Surrey Conservation Survey

8–12 minutes. Your feedback helps prioritize feasible pilots and surface questions early.

Leave this blank

0) Context

Name (optional)

Email (optional)

Team / role Your involvement in implementation

1) Rank the main challenges

1 = highest priority. Use distinct ranks.

A. Public complaints / perception of “messy” landscapes B. Fear of stings/allergies / safety concerns C. Trampling/off-path use / disturbance of sensitive areas D. Inconsistent interpretation across sites E. Maintenance burden / staffing capacity constraints F. Cross-department alignment (Parks + Engineering + others) G. Uncertainty about what interventions actually work (need evidence) H. Other (describe below) If “Other”, please describe

2) Project direction preference Select up to TWO directions you’d support Project A: Public self-discovery + behaviour-first design Project B: Pollinator pathways as connected network Project C: Bus shelter roofs + micro-learning pilot If hybrid, describe If only ONE can be pursued first, which should it be?

3) Intervention menu ratings

Rate each item: Impact, Feasibility, Fit (1–5).

Cues-of-care framing (tidy borders/edges that signal stewardship)

Impact

Feasibility

Fit

Optional: concern / why not?

Micro-friction design (subtle cues that reduce off-path entry)

Impact

Feasibility

Fit

Optional: concern / why not?

Restoration nooks / calm micro-spaces

Impact

Feasibility

Fit

Optional: concern / why not?

Observation station (magnifier + simple counter)

Impact

Feasibility

Fit

Optional: concern / why not?

Soundscape listening point

Impact

Feasibility

Fit

Optional: concern / why not?

Citizen-science beacon / logging point

Impact

Feasibility

Fit

Optional: concern / why not?

Phenology breadcrumb trail (seasonal discovery loop)

Impact

Feasibility

Fit

Optional: concern / why not?

Outdoor “tinkering” micro-experiment pod

Impact

Feasibility

Fit

Optional: concern / why not?

Surrey Macro Safari (phone macro-photo + site-tagged gallery)

Impact

Feasibility

Fit

Optional: concern / why not?

Add another idea

4) Pilot sites

Suggest up to 3 candidate sites.

Site 1 Site name / location Site type Known issues / opportunities Maintenance owner (if known)

Site 2 Site name / location Site type Known issues / opportunities Maintenance owner (if known)

Site 3 Site name / location Site type Known issues / opportunities Maintenance owner (if known)

5) Constraints and approvals Maintenance capacity / staff time Safety/visibility requirements Vandalism risk Procurement/fabrication lead time Partner approvals (transit/ad contractors) Budget / funding timing Accessibility requirements Acceptable maintenance commitment per site

6) What would convince you (success metrics)

Pick up to 5.

Reduced complaints/service calls Increased path compliance / less trampling Increased public support (survey sentiment) Increased engagement (dwell time, repeat visits) Improved biodiversity indicator (visitation proxy) Improved staff usability/confidence Partner readiness to scale Other Other success metric (if selected) Evaluation tolerance

7) Questions / critique What feels unclear, too academic, or risky? Any concerns about “behaviour design” / “nudging” in public space? What would make the evolutionary framing acceptable/useful? What examples/evidence would you need to feel confident?

8) Next step preference Support a short working session to refine a pilot package? Preferred format Who else must be involved for a go/no-go decision? Anything we missed?