Evaluating the Above-Ground Carbon Storage of Urban Trees on University of British Columbia Vancouver Campus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to growing concerns about the impacts of climate change and the need for sustainable urban development, urban forests have emerged as a crucial tool for mitigating climate change impacts and enhancing the quality of life in cities. Previous studies have established that urban forests provide a wide range of ecosystem services, including air purification, temperature regulation, and carbon sequestration. However, precise estimation of urban tree carbon storage remains a key challenge for effective urban forest management and planning. In this work, we expand on this body of work by investigating the carbon storage of trees on the UBC Vancouver Campus using 2018 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data sourced from the City of Vancouver. The aim was to determine the total carbon storage and the average carbon density of the campus. Tree height and structure were estimated using an existing model, which facilitated the calculation of individual tree biomass and carbon storage based on the LiDAR data. The results revealed that the UBC Vancouver Campus has a total carbon storage of 24.63 Gg and an average carbon density of 6.13 kg m-2. These findings emphasize the significant role urban forests play in climate change mitigation and urban life improvement. Employing LiDAR data in conjunction with the existing model proved to be an efficient and effective method for estimating urban tree carbon storage. The results can inform urban planning and policy decisions, fostering the integration of urban forests into sustainable campus development. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".