure and the “n/sum(n)” weighting of groups.

The relationships between the sample units, measured environmental variables, and plant species traits were then characterized with non-metric multidimensional scaling

(NMS). NMS is a non-parametric ordination technique that iteratively searches for positions of entities on axes to minimize the stress of the configuration (Kruskal, 1964;

McCune & Grace, 2002). This technique was selected for this study because it does not have normality or linearity assumptions. The NMS of the sample units in species space was completed using the “autopilot mode”, slow and thorough speed, a random starting configuration, 200 runs with real data, Sørensen (Bray-Curtis) distance measure, and penalizing unequal ordination distance. The final solution for the NMS ordination of the parks in species space was determined by plotting final stress vs. the number of dimensions and choosing the number of axes beyond which stress reductions were small

(McCune & Grace, 2002). Overlays of the environmental variables and trait distances as joint plots were examined to evaluate the direction and strength of linear relationships with the axes. Hilltop plots were created to show multiple non-linear response surfaces on

26 a single graph and display their maximums (settings: flexibility – optimize, contour fitting of two standard deviations, top 20 percent of range) (Nelson et al., 2015).

2.3 RESULTS

The urban parks within the study were all managed landscapes, but had varying intensity of human management and landscape design. The highest levels horticultural design appeared to be in the recreational-active use parks, while more naturalistic landscape approaches were typically observed in the natural-passive use parks. Varying combinations of these management approaches were observed in the multi-use parks, which often had both horticultural beds and patches of more naturalistic areas within the same park. The plots within the parks also tended to reflect some of these patterns of varying intensity for human management and design, with the most heavily designed plots in the recreational-active use parks, more naturalistic approaches in the plots of the natural-passive use parks, and generally a combination of these approaches within the multi-use park plots. While no park typology can capture all of the variation in landscape design, management, and visitor use, the typology used in this study allowed for a diverse range of urban parks to be sampled within this study. The following sections provide the taxonomic composition, species richness, diversity indices, structural complexity, and multivariate analysis results of the study.

2.3.1 Taxonomic Composition

The data set included a total of 178 plant species belonging to 141 genera and 65 families (Figure 2.2). The families with the greatest number of plant species included

Rosaceae (e.g. Crataegus douglasii, Rubus armeniacus, etc.), Poaceae (e.g., Poa

Pratensis, Holcus lanatus, etc.), Asteraceae (e.g., Achillea millefolium, Bellis perennis, etc.), Berberidaceae (e.g., Mahonia aquifolium, Achlys triphylla, etc.), and Cyperaceae

(e.g., Carex obnupta, Carex unilateralis, etc.). Of the 65 plant families, 71 percent had only one to two species. A plant species list is provided in Appendix B.

Figure 2.2. Number of plant species by plant family.

2.3.2. Species Richness

The numbers of native, non-native, invasive, unknown, and total number of species are shown by park (Figure 2.3). The parks with the highest total number of species were relatively large, natural-passive use parks such as Big Four Corners and Woods Memorial

Natural Area, while the parks with the lowest number of species were recreational-active use parks such as Jamison Park and Wallace Park. Of the 178-total species, there were mostly native species (43 percent), followed by non-native (31 percent), invasive (21 percent), and unknown species (5 percent) (e.g., unidentifiable in the field). The average number of native, non-native, invasive, unknown, and total plant species by park type are shown (Figure 2.4 [A-D]). More native species were found in natural-passive use parks than the other park types, F(2,12) = 68.86, p < 0.01) (Figure 2.4A), and more non-native

28 species were found in multi-use parks than the other park types F(2,12) = 10.63, p <

0.01) (Figure 2.4B). However, a higher number of invasive species were found in natural- passive use parks (M = 10.8, SD = 3.8) than in recreational-active use parks (M = 3.8, SD

= 1.8) (Figure 2.4C). There was not a significant difference in the number of unknown species by park type. Overall, there was a significant difference in total species richness was found between the different park types, F(2,12) = 31.83, p < 0.001 (Figure 2.4D).

Species richness was significantly higher in natural-passive use parks (M = 43, SD = 8.4) than multi-use parks (M = 23.2, SD = 5) and recreational-active use parks (M = 13.2, SD

= 3.6).

Figure 2.3. Number of plant species by park.

Figure 2.4. Average number of plant species that were: (A) native, (B) non-native, (C) invasive, and (D) total for each park type (N – natural-passive use, M = multi- use, R = recreational-active use). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

2.3.3. Diversity Indices

The diversity indices for each park are shown in Table 2.3. In general, the parks with highest Shannon-Weiner and Simpson indices were the natural-passive use parks such as

Big Four Corners Natural Area and Woods Memorial Natural Area, followed by the multi-use parks such as Patton Square Park, and then recreational-active use parks such as Khunamokwst Park. However, one of the multi-use parks, Plaza Blocks, had lower diversity indices than some of the recreational-active use parks. A significant difference

30 between park types was also found in the Shannon-Weiner biodiversity index F(2,12) =

18.1, p < 0.001). The Shannon-Weiner index was significantly higher in the natural- passive use parks (M = 2.8, SD = 0.36), than in the multi-use parks (M = 2, SD = 0.28) and recreational-active use parks (M = 1.7, SD = 0.2). Using the Simpson Index results, there was a statistically significant difference between park types F(2,12) = 7.49, p <

0.01), with the natural-passive use parks Simpson Index being significantly higher than the recreational-active use parks (M = 0.74, SD = 0.07).

Table 2.3. Diversity indices for each park and park type (natural-passive use = N, multi-use = M, recreational-active use = R). Shannon-Weiner Park Park Type Simpson Index Index Big Four Corners Natural Area N 3.3 0.95 Woods Memorial N 2.9 0.92 Forest Park N 2.9 0.92 Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge N 2.5 0.88 George Himes Natural Area N 2.4 0.84 Average 2.8 0.90

Ed Benedict Park M 2.2 0.77 Plaza Blocks M 1.6 0.64 Patton Square Park M 2.3 0.86 Columbia Park M 2.2 0.85 Rose City Park M 1.9 0.79 Average 2.0 0.78

Khunomokwst Park R 1.4 0.62 Brentwood Park R 1.7 0.73 North Swan Island Boat Ramp R 1.9 0.8 Wallace Park R 1.9 0.79 Jamison Square R 1.7 0.74 Average 1.7 0.74

2.3.4 Structural Complexity

In relation to plant structural complexity, the largest number of species were herbaceous species, followed by sapling/shrub species (11 of which were also tree species), tree species, and vine species (Table 2.4). Table 2.4 shows the number of plant species and percentage of invasive, native, non-native, and unknown species by plant form. The largest number native and invasive species were found in the herbaceous plant form, while the most non-native species were found in the sapling/shrub plant form.

However, the vines had the largest percentage of invasive species of any plant form and trees had the largest percentage of non-natives of any plant form.

Table 2.4. Number of species and percentage of invasive, native, non-native, unknown, and total species by plant form (herbaceous, sapling/shrub, tree, vine). Eleven species occupy both sapling/shrub and tree strata. Plant Form Native Non-native Invasive Unknown Total Herbaceous 41 (47%) 14 (16%) 26 (30%) 7 (8%) 88 Sapling/Shrub 30 (46%) 25 (38%) 8 (12%) 2 (3%) 65 Tree 11 (37%) 18 (60%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 30 Vine 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%) 0 (0%) 6 Total 189

2.3.5 Community Composition and Multivariate Analysis

The hierarchical agglomerative clusters of the parks can be interpreted in the context of their characteristics and habitat associations (Figure 2.5). The cluster analysis retained approximately 50-55 percent of the data with five groups and approximately 12 percent chaining. A cluster of five parks, including Big Four Corners Natural Area, Oaks Bottom

Wildlife Refuge, Woods Memorial Natural Area, George Himes Park, and Forest Park can be generally described as natural parks with more native species. Other clusters included multi-use parks with more non-native species (e.g., Plaza Blocks, etc.), multi-

32 use and recreational parks with many non-native species and more herbaceous cover

(e.g., Khunamokwst Park, Brentwood Park, etc.), a park with more bare ground and beta diversity between plots (North Swan Island Boat Ramp), and a park with more non-native trees (Jamison Square). It is important to note that beta diversity was high at the North

Swan Island Boat Ramp primarily because one of its plots was in vegetation and most of the others were located in primarily impervious concrete.

Figure 2.5. Hierarchical cluster analysis for the urban parks in species space.

The clusters differ in terms of park type (MRPP: A = 0.17, p < 0.001). A more positive A statistic indicates that groups have more agreement than what is expected by chance. The MRPP data analysis has a low p-value, which indicated stronger evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference in plant community composition between park groups. Pairwise comparisons for each of the clusters in terms of park type revealed that natural-passive use parks were different compared to multi-use and recreational parks (p < 0.05), but that multi-use and recreational-active use parks were only marginally different from each other (p < 0.1).

The NMS ordination shows the parks (sample units) as triangles in species space with overlays of the environmental variables and traits as joint plots to reflect the direction and strength of linear relationships with the axes (Figures 2.6 – 2.9). The plot of final stress vs. the number of dimensions showed that a 3-dimensional solution (3 axes) was best for this dataset with a final stress of 5.0 (raw stress multiplied by 100) and a R2n (non-metric fit) of 0.99. In NMS, ecological community data sets with a final stress of 5.0 are generally considered to be “good” (McCune & Grace, 2002). The final NMS solution with the environmental variables as joint plots are shown on Axes 1 and 2 (Figure 2.6) and Axes 1 and 3 (Figure 2.7). Most of the variation is shown in the first two axes (r2 =

0.82). The most strongly correlated environmental variables with Axis 1 are natural- passive use park type (r = -0.95), wetland presence (r = -0.93), hillslope landform (r =

0.78), slope percent (r = -0.78), and irrigation (r = 0.68). The most strongly correlated environmental variables for Axis 2 are bare ground percent (r = 0.85) and beta diversity

(half changes) (r = 0.82), and then multi-use park type (r = -0.49) and flat local relief (r =

-0.48) for Axis 3. The final NMS solution with plant species traits as joint plots are shown in Axes 1 and 2 (Figure 2.8) and Axes 1 and 3 (Figure 2.9). The Pearson correlations show the most strongly correlated trait variables with Axis 1 are native species (r = -0.95) (e.g., Sambucus racemosa, Corylus cornuta, Acer macrophyllum, and

Alnus rubra, etc.), non-native species (r = 0.83) (e.g., Lolium perenne and Trifolium repens, etc.), vines (r = -0.75) (e.g., Rubus ursinus and Hedera helix, etc.), and saplings/shrubs (r = -0.75) (e.g., Symphoricarpos albus, etc.). The most strongly correlated variable with Axis 2 is tree (r = 0.61), and mixed growth pattern (r = 0.44) for

Axis 3. One of the weakest correlations of the ordination is invasive species (r = 0.16) for

Axis 1.

Figure 2.6. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. Environmental variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

Figure 2.7. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. Environmental variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

Figure 2.8. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. Trait variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

Figure 2.9. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. Trait variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

Various hilltop plots for plant traits and select plant species are provided (Figure 2.10

[A-D]). They depict the optima of native, non-native, and invasive species (Figure

2.10A), different plant forms (Figure 2.10B), and various plant groups (e.g., dicot, monocot, gymnosperm, fern, and horsetail) (Figure 2.10C), plant groups. The optima for native species and several plant groups are within the natural-passive use parks, while the optimum for non-native species overlaps with both multi-use and recreational-active use parks. Some invasive plant species are not acting in concert (Figure 2.10D). For example, the optimum for Poa annua is in the multi-use and recreational-active use parks, while the optima for Geranium robertianum, Hedera helix, Phalaris arundinacea, and Rubus armeniacus are among natural-passive use parks.

Figure 2.10. Hilltop plots for the presence/absence NMS ordination. Each colored area is a hilltop that shows the optima of a variable, and the multiple partially transparent hilltops show the overlap of variable optimas for (A) native, non-native, and invasive species, (B) herb, vine, sapling/shrub, and tree strata, (C) dicot, monocot, gymnosperm, fern, and horsetail, and (D) select invasive species.

2.4 DISCUSSION

Improved understanding of plant community composition patterns in urban parks can help communities better manage green infrastructure investments, which are important for improving ecological health, community livability, and environmental equity within urban areas (City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, 2010; Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015a, 2015b). Our study was unique for Portland in that it used a stratified random sampling method to address the influence of park type on the

39 conservation plant biodiversity and also included information for tree, shrub, herbaceous, and vine species. This type of research extends beyond past sampling efforts that included only natural-passive use parks (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2018) or surveys that include only information on tree species within Portland parks (Portland Parks and

Recreation, 2019). The stratified-random sampling design allowed us to investigate the extent to which plant species composition, biodiversity, environmental variables, and species traits vary across different urban park types in Portland, Oregon. Although this study used a sampling protocol rather than attempting a complete floristic survey of all parks due to time and resource constraints, a total of 178 species from 141 genera and 65 families were found in the sampled parks. The largest number of species were herbaceous species, followed by sapling/shrub species, tree species, and vine species.

This study provided information on the ways in which different types of urban parks can contribute to the conservation of native species and/or harbor non-native and invasive species. The total species richness was highest in the natural-passive use parks, followed by multi-use, and then recreational-active use parks, which was consistent with

Hypothesis 1. The results also showed that more native species were found in natural- passive use parks than other types of parks, which aligns with Hypothesis 2, and is consistent with other studies which have reported that more natural, remnant, and less disturbed sites tend to have increased native species richness (Celesti‐Grapow et al.,

2006; Highland et al., 2015; Taylor & Santelmann, 2014). It is not surprising that the average species richness and biodiversity indices were highest in the natural-passive use parks, because areas that are natural have a tendency to be more diverse than other areas

(Alvey, 2006; Dearborn & Kark, 2010; Whittaker, 1970) and provide a range and diversity of resources and habitat structures for species (Threlfall et al., 2016). To further promote biodiversity conservation in urban areas, park managers and/or land use planners can use the results of this study to justify limiting recreational development, land use change, and other human disturbances in natural-passive use parks. Conservation of more natural, remnant sites is likely to increase plant and animal biodiversity within cities. The outcomes of this study may also be used to further support the creation of native habitat patches in multi-use and recreational-active parks for the purposes of increasing native biodiversity and its associated benefits (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015a).

The results of the study also showed that more non-native species were found in multi-use parks than in natural-passive use or recreational-active use parks, which aligns with Hypothesis 3, and supports the notion that moderate levels of disturbance tend to be accompanied by the addition of non-native species (McKinney, 2008). However, a surprising result was that more invasive species were found in natural-passive use parks than in recreational-active use parks, a result which is inconsistent with Hypothesis 4.

Although “semi-natural” areas (i.e., which are most similar to natural-passive use parks) can often represent a barrier to invasions (Celesti‐Grapow et al., 2006), species invasions of natural, forested areas may simply develop more slowly under natural disturbance regimes (Martin et al., 2009). These species invasions can then be accelerated with the increase of human influence such as horticultural practices and intentional introduction of plant species (Martin et al., 2009). In addition to these explanations, it is also possible that the natural-passive use parks in this study may have experienced a high enough level

41 of disturbance that they were vulnerable to invasive species colonization. Another confounding issue may be that invasive species management can be more challenging in more remote and larger natural urban parks than in multi-use and recreational-active use parks, which tend to be more accessible and smaller in size.

In terms of overall plant species composition, most of the species in the parks were native (43 percent), followed by non-native species (31 percent), and with a smaller percentage of invasive species (21 percent). The largest number of native and invasive species were herbaceous species, while the most non-native species were saplings/shrubs.

The lower proportion of invasive species relative to native species may indicate some progress toward invasive species management in Portland (City of Portland Bureau of

Environmental Services, 2008). However, the combined number of non-native and invasive species in our plots accounted for 52 percent of the total species richness, which is slightly higher than a previous synthesis of several plant studies, which showed an average of 41.8 percent exotics for urban park woody species and 42.6 percent exotics for vascular species (Nielsen et al., 2014). The results presented here also indicate that the herbaceous plant form has the largest number of invasive species, while the vines have the largest percentage of invasive species of any plant form. These results, among others, may assist managers by providing an assessment of urban park vegetation in relation to existing and future management goals.

For our second research question, we used the sampled data to examine how different urban parks in Portland can be classified by their plant community composition, as well as some of the relationships between parks and a range of environmental variables and

42 plant species traits. The hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis of the parks in the study included a cluster of five parks that can be generally described as natural parks with more native species. Other clusters included two multi-use parks with more non-native species, five multi-use and recreational parks with many non-native species and more herbaceous cover, a park with more bare ground and beta diversity between plots, and a park with more non-native trees. Natural-passive use parks could be distinguished from multi-use and recreational-active use parks, but species composition of plots from multi- use and recreational-active use parks were only marginally different from each other.

These results indicate that there may be a continuum between the vegetation community composition of the multi-use and recreational-active parks in Portland, which makes clear separation of these two park types difficult. Other studies have also noted that multi-use and recreational parks can be difficult to distinguish (e.g., Weems, 2016).

To answer our third research question, we found that attributes such as natural- passive use park type, wetland presence, hillslope landform, steep slopes, and irrigation were those most strongly correlated with the NMS ordination, indicating that these attributes exert the strongest influence on species abundance and distribution with

Portland’s urban parks. Some of the most strongly correlated plant trait attributes are related to native and non-native species origin and vine and tree physiognomy. Portland

Parks and Recreation already considers attributes such as whether species are native or invasive in management of urban parks. However, invasive species cover was only weakly correlated with the ordination axes, which indicates that in addition to park type, other factors influence the occurrence of invasive species. Land and water management

43 of nearby and surrounding areas can have a strong impact on the diversity of urban green infrastructure (Hostetler et al., 2011). For example, the use of urban parks with wetlands to help manage nutrient-laden stormwater runoff can lead to conversion of a wetlands established to help preserve native vegetation from a more natural vegetation type to one more dominated by invasive species such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)

(Maurer et al., 2003; Taylor & Santelmann, 2014). Future studies could investigate the effect of park context as well as park type in applying this methodology to Portland and other cities, to further investigate the relative influence of park type and neighborhood context as influences on plant community composition and biodiversity patterns.

Our findings are consistent with other studies that have identified parks (particularly parks such as our urban-passive parks with more semi-natural habitat) as important for conserving biodiversity in urban areas. In a study of 15 urban and suburban park of

Flanders, Belgium, the parks had higher amounts of species richness especially if they contained semi-natural habitat and were larger in terms of area (Cornelis & Hermy,

2004). Other studies have also shown that areas with the greatest biodiversity tend to be large and have intact natural habitat (Alvey, 2006; Cornelis & Hermy, 2004; Rosenzweig,

2005). However, in a study of plant composition in different types of urban green spaces in Melbourne, Australia, urban parks had less species diversity than golf courses, residential neighborhoods, and vegetation remnants in urban areas (Threlfall et al., 2016).

This was attributed to the urban parks having reduced structural diversity with low tree density, sparse understory, and high amounts of imported mulch, which are managed for basic amenities, low maintenance costs, and safety rather than for biodiversity or habitat.

Even so, improved management of plant community composition, structure, and cover of all types urban green spaces, including urban parks, has the potential to greatly influence habitat quality for vertebrates, invertebrates, microorganisms, and fungi (Threlfall et al.,

2016). Greater structural diversity of the vegetation also tends to enhance faunal species richness and biodiversity (Fontana, et al., 2011; Rosenzweig, 2005).

2.5 CONCLUSIONS

By using a standardized method applied consistently across different park types, we were able to identify the influence of urban park type on plant community composition and biodiversity, including tree, shrub, herbaceous, and vine species. This research builds upon the urban biodiversity research of others to examine taxonomic composition, structural complexity, and species traits across different types of urban green spaces and extends it toward the examination of different urban park types in Portland, Oregon. The results of this study may assist urban park managers in their aims to promote native species cover, reduce invasive species cover, or achieve other outcomes for Portland’s urban parks (City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, 2008; Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015a, 2015b). The cluster analysis groups, NMS ordinations with joint plots, and hilltop plots can be used to highlight particular parks and/or plant species, as well as provide additional information for potential management actions. For example, park managers can use the results to see that natural-passive use parks are more correlated with native species cover, while multi-use and recreational parks tend to be more correlated with non-native species. If park managers are interested in conserving particular plant groups such as ferns, then they can observe how these are more correlated

45 with natural-passive use parks and focus their conservation efforts in these areas. These results can also be used to address environmental equity concerns such as the spatial distribution and accessibility of different types of urban parks (City of Portland Bureau of

Environmental Services, 2010; Weems, 2016), as well as accessibility to a range of native habitats and plant biodiversity. Finally, the hilltop plots may be especially useful for identifying species of interest (e.g., rare native species, invasive species, etc.) at their optimum locations to target specific management actions. More in-depth studies and comparisons of plant community composition in urban parks of Portland with other cities would provide greater understanding of the influence of park type on urban biodiversity.

Ultimately, improved management of plant community composition, structure, and cover within all park types has the potential to improve the habitat quality for animals, microorganisms, and fungi, as well as a range of economic, health, social, and cultural benefits for people who live in urban areas.

2.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to Hattie Greydanus and Michael Tchintcharauli-Harrison for their help with field data collection, and Dr. Bruce McCune for his assistance with the multivariate statistical analyses. Financial support was provided from the Urban Water Innovation

Network (UWIN) National Science Foundation Grant Award #1444758. The City of

Portland authorized research permit #1484773 for our data collection on park properties.

2.7 REFERENCES

Alvey, A. A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(4), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003 Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2012). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Island Press. Bolitzer, B., & Netusil, N. R. (2000). The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0351 Celesti‐Grapow, L., Pyšek, P., Jarošík, V., & Blasi, C. (2006). Determinants of native and alien species richness in the urban flora of Rome. Diversity and Distributions, 12(5), 490–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00282.x Christy, J. A., Kimpo, A., Marttala, V., Gaddis, P. K., & Christy, N. L. (2009). Urbanizing Flora of Portland, Oregon, 1806-2008, 324. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. (2008). City of Portland Invasive Plant Strategy Report 2008, 145. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. (2010). Portland’s Green Infrastructure: Quantifying the Health, Energy and Community Livability Benefits, 101. City of Portland, Oregon. (2018). Parks. Retrieved November 4, 2018, from http://gis- pdx.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/parks Church, S. P. (2018). From street trees to natural areas: retrofitting cities for human connectedness to nature. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(5–6), 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1428182 Cornelis, J., & Hermy, M. (2004). Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.038 Dearborn, D. C., & Kark, S. (2010). Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 24(2), 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2009.01328.x European Commission. (2013). Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital - Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Fontana, S., Sattler, T., Bontadina, F., & Moretti, M. (2011). How to manage the urban green to improve bird diversity and community structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101(3), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.033 Gaertner, M., Wilson, J. R. U., Cadotte, M. W., MacIvor, J. S., Zenni, R. D., & Richardson, D. M. (2017). Non-native species in urban environments: patterns, processes, impacts and challenges. Biological Invasions, 19(12), 3461–3469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1598-7

Goodling, E., Green, J., & McClintock, N. (2015). Uneven development of the sustainable city: shifting capital in Portland, Oregon. Urban Geography, 36(4), 504–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1010791 Highland, S. A., Santelmann, M. V., & Schwindt, R. A. (2015). Vegetation Dynamics of Restored and Remnant Willamette Valley, OR Prairie Wetlands. Ecological Restoration, 33(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.33.2.156 Hitchcock, C.L., & Cronquist, A. (2018). Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual (2nd ed.). University of Washington Press. Hostetler, M., Allen, W., & Meurk, C. (2011). Conserving urban biodiversity? Creating green infrastructure is only the first step. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 369–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.011 Ignatieva, M., Stewart, G. H., & Meurk, C. (2011). Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 7(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0143-y Kruskal, J. B. 1964. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27 Kuhman, T. R., Pearson, S. M., & Turner, M. G. (2010). Effects of land-use history and the contemporary landscape on non-native plant invasion at local and regional scales in the forest-dominated southern Appalachians. Landscape Ecology, 25(9), 1433–1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9500-3 Lovell, S. T., & Taylor, J. R. (2013). Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology, 28(8), 1447–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y Martin, P. H., Canham, C. D., & Marks, P. L. (2009). Why forests appear resistant to exotic plant invasions: intentional introductions, stand dynamics, and the role of shade tolerance. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(3), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1890/070096 Maurer, D. A., Lindig-Cisneros, R., Werner, K. J., Kercher, S., Miller, R., & Zedler, J. B. (2003). The Replacement of Wetland Vegetation by Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Ecological Restoration, 21(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.21.2.116 McCune, B., & Grace, J.B. (2002). Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design. Gleneden Beach, Oregon. McKinney, M. L. (2008). Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosystems, 11(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252- 007-0045-4 Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2017). Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landscape and Urban Planning, 159, 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005 Morgenroth, J., Östberg, J., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C., Nielsen, A. B., Hauer, R., Sjöman, H., Chen W., & Jansson, M. (2016). Urban tree diversity—Taking stock and looking ahead. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 15, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.11.003

Nelson, P. R., McCune, B., Roland, C., & Stehn, S. (2015). Non-parametric methods reveal non-linear functional trait variation of lichens along environmental and fire age gradients. Journal of Vegetation Science, 26(5), 848–865. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12286 Netusil, N. R., Levin, Z., Shandas, V., & Hart, T. (2014). Valuing green infrastructure in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.002 Nielsen, A. B., van den Bosch, M., Maruthaveeran, S., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2014). Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosystems, 17(1), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0316-1 Oregon iMapInvasives Resources. (2018). Oregon iMapInvasives Resources. Retrieved November 20, 2018, from https://sites.google.com/site/orimapresources/ Pataki, D. E., Carreiro, M. M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N. E., Jennings, V., Pincetl, S., … Zipperer, W. C. (2011). Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1890/090220 Pejchar, L., & Mooney, H. A. (2009). Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(9), 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.016 Pojar, J., & MacKinnon, A. (2016). Plants of the Pacific Northwest: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. Partners Publishing. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2011). Forest Park desired future condition, 35. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2015). Ecologically Sustainable Landscape Initiative, 78. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2018). Natural Area Vegetation | The City of Portland, Oregon. Retrieved November 17, 2018, from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39872 Portland Parks and Recreation. (2019). Park Tree Inventory. Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/629112 Portney, K. (2005). Civic Engagement and Sustainable Cities in the United States. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 579–591. Pyšek, P. (1998). Alien and native species in Central European urban floras: a quantitative comparison. Journal of Biogeography, 25(1), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.1998.251177.x Rosenzweig, M. L. (2005). Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511623387 Savard, J.-P. L., Clergeau, P., & Mennechez, G. (2000). Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00037-2 Swanson, F. J., Kratz, T. K., Caine, N., & Woodmansee, R. G. (1988). Landform Effects on Ecosystem Patterns and Processes. BioScience, 38(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310614 Tait, C. J., Daniels, C. B., & Hill, R. S. (2005). Changes in species assemblages within the Adelaide metropolitan area, Australia, 1836–2002. Ecological Applications, 15(1), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0920

Taylor, S. M., & Santelmann, M. V. (2014). Comparing Vegetation and Soils of Remnant and Restored Wetland Prairies in the Northern Willamette Valley. Northwest Science, 88(4), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.3955/046.088.0407 Threlfall, C. G., Ossola, A., Hahs, A. K., Williams, N. S. G., Wilson, L., & Livesley, S. J. (2016). Variation in Vegetation Structure and Composition across Urban Green Space Types. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00066 Turner, K., Lefler, L., & Freedman, B. (2005). Plant communities of selected urbanized areas of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(2–4), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.03.003 Turner, M.G. & Gardner, R.H. (2001). Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice. Springer-Verlag. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001 United States Department of Agriculture. (2018). Welcome to the PLANTS Database | USDA PLANTS. Retrieved November 5, 2018, from https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/java/ United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. (1983). Soil Survey of Multnomah County, Oregon. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2018). Wetlands Mapper. Retrieved November 5, 2018, from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html Weems, C. M. (2016). Examining the Spatial Distribution of Park Access and Trajectories of Gentrification in Seattle, Washington 1990 - 2010. Whittaker, R.H. (1970). Communities and Ecosystems (2nd ed.). New York. Zengeya, T., Ivey, P., Woodford, D. J., Weyl, O., Novoa, A., Shackleton, R., … Van Wilgen, B. (2017). Managing conflict-generating invasive species in South Africa: Challenges and trade-offs. Bothalia, 47(2). https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2160 Zhao, J., Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., Zhou, W., Wang, X., Xu, W., & Ni, Y. (2010). Plant species composition in green spaces within the built-up areas of Beijing, China. Plant Ecology, 209(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-009-9675-3

Chapter 3:

Urban park visitor experiences and perceptions of vegetation in Portland, Oregon

Key words: urban parks, visitors, qualitative research, vegetation, interviews, green infrastructure, perceptions, cultural ecosystem services.

ABSTRACT

Urban parks have the potential to provide a range of socio-cultural benefits for people, but do not always meet the needs and desires of park visitors. While a few studies have explored user experiences within Portland’s urban parks, vegetation perceptions, and accessibility issues, there is a lack of research that explores these aspects in a range of urban park types interspersed throughout the city using qualitative methods to observe and interview park visitors on-site. The purpose of this study was to better understand visitor experiences, perceptions of vegetation, and accessibility by interviewing visitors on-site at a range of urban parks interspersed throughout Portland. We asked: how does the vegetation in Portland’s urban parks currently meet the needs and desires of urban park visitors? A total of 43 participants were interviewed in 15 different urban parks, including recreational-active use, natural-passive use, and multi-use parks. The results provided detailed responses from participants, which were coded for themes and meanings. This study found that vegetation was often related to the reasons why people visited parks, which sometimes varied based on park type. Vegetation influenced how accessible the park was to some participants, such as if it had sufficient maintenance along trails/paths, shade, and/or open space. Across park types, participants discussed trees, plant size, colors, and diversity as their favorite aspects of vegetation. Trees were especially important to participants in all park types, and participants in recreational- active use and multi-use parks commented on their large size and ability to provide shade. Vegetation diversity appeared to be more important to participants in natural- passive use and multi-use parks than in recreational-active use parks. More than half of

52 participants recommended changes to the plants. Recreational-active use and multi-use park participants wanted more colorful vegetation, while participants in the natural- passive use parks wanted to remove invasive or harmful plants. Overall, the demographics of the study participants were relatively similar to Portland; however, they differed in terms of urban park type, which implied that the range of potential socio- cultural benefits of parks, including those provided by vegetation, may not be shared equitably across communities. This study showed that vegetation preferences and desires of park visitors tended to vary depending on park type, and so park managers should consider this during vegetation planning/maintenance. More research and management actions are needed to integrate needs and preferences of vegetation into park design and improve accessibility to urban parks for women, ethnic/racial minorities, and individuals with disabilities.

3. CHAPTER 3 – Urban Park Visitor Experiences and Perceptions of Vegetation in Portland, Oregon

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Urban parks are a type of green infrastructure that provide a range of physical, psychological, and social benefits for people, as well as promote habitat and biodiversity conservation (Benedict & McMahon, 2012; Lovell & Taylor, 2013; Svendsen, Campbell,

& McMillen, 2016). With rapid urbanization and population growth in urban areas, the protection of urban nature and green spaces is critical for safeguarding a range of ecosystem services for people and the environment (Miller, 2005; Qiu, Lindberg, &

Nielsen, 2013). Multifunctional green infrastructure strategies aim to provide a holistic framework with flexible options that increase various benefits such as social and ecological connectivity, biodiversity, accessibility, physical activity, and education, which extend beyond traditional green infrastructure uses to focus on a single benefit such as stormwater management5 (Lovell & Taylor, 2013; Meerow & Newell, 2017).

However, to more successfully and holistically manage urban environments, managers need to better incorporate human needs and desires to connect with nature (Chapman,

2002). Additional studies are needed to further evaluate the dynamics of people’s attitudes, values, and understandings of human-nature relationships at multiple scales

(Muhar et al., 2018), as well as how this information might beneficially influence urban green space planning, design, and management (Botzat, Fischer, & Kowarik, 2016;

Gobster, Nassauer, Daniel, & Fry, 2007).

5 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2017). What is green infrastructure? Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of the United Nations, ecosystem services arise when ecological structures and functions directly or indirectly influence a human need or want (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Various ecosystem services include provisioning services (e.g., food, water, timber, and fiber), regulating services (e.g., climate and water quality), cultural services (e.g., recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits), and supporting services (e.g., photosynthesis and nutrient cycling). While many of these ecosystem services are complex and often indirect, cultural ecosystem services are directly experienced by humans, and therefore have the capacity to raise public support for nature preservation (Daniel et al., 2012;

Gobster et al., 2007; Miller, 2005). Even so, cultural ecosystem services are often regarded as too intangible or subjective to be adequately integrated into an ecosystem services framework and management (Daniel et al., 2012).

Although cultural ecosystem services can be seen as subjective and intangible, urban parks and greenspaces have the potential to provide a range of health, social, economic, and cultural benefits for people (Bedimo-Rung, Mowen, & Cohen, 2005; Benedict &

McMahon, 2012; Frumkin et al., 2017; Henderson & Bialeschki, 2005). For example, some of the known physical and psychological health benefits of urban parks and green spaces are reduced stress, blood pressure, risk of diabetes, aggression, as well as improved sleep patterns and cognitive and emotional development in children (Bedimo-

Rung et al., 2005; Frumkin et al., 2017). Additionally, an important component of enhancing human wellbeing in urban areas is the presence of biodiversity (Botzat et al.,

2016; Miller, 2005; Palliwoda, Kowarik, & von der Lippe, 2017; Sandifer, Sutton-Grier,

& Ward, 2015). Various elements such as trees, grasslands, flowers, forests, and individual plants can have restorative effects on human health (van den Berg, 2008), as well as the ability to focus or direct attention (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Additionally, there are many economic benefits of urban parks and green spaces such as increased energy conservation, economic growth and tourism, and consumer behavior in urban shopping districts (Benedict & McMahon, 2012; Frumkin et al., 2017; Joye, Willems,

Brengman, & Wolf, 2010; Spirn, 1984). Urban parks and green spaces are also places where people can experience intercultural and multiethnic interactions (Peters, 2010), connect with each other by walking with family and/or pets (Tilt, 2010), play recreational sports, and visit cultural resources such as historical landmarks and archeological sites

(Benedict & McMahon, 2012).

There are many potential socio-cultural benefits of urban parks, but these benefits are not always shared equitably across different communities6 (Byrne, 2012; Frumkin et al.,

2017; Weems, 2016). For example, “green gentrification” may increase property values, which may disproportionately negatively affect ethnic and/or racial minority populations1

(Frumkin et al., 2017). Additionally, people with physical or mental disabilities, elderly populations, or minority groups may live in areas that have adequate proximity to parks, but their quality, programming, features, and accessibility may remain barriers to their

6 The Nature of Cities. (2014). What are the social justice implications of urban ecology, and how can we make sure that “green cities” are not synonymous with “gentrified” or “exclusive cities, Retrieved from https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2014/02/03/what-are-the-social-justice-implications-of-urban- ecology-and-how-can-we-make-sure-that-green-cities-are-not-synonymous-with-gentrified-or- exclusive-cities/

56 use7 (Frumkin et al., 2017; Weems, 2016). Additionally, minorities may not feel welcome or safe in particular parks that are experienced as primarily for use by whites (Byrne,

2012; Frumkin et al., 2017). Parks may not have adequate park signage or online references in non-English languages or employees in the parks that represent a range of ethnic or cultural backgrounds (Byrne, 2012). In many cases, parks may not address the losses that took place for their creation, such as displacement of Native American populations or revitalization of urban areas (e.g., urban renewal projects of the 1960s) for

8,9 parks by demolishing portions of minority neighborhoods .

On-going investment in green infrastructure such as urban parks within the City of

Portland focuses on improving the ecological health, community livability, and environmental equity (City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, 2010;

Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015a, 2015b). Portland is an important city in which to study the cultural ecosystem services of urban parks because it was named as one of the most sustainable cities in the United States (Portney, 2005). In a previously completed qualitative and exploratory research study, participants who worked and/or lived in or adjacent to a watershed program (e.g., Portland, Oregon’s Tabor to the River program) within southeast Portland were asked open-ended questions and provided detailed

7 Natural England. (2008). Parks, people and nature: a guide to enhancing natural habitats in London’s parks and green spaces in a changing climate. Retrieved from http://downloads.gigl.org.uk/website/parks_people_and_nature1.pdf 8 Flores, T. and S. Griffith. (2002) Ira Keller Fountain. Oregon Historical Society. Retrieved from https://oregonhistoryproject.org/articles/historical-records/ira-keller-fountain/#.WxB6SExFxrQ 9 Toll, W. (2003) Race and progressive resistance. The Oregon History Project. Retrieved from https://oregonhistoryproject.org/narratives/commerce-climate-and-community-a-history-of-portland- and-its-people/portland-neighborhoods/race-and-progressive-resistance/#.WxB5z0xFxrR

57 descriptions about their perceptions of urban nature, natural systems, and various nature activities (Church, 2018). Although the participants sometimes discussed parks and accessibility, the interview questions were not specifically focused on their experiences in urban parks, accessibility, or their perceptions of the vegetation. Additionally, the participants only included those who lived or worked in a section of southeastern

Portland, and not from additional neighborhoods throughout the city.

In addition to this qualitative study, there are a few quantitatively-based studies of perceptions of urban parks and natural resources in Portland, Oregon. In one study, both users and non-users of city nature parks completed a mail-back questionnaire, which showed that the presence of Portland city nature parks within driving or walking distance of the participants’ homes were positively correlated with perceptions of the neighborhood social health (Baur, Gómez, & Tynon, 2013). However, this study did not include questions about other types of parks within the city. A different study used a mail-back and internet-based questionnaire to survey both nonusers and users simultaneously about their attitudes of city nature parks in Portland, and found that there were significant differences between the two groups (Baur, Tynon, & Gómez, 2013).

However, this study only focused on nature parks and did not address the potential influence of park type on visitor perceptions and experiences. Additionally, this study did not include questions about accessibility and how that might affect participant perceptions and attitudes. A third quantitative study compared perceptions of natural resources and a range of amenities and accessibility issues at a variety of scales between

Portland and nearby Vancouver, Washington (Morzillo et al., 2016). While this study was

58 comprehensive and asked questions about landscape characteristics and vegetation, it only included individual household residences with a single delivery point (e.g., single family homes). In this manner, the study excluded individuals who live in apartment buildings or who are houseless, which potentially eliminated the perspectives of people with different socioeconomic levels and living situations.

While a few studies have explored user experiences within Portland’s urban parks, perceptions of vegetation, and accessibility issues, there is a lack of research that explores these aspects in a range of urban park types interspersed throughout the city using qualitative methods to observe and interview park visitors on-site. The purpose of this study is to better understand visitor experiences, perceptions of vegetation, and accessibility by interviewing visitors on-site, and interviewing visitors at a range of urban parks interspersed throughout Portland. Although the population interviewed in this type of study is self-selected since the participants are present in the urban parks during the interviews, the study design allows participants to directly experience the urban park while they reflect on the vegetation and any accessibility issues. The location of interviews is important because it has the potential to offer rich sources of data, enable researchers to better understand responses, and allow researchers to make additional observations (Elwood & Martin, 2000), thereby eliciting more detailed and authentic responses from participants. Additionally, using on-site interviews instead of mailed or emailed questionnaires opens the possibility for interviewing participants with a range of socioeconomic backgrounds and housing situations, including those who are homeless/houseless or visiting from out of town. Furthermore, including a range of urban

59 park types from natural to more recreational across the city allows for the opportunity to interview visitors in a variety of neighborhoods and potentially sample more diverse perspectives than those that might be found among users of specific park types (e.g., only visitors to natural parks or only visitors to recreational parks).

The focus of this study is to better understand the degree to which the vegetation in urban parks of Portland currently meets the needs and desires of visitors. I sought to explore the following research question:

How does the vegetation in Portland, Oregon’s urban parks currently meet the

needs and desires of urban park visitors?

Definitions for this research question include:

• “Vegetation” – the plant species, amount, and strata type.

• “Portland, Oregon” – the area within the Portland city boundary.

• “Urban parks” – designated parks within the urban city boundary.

• “Currently” – data collected during from July 26, 2018 to September 3, 2018.

• “Needs and desires” – as revealed and defined during qualitative interviews

with urban park visitors.

• “Urban park visitors” – people present within the urban park at the time of

sampling.

3.2 METHODS

3.2.1 Study Area

This study was completed in Portland, the largest city in Oregon (approximately 376 km2) and located within Multnomah County at the confluence of the Columbia and

Willamette Rivers. According to the United States Census Bureau for 2017, there were approximately 647,805 people living within Portland10. The population of the city continues to rise, with approximately 10,000 new residents each year since 2010. In terms of demographics, the population is approximately 50.5 percent female and 49.5 percent male. Approximately 18 percent of the population is 18 years or younger, 70 percent is between the ages of 18 to 64, and 12 percent is 65 years or older. In terms of race and ethnicity, most of the population is white (77 percent), followed by Hispanic or Latino

(10 percent), Asian (8 percent), Black or African American (6 percent), two or more races (6 percent), Native American or Alaska Native (< 1 percent), and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (< 1 percent)6. Of people within Portland who are least 25 years old, approximately 92 percent have graduated high school or higher, and 48 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher.

With a moderate climate tempered by winds from the Pacific Ocean, an average annual precipitation of 40 – 50 inches, and a mix of nutrient-rich and hydric soil formations, the Portland area supports a diverse range of tree, shrub, vine, and herbaceous species used by human and non-human animals (Pojar & MacKinnon, 2016;

United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1983). Some of these

10 United States Census Bureau. (2017). QuickFacts Portland city, Oregon. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/portlandcityoregon/PST045217

61 common native plant species include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), vine maple (Acer circinatum), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Oregon oxalis (Oxalis oregana), common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Pacific waterleaf (Hydrophyllum tenuipes),

Western sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and a variety of grasses (Christy, Kimpo,

Marttala, Gaddis, & Christy, 2009; Hitchcock & Cronquist, 2018; Pojar & MacKinnon,

2016), many of which are found in Portland’s parks today (Portland Parks and

Recreation, 2011, 2015a). The vegetation of the Portland area also includes a variety of non-native and invasive species introduced by humans to the area (Christy et al., 2009).

Overall, the environmental context within Portland provided the basis for many of its more than 4,047 hectares of urban parks, which include wetlands and river floodplains

(e.g., Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge, Big Four Corners Natural Area, and North Swan

Island Boat Ramp), gentle rolling hillslopes (e.g. Ed Benedict Park, Brentwood Park, and

Rose City Park), and steep forested hillsides (e.g., Forest Park, Woods Memorial Natural

Area, and George Himes Park) (City of Portland, Oregon, 2018).

In addition to the physical geography and vegetation patterns, there are many social patterns and processes that have shaped urban parks within Portland. Native Americans have had a long history of subsistence living along the Columbia River11, but settlers from Europe began to visit and develop infrastructure and industry the area in the late

1820s, which continued over the next decades with additional settlers from Japan and

11 Robbins, W.G. (2002). The First Peoples. The Oregon Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://oregonhistoryproject.org/narratives/this-land-oregon/the-first-peoples/the-first- peoples/#.WxBpfExFxrQ

China12,13. Portland became an urban center and started acquiring lands in the 1870s that are known today as Forest Park and Washington Park14. The Portland’s Park Board hired architects, the Olmstead brothers, to help design the fairgrounds for the 1905 World’s

Fair, as well as assess Portland’s terrain, current park system, and plan for future parks15.

The Olmstead Portland park plan included an interconnected system of parks and parkways, of which many major aspects are still present within the city today.

Additionally, there were large areas in the west hills of Portland that became part of the parks system because they were either unsuitable for development (e.g., the area of Forest

Park), foreclosed on and surrendered, donated (e.g. Macleay Park and portions of Forest

Park), or sold to the city (e.g. Washington Park)16,17. Some urban renewal projects of the

1960s sought to revitalize cities like Portland with urban parks, however they often resulted in demolishing portions of minority neighborhoods (e.g., areas in downtown

12 Robbins, W.G. (2002). Resettlement and the new economy. The Oregon Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://oregonhistoryproject.org/narratives/this-land-oregon/resettlement-and-the-new-economy/a- changing-landscape-and-the-beginnings-of-white-settlement/#.WxBsOkxFxrQ 13 Robbins, W.G. (2002) Political and economic culture, 1870-1920. The Oregon Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://oregonhistoryproject.org/narratives/this-land-oregon/political-and-economic-culture- 1870-1920/railroads-race-and-the-transformation-of-oregon/#.WxBsfUxFxrQ 14 Robbins, W.G. (2002). The growth of Portland. Retrieved from: https://oregonhistoryproject.org/narratives/this-land-oregon/the-rural-urban-interface/the-growth-of- portland/#.WxBsxUxFxrQ 15 Orloff, C. (2018). Olmstead Portland park plan. The Oregon Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/olmsted_portland_park_plan/#.WxBpWkxFxrS 16 Toll, W. (2003). Early Portland. The Oregon Historical Project. Retrieved from: https://oregonhistoryproject.org/narratives/commerce-climate-and-community-a-history-of-portland- and-its-people/the-making-of-a-market-town/early-portland/#.WxB2FUxFxrQ 17 Provost, L. (2018). Forest park. The Oregon Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/forest_park/#.WxByDExFxrT

Portland near the Ira Keller Fountain), which ultimately contributed to discriminatory land use planning and patterns18.

3.2.2 Research Design

Within each of the selected urban parks, I performed qualitative research by observing visitors’ behaviors and conducting detailed interviews. Qualitative research is a wide-ranging approach for studying and learning about social phenomena, which relies on an array of data collection techniques (adapted from Rossman & Rallis, 2003). This type of research is an active process in which the researcher is constantly learning, interpreting, and consciously making decisions that affect the direction and meanings of the research (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). Qualitative research does not seek to place an a priori framework on the social world, and so does not include formal hypotheses related to the research question before the data are gathered and analyzed (Rossman & Rallis,

2003). The responses of the urban park visitors in this study have the potential to reveal the many benefits of urban park vegetation, as well as how vegetation might not meet their needs or desires (e.g., if vegetation were to limit accessibility or use). While this study is meant to capture many diverse perspectives in different types of urban parks of

Portland, it is not a completely survey or representative of all visitor perspectives in all

Portland’s parks. The integration of these perspectives into management has the potential to enhance various cultural ecosystem services for people in urban parks.

18 Flores, T. and S. Griffith. (2002). Ira Keller Fountain. Oregon Historical Society. Retrieved from: https://oregonhistoryproject.org/articles/historical-records/ira-keller-fountain/#.WxB6SExFxrQ

While qualitative research is explorative, iterative, and interpretive, and context- specific, it is also systematic in that the researcher explains the basis for decisions made in the study and documents the process so that they can be reviewed and critiqued by others. My study can be described as using a phenomenological inquiry methodology

(e.g., questioning the structure and essence of lived experience) (Given, Ed., 2008;

Rossman & Rallis, 2003) because my research focused on learning about each participant’s experiences and perceptions within urban parks, comparing and contrasting these responses, and then reflecting on these meanings. My paradigm is primarily interpretivist, which relates to understanding the social world as it is (i.e., the status quo) from the perspective of individuals, which may include a range of subjective world views

(Rossman & Rallis, 2003).

It is important for qualitative researchers to recognize their personal biography and identities, which can have an impact on how they perceive and interact with the world.

As for myself, I identify as a cis-gender female and in my 30s. As a woman and someone who is perceived as female, I generally find that people will trust me enough to approach them in public spaces, even if they are with children. I recognize that I am open to talking with most people, but I sometimes hesitate in approaching men that I do not know because of safety concerns. As a person in my 30s, I feel as though I have an advantage of being able to relate to people who are both younger and older than me. Another part of my personal history is that I am first-generation American who grew up in the suburbs of

Portland. I identify as having a Jewish ethnicity with my roots in Europe and the Middle

East, but I am generally perceived as white and have many of its associated privileges in

Portland, a predominantly white city. Since I also grew up in Portland, I have visited many of its urban parks throughout my lifetime, which adds a level of comfort to my exploration of these parks and the people who visit them. My politics and beliefs are typically “left-leaning” and “pro-environment,” which is common within cities of the

Pacific Northwest. When I approach park visitors to talk about vegetation in urban parks, they are likely to expect this type of orientation in myself, which may influence that ways in which they provide answers to my questions. Additionally, as a person pursuing a graduate degree at a university who reads and speaks English, has consistent housing and food, a moderately good level of physical and mental health, and the ability to see, hear, smell, and walk, it is also important to recognize how these privileges and inequalities may create power imbalances or differences in communication with some visitors of urban parks.

In this study, the urban parks that were selected for interviewing participants were chosen using a stratified random sampling design with a list of parks within the Portland city boundary (City of Portland, Oregon, 2018) (Figure 2.1, page 18). The sites included four parks of each of three general park types that were interspersed within each of the city’s quadrants and had a range of sizes comparable to that of all Portland’s parks. A park typology (Weems, 2016) was used to ensure that the examined parks were representative of Portland parks. This typology included the following three general park types based on use: 1) recreational-active use parks that are highly developed with facilities that promote active play such as sports fields and play equipment, 2) natural- passive use parks that are generally more passively used with benches, viewing areas, and

66 trails, but do not have formal fields for active play, and 3) multi-use parks with a general mix of active and passive uses (Weems, 2016). An additional natural-passive use park,

Forest Park, was added to the list of sampled parks because it is the most iconic and largest urban park within Portland (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2011). In order to have a balanced study design, an additional randomly selected recreational-active use park and a multi-use park were added to the list of sampled parks, for a total of fifteen parks with five parks of each type. While no park typology can capture all of the variation in landscape design, management, and visitor use, the typology used in this study allowed for a diverse range of urban parks to be sampled within this study.

Prior to any formal data collection, I visited three of these urban parks (one of each park type) in the spring of 2018 to observe, take photographs, record observations, talk to visitors about their experiences and vegetation perceptions, and formulate and revise questions for the study. I also met with two professors, Dr. Mary Santelmann (my thesis advisor) and Dr. Jenna Tilt (one of my committee members) at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon to discuss my objectives and research questions for participants.

Through a series of drafts, they assisted in finalizing a series of questions for the study.

With the help of a native-Spanish speaker, we also created a version of the questionnaire in Spanish, the second most common language in Portland,19 to expand the number of participants that could be involved in the study. Research with human subjects requires

Oregon State University’s Human Research Protection Program and Institutional Review

19 Data USA. (2019). Portland, Oregon. Retrieved from: https://datausa.io/profile/geo/portland-or/

Board (IRB) approval20. Dr. Mary Santelmann and I had meetings with the IRB to discuss ethical considerations such as informed consent and how to limit any harm or risks to the participants. We also completed a basic course for human research for social/behavioral research investigators and key personnel21. Our study was reviewed and received IRB approval July 16, 2018 (Appendix C).

My observations and interviews for this study were conducted between July 26, 2018 and September 3, 2018. To account for the potential influence and variation of park visitors based on the day of the week and time of day, I visited each of the three park types on five different days of the week, including at least one weekend day. Each of the three park types also had at least one morning, afternoon, and evening sampling time. A midday sampling time also occurred twice based on my schedule limitations. I standardized my clothing and showed my affiliation by wearing a university T-shirt or sweater during all data collection. For safety considerations, I had a friend accompany me

(i.e., seven different individuals in total) during each park visit who stood or sat near me, but did not participate in asking questions during the interviews. I also checked in with my advisor and research group by email or phone before and after every park visit to let them know of our daily locations and that I had safely completed the data collection.

Within each of the parks, I observed park visitors’ behaviors and conducted detailed semi-structured qualitative interviews about their experiences, perceptions of the vegetation, and any accessibility issues in the urban parks. I spent approximately three

20 Oregon State University Office of Research Integrity. (2018). Does your study require IRB review approval? Retrieved from: https://research.oregonstate.edu/irb/does-your-study-require-irb-review 21 CITI Program. (2018). Social-behavioral-educational (SBE) Basic. Retrieved from: https://about.citiprogram.org/en/course/human-subjects-research-2/

68 hours at each site, which included time for observation and interviews. The data are primarily in form of words, which include both written descriptions of my observations and the verbal responses of the participants. I first documented my observations of park visitor behaviors (e.g., activities such physical exercise, relaxing, reading, or interacting with other people or animals), weather conditions, and any other details on the general park vicinity. I also took photographs of my surroundings and the general park vicinity, but not specifically of visitors. After making these observations, I systematically selected three visitors in each park for interviews based on their proximity to randomly selected quadrants of the park, regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity, current activity, or other characteristics. I noted when people declined interviews and their reasons. I first introduced myself, explained the study and the informed consent process.

After the visitors consented and agreed to be interviewed, I asked them a range of questions such as their reason(s) for visiting the park, their experiences, if the park was accessible to their needs, any aspects they liked or would like to change about the vegetation, and demographics questions. I did not use an audio recorder for any of the interviews with participants, but I validated their answers by reading to them what I had written and asking for clarification whenever I did not fully understand their responses.

Between urban park visits, I had meetings with researchers to talk about the research process and discuss emerging themes in the data. There were several questions that I asked during the interviews, but the specific ones that were used to answer the main research question for this study included:

• Why do you visit the park?

• How often do you visit and how long do you generally stay?

• Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs?

• What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park?

• What aspects, if any, would you like to change about the plants in this park?

• Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level).

After the data were collected, I transcribed it into text documents and began my content analysis by reading the data many times to increase my familiarity (Rossman &

Rallis, 2003). I continued my content analysis by coding the interview responses using

QSR International’s NVivo 12 Plus software to look for any potential patterns in the interview perspectives. The coding process included searching for themes and patterns of meaning that emerged from the data, and then reviewing and refining the codes and sub- codes into a codebook that could be shared with other researchers. Any patterns that emerged for park improvements were also coded as suggestions for future urban park and vegetation management. It is important to note that coding requires a certain level of judgment by the researcher (Rea & Parker, 2005; Rossman & Rallis, 2003). I validated my coding by randomly selecting and sharing five percent of my interviews and codebook with another researcher, and then comparing our coding results and calculating a kappa statistic in QSR International’s NVivo 12 Plus software. After the coding process, I created a narrative to provide detail on with themes, meanings, and supporting quotes that were provided by participants during the interviews.

3.3 RESULTS

My findings include overall demographics information for the study participants

(Table 3.1), and the key issues that emerged from the data analysis. To compare the participant responses in different contexts, I separated the interviews into sections based on park type, which included natural-passive use, recreational-active use, and multi-use parks. Within each of these sections, I provided an overview of my observations and participant demographics. I also elaborated on why participants visited the parks, if the park was accessible to their needs, and what they liked or would like to change about the vegetation. I also shared participants’ responses that related to what changes they would like see in park vegetation management. The urban park visitor responses for the analyzed interview questions are provided in Appendix D, and the codebook for themes and patterns of meaning is shown in Appendix E. Of the park visitors who were approached for an interview, approximately 57 percent agreed to participate in the study.

The average time per interview was approximately 24 minutes, with a range of 10 – 40 minutes. Two other researchers performed coding validation by reviewing five percent of the interviews. The manual coding validation with a second researcher showed a code overlap of approximately 62 percent. We discussed the results from the validation and updated some of the codes and their definitions in the codebook. Then, a third researcher performed validation QSR International’s NVivo 12 Plus software by coding with the updated codebook, which revealed an overall mean Kappa coefficient of 0.95 for all nodes. A kappa coefficient is a statistical measure which takes into account the amount of

71 agreement that could be expected to occur by chance22. The quotations throughout this section show detailed perspectives and experiences of the visitors to these parks. A summary of the participants’ responses for all parks and by park type is provided in

Section 3.3.5.

Table 3.1. Demographics information for Portland, all parks in the study, and by park type. Park Type Female Male Age Age Education White/ Non- (%) (%) Range Median (% of ≥ 25 Caucasian white years old (%) minorities with ≥ (%) bachelor’s degree) Portland 50.5 49.5 -- -- 48 77 23 (based on U.S. Census 2017)23 All Parks 53 47 19 – 75 37 57 72 28 Natural- 38 62 19 – 75 37 83 92 8 passive use Recreational 67 33 19 – 71 37 60 67 33 - active use Multi-use 53 47 25 - 64 35 33 60 40

3.3.1 Overall Demographics

Over the course of my data collection process, I interviewed a total of 43 participants in 15 different urban parks of Portland (Table 3.1). Three participants were interviewed in each urban park of the study, except for Big Four Corners Natural Area, where I interviewed the only person that I encountered during my site visit. Of the 43 participants, 53 percent were female, and 47 percent were male, with an age range of 19 to 75 years old (Figure 3.1). The average age was 40 years old with a median of 37 years.

22 QSR International (2019). Coding comparison query. Retrieved from: https://help- nv.qsrinternational.com/12/win/v12.1.72-d3ea61/Content/queries/coding-comparison-query.htm 23 United States Census Bureau. (2017). QuickFacts Portland city, Oregon. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/portlandcityoregon/PST045217

In terms of ethnicity, 72 percent of participants were self-described as white/Caucasian, 9 percent as Hispanic/Latinx, 7 percent as Asian/Pacific Islander, 5 percent as African

American/Black, 5 percent as Multi-ethnic (e.g., African American/Black, Native

American, white), and 2 percent as Native American. Of the participants, approximately

95 percent had at least a high school degree with 53 percent having a bachelor’s degree or higher (Figure 3.2). When removing participants who were less than 25 years old (6 participants), about 97 percent had a least a high school degree and 57 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Figure 3.1. Age and gender demographic information of the 43 study participants.

4 Female Male # of of # Participants 3

0 19-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-75 Age Ranges

Figure 3.2. Educational demographics of study participants. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

# of of # participants 3 2 1 0 Some high High Some Two-year Bachelor's Master's Doctorate school school college degree (associates, trade) Education level

Overall, the demographics of the study participants appeared to be relatively comparable to the 2017 United States Census Bureau statistics for Portland10, except for a slightly higher percentage of participants with at least a bachelor’s degree and slightly higher percentage of non-white ethnic minority groups. Three of the participants (7 percent) revealed that they were houseless or lived in or near unattended property. Of the

43 participants, 58 percent indicated that they visited the park at least 1 time per week or more, and 21 percent stated that they visited 6-7 times/week. Twenty-one percent of participants indicated that they had only visited the park 1-2 times total. The remaining participants provided responses ranging from a few times a day, infrequently during work breaks, seasonally during the summertime, or 1-3 times per month. The amount of time that they spent in the park ranged from less than 30 minutes to 6 hours or more with one

74 participant stating that they lived in one of the parks. Most of the participants indicated that they spent about 1-2 hours in the park per visit.

3.3.2 Natural-Passive Use Parks

In this study, I visited five natural-passive use parks, which can generally be described as more passively used with benches, viewing areas, and trails for walking, hiking, and biking, but do not have formal fields for active play (Weems, 2016). These parks included George Himes Park (13 hectares, established 1903), Forest Park (2,058 hectares, est. 1947), and Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge (65 hectares, est. 1959), Woods

Memorial Natural Area (19 hectares, est. 1988), and Big Four Corners Natural Area (59 hectares, est. 2005), which are distributed throughout Portland (City of Portland, Oregon,

2018) (Photos 3.1- 3.5). These parks have a range of habitats from wetlands and river floodplains to steep forested hillslopes. All of them have trails, but some of the parks have more extensive networks and signage (e.g., Forest Park) than others (e.g., Big Four

Corners Natural Area).

Photo 3.1. George Himes Park

Photo 3.2. Forest Park

Photo 3.3. Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge

Photo 3.4. Woods Memorial Natural Area

Photo 3.5. Big Four Corners Natural Area

3.3.2.1 Demographics

I made observations and interviewed three people in each natural-passive use park, except for Big Four Corners Natural Area, where I interviewed the only person that I encountered. A total number of 13 participants were interviewed in these parks.

Demographics information is shown in Table 3.1. In terms of gender, 38 percent were female, and 62 percent were male. The ages ranged from 19 – 75 years old with a mean of 44 years and a median of 37 years. Ninety-two percent of the participants were self- described as white/Caucasian and one person described himself as Hispanic. All the participants had at least some college and 83 percent of individuals ≥ 25 years had at least a bachelor’s degree. Compared to all of participants in the study, the visitors to the natural-passive use parks had a greater proportion of men compared to women, similar age, higher formal education, and less racial and ethnic diversity.

3.3.2.2 Reasons for Visiting and Accessibility

The participants provided a range of reasons for visiting the natural-passive use parks such as being outdoors, relaxation, doing tasks for their job, spending time with dogs, enjoying the beauty of nature, and physical recreation. Approximately two-thirds of the participants indicated that they came to the park for passive recreational activities such as walking, hiking, and biking. Children were only mentioned once as a reason for coming to the park. Participants enjoyed the solitude and mental relaxation that they found in the parks, but they also described them as places to connect with friends and family. All participants had more than one reason for visiting, and many described parks as a reason why they enjoyed Portland and/or Oregon. A 33-year-old man walking on a trail in Forest

Park indicated why he came to the park:

“To be in the outdoors, in nature. Hike or run, bring the dogs. The park is huge and there are lots of things to do. I’m a big supporter of parks and it’s a big reason why I live in Portland. There are more parks in the city than most.”

A 30-year-old woman walking a couple of dogs in Woods Memorial Natural Area also shared some of the same sentiments about why she visited the park:

“I love being in nature for the peace and quiet. It’s a great thing about Portland that we have a lot of parks. I can get out of the city and reconnect and center myself in a busy world where we all need a moment to step back and remember we are all a part of the world and appreciate that. I’m a professional dog walker and hike with them or by myself. It gives the opportunity to explore different parks.”

The reasons why visitors came to the park were often aligned with accessibility, whether the park was near their home, had available parking, cleanliness, maintained paths, and/or access points to other nearby trails or bicycling loops. Almost half of the participants discussed trails as a main component of determining accessibility in the

79 parks. Accessibility was also important for people of many different ages. A 75-year-old man walking a dog in George Himes Park shared that he came to the park:

“…because I live just about half a block away. I use it all the time. I walk and hike through while I have a cup of coffee. I chat with neighbors and sit at the picnic tables,” while a 33-year-old man biking in Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge stated that:

“I’m using the bike trails and heading to Gresham. It’s my day off and this is a very beautiful scenic route to take.”

Another participant riding their bike with a trailer in Big Four Corners Natural Area described how the park was their home and provided them access to basic amenities for survival:

“I live here. There’s food nearby, water from a carport, and it’s real easy to get to.”

While most people discussed accessibility in terms of themselves, some individuals, including a 72-year-old woman hiking in Woods Memorial Natural Area discussed accessibility in the park for others. She explained that:

“I am not a special needs person yet. I like that there are some markings for the edges and some material for preventing slipping (metal mesh). They help people not slip. I’m a nurse, so I look out for that”.

Many participants felt that the park was accessible to their needs (e.g., good maintenance, proximity, parking, a variety of trails and easy access), but some participants described accessibility issues in the parks. A 33-year-old man in Forest Park indicated that:

“…some of the trailheads are difficult to access because of potholes or narrow roads crowded with cars.”

However, others did not like the lack of bathrooms at Big Four Corners Natural Area and Woods Memorial Natural Area. At George Himes Park, one visitor mentioned trash and garbage as somewhat of an accessibility issue, but stated that neighbors generally pick up the litter. A lack of interpretive signs was mentioned as an accessibility issue at

Oak Bottom Wildlife Refuge by some participants, including a 38-year-old woman who was bird watching and indicated that the park should:

“…maybe have more signs or information, like interpretive signs available for trailheads identifying trees, and maps”.

I did not observe or interview anyone in these parks who was in a wheelchair or appeared to have a significant physical disability, so perspectives from those with physical disabilities are not represented for the natural-passive use parks.

3.3.2.3 Vegetation Perceptions

3.3.2.3.1 What Visitors Liked About Plants

Within the natural-passive use parks, participants described a range of attributes that they liked about the vegetation such as their diversity, colors, beauty, maturity, size, ability to provide food like berries, and their contribution to a natural feeling in the parks.

Diversity and/or variety of plants were most common responses from participants.

However, two individuals were less enthusiastic and primarily stated how they did not know about the vegetation. A 60-year-old man biking in Forest Park indicated that he had:

“…no opinion. I don’t know too much about botany.”

Even so, most participants had positive opinions to share about the plants, including a

33-year-old woman working on a photoshoot in Forest Park who stated that the vegetation:

“…adds to the overall natural beauty. It adds to the diversity.”

Additionally, a 32-year-old man sitting on a bench overlooking a wetland at Oaks

Bottom Wildlife Refuge enthusiastically described his thoughts about the variety and colors of the vegetation:

“There’s a huge variety and it looks like its growing naturally. And then all of a sudden, purple flowers! Where did they come from? (laughs). This was a swamp two months ago.”

Other participants also shared this type of appreciation for variety and colors, but also discussed the importance of plant maintenance, such as removal of invasive species or planting of native species (e.g., the pollinator project in Woods Memorial Natural

Area). A 47-year-old woman sitting at a picnic table in George Himes Park shared her thoughts about plant diversity and maintenance:

“I love the ferns, big old trees, miner’s lettuce, and the wild blackberry and raspberry. So lush and green and the ferns are amazing to me. I’ve done the ivy pulls in other parks (Forest Park), but not as much here, which is kind of cool.”

While some participants talked about the positive aspects of maintenance, others enjoyed the parks because they appeared natural and less maintained. In Woods

Memorial Natural Area, a 72-year-old woman walking on a trail stated that:

“I like it because it’s wild and not manicured.”.

Additionally, a 33-year-old man hiking in Forest Park even compared the vegetation as being different than in other types of parks by exclaiming that:

“I like the size of the trees. Deep forest, mature forest. Not really old growth, but mature and natural-looking. Not like one of those parks that is all sports fields.”

Some participants acknowledged that some plants were pests, but a 65-year-old man walking his dog in Woods Memorial Natural Area explained some of their benefits for people and pets by sharing that:

“…blackberries are pests, but I enjoy them and so does my dog – but I don’t necessarily want more! We get them for free.”

3.3.2.3.2 What Visitors Would Change About Plants

When asked what the participants would like to change about the vegetation in the natural-passive use parks, one-third of them said that they would not change anything.

For example, a visitor at Big Four Corners Natural Area did not recommend any changes to the plants, but said that they once saw someone spraying weed killer. Almost one-third of participants had suggestions related to removing invasive and/or harmful plants such as ivy or blackberry. A 38-year-old woman bird watching in Oaks Bottom Wildlife

Refuge said that she would not want to change anything, but that she would:

“…like to try to keep out invasive species”.

In George Himes Park, a 19-year-old man resting at a picnic table with his bike had a similar sentiment and explained that he would like to see:

“More ferns, nothing that is prickly (in an ideal world) for my convenience, but I don’t want to mess up the ecosystem. Blackberry is different because it’s invasive. Anything that is invasive, I would remove, but it’s a lot of work”.

In addition to removing invasive and/or harmful vegetation, a 60-year-old man biking in Forest Park was confident that some vegetation should be removed to improve scenic views. He also compared it to another natural-passive use park and stated:

“…cut some down for views. Given its location, it should really have viewpoints. Even Smith and Bybee Wetlands and Columbia Slough have viewpoints.”

However, some participants did not want to see any vegetation removed and wanted the parks to remain the same. A 72-year-old woman in Woods Memorial Natural Park that she would not like to see changes and that:

“if [it was] manicured, I would have suggestions, but I like it wild”.

Beyond actual maintenance of the vegetation, a 33-year-old man biking at Oaks

Bottom Wildlife Refuge felt the managing people was most important for protecting the plants and habitat. He stated that he did not have any suggestions for plant changes:

“except for making sure that people stay on the trails”.

Some participants, including a 32-year-old man sitting on a bench near a wetland with his girlfriend in Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge, expressed a desire to learn more about the plants and animals in the refuge. He shared that:

“Maybe this is a ridiculous thing, but add some labels with the infographics. There’s so much life here, and I don’t know about the biology, but it would be nice to know! Trees, birds. Little labels or bigger.”

3.3.3 Recreational-Active Use Parks

I made observations and interviewed park visitors at five recreational-active use parks, which can be described as highly developed with formal facilities promoting active plant such as play equipment and sports fields, and often lack an abundance of greenspace and other natural amenities that are typically found in natural-passive use or multi-use parks (Weems, 2016). These parks included Wallace Park (2.2 hectares, established 1920), Brentwood Park (5.7 hectares, est. 1951), N Swan Island Boat Ramp

(0.7-hectare, est. 1996), Jamison Square (0.4-hectare, est. 2000), and Khunamokwst Park

(1-hectare, established 2009), which are distributed in all quadrants of Portland (City of

Portland, Oregon, 2018) (Photos 3.6 – 3.10). There are many different amenities in each of the parks, such as playgrounds, dog parks (i.e., Brentwood Park and Wallace Park), picnic tables, covered areas, sports fields (e.g., softball, soccer, basketball), large parking lots, a boat ramp (i.e., North Swan Island Boat Ramp), recreational fountains (e.g.,

Jamison Square and Khunamokwst Park), and a skate plaza (i.e., Khunamokwst Park).

Photo 3.6. Wallace Park

Photo 3.7. Brentwood Park

Photo 3.8. North Swan Island Boat Ramp

Photo 3.9. Jamison Square

Photo 3.10. Khunamokwst Park

3.3.3.1 Demographics

I interviewed three people in each of the recreational-active use parks, for a total of

15 interviews. The demographics information for the people in the parks is provided in

Table 3.1. Of the 15 participants, 67 percent were female and 33 percent were male.

Their age range was from 19 – 71 years old with a median of 37 years old. Sixty-seven percent were self-described as white/Caucasian with 33 percent as non-white minorities including Black (13 percent, one person specially as Haitian), Asian (Polynesian) (7 percent), Native American (7 percent), and multi-ethnic (Native American and Black) (7 percent). Of the participants that were ≥ 25 years old, 60 percent had at least a bachelor’s degree. Compared to all the study participants, these visitors had a greater proportion of women to men, same median age, slightly higher formal education, and a relatively similar amount of formal education and racial and ethnic diversity.

3.3.3.2 Reasons for Visiting and Accessibility

The participants in the recreational-active use parks had a variety of reasons for visiting the parks, most commonly for their children and/or dogs to play and be outdoors, build community, do work or relax after work, and have recreation. Less frequently, participants mentioned relaxation, enjoying the beauty of the park, and fresh air. While two participants only had one reason for coming to the park, most of them had many reasons. Almost half of the participants discussed how the park was important for children, including a 37-year-old woman who watched her two young children play in the fountain in Jamison Square and then run up and sit in our laps. She described her reasons for visiting the park as:

“…for my kids to socialize, get fresh air, new experiences, exercise, push them out of their comfort zone – take risks, watch them grow and gain confidence, make friends. It’s fun! I love watching them make friends.”

A 44-year-old man in Wallace Park pushing his two children on swings in Wallace

Park also had a similar opinion about the importance of bringing his children to park for enjoyment and outdoor time:

“I visit the park because my kids love to visit and to play. It’s the default if I don’t have anything else to do. Good to get them outside even of the weather is rainy. It’s good to visit if they are cooped up.”

While many participants came to the recreational-active use parks for children, almost one-third of them mentioned dogs as reason for visiting. Two of the recreational-active use parks had dog parks, which were a main highlight for people, including a 48-year-old woman at Brentwood Park sitting at a picnic table within the fenced dog park, who stated that she visited for:

“The dogs. I have three dogs and there is a dog park. I used to come for kids and other places like Woodstock [Park], but they are teenagers now. Dogs – they have to run, jump, and play.”

Even parks without formal spaces for dogs were important to visitors and their pets, such as the 50-year-old woman at the North Swan Island Boat Ramp who was watching her dog splash and drink water from the river. She visited so that her and her dog could:

“…experience nature in the city and to get close to the water. I had a goal of finding water on our walk today. Walk down to the water to drink, which isn’t ideal, but we don’t do it often.”

While many participants discussed children or dogs as reasons for coming to the park, almost one-third of them related their visit to building community with coworkers or working with others. In Wallace Park, a 24-year-old man and his wife both worked on

89 their laptops while sitting on a blanket in the sun. He shared why they came to the park as a way:

“…to get outside of apartment. We were on the couch and decided, “Do we want to work here or go to a park?” So, this is really nice.”

In Khunamokwst Park, a coworker party was a highlight for a 33-year-old man with his little brother. He also indicated that he visited the park daily:

“...because it’s convenient, community-based, family-oriented. Before, there was nothing here and I watched it grow. It’s a beautiful park. Right now, my friend is having a coworker party with clients (a group home with home care) and bringing people together.”

Accessibility was important for visitors at recreational-active use parks, especially in terms of the parks’ proximity to their home or work, and water for recreation. A 38-year- old man who rode his bike through the parking lot of the North Swan Island Boat Ramp appreciated that the location was close to prospective jobs and stated:

“Actually, I live on a sailboat north of here and I visit this park and other parks quite often because I’m trying to get a job nearby.”

There was also a range of other responses from the participants regarding accessibility, which included bathroom availability, dog facilities, park layout, places for relaxation, and wheelchair accessibility. In Jamison Square, a 71-year-old woman gave strawberries to her granddaughter who had just played in the fountain, and she stated that she was thankful for the park’s bathroom and the layout:

“…they have a bathroom, which is important for me because I’m an older person with incontinence. It’s nice there is space. Open space is nice”.

The layout was also important for separating out park uses and reducing conflict

within the recreational-active use parks. A 24-year-old woman sitting at a picnic table

in the dog park with her friends and their dog described that:

“…I like that there is a large open space for picnics and the dog park. I like that there is a more adult area and more kids’ areas. I’m not getting in the way of families and I get my own peaceful time.”

Although wheelchair accessibility was only mentioned once during the interviews, a

33-year-old man in a wheelchair was enthusiastic about the excellent wheelchair accessibility in Khunamokwst Park. However, he also recognized that there was a great need to improve accessibility in other parks. He explained that Khunamokwst Park was:

“…very accessible. I can go all around and can roll around. We need to have more parks that are accessible to people in wheelchairs. Need people to speak up or give signatures in the community.”

3.3.3.3 Vegetation perceptions

3.3.3.3.1 What Visitors Liked About Plants

The visitors in the recreational-active use parks had many reasons why they enjoyed the vegetation in the park and two-thirds of the participants mentioned the trees, including their size and ability to provide shade during hot summer days. Other plant attributes that were appreciated included their maintenance, placement in the park, and beautiful colors. In Brentwood Park, a 21-year-old woman walking on a path shared that the trees are:

“…big and provide a lot of shade. That random red tree is pretty.”

At Khunamokwst Park, a 42-year-old man sitting near a playground area and under a tree with his wife and two kids also appreciated the large trees, as well as the grass in the park:

“I love the long grasses. They left the big trees – I love them. It’s brilliant to leave the big trees.”

In addition to the large size of the trees and their shade, many participants enjoyed their maintenance and placement within the parks. Whether the plants were planted in rows or found in denser patches along perimeters or edges of water, visitors believed that this resulted in good mix of shaded and open areas. At the North Swan Island Boat Ramp, a 19-year-old woman spending time with her coworkers after her work shift described her favorite aspects of the plants:

“Ooo, Lord – I like that the trees are uniform. I have OCD, so I like it. As you get closer to water, I don’t know if it’s natural. But, as you closer to water, I appreciate the thicker density of the plant life. Whenever I’m rafting or kayaking, I like that. It shows good upkeep and attention to detail.”

While most participants described what they enjoyed about the plants, a 37-year-old woman pushing her son on a swing in Khunamokwst Park acknowledged that the plants in the park were not something that caught her attention compared to another park with more colorful plants:

“I don’t know. I don’t really pay attention. They are big. I pay more attention to the plants in Peninsula Park - the roses.”

3.3.3.3.2 What Visitors Would Change About Plants

While there were many aspects that participants enjoyed about the plants in the recreational-active use parks, one-third of the people interviewed in these parks said that they would to like see more color in the plants. Other less frequently suggested changes

92 included more flowers, fruits, berries, grass, middle growth (e.g., shrubs and saplings), and trees, as well as less mud and improved the placement of the plants. In Brentwood

Park, a 21-year-old woman sitting with friends and family while watching her niece play on the playground shared that:

“I like the trees, not a lot of plants. Could add more color – I don’t see a lot of flowers. Not saying they need to plant roses, but just anything with color. I’d want to see those.”

In addition to having more colors and flowers, a 71-year-old woman sitting on a bench and watching her granddaughter play in a fountain said that it is important to think of beauty throughout the seasons. She described that:

“Plants serve functions, but they might think of winter beauty – different berries or beautiful leaves for winter [for] color.”

Besides improving aesthetic beauty in the parks, a 33-year-old man watching his little brother play in Khunamokwst Park felt that more trees with fruits would be helpful for visitors who are homeless and/or struggling to find food. He explained that:

“I like the plants, but wish that we had fruit, but maybe not because of the cleanup. People are sometimes looking for food. We have enough trees and there is enough shade. People are looking for that and we have a water feature.”

Some participants noticed that a lack of vegetation in areas sometimes led to an increase of mud in the parks, especially during wintertime. A 44-year-old man playing with his kids in Wallace Park indicated that:

“Upkeep is good. It looks good, but would be nice to have more seeded grass - there’s some mud.”

While there were several suggestions for improving the vegetation, one-third of the participants in the recreational-active use parks enjoyed the plants just as they were and

93 stated that no changes were needed. In Jamison Square, a 49-year-old mother sitting on a park bench with her daughter explained that:

“I wouldn’t change anything. I like that [the trees] are up so that I can see everything, but also can go under them so they give shade.”

While no participants discussed adding native plant species or removing invasive plant species, one participant, a 50-year-old woman walking her dog at the North Swan

Island Boat Ramp, expressed a desire to learn more about native species. She observed a patch of vegetation near the water’s edge and stated:

“I don’t know [what I’d change], honestly. But, I’d be curious to know more what constitutes a native pocket here. What the plants are.”

3.3.4 Multi-use Parks

During this study, I made observations and interviewed visitors at five multi-use parks, which are combinations of both recreational-active use and natural-passive use parks, and tend to promote both active and passive uses (Weems, 2016). For example, Ed

Benedict Park has formal facilities for play equipment and sports, but also a memory garden, which promotes passive uses such as walking or sitting on benches and observing the flowers. The multi-use parks included in this study were Plaza Blocks (0.7-hectare, est. 1869), Columbia Park (14 hectares, est. 1891), Rose City Park (3.4 hectares, established 1920), Patton Square Park (0.5-hectare, est. 1960), and Ed Benedict Park (5.1 hectares, est. 1988), which are distributed throughout Portland (City of Portland, Oregon,

2018) (Photos 3.11 – 3.15). Within these parks, there are different active use amenities such as playgrounds, a skate plaza (Ed Benedict Park), and sports fields (e.g., soccer, softball, and tennis). However, they each promote passive uses in a variety of ways such

94 as having unpaved or paved trails and walking paths, a memory garden, and/or abundance of large and established vegetation cover.

Photo 3.11. Plaza Blocks

Photo 3.12. Columbia Park

Photo 3.13. Rose City Park

Photo 3.14. Patton Square Park

Photo 3.15. Ed Benedict Park

3.3.4.1 Demographics

Within each of the five multi-use parks, I interviewed three people for a total of 15 interviews. Information for their demographics is shown in Table 3.1. Of these participants, 53 percent were female and 47 percent were male with a range of 25 – 64 years old (median of 35). Sixty percent were self-described as white/Caucasian with 40 percent non-white minorities, including Hispanic (20 percent, one person specifically identifying as Colombian), Asian (13 percent), and multiethnic (Black and white/Caucasian) (7 percent). In terms of education, 33 percent of participants that were

≥ 25 years old had a bachelor’s degree. When compared to all 43 participants in the study, the individuals interviewed in the multi-use parks had a similar female to male ratio, similar median age but slightly fewer older individuals, lower formal education, and more racial and ethnic diversity.

3.3.4.2 Reasons for Visiting and Accessibility

The participants in the multi-use park interviews had many reasons for visiting the parks, which included proximity (e.g., to work, home, or school), bringing children for play activities, recreation (e.g., skateboarding, swimming, metal detecting, and interactive games with phones), being outdoors, spending time with dogs, relaxation, and being around trees. All of the participants had more than one reason for visiting the multi-use parks, which often included both active and passive uses. In Patton Square Park, a 28- year-old man walking along a path described the many reasons why he enjoys visiting the park, ranging from events such as movie nights to his admiration for the historical trees.

He explained that the park is:

“…a shortcut to my house – I live close to here. It’s more pleasant than walking on the streets. Personally, I like the tree in the NE corner – it’s historical. There’s going to be a movie night and I might come. A lot of big trees seem to have plaques and are protected.”

Almost half of the participants mentioned children as one of the reasons for visiting the multi-use parks, including a 25-year-old nanny feeding two children near the playground in Columbia Park and a 51-year-old woman playing with two toddlers at the playground in Rose City Park. In addition to bringing children to play, the woman in

Rose City Park stated that she visits:

“…because it’s good for you to be out in nature and be with the trees. It’s a de- stressor. Become one with the landscape. I also have a daycare and come with the kids to the park every day.”

Men also felt that the multi-use parks were good areas to bring children. In Rose City

Park, a 43-year-old man played frisbee with his two teenage sons, while in Ed Benedict

Park, a 27-year-old man taught his son how to skateboard. He described how the park

98 was a safe place for him to teach skateboarding away from busy city streets. Overall, he was more interested in the active rather than the passive uses in this park, and explained that he visited the park:

“...because it’s in the neighborhood and I came for the skatepark. There’s not that many in Portland. Considering it’s a city, there could be more. It would be better and then teen skaters would be there instead of in the streets (would prevent it more) of the metro area. It would keep kids from skating dangerous obstacles and areas. I come here with my son. I’m trying to teach him to skate. It’s a kid friendly area - it used to not be.”

While the man in Ed Benedict Park focused on active uses like skateboarding, other participants in multi-use parks were sometimes more interested in passive uses such as relaxing, watching people and protests, and playing interactive games their phone. In

Plaza Blocks, a 34-year-old man sitting on a park bench with his dog was observing a group of protestors chanting in front of Portland City Hall. He stated that he visited often:

“…to walk my dog and to watch the protests. I’m a protest spectator”

Multi-use parks were also places where some participants came to find and collect items. At Columbia Park, a 64-year-old man paced along the perimeter of the park with a metal detector, hoping to find historical treasures. In another instance, a 53-year-old woman in Patton Square Park dug through a trash can to collect cans to turn in for money, but also enjoyed the park with her dog and for its beauty. She explained that:

“My dog loves this park because of the squirrels. When he’s not with me, I come for cans. Beautiful to walk through. This is a smaller one, but a very good one, very important. People rely on it.”

All of the participants indicated that the multi-use parks were accessible to their needs and/or in some cases, the needs of their families. However, is important to note that I did not observe or interview anyone in the parks who was in a wheelchair or appeared to

99 have a significant disability, and so the perspectives of people with disabilities or others who do not use these parks are not well represented for the multi-use parks. More than half of the participants indicated that the parks’ proximity to work, home, and/or school was important for accessibility and a main reason why they visited the parks. Participants also cited many other factors as important for accessibility such as the presence of benches, trees, greenery, shade, and bathrooms. However, a 51-year-old woman watching children in Rose City park indicated that accessibility could be improved by restoring a previous recreational water feature in the park, which could then be available to lower- income people in nearby areas. Additionally, in Ed Benedict Park, a 43-year-old woman watching her kids ride bikes and skateboard was concerned about the lack of available drinking water for people:

“I bring it for my kids, but some kids don’t have them. There’s only one drinking fountain, and I don’t know if it’s working. Updating one would be great.”

3.3.4.3 Vegetation Perceptions

3.3.4.3.1 What Visitors liked About Plants

The participants at the multi-use parks enjoyed many aspects of the plants, such as the trees, beauty, size, diversity, and shade. Some of the less frequent responses were that they liked the plant colors, bark, maturity, improvement to air quality, fruits/berries, grass, and that plants had less pollen and were less invasive. Two-thirds of the participants stated that the trees, including their size, diversity, and ability to provide shade, were their favorite aspects of the plants. while a 35-year-old woman resting at a picnic table after a run and talking on the phone described her perspective on the vegetation in Rose City Park:

100

“I like the large canopy trees – they provide shade. Appears like there is diversity with the variety of conifers and broadleaf deciduous trees. They add an aesthetic complexity, and being a botanist, I appreciate that. I like seeing the cones, fruits, and barks of different textures.”

In Plaza Blocks, a 25-year-old man rested on a park bench with his friend after a long bike ride through the city. He shared how he used to work in landscaping, and also discussed his appreciation for the diversity of plants in Plaza Blocks:

“I do like the variety, honestly. Variety of different types of trees and the foliage (laughs)”.

In addition to the diversity, shade, size, and beauty of trees, a 35-year-old woman playing with her three sons on a blanket in Columbia Park recognized some of the additional benefits of trees such as improved air quality and lower temperatures. She stated that:

“I like the trees – they keep it cooler and fresh air.”

Besides the trees, other participants had general, overarching comments about the vegetation in the parks, including a 39-year-old mother watching her daughter play on the play structure in Patton Square Park. She described the vegetation by stating that:

“They’re beautiful. It’s green. The trees aren’t dead (laughs).”

While most participants had positive aspects to say about the vegetation, some participants did not feel the that vegetation was a highlight for them in the park, including a visitor to Ed Benedict Park who described the plants as regular and standard for parks.

One visitor to Plaza Blocks was neutral in terms of his plant preferences, but was also thankful that there was not very much pollen in the park. He stated that he had:

“No preference. I get allergies, but I don’t see too many flowers so I assume there is less pollen. It’s nice. If I’m going outside, it’s just greenery for me.”

101

3.3.4.3.2 What Visitors Would Change About Plants

Within the multi-use parks, almost all of the participants mentioned attributes that they liked about the vegetation and slightly more than one-third stated that they would not change anything about the plants. However, approximately two-thirds of the participants described the ways that plants could be improved in the park, such as adding more color, flowers, gardens, middle growth (e.g., shrubs and saplings), as well as improving plant placement and providing additional water for plants. Some less frequent suggestions were to increase seasonal beauty, number of trees, grass cover, and fragrances, while one person suggested reducing the amount of fragrance. Almost one- third of participants indicated that color would be good to add in the multi-use parks, including a 34-year-old man sitting with his dog in Plaza Blocks, who stated that the park should have:

“A little more color. It’s a seasonal criticism. But not so much that it is artificial (no annuals in pots). Oregon is many shades of green. Everything looks like it belongs here. Maybe add a Japanese maple-type plant.”

A 25-year-old nanny watching two children play in Columbia Park echoed this sentiment. While she found many aspects that she appreciated about the plants, she felt that a colorful garden would be a good addition to the park. She indicated that the plants:

“…are great. Beautiful. I love the trees. Could add a bit more color like a flower garden area.”

In Patton Square Park, a 28-year-old man who took a daily shortcut through the park on his way from work to home, also felt that adding a garden with vegetation and flowers would be an opportunity to teach children and engage the nearby school. He described his thoughts about the vegetation and some possible improvements:

102

“The trees – I enjoy the big shady trees. Other than that, there’s not much plants – that’s why I mention the gardens. I don’t know if it’s too farfetched, but having garden boxes would add heart, in the sense that the school could have gardens to teach kids. I don’t know if they have one already, but it could be a good way to teach kids.”

Within the multi-use parks, there were conflicting opinions about plant fragrances.

On the one hand, a 64-year-old man doing some metal detecting in along the southern portion of Columbia Park, desired:

“More fragrant shrubbery. There are rhododendrons in the corner, but once they bloom, that’s it. The main part of the park has shrubs that will bloom 6-7 times per year, depending on the year.”

However, in Ed Benedict Park, a 61-year-old woman who walked along a paved path with her small dog and greeted a young boy, had strong feelings against plant fragrances in the park. She explained she liked all of the plants except for:

“…the southern border bushes before they flower. It’s a terrible, stinky smell in spring. But then it’s okay after that. It’s nauseating.”

Beyond colors, gardens, and fragrances, some participants wanted more water for plants and improvement placement within the park. In Rose City Park, a 43-year old father described how it is important to keep plants alive with water and how the placement of plants impacts the experience of the park visitors. He described that:

“I would increase the number of trees. Everything looks relatively healthy, but make sure that the plants don’t dry out in the future. Some plants seem haphazard (shrubs along the edge near the walking/running path on the hillside). It’s good to be intentional about the experience that you want to provide.”

3.3.5 Summary

The previous sections provided detailed responses from participants in a variety of urban parks about the reasons why they visited the park, any accessibility issues, what they enjoyed about the plants, and what they would like to change about the plants in the

103 parks. In order to compare these perspectives, I created summary tables and figures for each of these topics, but only included the results for commonly mentioned responses provided by at least approximately 10 percent of all participants (Tables 3.2 – 3.5,

Figures 3.3 – 3.6).

For all of the parks, the most important reasons for visiting the park were recreation

(e.g., especially walking and hiking in the natural-passive use parks), accessibility (e.g., particularly the parks’ proximity to home, work, or school), kids (e.g., primarily in the recreational-active use and multi-use parks), to be outdoors, animals (e.g., dogs), relaxation, work, and beauty (Table 3.2 and Figure 3.3). Participants in the multi-use parks had the greatest number of reasons for visiting the parks (21 reasons), followed by the natural-passive use parks (19 reasons), and then the recreational-active use parks (13 reasons).

Table 3.2. Common reasons why participants visited all parks, and by park type (not all subgroups for recreation and accessibility are shown). Number of Participants Reason All Parks Natural- Recreational- Multi-use passive use active use Recreation 18 9 3 6 Subgroup - walking 6 5 1 0 Subgroup – hiking 3 3 0 0 Accessibility 17 5 4 8 Subgroup - proximity 14 3 3 8 Kids 15 1 7 7 Outdoors 12 5 3 4 Animals 11 4 4 3 Subgroup - dogs 10 3 4 3 Subgroup – birds 1 1 0 0 Relaxation 10 4 2 4 Work 7 2 4 1 Beauty 4 2 1 1

104

Figure 3.3. Common reasons why participants visited all parks, and by park type.

When asked about accessibility, the most important issues to participants were proximity, maintenance (e.g., of vegetation and trails, cleanliness), access to trails and paths (i.e., particularly in the natural-passive use parks), relaxation opportunities, water

(i.e., recreational and drinking water), bathrooms, and benches (Table 3.3 and Figure

3.4).

105

Table 3.3. Common accessibility issues in all parks, and by park type. Number of Participants Issue All Parks Natural- Recreational- Multi-use passive use active use Proximity 8 3 2 3 General access (e.g., yes, 7 0 3 4 no additional detail) Maintenance (e.g., of 6 4 2 0 vegetation and trails, cleanliness) Trails and paths 6 6 0 0 Subgroup – easy to access 3 3 0 0 Subgroup – variety 2 2 0 0 Subgroup – difficult to access 1 1 0 0 Relaxation 5 1 2 2 Water (recreation, 5 1 3 1 drinking) Bathrooms 4 1 2 1 Subgroup - available 3 0 2 1 Subgroup – not available 1 1 0 0 Benches 4 1 0 3

Figure 3.4: Common accessibility issues in all parks, and by park type.

The plants most appreciated by the participants were the trees, particularly for participants in the recreational-active use and multi-use parks where participants often

106 commented on their large size and shade (Table 3.4 and Figure 3.5). The other positive attributes frequently noted by participants were vegetation size, colors, diversity, maintenance (i.e., particularly in the natural-passive use and recreational-active use parks), shade, beauty (i.e., primarily in the multi-use parks), maturity, and grass.

Table 3.4. What participants commonly liked about the plants in all parks, and by park type. Number of Participants Attribute All Parks Natural- Recreational- Multi-use passive use active use Trees 25 4 11 10 Size 11 1 6 4 Colors 7 2 3 2 Diversity 8 4 1 3 Maintenance 8 3 5 0 Shade 8 0 5 3 Beauty 6 1 1 4 Maturity 6 3 1 2 Grass 4 0 3 1 No preference 4 1 1 2

Figure 3.5. What participants commonly liked about plants in all parks, and by park type.

107

In terms of what they would like to change about the plants, approximately one-third of the participants in each park type indicated that no changes were needed (Table 3.5 and Figure 3.6). However, others stated that they would like to see more colors and flowers (i.e., specifically in the recreational-active use and multi-use parks), invasive and/or harmful plant removal in the natural-passive use parks, as well as more middle growth (shrubs and saplings), and improved placement of plants in the recreational-active use and multi-use parks.

Table 3.5: What participants commonly would like to change about plants in all parks, and by park type. Number of Participants Attribute All Parks Natural- Recreational- Multi-use passive use active use No changes 16 5 5 6 Color, more 9 0 5 4 Flowers, more 4 0 2 2 Invasive, harmful plant 4 4 0 0 removal Middle growth, shrubs, 4 0 2 2 more Placement of plants, 4 0 2 2 improve

108

Figure 3.6: What participants commonly would change like to about plants in all parks, and by park type.

3.4 DISCUSSION

Urban parks provide a range of cultural ecosystem services such as health, social, economic and cultural benefits that are directly experienced by people (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005; Benedict & McMahon, 2012; Frumkin et al., 2017; Henderson & Bialeschki,

2005), and have the capacity to build public support for the conservation of nature

(Daniel et al., 2012; Gobster et al., 2007; Miller, 2005). This study in Portland, Oregon, was unique because it used qualitative methods to interview on-site participants at a range of urban park types (e.g., natural-passive use, recreational-active use, and multi-use parks) interspersed throughout the city. The on-site interviews with 43 people included a diverse array of perspectives from people of different genders, ages, education levels, race/ethnicities, and housing situations, including individuals who lived at the park, on nearby property, or were traveling from out of town. The qualitative research methods, including observation and semi-structured interviews, allowed us to better understand the degree to which the vegetation in Portland’s urban parks is currently meeting the needs

109 and desires of park visitors. While the participants in this type of study were somewhat self-selected since the participants were present in the urban parks during the interviews, the study design allowed participants to see the plants around them, which helped them explain their perspectives. Additionally, the open-ended nature of the questions allowed the participants to share their own reasons for visiting the parks, any accessibility issues, and what they liked or would change about the vegetation. The purpose of this study was to determine how the vegetation in urban parks is currently meeting the needs and desires of park visitors. The integration of these perspectives into urban park management has the potential to enhance and/or expand access to the cultural ecosystem services that urban parks provide to people within cities.

This study found that the most common reasons that participants visited the parks included recreation (e.g., walking and hiking), accessibility (e.g., proximity), kids, being outdoors, dogs, relaxation, work, and beauty. Some of these reasons related more to the vegetation in the parks (e.g., beauty, being outdoors) than other reasons (e.g., dogs).

Many of these reasons for visiting parks are well-documented in studies about the various uses and benefits of parks and urban nature to people (Benedict & McMahon, 2012;

Frumkin et al., 2017; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Tilt, 2010; van den Berg, 2008). However, this study was unique in that it also described participants’ use of different park types as locations for various work activities (e.g., childcare, photography, coworking with others on computers, work breaks, etc.). There is very little research that describes the non- traditional work uses and benefits in urban parks beyond traditional types of work such as park design, maintenance, research, and horticulture. This study also found that the

110 reasons for visiting tended to vary across different park types. Natural-passive use parks had more participants that were interested in passive recreational uses such as walking and hiking, whereas visitors to recreational-active use and multi-use parks more frequently visited to bring children. Participants in the multi-use parks discussed the greatest number of reasons for visiting the parks, followed closely by the natural-passive use parks, and then the fewest number of reasons were provided by the participants in recreational-active use parks. However, in general, many people in all park types visited because of the parks’ close proximity, as well as to be outdoors, relax, recreate, and bring their dogs.

Accessibility, especially the proximity of the urban parks to participants’ home, work, or school, was described as an important issue by several individuals in all park types.

Previous studies also revealed how proximity to parks increased human interactions and positive feelings and familiarity with urban nature (Church, 2018; Peters, 2010). Besides proximity, other important accessibility considerations for participants were maintenance

(e.g., including of the vegetation, cleanliness, and paths), available trails and paths, and places for relaxation, which are recognized as important human preferences for nature

(Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Accessibility issues were more straightforward for natural- passive use parks, in that the participants mostly mentioned proximity, maintenance (e.g., of trails and vegetation, cleanliness, etc.), and access to trails and paths. However, some accessibility issues that were not mentioned in the natural-passive use parks, but were important in the recreational-active use and multi-use parks, were if the parks were kid- friendly and/or dog-friendly, had sufficient tree shade and open space, water for

111 recreation, and wheelchair accessibility. In this manner, the vegetation in each of the urban park types, whether it be its maintenance (e.g., cleared from trails and paths) or ability to provide shade and open space, was an important component of determining accessibility for many park visitors in Portland. It is also important to recognize that perceptions of accessibility may change over the course of an individual’s lifetime

(Bjerke, Østdahl, Thrane, & Strumse, 2006).

Across park types, the participants often discussed trees, plant size, colors, and diversity as their favorite aspects of the vegetation. Within the multi-use parks, participants mentioned their appreciation of the vegetation beauty more often than visitors of other park types, while participants in recreational-active use parks more often mentioned vegetation size, color, maintenance, and shade. Trees, grass, and other types of plants may worsen asthma with their pollen (D’Amato et al., 2007; Frumkin et al., 2017), but vegetation can create restorative environments that improve human health and well- being, as well as promote human connections to nature and with each other (Church,

2018; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Specifically, trees have been shown to increase social capital and sense of community, give shade from the sun, and provide a sense of place for creating memories (Holtan, Dieterlen, & Sullivan, 2015; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989;

Kaplan, Kaplan, & Ryan, 1998). Trees were especially important to participants in the recreational-active use and multi-use parks, who commented on their size and ability to provide shade during the summer months. In a study of resident perceptions of natural resources in Portland and nearby Vancouver, Washington, large mature trees were also

112 highly preferred across property, neighborhood, and city-level scales (Morzillo et al.,

2016).

Vegetation diversity appeared to be more important to participants in the natural- passive use and multi-use parks than in the recreational-active use parks. In a study of an urban park in Paris, France, the participants were attentive to plant diversity because of its beauty and its positive effect on their sense of wellbeing rather than for its ecological functions (Muratet, Pellegrini, Dufour, Arrif, & Chiron, 2015). In our study, plant diversity was also referred to positively in relation to its beauty and other aesthetic qualities (e.g., colors, complexity, and variation in foliage, bark, and/or texture). In a previous study of perceptions of biodiversity in parks of China, the results suggested that ecological knowledge may have a positive influence on preferences for biodiversity (Qiu et al., 2013). Although a literature review of human perceptions of biodiversity in cities showed that diversity was sometimes associated with disservices such as increased maintenance, monetary cost, safety issues, and/or unattractive appearance, it also indicated that urban diversity benefits such as aesthetics and improved psychological and physical wellbeing tended to outweigh the negatives (Botzat et al., 2016).

While many participants described how the urban park vegetation met their needs and desires, more than half of them recommended changes to the vegetation. Within the recreational-active use and multi-use park types, the most commonly mentioned desire from the visitors was to see more colorful vegetation. This perspective was different from the results of another study in Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington, which showed that reliably colorful flowers were one of the least important landscape

113 characteristics to residents (Morzillo et al., 2016). However, many of the participants within the recreational-active use and multi-use parks described how they wanted to see more color in the form of flowers, leaves, berries, greener plants (e.g., including trees, vines, and grass), and to watch colors change throughout the seasons. Colorful flowering plants can often convey an aesthetic of care, while also providing food for pollinators such as birds and insects (Gobster et al., 2007). However, within the natural-passive use parks of our study, no individuals discussed improving or changing the vegetation color, but instead described the importance of removing invasive or harmful plants such as vines and blackberry. These results show how it is important to consider park type in order to better understand the vegetation needs and desires of park visitors.

Overall, the demographics of the study participants were relatively similar to

Portland; however, they differed in terms of urban park type, which implies that the range of potential socio-cultural benefits, including those provided by vegetation, may not be shared equitably across communities. In this study, the natural-passive use park participants had a greater proportion of men compared to women, similar age, higher formal education, and less racial ethnic diversity compared to all parks. It is possible that there were fewer female visitors in the natural-passive use parks because they perceived a lack of personal safety and security regarding dangerous situations, individuals, and/or unleashed dogs, which are common fears in parks by women (Koskela, 1999; Krenichyn,

2006). There are also many possible reasons why fewer ethnic/racial minority individuals were present in the natural-passive use parks, such as not feeling welcome or safe in parks experienced as primarily for use by white/Caucasian individuals (e.g., for fear of

114 being seen as ‘illegal’), inadequate park signage or online references in non-English languages, different cultural preferences, and/or access limitations (Byrne, 2012; Frumkin et al., 2017). In a literature review, many studies showed that lower socioeconomic and ethnic/racial minority groups tended to have access to fewer parks and acres of parks than individuals that are white/Caucasian and have higher socioeconomic levels (Rigolon,

2016). A study of Seattle, Washington, also showed that areas with less ethnic/racial minorities and higher education, income, and home value had greater access to natural- passive use and multi-use parks, while many ethnic/racial minority neighborhoods with lower education, income, and home value had greater access to recreational-active use parks (Weems, 2016).

In this study, participants in the recreational-active use parks had a greater proportion of women to men, same median age, slightly higher formal education, and a relatively similar amount of formal education and racial and ethnic diversity to all of the parks in the study. On the other hand, the multi-use parks had a relatively equal female to male ratio, similar median age but slightly less older individuals, lower formal education, and more racial and ethnic diversity. It is possible that more women were present in recreational-active use parks and multi-use parks compared to the natural-passive use parks because they perceived them as more populated, visible, safe for themselves, children, and/or partners, and less dangerous than secluded natural areas (Koskela, 1999;

Krenichyn, 2006). The recreational-active and multi-use parks may have also been more appealing to women because their various infrastructure and amenities such as bathroom and drinking fountains, or access to programs (Baker, Brennan, Brownson, & Houseman,

115

2000; Krenichyn, 2006). Within one of the recreational-active use parks of our study, a participant with a wheelchair stated that the park was very accessible, but indicated that wheelchair accessibility improvements were needed in many other Portland parks.

Previous research shows that parks and natural areas can be places to improve health alongside disabilities or illnesses (Freudenberg & Arlinghaus, 2009; Svendsen et al.,

2016; Williams, Vogelsong, Green, & Cordell, 2004). However, many individuals with disabilities tend to use parks less frequently due to various constraints (Williams et al.,

2004), and therefore have less equitable access to a range of socio-cultural benefits provided by different types of urban parks and their vegetation.

3.5 LIMITATIONS

This qualitative research study included observations and semi-structured interviews of 43 participants in 15 parks of five different park types interspersed throughout

Portland, Oregon. The study described their unique experiences and perspectives, but due to the sample size and summer sampling time period, is not representative of all visitors within all parks of the city throughout the seasons and did not include non-users of the parks. Interviewing non-users of the parks on-site might have revealed additional perspectives regarding preferences and/or potential barriers to park use (e.g., safety concerns, proximity, etc.). Additionally, since I interviewed only person with a wheelchair and did not observe or interview additional participants with other noticeable disabilities (e.g., physical, mental, visual, or hearing impairments) within the parks, these perspectives are not fully represented for the natural-passive use, multi-use, and recreational-active use parks. During two of my visits to multi-use parks (Ed Benedict

116

Park and Columbia Park), two individuals also declined interviews based on language barriers. While I did have the survey available in English and Spanish, these two park visitors did not speak either of these languages, and so I was unable to document their perspectives. Additionally, there may have been topics that were important to the park visitors that were not discussed during the semi-structured interviews. Future studies of park visitors could include a greater number and diversity of participants, as well as more interview questions. The results of the semi-structured interviews in this study may be useful for establishing a base level of information that can be used to create a more structured quantitative survey in the future (Rea & Parker, 2005). The structured quantitative survey may include a range of potential responses that reflect the opinions of park visitors.

3.6 CONCLUSIONS

To more successfully and holistically manage natural areas, environmental managers need to better incorporate human needs and desires to connect with nature (Chapman,

2002). The purpose of this study was to better understand visitor experiences, perceptions of vegetation, and accessibility by interviewing visitors on-site at a range of urban parks interspersed throughout Portland. The study included observations and semi-structured interviews with a total of 43 people in 15 different parks. The demographics of the study participants were relatively similar to that of all of Portland. While the participants were somewhat self-selected since they were present in the urban parks during the interviews, this aspect of the study design allowed them to experience the urban park and its vegetation while they shared their perspectives. Future studies could include interviewing

117 non-users on-site within the parks to learn more about their preferences and any potential barriers to park use (e.g., safety concerns, proximity, etc.). The results of this study showed that vegetation was often related to the reasons why people visited natural- passive use, recreational-active use, and multi-use parks. Vegetation also influenced how accessible the park was to some participants, such as whether it had sufficient maintenance along trails or paths, shade, and/or open space. Many people enjoyed various aspects of vegetation, especially the trees, plant size, colors, and diversity.

However, these preferences tended to vary across park type. Many visitors to all park types enjoyed the trees, but the participants in the recreational-active use and multi-use particularly liked large trees that provided shade. Additionally, the natural-passive use and multi-use park participants were more interested in plant diversity than visitors to the recreational-active use parks.

Overall, it appeared that the vegetation in Portland’s urban parks was meeting the needs and desires of many urban park visitors, but more than half of participants still had suggestions for changes to plants in the different park types. Participants in the recreational-active use and multi-use parks often discussed wanting more color in the form of flowers, berries, greener grass, and/or leaves that changed colors throughout the seasons, which is somewhat contrary to other research which indicated that reliably colorful flowers were not a very important landscape element for residents in this area

(Morzillo et al., 2016). On the other hand, participants in the natural-passive use parks most often described the importance of removing harmful, invasive plants. This study showed that vegetation preferences and desires of park visitors tended to vary depending

118 on park type, and so park managers should consider these differences during vegetation planning and maintenance in urban parks. For example, there is potential for managers to incorporate colorful, native flowers within recreational-active use and multi-use parks that can provide enjoyment to park visitors, as well as provide habitat for native pollinators. Portland Parks and Recreation’s Ecologically Sustainable Landscape

Initiative is invested plant native habitat patches in urban parks (Portland Parks and

Recreation, 2015a), and could be a potential avenue for ensuring that these plants are also colorful and charismatic for park visitors to enjoy. Many participants in all park types also expressed a desire to learn more about the plants and animals in the park, so there is an opportunity to provide more interpretive signs and labels, including ones in multiple languages, that may better engage and educate park visitors.

While the participants in the study often enjoyed many aspects of the plants and had plant improvement suggestions, the results of this study still imply that the range of socio-cultural benefits of urban parks, including those from vegetation, are not yet shared equitably across communities of Portland. It appeared that fewer women and ethnic/racial minority individuals visited the natural-passive use parks compared to the recreational- active use and multi-use parks. The reasons for this may have been related to a range of access limitations, safety concerns, available amenities, programming, and/or greenery attributes in the parks (Byrne, 2012; Hashim, Thani, Jamaludin, & Yatim, 2016; Koskela,

1999; Krenichyn, 2006). Additionally, this study did not include enough perspectives from participants in all park types with a range of physical and/or mental disabilities.

While there is some research on vegetation preferences and how to improve vegetation

119 design for women (Hashim et al., 2016; Krenichyn, 2006), more research and management actions are needed to improve accessibility for women, ethnic/racial minorities, and individuals who may have difficulty navigating urban parks (e.g., physical, mental, hearing, or visual disabilities) (Byrne, 2012; Freudenberg &

Arlinghaus, 2009; Frumkin et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2004). Some ways to improve visitor experiences with urban park vegetation would be to better incorporate the community with vegetation selection, layout, and maintenance, increase the amount of interpretive signs and information online in both English and non-English languages, and provide a range of multisensory experiences for people (Byrne, 2012; Gobster et al.,

2007; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Overall, a multifunctional approach can help integrate, plan, and design parks, and can improve the likelihood that the needs and preferences of a wide range of community members within an urban area (Meerow & Newell, 2017).

Future research should also investigate the ways in which the needs and desires of park managers and visitors can be better integrated to maximize the ecosystem services and benefits of urban parks for both people and the environment.

3.7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to Samuel Hedine, Grant Loomis, Hadas Moalem, Daniel Pearl, Sylvia

Singer, Stevie Taylor, and Ariel Willey for accompanying me during the field data collection. Thank you to Dr. Mauricio Dorfman-Pesso for translating the interview materials into Spanish, and to Dr. Mary Santelmann and Dr. Jenna Tilt who helped to develop the interview questions and performed validation on the codebook. Financial support was provided from the Urban Water Innovation Network (UWIN) National

120

Science Foundation Grant Award #1444758, Oregon State University Graduate School, and Oregon State University Environmental Science Graduate Program. The City of

Portland authorized research permit #1484773 for our data collection on park properties.

121

3.8 REFERENCES

Baker, E. A., Brennan, L. K., Brownson, R., & Houseman, R. A. (2000). Measuring the Determinants of Physical Activity in the Community: Current and Future Directions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(sup2), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2000.11082798 Baur, J. W. R., Gómez, E., & Tynon, J. F. (2013). Urban Nature Parks and Neighborhood Social Health in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 31(4), 23–44. Baur, J. W. R., Tynon, J. F., & Gómez, E. (2013). Attitudes about urban nature parks: A case study of users and nonusers in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning, 117, 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.015 Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024 Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2012). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Island Press. Bjerke, T., Østdahl, T., Thrane, C., & Strumse, E. (2006). Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.006 Botzat, A., Fischer, L. K., & Kowarik, I. (2016). Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Global Environmental Change, 39, 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.008 Byrne, J. (2012). When green is White: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum, 43(3), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.002 Chapman, R. J. (2002). Exploiting the Human Need for Nature for Successful Protected Area Management. The George Wright FORUM, 19(3), 5. Christy, J. A., Kimpo, A., Marttala, V., Gaddis, P. K., & Christy, N. L. (2009). Urbanizing Flora of Portland, Oregon, 1806-2008. 324. Church, S. P. (2018). From street trees to natural areas: retrofitting cities for human connectedness to nature. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(5–6), 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1428182 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. (2010). Portland’s Green Infrastructure: Quantifying the Health, Energy and Community Livability Benefits. 101. City of Portland, Oregon. (2018). Parks. Retrieved November 4, 2018, from http://gis- pdx.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/parks D’Amato, G., Cecchi, L., Bonini, S., Nunes, C., Annesi-Maesano, I., Behrendt, H., … van Cauwenberge, P. (2007). Allergenic pollen and pollen allergy in Europe. Allergy, 62(9), 976–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01393.x Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., … von der Dunk, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services

122

agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(23), 8812–8819. Elwood, S. A., & Martin, D. G. (2000). “Placing” Interviews: Location and Scales of Power in Qualitative Research. The Professional Geographer, 52(4), 649–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00253 Freudenberg, P., & Arlinghaus, R. (2009). Benefits and Constraints of Outdoor Recreation for People with Physical Disabilities: Inferences from Recreational Fishing. Leisure Sciences, 32(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400903430889 Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Lawler, J. J., … Wood, S. A. (2017). Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663 Given, Ed., L. M. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Volumes 1 & 2. United States: Sage Publications. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22(7), 959– 972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x Hashim, N. H. M., Thani, S. K. S. O., Jamaludin, M. A., & Yatim, N. M. (2016). A Perceptual Study on the Influence of Vegetation Design Towards Women’s Safety in Public Park. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 234, 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.244 Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (2005). Leisure and Active Lifestyles: Research Reflections. Leisure Sciences, 27(5), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400500225559 Hitchcock, C.L., & Cronquist, A. (2018). Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual (2nd ed.). University of Washington Press. Holtan, M. T., Dieterlen, S. L., & Sullivan, W. C. (2015). Social Life Under Cover: Tree Canopy and Social Capital in Baltimore, Maryland. Environment and Behavior, 47(5), 502–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513518064 Joye, Y., Willems, K., Brengman, M., & Wolf, K. (2010). The effects of urban retail greenery on consumer experience: Reviewing the evidence from a restorative perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.10.001 Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With People In Mind. Washington, DC: Island Press. Koskela, H. (1999). “Gendered Exclusions”: Women’s Fear of Violence and Changing Relations to Space. Geografiska Annaler, 8(2), 15. Krenichyn, K. (2006). ‘The only place to go and be in the city’: women talk about exercise, being outdoors, and the meanings of a large urban park. Health & Place, 12(4), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.08.015

123

Lovell, S. T., & Taylor, J. R. (2013). Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology, 28(8), 1447–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2017). Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landscape and Urban Planning, 159, 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Ed.). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(8), 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 Morzillo, A. T., Kreakie, B. J., Netusil, N. R., Yeakley, J. A., Ozawa, C. P., & Duncan, S. L. (2016). Resident perceptions of natural resources between cities and across scales in the Pacific Northwest. Ecology and Society, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08478-210314 Muhar, A., Raymond, C. M., van den Born, R. J. G., Bauer, N., Böck, K., Braito, M., … van Riper, C. J. (2018). A model integrating social-cultural concepts of nature into frameworks of interaction between social and natural systems. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(5–6), 756–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1327424 Muratet, A., Pellegrini, P., Dufour, A.-B., Arrif, T., & Chiron, F. (2015). Perception and knowledge of plant diversity among urban park users. Landscape and Urban Planning, 137, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.003 Palliwoda, J., Kowarik, I., & von der Lippe, M. (2017). Human-biodiversity interactions in urban parks: The species level matters. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.003 Peters, K. (2010). Being Together in Urban Parks: Connecting Public Space, Leisure, and Diversity. Leisure Sciences, 32(5), 418–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2010.510987 Pojar, J., & MacKinnon, A. (2016). Plants of the Pacific Northwest: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. Partners Publishing. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2011). Forest Park desired future condition. 35. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2015). Ecologically Sustainable Landscape Initiative. 78. Portney, K. (2005). Civic Engagement and Sustainable Cities in the United States. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 579–591. Retrieved from JSTOR. Qiu, L., Lindberg, S., & Nielsen, A. B. (2013). Is biodiversity attractive?—On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.007 Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing and Conducting Survey Research: a Comprehensive Guide (3rd Edition). Wiley & Sons, Inc. Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017

124

Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the Field: and Introduction to Qualitative Research (2nd Edition). United States: Sage Publications. Sandifer, P. A., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Ward, B. P. (2015). Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services, 12, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007 Spirn, A. W. (1984). The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design. Basic Books. Svendsen, E. S., Campbell, L. K., & McMillen, H. L. (2016). Stories, Shrines, and Symbols: Recognizing Psycho-Social-Spiritual Benefits of Urban Parks and Natural Areas. Journal of Ethnobiology, 36(4), 881–907. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-36.4.881 Tilt, J. H. (2010). Walking trips to parks: Exploring demographic, environmental factors, and preferences for adults with children in the household. Preventive Medicine, 50, S69–S73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.026 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. (1983). Soil Survey of Multnomah County, Oregon. van den Berg, A. E. (2008). Restorative effects of nature: toward a neurobiological approach. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Physiological Anthropology, 22–26 August, Delft, the Netherlands., Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 132–138. Weems, C. M. (2016). Examining the Spatial Distribution of Park Access and Trajectories of Gentrification in Seattle, Washington 1990 - 2010. Williams, R., Vogelsong, H., Green, G., & Cordell, K. (2004). Outdoor Recreation Participation of People with Mobility Disabilities: Selected Results of the National Survey of Recreation and the Environment. 18.

125

Chapter 4:

Vegetation management for urban park visitors in Portland, Oregon

Key words: urban parks, vegetation, management, qualitative research, interviews, management, ecosystem services.

126

ABSTRACT

Urban park managers are tasked with maintaining ecological function and quality of urban parks while also meeting the needs and desires of visitors. Many studies describe visitor motivations and experiences in parks, but there is a lack of research that focuses on interviewing park managers about their perspectives on park benefits and their management. The purpose of this study was to better understand how park managers currently manage vegetation in parks to meet the needs and desires of park visitors in

Portland, Oregon. A total of 21 urban park manager interviews were completed regarding

15 parks interspersed throughout the city, which included natural-passive use, recreational-active use and multi-use park types. The results include detailed responses from participants, which were coded for themes and meanings. Mixed methods were used to evaluate the manager interview data alongside visitor interviews and quantitative plant community composition data collected at the parks. Non-metric multidimensional scaling ordinations were created to evaluate manager and visitor perspectives of plant management that were most strongly correlated with the different types of urban parks.

This study found that the park managers’ favorite aspects of plant management were related to maintenance (e.g., weed/invasive management, continuous improvement) and ecosystem management for functions and processes (i.e., in the natural-passive use parks). Park visitors across all park types previously described aspects that they liked about the vegetation such as trees, size, diversity, maintenance, and colors, and also shade and grass in recreational-active use and multi-use parks. Managers should safeguard these human benefits of vegetation alongside ecological goals within urban parks. In terms of

127 plant management, most managers indicated that they would make no changes, but others discussed improving maintenance, increasing staffing, adding plants, updating infrastructure, and improving species selection. There are opportunities to meet both the needs of managers and visitors by continuing to manage trails/paths in natural-passive use parks, removing weeds/invasive plants in all park types, as well as selecting a diversity of plants for the recreational-active use and multi-use parks that have more color and flowers, but are also more climate-adapted, disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and/or provide habitat for pollinators. The ways in which managers perceived how visitors interacted with the vegetation and visitor comments appeared to influence many plant choices and/or design within the parks such as eliminating hiding/camping places, improving aesthetics, selecting hearty plants to withstand trampling, and removing hazardous plants. However, not all of the visitor feedback from previous interviews was fully represented in the comments that park visitors provided to park managers (e.g., desire for more colors, flowers, improved placement of plants, etc.), which implies that managers should have more conversations to solicit feedback from visitors. While the results show that park managers often work toward meeting the needs and desires of visitors, they also described various limitations such as funding/budget, staff resources, and unfavorable visitor behaviors that prevent them from managing the parks in the ways they might prefer. Ultimately, it is important to increase communication between government agencies, non-profit organizations, and community members, as well as continue investing in the many social and ecological benefits of urban parks.

128

4. CHAPTER 4 – Vegetation Management for Urban Park Visitors in Portland, Oregon

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Urban parks promote biodiversity conservation and a range of social, physical, and psychological benefits for visitors (Alvey, 2006; Benedict & McMahon, 2012; Frumkin et al., 2017; Lovell & Taylor, 2013; Svendsen, Campbell, & McMillen, 2016), but park managers are tasked with maintaining a balance between the quality of resources and visitor experiences (Budruk, Center, & Manning, 2003). A multifunctional approach in urban parks can help support a range of ecosystem services such as plant and animal biodiversity conservation, improved air quality, landscape and habitat connectivity, improved access to greenspace, and community engagement (Lovell & Taylor, 2013;

Meerow & Newell, 2017). However, budget cuts, high population densities in urban areas, and overuse of parks can make it often difficult for park managers to achieve and maintain sustainable function and quality of urban parks (Baur, Tynon, & Gómez, 2013;

Chan, Marafa, & Van Den Bosch, 2015). Even so, there is great potential for management activities in urban green space management activities and design to balance ecological goals with aesthetic experiences and leisure activities for visitors (Gobster,

Nassauer, Daniel, & Fry, 2007). More interdisciplinary research is needed to incorporate both manager and visitor perceptions in order to improve habitat design and management approaches in urban parks (Lovell & Taylor, 2013; Muratet, Pellegrini, Dufour, Arrif, &

Chiron, 2015; Nielsen, van den Bosch, Maruthaveeran, & van den Bosch, 2014).

Management activities in urban parks and greenspaces have the potential to positively influence the vegetation composition and biodiversity with its associated

129 benefits for wildlife and people. When urban vegetation management includes the preservation of large, remnant trees and an increased amount of understory vegetation, native plant species richness, and habitat connectivity, this provides a range of food and shelter opportunities that can lead to increased species richness of birds and bats (Barth,

FitzGibbon, & Wilson, 2015; Fontana, Sattler, Bontadina, & Moretti, 2011; Threlfall,

Williams, Hahs, & Livesley, 2016; White, Antos, Fitzsimons, & Palmer, 2005). On the other hand, urban park management that promotes natural landscapes with a level of order and care are generally positively perceived by human visitors (Kaplan & Kaplan,

1989) and landscaping practices that provide openness can increase accessibility for park visitors (Kaplan, Kaplan, & Ryan, 1998). Additionally, urban greenspaces tend lessen crime and aggression (Bedimo-Rung, Mowen, & Cohen, 2005), while also promoting human-nature connections (Church, 2018) and positive intercultural and multiethnic interactions (Peters, 2010). Various vegetative elements such as trees, grasslands, flowers, forests, and individual plants can have restorative effects on human health (van den Berg, 2008). The presence of high plant biodiversity is sometimes negatively related to human recreational preferences due to a desire for more open space (Qiu, Lindberg, &

Nielsen, 2013), human wellbeing in urban areas is often enhanced by the presence of biodiversity (Botzat, Fischer, & Kowarik, 2016; Miller, 2005; Palliwoda, Kowarik, & von der Lippe, 2017; Sandifer, Sutton-Grier, & Ward, 2015).

There is potential for urban park managers in various cities to holistically manage vegetation for both humans and the environment, but managers often face limitations such as funding and budget cuts, depreciative behaviors by park visitors (e.g., litter and

130 graffiti), and/or knowledge gaps related to cultural ecosystem services of urban parks

(Baur, Tynon, et al., 2013; Budruk et al., 2003; Chan et al., 2015; Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment, 2005; Palliwoda et al., 2017; Svendsen et al., 2016). Additionally, urban recreational areas such as parks are typically under more pressure than rural recreational areas because they tend to have year-round usage, compact space with pollution concerns, and a high demand from growing urban populations (Budruk et al., 2003; Chan et al., 2015). For example, within the growing City of Portland, Oregon, there are more than 4,000 ha of urban parks and open space that are managed and owned by a range of agencies, including Portland Parks and Recreation as the city’s largest manager and provider of parks and recreation24 (City of Portland, Oregon, 2018). The parks system includes a range of recreational and ecological resources, including Forest Park, one of the largest urban forests within the United States with more than 80 miles of trails25.

However, Portland Parks and Recreation is facing an approximately $6.3 million USD budget deficit in the coming year, which is likely to impact urban park programs, services, and employees26.

Within the City of Portland, which was named as one of the most sustainable cities in the United States (Portney, 2005), there is an on-going investment in urban parks and other green infrastructure into improve community livability, ecological health, and environmental equity (City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, 2010). Several

24 Portland Parks and Recreation (1999). Parks 2020 vision. Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/40182 25 Forest Park Conservancy (2019). Experience Forest Park. Retrieved from https://www.forestparkconservancy.org/forest-park/ 26 Friedman G.R. (2019) Portland Parks & Rec. facing huge budget deficit. The Oregonian. Retrieved from https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2019/02/portland-parks-rec-facing-huge-budget-deficit.html

131 previous studies in Portland have explored urban park visitor experiences and provided a range of management strategies and planning recommendations (Baur, Gómez, & Tynon,

2013; Baur, Tynon, et al., 2013; Church, 2018; Morzillo et al., 2016). While there is much research on visitor motivations and experiences in parks, there is a lack of research that focuses on interviewing park managers about their perspectives on park benefits and their management (Moyle, Weiler, & Moore, 2014). Additionally, there is a lack of research that specifically interviews park managers about how plants are managed to meet the needs and desires of park visitors. However, this type of information is important because park managers have familiarity with the parks in terms of their visitor use, benefits, infrastructure, programming, general maintenance, design, and vegetation management. Additionally, managers have in-depth awareness of potential management limitations and are in positions to communicate with funding bodies, taxpayers, visitors, government agencies, community members, and others about how to better support parks

(Moyle et al., 2014).

The focus of this study is to better understand how park managers currently manage vegetation to meet the needs and desires of urban park visitors in Portland. I sought to answer the following question:

How do park managers currently manage vegetation in urban parks to meet the

needs and desires of urban park visitors in Portland, Oregon?

Definitions for this research question include:

• “Park managers” – individuals that are involved in managing the urban parks

in this study.

132

• “Manage vegetation” – activities that park managers are involved with in

order to manage vegetation (plant species and cover) within the parks.

• “Portland, Oregon” – the area within the Portland city boundary.

• “Urban parks” – designated parks within the urban city boundary.

• “Currently” – data collected during from December 10, 2018 to March 11,

2019.

• “Needs and desires” – as revealed and defined during qualitative interviews

with park managers.

• “Urban park visitors” – individuals that visit the urban parks in the study.

4.2 METHODS

4.2.1 Study Area

Portland is the largest city in Oregon (approximately 376 km2) and with a population of approximately 647,805 people27. The city is located within Multnomah County at the confluence of the Columbia and Willamette Rivers and has a moderate climate tempered by winds from the Pacific Ocean with an average annual precipitation of 40 – 50 inches

(United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1983). Within the city, there is a diverse range of plant species (e.g., trees, shrubs, vines, and forbs) that have ecological importance and provide a range of cultural uses for people (Pojar &

MacKinnon, 2016; United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service,

1983). The plants within the city include a variety of species that are native to the region,

27 United States Census Bureau. (2017). QuickFacts Portland city, Oregon. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/portlandcityoregon/PST045217

133 as well non-native and invasive plant species that were introduced by human settlers

(Christy, Kimpo, Marttala, Gaddis, & Christy, 2009). The vegetation patterns, physical geography, and human influence within the city provided the context for its approximately 4,047 hectares of urban parks. During the 1870s, the city began acquiring land that is known today as Forest Park and Washington Park28, and in the early 1900s, the Olmstead Portland park plan outlined an interconnected system of parks and parkways for the city29. Today, the urban parks within the city include various geographic features such as wetlands and river floodplains (e.g., Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge, Big

Four Corners Natural Area, and North Swan Island Boat Ramp), gentle rolling hillslopes

(e.g. Ed Benedict Park, Brentwood Park, and Rose City Park), and steep forested hillsides

(e.g., Forest Park, Woods Memorial Natural Area, and George Himes Park) (City of

Portland, Oregon, 2018). The parks also provide a variety of infrastructure and recreational amenities such as trails, paths, playgrounds, dog parks (e.g., Brentwood Park and Wallace Park), picnic tables, covered areas, sports fields, parking lots, boat ramps

(North Swan Island Boat Ramp), recreational fountains (e.g., Jamison Square and

Khunamokwst Park), skate plazas (e.g., Khunamokwst Park and Ed Benedict Park), and gardens (e.g., Ed Benedict Park).

28 Robbins, W.G. (2002). The growth of Portland. Retrieved from: https://oregonhistoryproject.org/narratives/this-land-oregon/the-rural-urban-interface/the-growth-of- portland/#.WxBsxUxFxrQ 29 Orloff, C. (2018). Olmstead Portland park plan. The Oregon Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/olmsted_portland_park_plan/#.WxBpWkxFxrS

134

4.2.2 Research Design

The study includes a mixed-method approach, which has varying definitions, but can be generally described as a research paradigm that includes analyzing and integrating both qualitative research (e.g., semi-structured interviews, observation) with quantitative approaches (e.g., field data collection, surveys, statistical analysis) (Johnson,

Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). I first performed qualitative research by conducting detailed interviews with urban park employees of different management levels such as supervisors, horticulturalists, ecologists, and technicians. Qualitative research is useful for studying and learning about social phenomena and relies on systematic data collection and analysis techniques (adapted from Rossman & Rallis, 2003). The research process is iterative and interpretive, with the researcher making conscious decisions about meanings and the direction of the research (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). The responses of the park managers have the potential to reveal what they like or dislike about current vegetation management and limitations, as well as their perceptions of visitor interactions with plants, visitor feedback, and how plants are managed to meet the needs and desires of park visitors. It is important to note that this study is meant to capture many perspectives, but is not entirely representative of all Portland park managers. After collecting and analyzing the qualitative manager interview data, it was then assessed in relation to the quantitative plant community composition and biodiversity pattern data from Chapter 2 and the qualitative park visitor data of Chapter 3 of this dissertation. The interdisciplinary integration of these perspectives and ecological information into management has the potential to promote both human and ecological benefits of urban parks. Incorporating

135 these various methods can be intensive and difficult, but can result in more holistic, informative, and useful research results and conclusions (Johnson et al., 2007). Section

4.2.2.1 provides information on the qualitative methods for the urban park manager interviews, while Section 4.2.2.2 explains the data structure and methods for evaluating the park manager data in relation to the plant community composition data of Chapter 2 and the urban park visitor data of Chapter 3 of this dissertation.

4.2.2.1 Qualitative Methods for Park Managers

The first part of this study has a primarily qualitative research design, which includes conducting semi-structured interviews with urban park managers in Portland. Qualitative research does not include an a priori framework or formal hypotheses related to the research question before the data is gathered (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). The research is explorative, iterative, context-specific, and interpretive, but also systematic and includes documentation of the research and decision-making process. This study uses a phenomenological inquiry methodology (e.g., questioning the structure and essence of lived experience) (Given, Ed., 2008; Rossman & Rallis, 2003) and is focused on learning about each participant’s perceptions, comparing and contrasting these responses, and reflecting on these meanings. My paradigm is primarily interpretivist, which relates to understanding the social world as it is (i.e., the status quo) from the perspective of individuals, which may include a range of subjective world views (Rossman & Rallis,

2003). It is important for qualitative researchers to recognize their personal biography and identities, which can have an impact on how they perceive and interact with the world. My personal identity statement can be found in Section 3.2.2.

136

In this study, the urban parks that were selected for interviewing park managers were chosen using a stratified random sampling design with a list of parks within the Portland city boundary (City of Portland, Oregon, 2018) (Figure 2.1, page 18). The sites included four parks of each of three general park types that were interspersed within each of the city’s quadrants and had a range of sizes comparable to that of all Portland’s parks. A park typology (Weems, 2016) was used to ensure that the examined parks were representative of Portland parks. This typology included the following three general park types based on use: 1) recreational-active use parks that are highly developed with facilities that promote active play such as sports fields and play equipment, 2) natural- passive use parks that are generally more passively used with benches, viewing areas, and trails, but do not have formal fields for active play, and 3) multi-use parks with a general mix of active and passive uses (Weems, 2016). An additional natural-passive use park,

Forest Park, was added to the list of sampled parks because it is the most iconic and largest urban park within Portland (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2011). To have a balanced study design, an additional randomly selected recreational-active use park and a multi-use park were added to the list of sampled parks, for a total of fifteen parks with five parks of each type. While no park typology can capture all of the variation in landscape design, management, and visitor use, the typology used in this study allowed for a diverse range of urban parks to be sampled within this study.

Prior to any semi-structured interviews of urban park managers, I visited the parks in

Summer 2017 to collected plant community composition and biodiversity pattern data

(Chapter 2), and then revisited the parks in Summer 2018 to observe, take photographs,

137 and interview 43 park visitors about their experiences and vegetation perceptions

(Chapter 3). During Fall 2018, I met with two professors, Dr. Mary Santelmann (my thesis advisor) and Dr. Jenna Tilt (one of my committee members) at Oregon State

University in Corvallis, Oregon to discuss my objectives and research questions for urban park manager participants. Through a series of drafts, they assisted in finalizing a series of questions for the study. Research with human subjects requires Oregon State

University’s Human Research Protection Program and Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval30. Dr. Mary Santelmann and I had meetings with the IRB to discuss ethical considerations such as informed consent and how to limit any harm or risks to the participants. We also completed a basic course for human research for social/behavioral research investigators and key personnel31. Our study was reviewed as a revision to our park visitor study of summer 2018, and received IRB approval November 11, 2018

(Appendix F).

In order to identify park managers for each of the 15 parks in the study, I used a publicly available Portland Parks and Recreation contact list32. Some of the park managers on the list referred me to interview other senior-level managers that were most familiar with each park. I interviewed “senior-level” managers (i.e., supervisors and senior natural resource ecologists) for 15 parks, which included a range of participants from the Land Stewardship, Urban Forestry, and Turf and Irrigation work groups within

30 Oregon State University Office of Research Integrity. (2018). Does your study require IRB review approval? Retrieved from: https://research.oregonstate.edu/irb/does-your-study-require-irb-review 31 CITI Program. (2018). Social-behavioral-educational (SBE) Basic. Retrieved from: https://about.citiprogram.org/en/course/human-subjects-research-2/ 32 Portland Parks and Recreation. (2019). Contact list. Retrieved from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/639578

138

Portland Parks and Recreation. In order to obtain more diverse perspectives, I also randomly selected two parks of each park type (i.e. natural-passive use, recreational- active use, and multi-use) to interview six ‘on-the-ground’ managers that visit and maintain and/or manage the park landscape most frequently (i.e., horticulturalists, ecologists, botanic specialists, and park technicians). Some of the participants managed multiple parks within the study, and so for 21 total interviews, there were 15 unique participants.

My interviews with all of the urban park managers were conducted between

December 10, 2018 and March 11, 2019. Thirteen of the interviews were conducted by telephone and eight interviews were in-person, either at the participants’ office or a coffeeshop. I first introduced myself, explained the study and the informed consent process. After the visitors consented and agreed to be interviewed, I asked them a range of questions such as what aspects they liked or would like to change about how the plants are managed in the park, any limiting factors to management, how park visitor experiences influence vegetation management in the park, and demographics questions. I did not use an audio recorder for any of the interviews with participants, but I validated their answers by reading to them what I had written and asking for clarification whenever

I did not fully understand their responses. Between urban park visits, I had meetings with researchers to talk about the research process and discuss emerging themes in the data.

There were several questions that I asked during the interviews, but the specific ones that were used to answer the main research question for this study included:

139

• What aspects, if any, do you like about how the plants are managed in this

park?

• What aspects, if any, would you like to change about the way plants are

managed in this park?

• Do you feel that this park is accessible to the needs of visitors?

• In your opinion, how do park visitors interact with the plants in this park?

• Have you received comments from park visitors about the plants in this park?

If so, describe.

• Specifically, how does park visitor experience influence vegetation choice

and/or design in this park?

• What are the factors, if any, that limit your ability to manage the park in the

way you might prefer?

• Background questions: How long have you worked at Portland Parks and

Recreation, and how many years have you worked in your profession?

After the data were collected, I transcribed it into text documents and began my content analysis by reading the data many times to increase my familiarity (Rossman &

Rallis, 2003). I continued my content analysis by coding the interview responses using

140

Rossman & Rallis, 2003). I validated my coding by randomly selecting and sharing five percent of my interviews and codebook with another researcher, and then comparing our coding results and calculating a kappa statistic in QSR International’s NVivo 12 Plus software. After the coding process, I created a narrative to provide detail on with themes, meanings, and supporting quotes that were provided by the participants during the interviews.

4.2.2.2 Mixed methods

4.2.2.2.1 Data Structure

After collecting and analyzing the qualitative manager interview data, I then assessed in relation to the quantitative plant community composition data of Chapter 2 and the qualitative park visitor data of Chapter 3 of this dissertation by using multivariate ordination techniques. In Chapter 2, the data structure included the species matrix (15 sample units x 189 species), which contained percent cover data for trees, saplings/shrubs, and vines averaged for the five 400-m2 square plots within each of the 15 urban parks. There were 11 species that occupied both the tree and sapling/shrub plant forms and were counted as different taxonomic units in the multivariate analysis. The herbaceous species cover data within the matrix were the average percent cover for all of the 1-m2 square plots sampled within each of the 400-m2 square plots of each park. In

Chapter 3, the data included observation and semi-structured interview and analysis for

43 park visitors in 15 different urban parks of Portland. I interviewed three visitors in each urban park of the study, with the exception of Big Four Corners Natural Area, where

I interviewed the only person that I encountered during my site visit. I summarized the

141 key findings of the semi-structured interviews with the urban park visitors in Section

3.3.5.

In order to analyze the qualitative data in relation to the quantitative plant community composition data, I first summarized park visitor responses for three of the questions, but only included the results for commonly mentioned responses provided by at least approximately 10 percent of all participants. The park visitor response matrix (15 sample units x 26 variables) contained count measurements of visitor responses, including what they liked about the plants (e.g., trees, beauty, diversity) or would like to change about the plants (e.g. more color or flowers, no changes), as well as any accessibility issues

(e.g., proximity, water, bathrooms) and in the parks (Table 4.1). The park visitor participant questions included:

• What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park?

• What aspects, if any, would you like to change about the plants in this park?

• Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs?

142

Table 4.1. Park visitor interview response variables, including accessibility issues, what they liked or would like to change about the plants. (V) is for visitor response. Variable Question Topic Trees (V) Likes Size (V) Likes Colors (V) Likes Diversity (V) Likes Maintenance (V) Likes Shade (V) Likes Beauty (V) Likes Maturity (V) Likes Grass (V) Likes No Preference (V) Likes No Changes to Plants (V) Changes Color, More (V) Changes Flowers, More (V) Changes Invasive, Harmful Plant Removal (V) Changes Middle Growth, Shrubs, More (V) Changes Placement of Plants, Improve (V) Changes Proximity (V) Access General Access (V) Access Maintenance (V) Access Trails/Paths (V) Access Relaxation (V) Access Water (Recreational, Drinking) (V) Access Bathrooms (V) Access Benches (V) Access No Bathrooms (V) Access Not All Trails/Paths (V) Access

I then summarized the responses of three similar questions plus an additional question about limitations that were asked during the 21 interviews with the 15 urban park managers, but only included the results for commonly mentioned responses provided by at least approximately 10 percent of the interviews (responses provided in Section

4.3.1.4). The park manager response matrix (15 sample units x 53 variables) included count measurements of what managers liked or would like to change about the plant

143 managements, perceptions of visitor accessibility issues, visitor comments about the vegetation, how park visitor experience influences vegetation choice and/or design, and any limitations to park management (Table 4.2). The questions included:

• What aspects, if any, do you like about how the plants are managed in this

park?

• What aspects, if any, would you like to change about the way plants are

managed in this park?

• Do you feel that this park is accessible to the needs of visitors?

• Have you received comments from park visitors about the plants in this park?

If so, describe.

• Specifically, how does park visitor experience influence vegetation choice

and/or design in this park?

• What are the factors, if any, that limit your ability to manage the park in the

way you might prefer?

144

Table 4.2. Park manager interview response variables, including what they liked or would like to change about plant management, visitor accessibility issues, how visitor perceptions influenced plant management, and limitations. (M) is for manager response. Variable Question Topic Color, Seasonal (M) Likes Design, Layout (M) Likes Different Crews in Parks Dept (M) Likes Ecosystem Management (M) Likes Habitat Variation (M) Likes Horticultural Beds (M) Likes Dislike Plant Management (M) Likes Maintenance (M) Likes Plant Variety (M) Likes Shade (M) Likes Trees (M) Likes Funding, Budget, More (M) Changes Infrastructure, Update (M) Changes Maintenance, Improve (M) Changes No Changes (M) Changes Plants, More (M) Changes Species Selection, Improve (M) Changes Staffing, More (M) Changes Unfavorable Visitor Behaviors, Decrease (M) Changes ADA/Wheelchair Accessible (M) Access Boat Ramp (M) Access Parking (M) Access Trails/Paths (M) Access Playground (M) Access Proximity/Location (M) Access General Access (M) Access Not All ADA (M) Access Not All Trails/Paths (M) Access Visitors Comment – Hazard Vegetation (M) Visitor Comments Visitors Comment – Invasive Plants (M) Visitor Comments Visitors Comment – Replacement Request (M) Visitor Comments Visitors Comment – Like Vegetation (M) Visitor Comments Do Not Receive Visitor Comments (M) Visitor Comments Aesthetics, Improvements (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt Balance Ecological and Human Needs (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt Design, Changed (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt Design, Kept (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt Eliminate Hiding/Camping Places (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt

145

Table 4.2, continued Variable Question Topic Hazard Plant Removal (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt Hearty Plants to Withstand Trampling (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt Not Much Public/Visitor Input (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt Open Space for Activities (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt Plants to Guide Human Traffic (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt Public Input During Planning (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt Trail Access (M) Visitor Influence Plant Mgmt Coordination in Parks Dept, Limitation (M) Limitations Enforcement, Limitation (M) Limitations Equipment/Supplies, Limitation (M) Limitations Funding/Budget, Limitation (M) Limitations Infrastructure, Limitation (M) Limitations Staff Resources, Limitation (M) Limitations Unfavorable Visitor Behaviors, Limitation (M) Limitations Water Use, Limitation (M) Limitations

4.2.2.2.2 Data Analysis

The original plant community composition data were transformed into presence- absence data, in which all occurrences received equal weighting regardless of abundance.

This transformation was selected because it reduced skewness of species, beta diversity

(half changes, βD), and coefficient of variation for columns as compared to the to the original data and a square root transformation. The park visitor and park manager response data (i.e. one point per variable discussed during each interview) were also transformed into presence-absence data to provide equal weighting of responses since there were unequal numbers of manager and visitor interviews. The relationships between the sample units, park visitor responses, and park manager responses were then characterized with non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMS) in PC-ORD Version 7.

NMS is a non-parametric ordination technique that iteratively searches for positions of entities on axes to minimize the stress of the configuration (Kruskal, 1964; McCune &

146

Grace, 2002). This technique was selected for this study because it does not have normality or linearity assumptions. The NMS of the sample units in species space was completed using the “autopilot mode”, slow and thorough speed, a random starting configuration, 200 runs with real data, Sørensen (Bray-Curtis) distance measure, and penalizing unequal ordination distance. The final solution for the NMS ordination of the parks in species space was determined by plotting final stress vs. the number of dimensions and choosing the number of axes beyond which stress reductions were small

(McCune & Grace, 2002). Overlays of the park visitor and park manager data as joint plots were examined to evaluate the direction and strength of linear relationships with the axes.

4.3 RESULTS

My findings include the results of the qualitative data analysis for the park manager semi-structured interviews (Section 4.3.1), and then the results of the mixed methods approach that assessed the qualitative park manager data in relation to the quantitative plant community composition data and qualitative park visitor data (Section 4.3.2).

4.3.1 Park Manager Qualitative Results

The results of the park manager semi-structured interviews include some demographics information and the key issues that emerged from the qualitative data analysis. To compare the participant responses in different contexts, I separated the interviews into sections based on park type, which included natural-passive use, recreational-active use, and multi-use parks. Within each of these sections, I provided an overview participant demographics and elaborated on their responses to the interview questions. The codebook for themes and patterns of meaning for the manager interviews

147 is provided in Appendix G. Of the park managers who were contacted for an interview, approximately 84 percent agreed to participate in the study. The most common reason that individuals declined an interview is because they suggested that I interview other park managers that were more familiar with particular parks. The average time per interview was approximately 39 minutes, with a range of 10 – 65 minutes. Two other researchers performed coding validation by reviewing at least five percent of the interviews. The manual coding validation with a second researcher showed a code overlap of approximately 73 percent. We discussed the results from the validation and updated some of the codes and their definitions in the codebook. Then, a third researcher performed validation QSR International’s NVivo 12 Plus software by coding with the updated codebook, which revealed an overall mean Kappa coefficient of 0.84 for all nodes. A kappa coefficient is a statistical measure which takes into account the amount of agreement that could be expected to occur by chance33. The quotations throughout this section show detailed perspectives of the park managers. A summary of the managers’ responses for all parks and by park type is provided in Section 4.3.1.4.

Over the course of my data collection process, I conducted 21 interviews with 15 individuals who manage 15 different urban parks of Portland (Table 4.3). Five of the participants were involved in managing and/or maintaining more than one park within the study. Thirteen of the interviews were conducted by telephone, while eight interviews were in-person. The participants included eight Supervisors, two Natural Resource

Ecologists, two Botanic Specialists, two Park Technicians, and one Horticulturalist. The

33 QSR International (2019). Coding comparison query. Retrieved from: https://help- nv.qsrinternational.com/12/win/v12.1.72-d3ea61/Content/queries/coding-comparison-query.htm

148 average number of years that the participants had worked at Portland Parks and

Recreation was 12.7 years (range of 4 – 26 years) and an average of 22.5 years working in their profession (range of 13 – 40 years). The median number of visits to all the parks in the study was approximately 24 times/year (range of 1 – 260 times/year).

Table 4.3: Park visit, average number of years at Portland Parks and Recreation and in profession for park managers and by park type. Park Type Median # of Average # of Years at Portland Average # of Visits/Year Parks and Recreation Years in Profession All Park Managers 24 12.7 22.5 Natural-passive use 30 7.8 17.2 Recreational- 12 14.1 24.4 active use Multi-use 18 16.6 25.8

4.3.1.1 Natural-Passive Use Parks

In this study, I conducted seven semi-structured interviews with four participants regarding five natural-passive use parks. Natural-passive use parks can be generally described as more passively used with benches, viewing areas, and trails for walking, hiking, and biking, but do not have formal fields for active play (Weems, 2016). These parks included George Himes Park (13 hectares, established 1903), Forest Park (2,058 hectares, est. 1947), and Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge (65 hectares, est. 1959), Woods

Memorial Natural Area (19 hectares, est. 1988), and Big Four Corners Natural Area (59 hectares, est. 2005), which are distributed throughout Portland (City of Portland, Oregon,

2018) (Photos 3.1 – 3.5). These parks have a range of habitats from wetlands and river floodplains to steep forested hillslopes. All of them have trails, but some of the parks have more extensive networks and signage (e.g., Forest Park) than others (e.g., Big Four

Corners Natural Area). To help preserve the anonymity of the participants, the parks were

149 randomly assigned reference names of Natural-Passive Use Park “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, and

“E”.

4.3.1.1.1 What Managers Liked About Plant Management

The participants provide a range of aspects that they liked about the management of the natural-passive use parks in this study such as focusing on ecosystem management for ecological functions and processes, maintenance (e.g., invasive species management), habitat variation, native species, plant variety, trails, trees, and understory, as well as the involvement of volunteers. The most common responses from participants were that they appreciated the ecosystem management approach in these parks. In regards to Natural-

Passive Use Park “B”, a manager explained:

“…this site is typical of most of our natural areas in that we are managing per those ecosystem management strategies I’ve laid out. So, we aren’t doing anything different on this site than we are doing in other sites. We are managing on a landscape scale rather than as a horticulturist on a plant-based basis. We don’t manage for individual trees, we manage for habitats for ecological functions and processes.”

Another manager who works at Natural-Passive Use Park “B” also echoed these statements, but recognized that attaining a perfect, idealized version of the habitat would be difficult given various constraints. They indicated that the park is:

“…managed awesomely by myself and many volunteers. Direct quote (laughs). We keep an open mind about what desired future condition we want for the park. We recognize that as an urban refuge, there are a lot of constraints and pressures, and we don’t expect perfection (laughs) or an idealized version of the vegetation communities. Instead, we focus on functions, with one of those functions being how people recreate and use the site.”

Several managers also described maintenance such as invasive species removal as an important aspect of their ecosystem management approach. A manager of Natural-

Passive Use Park “C” described their stance:

150

“…I like that we basically manage the park for natural succession. Because of its size and integrity, we are able to remove disturbances like invasive plants, namely ivy, blackberry, and clematis. And once we’ve removed those disturbances, we often see a rebounding from the native seed bank that has been suppressed in the soil.”

In Natural-Passive Use Park “D”, a manager recognized that invasive species management was an important aspect of ecosystem management, but felt that the responsibility should also be shared with adjacent landowners. They explained that:

“…there are some areas in the park that are contiguous, but we can’t work on them because they aren’t ours. And so, the most invaded, weediest places are not City of Portland park property at this point. It would be nice to have some agreements with adjacent landowners to be able to manage. On one side, it’s your first entry and it’s a very weedy corridor. So, the perception is that in some of these sections is that the Parks Bureau is not taking of it. We’ve had a lot of investment in this park on the side of the trails.”

Beyond ecosystem management, a manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “E” had a general appreciation of the variety of plants and habitat types, as well how these aspects enhanced recreational opportunities. They stated that:

“So, this park has some really unique trees – like we have a cedar grove with older, really spectacular trees. And there’s more variation in habitat types. Still forested, but you can transition from different places. The trail network – you can hike within the park and have a whole hiking experience. And there are some rare plants, or unusual anyway.”

4.3.1.1.2 What Managers Would Change About Plant Management

The managers of the natural-passive use parks in this study described the ways in which they would change plant management, which included additional staffing and funds, as well as reducing unfavorable visitor behaviors. Two managers indicated that they would not make any changes to the plant management. However, the most commonly response that managers provided was to increase staffing. A manager of

151

Natural-Passive Use Park “A” described that additional staff could help them to better reach their management objectives:

“We really could use more hands on the ground to do the work. We are very sensitive to the needs of the habitat in terms of the IPM (Integrated Pest Management Program). The types of treatments we are engaged in, we are doing well and I feel good about it. Portland Parks and Recreation does a good job of implementing this program on their sites.”

Others described increased funding as a way that they could pursue larger improvement projects within the parks. A manager for Natural-Passive Use Park “D” stated that:

“I’d like to have enough resources to work on the park as a whole rather than having to do smaller projects over time as grant funds are available.”

While many managers indicated that staff and funding was what they would like to change about the plant management, a manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “A” also described the challenges that some park visitors posed for the vegetation:

“There are people that will chop down trees (the homeless campers) for firewood, and there is compaction of the soil. So, that has a very negative impact. As far as our practices, I wouldn’t change anything.”

Beyond general plant management, a manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “E” expressed a more immediate concern about the stream and associated riparian habitat in the park. They explained that:

“The creek is contained in a pipe, so we lose the riparian function on one side of the park, and so its habitat value is not as high…I’d love to see that resolved in some way. Eventually we will need to look at the combined sewer overflow system…I think we actually do a pretty good job considering the amount of resources that we have. We continue to work with volunteers to make improvements on perhaps a smaller scale. My main this about the park, is more about the stream structure than really the plant communities.”

152

4.3.1.1.3 Manager Perspectives on Park Accessibility for Visitors

When the park managers were asked if they felt that the natural-passive use parks in this study were accessible to the needs of park visitors, many of them felt that the issue of accessibility was complex and has several meanings, depending on the visitor. They discussed issues such as paths and trails, the American Disabilities Act (ADA), proximity and/or location, signage in different languages, a welcoming atmosphere, and access to wildlife and nature. Some of the managers acknowledged that the trails and paths were not entirely accessible and felt there was room for improvement in terms of ADA accessibility and providing park signage in more languages besides English. A manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “C” stated:

“I guess it depends of the visitor. I think that we have some room to improve in that area. The challenges that I identified (trailheads not being well marked or easy to find) make it difficult for all visitors to access. With the…miles of trails, we only have ¼ of a mile that is ADA accessible. And most of our information and signage in the park is only English. Safety related signs are in English and Spanish, but permanent signs are only in English…we need to tap into technology a bit more. We’ve done outreach with specific groups and need to get more creative.”

A Natural-Passive Use Park “B” manager also felt that only some areas were ADA accessible. However, they felt that the park was accessible in other ways such as its connection to regional and neighborhood trails and the local transportation system, as well as its welcoming atmosphere to visitors. They explained that accessibility is:

“… a complicated question. It depends on the type of accessibility that is needed. There are paved paths and viewing platforms that are ADA accessible, but there are areas…that you would not be able to get a wheelchair on, for example. [Natural- Passive Use Park “B”] is very well-connected to the community through TriMet, regional trails, and local neighborhood trails. Another thing I would say, is that I hope that [it] has a sense of welcome and inclusiveness for all visitors.”

153

While some managers felt that some parks were accessible on a regional scale, other managers felt that other parks were more of a local resource for neighboring communities. A manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “D” indicated that:

“I think it’s accessible to the visitors who are currently using it. I’m not sure very many people know about the park. It’s more of a local access than a regional resource.”

Some park managers discussed how their management was less focused on accessibility for people, but rather on managing habitat for wildlife. However, even though some sites did not have extensive trail networks, they still provided some access to wildlife and nature. A manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “A” explained that:

“It’s designed as wildlife habitat, so that being the case, the fact that there is a trail to walk along the outside of it, that provides some opportunities for wildlife viewing and enjoyment of the natural area. It’s not designed to have a more developed trail system that other parks might provide.”

4.3.1.1.4 Manager Perspectives on How Visitors Interact with Plants

The managers of the natural-passive use parks in this study indicated that visitors interacted with the plants in a variety of ways such as visually/aesthetically (e.g., appreciating trees, colors, variety of plants, bird habitat, and flowers), stewardship and volunteering, research and environmental education, as well as hazard issues with plants

(e.g. fallen trees) or damaging activities by visitors (e.g., trampling, breaking, graffiti, picking flowers, and letting their dogs run off-leash). The managers most commonly discussed visitors viewing the plants. A manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “A” described how viewing the plants benefitted the visitors:

“I think it’s visual. The visitors walk along the trails and they are right up along the natural area. There is proximity to greenery in the park. I don’t think it’s the same experience they might get at other parks (walking deep in the park on a formalized

154

trail), but they get exposed to different types of trees and plants and the natural components at the site.”

Visual and aesthetic appreciation of the plants was also a benefit that coincided with stewardship and volunteering opportunities within some of the sites. A manager of

Natural-Passive Use Park “B” explained:

“We have our incredible volunteers that help us restore the vegetation, literally removing or planting. We have researchers, like yourself, that try to help us get the information we need to better manage the park. And we have people who come to see the big…blooms in May or to collect leaves in the fall for our work…”

While many managers discussed positive interactions between the visitors and plants, some also described unfavorable visitor behaviors that led to damaged vegetation. A

Natural-Passive Use Park “C” described visitor interactions as:

“I would say typically respectfully. We do have issues were people in wildflower season will want to pick wildflowers. We have a small group of people that engage in graffiti, which can include the trees. And only major issue for us is dogs. It is not uncommon for people to bring their dogs to the park and have them off-leash, which is against our rules. And those animals can be very impact to the vegetation in the parks.”

4.3.1.1.5 Comments from Park Visitors About Plants

The managers discussed some of the comments that they received from park visitors such as the presence of hazard vegetation (e.g. fallen trees), appreciation for the plants or new plantings, graffiti on trees, invasive plants, and concern about removed plants. Most of the managers had received comments about the vegetation, but managers of two of the sites stated that they had not gotten any feedback. The most common comments from visitors cited by managers were regarding hazard vegetation and how its managed. A manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “E” had received a range of comments such as

155 concern about hazard vegetation removal, graffiti, and appreciation for the plants. They indicated that park visitors have given comments:

“Mostly to notify me when someone sees something cool. We’ve had concerns about graffiti on the trees. We also had a significant concern when a large tree was cut in park. It was a hazard tree so it was appropriate to cut, but it really concerned the neighborhood.”

A manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “B” also had similar feedback from visitors, but that they enjoy interacting with visitors and responding to any comments or concerns.

They explained that:

“I think people appreciate the diversity and the improvement that we have made to the meadows, especially. And then people do complain about vegetation in the trails. Usually it’s grasses, branches, or trees that have come down. There’s one story from last year, where we trimmed all the grass along the… trail and I got several irate phone calls from a woman who was convinced that we were trimming poison oak and that both she and her dog had become infected, and there was no way that I could convince her that there was no poison oak. I even offered to walk with her on the trail to help identify plants, but she refused (laughs), so we get those odd ball ones sometimes (laughs). And I say that with the utmost respect of our patrons. That’s what makes the job enjoyable and interesting. Every day is different and you don’t know what you’re gonna get, but I enjoy interacting with visitors the most.”

While most of the managers had received comments from visitors about plants, some managers felt that visitors focused more on recreational concerns rather than the plants. A manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “D” stated that, in terms of comments, there were:

“…None about I like this tree or this plant is particularly interesting to me. I think people are more recreation focused than nature appreciate focused in this park.”

4.3.1.1.6 How Park Visitor Experience Influences Vegetation Management

The managers were asked how park visitor experience influences vegetation choice and/or design in the parks. The managers primarily discussed vegetation management for trail access and hazard plant removal, followed by improving aesthetics and eliminating

156 hiding/camping places. Additional responses included balancing human and ecological needs, updating designs, adding plantings to hide adjacent residences, maintaining views, and involving community volunteers in plantings or removing invasive plants. A manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “A” indicated that the priority for managing vegetation for visitors was:

“…only around any trail head access development. Just to provide access and creating an open. We would have to manage them to prevent vegetation from growing in. To maintain it as open and accessible.”

In addition to providing access to trails, a manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “C” also discussed how vegetation management can help address safety issues for park visitors. They explained that the vegetation is managed:

“Particularly at trail heads and entrances, and/or at the public/private interface. So, we would be choosing plants of lower stature at a trailhead or near a parking lot, so we aren’t creating a situation that could obscure someone who is wanting to wait and vandalize cars or those sorts of things. And then near, occasionally, near the private- public interface, we might choose thicket-forming shrubs or planting a hedgerow to obscure residences. This is less of an issue in Forest Park, and more for smaller parks.”

A manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “B” also explained how vegetation can be managed to increase visitor safety. They described how they:

“…try to keep the vegetation attractive, non-harmful (so we won’t plant stinging nettle, for example). We need to be careful of what we call hidey-holes, which areas of dense vegetation that people can hide (technical term – laughs). So, we try to group plants and leave spaces between the groups, so that you can see…we also try to disguise chronic camping areas and social trails. Sometimes it’s planting those trail areas or putting down brush and large woody debris in those areas.”

Beyond safety concerns, a manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “D” described how they try to find a balance for both people and the environment. They described the vegetation management as for:

157

“…both for ecological health and also the visual perspective. I look at what’s missing in terms of upper canopy, midstory, and understory. So, we have a really good upper canopy. The midstory is lacking. The understory is mixed. So, when I choose midstory plants, I look at both the ecological benefit and the visual benefit. We look for things that have both. Like red elderberry is very good for wildlife and visually appealing for park users. So, I do try to have a diverse mix of plants that will ultimately make the site more interesting. There’s lots of examples, like vine maple – a midstory that changes color in the fall. Indian plum is one of the first things to flower in the spring. So, we get to have both benefit and visual interest.”

While most of the participants discussed they ways in which managers manage the vegetation, a manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “E” felt that volunteers and stewards had a large impact on the trajectory of the park. They felt that visitor experiences impact vegetation management:

“Quite a bit. We looked at converting what was a former ball field into a pollinator meadow. A legacy from when it was a Multnomah County park. And so, a lot of thought went into that conversion. We’ve been working on it for the last four years. It used to be overgrown with blackberries. There was some infrastructure out there with weird odds and ends, but long before my time so I don’t know all of the details… we’ve also had a lot of planting events out there with Friend’s Groups, and at the site in general.”

4.3.1.1.7 Limitations to Park Management

When asked about factors that limited their ability to manage the parks in the ways they might prefer, the most common response were staff resources, funding/budget, and unfavorable visitor behaviors (e.g., homelessness and camping, dogs off-leash, and trash).

Other less frequent responses were available scientific information, steep terrain, and equipment and/or supplies. Some managers felt overstretched with the available staff and funding available for their work in the parks. A manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “C” explained:

“…I wish I would have more resources – staff resources. One thing that is really challenging. We won’t get into the history, but it’s been acquired piecemeal over the

158

years and so it has never received dedicated funds for operation and maintenance. So, it does not have the level of funding to manage its size and level of importance. Which is why we started this whole… initiative, to attract funds to the park…. funding is a huge one. We manage… acres of natural area…and we do it with very limited staff. It’s huge.”

Some managers explained how increased funding is especially important for conserving habitat and diversity within the city. A Natural-Passive Use Park “A” manager stated that:

“If I had my way, we would have more resources to put into the work that we are doing. We are working hard to keep the native habitat native, and that’s challenging with limited resources. I would funnel more resources to [Natural-Passive Use Park “A”]. It’s a large acreage, provides a lot of diversity of ecological niches for different wildlife species. It’s kind of special in that regard. It has access to water and there is a large constructed wetland on the site, and that provides special habitat opportunities for water fowl and beaver. It’s one of the sites if I had my druthers, would put more resources into. Like all land managers, we have limited resources and a lot of land to manage. Resources in terms of people and equipment.”

Beyond staffing and funding issues, other managers discussed limitations due to unfavorable visitor behavior. Another manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “A” described how:

“The negative from impacts of users of homeless campers have set the site back several years, and it’s saddening for restorationists. And there is a lot of investment that has gone into the site, and to see it set back in such a short amount of time.”

A manager of Natural-Passive Use Park “B” felt that unfavorable visitor behaviors could be reduced with increased funding and staff resources. They explained that:

“We always could use more staff and funding. Especially when it comes to our park rangers where they are there to dissuade negative behavior and to implement the rules and regulations of the park. We have a lot of people that break the rules and without the staffing, it’s hard to implement those rules like dogs off leashes, camping, and trash.”

159

4.3.1.2 Recreational-Active Use Parks

I conducted seven semi-structured interviews with seven participants about five recreational-active use parks in the study. Recreational-active use parks can be generally described as highly developed with formal facilities promoting active plant such as play equipment and sports fields, and often lack an abundance of greenspace and other natural amenities that are typically found in natural-passive use or multi-use parks (Weems,

2016). These parks included Wallace Park (2.2 hectares, established 1920), Brentwood

Park (5.7 hectares, est. 1951), N Swan Island Boat Ramp (0.7-hectare, est. 1996),

Jamison Square (0.4-hectare, est. 2000), and Khunamokwst Park (1-hectare, established

2009), which are distributed in all quadrants of Portland (City of Portland, Oregon, 2018)

(Photos 3.6 – 3.10). These parts have different arrays of amenities such as playgrounds, dog parks (Brentwood Park and Wallace Park), picnic tables, covered areas, sports fields

(e.g., softball, soccer, basketball), large parking lots, a boat ramp (North Swan Island

Boat Ramp), recreational fountains (e.g., Jamison Square and Khunamokwst Park), and a skate plaza (Khunamokwst Park). To help preserve the anonymity of the participants, the parks were randomly assigned reference names of Recreational-Active Use Park “F”,

“G”, “H”, “I”, and “J”.

4.3.1.2.1 What Managers Liked About Plant Management

The managers of the recreational-active use parks in this study provided many reasons why the liked the plant management, such as their maintenance (e.g., weed/invasive management, good maintenance, pruning, low maintenance plants), design/layout, horticultural beds, naturalistic landscape, and management for trees, shade,

160 and seasonal color. Two participants indicated that they did not like the way the plants were managed in the parks. However, the most common positive response about the plant management related to the maintenance. A manager for Recreational-Active Use Park “I” stated that they appreciated:

“The weed management in the landscape, horticultural beds with bark, and the pruning of the plant material is good. The turf quality is generally good in that park, unless you go after a rainy weekend. The zone supervisor and the horticulturalist are doing a good job in this park.”

A manager for Recreational-Active Use Park “J” praised the maintenance as well as the layout and design of the park. They explained that:

“I like their layout in the park. The bulk of it follows along the perimeter of the fence so creates a buffer between the park and the adjacent neighbors. I like the way the right plants were chosen for their location and also give color throughout the seasons, and they are maintained at a good level, so we are able to give ideal amount of time and energy to care for the plants.”

Some managers especially liked the design of parks that took into account the needs of park visitors such as trees that provide shade during summertime. A manager for

Recreational-Active Use Park “H” described their thoughts:

“...it’s a lovely little park. If I lived in the area, it would become my park. I would take hat my off to whoever designed it. I think this is one of the parks that thought of trees. They thought of the hot, summertime experience where you’re going to need shade. They did a good job.”

Although many participants described positive attributes of the plant management within the recreational-active use parks, some managers did not like the plant management in the parks. A manager of the Recreational-Active Use Park “F” stated that:

“I don’t like how the plants are managed in this park (laughs). There’s very few established plants.”

161

However, some managers liked that there was potential for improvement in the recreational-active use parks based on their current park design. A manager for

Recreational-Active Use Park “J” explained:

“There’s potential to increase its benefits. We have a good infrastructure with beds laid out around the perimeter and parts of the interior, so we already have areas that can accept improvements without having to convert other areas. When looking to add plantings, look for areas that are underutilize, but [Recreational-Active Use Park “J”] already has those set aside.”

One of the managers of Recreational-Active Use Park “G” also indicated that they would like some improvements in plant management, but recognized some of the limitations:

“I don’t think have enough labor power to manage them in the way I’d like them to be managed. I went to school in horticulture and worked in landscaping. Could use more pruning and fertilizing, like we do in the private industry.”

4.3.1.2.2 What Managers Would Change About Plant Management

The managers of the recreational-active use parks in this study described a range of ways that they would like to change park management such as improved maintenance

(i.e., more fertilizer and pruning), better plant species selection (i.e., climate-adapted, disease-resistant, diversity, more herbaceous perennials for pollinators), infrastructure updates, and more plants (e.g. midstory/shrubs, understory, etc.). Less frequently discussed changes included creating a new design and increasing staff training for a newly installed ecoroof. One participant stated that they would not many any changes to the plant management. In Recreational-Active Use Park “G”, a manager talked about the importance of improving maintenance of the plants and indicated that they would like to be able to:

162

“do more annual pruning each year, to get them down to size so that they are easier to maintain and keep healthy. Being able to fertilize them annual. Gotta feed them so they stay healthy.”

Besides maintenance, a park manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “H” emphasized how plant selection is important for withstanding changing climate, pests, and disease, rather than for aesthetic, seasonal attributes. They explained that:

“I’m not down with all the species that were selected. They chose a lot of birch and maple trees. Species selection could have used some help from us (Urban Forestry). We would have chosen trees that #1: were less susceptible to pests and pathogens, and #2: trees that are better able to handle climate changes issues. That’s pretty much it. We would have for sure chosen different species for this park. Living in the Northwest, we have such a palette to choose from. Birch bronze bore – we are losing a lot of trees to this…maples – we have overabundance of maples in the City of Portland. And if we ever do get an infestation of Asian longhorn beetle (ALB), it’s going to wipe out all the maples – and there are 12 species it likes. There are so many other trees we could have chosen. People go to it probably because it’s beautiful in the fall, among other reasons.”

While some managers focused on plant selection and maintenance, other managers emphasized that infrastructure updates were a key component for improving the plant management. A Recreational-Active Use Park “I” manager stated that:

“Just speaking from a turf standpoint, this park could benefit from a drainage system on the ball field. That’s the main thing that I see because it gets saturated during heavy rains.”

A manager at Recreational-Active Use Park “F” also described several infrastructure improvements that they would change about the park, and explained:

“I’d like to upgrade the irrigation system, overhaul the main planting bed along the fence along the west side and along the portapotty on the northeast side. The other patch might have had some native plantings installed at some point, but never took off. We inherited this site 3-4 years ago…they used to pay Portland Parks to take care of it, and then it was given – they turned the facility over to us.”

Regarding newly installed infrastructure in the form of an ecoroof in Recreational-

163

Active Use Park “J”, a manager described how the staff needed additional training to better maintain the plantings:

“There’s also green roof on the picnic shelter with some sedums and typical plants you’d find on an ecoroof. There’s some training that we need to receive for my employees on how to maintain those because they are above ground. As far as needing the proper rigging and harnesses to work above ground, we have been looking into the training, but haven’t been to take it. Green roofs are relatively maintenance free, but need to have weeds removed. There’s also some redrock that is up there that acts as a substrate for the sedums, but there’s also a lot of soil that was added up there that probably should be replaced with red rock to help the plants not collect so much weeds. The less soil structure, the less weeds you get. I feel a bit constrained right now to go up there yet, because we haven’t gotten the training yet. We need to identify the tools and training that is required before accomplish that. That basically needs to happen or change (laughs). It’s one of the first ecoroofs that were created in Portland Parks.”

4.3.1.2.3 Park Manager Perspectives on Park Accessibility for Visitors

When the recreational-active use park managers were asked about whether the parks were accessible to the needs of park visitors, all of them indicated that the parks were accessible. Their reasons primarily included access to paths and trails, ADA accessibility, and parking and boat ramp access. Some less frequently discussed accessibility features included cleanliness, open design, grass/turf, playground, proximity/location. One participant indicated that while the park they managed was accessible, it had the potential to improve ADA accessibility. A manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “J” praised the ADA accessibility, paths, and open design within the park, and stated:

“Yes, it’s accessible in that it has a nice, open design so that people can see the park from both ends and see across it, so it’s inviting in that sense. It also has a nice flow with an internal circular pathway, so people can also do walking or strolling around the park. Good use of the space for getting around the park on those hard surfaces. It’s successful to those with disabilities and children who would like to play in the playground, they can access it. Even the upper portion of nature play area has an access ramp and a transfer for that purpose.”

164

A manager also praised the wheelchair accessibility of Recreational-Active Use Park

“G”, as well as its parking availability:

“There’s street parking and it’s easy to walk from the street to wherever they want to go in the park. If they go across the park, or in a wheelchair, there’s a path they could travel down that starts on Duke and goes north and breaks into sections.”

Although many managers felt that the parks were ADA accessible, one of the managers of the Recreational-Active Use Park “F” felt that ADA accessibility could still be improved. While many managers thought of accessibility in terms of ADA accessibility for trails and paths, a manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “I” also felt that accessibility was related to the plants, playground, and cleanliness of the park. They explained that:

“I believe that the turf is usually in good quality depending on if we have heavy rain. I think that the playground is operational and the paths are usually clean, so I think it’s in good operation for what it is used for.”

4.3.1.2.4 Park Manager Perspectives on How Visitors Interact with Plants

After being asked how the park visitors interacted with the plants in in the recreational-active use parks, the managers most often mentioned viewing interactions

(i.e. for their beauty, seasonality, color, and trees) and unfavorable visitor behaviors (i.e., trampling/breaking vegetation, camping/hiding in shrubs, and garbage). Other less frequent examples included walking around plants, playing in plants, obtaining shade primarily from trees, and using the turf/grass for sitting or playing sports. However, one manager indicated that they thought the park visitors did not have a lot of interaction with the plants. A manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “I” explained how different types

165 of park visitors may appreciate the visual and aesthetic aspects of the plants in the park, while others interact with the turf for recreation:

“I’d say, for the turf, the sports user groups are playing on the fields. I’d say families are picnicking on the grass. Other park users as they wander through the pathways are looking at the plants. They aren’t necessarily interacting with them, but they are looking at the plants as the seasons change and the characteristics of those plants change though the seasons. I would say that there’s usually a lot of people in the parks looking at the fall leaf color.”

A manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “H” also discussed the seasonal beauty and shade provided by the park’s vegetation and how that may be appealing to park visitors:

“Well, I’m going to speak from the tree perspective and maybe the turf. On the seasonal aspect of the park, during the summer months, they can seek out shade. And then also enjoy the small grassy area, where they can hang out on a blanket. In the winter, the trees can look beautiful if the branches have snow on them. In the rainy season, it’s probably not as enjoyable (laughs). The trees are probably not as noticed as much.”

Some of the managers also described how the vegetation not only had visual benefits for both park visitors and individuals who drive by, but also for children who are able to play in the plantings. A manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “J” explained that:

“I think they interact with them by kind of walking around them (laughs), it kind of sounds strange. The playground area has plantings around it and as part of it, so the users are able to walk around the plantings and look at them close up, so that’s unique. At other parks, the playground might be in the middle of turf. But at [Recreational-Active Use Park “J”], the playground is up on a mound of large boulders and large tree trunks, and trees, and shrubs, and herbaceous plantings, so they are actually playing in the plantings (laughs). Other park users are walking the pathway, are able to see the plantings from their walking, so I think that’s how they experience it. Driving by the park, they should be able to experience the plantings and enjoy the plantings and trees.”

While many participants described positive interactions between park visitors and the vegetation, they also provide several ways that unfavorable visitor behaviors led to

166 damaged plants. Two participants who manage and/or maintain the Recreational-Active

Use Park “F” stated that:

“They throw garbage on them and trample them,” and “I hate to say it, but there is not much interaction with the plants except to use it as screening material for undesirable behaviors. Not a lot of care is given to established plants by visitors.”

In Recreational-Active Use Park “G”, a manager also faced some similar issues. They indicated the visitor interaction with the plants was:

“For the post part, good. We sometimes have problems with people camping out in the shrub beds and they break off the limbs, which is not good.”

A manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “J” also explained how visitor interactions with the plants can sometimes lead to trampling and require eventual plant replacement. They explained that:

“We have fences and signs in different languages to preserve the bioswale, and that it’s not meant for foot traffic, but we still see people in there. It puts it as odds with our visitors to tell them to come out of there. But we have to think about the livability of the plants and not having them get trampled and ruined, and having to replace them. That’s an interesting, negative effect that we’ve seen from visitor interaction with the plants (laughs).”

4.3.1.2.5 Comments from Park Visitors About Plants

Each of the managers of the recreational-active use parks was asked if they had received any comments from the visitors about the plants in the parks. Six of the seven participants indicated that they had not received any comments, but one manager of

Recreational-Active Use Park “J” stated that they did receive some positive feedback.

They were told:

“It’s looking good, good job. Thanks for your work! (laughs).”

167

A manager of the Recreational-Active Use Park “F” felt that the lack of comments on the plants was due to the visitor focus on water access rather than the vegetation. They explained:

“People are really there to boat and not necessarily to enjoy the green infrastructure.”

4.3.1.2.6 How Park Visitor Experience Influences Vegetation Management

The managers described a range of ways that park visitor experience influences vegetation choice and/or design in the recreational-active use parks. The primarily discussed keeping to the park design, improving aesthetics, eliminating hiding/camping places, and planting hearty vegetation to withstand trampling, and balancing human and ecological needs. Some other responses included changing the park design, removing hazardous plants, creating open space for activities, using plants to guide human traffic, and soliciting public input during the planning process. Many managers felt that keeping to the original planting design was important for maintaining positive visitor experiences in the parks. A manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “H” explained:

“Well in regards to the trees again, when I think about this park, this park – people are moving through this park and the way…whoever designed this park, especially the trees along the street that create the allee (a design term). This design is incredibly intentional – it keeps people moving and makes the experience pleasant…. they really did use trees as their element of design. I’m curious who designed it...”

Another manager described how it was important to maintain the plants in according to the design especially because the plans were created with the input of the community.

A Recreational-Active Use Park “J” manager stated:

“…the Public Advisory Committee, the public input - that was the largest influence in terms of the neighborhood involvement and design. Again, we are just keeping the integrity of that design.”

168

While many managers are described their intentions to keep to the original design, a manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “I” talked about the benefits of some changes that were occurring in other parks. They described how:

“…We are going down the path of ‘Ecologically Sustainable Landscape Initiative’ for sustainability. We’ve heard that from park users that they would like to have more access to nature areas in the city limits. I don’t know if they are planning on that in [Recreational-Active Use Park “I”]. They were starting out with just ten, but I don’t know if it’s one of the ten, and I don’t know if there are any plans there.”

Some of the park managers described how vegetation management had the potential to discourage unfavorable visitor behaviors. At Recreational-Active Use Park “F”:

“…things just need to be low and hearty. Yeah, because you don’t want to create hide-y holes for people to hide in or do bad things.”

A manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “G” also described how the vegetation needed to be hearty in order to withstand trampling. They indicated that:

“We try to put things in the park that are going to be hearty and can withstand some abuse. And um, there’s nothing fancy there as far as shrub beds good, that are fancy or delicate.”

Beyond unfavorable visitor behaviors, one of the park managers of Recreational-

Active Use Park “H” also discussed how hazard vegetation removal and maintenance are important aspects of ensuring public safety in urban parks. They described:

“Well in relationship to the trees, whenever there is a strong urban setting such as this park and there are trees planted, the maintenance of the trees is important because there are a lot of people. If you can think of people as targets, this is going to sound weird, and all these trees were in a setting where maybe this park…let’s say this park was in a part of the city that was more suburban and there weren’t businesses around. If there is an issue where a tree would become dangerous, it would need to be take care of quickly because there is so much pedestrian traffic. That heavily influence maintenance. We think about how targets such as people or building could get hurt or damaged.”

169

4.3.1.2.7 Limitations to Park Management

When asked about the factors that limited their ability to manage the parks in the ways they might prefer, six out of the seven participants indicated that funding/budget was the primary limitation. Other less frequently mentioned limitations included enforcement, staff resources, unfavorable visitor behaviors (i.e. homelessness and trash), and water use. The managers described how a limited budget results in less irrigation, plantings, and ability to enforce rules within the parks. A manager of Recreational-Active

Use Park “J” stated:

“One thing that we talk about a lot as people who have my position [is that] we could use a better plant budget to achieve these goals. A plant budget or funding source. Right now, most of our funding for these plants comes from the City of Portland’s general fund, and that is not a secure source of funding. Our plant budget is very limited… It’s also related to our budget for irrigation, which can be very important for getting them established and maintaining their health, but we are also under budgetary constraint on the water budget.”

Another manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “J” explained how constraints on the budget for water has had effects on visitor experiences in the park. They stated that:

“We’ve had some budget cuts again with irrigation, and that also affected the splash pad hours to limit the amount of water used on the splash pads. So, we basically cut back two hours from that. I would say that is something that would be ideal, would be to restore that. It’s still operation, but it still would be nice to restore those hours for the public to use.”

A manager of Recreational-Active Use Park “F” also explained the that budget constraints and limited enforcement tend to lead to several unfavorable visitor behaviors such as:

“…overnight parking, littering and vandalism, and camping, and dumping”.

170

For Recreational-Active Use Park “G”, a manager indicated that budget cuts were an ongoing issue for several years. They explained that:

“…if I had the money in my budget, then I would pull the wood chips out and put another surface down. We’ve been having budget cuts in 8 of the last 10 years, anywhere from 2 – 6 percent. It doesn’t make sense.”

4.3.1.3 Multi-use Parks

During this study, I conducted seven semi-structured interviews with six participants regarding five multi-use parks. Multi-use parks are combinations of both recreational- active use and natural-passive use parks, and tend to promote both active and passive uses (Weems, 2016). For example, Ed Benedict Park has formal facilities for play equipment and sports, but also a memory garden, which promotes passive uses such as walking or sitting on benches and observing the flowers. The multi-use parks included in this study were Plaza Blocks (0.7-hectare, est. 1869), Columbia Park (14 hectares, est.

1891), Rose City Park (3.4 hectares, established 1920), Patton Square Park (0.5-hectare, est. 1960), and Ed Benedict Park (5.1 hectares, est. 1988), which are distributed throughout Portland (City of Portland, Oregon, 2018) (Photos 3.11 – 3.15). Within these parks, there are different active use amenities such as playgrounds, a skate plaza (Ed

Benedict Park), and sports fields (e.g., soccer, softball, and tennis). However, they each promote passive uses in a variety of ways such as having unpaved or paved trails and walking paths, a memory garden, and/or abundance of large and established vegetation cover. To help preserve the anonymity of the participants, the parks were randomly assigned reference names of Multi-use Park “K”, “L”, “M”, “N”, and “O”.

171

4.3.1.3.1 What Managers Liked About Plant Management

When asked about what they liked about plant management in the multi-use parks, some managers discussed their maintenance (i.e. well-maintained, irrigation, low maintenance plants) and benefits of management by different work crews within Portland

Parks and Recreation. Other attributes that they liked about the plant management included their beauty, seasonal colors, design/layout, grass, maturity, plant variety, and shade, while one manager indicated that they thought the park design was somewhat problematic. However, two managers discussed their appreciation of the maintenance and management of vegetation types by different work crews. A manager of Multi-use Park

“M” explained:

“I do like how we have different crews throughout our Bureau that manage each type of vegetation. So, we have an Urban Forestry crew that manages the trees and the canopy throughout the entire system, including [Multi-use Park “M”]. We have a Turf Crew that manages the sports fields. Individual zones, including our… park zone, manages understory vegetation, landscape beds and such. Because of that, all of those different types of vegetation get the kinds of needs they require based on that specialized work and based on their own allocation of resources. When a tree has some disease or problem, Urban Forestry is able to address it with their specialized workforce who can identify, inspect, and remove as needed, and also follow-up and replant, and continue to care for the tree for at least a watering schedule for a two- year period. The same with the Turf [work crew] – they renovate the sports fields, reseed, fertilize, groom the fields, and so they look good from that perspective. My crew is able to manage the landscape beds and the various maintenance associated with it through leaf removal, plant care, watering, and the whole park looks good as a whole, mainly due to the specialized workforces managing it.”

Another manager of Multi-use Park “M” also echoed this sentiment about the specialization of the various work crews, and stated:

“Overall, there isn’t a lot of plant material besides the trees, and I like that our Urban Forestry Program is very proactive in replacing dying trees. So, if I lose one, I get a new one (laughs).”

172

While some managers discussed the positive aspects of maintenance by different crews, others appreciated the landscape design and layout, including a manager of Multi- use Park “L”, who stated that:

“It has a simple landscape design. It’s not overly done. There are a lot of trees along the perimeter and some landscaping in the parking lot, but mostly turf for recreation.”

A manager of Multi-use Park “N” also had positive comments about the beauty and season variation of the plants within the park. They explained that:

“Even if you aren’t a horticulturist. We have a vast, variety of horticultural interest for year-round. Things that are blooming in the early spring, summer, and fall. We have the beautiful old elm trees in the fall, that are stunningly beautiful.”

While other park managers also appreciated aspects of the vegetation in the parks, they looked forward to future improvements. A manager of Multi-use Park “O” indicated that:

“I like that we are continually improving plantings in the park. I love that there’s good bones to the plantings and I like that there is irrigation such as it is.”

Additionally, a participant involved in the maintenance of Multi-use Park “K” praised the low maintenance vegetation and looked forward to future improvements. They stated that the plants are:

“…pretty low maintenance, which is nice. There’s a couple of beds that our new horticulturist is going to improve, so that’s exciting. It’s in the center of the park near the brick benches. She just plant salal as a starter plant. It would be nice to see something really cool there. Salal is pretty low maintenance and won’t need a lot of water.”

However, a manager had a somewhat different opinion of Multi-use Park “K” in that they were dissatisfied with the current plant assets and the design, but then also praised their staff for their efforts. They explained that:

173

“I would say that my staff does the best they can. There’s limited plant assets there. I don’t really like the plant assets there that much. I think the design is somewhat problematic. I like the idea of shady, yet grassy areas for people to congregate. Conceptually, it is good.”

4.3.1.3.2 What Managers Would Change About Plant Management

The managers provided a variety of ways that they would like to change plant management within the multi-use parks which included their maintenance (i.e., pruning and watering more), updating infrastructure, planting more trees and drought-tolerant species, increasing staffing, improving plant placement, and reducing unfavorable visitor behaviors (i.e. damage from trampling). Two managers indicated that they would not make any changes to the plant management. However, in Multi-use Park “M”, a manager discussed the impact of water budget reductions and how they would like to increase watering in the park:

“Well, I’d say mainly it has to do with the amount of watering that we are able to do. We went through budget cuts this fiscal year and had to greatly reduce our watering schedules for pretty much all vegetation, including passive turf areas, landscape beds, and passive watering of trees (not including, the two-year establishment for watering trees). Many of our mature trees get water from overspray of the turf. We didn’t reduce watering for sports turfs because we permit them and we need them to be safe. The passive areas within trees were cut back about 10-20 percent and it makes a big difference especially when we need it most during the hot summer months…”

A manager of Multi-use Park “L” also had concerns about water but indicated that planting more drought-tolerant species could be helpful. They stated that:

“I really don’t have anything that I would change at this point. If anything, if there were plant substitutes that were drought-tolerant so that we could use less water.”

While a Multi-use Park “O” manager also desired to add more plants of their choosing, they felt that updates to irrigation infrastructure was what was needed to help

174 establish the plantings. They explained that:

“I always want more plants. Land stewardship doesn’t get enough say in the trees installed by Urban Forestry. And the irrigation system needs an upgrade, so it’s currently limiting for establishing plants and new plantings.”

However, a manager of Multi-use Park “K” indicated that they would like to reduce the amount of damage to the plants by visitors. The placement of the plants near a playground and the road made them more susceptible to damage and also difficult to maintain. They explained that the:

“Plants adjacent to playgrounds get damaged and so we’ve lost a lot of plants adjacent to the playgrounds. They also planted in ground plants right off of the pathways, so there’s too much foot traffic in planting beds and they aren’t raised up enough or at all to prevent people from walking right through them. There’s a planting strip along the road that is difficult to access with a vehicle and somewhat sketchy or hazardous to maintain because of its proximity to the road. It’s an interstate, so it’s big.”

While most of the managers indicated aspects that they would like to change about the plant management in the parks, a manager of Multi-use Park “N” described how plant decisions from the past produced sustainable results. They indicated that:

“I wouldn’t change anything, because…about 10 years ago, we put in plants for sustainability and for low water use. We started doing that long before we were asked to do it. We were definitely proactive on the sustainability factor.”

4.3.1.3.3 Park Manager Perspectives on Park Accessibility for Visitors

The multi-use park managers were asked if felt the parks were accessible to the needs of visitors. While many of them acknowledged that accessibility can have many meanings depending on the visitors, they all felt that parks were accessible. The reasons that they felt the parks were accessible were related to their ADA accessibility (i.e., paths and a swing on a playground), parking, playground, proximity/location, park size, and

175 drinking water. A Multi-use Park “L” manager discussed the park’s accessibility in terms of ADA access, parking, and proximity:

“Yeah, it has good access system in it. We’ve recently improved the ADA access, which is important. It has an off-street parking lot, which is helpful. And then it’s a fairly high-density neighborhood, so we get a lot of walk-ins (people who walk to the site).”

A manager of Multi-use Park “N” also described how their park was accessible with its large paths and water availability. They stated that:

“I think the accessibility is there. Yeah, absolutely. We have nice wide paths for walking and even if you are in a wheelchair, they paths are clear. There’s a drinking fountain, [which was] installed those so there would be public drinking water for people....”

A manager of Multi-use Park “M” acknowledged that ADA accessibility was not previously available for the play equipment at the park, but discussed how they worked together with a neighbor to improve accessibility. They described that:

“…Every park has its own character and different ways it’s enjoyed. Sometimes people like to see parts expanded. I haven’t heard much from constituents from Multi- use Park “M” about many requests for changing the park much. We did accommodate a request from a neighbor who wanted to have an ADA swing added to the playground. In order to do that we created an accessible pathway to the playground and upgraded the swing to ADA. Also, with their help with funding. We partnered with them in accomplishing that. Beyond that, we haven’t actually had a lot of other requests. From our perspective, the needs are being met as far as we know.”

While a manager of Multi-use Park “K” could not think of ways that the park was not accessible, they indicated that some visitors might want the park to be bigger. They stated that accessibility:

“Depends on what their need is. I’m trying to think if there are ADA barriers, and it is accessible. I think everybody would love it to be bigger.”

176

4.3.1.3.4 Park Manager Perspectives on How Visitors Interact with Plants

When the multi-use park managers were asked about how the visitors interacted with the plants in the parks, they described it as primarily visually/aesthetically (e.g., viewing the trees, garden, appreciating their beauty), followed by obtaining shade and using the grass/turf. While most managers thought that the interaction between visitors and the plants was generally respectful, one manager indicated that the plants were often trampled by visitors. However, a manager of Multi-use Park “M” described the visitors as interacting with the plants:

“Mostly through visual enjoyment. There’s not a lot of hands-on experience with park vegetation, so I would say that just enjoying their beauty.”

A manager of Multi-use Park “N” echoed this statement and also related to their personal experience. They explained the visitor-plant interaction as:

“…hopefully it’s a visual interaction. I mean, if I go through a park and I see some type of landscape design, hopefully it triggers a good memory or just makes you take a moment to go ‘wow, that’s beautiful’.”

In Multi-use Park “O,” the manager also described the park visitors’ appreciation and respect of a variety of plants:

“I think people are generally appreciative of the variety and types of plants, and they are complimentary and they are generally respectful of plantings in this park.”

However, in Multi-use Park “M”, another participant involved in maintenance of the plants indicated their importance for providing shade. They stated that:

“I guess [the interaction] more than anything, is the tree cover for shade, at least summer shade. Yeah, that’s pretty much it since it’s mostly big trees. Yeah, it’s mostly, probably for shade or shelter interaction with the trees.”

177

While most of the visitor-plant interactions were described positively, a manager of

Multi-use Park “K” described that the visitors treat the plants:

“Very rudely (laughs). There’s not a lot of respect for plant materials oftentimes and that is impacted also by design, or bad design. And you don’t want somebody on a path and then have something like turf they want to access, and there is a planting pad in-between, because they will just cut through. The other thing would be that people are not respectful of the ropes that we put up as we try to reestablish turf in the spring. It works for some people, while others don’t care.”

4.3.1.3.5 Comments from Park Visitors About Plants

Six out of the seven managers indicated that they had received comments from park visitors about the plants. The most frequent comments were that the visitors liked the plants or had replacement requests for dead for dying vegetation. Other comments included wanting more diversity of shrubs or removal of invasive species. A manager of

Multi-use Park “O” appreciated the enthusiastic feedback from visitors and stated:

“…if you are actively working on planting bed, then people will often stop to ask question or give feedback (laughs), and are often complimentary and appreciate. “This is so cool! I remember when this was..!”

A manager of Multi-use Park “N” had also received similar feedback and described the visitors’ comments as:

“…actually good. They found the design pleasing to the eye. And then in the corners of park, when you drive or walk by, the plantings are focal points.”

However, in Multi-use Park “M”, a manager had received feedback from visitors about wanting more diversity of shrubs. They indicated that they received comments:

“…a little bit because there isn’t much there. I think people would like to see a little bit more diversity in the shrubs.”

178

For other parks such as Multi-use Park “K” and “L”, the visitors asked for dead or broken material to be removed. A Multi-use Park “L” manager indicated that they received comments:

“Just when a tree dies and I’ll get a message that it’s died and they would like it to be replaced.”

While some visitors had the expectation that park managers would take care of the issues, in Multi-use Park “M”, volunteers were helpful in removing invasive species. A manager of this park said that they received comments:

“Not specifically other than asking about some of the blackberry removal around the stairs, and so we took care of that. Some volunteers have also continued to maintain that, and that’s about the extent regarding that request.”

4.3.1.3.6 How Park Visitor Experience Influences Vegetation Management

The managers explained the many ways that park visitor experience influences vegetation choice and/or design in the multi-use parks. The managers discussed the importance of planting hearty plants to withstand trampling, eliminating camping/hiding places, and using plants as guides for human traffic. Less frequent responses include keeping the original design, open space for activities, adding plants to popular areas, and soliciting public input during the planning process. A manager for Multi-use Park “O” indicated that:

“We choose hearty plants that can take abuse and are tolerant of foot traffic. We use plants to try to guide for traffic. We improve or add plantings to part of park that are the most frequented.”

A participant involved in the maintenance of Multi-use Park “K” also felt it was important to choose heartier plants that could withstand trampling. The explained that:

179

“Because it’s a heavily used park, you have to choose plants that are heartier. Yeah, that’s it.”

While a manager of Multi-use Park “N” agreed that the plants needed to withstand human traffic, they also described the need to eliminate camping/hiding places in the park. They stated that:

“Well, we have to put something: #1 – Sustainable. #2 – We have to design it in ways that people don’t walk through the shrubs. We have to make sure things are low enough that people don’t camp, because we have a large homeless population. It makes things safe. We don’t want anything to be too high or too overgrown. Like a tall shrub that someone could hide in. We want it to be safe for people to walk through, night or day.”

One of the managers for Multi-use Park “M” also felt that eliminating hiding places was an important feature of managing the plants for visitors, and indicated that:

“… I guess if anything, people will comment on the sort of safety feel of the park if trees are left kind of low hanging – there’s more places for people hide, so we will get some comments on managing plant material for visibility and safety.”

Besides reducing the number of camping/hiding places and plant trampling, a manager of Multi-use Park “K” described how it is important to think of the visitors uses of the park, and use this to inform plant management in the park. They stated:

“How should or how has it? We do consider what will be the primary activities in the park and primary usage, so planting is more limited if the desire is to have more open space for people to enjoy, especially in a smaller park. You don’t want to lose square footage. Where can I lay out my towel and sunbathe? (laughs)”.

A manager of Multi-use Park “L” also described how visitor input during the planning stages can assist with vegetation choice and/or design in the parks. They explained that:

“Well we do an outreach with the community when we develop the park, then if they have input, then we use that information in the planning stages.”

180

4.3.1.3.7 Limitations to Park Management

The managers were asked about the factors that limited their ability to manage the multi-use parks in the ways they might prefer, and five of the managers stated that funding/budget was the primary limitation. Other common responses regarding limitations included staff resources, infrastructure, and coordination between work crews in Portland Parks and Recreation. Less frequently, the participants discussed the design plan, equipment/supplies, unfavorable visitor behavior (i.e. heavy usage/crowding), and the vegetation (i.e. dense canopy that makes it difficult for grass to grow). A participant involved in the maintenance of Multi-use Park “M” described the implications of a limiting budget, and stated:

“There’s always things that could be improved like the tennis court, that the money isn’t there for large-scale improvements projects. So, yeah, that’s usually in parks in general, our biggest barrier – money for big changes.”

In addition to the budget limitations, some participants described the challenges of managing the parks alongside various work crews, limited staffing, as well as infrastructure. A participant who assists the management of Multi-use Park “K” explained that:

“I would say [the limitations] are financial. Another one would be the availability of other work groups to do major renovations, for example, the lawn. It needs regular aeration and fertilizer and top dressing (i.e., adding seed in the spring). I know those things may or may not happen because our turf maintenance facility is pretty stretched thin. They have a lot of parks and not very many people. They only do sport fields that get rented. If there are parks that aren’t rented, then then the turfs won’t be maintained. They will prioritize the ones that will be leased, but I wish they would maintain all equally. It seems like the right thing to do. If you’re going to have turf, then I think it should be maintained. Also, another factor are drainage improvements – they are expensive, but if we could do them, it would great.”

181

Similar responses were provided by managers of Multi-use Park “O” and “L”. A manager of Multi-use Park “O” stated that the limitations are:

“Money, always. The aging infrastructure. And capacity of Central Services within parks (plumbers, carpenters, welders, painters) and the Turf Group.”

While a manager of Multi-use Park “L” also described staffing and coordination issues:

“So, like I said before, because we have several park properties and I have 55 sites and 14 people that will work those sites, divided into 7 days a week. So, turf, plumbing, electrical, irrigation, forestry, are all managed by different people, so I have no control of what work they do, when it will happen, if it will happen (laughs). Because they are managed by so many departments, it’s very difficult to coordinated the different needs. And then if you multiply that by 55, then that’s the level that I’m at. You end up missing things here and there, there is stuff that falls off your plates.”

In addition to funding issues, a manager of Multi-use Park “N” found the staying consistent with the original design was a constraint, but that they still wanted to uphold the traditional and historical integrity of the park. They explained that:

“Well, always funding would be one [limitation]. I think…the only limitation would be you’d have to stick with something tradition because of the history of the park. You couldn’t do something sexy or tropical, you’d have to stick to the traditional nature for park. If you have enough money and labor, you can do almost anything, but obviously we couldn’t put a skatepark in there or anything. It would have to remain historical to the park.”

4.3.1.4 Summary of Park Manager Qualitative Results

The previous sections provided detailed responses from 21 interviews about 15 urban parks in terms of what managers liked or would like to change about how the plants are managed, their perceptions of visitor accessibility, visitor interactions with the plants, and visitor comments. The managers also provided responses on how visitor perceptions of the plants influenced plant choice and/or design, as well as any limitations the managers

182 have in managing the parks in the ways they might prefer. In order to visualize these perspectives, I created summary tables for each of these topics, but only included the results for commonly mentioned responses provided in at least approximately 10 percent of interviews (Tables 4.4 – 4.10, Figures 4.1 – 4.6).

In terms of what the managers liked about the management of the plants in in the parks, some of the most common responses were related to plant maintenance (e.g., weed/invasive management, well-maintained for continuous improvement, etc.) (Table

4.4 and Figure 4.1). Interestingly, there were no subgroups of maintenance that were consistently described across all park types, but the recreational-active use and multi-use managers had more similar responses to each other. The next most common response about the managers’ favorite aspect of plant management was ecosystem management for functions and processes, particularly in the natural-passive use parks. In terms of commonalities, both natural-passive use and recreational-active use managers appreciated the trees and weed/invasive species management, while the natural-passive use and multi- use managers both enjoyed the plant variety. When comparing the responses of the multi- use and recreational-active use managers, they both had responses related to liking the design/layout, low maintenance plants, well-maintained continuous improvements, and shade provided by plants.

183

Table 4.4. Attributes that managers commonly liked about how the plants are managed in all parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) Number of Interviews Attribute All Natural- Recreational- Multi-use Parks passive use active use Maintenance 8 3 3 2 Subgroup – Weed, invasive 4 3 1 0 management Subgroup – Well-maintained, 3 0 1 2 improvement continuous Subgroup – Low maintenance 2 0 1 1 Subgroup – Irrigation 1 0 0 1 Subgroup – Pruning 1 0 1 0 Ecosystem management, 6 6 0 0 functions and processes Design, layout 3 0 2 1 Color, seasonal 2 0 1 1 Different crews in Parks Dept. 2 0 0 2 Specialize Habitat variation 2 2 0 0 Horticultural beds 2 0 2 0 I don’t like how plants are 2 0 2 0 managed Plant variety 2 1 0 1 Shade 2 0 1 1 Trees 2 1 1 0

184

Figure 4.1. Attributes that managers commonly liked about how the plants are managed in all parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews)

When the managers were asked what they would like to change about how the plant were managed, they gave many different responses (Table 4.5 and Figure 4.2). However, the only answer that was consistent across park types is that they would make no changes. The next most common answers were related to maintenance in the recreational- active use and multi-use parks (e.g., more pruning, fertilizing, watering, and removing weeds), and more staffing in the natural-passive use and multi-use parks. The managers of the recreational-active use and multi-use parks also discussed their desire for infrastructure updates, more plants, and improved species selection.

185

Table 4.5. Attributes that commonly managers would like to change about how the plants are managed in all parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) Number of Interviews Attribute All Natural- Recreational- Multi- Parks passive use active use use No changes 5 2 1 2 Maintenance, improve 4 0 2 2 Subgroup – Pruning, more 2 0 1 1 Subgroup – Fertilize, more 1 0 1 0 Subgroup – Water, more 1 0 0 1 Subgroup – Weed management, more 1 0 1 0 Staffing, more 4 3 0 1 Plants, more 3 0 2 1 Subgroup – Midstory, shrubs, more 1 0 1 0 Subgroup – Plantings, generally more 1 0 1 0 Subgroup – Trees, more 1 0 0 1 Subgroup – Understory, more 1 0 1 0 Infrastructure, update 3 0 2 1 Species selection, improve 3 0 2 1 Subgroup – Climate adaptable 1 0 1 0 Subgroup – Disease resistant 1 0 1 0 Subgroup – Diversity 1 0 1 0 Subgroup – Drought tolerant 1 0 0 1 Subgroup – Herbaceous perennials 1 0 1 0 Funding, budget, more 2 2 0 0 Unfavorable visitor behaviors 2 1 0 1 Subgroup – Homeless camps, less 1 1 0 0 Subgroup – Visitor damage, less 2 1 0 1

186

Figure 4.2. Attributes that managers commonly would like to change about how the plants are managed in all parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews)

When asked about visitor accessibility, many of the managers across park types discussed ADA/wheelchair accessibility (Table 4.6 and Figure 4.3). While many of the recreational-active use and multi-use park managers indicated that there was

ADA/wheelchair accessibility in their parks, many of the natural-passive use parks stated that the parks were not entirely accessible and could improve ADA accessibility. The next most common response from managers was about paths and trails. Similarly, the natural-passive use managers described how the paths and trails were only accessible to some visitors. All of the park types had a least one manager who indicated that the parks’ proximity/location was important for local access to visitors. The availability of parking and playgrounds was mentioned by the recreational-active use and multi-use park managers, but not by those of the natural-passive use parks.

187

Table 4.6. Visitor accessibility issues commonly perceived by managers in all of the parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) Number of Interviews Accessibility Issue for Visitors All Natural- Recreational- Multi-use Parks passive use active use ADA, wheelchair accessibility 11 4 4 3 discussed Subgroup – Not entirely, could 4 3 1 0 improve ADA accessibility Subgroup – Yes, ADA accessible 7 1 3 3 Trails/Paths 9 5 4 0 Subgroup – Not entirely accessible 4 4 0 0 trails, paths, only to some Subgroup – Yes, trails, paths 5 1 4 0 accessible Proximity, location, local access 5 3 1 1 Accessible, General 4 0 1 3 Parking 3 0 2 1 Boat ramp 2 0 2 0 Playground 2 0 1 1

Figure 4.3. Visitor accessibility issues commonly perceived by managers in all of the parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews)

The managers discussed the many ways that they perceived visitors’ interactions with the plants in the parks (Table 4.7). The most common interaction across all parks types

188 was viewing plants, but the only viewing subgroup that was consistent across all park types was viewing trees. Other commonly mentioned interactions included unfavorable visitor behaviors (especially trampling or breaking vegetation) in all park types, and obtaining shade from trees in the recreational-active use and multi-use parks. At least one manager of each park type stated that there was not a lot of interaction between the visitors and the plants. Besides these responses, the other common answers between the natural-passive use and recreational-active use parks were viewing plant colors and walking around plants, while the consistent responses between natural-passive use and multi-use parks were respectful interaction with plants and viewing a variety of plants.

The additional multi-use and recreational-active use park commonalities included visitors interacting with the grass/turf and enjoying the beauty of the plants.

189

Table 4.7. Common manager perceptions of how visitors interact with plants in all the parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) Number of Interviews Visitor Interaction with Plants All Natural- Recreational- Multi-use Parks passive use active use Viewing, visual 13 4 4 5 Subgroup – Beauty 4 0 2 2 Subgroup – Trees 3 1 1 1 Subgroup Visual, general 3 1 1 1 Subgroup – Color 2 1 1 0 Subgroup – Seasonal 2 0 2 0 Subgroup – Variety of plants 2 1 0 1 Subgroup – Birds and habitat 1 1 0 0 Subgroup – Flowers 1 1 0 0 Subgroup – Garden 1 0 0 1 Unfavorable visitor behaviors 7 2 4 1 Subgroup – Trampling, breaking 7 2 4 1 Subgroup – Camping, hiding in shrubs 2 0 2 0 Subgroup – Dogs off-leash 1 1 0 0 Subgroup – Garbage 1 0 1 0 Subgroup – Graffiti 1 1 0 0 Subgroup – Picking Flowers 1 1 0 0 Not a lot of interaction 4 1 1 2 Shade, primarily from trees 4 0 2 2 Grass, turf 3 0 2 1 Stewardship, volunteers 3 3 0 0 Play in plants 2 0 2 0 Respectful appreciation of 2 1 0 1 plants Walk around plants 2 1 1 0

When the managers were asked if they had received comments from the visitors about the plants in the parks, almost half of them indicated that they had not received comments (Table 4.8 and Figure 4.4). The next most frequent comment was that the visitors liked the vegetation, following by concerns about hazard vegetation in the natural-passive use parks. While the managers of the natural-passive use and multi-use parks had received comments about invasive plants, the recreational-active use managers

190 did not receive this feedback from visitors. Comments about the replacement of dead or broken vegetation were given for the multi-use parks, but not for the other park types.

Table 4.8. Comments that managers commonly receive from visitors about plants in all of the parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews) Number of Interviews Visitor Comments All Natural- Recreational- Multi-use Parks passive use active use No comments from visitors 10 3 6 1 Visitors like vegetation 5 2 1 2 Hazard vegetation 3 3 0 0 Invasive plants 2 1 0 1 Replacement request (dead or 2 0 0 2 broken)

Figure 4.4. Comments that managers commonly receive from visitors about plants in all of the parks, and by park type (n = 21 interviews)

The managers described how visitor perceptions of the plants influences plant choice and/or design (Table 4.9 and Figure 4.5). The most common response across all park types was the desire to eliminate hiding and camping places within the parks. Other plant choices and/or design that managers discussed were improving aesthetics and hazard plant removal for natural-passive use and recreational-active use parks). For the recreational-active use and multi-use parks, the managers indicated that it was important

191 to keep to the park design, maintain open space for activities, plant hearty plants to withstand trampling, use plants to guide human traffic, and obtain public input during the planning process (recreational-active use and multi-use parks), while two managers felt that there was not a lot of public or visitor input about the plant choice and/or design in the parks. Trail access was very important to the managers of the natural-passive use parks.

Table 4.9. Common ways that visitor perception of plants influences plant choice and/or design in all parks and by park type (n = 21 interviews) Number of Interviews Plant Choice and/or Design All Natural- Recreational- Multi-use Parks passive use active use Eliminate hiding, camping 6 2 2 2 places Aesthetics, improvements 4 2 2 0 Design, kept 4 0 3 1 Hazard plant removal 4 3 1 0 Hearty plants, to withstand 4 0 2 2 trampling Trail access 4 4 0 0 Balance ecological and human 3 1 2 0 needs Plants to guide human traffic 3 0 1 2 Design, changed 2 1 1 0 Not a lot of public, visitor input 2 1 0 1 Open space for activities 2 0 1 1 Public input during planning 2 0 1 1 process

192

Figure 4.5. Common ways that visitor perception of plants influences plant choice and/or design in all parks and by park type (n = 21 interviews)

Several managers across all park types indicated that funding/budget was a primary limitation to managing the parks in the ways they might prefer (Table 4.10 and Figure

4.6). They also indicated that staff resources, followed by unfavorable visitor behaviors were also limitations to some extent in all park types. The natural-passive use managers discussed the issue of dogs off-leash, while the recreational-active use managers felt limited by a lack of enforcement and water use. The multi-use park managers discussed the limitations posed by the coordination of different work crews in the Parks

Department, outdated infrastructure, and unfavorable visitor behaviors (e.g., heavy usage and crowding). Both the multi-use and natural-passive use park managers discussed needing more equipment/supplies, while the managers of the natural-passive use and

193 recreational-active use parks faced issues related to unfavorable visitor behaviors (i.e., homelessness/camping and trash) within the parks.

Table 4.10. Common limitations to managing the parks in the way the managers might prefer for all parks, and by park type (n = 21) Number of Interviews Limitation All Natural- Recreational- Multi-use Parks passive use active use Funding, budget 14 3 6 5 Staff resources 8 4 1 3 Unfavorable visitor behaviors 5 3 1 1 Coordination in Parks 3 0 0 3 Department Infrastructure, needs 3 0 0 3 improvement Enforcement 2 0 2 0 Equipment, supplies 2 1 0 1 Water use, limited 2 0 2 0

Figure 4.6. Common limitations to managing the parks in the way the managers might prefer for all parks, and by park type (n = 21)

194

4.3.2 Mixed Methods Results

The NMS ordination shows the parks (sample units) as triangles in species space with overlays of the variables as joint plots to reflect the direction and strength of linear relationships with the axes (Figures 4.7 – 4.16). The final solution for the NMS of the parks (sample units) in species space was determined by plotting final stress vs. the number of dimensions and choosing the number of axes beyond which stress reductions were small (McCune & Grace, 2002). The plot of the final stress vs. the number of dimensions showed that a 3-dimensional solution (3 axes) was best for this dataset with a final stress of 5.0 (raw stress multiplied by 100) and a R2n (non-metric fit) of 0.99. In

NMS, ecological community data sets with a final stress of 5.0 are generally considered to be “good” (McCune & Grace, 2002). Most of the variation is shown in the first two axes (r2 = 0.82), with a total of r2 = 0.92 for all three axes.

The final NMS solution with “Likes” variables (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) as joint plots are provided in Axes 1 and 2 (Figure 4.7) and Axes 1 and 3 (Figure 4.8). The

Pearson correlations show that the most strongly correlated variables with Axis 1 are

‘Ecosystem Management (M) (r = - 0.79), “Shade (V)” (r = 0.68), “Habitat Variation” (r

= - 0.54). The most strongly correlated variables with Axis 2 are “Maintenance (V)” (r =

0.53), “Maturity (V)” (r = - 0.53), and “Color, Seasonal (M)” (r = - 0.54). For Axis 3, the most strongly correlated variable is “Shade (V)” (r = 0.51).

195

Figure 4.7. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. “Likes” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

196

Figure 4.8. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. “Likes” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

The final NMS solution with “Changes” variables (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) as joint plots are provided in Axes 1 and 2 (Figure 4.9) and Axes 1 and 3 (Figure 4.10). The

Pearson correlations show the most strongly correlated variables with Axis 1 are “Color,

More (V) (r = 0.75), “Invasive, Harmful Plant Removal (V)” (r = - 0.66), “Flowers, More

(V)” (r = 0.55), and “Funding/Budget, More (M)” (r = - 0.53). The most strongly correlated variable with Axis 2 is “No Changes (V)” (r = -0.61), and then “No Changes

(M)” (r = 0.42) for Axis 3.

197

Figure 4.9. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. “Changes” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

198

Figure 4.10. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. “Changes” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

The final NMS solution with the “Access” variables (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) as joint plots are shown in Axes 1 and 2 (Figure 4.11) and Axes 1 and 3 (Figure 4.12).

The Pearson correlations show that the most strongly correlated variables with Axis 1 are

“Not All Trails/Paths (M)” (r = - 0.79), “Not All ADA (M)” (r = - 0.61), “General Access

(M)” (r = 0.56), and “Trails/Paths (V)” (r = 0.54). The most strongly correlated “Access” variable for Axis 2 is “Boat Ramp (M)” (r = 0.66), and then “General Access (V)” (r =

0.38) for Axis 3.

199

Figure 4.11. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. “Access” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

200

Figure 4.12. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. “Access” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

The final NMS solution with “Visitor Perception Influences Plant Mgmt” variables

(Manager [M]) as joint plots are provided in Axes 1 and 2 (Figure 4.13) and Axes 1 and 3

(Figure 4.14). The Pearson correlations show that the most strongly correlated variables with Axis 1 are “Trail Access (M)” (r = - 0.64), “Hazard Plant Removal (M), and

“Design Kept (M)” (r = 0.46). The most strongly correlated variable with Axis 2 is

“Hearty Plants to Withstand Trampling (M)”, and then “Eliminate Hiding/Camping

Places (M)” (r = - 0.52) for Axis 3.

201

Figure 4.13. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. “Visitor Perception Influences Plant Mgmt” (Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

202

Figure 4.14. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. “Visitor Perception Influences Plant Mgmt” (Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

The final NMS solution with “Comments” and “Limitations” variables as joint plots are provided in Axes 1 and 2 (Figure 4.15) and Axes 1 and 3 (Figure 4.16). The Pearson correlations show the most strongly correlated variables with Axis 1 are “Visitors

Comment – Hazard Vegetation (M), (r = - 0.53) and “Infrastructure, Limitation (M)” (r =

0.48). The most strongly correlated variables with Axis 2 are “Enforcement, Limitation

(M) (r = 0.66) and “Unfavorable Visitor Behavior, Limitation (M)” (r = 0.64). For Axis

3, the most strongly correlated variable is “Do Not Receive Visitor Comments” (r =

0.48). Variables related to increasing funding/budget and staffing do not appear on the

203 ordination as highly coordinated with any of the axes because they were commonly mentioned by managers of all park types.

Figure 4.15. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 2 for the parks in species space. “Comments” and “Limitations” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

204

Figure 4.16. NMS ordination Axes 1 and 3 for the parks in species space. “Comments” and “Limitations” (Visitor [V] and Manager [M]) variables that are strongly related to the individual ordination axes (r2 > 0.2) are shown as joint plots (radiated red lines).

4.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Interdisciplinary research that incorporates both manager and visitor perceptions has the potential to improve habitat design and management approaches in urban parks

(Lovell & Taylor, 2013; Muratet, Pellegrini, Dufour, Arrif, & Chiron, 2015; Nielsen, van den Bosch, Maruthaveeran, & van den Bosch, 2014), but there is a lack of research that focuses on interviewing park managers about their perspectives on park benefits and their management (Moyle et al., 2014). This study was unique in that it combined qualitative semi-structured interviews with park managers (n = 21 interviews) and visitors (n = 43 interviews) at a range of urban park types interspersed throughout Portland, Oregon, and then evaluated these results alongside quantitative plant community composition data

205 collected at these parks. The data were evaluated using NMS ordinations to determine the manager and visitor perspectives of plant management were most strongly correlated with the different types of urban parks. The qualitative semi-structured interviews with the park managers allowed us to better understand the degree to park managers currently manage vegetation in urban parks to meet the needs and desires of urban parks visitors in

Portland, Oregon. The open-ended nature of the questions also allowed the managers to share their own ideas about what they liked or would like to change about plant management, visitor accessibility issues, visitor interactions with plants, visitor comments, how visitors influence plant choice and/or design, as well as any limitations they may face in managing the parks in the ways they might prefer. By evaluating this information in relation to the needs and desires of park visitors, there is a potential to improve park management and the associated human and ecological benefits of urban green spaces.

This study found that the managers’ favorite aspects of plant management within the urban parks were related to maintenance (e.g., weed/invasive management, continuous improvement) and ecosystem management for functions and processes (i.e., in the natural-passive use parks). Discussions about weed/invasive management were expected given the creation and implementation of the City of Portland’s Invasive Plant Strategy to integrate invasive plant management into existing programs and reduce invasive plant coverage (City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, 2008). Best management practices for invasive species removal are also described under the City of Portland

Bureau of Environmental Services’ “Protect the Best” and “Early Detection, Rapid

206

Response” programs (City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, 2010). The managers of the natural-passive use parks in this study most often discussed ecosystem management for functions and processes, which is the framework for Portland Parks and

Recreation’s “Natural Areas Restoration Plan Update” (Portland Parks and Recreation,

2015b). However, the managers of the recreational-active use and multi-use parks did not mention ecosystem management and only one manager of a recreational-active use park discussed Portland Parks and Recreation’s Sustainable Landscapes Initiative, which is aimed at creating native habitat patches in developed parks within the city (Portland

Parks and Recreation, 2015a). Park visitors across all park types also described aspects that they liked about the vegetation such as trees, size, diversity, maintenance, and colors, and also shade and grass in recreational-active use and multi-use parks. Many of these aspects are consistent with previous research that shows various vegetation elements can have restorative effects on human health (van den Berg, 2008). Managers should safeguard these human benefits of park vegetation alongside ecological goals within urban parks.

The park managers were asked about what they would like to change about plant management in the parks, which was then compared to the park visitor responses. The most common response from managers was that they would make no changes, but other managers discussed improving maintenance (e.g., more pruning, weed management, etc.), increasing park staffing, adding more plants, updating infrastructure, and improving species selection. The most common response from the visitors was also to make no changes, but other visitors indicated that they would like more color, followed by more

207 flowers, invasive/harmful plant removal, more plants (i.e. middle growth/shrubs), and improved placement of plants. There are many opportunities to meet both the needs of managers and visitors by continuing to manage trails/paths in natural-passive use parks, removing weeds and invasive plants in all park types, as well as selecting a diversity of plants for the recreational-active use and multi-use parks that have more color and flowers, but are also more climate-adapted, disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and/or provide habitat for pollinators.

Park managers and park visitors also described a variety of ways that they interpret accessibility in different types of urban parks. Park accessibility is important to examine because the benefits of urban greenspaces are not always shared equitably across different communities (Byrne, 2012; Frumkin et al., 2017; Weems, 2016). In this study, the managers primarily described accessibility in terms of the presence or absence of

ADA/wheelchair access, trails/paths, and proximity. Visitors also viewed accessibility in terms of proximity and trails/paths for the natural-passive use parks, but they also often described maintenance (e.g., of vegetation and trails, cleanliness), access to relaxation opportunities, water, and benches. Some of the additional accessibility issues that were not mentioned by the natural-passive use park visitors, but were important in the recreational-active use and multi-use park visitors, were if they had sufficient tree shade and open space, were kid and dog-friendly, had water for recreation, and wheelchair accessibility. In this manner, the vegetation in each of the urban park types, whether it be its maintenance (e.g., cleared from trails and paths) or ability to provide shade (e.g., a human/plant interaction also commonly described by managers) and open space, were

208 important components of determining accessibility for many park visitors and should be maintained and/or enhanced by urban park managers.

The ways in which managers perceived how visitors interacted with the vegetation and visitor comments appeared to influence many plant choices and/or design within the parks. Park managers commonly stated that visitors typically interact with the plants by viewing them (e.g., beauty and trees) and unfavorable behaviors (i.e., trampling/breaking plants, camping/hiding in shrubs, etc.). Comparably, when managers were asked how visitor perceptions of plants influenced plant choice and/or design in the parks, some of the most common answers were that they attempted to eliminate hiding/camping places, improve aesthetics, and select hearty plants to withstand trampling. Park managers also indicated that they worked to remove hazardous plants, which were comments they received from visitors, as well as what some visitors requested when interviewed for

Chapter 3. However, not all of the visitor feedback from Chapter 3 was fully represented in the comments that park visitors provided to park managers (e.g., desire for more colors, flowers, improved placement of plants, etc.). This represents an information gap and indicates that managers should have more conversations to solicit feedback from visitors about plant management in the different types of parks.

While the results of this study show that urban park managers often work toward meeting the needs and desires of park visitors, they also described various limitations that prevent them from managing the parks in the ways they might prefer. The most commonly mentioned limitation by park managers was funding/budget, followed by limited staff resources and unfavorable visitor behaviors. This is consistent with other

209 research, which shows that managers often face limitations such as funding and budget cuts, depreciative behaviors by park visitors, and/or knowledge gaps related to cultural ecosystem services of urban parks (Baur, Tynon, et al., 2013; Budruk et al., 2003; Chan et al., 2015; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Palliwoda et al., 2017; Svendsen et al., 2016). While Portland Parks Portland Parks and Recreation is facing an approximately $6.3 million USD budget deficit in the coming year, which is likely to impact urban park programs, services, and employees3, it is important to increase communication between government agencies, non-profit organizations, and community members, as well as continue investing in the many social and ecological benefits of urban parks and other green infrastructure within cities.

4.5 LIMITATIONS

The qualitative portion of this study included 21 semi-structured interviews with managers about 15 urban parks interspersed throughout Portland, Oregon. While the study described their perspectives on plant management within parks, the study is not representative of all park manager perspectives within the city. Additionally, there may be topics that were important to managers that were not discussed during the semi- structured interviews. The NMS ordinations are useful for understanding some key aspects of manager and visitor perspectives in regards to the urban park plant community composition data, but should only be examined as a supplement to the rich, detailed responses provided by participants during the semi-structured interviews. Future studies of park managers could include a greater number and diversity of participants, as well as additional questions about what park managers like or dislike about vegetation beyond

210 their management. The results of the semi-structured interviews in this study may also be useful for establishing a base level of information that can be used to create a more structured quantitative survey in the future (Rea & Parker, 2005). The structured quantitative survey may include a range of potential responses that reflect the opinions of the park managers.

4.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to the fifteen participants from Portland Parks and Recreation who consented to be interviewed, as well as Dr. Mary Santelmann and Dr. Jenna Tilt who helped develop the interview questions and validated the codebook for this study.

Financial support was provided from the Urban Water Innovation Network (UWIN)

National Science Foundation Grant Award #1444758, Oregon State University Graduate

School, and Oregon State University Environmental Science Graduate Program.

211

4.7 REFERENCES

Alvey, A. A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(4), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003 Barth, B. J., FitzGibbon, S. I., & Wilson, R. S. (2015). New urban developments that retain more remnant trees have greater bird diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.11.003 Baur, J. W. R., Gómez, E., & Tynon, J. F. (2013). Urban Nature Parks and Neighborhood Social Health in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 31(4), 23–44. Baur, J. W. R., Tynon, J. F., & Gómez, E. (2013). Attitudes about urban nature parks: A case study of users and nonusers in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning, 117, 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.015 Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024 Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2012). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Island Press. Botzat, A., Fischer, L. K., & Kowarik, I. (2016). Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Global Environmental Change, 39, 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.008 Budruk, M., Center, A., & Manning, R. (2003). Indicators and standards of quality at an urban-proximate park: litter and graffiti at Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. 9. Byrne, J. (2012). When green is White: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum, 43(3), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.002 Chan, C.-S., Marafa, L. M., & Van Den Bosch, C. C. K. (2015). Changing perspectives in urban park management: a longitudinal study of Hong Kong. Managing Leisure, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2014.944411 Christy, J. A., Kimpo, A., Marttala, V., Gaddis, P. K., & Christy, N. L. (2009). Urbanizing Flora of Portland, Oregon, 1806-2008. 324. Church, S. P. (2018). From street trees to natural areas: retrofitting cities for human connectedness to nature. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(5–6), 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1428182 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. (2008). City of Portland Invasive Plant Strategy Report 2008. 145. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. (2010). Portland’s Green Infrastructure: Quantifying the Health, Energy and Community Livability Benefits. 101. City of Portland, Oregon. (2018). Parks. Retrieved November 4, 2018, from http://gis- pdx.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/parks

212

Fontana, S., Sattler, T., Bontadina, F., & Moretti, M. (2011). How to manage the urban green to improve bird diversity and community structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101(3), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.033 Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Lawler, J. J., … Wood, S. A. (2017). Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663 Given, Ed., L. M. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Volumes 1 & 2. United States: Sage Publications. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22(7), 959– 972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224 Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With People In Mind. Washington, DC: Island Press. Lovell, S. T., & Taylor, J. R. (2013). Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology, 28(8), 1447–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y McCune, B., & Grace, J. B. (2002). Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design. Gleneden Beach, Oregon. Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2017). Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landscape and Urban Planning, 159, 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Ed.). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(8), 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 Morzillo, A. T., Kreakie, B. J., Netusil, N. R., Yeakley, J. A., Ozawa, C. P., & Duncan, S. L. (2016). Resident perceptions of natural resources between cities and across scales in the Pacific Northwest. Ecology and Society, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08478-210314 Moyle, B. D., Weiler, B., & Moore, S. A. (2014). Benefits that matter to managers: an exploratory study of three national park management agencies. Managing Leisure, 19(6), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2014.910003 Muratet, A., Pellegrini, P., Dufour, A.-B., Arrif, T., & Chiron, F. (2015). Perception and knowledge of plant diversity among urban park users. Landscape and Urban Planning, 137, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.003 Nielsen, A. B., van den Bosch, M., Maruthaveeran, S., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2014). Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosystems, 17(1), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0316-1

213

Palliwoda, J., Kowarik, I., & von der Lippe, M. (2017). Human-biodiversity interactions in urban parks: The species level matters. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.003 Peters, K. (2010). Being Together in Urban Parks: Connecting Public Space, Leisure, and Diversity. Leisure Sciences, 32(5), 418–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2010.510987 Pojar, J., & MacKinnon, A. (2016). Plants of the Pacific Northwest: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. Partners Publishing. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2011). Forest Park desired future condition. 35. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2015a). Ecologically Sustainable Landscape Initiative. 78. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2015b). Natural Areas Restoration Plan Update, 24. Portney, K. (2005). Civic Engagement and Sustainable Cities in the United States. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 579–591. Retrieved from JSTOR. Qiu, L., Lindberg, S., & Nielsen, A. B. (2013). Is biodiversity attractive?—On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.007 Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing and Conducting Survey Research: a Comprehensive Guide (3rd Edition). Wiley & Sons, Inc. Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the Field: and Introduction to Qualitative Research (2nd Edition). United States: Sage Publications. Sandifer, P. A., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Ward, B. P. (2015). Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services, 12, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007 Selge, S., Fischer, A., & van der Wal, R. (2011). Public and professional views on invasive non-native species – A qualitative social scientific investigation. Biological Conservation, 144(12), 3089–3097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.014 Svendsen, E. S., Campbell, L. K., & McMillen, H. L. (2016). Stories, Shrines, and Symbols: Recognizing Psycho-Social-Spiritual Benefits of Urban Parks and Natural Areas. Journal of Ethnobiology, 36(4), 881–907. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-36.4.881 Threlfall, C. G., Williams, N. S. G., Hahs, A. K., & Livesley, S. J. (2016). Approaches to urban vegetation management and the impacts on urban bird and bat assemblages. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.011 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. (1983). Soil Survey of Multnomah County, Oregon. van den Berg, A. E. (2008). Restorative effects of nature: toward a neurobiological approach. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Physiological Anthropology, 22–26 August, Delft, the Netherlands., Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 132–138.

214

Weems, C. M. (2016). Examining the Spatial Distribution of Park Access and Trajectories of Gentrification in Seattle, Washington 1990 - 2010. White, J. G., Antos, M. J., Fitzsimons, J. A., & Palmer, G. C. (2005). Non-uniform bird assemblages in urban environments: the influence of streetscape vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(2–4), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.02.006

215

5 CHAPTER 5 – GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

5.1 General Conclusions

Improved understanding of plant community composition and biodiversity patterns, park visitor experiences, and park manager perspectives can help communities better manage green infrastructure investments, which are important for conserving biodiversity and ecosystems, promoting clean air and water, and improving human psychological and physical well-being (Benedict & McMahon, 2012; Lovell & Taylor, 2013; Tzoulas et al.,

2007). Alongside other green infrastructure investments such as street streets, bioswales, retention ponds, gardens, and green roofs, urban parks play an important role in conserving biodiversity (Cornelis & Hermy, 2004; Nielsen et al., 2014; Savard et al.,

2000; Turner et al., 2005), connecting habitats (Ignatieva et al., 2011), and fulfilling human ethical responsibilities to be good stewards of the environment (Dearborn & Kark,

2010). The findings of this interdisciplinary dissertation may assist park managers in their aims to meet various ecological goals and needs/desires of park visitors, as well as enhance overall green infrastructure benefits within urban areas that are increasing in terms of human population size and land use development.

The study provided in Chapter 2 was unique for Portland, Oregon, in that it used a stratified random sampling method to address the influence of park type on the conservation plant biodiversity and also included information for tree, shrub, herbaceous, and vine species. This type of research extends beyond past sampling efforts that included only natural-passive use parks (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2018) or surveys that include only information on tree species within Portland parks (Portland Parks and

216

Recreation, 2019). Significant differences in species richness and biodiversity indices were found between different park types. Additionally, more native species were found in natural-passive use parks than other park types, more non-native species were found in multi-use parks than the other park types, and more invasive species were found in natural-passive use parks than in recreational-active use parks. Attributes such as natural- passive use park type, wetland habitat, steep slopes, native species origin, non-native species origin, and vine and tree plant forms were those most strongly correlated with the non-metric multidimensional scaling ordination, indicating that these attributes exert the strongest influence on species abundance and distribution with Portland’s urban parks.

The results of this study may assist urban park managers in their aims to promote native species cover, reduce invasive species cover, or achieve other outcomes for Portland’s urban parks (City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, 2008; Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015a, 2015b).

Chapter 3 explored how the vegetation in urban parks currently meets the needs and desires of visitors by interviewing them about their experiences, perceptions of vegetation, and accessibility on-site at the same 15 urban parks within Portland, Oregon.

The results of the semi-structured interviews showed that vegetation was often related to the reasons why people visited parks, which sometimes varied based on park type.

Vegetation often influenced how accessible the park was to some participants, such as if it was sufficiently maintained along trails/paths, and provided shade and/or open space.

Across park types, participants discussed trees, plant size, colors, and diversity as their favorite aspects of vegetation. Trees were important across park types, and especially

217 important to participants in recreational-active use and multi-use parks who commented on their size and ability to provide shade. Vegetation diversity appeared to be more important to participants in natural-passive use and multi-use parks than in recreational- active use parks. While the vegetation met the needs and desires of many participants, more than half of them recommended changes to the plants. Recreational-active use and multi-use park participants primarily wanted more colorful vegetation, flowers, middle- growth/shrubs, and improved placement of plants, while participants in the natural- passive use parks wanted removal of invasive and/or harmful plants. Overall, the demographics of the study participants were relatively similar to all of Portland; however, they differed in terms of urban park type (e.g., fewer women and racial/ethnic minority individuals in natural-passive use parks), which implied that the range of potential socio- cultural benefits of parks, including those provided by vegetation, may not be shared equitably across communities. This study showed which vegetation preferences of park visitors tended to be consistent or vary depending on park type, and so park managers should consider these findings to improve urban parks and their vegetation planning and maintenance. More research and management actions are needed to integrate needs and preferences of vegetation into park design, as well as enhance accessibility for women, ethnic/racial minorities, and individuals with disabilities.

Chapter 4 investigated how park managers currently manage vegetation to meet the needs and desires of park visitors by conducting semi-structured interviews (Rossman &

Rallis, 2003) of the managers of the 15 parks within Portland, Oregon. This study found that the park managers’ favorite aspects of plant management were related to

218 maintenance (e.g., weed/invasive management, continuous improvement, etc.) across park types and ecosystem management for functions and processes in the natural-passive use parks. Park visitors across all park types previously described aspects that they liked about the vegetation such as trees, size, diversity, maintenance, and colors, and also shade and grass in recreational-active use and multi-use parks. Managers should safeguard these human benefits of vegetation alongside ecological goals within urban parks. Most of the interviewed managers indicated that they would make no changes to plant management within the parks, but others discussed improving maintenance, increasing staffing, adding plants, updating infrastructure, and improving species selection. There are opportunities to meet both the needs of managers and visitors by continuing to manage trails/paths in natural-passive use parks, removing weeds/invasive plants in all park types, as well as selecting a diversity of plants for the recreational-active use and multi-use parks that have more color and flowers, but are also more climate-adapted, disease-resistant, drought- tolerant, and/or provide habitat for pollinators.

The ways in which managers perceived how visitors interacted with the vegetation and visitor comments also appeared to influence many plant choices and/or design within the parks such as eliminating hiding/camping places, improving aesthetics, selecting hearty plants to withstand trampling, and removing hazardous plants. However, not all of the visitor feedback from the previous interviews (Chapter 3) was fully represented in the comments that park visitors provided to park managers (e.g., desire for more colors, flowers, improved placement of plants, etc.), which implied that managers should have more conversations to solicit feedback from park visitors. While the results show that

219 park managers often work toward meeting the needs and desires of visitors, they also described various limitations such as funding/budget, staff resources, and unfavorable visitor behaviors that prevent them from managing the parks in the ways they might prefer.

This dissertation provided innovated interdisciplinary methodology and results regarding plant community composition and biodiversity patterns, park visitor experiences, and park manager perspectives, which can be used to help communities better manage green infrastructure investments. In the future, more interdisciplinary research will be needed to incorporate both manager and visitor perceptions to improve habitat design and management approaches in urban parks (Lovell & Taylor, 2013;

Muratet et al., 2015; Nielsen et al., 2014). To expand upon the research provided in this dissertation, future studies could investigate the effect of park context and park type to further investigate their relative influences on plant community composition and biodiversity patterns. Additional semi-structured interviews and quantitative surveys with park visitors, non-users, and managers of diverse backgrounds are likely to reveal additional perspectives regarding preferences and any accessibility barriers to park use

(e.g., safety concerns, proximity, etc.). Future research should also investigate the ways in which the needs and desires of park managers and visitors can be better integrated to maximize the ecosystem services and benefits of urban parks for both people and the environment. Ultimately, it is important to increase communication and collaboration between governmental agencies, non-profit organizations, and community members, as well as continue to invest in the many social and ecological benefits of urban parks.

220

5.2 REFERENCES

Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2012). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Island Press. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. (2008). City of Portland Invasive Plant Strategy Report 2008, 145. Cornelis, J., & Hermy, M. (2004). Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.038 Dearborn, D. C., & Kark, S. (2010). Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 24(2), 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2009.01328.x Ignatieva, M., Stewart, G. H., & Meurk, C. (2011). Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 7(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0143-y Lovell, S. T., & Taylor, J. R. (2013). Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology, 28(8), 1447–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y Muratet, A., Pellegrini, P., Dufour, A.-B., Arrif, T., & Chiron, F. (2015). Perception and knowledge of plant diversity among urban park users. Landscape and Urban Planning, 137, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.003 Nielsen, A. B., van den Bosch, M., Maruthaveeran, S., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2014). Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosystems, 17(1), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0316-1 Portland Parks and Recreation. (2015a). Ecologically Sustainable Landscape Initiative, 78. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2015b). Natural Areas Restoration Plan Update, 24. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2018). Natural Area Vegetation | The City of Portland, Oregon. Retrieved November 17, 2018, from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39872 Portland Parks and Recreation. (2019). Park Tree Inventory. Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/629112 Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the Field: and Introduction to Qualitative Research (2nd Edition). United States: Sage Publications. Savard, J.-P. L., Clergeau, P., & Mennechez, G. (2000). Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00037-2 Turner, K., Lefler, L., & Freedman, B. (2005). Plant communities of selected urbanized areas of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(2–4), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.03.003 Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001

221

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alvey, A. A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(4), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003 Baker, E. A., Brennan, L. K., Brownson, R., & Houseman, R. A. (2000). Measuring the Determinants of Physical Activity in the Community: Current and Future Directions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(sup2), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2000.11082798 Barth, B. J., FitzGibbon, S. I., & Wilson, R. S. (2015). New urban developments that retain more remnant trees have greater bird diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.11.003 Baur, J. W. R., Gómez, E., & Tynon, J. F. (2013). Urban Nature Parks and Neighborhood Social Health in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 31(4), 23–44. Baur, J. W. R., Tynon, J. F., & Gómez, E. (2013). Attitudes about urban nature parks: A case study of users and nonusers in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning, 117, 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.015 Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024 Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2012). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Island Press. Bjerke, T., Østdahl, T., Thrane, C., & Strumse, E. (2006). Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.006 Bolitzer, B., & Netusil, N. R. (2000). The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0351 Botzat, A., Fischer, L. K., & Kowarik, I. (2016). Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Global Environmental Change, 39, 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.008 Budruk, M., Center, A., & Manning, R. (2003). Indicators and standards of quality at an urban-proximate park: litter and graffiti at Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. 9. Byrne, J. (2012). When green is White: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum, 43(3), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.002 Celesti‐Grapow, L., Pyšek, P., Jarošík, V., & Blasi, C. (2006). Determinants of native and alien species richness in the urban flora of Rome. Diversity and Distributions, 12(5), 490–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00282.x

222

Chan, C.-S., Marafa, L. M., & Van Den Bosch, C. C. K. (2015). Changing perspectives in urban park management: a longitudinal study of Hong Kong. Managing Leisure, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2014.944411 Chapman, R. J. (2002). Exploiting the Human Need for Nature for Successful Protected Area Management. The George Wright FORUM, 19(3), 5. Christy, J. A., Kimpo, A., Marttala, V., Gaddis, P. K., & Christy, N. L. (2009). Urbanizing Flora of Portland, Oregon, 1806-2008, 324. Church, S. P. (2018). From street trees to natural areas: retrofitting cities for human connectedness to nature. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(5–6), 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1428182 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. (2008). City of Portland Invasive Plant Strategy Report 2008, 145. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. (2010). Portland’s Green Infrastructure: Quantifying the Health, Energy and Community Livability Benefits, 101. City of Portland, Oregon. (2018). Parks. Retrieved November 4, 2018, from http://gis- pdx.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/parks Church, S. P. (2018). From street trees to natural areas: retrofitting cities for human connectedness to nature. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(5–6), 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1428182 Cornelis, J., & Hermy, M. (2004). Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.038 Dearborn, D. C., & Kark, S. (2010). Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 24(2), 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2009.01328.x D’Amato, G., Cecchi, L., Bonini, S., Nunes, C., Annesi-Maesano, I., Behrendt, H., … van Cauwenberge, P. (2007). Allergenic pollen and pollen allergy in Europe. Allergy, 62(9), 976–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01393.x Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., … von der Dunk, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(23), 8812–8819. Elwood, S. A., & Martin, D. G. (2000). “Placing” Interviews: Location and Scales of Power in Qualitative Research. The Professional Geographer, 52(4), 649–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00253 European Commission. (2013). Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital - Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Fontana, S., Sattler, T., Bontadina, F., & Moretti, M. (2011). How to manage the urban green to improve bird diversity and community structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101(3), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.033

223

Freudenberg, P., & Arlinghaus, R. (2009). Benefits and Constraints of Outdoor Recreation for People with Physical Disabilities: Inferences from Recreational Fishing. Leisure Sciences, 32(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400903430889 Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Lawler, J. J., … Wood, S. A. (2017). Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663 Gaertner, M., Wilson, J. R. U., Cadotte, M. W., MacIvor, J. S., Zenni, R. D., & Richardson, D. M. (2017). Non-native species in urban environments: patterns, processes, impacts and challenges. Biological Invasions, 19(12), 3461–3469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1598-7 Given, Ed., L. M. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Volumes 1 & 2. United States: Sage Publications. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22(7), 959– 972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x Goodling, E., Green, J., & McClintock, N. (2015). Uneven development of the sustainable city: shifting capital in Portland, Oregon. Urban Geography, 36(4), 504–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1010791 Hashim, N. H. M., Thani, S. K. S. O., Jamaludin, M. A., & Yatim, N. M. (2016). A Perceptual Study on the Influence of Vegetation Design Towards Women’s Safety in Public Park. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 234, 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.244 Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (2005). Leisure and Active Lifestyles: Research Reflections. Leisure Sciences, 27(5), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400500225559 Highland, S. A., Santelmann, M. V., & Schwindt, R. A. (2015). Vegetation Dynamics of Restored and Remnant Willamette Valley, OR Prairie Wetlands. Ecological Restoration, 33(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.33.2.156 Hitchcock, C.L., & Cronquist, A. (2018). Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual (2nd ed.). University of Washington Press. Holtan, M. T., Dieterlen, S. L., & Sullivan, W. C. (2015). Social Life Under Cover: Tree Canopy and Social Capital in Baltimore, Maryland. Environment and Behavior, 47(5), 502–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513518064 Hostetler, M., Allen, W., & Meurk, C. (2011). Conserving urban biodiversity? Creating green infrastructure is only the first step. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 369–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.011 Ignatieva, M., Stewart, G. H., & Meurk, C. (2011). Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 7(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0143-y Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224

224

Joye, Y., Willems, K., Brengman, M., & Wolf, K. (2010). The effects of urban retail greenery on consumer experience: Reviewing the evidence from a restorative perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.10.001 Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With People In Mind. Washington, DC: Island Press. Koskela, H. (1999). “Gendered Exclusions”: Women’s Fear of Violence and Changing Relations to Space. Geografiska Annaler, 8(2), 15. Krenichyn, K. (2006). ‘The only place to go and be in the city’: women talk about exercise, being outdoors, and the meanings of a large urban park. Health & Place, 12(4), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.08.015 Kruskal, J. B. 1964. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27 Kuhman, T. R., Pearson, S. M., & Turner, M. G. (2010). Effects of land-use history and the contemporary landscape on non-native plant invasion at local and regional scales in the forest-dominated southern Appalachians. Landscape Ecology, 25(9), 1433–1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9500-3 Lovell, S. T., & Taylor, J. R. (2013). Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology, 28(8), 1447–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y Martin, P. H., Canham, C. D., & Marks, P. L. (2009). Why forests appear resistant to exotic plant invasions: intentional introductions, stand dynamics, and the role of shade tolerance. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(3), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1890/070096 Maurer, D. A., Lindig-Cisneros, R., Werner, K. J., Kercher, S., Miller, R., & Zedler, J. B. (2003). The Replacement of Wetland Vegetation by Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Ecological Restoration, 21(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.21.2.116 McCune, B., & Grace, J.B. (2002). Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design. Gleneden Beach, Oregon. McKinney, M. L. (2008). Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosystems, 11(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252- 007-0045-4 Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2017). Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landscape and Urban Planning, 159, 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Ed.). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(8), 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 Morgenroth, J., Östberg, J., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C., Nielsen, A. B., Hauer, R., Sjöman, H., Chen W., & Jansson, M. (2016). Urban tree diversity—Taking stock

225

and looking ahead. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 15, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.11.003 Morzillo, A. T., Kreakie, B. J., Netusil, N. R., Yeakley, J. A., Ozawa, C. P., & Duncan, S. L. (2016). Resident perceptions of natural resources between cities and across scales in the Pacific Northwest. Ecology and Society, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08478-210314 Moyle, B. D., Weiler, B., & Moore, S. A. (2014). Benefits that matter to managers: an exploratory study of three national park management agencies. Managing Leisure, 19(6), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2014.910003 Muhar, A., Raymond, C. M., van den Born, R. J. G., Bauer, N., Böck, K., Braito, M., … van Riper, C. J. (2018). A model integrating social-cultural concepts of nature into frameworks of interaction between social and natural systems. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(5–6), 756–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1327424 Muratet, A., Pellegrini, P., Dufour, A.-B., Arrif, T., & Chiron, F. (2015). Perception and knowledge of plant diversity among urban park users. Landscape and Urban Planning, 137, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.003 Nelson, P. R., McCune, B., Roland, C., & Stehn, S. (2015). Non-parametric methods reveal non-linear functional trait variation of lichens along environmental and fire age gradients. Journal of Vegetation Science, 26(5), 848–865. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12286 Netusil, N. R., Levin, Z., Shandas, V., & Hart, T. (2014). Valuing green infrastructure in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.002 Nielsen, A. B., van den Bosch, M., Maruthaveeran, S., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2014). Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosystems, 17(1), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0316-1 Oregon iMapInvasives Resources. (2018). Oregon iMapInvasives Resources. Retrieved November 20, 2018, from https://sites.google.com/site/orimapresources/ Palliwoda, J., Kowarik, I., & von der Lippe, M. (2017). Human-biodiversity interactions in urban parks: The species level matters. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.003 Pataki, D. E., Carreiro, M. M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N. E., Jennings, V., Pincetl, S., … Zipperer, W. C. (2011). Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1890/090220 Pejchar, L., & Mooney, H. A. (2009). Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(9), 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.016 Peters, K. (2010). Being Together in Urban Parks: Connecting Public Space, Leisure, and Diversity. Leisure Sciences, 32(5), 418–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2010.510987 Pojar, J., & MacKinnon, A. (2016). Plants of the Pacific Northwest: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. Partners Publishing.

226

Portland Parks and Recreation. (2011). Forest Park desired future condition, 35. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2015a). Ecologically Sustainable Landscape Initiative, 78. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2015b). Natural Areas Restoration Plan Update, 24. Portland Parks and Recreation. (2018). Natural Area Vegetation | The City of Portland, Oregon. Retrieved November 17, 2018, from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39872 Portland Parks and Recreation. (2019). Park Tree Inventory. Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/629112 Portney, K. (2005). Civic Engagement and Sustainable Cities in the United States. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 579–591. Pyšek, P. (1998). Alien and native species in Central European urban floras: a quantitative comparison. Journal of Biogeography, 25(1), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.1998.251177.x Qiu, L., Lindberg, S., & Nielsen, A. B. (2013). Is biodiversity attractive?—On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.007 Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing and Conducting Survey Research: a Comprehensive Guide (3rd Edition). Wiley & Sons, Inc. Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017 Rosenzweig, M. L. (2005). Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511623387 Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the Field: and Introduction to Qualitative Research (2nd Edition). United States: Sage Publications. Sandifer, P. A., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Ward, B. P. (2015). Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services, 12, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007 Savard, J.-P. L., Clergeau, P., & Mennechez, G. (2000). Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00037-2 Selge, S., Fischer, A., & van der Wal, R. (2011). Public and professional views on invasive non-native species – A qualitative social scientific investigation. Biological Conservation, 144(12), 3089–3097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.014 Spirn, A. W. (1984). The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design. Basic Books. Svendsen, E. S., Campbell, L. K., & McMillen, H. L. (2016). Stories, Shrines, and Symbols: Recognizing Psycho-Social-Spiritual Benefits of Urban Parks and Natural Areas. Journal of Ethnobiology, 36(4), 881–907. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-36.4.881

227

Swanson, F. J., Kratz, T. K., Caine, N., & Woodmansee, R. G. (1988). Landform Effects on Ecosystem Patterns and Processes. BioScience, 38(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310614 Tait, C. J., Daniels, C. B., & Hill, R. S. (2005). Changes in species assemblages within the Adelaide metropolitan area, Australia, 1836–2002. Ecological Applications, 15(1), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0920 Taylor, S. M., & Santelmann, M. V. (2014). Comparing Vegetation and Soils of Remnant and Restored Wetland Prairies in the Northern Willamette Valley. Northwest Science, 88(4), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.3955/046.088.0407 Threlfall, C. G., Ossola, A., Hahs, A. K., Williams, N. S. G., Wilson, L., & Livesley, S. J. (2016). Variation in Vegetation Structure and Composition across Urban Green Space Types. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00066 Tilt, J. H. (2010). Walking trips to parks: Exploring demographic, environmental factors, and preferences for adults with children in the household. Preventive Medicine, 50, S69–S73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.026 Turner, K., Lefler, L., & Freedman, B. (2005). Plant communities of selected urbanized areas of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(2–4), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.03.003 Turner, M.G. & Gardner, R.H. (2001). Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice. Springer-Verlag. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001 United States Department of Agriculture. (2018). Welcome to the PLANTS Database | USDA PLANTS. Retrieved November 5, 2018, from https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/java/ United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. (1983). Soil Survey of Multnomah County, Oregon. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2018). Wetlands Mapper. Retrieved November 5, 2018, from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html van den Berg, A. E. (2008). Restorative effects of nature: toward a neurobiological approach. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Physiological Anthropology, 22–26 August, Delft, the Netherlands., Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 132–138. Weems, C. M. (2016). Examining the Spatial Distribution of Park Access and Trajectories of Gentrification in Seattle, Washington 1990 - 2010. White, J. G., Antos, M. J., Fitzsimons, J. A., & Palmer, G. C. (2005). Non-uniform bird assemblages in urban environments: the influence of streetscape vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(2–4), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.02.006 Whittaker, R.H. (1970). Communities and Ecosystems (2nd ed.). New York.

228

Zengeya, T., Ivey, P., Woodford, D. J., Weyl, O., Novoa, A., Shackleton, R., … Van Wilgen, B. (2017). Managing conflict-generating invasive species in South Africa: Challenges and trade-offs. Bothalia, 47(2). https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2160 Zhao, J., Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., Zhou, W., Wang, X., Xu, W., & Ni, Y. (2010). Plant species composition in green spaces within the built-up areas of Beijing, China. Plant Ecology, 209(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-009-9675-3

229

APPENDICES

230

Appendix A. Park Sampling Plots and Coordinates (SE Corner)

Park Plot ID Latitude Longitude Big Four Corners Natural Area 91 45.5495 -122.4841 Big Four Corners Natural Area 93 45.5500 -122.4927 Big Four Corners Natural Area 95 45.5504 -122.4878 Big Four Corners Natural Area 96 45.5510 -122.4837 Big Four Corners Natural Area 99 45.5540 -122.4873 Brentwood Park 14 45.4726 -122.6012 Brentwood Park 15 45.4728 -122.6019 Brentwood Park 17 45.4731 -122.5998 Brentwood Park 18 45.4731 -122.6005 Brentwood Park 23 45.4743 -122.5998 Columbia Park 111 45.5766 -122.7132 Columbia Park 114 45.5796 -122.7117 Columbia Park 115 45.5801 -122.7097 Columbia Park 116 45.5801 -122.7117 Columbia Park 117 45.5806 -122.7110 Ed Benedict Park 43 45.4951 -122.5569 Ed Benedict Park 45 45.4955 -122.5557 Ed Benedict Park 46 45.4955 -122.5575 Ed Benedict Park 47 45.4955 -122.5578 Ed Benedict Park 50 45.4947 -122.5603 Forest Park 143 45.5513 -122.7458 Forest Park 144 45.5781 -122.7797 Forest Park 147 45.6060 -122.8004 Forest Park 148 45.5335 -122.7333 Forest Park 149 45.5810 -122.7723 George Himes Park 28 45.4756 -122.6825 George Himes Park 33 45.4784 -122.6815 George Himes Park 36 45.4792 -122.6845 George Himes Park 37 45.4793 -122.6814 George Himes Park 38 45.4795 -122.6835 Jamison Square 63 45.5288 -122.6821 Jamison Square 64 45.5288 -122.6816 Jamison Square 66 45.5290 -122.6815 Jamison Square 67 45.5291 -122.6819 Jamison Square 70 45.5288 -122.6816 Khunamokwst Park 125 45.5585 -122.6085 Khunamokwst Park 126 45.5582 -122.6083

231

Park Plot ID Latitude Longitude Khunamokwst Park 127 45.5584 -122.6088 Khunamokwst Park 128 45.5583 -122.6092 Khunamokwst Park 130 45.5588 -122.6090 N Swan Island Boat Ramp 103 45.5619 -122.7047 N Swan Island Boat Ramp 106 45.5623 -122.7050 N Swan Island Boat Ramp 107 45.5623 -122.7053 N Swan Island Boat Ramp 108 45.5626 -122.7058 N Swan Island Boat Ramp 110 45.5626 -122.7058 Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge 31 45.4775 -122.6536 Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge 32 45.4782 -122.6543 Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge 34 45.4790 -122.6533 Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge 39 45.4812 -122.6525 Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge 40 45.4853 -122.6508 Patton Square Park 131 45.5615 -122.6818 Patton Square Park 132 45.5616 -122.6815 Patton Square Park 137 45.5613 -122.6818 Patton Square Park 139 45.5617 -122.6812 Patton Square Park 140 45.5612 -122.6813 Plaza Blocks 51 45.5152 -122.6777 Plaza Blocks 52 45.5153 -122.6778 Plaza Blocks 56 45.5159 -122.6777 Plaza Blocks 57 45.5160 -122.6770 Plaza Blocks 58 45.5161 -122.6773 Rose City Park 83 45.5380 -122.5988 Rose City Park 84 45.5383 -122.5992 Rose City Park 85 45.5387 -122.5988 Rose City Park 86 45.5387 -122.5991 Rose City Park 88 45.5389 -122.5988 Wallace Park 73 45.5329 -122.7036 Wallace Park 74 45.5332 -122.7038 Wallace Park 75 45.5333 -122.7041 Wallace Park 78 45.5334 -122.7035 Wallace Park 79 45.5335 -122.7047 Woods Memorial Natural Area 3 45.4570 -122.7203 Woods Memorial Natural Area 4 45.4575 -122.7263 Woods Memorial Natural Area 5 45.4575 -122.7245 Woods Memorial Natural Area 7 45.4587 -122.7248 Woods Memorial Natural Area 8 45.4589 -122.7245

232

Appendix B. Plant Species List

Origin/ Growth Code Scientific Name Family Plant Form Group Status Pattern ACCI Acer circinatum Sapindaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Acer ACMA3 - T macrophyllum Sapindaceae Tree Dicot Native Perennial Acer ACMA3 - S macrophyllum Sapindaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial ACPL - T Acer platanoides Sapindaceae Tree Dicot Invasive Perennial ACPL - S Acer platanoides Sapindaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Invasive Perennial ACRU Acer rubrum Sapindaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Acer ACSA2 saccharinum Sapindaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial Achillea ACMI2 millefolium Asteraceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial ACTR Achlys triphylla Berberidaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial Aesculus AEHI hippocastanum Sapindaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial Agrostis AGCA5 capillaris Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Nonnative Perennial AGGI2 Agrostis gigantea Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Nonnative Perennial Mixed ALPE4 Alliaria petiolata Brassicaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Growth ALRU2 Alnus rubra Betulaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Anthoxanthum ANOD odoratum Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Nonnative Perennial Athyrium filix- ATFI femina Dryopteridaceae Herbaceous Fern Native Perennial Azolla AZFI filiculoides Salviniaceae Herbaceous Fern Native Annual BEPE2 Bellis perennis Asteraceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Perennial BEPA Betula papyrifera Betulaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Mixed BROMU Bromus sp. Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Unknown Growth Calocedrus CADE27 decurrens Cupressaceae Tree Gymnosperm Native Perennial CAOB3 Carex obnupta Cyperaceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial Carex sp. (C. CADE8 densa) Cyperaceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial Carex sp. (C. pachystachya or CAFE4 C. feta) Cyperaceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial Carex CAUN3 unilateralis Cyperaceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial Carex sp. CAREXUNK1 (Unknown 1) Cyperaceae Herbaceous Monocot Unknown Perennial Carex sp. CAREXUNK2 (Unknown 2) Cyperaceae Herbaceous Monocot Unknown Perennial CARPI Carpinus sp. Betulaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial Cephalotaxus CEHA2 harringtonia Cephalotaxaceae Sapling/shrub Gymnosperm Nonnative Perennial

233

Origin/ Growth Code Scientific Name Family Plant Form Group Status Pattern Chamaecyparis CHLA lawsoniana Cupressaceae Tree Gymnosperm Native Perennial Mixed CIMA2 Cicuta maculata Umbelliferae Herbaceous Dicot Native Growth CIAL Circaea alpina Onagraceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial Mixed CIVU Cirsium vulgare Asteraceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Growth Cladrastis CLKE kentukea Fabaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Claytonia Mixed CLSI2 sibirica Montiaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Growth CLVI6 Clematis vitalba Ranunculaceae Vine Dicot Invasive Perennial Convolvulus COAR4 arvensis Convolvulaceae Vine Dicot Invasive Perennial COSE16 Cornus sericea Cornaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Corylopsis CORYL2 spicata Hamamelidaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial COCO6 Corylus cornuta Betulaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Cotoneaster COLA18 lacteus Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Invasive Perennial Crataegus CRDO2 douglasii Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Crataegus CRMO3 monogyna Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Invasive Perennial Dactylis DAGL glomerata Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Nonnative Perennial Dasiphora DAFR6 fruticosa Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Monocot Native Perennial Mixed DACA6 Daucus carota Umbelliferae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Growth Mixed DIAR Dianthus armeria Caryophyllaceae Herbaceous Dicot Nonnative Growth Digitaria DISA sanguinalis Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Invasive Annual Dipsacus Mixed DIFU2 fullonum Dipsacaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Growth ELGL Elymus glaucus Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial Epilobium EPCI ciliatum Onagraceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial Epimedium x versicolor EPIME ‘Sulfureum’ Berberidaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Equisetum EQAR arvense Equisetaceae Herbaceous Horsetail Native Perennial Equisetum EQTE telmateia Equisetaceae Herbaceous Horsetail Native Perennial Euonymus EUAM9 americanus Celastraceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Euphorbia EUCH13 characias Euphorbiaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Frangula FRPU7 purshiana Rhamnaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial FRLA - T Fraxinus latifolia Oleaceae Tree Dicot Native Perennial

234

Origin/ Growth Code Scientific Name Family Plant Form Group Status Pattern FRLA - S Fraxinus latifolia Oleaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial GAAP2 Galium aparine Rubiaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Annual Gaultheria GASH shallon Ericaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Geranium Mixed GELU lucidum Geraniaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Growth Mixed GEMO Geranium molle Geraniaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Growth Geranium Mixed GERO robertianum Geraniaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Growth Geum GEMA4 macrophyllum Rosaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial GIBI2 Ginkgo biloba Ginkgoaceae Tree Gymnosperm Nonnative Perennial Gleditsia GLTR triacanthos Fabaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial GLYCE Glyceria sp. Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Unknown Perennial HEHE Hedera helix Araliaceae Vine Dicot Invasive Perennial Helleborus x HELLE1 argutifolius Ranunculaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Helleborus x HELLE2 hybridus Ranunculaceae Herbaceous Dicot Nonnative Perennial HOLA Holcus lanatus Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Invasive Perennial Holodiscus HODI discolor Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Mixed HORDE Hordeum sp. Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Unknown Growth Hydrangea anomala HYDRA petiolaris Hydrangeaceae Vine Dicot Nonnative Perennial Hydrophyllum HYTE tenuipes Hydrophylloideae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial Hypericum HYCA10 calycinum Hypericaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Hypochaeris HYRA3 radicata Asteraceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Perennial ILAQ80 Ilex aquifolium Aquifoliaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Invasive Perennial ILCO80 Ilex cornuta Aquifoliaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial IMPAT Impatiens sp. Balsaminaceae Herbaceous Dicot Unknown Annual JURE80 Juglans regia Juglandaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial JUEF Juncus effusus Juncaceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial Mixed LASE Lactuca serriola Asteraceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Growth Lapsana LACO3 communis Asteraceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Annual LARIX Larix sp. Pinaceae Tree Gymnosperm Nonnative Perennial LEMI3 Lemna minor Araceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial Liquidambar LIST2 - T styraciflua Altingiaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial Liquidambar LIST2 - S styraciflua Altingiaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial

235

Origin/ Growth Code Scientific Name Family Plant Form Group Status Pattern Liriodendron LITU tulipifera Magnoliaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial LOPE Lolium perenne Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Nonnative Perennial LONI5 Lonicera nitida Caprifoliaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Lysimachia LYNU nummularia Primulaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Perennial Mahonia MAAQ2 aquifolium Berberidaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Mahonia x media MAHON 'Charity' Berberidaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial MANE2 Mahonia nervosa Berberidaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial MARE11 Mahonia repens Berberidaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Maianthemum MARA7 racemosum Asparagaceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial Maianthemum MAST4 stellatum Asparagaceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial Mixed MANE Malva neglecta Malvaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Growth Matricaria MADI6 discoidea Asteraceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Annual Medicago MELU lupulina Fabaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Annual Metasequoia MEGL8 glyptostroboides Cupressaceae Sapling/shrub Gymnosperm Nonnative Perennial MYMU Mycelis muralis Asteraceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Annual Nandina NADO domestica Berberidaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial NYSY Nyssa sylvatica Cornaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Oemleria OECE cerasiformis Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Osmorhiza OSCH chilensis Umbelliferae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial OXOR Oxalis oregana Oxalidaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial Phalaris PHAR3 arundinacea Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Invasive Perennial Physocarpus PHCA11 capitatus Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial PIAB Picea abies Pinaceae Tree Gymnosperm Nonnative Perennial PIPU Picea pungens Pinaceae Tree Gymnosperm Nonnative Perennial PIJA3 Pieris japonica Ericaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Plantago Mixed PLLA lanceolata Plantaginaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Growth PLMA2 Plantago major Plantaginaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Perennial POAN Poa annua Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Invasive Annual POPR Poa pratensis Poaceae Herbaceous Dicot Nonnative Perennial Polygonum Mixed POAV aviculare Polygonaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Growth Polypodium POGL8 glycyrrhiza Polypodiaceae Herbaceous Fern Native Perennial

236

Origin/ Growth Code Scientific Name Family Plant Form Group Status Pattern Polystichum POMU munitum Dryopteridaceae Herbaceous Fern Native Perennial Populus POBA2 - T balsamifera Salicaceae Tree Dicot Native Perennial Populus POBA2 - S balsamifera Salicaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Prosartes PRHO2 hookeri Liliaceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial PRVU Prunella vulgaris Lamiaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial Prunus PRLA5 laurocerasus Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Invasive Perennial PRUNU Prunus sp. Rosaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial Pseudotsuga PSME - T menziesii Pinaceae Tree Gymnosperm Native Perennial Pseudotsuga PSME - S menziesii Pinaceae Sapling/shrub Gymnosperm Native Perennial Pteridium PTAQ aquilinum Dennstaedtiaceae Herbaceous Fern Native Perennial PYCA80 Pyrus calleryana Rosaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial QUAL Quercus alba Fagaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial QUPH Quercus phellos Fagaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Quercus sp. (red QURU - T oak group) Fagaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial Quercus sp. (red QURU - S oak group) Fagaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Ranunculus RAOC occidentalis Ranunculaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial Ranunculus RARE3 repens Ranunculaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Perennial Rhododendron RHODO sp. Ericaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Unknown Perennial Rhododendron RHODO2 sp. 'Everest' Ericaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial RONU Rosa nutkana Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial ROMU Rosa multiflora Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Invasive Perennial ROSASP Rosa sp. Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Unknown Perennial Rubus RUAR9 armeniacus Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Invasive Perennial RULA Rubus laciniatus Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Invasive Perennial Rubus RUPA parviflorus Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial RUSP Rubus spectabilis Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial RUUR Rubus ursinus Rosaceae Vine Dicot Native Perennial RUCR Rumex crispus Polygonaceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Perennial SALU Salix lucida Salicaceae Tree Dicot Native Perennial SASC - T Salix scouleriana Salicaceae Tree Dicot Native Perennial SASC - S Salix scouleriana Salicaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Sambucus SARA2 racemosa Adoxaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial

237

Origin/ Growth Code Scientific Name Family Plant Form Group Status Pattern Sarcococca SARCON confusa Buxaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial SCIRP Scirpus sp. Cyperaceae Herbaceous Monocot Unknown Perennial Schedonorus SCAR7 arundinaceus Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Nonnative Perennial Sequoiadendron SEGI2 giganteum Taxodiaceae Tree Gymnosperm Nonnative Perennial Sisymbrium SIOF officinale Brassicaceae Herbaceous Dicot Nonnative Annual Solanum SODU dulcamara Solanaceae Vine Dicot Invasive Perennial SOAS Sonchus asper Asteraceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Annual SOSC2 Sorbus scopulina Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial SPDO Spiraea douglasii Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial SPJA Spiraea japonica Rosaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial Stachys STCH chamissonis Lamiaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial STME2 Stellaria media Caryophyllaceae Herbaceous Dicot Nonnative Perennial Symphoricarpos SYAL albus Caprifoliaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Taraxacum TAOF officinale Asteraceae Herbaceous Dicot Invasive Perennial Tellima TEGR2 grandiflora Saxifragaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial TITR Tiarella trifoliata Saxifragaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial Tolmiea TOME menziesii Saxifragaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial Thuja THOC2 occidentalis Cupressaceae Sapling/shrub Gymnosperm Nonnative Perennial THPL - T Thuja plicata Cupressaceae Tree Gymnosperm Native Perennial THPL - S Thuja plicata Cupressaceae Sapling/shrub Gymnosperm Native Perennial Trifolium Mixed TRPR2 pratense Fabaceae Herbaceous Dicot Nonnative Growth TRRE3 Trifolium repens Fabaceae Herbaceous Dicot Nonnative Perennial TRAL4 Trillium albidum Melanthiaceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial TROV2 Trillium ovatum Melanthiaceae Herbaceous Monocot Native Perennial Tsuga TSHE - T heterophylla Pinaceae Tree Gymnosperm Native Perennial Tsuga TSHE - S heterophylla Pinaceae Sapling/shrub Gymnosperm Native Perennial ULMUS - T Ulmus sp. Ulmaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial ULMUS - S Ulmus sp. Ulmaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Perennial URDI Urtica dioica Urticaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial Vaccinium VAOV2 ovatum Ericaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Native Perennial Vancouveria VAHE hexandra Berberidaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial Veronica VEAR arvensis Plantaginaceae Sapling/shrub Dicot Nonnative Annual

238

Origin/ Growth Code Scientific Name Family Plant Form Group Status Pattern VIAM Vicia americana Fabaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial VIGL Viola glabella Violaceae Herbaceous Dicot Native Perennial VUMY Vulpia myuros Poaceae Herbaceous Monocot Invasive Annual Yucca YUFI filamentosa Asparagaceae Sapling/shrub Monocot Nonnative Perennial ZESE80 Zelkova serrata Ulmaceae Tree Dicot Nonnative Perennial

239

Appendix C. Institutional Review Board Instrument for Park Visitors

240

Study Overview - Experiences of Urban Park Visitors

Introduction and Background Urban parks are a type of green infrastructure that have the potential to promote habitat and biodiversity conservation, as well as provide a range of physical, psychological, and social benefits for people (Benedict and McMahon 2006, Lovell and Taylor 2013, Svendsen et al. 2016). During my research last summer, I evaluated plant composition patterns in 15 urban parks of Portland, Oregon. For this project, I will revisit some of these parks and examine them in terms of their human dimensions. My focal pathway will be to examine the behaviors, experiences, and viewpoints of park visitors by implementing qualitative research methods (observation and semi-structured interviews). The results of this project may be used to assist urban planners and park managers by providing information on human benefits and potential areas for improvement in urban parks. My concept map with focal pathway shows how urban parks provide a variety of ecosystem services such as clean air and water, aesthetics, human physical and psychological health, and biodiversity habitat for a variety of species (Figure 1). Urban parks are managed by people to achieve a range of short and long-term environmental and sustainability goals, as well as fulfill ethical obligations and promote environmental justice and equitability. Human management also requires adequate community involvement, funding, and leadership. The concept map shows how there are many types of parks, such as recreational-active, natural-passive use, and multi-use, and how along with their management, have the potential to affect the experiences that people have in urban parks.

Figure 1: Concept map for urban park visitor research with focal pathway (blue)

241

Methods A stratified random sampling design with a random number generator will be used to select parks of each park type that were previously sampled for plant composition within Portland, Oregon. The sites include parks of each type based on use: 1) recreational parks that are highly developed with facilities that promote active play, 2) natural parks that are generally more passively used and do not have formal fields for active play), and 3) multi-use parks with a general mix of active and passive uses (Weems 2016). Within each of the selected parks, observations will be recorded for approximately 30 minutes on the park visitors’ behaviors (activities such physical exercise, relaxing, reading, or interacting with other people or animals), weather conditions, and any other details on the general park vicinity. After making these observations, park visitors will be systematically selected for interviews based on their proximity to randomly selected quadrants of the park. Research with human subjects requires Oregon State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (Oregon State University Office of Research Integrity 2018). The park visitors will be asked questions about their experiences and viewpoints of the park in a semi-structured interview format. Semi-structured interviews are useful for establishing a base level of information that could be used to create a more structured survey in the future (Rea and Parker 2005). The types of questions that will be asked of park visitors are listed below. • Why do you visit the park? • How often do you visit the park? • How would you describe your experience in the park? • What aspects (if any) would you change about the park? • Are there any other parks that you visit in Portland, and why? • Where do you live (neighborhood) and how far did you travel to visit the park? • Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level) After the data is collected, the observation and semi-structured interview responses will be coded manually to look for any potential patterns in behavior, experiences, and suggestions for park improvements. Coding includes review of the responses and categorization by types that emerge from the data, which requires a certain level of judgment by the researcher (Rea and Parker 2005). Any patterns that emerged for park improvements can be included in future urban park management scenarios with measurements for success.

References Benedict, M.A., E.T. McMahon. 2006. Green infrastructure: linking landscapes and communities. Washington DC: Island Press.

242

Lovell, S.T., J.R. Taylor. 2013. Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology, 28:1447-1463. Oregon State University Office of Research Integrity. 2018. Does your study require IRB review approval? Accessed on March 2, 2018, at: https://research.oregonstate.edu/irb/does-your-study-require-irb-review Rea, L.M., R.A. Parker. 2005. Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Svendsen, E.S., L.K. Campbell, H.L. McMillen. 2016. Stories, shrines, and symbols: recognizing psycho-social-spiritual benefits of urban parks and natural areas. Journal of Ethnobiology 36(4):881-907. Weems, C. M. (2016). Examining the spatial distribution of park access and trajectories of gentrification in Seattle, Washington (1990-2010). Available at: https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/g158b m378

243

Survey Questions – Experiences of Urban Park Visitors

1) Why do you visit the park?

2) How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay?

3) How would you describe your experience in the park?

4) Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs?

5) What aspects, if any, would you change about the park?

6) How would you describe the look and feel of the park?

7) How would you describe the smells in the park?

8) How would you describe the sounds in the park?

9) What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park?

10) Do you like the different types of? a. Trees: b. Shrubs/Saplings: c. Herbs: d. Vines (if applicable):

11) Do you like the amount (number/cover) of? a. Trees: b. Shrubs/Saplings: c. Herbs: d. Vines (if applicable):

12) What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park?

13) Are there any other parks that you visit in Portland, and why?

14) Where do you live (neighborhood) and how far did you travel to visit the park?

15) Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level):

16) Would you like to share any additional experiences you have had in the park?

244

Recruitment Material – Experiences of Urban Park Visitors

Principal Investigator: Dr. Mary Santelmann, Oregon State University Student Investigator: Michelle Talal, Oregon State University Statement of Research: Urban parks are a type of green infrastructure that have the potential to promote habitat and biodiversity conservation, as well as provide a range of physical, psychological, and social benefits for people (Benedict and McMahon 2006, Lovell and Taylor 2013, Svendsen et al. 2016). The purpose of this project is to examine the behaviors, experiences, and viewpoints of park visitors by implementing qualitative research methods (observation and semi-structured interviews). The results of this project may be used to assist urban planners and park managers by providing information on park use, visitor perceptions of benefits provided by the parks, and potential areas for improvement in urban parks. In order to be in this study, you must be of legal age to consent, which is 18 in most states.

Contact Information: Dr. Mary Santelmann, [email protected] Michelle Talal, [email protected]

245

Experiences of Urban Park Visitors – Verbal Consent Guide

Purpose: The purpose of this project is to better understand the experiences and viewpoints of park visitors by implementing qualitative research methods (observation and semi-structured interviews). The results of this project may be used to assist urban planners and park managers by providing information on park use, visitor perceptions of benefits provided by the parks, and potential areas for improvement in urban parks. In order to be in this study, you must be of legal age to consent, which is 18 in most states. Activities: Park visitors will be asked a series of questions about their park experiences, as well as some demographics questions. Risks: People may have some discomfort sharing their park experiences, but they can stop the interview at any time. Any information that is volunteered by participants that discloses illegal activity will not be collected or recorded. Payment: There will be no payment for the interview. Confidentiality: No information will be collected regarding the subjects’ identity, and complete confidentiality will be maintained. Unidentifiable data will be shared with the Urban Water Innovation Network. Voluntariness: Participation in the study is voluntary and there is no penalty for choosing to no participate in the study or leave at any time. Interviewees are free to skip any questions. Contact Information: Principal Investigator: Dr. Mary Santelmann, Oregon State University, [email protected] Student Investigator: Michelle Talal, Oregon State University, [email protected]

Sponsor: National Science Foundation Grant #1444758: Urban Water Innovation Network (UWIN): Transitioning Toward Sustainable Urban Water Systems

246

Experiencias de los visitantes del parque urbano: guía de consentimiento verbal Propósito: El propósito de este proyecto es examinar los comportamientos, experiencias y puntos de vista de los visitantes del parque mediante la implementación de métodos cualitativos de investigación (la observación y las entrevistas semiestructuradas). Los resultados de este proyecto se pueden utilizar para ayudar a los planificadores urbanos y administradores de parques al proporcionar información sobre el uso del parque, las percepciones de los visitantes de los beneficios proporcionados por los parques y las posibles áreas de mejora en los parques urbanos. Para participar en este estudio, debe ser mayor de edad para dar su consentimiento, que es 18 en la mayoría de los estados. Actividades: A los visitantes del parque se les hará una serie de preguntas sobre sus experiencias en el parque, así como algunas preguntas demográficas. Riesgos: La gente puede tener cierta incomodidad compartiendo sus experiencias del parque, pero pueden parar la entrevista en cualquier momento. No se recopilará ni registrará ninguna información voluntaria de participantes que divulgue actividad ilegal. Pago: No habrá pago para la entrevista. Confidentiality: No se recopilará información sobre la identidad de los sujetos y se mantendrá la confidencialidad completa. Los datos no identificables se compartirán con el Urban Water Innovation Network. Voluntario: La participación en el estudio es voluntaria y no hay penalidad por elegir no participar en el estudio o salir en cualquier momento. Los entrevistados son libres de omitir cualquier pregunta.

Información de contacto: Investigador principal: Dr. Mary Santelmann, Oregon State University, [email protected] Estudiante Investigador: Michelle Talal, Oregon State University, [email protected]

Patrocinador: National Science Foundation Grant #1444758: Urban Water Innovation Network (UWIN): Transitioning Toward Sustainable Urban Water Systems

247

Preguntas de la encuesta: experiencias de los visitantes del parque urbano 1) ¿Por qué visitas el parque?

2) ¿Con qué frecuencia visitas el parque y por cuánto tiempo te quedas?

3) ¿Cómo describirías tu experiencia en el parque?

4) ¿Siente que el parque es accesible para usted y sus necesidades?

5) ¿Qué aspectos, si alguno, cambiarías sobre el parque?

6) ¿Cómo describirías la apariencia del parque?

7) ¿Cómo describirías los olores en el parque?

8) ¿Cómo describirías los sonidos en el parque?

9) ¿Qué aspectos, si alguno, te gustan de las plantas en este parque?

10) ¿Te gustan los diferentes tipos de? a. Árboles: b. Arbustos / Plantones: c. Hierbas: d. Viñas (si corresponde):

11) ¿Te gusta la cantidad (número / portada) de? a. Árboles: b. Arbustos / Plantones: c. Hierbas: d. Viñas (si corresponde):

12) ¿Qué aspectos, si alguno, cambiarías sobre las plantas en este parque?

13) ¿Hay otros parques que visites en Portland y por qué?

14) ¿Dónde vives (por ejemplo, barrio) y qué tan lejos viajaste para visitar el parque?

15) Datos demográficos (p. Ej., Sexo, edad, raza, nivel educativo): 16) ¿Te gustaría compartir alguna experiencia adicional que hayas tenido en el parque?

248

Traducción Inversa

La Guía de consentimiento verbal y las Preguntas de la encuesta fueron traducidas de inglés a español por un hablante nativo de español.

249

Back-translation: Experiences of the urban park visitors: verbal consent guide

Purpose: The purpose of this project is to examine the behaviors, experiences, and point of views of the visitors to the park, through the implementation of qualitative methods of research (observation and informal interviews). The results of this project can be used to help urban planners and park managers to deliver information about the use of the park, visitor perceptions related to the benefits obtained from the parks and the possible areas of improvement in the urban parks. To participate in this study, the participant must be over legal age to give his consent, which is 18 years old in most states. Activities: The park visitors will be asked about their experiences in the park, and some demographics questions as well. Risks: People might feel uncomfortable sharing their experiences in the park, but they can stop the interview at any moment. No information voluntarily given by participant that divulges illegal activity will be collected nor registered. Payment: The interview won’t be payed Confidentiality: No information about the identity of the subjects will be collected, and complete confidentiality will be kept. Unidentifiable data will be shared with the Urban Water Innovation Network. Voluntary: Participation in the study is voluntary and there is no penalty to choose not to participate in the study or exit at any moment. The interviewees are free to omit any question.

Contact Information: Principal Investigator: Dr. Mary Santelmann, Oregon State University, [email protected] Student Investigator: Michelle Talal, Oregon State University, [email protected]

Sponsor: National Science Foundation Grant #1444758: Urban Water Innovation Network (UWIN): Transitioning Toward Sustainable Urban Water Systems

250

Questions of the survey: experiences of the urban park visitors

1) Why are you visiting the park?

2) How often do you visit the park and how much time do you spend on it?

3) How would you describe your experience in the park?

4) Do you feel that the park is accesible to you and your necessities?

5) What aspects of the park, if any, would you change?

6) How would you describe the appearance of the park?

7) How would you describe the smells of the park?

8) How would you describe the sounds of the park?

9) What aspects, if any, do you like about the plant in this park?

10) Do you like the different type of? a. Trees: b. Bushes / Seedlings?: c. Herbs: d. Vines (if applicable):

11) Do you like the amount (number) of? a. Trees: b. Bushes / Seedlings?: c. Herbs: d. Vines (if applicable):

12) What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park?

13) Are there other parks that you visit in Portland and why?

14) Where do you live (neighborhood) and how far did you travel to visit the park?

15) Demographic data (gender, age, race, education level):

16) Would you like to share any additional experience you have had in the park?

251

Inverse Translation

The guide of verbal consent and the questions of the survey were translated from English to Spanish by a Spanish native speaker.

252

Appendix D. Urban Park Visitor Responses for Analyzed Questions

Park: Rose City Park Date: July 26, 2018, 11:15 am – 11:45 pm Interview #: 1 (NW portion). She is playing with kids at the playground during the interview.

Why do you visit the park? Because it’s good for you to be out in nature and be with the trees. It’s a de-stressor. Become one with the landscape. I also have a daycare and come with the kids to the park every day.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Every day for 40 minutes to 3 hours. It helps get the wiggles out and then have hungry kids for lunch.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes, but it used to have a water wading pool (4 months ago). I would like a water squirter like they have in Wilsonville (Memorial Murase Plaza Memorial Park). It’s on a smaller scale and lower income nearby areas can partake.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like the beautiful, mature trees. When I was younger, I would collect acorns, chestnuts, and throw them at my brother.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? More cover and grass.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 51, white/Caucasian, college (undergrad)

Park: Rose City Park Date: July 26, 2018, 12 pm – 12:25 pm Interview #: 2, he was tossing frisbee during interview (SW portion)

Why do you visit the park? We’ve had good experiences playing sports and frisbee (me and sons) and laying in the grassy areas. The park is conveniently located. People who frequent the park are generally a good population.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? During the summer we visit 1 time/week and the rest of the year, once 1 time every 2-3 weeks in the other seasons. We stay for about 1.5 hours on average.

253

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I love the big trees and shade they provide. The open grassy area is used to do lots of stuff.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I would increase the number of trees. Everything looks relatively healthy, but make sure that the plants don’t dry out in the future. Some plants seem haphazard (shrubs along the edge near the walking/running path on the hillside). It’s good to be intentional about the experience that you want to provide.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 43, white-Caucasian, JD-lawyer.

Park: Rose City Park Date: July 26, 2018, 12:50 pm – 1:30 pm Interview #: 3, person sitting at a picnic table during the interview (NW Portion – no one in other quadrants available for interview)

Why do you visit the park? I wanted a green space close to town for an hour so that I could go for a run and then go back to work. I’m in town visiting my sister.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 2 times this week. I will be here two weeks and try to run 2 times/week. I stay for about 1 hour, with also running around the golf course, too (the trails connect). I stretch here and text.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, no issues for accessibility.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like the large canopy trees – they provide shade. Appears like there is diversity with the variety of conifers and broadleaf deciduous trees. They add an aesthetic complexity, and being a botanist, I appreciate that. I like seeing the cones, fruits, and barks of different textures.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I wouldn’t change much.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 35, white, masters, but working on PhD currently.

254

Park: Khunamokwst Park Date: Thursday, July 26, 2018, 3:30 pm – 4:10 pm Interview #: 4, person sitting in wheelchair talking with a woman and with an assortment of free items in NE portion of park. He is watching his little brother, who comes up to talk with him periodically during interview.

Why do you visit the park? Because it’s convenient, community-based, family-oriented. Before, there was nothing here and I watched it grow. It’s a beautiful park. Right now, my friend is having a coworker party with clients (a group home, home care) and bring people together.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Everyday. I pick up my little brother from school and bring him here. We spend 3-4 hours here or more, as long as my brother is having fun.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes, very accessible. I can go all around and can roll around. We need to have more parks that are accessible to people in wheelchairs. Need people to speak up or give signatures in the community.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like the plants, but wish that we had fruit, but maybe not because of the cleanup. People are sometimes looking for food. We have enough trees and there is enough shade. People are looking for that and we have a water feature.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? More fruit, and trees that grow fruits.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 33, Haitian, Associates Degree

Park: Khunamokwst Park Date: Thursday, July 26, 2018, 4:20 pm – 4:50 pm Interview #: 5, person is sitting on grass near play structure and fountain while kids play in fountain and wife is nearby.

Why do you visit the park? Recreation, leisure, and we like to go to parks with water features.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? We go to this park 3-4 times per summer for 2-hour stays. We also go to lots of other parks – gotta spread the love.

255

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I love the long grasses. They left the big trees – I love them. It’s brilliant to leave the big trees.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I would like a few more tall trees on the south side for more shade.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 42, Black, 2 masters degrees

Park: Khunamokwst Park Date: Thursday, July 26, 2018, 4:55 pm – 5:10 pm Interview #: 6, woman pushing a boy on a swing in western portion of park.

Why do you visit the park? Bringing my kids to play.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 1-2 times/week for 1-4 hours.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I don’t know. I don’t really pay attention. They are big. I pay more attention to the plants in Peninsula Park (the roses).

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? No, it all goes.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 37, mixed (Native American and African), some college.

Park: Columbia Park Date: August 14, 2018, 9:40-10:10 am Interview #: 7, man with a metal detector walking around the southeastern perimeter of the park

Why do you visit the park? Hobby and recreation. To enjoy the outdoors.

256

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Depends. Typically, 3-4 times per week because I live nearby. On average, I stay 30 mins – 1 hour. Today, I’m walking longer. When I had a dog, I visited 2 times/day, but the dog passed away.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Sure

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? There’s a diversity. Some different barks and shedding in the fall. Originally, I thought, “what the?”, but it’s just a normal tree.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? More fragrant shrubbery. There are rhododendrons in the corner, but once they bloom, that’s it. The main part of the park has shrubs that will bloom 6-7 times per year, depending on the year.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 64, Caucasian, some college.

Park: Columbia Park Date: August 14, 2018, 10:30 – 10:55 am Interview #: 3, woman sitting on the ground in NW portion of park near the playgrounds during interview while feeding two kids a snack.

Why do you visit the park? The kids – I wanted to visit a park with open space to run and not be near busy traffic. Parks are an outlet and a way to be outdoors without having to drive too far.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? This is our second time here (we don’t come often). We will stay for about 2.5 hours.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? For the most part, yes. We haven’t explored much. It’s big and spacious. It has a bathroom, benches, and trees.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? They are great. Beautiful. I love the trees. Could add a bit more color like a flower garden area.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I don’t know. I love it. It’s great the way it is. In winter, it’s even colder, so this park is perfect for summer.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 25, white/Caucasian, some college.

257

Park: Columbia Park Date: August 14, 2018, 11:00 am – 11:16 am Interview #: 9, woman sitting in NE portion of park on a blanket with three boys. She invited me to sit on her blanket.

Why do you visit the park? My kids take swim lessons nearby. I come to relax and keep my children off the TV. It’s also cooler in the park.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 6 days/week for 3 hours.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like the trees – they keep it cooler and fresh air.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? It’s perfect just the way it is.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 35, Asian, High School

Park: Jamison Square Date: August 15, 2018, 4:40 pm – 5:15 pm Interview #: 1, woman sitting in the southwestern portion of the park on a bench, watching granddaughter play in the fountain

Why do you visit the park? To entertain my granddaughter and it’s free.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? This one maybe six times this summer. I go to Powell’s Bookstore to sell books and bring my granddaughter. 2-4 hours – we stay as long as we want. We’ve been coming since she was two and now she is six.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes. They have a bathroom, which is important for me because I’m an older person with incontinence. It’s nice there is space. Open space is nice.

258

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like the variety of trees. It looks like an easy maintenance park. There’s enough grass and seating areas so people don’t fight. The north benches fill up fast on Saturday. Easy to clean.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Plants serve functions, but they might think of winter beauty – different berries or beautiful leaves for winter (want color).

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 71, Native American, Bachelor’s degree.

Park: Jamison Square Date: August 15, 2018, 5:20 pm – 5:45 pm Interview #: 11, woman sitting in northwestern portion of the park on the grass with blanket and watching her two sons play in the fountain. They come and visit often.

Why do you visit the park? For my kids, socialize, get fresh air, new experiences, exercise, push them (my kids) out of their comfort zone (take risks, slides, watching them grow and gain confidence, make friends). It’s fun! I love watching them make friends. (her youngest child, less than two years old, runs up and sits on my lap).

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? For four months of the year, we come 2-5 times/month. I don’t consider this a park because there is no play structure. It’s more of a water park. It’s easy for me because I don’t need to do anything. It gives me a break, so easy. Usually I bring dinner. We stay for 1-1.5 hours, when attention span is done.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, definitely. It’s awesome. I feel like I get a break (second son runs up to chat). There’s a bathroom, food nearby, coffee nearby, and the grass is great.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I love the greenery – they do a good job.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? More color and fragrance.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 37, white, master’s degree

259

Park: Jamison Square Date: August 15, 2018, 5:50 pm – 6:12 pm Interview #: 12, woman sitting with her daughter in the northeastern portion on park benches, waiting for a photographer to arrive to take senior pictures.

Why do you visit the park? Meeting a photographer for senior pictures. The photographer suggested this park and the area.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Second time in all my life. I rarely come down here. 2 hours at most. Might go around for urban photos.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like the shade, trees, people can hang out under them and get out of the sun. It’s well-kept. Can stay in the shade. Lots of cigarette butts. Would be nice if they cleaned up. I don’t see ashtrays.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I wouldn’t change anything. I like that they are up so that I can see everything, but also can go under them so they give shade.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 49, Caucasian, high school graduate.

Park: Woods Memorial Natural Area Date: Friday, August 17, 2018, 11:30 am – 11:55 am Interview #: 13, man walking along Woods Parkway

Why do you visit the park? I take walks, walk my dog in it. To walk mostly. Also, for picnics in the park.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? A few times a day. Dog walk in the morning and evening, and a lunch break. 30-60-minute walks for each of them and a longer walk on the weekends.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes. There is no bathroom here, but I live close by. The lack of a bathroom is more of an issue for my wife and not for me.

260

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like old trees and the wildflowers in season. Blackberries are pests, but I enjoy them and so does my dog – but I don’t necessarily want more! We get them for free.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I would try to get it more natural and favor indigenous plants. Make an ecosystem where we don’t need to worry about vines killing trees.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 65, white, masters.

Park: Woods Memorial Natural Area Date: Friday, August 17, 2018, 12:30 pm – 12:55 pm Interview #: 14, woman walking in SE portion along Alice Trail

Why do you visit the park? Basically, to walk and be in nature.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? I try almost every day because I’m retired. I try for 30 minutes.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah. I’m not a special needs person yet. I like that there are some markings for the edges and some material for preventing slipping (metal mesh). They help people not slip. I’m a nurse, so I look out for that.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like it because it’s wild and not manicured. I also see a lot of sewer circles.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I wouldn’t. If manicured, I would have suggestions, but I like it wild.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 72, white, masters.

Park: Woods Memorial Natural Area Date: Friday, August 17, 2018, 1:40 pm – 2:10 pm Interview #: 15, woman walking two dogs along Woods Parkway

Why do you visit the park? I love being in nature for the peace and quiet. It’s a great think about port that we have a lot of parks. I can get out of the city and reconnect and center yourself in a busy world where we all need a moment to step back and remember we are all a part of the world, and appreciate that.

261

I’m a professional dog walker and hike with them or by myself. It gives the opportunity to explore different parks.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Probably 3 times/week and typically for 45 mins – 1 hour around the trails.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes, I walk in from one of the neighborhoods, but there are multiple entrances.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I’ve noticed that they are trying to bring back native plants and remove invasive, non-native species. The meadows, pollinator project is cool. I like to see what’s going on through the seasons.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I don’t think I’d change anything. I don’t see nettle or blackberry or poison oak along the trail where they would affect us.

Park: Wallace Park Date: Sunday, August 19, 2018, 1:45 pm – 2:20 pm Interview #: 16, man pushing two kids on swings during the interview

Why do you visit the park? I visit the park because my kids love to visit and to play. It’s the default if I don’t have anything else to do. Good to get them outside even of the weather is rainy. It’s good (to visit) if they are cooped up.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Once every other week (1-3 times/month). There’s another park up the hill that’s smaller that we go to. If going down this hill to 23rd Street, then we will stop by here for 30 minutes – 1 hour. Not super long. Sometimes 15 minutes, it depends on the kids.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, I think so. My needs are pretty simple. The only detriment is that we are walking uphill to Pittock and the kids complain, but it’s a good workout and fits needs. Upkeep is good. It looks good, but would be nice to have more seeded grass (there’s some mud).

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I think having mature, big trees, it’s cool, gives shade, scale with big open expanse, framed by big trees. I saw them limbing trees when it broke (probably a liability or hazard). It’s hard to see that – I don’t want to see them go.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I think it works well.

262

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 44, Caucasian, master’s degree

Park: Wallace Park Date: Sunday, August 19, 2018, 2:35 pm – 3 pm Interview #: 17, woman inside fenced dog park are in NE portion of park

Why do you visit the park? Usually to hang out with friends, throw frisbee, or if my friend’s dogs are in the dog park.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Not often. I don’t live in this area. This is my 5th or 6th time within the past 8 months. I stay for 1- 2 hours.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes, I like that there is a large open space for picnics and the dog park. I like that there is a more adult area and more kids’ areas. I’m not getting in the way of families and I get my own peaceful time.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like the large trees for some shade in summer. I wish there was some vibrancy in the plants – different colors.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? More flowers, different colors – more than just green.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 24, white, bachelor’s degree

Park: Wallace Park Date: Sunday, August 19, 2018, 3:15 pm – 3:40 pm Interview #: 18, man sitting with woman on blanket with laptops in SE portion of the park.

Why do you visit the park? To get outside of apartment. We were on the couch and decided, “do we want to work here or go to a park?” so this is really nice.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 2 times/month for 1 hour.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes, it’s only a few blocks away (from our home), so that makes it easy. It’s within walking distance and don’t need to worry about trying to park around here.

263

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? All there is, is grass and trees. I like that trees are around the perimeter (for shade), but an open space in the middle. There aren’t too many flowers, but it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Here, there is just lots of grass.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I wouldn’t change anything now. In winter, grassy areas get muddy. I would like that to change, but not sure how to fix it.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 24, white, master’s degree

Park: Brentwood Park Date: Monday, August 20, 2018, 3:10 pm – 3:22 pm Interview #: 19, woman walking along path from north to south in the NW portion of the park.

Why do you visit the park? Because it’s a shortcut to my house (mostly). Also, I come here if I walk my dog.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Been here twice. I just moved here, too. 30 minutes.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, mostly for my dog’s needs and doggie friends.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? They’re big and provide a lot of shade. That random red tree is pretty.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Grass could be greener and could add more shrubbery. Other than that, it’s a pretty cute park.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 21, Caucasian, High School Graduate

Park: Brentwood Park Date: Monday, August 20, 2018, 3:35 pm – 3:57 pm Interview #: 20, woman on a bench watching niece and with other friends and family in NE portion

Why do you visit the park? Kid’s mostly. (toddler is crying nearby).

264

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 5 times/week. 1-2 hours. We normally come with little kids – they can be fussy (too hot, whatever). Older kids just want to be on phones.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, it does the job done, gets the kids tired, making memories, and it’s quality time.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like the trees, not a lot of plants. Could add more color – I don’t see a lot of flowers. Not saying they need to plant roses, but just anything with color. I’d want to see those.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I wouldn’t change anything about this park.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 21, Polynesian, High School Graduate

Park: Brentwood Park Date: Monday, August 20, 2018, 4:05 pm – 4:45 pm Interview #: 21, woman sitting at a picnic table in fenced dog area in SE portion of the park

Why do you visit the park? The dogs. I have 3 dogs and there is a dog park. I used to come for kids and other places (Woodstock), but they are teenagers now. Dogs – they have to run, jump, and play.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 5 days/week for 1 hour. One the weekdays after work. They need an hour. In winter, 3 times/week.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah (“I have to pick up poop – be right back”). It’s only 6 blocks from my house and I could walk if the dogs didn’t tangle me up, so I drive. If I had one, I walk 10 blocks from Woodstock.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I love the huge trees. I have thought about it, but the create shade. Other than that, haven’t thought much about it. They aren’t super climbable, but people have tried. Not main feature. There is a garden across the street to the west.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I would remove the blue spruce, so could see and trim the trees up. If we don’t cut them back, then people will live in them or throw garbage. People live in them – there’s been a campsite. We have this problem of people hanging out longer than park hours, leaving behind garbage. It’s gotten worse – a safety issue is most important. I wouldn’t come past 7 or 8 pm, even with the dogs.

265

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 48, White-Caucasian, Master’s degree

Park: George Himes Park Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 6:45 pm – 7:05 pm Interview #: 22, woman sitting on picnic table north of SW Nebraska Ave after work, relaxing

Why do you visit the park? Relax, wind down after a long day after work but before I go home. On the weekends, we take a longer time and hike – this park connects to Marquam trail nearby. It’s good to get outside, wind down, and get some space.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Two times/week because we live so close. We walk from home and walk along SW Terwilliger Blvd. If we have a picnic lunch, we stay 1-2 hours. But we spend a half day on weekends.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Oh yeah, for sure. It’s easy with parking, picnic tables, quiet, close to home, and get some space.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I love the ferns, big old trees, miner’s lettuce, and the wild blackberry and raspberry. So lush and green and the ferns are amazing to me. I’ve don’t the Ivy pulls in other parks (Forest Park), but not as much here, which is kind of cool.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Nothing, I think it’s great.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 47, Caucasian, J.D. Lawyer

Park: George Himes Park Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 7:20 pm – 7:40 pm Interview #: 23, man sitting at middle picnic table north of SW Nebraska Ave, resting with bike nearby

Why do you visit the park? I’m kind of bored and wanted alone time. But, I also come with friends and walk around and talk, or be alone with my thoughts.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? This is my first time. I just got here. I’ll be here for 45 minutes until it gets dark. Other parks – 1 hour.

266

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Sure. Being close to where I love. I go to college. The park feels big, like a forest, not an urban area. It’s what I look for.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? This is kind of where I grew up (Seattle). It’s dense, whole floor is covered with forest, which is what I like.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? More ferns, nothing that is prickly (in an ideal world) for my convenience, but I don’t want to mess up the ecosystem. Blackberry is different because it’s invasive. Anything that is invasive, I would remove, but it’s a lot of work.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 19, white, high school graduate and college freshman.

Park: George Himes Park Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 7:55 pm – 8:07 pm Interview #: 24, man walking his dog along SW Nebraska Ave

Why do you visit the park? Because I live just about half a block away. I use it all the time. I walk and hike through while I have a cup of coffee. I chat with neighbors and sit at the picnic tables.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Every day for 5 – 25 minutes.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes, it’s accessible because it’s in good shape. It’s uncommon for there to be garbage because the neighbors pick up. Some drivers will throw trash and garbage out. Teens litter a fair amount, but I asked them to stop littering.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? They’re just natural. Nothing planted. It’s mother nature. Old growth.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I wouldn’t change anything.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 75, Caucasian, M.D.

267

Park: Plaza Blocks Date: August 24, 2018, 5:48 - 6:07 pm Interview #: 25, man sitting on a bench on phone in SE quadrant (Lownsdale)

Why do you visit the park? I just happened to pass by today while playing Pokemon Go. I work just around the corner.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Sometimes, I’ll pass to get to lunch or work. Not often – just going to the courthouse (laughs). Just a few minutes. It’s generally a break spot.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, definitely. A place to meet up or take a break. Plenty of nice benches.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? No preference. I get allergies, but I don’t see too many flowers so I assume there is less pollen. It’s nice. If I’m going outside, it’s just greenery for me.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I think it’s fine. I wouldn’t mind flowers even though I have allergies, but I can see the reason why there wouldn’t be (because people might not maintain them well and people might pick them). (laughs).

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 25, Asian, Associates Degree (still a student, going for bachelor’s degree).

Park: Plaza Blocks Date: August 24, 2018, 6:10 - 6:45 pm Interview #: 26, man sitting on a bench with dog in SW quadrant (Lownsdale) and smoking

Why do you visit the park? Usually to walk my dog and to watch protests. I’m a protest spectator.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Probably 3-4 times/week. I live a few blocks away. I stay for about 15 minutes.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes. Greenery and people watching.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like the large, mature trees – by far, the best part.

268

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? A little more color. It’s a seasonal criticism. But not so much that it is artificial (no annuals in pots). Oregon is many shades of green. Everything looks like it belongs here. Maybe add a Japanese maple-type plant.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 34, Caucasian, Bachelor’s degree.

Park: Plaza Blocks Date: August 24, 2018, 6:55 – 7:15 pm Interview #: 27, man sitting on a bench with a woman in NW quadrant

Why do you visit the park? Somewhere to sit in-between going around the city, being out exploring and adventuring. We’re relatively new to Oregon, in general.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 2-3 times. 30 minutes – 1 hour. Then we move on to the next place.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, if it’s got a bench in a park, it’s okay (laughs).

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I do like the variety, honestly. Variety of different types of trees and the foliage (laughs).

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Honestly, this is one of the better smaller parks.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 25, Multi-racial (Black and white), G.E.D.

Park: Patton Square Park Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018. 3:15 – 3:30 pm Interview #: 28, woman sitting on a bench in the NE portion with her daughter, who is playing on structure.

Why do you visit the park? Because it’s right next to my kids’ elementary school. My son gets out 30 minutes after my daughter. We come over to play and then go back to pick him up. Sometimes friends come over. School just started this week.

269

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? This is our second time this week. 2-3 times/week when school is in session. I live 4 miles away, quite a while away – 30 minutes.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Definitely, yes. Close parking. In the past, we used the MAX – it’s great.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? They’re beautiful. It’s green. The trees aren’t dead (laughs).

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I don’t think I’d change anything. It’s a nice Portland park.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 39, White/Caucasian, master’s degree

Park: Patton Square Park Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018; 3:50 – 4:10 pm Interview #: 29, man walking through the SE portion of the park. Said he just finished work.

Why do you visit the park? It’s a shortcut to my house (I live close to here). It’s more pleasant than walking on the streets. Personally, I like the tree in the NE corner (it’s historical). There’s going to be a movie night and I might come. A lot of big trees seem to have plaques and are protected.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Daily. Usually by passing to cut through. I don’t hang out. There’s so many parks bigger than this one, so if I go to a park, I usually go to a different one. This one has kids and people having barbeques.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah. The trees and shade – those are my needs when it comes to the park.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? The trees – I enjoy the big shady trees. Other than that, there’s not much plants – that’s why I mention the gardens. I don’t know if it’s too farfetched, but having garden boxes would add heart. In the sense that the school could have gardens to teach kids. I don’t know if they have one already, but it could be a good way to teach kids.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Gardens, flowers (see previous answer). A flower garden would be the least maintenance. Vegetables would be more maintenance. Plant and let them go nuts.

270

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 28, Columbian, some college

Park: Patton Square Park Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018, 4:15 pm – 4:40 pm Interview #: 30, woman in NW portion of park, searching through trash can for bottles and cans.

Why do you visit the park? My dog loves this park because of the squirrels. When he’s not with me, I come for cans. Beautiful to walk through. This is a smaller one, but a very good one, very important – people rely on it.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 7 times/week. 3-4 times with the dog, other times without. 30 minutes.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Totally. To unwind with my dog. He goes potty and plays with the squirrels. Refocusing.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like them. North Portland has a lot of indigenous plants, but could use more color here. It’s great though.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Color and nothing else because it’s so pretty. Maybe more about the water tower.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 53, White, some college.

Park: Forest Park Date: Thursday, August 30, 2018, 9:45 am – 10:05 am Interview #: 31, woman sitting at the open end of an SUV and on her phone. Just had a coworker meeting

Why do you visit the park? To get outdoors and enjoy natural beauty that Oregon has to offer. We also have two little kids. Today, I’m here for a photoshoot for work. I’m managing the logistics.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Not often – twice a year. Usually down below, lower MacClay entrance from a parking perspective and it’s a bit quieter with kids. 1-2 hours. Today, 8:30am-4:30pm.

271

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes. Trails, exploring, picnic benches, and parking. And proximity – we live closeby.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? It adds to the overall natural beauty. It adds to the diversity.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Nothing.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 33, White, Bachelor’s degree.

Park: Forest Park Date: Thursday, August 30, 2018, 10:50 am – 11:10 am Interview #: 32, man walking on Firelane 7 Trail back to the parking lot.

Why do you visit the park? To be in the outdoors, in nature. Hike or run, bring the dogs. The park is hug and there are lots of things to do. I’m a big supporter of parks and it’s a big reason why I live in Portland. There are more parks in the city than most.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 2 times/week. 2 hours on average.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Mostly. Some of the trailheads are difficult to access because of potholes or narrow roads crowded with cars.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like the size of the trees. Deep forest, mature forest. Not really old growth, but mature and natural-looking. Not like one of those parks that is all sports fields.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I don’t think I’d change anything except for removing invasive species.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 33, White, J.D.

Park: Forest Park Date: Thursday, August 30, 2018, 11:50 am – 12:10 pm Interview #: 33, man biking uphill just south of the Lower Saltzman Road trailhead.

272

Why do you visit the park? This is a scouting trip to see the Leif Erickson trail and if I want to add it to my bicycling loop.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 2nd time in my life. Before, I came here to look for views, but it was a disappointment. But, I see a park – it’s a forest. 30 minutes.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah. It’s a way to get off of Highway 30.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? No opinion. I don’t know too much about botany.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Cut some down for views. Given its location, it should really have viewpoints. Even Smith and Bybee Wetlands and Columbia Slough have viewpoints.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 60, Caucasian, master’s degree

Park: North Swan Island Boat Ramp Date: Saturday, September 1, 2018, 9:50 am – 11:15 am Interview #: 34, woman sitting with friends and coworkers in the SW portion next to parked cars.

Why do you visit the park? It’s an afterwork activity for social interaction and to blow off steam.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? This is my first time, but my friends visit weekly. I’ll have been here for 6 hours (4:30 am – 10:30 am).

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? I think so, yeah. I realized that with the water, I’ve thought about kayaking. I have a kayak and would like to do early morning kayak with the boat ramp available.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? Ooo Lord – I like that the trees are uniform. I have OCD, so I like it. As you get closer to water, I don’t know if it’s natural. But, as you closer to water, I appreciate the thicker density of the plant life. Whenever I’m rafting or kayaking, I like that. It shows good upkeep and attention to detail.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Middle growth and less dead stuff on the west side.

273

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 19, Caucasian, Some college.

Park: North Swan Island Boat Ramp Date: Saturday, September 1, 2018, 10:20 am – 10:40 am Interview #: 35, man riding his bike through the NW portion of the park.

Why do you visit the park? Actually, I live on a sailboat north of here and I visit this park and other parks quite often because I’m trying to get a job nearby.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Almost every day for a couple of hours.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, access to the waterways and wildlife. Where I live, there’s a bald eagle and I hear it chirping all day. It tells me when the high tide is coming in. He flies off when it goes out and returns when it comes back in. It helps me, especially because I’m in the boat.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like the water plants along the edge of the river. They’re really pretty.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I’d plant trees all along the western side like there is on the eastern side. Like Columbia Park – I love that park.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 38, White, Associates degree (vocational)

Park: North Swan Island Boat Ramp Date: Saturday, September 1, 2018, 11:05 am – 11:25 am Interview #: 36, woman walking dog through NE portion of park. Walked to NW portion during interview.

Why do you visit the park? To experience nature in the city and to get close to the water. I had a goal of finding water on our walk today (with dog). Walk down to the water to drink, which isn’t ideal, but we don’t do it often.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 1st time here. 15-20 minutes.

274

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, absolutely. I need to get to the river and here we are. And look, there’s ducks (laughs).

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? That they’re growing. That there is green space.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I don’t know, honestly. But, I’d be curious to know more what constitutes a native pocket here. What the plants are.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 50, White/Caucasian, Master’s degree and post-grad certificate.

Park: Ed Benedict Park Date: Saturday, September 1, 2018. 3:15 pm – 3:35 pm (estimated) Interview #: 37, woman walking dog in NE portion of park. Walked with her during interview.

Why do you visit the park? To walk my dog. We live 3 houses away. I’m too lazy to go someplace else. He loves it, but he’s sad to miss the soccer game. He loves the people.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 3-4 times/week for 40 minutes. We go around the whole thing.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, we aren’t that far away from it.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I like them all except for the southern border bushes before they flower. It’s a terrible, stinky smell in spring. But then it’s okay after that. It’s nauseating.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Really nothing. I love trees, so this is really great.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 61, White, some college.

Park: Ed Benedict Park Date: Saturday, September 1, 2018, 3:50 pm – 4:20 pm Interview #: 38, man sitting in skatepark with some skateboarding nearby.

275

Why do you visit the park? Because it’s in the neighborhood and I came for the skatepark. There’s not that many in Portland. Considering it’s a city, there could be more. It would be better and then teen skaters would be there instead of in the streets (would prevent it more) of the metro area. It would keep kids from skating dangerous obstacles and areas. I come here with my son. I’m trying to teach him to skate. It’s a kid friendly area - it used to not be. ** calls son over and says, “you need to be careful and safe!”.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 3 days/week for exercise, endurance, gotta stay healthy. 2 hours – not that long.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, it’s really accessible for transportation, it’s close by, convenient, and connected to the city transportation. But, I have a car and can get here quickly.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? They’re just standard bushes and plants. They’re all nature to this land. Poison ivy is not native (it’s from England). It’s bad to come across it because you can get a rash. It’s not at this park though.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I’ve had no issues. As long as they aren’t harmful to the public, I don’t mind.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 27, Hispanic (born in USA), Some high school

Park: Ed Benedict Park Date: Saturday, September 1, 2018, 4:30 pm – 4:50 pm Interview #: 39, woman on phone, standing under tree, talking to kids who then bike and skate.

Why do you visit the park? To bring the kids to do exercise, you know. To get their daily exercise so they won’t be in the house all day watching TV.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Saturday/Monday/Tuesday – 3-4 times/week for 2 hours, no more.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes, not for myself, but for them. My daughter rides her bike. My son likes to skateboard, so he uses the skating facilities. So, it fulfills both of their needs.

276

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? Not, it’s just regular plants. Regular trees.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? More green and more water for the plants, trees, vines, and grass. I don’t know if they have enough water. I don’t see any sprinklers.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 43, Hispanic, Some college.

Park: Big Four Corners Natural Area Date: Sunday, September 2, 2018, 4:20 pm – 4:40 pm Interview #: 40, man riding bike near McKinstry in northern portion of park.

Why do you visit the park? I live here. There’s food nearby, water from a carport, and it’s real easy to get to.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Every day – I live here. I got to other places during the day.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yes, it is. Shelter, clean environment, food, water.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? I can’t ID some of them and I can’t look them up because I don’t have a phone.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Nothing. Once I saw a guy in a golf cart and he was spraying weed killer.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 37, Caucasian, Some college.

Park: Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge Date: Monday, September 3, 2018, 10:20 am – 10:45 am Interview #: 41, man walking with a woman south on SE Sellwood near SE 13th.

Why do you visit the park? The reason we go is because it’s beautiful, peaceful, accessible, and closeby. Sometimes, we come and just sit there. It’s different than southern California. It’s more naturey here (we just moved here 1 year ago).

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? 3-4 times/week for 30 minutes to 1 hour.

277

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Definitely, and there’s also 3 parks just in our neighborhood. So here, like to take pictures and see birds. We’re still exploring other parks, too.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? There’s a huge variety and it looks like its growing naturally. And then all of a sudden, purple flowers – where did they come from? (laughs). This was a swamp two months ago.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? Maybe this is a ridiculous thing, but add some labels with the infographics. There’s so much life here, and I don’t know about the biology, but it would be nice to know! Trees, birds. Little labels or bigger.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 32, Hispanic, bachelor’s degree

Park: Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge Date: Monday, September 3, 2018, 11:15 am – 11:30 am Interview #: 42, man riding bike uphill to parking lot (NE Portion, OBWR trailhead).

Why do you visit the park? I’m using the bike trails and heading to Gresham. It’s my day off and this is a very beautiful scenic route to take.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Maybe every other morning or so. More often in the summer than winter. Usually walking or biking, however long it takes. Sometimes, I go on a route around the pond. 20 mins – 1 hour.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, I do. There’s a variety of paths that are well-maintained.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? It doesn’t seem overgrown.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? None, I don’t think. Except for making sure people stay on the trails.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Male, 33, White, Bachelor’s degree.

278

Park: Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge Date: Monday, September 3, 2018, 11:55 am – 12:05 pm Interview #: 43, woman walking a man near the pond passed the railroad tracks in the NW portion.

Why do you visit the park? We went for a walk down to Oaks Park and then we did some birding. We saw a lot of birds.

How often do you visit the park, and how long do you generally stay? Been here 1-2 times/year. At least 1.5 hours on average.

Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? Yeah, definitely. I don’t have the best hiking shoes on, but I was still comfortable and I was relieved. Because there are different options – paved trails or not.

What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? This time of year, it’s very dry, but I like the variety.

What aspects, if any, would you change about the plants in this park? I wouldn’t, but I’d like to try to keep out invasive species.

Demographics (gender, age, race, education-level): Female, 38, White/Caucasian, Bachelor’s degree.

279

Appendix E. Park Visitor Interview Codebook

General Notes: Coding in NVivo will only be completed for the answers of four questions asked during the interviews. These include the following: • Why do you visit the park? • Do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs? • What aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park? • What aspects, if any, would you like to change about the plants in this park?

PROTOCOL: 1. Do not code interview questions. Only code answers from participants. 2. All statements should have at least a 1st order code and a 2nd order code. Some statements might have more than one 2nd order code. Some statements have a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order codes. EXAMPLES: • “I like to visit the park to relax.” (1st order code: Why I visit the park, 2nd order code: relaxation) • “I like to visit the park to relax and read.” (1st order code: Why I visit the park, 2nd order code: relaxation, 2nd order code: reading). • “I like to visit the park to hike and run.” (1st order code: Why I visit the park, 2nd order code: physical recreation, 3rd order code: hiking, 3rd order code: running). 3. Code the entire statement provided by an individual in the same paragraph even if there are multiple codes. This is useful for visualizing the complexity of participant responses during the analysis. EXAMPLE: • “I like to visit the park to relax and read. I also like to play soccer and basketball.” (1st order code: Why I visit the park, 2nd order code: relaxation, 2nd order code: reading, 2nd order code: physical recreation, 3rd order code (under physical recreation): soccer, 3rd order code (under physical recreation): basketball).

1ST ORDER CODES: Note: 1st order codes are the entire responses of participants for each question: • “1 - WHY I VISIT THE PARK” -- Response for “why do you visit the park?” • “2 – ACCESSIBILITY” -- Response for “do you feel that the park is accessible to you and your needs?” • “3 - WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE PLANTS” -- Response for “what aspects, if any, do you like about the plants in this park?”

280

• “4 - WHAT I WOULD CHANGE ABOUT THE PLANTS” -- Response for “what aspects, if any, would you like to change about the plants in this park?

2nd ORDER CODES FOR “1 - WHY I VISIT THE PARK” • Accessibility o 3rd ORDER CODES: ▪ Affordability ▪ Connects to other trails ▪ Food ▪ Proximity: include close to home, work, school, or transportation • Animals o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Birds ▪ Dogs: include dog park ▪ Squirrels • Beauty • Can collection • Community – include friends, family, neighbors • Fresh air • Kids: include playing with kids • Lower temperatures • Movies • Outdoors: include being outside, in nature, be in green space • Park size • Photography • Picnics, picnic tables • Protests • Recreation o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Biking ▪ Exercise ▪ Hiking ▪ Metal detecting ▪ Pokemon Go ▪ Running ▪ Skate park ▪ Sports ▪ Swimming

281

▪ Walking • Relaxation: include relax, peaceful, sitting or lying activity, leisure, quiet, space, unwind, refocusing, break • Safety • Solitude • Trees • Water – include for drinking, recreation • Work

2nd ORDER CODES FOR “2 - ACCESSIBILITY”: • Accessible general: include, yes with no additional detail. • Bathrooms o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Available ▪ Not available • Benches • Dog • Food • Garbage • Greenery • Information, signs • Kids • Maintenance – include: plant maintenance, cleanliness, garbage, litter • Nature access • Park layout • Park size • Parking • People watching • Photography • Picnic tables • Proximity: include close to home, work, school, or transportation • Relaxation: include relax, peaceful, sitting or lying activity, leisure, quiet, space, unwind, refocusing, break. • Safety • Shade • Trails and paths o 3rd ORDER CODES

282

▪ Difficult to access ▪ Easy to access ▪ Variety of trails or paths • Trees • Walking to park, difficult • Water o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Drinking water ▪ Water for recreation • Wheelchair accessible • Wildlife access: include birds and mammals.

2nd ORDER CODES FOR “3 - WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE PLANTS” • Air quality: include fresh air • Bark • Beauty • Cannot identify • Clean • Colors • Density • Diversity: include variety and when participant lists many different plant species. • Ferns • Flowers – including forbs with flowers • Fruits, berries • Grass • Less invasive, harmful plants: include ivy, English Ivy • Maintenance: various perspectives, positive or negative • Maturity: include age, old growth, old. • Natural, native: include native, indigenous • No preference, neutral – regular plants: include, don’t pay attention, standard plants • Openness • Placement • Pollen, less • Seasonality • Shade • Size

283

• Temperature, lower • Trees: include forest • Wild

2nd ORDER CODES FOR “4 - WHAT I WOULD CHANGE ABOUT THE PLANTS” • Color, more • Dead vegetation, less • Ferns, more • Flowers, more • Fragrance, less • Fragrance, more • Fruits, berries more • Garden, add: include garden boxes • Grass, more • Indigenous plants, more • Information, more: include signs, species labels, placards, teaching kids • Invasive, harmful plant removal • Middle growth, shrubs, more • Mud, less • No changes: include, “like as is, don’t change it” • People management, stay on trails • Placement of plants, improve • Seasonal beauty, more • Shade, more • Tree removal or trimming • Trees, more • Views, more • Water for plants, more • Wild, keep it this way

284

Appendix F. IRB Instrument for Park Managers

285

Addendum to “Experiences of Urban Park Visitors”: Perspectives of Urban Park Managers This is an addendum to the study, “Experiences of Urban Park Visitors,” and will explore the management of urban parks in Portland and how visitor perceptions and experiences with the vegetation may influence park management. The aim is to better understand the perspectives of urban park managers by implementing qualitative research methods. During my research last summer, I interviewed park visitors in 15 urban parks of Portland, Oregon. For this project, I will interview the people who manage these 15 parks and examine them in terms of their management, with up to 30 interviews. My focal pathway will be to examine the management goals, park visitor experiences, and how park visitor experiences and perceptions may influence park management using qualitative research methods (semi-structured interviews). The results of this project may be used to assist urban planners and park managers by providing information on park and vegetation management, as well as potential areas for improvement in urban parks. My concept map with focal pathway shows how urban parks provide a variety of ecosystem services such as clean air and water, aesthetics, human physical and psychological health, and biodiversity habitat for a variety of species (Figure 1). Urban parks are managed by people to achieve a range of short and long-term environmental and sustainability goals, as well as fulfill ethical obligations and promote environmental justice and equitability. Human management also requires adequate community involvement, funding, and leadership. The concept map shows how there are many types of parks, such as recreational-active, natural-passive use, and multi-use, and how along with their management, have the potential to affect the experiences that people have in urban parks.

Figure 1: Concept map for urban park visitor research with focal pathway (blue)

286

Methods I will select people for interviews based on their status as the lead land stewardship manager for each of the 15 parks that were previously studied in Portland, Oregon. My selection of managers to interview will be assisted by the information and recommendations provided by the upper management of Portland Parks and Recreation. Research with human subjects requires Oregon State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (Oregon State University Office of Research Integrity 2018). The park visitors will be asked questions about their experiences and viewpoints of the park in a semi-structured interview format. Semi-structured interviews are useful for establishing a base level of information that could be used to create a more structured survey in the future (Rea and Parker 2005). After the data is collected, the observation and semi-structured interview responses will be coded manually to look for any potential patterns in behavior, experiences, and suggestions for park management improvements. Coding includes review of the responses and categorization by types that emerge from the data, which requires a certain level of judgment by the researcher (Rea and Parker 2005). Any patterns that emerged for park improvements can be included in future urban park management scenarios with measurements for success.

References Oregon State University Office of Research Integrity. 2018. Does your study require IRB review approval? Accessed on March 2, 2018, at: https://research.oregonstate.edu/irb/does-your-study-require-irb-review Rea, L.M., R.A. Parker. 2005. Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

287

Interview Request - Perspectives of Urban Park Managers

Hello ______, I am a PhD candidate in the environmental sciences program at Oregon State University and am very interested in talking to you about the experiences of park visitors and the management of Portland’s parks. Urban parks are a type of green infrastructure that have the potential to promote habitat and biodiversity conservation, as well as provide a range of physical, psychological, and social benefits for people. The research project is entitled, “Experiences of Park Visitors,” and its purpose is to examine the management goals, park visitor experiences, and how visitor experiences and perceptions of vegetation may influence park management using qualitative research methods (semi-structured interviews). The results of this project may be used to assist urban planners and park managers by providing information on park management, visitor perceptions of the benefits provided by urban parks, and potential areas for improvement in urban parks. In order to be in this study, you must be of legal age to consent, which is 18 in most states. It would be wonderful to meet with you in person for an interview about these topics. Is there a particular time that you are available?

Thank you for your time, Michelle Talal

Contact Information: Principal Investigator: Dr. Mary Santelmann, [email protected] Student Investigator: Michelle Talal, [email protected]

288

Survey Questions: Perspectives of Urban Park Managers 1) How would you describe the look and feel of this park?

2) How often do you visit the park as part of your job and what do you do on-site?

3) What are the short and long-term management goals for this park?

4) What aspects, if any, would you change about management of this park?

5) What are the factors, if any, that limit your ability to manage the park in the way you might prefer?

6) What aspects, if any, do you like about how the plants are managed in this park?

7) What aspects, if any, would you like to change about the way plants are managed in this park?

8) Describe the typical visitors to this park. Who are they?

9) What range of activities do people typically do in this park?

10) Do you feel that this park is accessible to the needs of visitors?

11) In your opinion, how do park visitors interact with the plants in this park?

12) Do you think park visitors like the different types of? a. Trees: b. Shrubs/Saplings: c. Herbs: d. Vines (if applicable):

13) Do you think park visitors like the amount (number/cover) of? a. Trees: b. Shrubs/Saplings: c. Herbs: d. Vines (if applicable):

14) Have you received comments from park visitors about the management of this park? If so, describe.

15) Have you received comments from park visitors about the plants in this park? If so, describe.

16) How do park visitor experiences influence this park’s management (previously and/or currently)?

289

17) Specifically, how does park visitor experience influence vegetation choice and/or design in this park?

18) Have you observed or heard about any equity issues in the parks you manage? If so, how are you addressing these issues?

19) Background Questions: How long have you worked at Portland Parks and Recreation? How many years have you worked in your profession?

20) Would you like to share any additional comments about this park?

290

Perspectives of Urban Park Managers: Verbal Consent Guide

Purpose: The purpose of this project is to explore the perspectives of urban parks in Portland and how visitor perceptions and experiences with the vegetation may influence park management by implementing qualitative research methods (semi- structured interviews). The results of this project may be used to provide information on park management goals, park visitor experiences, how park visitor experiences and perceptions may influence park management, and potential areas for improvement in urban parks. In order to be in this study, you must be of legal age to consent, which is 18 in most states. Activities: Park managers will be asked a series of questions about their park management experiences, as well as some background questions. Risks: Managers may have some discomfort sharing their park management experiences, but they can stop the interview at any time. Any information that is volunteered by participants that discloses illegal activity will not be collected or recorded. Payment: There will be no payment for the interview. Confidentiality: No information will be collected regarding the subjects’ identity, and complete confidentiality will be maintained. Unidentifiable data will be shared with the Urban Water Innovation Network. Voluntariness: Participation in the study is voluntary and there is no penalty for choosing to no participate in the study or leave at any time. Interviewees are free to skip any questions. Contact Information: Principal Investigator: Dr. Mary Santelmann, Oregon State University, [email protected] Student Investigator: Michelle Talal, Oregon State University, [email protected]

Sponsor: National Science Foundation Grant #1444758: Urban Water Innovation Network (UWIN): Transitioning Toward Sustainable Urban Water Systems

291

Appendix G. Park Manager Interview Codebook

General Notes: Coding in NVivo will only be completed for the answers of seven questions asked during the interviews. These include the following: A) What are the factors, if any, that limit your ability to manage the park in the way you might prefer? B) What aspects, if any, do you like about how the plants are managed in this park? C) What aspects, if any, would you like to change about the way plants are managed in this park? D) Do you feel that this park is accessible to the needs of visitors? E) In your opinion, how do park visitors interact with the plants in this park? F) Have you received comments from park visitors about the plants in this park? If so, describe. G) Specifically, how does park visitor experience influence vegetation choice and/or design in this park?

PROTOCOL: 21) Do not code interview questions. Only code answers from participants. 22) All statements should have at least a 1st order code and a 2nd order code. Some statements might have more than one 2nd order code. Some statements have a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order codes. EXAMPLES: • “A limitation is our lack of funding” (1st order code: Limitations, 2nd order code: funding) • “Limitations include our lack of funding and staff resources” (1st order code: Limitations, 2nd order code: Funding, budget, 2nd order code: Staff resources). • “Limitations include our lack of funding and visitors who throw trash (1st order code: Limitations, 2nd order code: Funding, budget, 2rd order code: Unfavorable visitor behaviors, 3rd order code: Trash). 23) Code the entire statement provided by an individual in the same paragraph even if there are multiple codes. This is useful for visualizing the complexity of participant responses during the analysis. EXAMPLE: • “Limitations include our lack of funding and staff resources. We also have some issues with enforcement and people throwing trash” (1st order code: Limitations, 2nd order code: Funding, budget, 2nd order code: Staff resources, 2nd order code: enforcement, 2nd order code: Unfavorable visitor behaviors, 3rd order code: Trash).

292

1ST ORDER CODES: Note: 1st order codes are the entire responses of participants for each question: • “A – LIMITATIONS” – Response for “what are the factors, if any, that limit your ability to manage the park in the way you might prefer?” • “B – WHAT LIKE ABOUT HOW PLANTS ARE MANAGED” -- Response for “what aspects, if any, do you like about how the plants are managed in this park?” • “C – WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE ABOUT PLANT MANAGEMENT” – Response for “What aspects, if any, would you like to change about the way plants are managed in this park? • “D – ACCESSIBILITY” – Response for “do you feel that this park is accessible to the needs of visitors?” • “E – HOW VISITORS INTERACT WITH PLANTS” – Response for “in your opinion, how do park visitors interact with the plants in this park?” • “F – COMMENTS FROM VISITORS ABOUT PLANTS” – Response for “have you received comments from park visitors about the plants in this park? If so, describe.” • “G – HOW VISITOR PERCEPTION OF PLANTS INFLUENCES PLANT CHOICE OR DESIGN” – Response for “specifically, how does park visitor experience influence vegetation choice and/or design in this park?”

2nd ORDER CODES FOR “A – LIMITATIONS” • Coordination in parks department • Design Plan • Enforcement • Equipment, supplies • Funding, budget • Information (scientific), more • Infrastructure, needs improvement • Safety, terrain • Staff resources • Unfavorable visitor behaviors o 3rd ORDER CODES: ▪ Dogs off-leash ▪ Heavy usage, crowding ▪ Homelessness, camping ▪ Trash • Vegetation

293

• Water use, limited

2nd ORDER CODES FOR “B – WHAT LIKE ABOUT HOW PLANTS ARE MANAGED” • Beauty • Color, seasonal • Design, layout o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Like design, layout ▪ Problematic design, layout • Different crews in parks department specialize • Ecosystem management, functions and processes: include ecological condition • Grass • Habitat variation • Horticultural beds • I don’t like how plants are managed • Maintenance o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Irrigation ▪ Low maintenance ▪ Pruning ▪ Weed, invasive management ▪ Well-maintained, improvement continuous • Maturity, age of plants • Native species • Naturalistic • Plant variety • Shade • Trees • Understory • Volunteers

2nd ORDER CODES FOR “C – WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE ABOUT PLANT MANAGEMENT” • Design, new • Funding, budget, more • Infrastructure, update • Maintenance, improve

294

o Fertilize, more o Pruning, more o Water, more o Weed management, more • No changes • Placement, improve • Plants, more o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Midstory, shrubs more ▪ Plantings, generally more ▪ Trees, more ▪ Understory, more • Species selection, improve o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Climate adaptable ▪ Disease resistant ▪ Diversity ▪ Drought tolerant ▪ Herbaceous perennials • Staffing, more • Training for staff, more • Unfavorable visitor behavior, less o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Visitor damage, less ▪ Homeless camps, reduce

2nd ORDER CODES FOR “D – ACCESSIBILITY” • Accessible general: include: yes, no requests, no additional detail • ADA, wheelchair accessibility o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Not entirely, could improve ADA accessibility ▪ Yes, ADA accessible • Boat ramp • Clean • Design, open • Grass, turf • Not sure, not developed • Parking

295

• Playground • Proximity, location, local access • Signs, mostly in English only • Size, could be bigger • Trails/Paths o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Yes, paths, trails accessible ▪ Not entirely accessible paths, trails, only to some • Water, drinking • Welcoming atmosphere • Wildlife and nature access

2nd ORDER CODES FOR “E – HOW VISITORS INTERACT WITH PLANTS” • Access, hazard issues with plants • Environmental education • Grass, turf • Not a lot of interaction • Play in plants • Research • Respectful appreciation of plants • Shade, primarily from trees • Stewardship, volunteers • Unfavorable visitor behaviors o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Camping, hiding in shrubs ▪ Dog off-leash ▪ Garbage, throwing ▪ Graffiti ▪ Picking flowers ▪ Trampling, breaking • Viewing, visual o 3rd ORDER CODES ▪ Beauty ▪ Birds and habitat ▪ Color ▪ Flowers ▪ Garden ▪ Seasonal

296

▪ Trees ▪ Variety of plants ▪ Visual, general • Walk around plants

2nd ORDER CODES FOR “F – COMMENTS FROM VISITORS ABOUT PLANTS” • Diversity of shrubs, want more • Graffiti on trees • Hazard vegetation • Invasive plants • No comments from visitors • Plant removal concern • Plantings, new • Replacement request (dead or broken) • Visitors like the vegetation

2nd ORDER CODES FOR “G – HOW VISITOR PERCEPTION OF PLANTS INFLUENCES PLANT CHOICE OR DESIGN” • Aesthetics, improvements • Balance ecological and human needs • Design, changed • Design, kept • Eliminate hiding, camping places • Hazard plant removal • Hearty plants, to withstand trampling • Not a lot of public, visitor input • Plantings to hide residences • Plants add in popular areas • Plants to guide human traffic • Public input during planning • Trail access • Views, maintain • Volunteer stewardship involvement

297

“Two women come to decorate flowers on the sewers. In the fall, there are pumpkins. Sometimes shells, flowers, live plants – it’s a celebration of nature. It’s a hippie alternative thing – a celebration of nature. Everyone can’t help but appreciate”

Woods Memorial Natural Area, August 17, 2018