F9 1-s2.0-S1364032120304020-mainGreen Roof and Green Wall Benefits and Costs A Review of The

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110111
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Green roof and green wall benefits and costs: A review of the
quantitative evidence
Maria Manso b, *, Inês Teotónio b, Cristina Matos Silva a, Carlos Oliveira Cruz a
a
Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, CERIS, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture and Georesources, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon,
Portugal
b
Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, CERIS, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Greening the urban environment can be an important strategy to tackle the problems of urban densification and
Green roofs meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Green infrastructures, like green roofs and green walls,
Green walls have multiple associated environmental, social and economic benefits that improve buildings performance and
Benefits
the urban environment. Yet, the implementation of green roofs and green walls is still limited, as these systems
Life-cycle costs
Data variability
often have additional costs when compared to conventional solutions.
Average quantification Recent studies have been comparing these greening systems to other solutions, balancing the long-term
benefits and costs. Also, there is significant research on green roofs and green walls benefits. Although, green
roofs and green walls economic analyses don’t include all benefits due to measuring difficulties. The associated
uncertainty regarding the quantification of the benefit makes it difficult to compare the research outcomes.
This paper aims to provide a research review of existing benefits and costs of different types of green roofs and
green walls. These were divided between building scale benefits, urban scale benefits and life cycle costs,
focusing on the identification of results variability and assessment of their average quantification.
The analysis shows that in general, there are few data regarding intangible benefits, as the promotion of
quality of life and well-being. Also, there are still few studies quantifying green walls benefits and costs. High
variability in data is mostly related to the different characteristics of systems, buildings envelope, surrounding
environment and local weather conditions.
1. Introduction have multiple environmental [4], social and economic benefits [5–7]
that help to improve buildings performance and the surrounding urban
Urban densification has been increasing in the last decades causing environment [3].
pressure over the existing infrastructures and detrimental impacts on Green roofs, also known as ecoroofs, living roofs or vegetated/
urban environmental and social conditions. According to the United vegetative roofs, refer to all systems which enable greening roofs,
Nations, more than half of the world population lives in cities and allowing the growth of different types of vegetation on top of buildings
projections show that the urban population may rise 60% by 2030. Also, [6–8]. Green roofs include a set of layers that protect the support and
cities occupy only 3% of the Earth’s land but account for 60–80% of improve system performance. They commonly include the vegetation,
global energy consumption, 75% of global carbon emissions and more growing medium (substrate), filter layer and drainage layer [3]. These
than 60% of resource use [1]. Urban densification has an impact on solutions are normally applied over waterproofed roofs with a root
global climate change, which is reflected by urban heat island effect barrier and the insulation layer. Also, the green roof system must be
(UHIE) [2,3], and affects urban noise, air pollution and water manage applied over a layer with a minimum slope of 2% to drain the excessive
ment, interfering with citizens health and wellbeing [1]. rainwater along the roof [9]. Compared to conventional roofs, green
In order to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, roofs tend to be more expensive, requiring extra maintenance depending
green infrastructures, like green roofs and green walls, can be used as a on the vegetation type and irrigation needs. If the substrate thickness is
strategy to minimize these problems. In fact, these greening solutions significant the system may need an increased weight load capacity of the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Manso).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110111
Received 25 November 2019; Received in revised form 9 July 2020; Accepted 16 July 2020
Available online 8 August 2020
1364-0321/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Manso et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110111
Fig. 1. Green roofs energy savings compared to black roofs [28,30,34–40] and white roofs [30,34,39]. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
roof to be able to be implemented. green walls, the selection of the most appropriate system must take into
Green roofs can be classified as intensive, semi-intensive or exten consideration building characteristics and local climate conditions [4].
sive, according to their substrate depth and plants used [4,9]. Intensive Recent research has been identifying and modelling green roofs and
green roofs have a thicker substrate layer (over 15–40 cm), allowing the green walls benefits and quantifying their life cycle costs [4,6–8].
integration of a wide variety of plants (shrubs, bushes and small trees) However, results are not easily comparable as their methodologies are
[8]. However, they require regular irrigation and maintenance [9]. different.
Extensive green roofs are lightweight systems that can be installed in This work provides a research review of all building and urban
existing, flat or sloped roofs up to 30◦ improving the aesthetics of benefits and life-cycle cost of green roofs and green walls. The aim is to
non-accessible roofs. Due to their thickness (6–20 cm), extensive solu identify the variability of results regarding the quantification of green
tions have limitations on plants variety. Several studies indicate the use roofs and green walls benefits and costs and measure the average
of succulent plants (e.g. Sedum) due to its short root structure and quantification of these results for each greening solution. This study is
compatibility with limited water resources [10] and solar radiation based on a scientific literature review considering articles in peer-
tolerance [11]. However, other vegetation types can also be used in reviewed journals, conference papers, research reports, books, master
extensive systems like mosses, grasses, wildflowers, grasses [9] and and doctoral theses. It gathers the information obtained from 129
other CAM plants [11], as long as they are adapted to the local climate different studies, identifying the minimum, maximum and average
conditions and agree with the system characteristics. When applied in values obtained in each study. When relevant a global minimum,
buildings retrofitting extensive green roofs are more appropriate than maximum and total average are calculated from the obtained data, in
intensive green roofs as these solutions do not overload the existing order to assess the range performance values and the most representa
structure. Semi-intensive or simple intensive green roofs have interme tive value for each solution. These studies aren’t representative of all
diate characteristics, including a thicker substrate (12–25 cm) than countries. However, where applicable (e.g. building energy consump
extensive solutions but requiring less irrigation and maintenance than tion and UHIE mitigation), studies are organized according to Köppen
intensive ones [9].Green walls, also known as vertical greening systems Geiger climate classification to improve the understanding of the
[12,13] or vertical greenery systems (VGS) [14–17], refer to all systems context.
which enable greening a vertical surface of a building (e.g. façades, This paper is organized into five sections. Section 1 includes an
walls, blind walls, partition walls, etc.) with a selection of plant species introduction to the topic in discussion. Section 2 concerns the identifi
[5]. Green walls can be generally divided into two main categories, cation and quantification of building scale benefits, considering their
green façades and living walls [5,18]. Green façades are usually based characteristics to improve buildings performance. Section 3 includes all
on the use of climbing plants which grow directly against the wall (using urban scale benefits, considering the impact of green roofs and green
aerial roots, leaf tendrils and adhesion pads) or have an indirect support walls in the urban area. In section 4 is determined the average cost of
system (e.g. wire, mesh, trellis) [19]. Green façades usually have slow each system in the several phases of their lifecycle. In section 2 to 4, the
surface coverage and include a limited plant selection. Instead, living results from several authors are compared and the variability between
walls, either modular or continuous, allow a more uniform vegetation results is analysed. Section 5 summarizes the average values for each
growth along the surface and the application of different plant varieties building and urban scale benefit, and the costs in each stage of their
[20]. However, living wall systems may require frequent irrigation and lifecycle. The variability of these results is analysed and compared be
nutrients supply. tween systems, when applicable. A discussion is made regarding the
In summary, for a successful implementation of green roofs and main outcomes of benefits and lifecycle costs variability. Finally, the
2
Table 1
Maximum energy savings of green roofs compared to black roofs and white roofs.
Maximum Energy Efficiency (%)
Green roof versus Black roof Green roof versus White roof
Roof Type Season Insulation Csa Af Bwh Bsh Cfb Dfb Csa Af Bwh Bsh Cfb Dfb
Extensive Green Roofs Cooling Insulated 53a 47 1 – 84 − 1 − 6 – − 65 – − 20 − 21

Non-insulated 54 79 11 – 100 – − 190 – − 115 – – –
Heating Insulated 53 – 22 – 8 8 73 – 54 – 16 10
Non-insulated 48 – 23 – – 48 71 – 54 – – –
Semi-Intensive Green Roofs Cooling Insulated 41 – – 8 7 7 − 8 – – − 5 11 − 12
Non-insulated 67 – – – – – − 48 – – – – –
Heating Insulated 30 – – – 8 6 58 – – – 16 10
Non-insulated 42 – – – – – 68 – – – – –
Intensive Green Roofs Cooling Insulated 62 – – – 10 11 4 – – – − 7 − 7
Non-insulated 84 – – – – – 29 – – – – –
Heating Insulated 29 – – – 6 5 57 – – – 14 9
Non-insulated 48 – – – – – 71 – – – – –
a
Not considering the outlier value.
paper ends with some remarks and recommendations for future buildings interior during the cooling season [27]. Also, the presence of a
research. thermal insulation layer in the roof shows significant influence in the
results. Several studies have demonstrated that green roof systems can
2. Building scale benefits be more effective when applied to less insulated buildings [28].
In general, green roofs are more energy efficient than black roofs in
In a building scale, green roofs and green walls promote energy all climates. Table 1 shows that maximum energy savings are obtained
savings [8], reduce sound transmission into buildings [21], contribute to when comparing intensive green roofs to black roofs, especially over
greywater treatment [22] and increase the envelope’s longevity [16]. non-insulated roofs, reaching to 84% energy savings in the cooling
Green roofs can also increase photovoltaic panels (PV) performance [23, season and 48% in the heating season. Also, in Csa climate, green roofs
24]. While green walls can shade and protect blank walls, contributing can be more effective than white roofs in the heating season, especially
to surface and air temperature reduction [25]. In fact, green roofs and in buildings that are not insulated. However, in this climate green roofs
green walls can be a feature in new buildings but are also interesting are not as effective in the cooling season, except for intensive green roofs
solutions for buildings retrofitting. due to substrate thickness.
In the Tropical climate (Af), where only cooling is necessary, tests
developed by Wong et al. [29] in a commercial building in Singapore,
2.1. Energy consumption reduction
demonstrate that extensive green roofs show higher energy savings than
black roofs also in non-insulated buildings, obtaining average energy
In the last decade, several studies have been demonstrating the po
savings of 63%.
tential of green roofs and green walls to improve buildings energy effi
In the Tropical desert climate (Bwh) the application of extensive
ciency [8,26]. Their performance varies according to: system
green roofs was tested by Zinzi and Agnoli [30]. Results from Cairo city
characteristics [17] (leaf area, geometry, substrate type, depth and
in Egypt, demonstrate that in the heating season extensive green roofs
moisture content, materials of each layer and connection to the build
are more effective than black and white roofs, reaching 22% and 52%
ing), buildings physical characteristics (height, insulation, construction
energy savings, respectively. However, in the cooling season results are
materials, building envelope, glazing area, solar orientation, shading)
not as promising, as white roofs reveal to be more effective.
and to local climate conditions (seasons, heating or cooling needs).
In the Semi-arid hot climate (Bsh) a semi-intensive green roof was
Energy savings in buildings are obtained by different studies based
analysed by Ascioni et al. [31]. Energy savings for cooling of this green
on the comparison of energy use for heating and cooling between a
roof reached an average of 7,25% compared to a traditional roof and
building covered with a green roof (extensive or intensive) and a stan
were not as effective as white roofs.
dard scenario, where the building includes a traditional flat roof, namely
In cold climates (Cfb and Dfb), where winters require more heating
white or black roof. The results obtained by several authors are illus
loads, all types of green roofs have proven to be more effective than
trated in Fig. 1 and Table 1. Studies were categorized according to their
black and white roofs. In summer green roofs demonstrate to reduce
location and to Köppen–Geiger climate classification system. From all
energy loads when compared to black roofs but not as much as in
climatic regions, the Hot-summer Mediterranean climate (Csa) was
warmer climates. In Table 1 maximum energy savings were also ob
tested the most. Results were also obtained for Tropical rainforest
tained with extensive green roofs in the Oceanic climate (Cfb) revealing
climate (Af), Tropical and subtropical desert climate (Bwh), Hot semi-
to be highly effective in the cooling season reaching to 84% in insulated
arid climate (BSh), Marine west coast climate (Cfb) and Warm-
buildings and 100% in non-insulated buildings, but not in the heating
summer humid continental climate (Dfb). All results were divided into
season.
cooling and heating seasons when applied. Insulated buildings were
More recently some authors have studied green walls potential to
distinguished from non-insulated ones. Also, studies comparing green
improve energy efficiency in buildings, due to surface temperature
roofs with white roofs (highly reflective roof with low albedo) were
reduction and shadowing provided by plants [14,32,33]. Studies
distinguished from green roofs comparisons with any other flat roofs,
demonstrate that, in Csa climate, when compared to a conventional
here nominated as black roofs.
wall, green façades can have an energy efficiency of 34% [33] and living
Fig. 1 shows that green roofs, when compared with black roofs,
walls 59% [14] to 66% [32], during the cooling season.
provide additional thermal insulation, due to substrate thickness. Also,
plants contribute to evapotranspiration, reducing roofs superficial
temperature. When comparing green roofs with white roofs, white roofs 2.2. Improvement of photovoltaics performance
reflect most of the incident solar radiation during daytime and radiate
heat stored in the structure during the night, reducing heat transfer into Photovoltaics are integrated into the universe of renewable energy
3
and black roofs [45]. Some authors indicate the annual performance
and/or the summer performance due to an increase in solar irradiation
during the warm season [43].
Results indicate an increase of PV performance reaching a minimum
average of 1,59% and a maximum average of 3,35%, with a total
average increase of 2,6%. Also, PV’s performance seems not to be
significantly different when compared to black roofs (0,5% to 1,2%
increment) [41,45] and to white roofs (0,7% to 0,8% increment) [41].
Also, life cycle assessment results indicate that PV-green roofs are
more environmentally friendly on a long-term basis than PV combined
with conventional roofs due to their increased electricity production
[43].
Fewer studies were developed based on the comparative analysis of
PV panels combined with green walls and PV panels over blank walls.
Moren and Korjenic [46] demonstrated how the creation of a green
buffer space between a green façade and the PV panels acts as a tem
perature regulation tool reducing the PV operating temperatures 1 ◦ C to
4 ◦ C, reaching higher temperature differences when the outdoor tem
perature is above 20 ◦ C [46].
2.3. Sound transmission reduction
Sound transmission on building envelopes usually refers to the

Fig. 2. PV performance increase through combination with green roofs [41,42,
transmission of airborne noise from the urban environment into build
44,45,47–49].
ings habitable areas [50]. There are still few scientific studies demon
strating how the addition of a green roof can have a significant impact
technologies. This technology is especially relevant for countries with on sound transmission reduction. Although, there are examples of pro
high solar radiation. jects in which green roofs were applied in airport buildings as means of
Photovoltaics performance can be enhanced if cells are exposed to sound abatement, e.g. Schiphol airport in Amsterdam and Frankfurt
cooler ambient temperatures. As their surface gets warmer PV panels International airport [51].
become less efficient in converting solar radiation to electricity. Studies Table 2 shows some research studies demonstrating that the addition
in different climates demonstrate that the association of photovoltaic of an extensive green roof to a building can have a significant impact on
panels (PV) with greening systems can improve PV electrical perfor sound transmission reduction. The decrease in noise levels varies from 5
mance, as vegetation has the potential to lower the PV cells surface dB to 20 dB, depending on the frequencies. However, sound trans
temperature [24]. In fact, green roofs absorb less solar radiation than mission reduction may vary according to the type of support, substrate
conventional roofs, transforming less radiation into sensible heat. composition and its depth, water content, and types and stage of plant
In this combined system PV panels are installed above the green roof species development [52].
system with the required slope (according to the location) creating a Some authors have proven that green walls also have good sound
shaded area behind them. The green roof includes all required layers absorption properties compared to other cladding materials [50]. Like
(see green roof types in Section 1). However, the distance between the green roofs, green walls sound absorption depends on green coverage
vegetation and the PV panels is relevant to the system performance [41]. type [53,54], variety of plant species and materials used in the system
Plants characteristics influence the PV electrical performance [42]. [55]. Pérez et al. obtained also a 2 dB increase in soundproofing with a
When applied under PV’s, plant species must be adapted to shade [23]. living wall and a 3 dB increase with a green façade [56].
In warmer climates, the shade created by PV panels may enhance the
biotic productivity of green roofs. Other factors may also affect the
photovoltaic-green roof performance such as climate conditions, plant 2.4. Greywater treatment
species and reflected radiation from plant canopy (albedo) [23]. Also,
extensive green roof systems have proven to be more appropriate for New solutions and technologies for water recovery and water treat
PV-green roofs, including plant species with shallow roots and low ment can significantly contribute to buildings reduction of potable water
stems, high resistance to weather conditions, pest/diseases and low consumption. Greywater decentralized treatment and recycling requires
nutrient/irrigation/maintenance requirements [43]. simpler treatment systems and reduces the impact on urban wastewater
Recent studies have been comparing the PV electrical performance of management. Local greywater recycling can achieve potential water
PV-green roofs with PV performance over other conventional roofs. savings of 9%–46% within the household [58].
Fig. 2 shows the PV electrical performance (%) obtained by different Greywater use, providing simultaneous treatment, could be a cost-
authors comparing PV with green roofs to PV placed over several types effective and sustainable alternative [22] instead of using freshwater
of flat roofs, as bitumen roofs [44], gravel roofs [42], white roofs [41] to fulfil certain water requirements in buildings, like irrigation or toilet
flushing. Greywater reuse and recycling is becoming an alternative
Table 2
Extensive green roofs sound transmission reduction [52,57].
Frequency magnitude Frequency range (Hz) Reference Minimum (dB) Maximum (dB)
Low frequencies <500 Connelly & Hodgson (2013) – 10

Medium frequencies 500–2000 Connelly & Hodgson (2013) 5 20
750 Lagström (2004) – 5
1400 Lagström (2004) – 20
High frequencies >2000 Connelly & Hodgson (2013) 8 >20
4
prototypes with different media and plants selection. The appropriate

plant selection and media must meet the demands for existing vegetated
building structures and be compared to existing solutions for greywater
treatment [22].
Results indicate that green walls can remove 80%–90% of total
suspended solids (TSS), over 90% of biological oxygen demand (BOD),
30%–50% of total nitrogen (TN), 15%–30% of total phosphorus (TP),
30%–70% of chemical oxygen demand (COD) and 20%–80% of
Escherichia coli (E. coli) [61,62].
2.5. In-service life
Current conventional roofs include a waterproofing membrane that

usually lasts between 10 and 20 years, while green roofs could ensure an
in-service life of 50 years or more. However, old green roofs exist in
Berlin for more than 90 years without being replaced [65].
Green roofs function as a protection to the waterproof membrane
from direct exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation [66]. They help to
limit the diurnal temperature fluctuation of buildings external surface,
Fig. 3. Green roof systems in-service life (years) [4,69–77]. having higher albedo than conventional cladding systems [4]. Green
roofs, although more expensive, often have an in-service life longer than
traditional reflective materials (e.g. cool roofs) [67].
The in-service life of green roofs and green walls is based on the
estimated lifespan of its materials before needing important repairs or
replacement. Although their in-service life depends on the materials
used and the application techniques involved.
Fig. 3 illustrates the in-service life of green roofs according to
different authors. The obtained results were obtained mainly in the
context of cost-benefit analyses. No standard tests for the assessment of
these results were identified in this literature.
According to these studies, current green roof systems are expected
to have an average in-service life of 40 years. For green walls, there is
still a lack of information regarding their life expectancy, as most living
wall systems are recent technologies.
During the latest years, the variety of green wall systems that are
available in the market has increased substantially. Based on informa
tion obtained from installation companies, Perini and Rosasco [68]
consider that the structure of green wall systems themselves, being
green facades or living walls, would have an in-service life of 50 years.
However, differences occur in maintenance needs. Most green wall
systems require annual pruning to maintain plants. Living walls often
require plant irrigation and replacement of 5%–10% of their plant
Fig. 4. Property value increase due to green roofs and green walls [68,78–80]. species every year. While systems with automated irrigation may need
replacement of water pipes every 7.5 years due to salt crystallization
especially in locations were natural freshwater resources are scarce [68].
[59]. Greywater can come from different sources of domestic waste
water excluding toilets [60] for example, bathrooms, showers, laun 2.6. Property value
dries, and washbasins (low-load) or kitchen and laundry (high-load)
[58]. Therefore their concentration of nutrients, solid particles, mi Green roofs and green walls add property value to buildings. Several
crobes, organic and inorganic pollutants may vary [22]. Greywater authors use several methodologies (e.g. hedonic pricing method) to es
systems usually require secondary piping connected to a deposit with timate how the presence of green spaces, like green roofs and green
filtering for water collection and a pump to bring water to upper levels. walls, influence property value. Fig. 4 presents the results obtained by
If the greywater system is implemented in the building no significant different authors regarding the average property value increase due to
additional costs are required for greywater use as green roof or green the presence of green areas, including green roofs and green walls. Based
wall irrigation. on these results an average increase of 8,24% was determined. Ichihara
There are still few studies exploring the potentials of green roofs and and Cohen [78] estimated an increase of 16,2% in rental prices in
green walls as natural greywater treatment technologies. Their process buildings with green roofs. Perini and Rosasco [68] identified a 2%–5%
of using plant root and porous natural media for contaminants removal increase in property value due to the presence of green walls.
is similar to other centralized solutions, as constructed wetlands, reed
beds, and sand filtration [61]. Green roofs and green walls substrate and 2.7. Risk of fire
plants function as a biofilter, treating greywater through oxidation,
filtration, sedimentation, adsorption, microbial assimilation and activity Green roofs and green walls are usually kept moist to keep vegetation
[22]. alive, therefore they are likely to be fire-resistant. However, there is a
Recent studies focus on hydraulic and pollutants removal of green concern of fire risk when no irrigation is provided, due to possible
roofs [59] and green walls [61–64] for greywater treatment using drought [81]. To be a quantifiable benefit, the specific fire protection
characteristics of green roofs and green walls must be measured, taking
5
Fig. 5. Urban temperature reduction (◦ C) using green roofs [90,97–109].
the most appropriate incentive policies depending on its socioeconomic

conditions and local market forces [86]. Regarding buildings sustain
ability certification several rating systems have been established glob
ally (e.g. LEED, CASBY, Green Star, GSAS, BREEAM, LiderA), where
LEED is the most widely used worldwide [87]. These rating systems
consider green infrastructure, as green roofs and green walls, one of the
strategies to achieve higher scores in the sustainability classification.
Bianchini & Hewage [69] mention two examples of incentive pol
icies. In New York City a tax reduction incentive is applied when
building owners include extensive and intensive green roofs in their
properties, covering at least 50% of the total roof area. This way can
benefit from a tax reduction of 43€/m2 (49 USD/m2), reaching a
maximum of 90.000 € (approximately 101.700 USD). Also, the city of
Portland applies a stormwater fee discount of 35% for properties that
reduce their impervious surfaces, including the application of green
roofs.
Other strategies as subsidies for green roofs are mentioned by Claus
and Rosseau [88] as a tool to convince potential investors to build green
roofs. No incentives policies were identified promoting only the appli
cation of green walls.
3. Urban scale benefits

Fig. 6. Urban temperature reduction (◦ C) using green walls [25,110,111].
If applied in a significant urban scale, green roofs and green walls

into consideration the roof type. Some countries, as the United Kingdom have the potential to provide ecosystem services, contributing to the
and the USA, have developed standard fire tests to classify green roofs UHI mitigation [89,90], water management, urban noise attenuation
components [81,82]. and air quality improvement [4,7,21,91]. Also, their implementation
Some guidelines indicate as measures of fire prevention to perform may bring other benefits, contributing to the aesthetical enhancement
regular maintenance and cleaning of dry and dead plants [82], use of and recreational use of public spaces, allowing, for instance, their use for
saturated substrates [83] with low organic matter [82,84] and apply a urban agriculture, fostering biodiversity [92,93], while promoting citi
resistant plant selection (grasses, perennials and sedums) [85]. Also, in zens health and well-being [16,94].
large green roofs can be created areas with no vegetation or growing
media to avoid fire spreading [82].
3.1. Urban heat island effect
2.8. Incentive policies Dense urban areas are normally affected by the Urban Heat Island
Effect (UHIE), as a result of a temperature difference between a certain
To promote the application of green roofs and green walls several urban area and its nearby rural areas. This phenomenon is influenced by
incentive policies are being used. Incentives can be categorized as tax surfaces temperature, air pollution, wind speed, buildings height,
property, stormwater fee, other taxes reduction, subsidies, reduction of limited green and open areas and lack of water evaporation. The UHIE
interest rate, construction permit, sustainability certification, obliga has an impact on public comfort and health leading to increased energy
tions by law or agile administrative process. Each country must select consumption for cooling in buildings.
6
Table 3 UHI mitigation potential of green walls. The obtained results demon
Living walls urban noise reduction [80,113,115,117]. strate that green façades and living walls can contribute in average to an
Reference Minimum Maximum Comments urban temperature decrease of 1,37 ◦ C. However, there is not enough
(dB) (dB) data to distinguish the impact depending on the system applied.
Lacasta et al. (2016) 4 4 dB (250–4000 The use of green roofs and green walls can be particularly important
Hz) in cities located in warmer climates due to their potential of shading and
Lunain et al. (2016) 0 6 0–6 dB evapotranspiration effect of plants, which helps to create a more
(400–2500 Hz) comfortable environment in buildings surroundings.
Lunain et al. (2016) 0 10 0–10 dB (>3150
Hz)
Veisten et al. (2012) 4,1 3.2. Urban noise
Configuration a
Veisten et al. (2012) 4,5 Green roofs and green walls have the potential to reduce noise
Configuration b
pollution in urban environments, as these systems absorb, scatter and
Van Renterghem et al. 4,4
(2013) influence the reflection of airborne sound, improving the acoustical
Total Average 5,5 characteristics of the surrounding environment [112]. Also, as previ
ously referred in section 2.3 the noise reduction potential of green walls
and green roofs influences not only the noise in the surrounding urban
To counteract this effect, it is necessary to increase building surfaces environment but also the sound transmission into the building interior
cooling abilities. Plants have the ability to absorb solar radiation to in the surfaces where the system implemented). Vegetation and sub
develop their biological functions (photosynthesis, transpiration, evap strate characteristics (foliage dimension and shape, root system, sub
oration and respiration) [95] and create a milder microclimate as strate density, etc.) are constantly changing along the year, influencing
evapotranspiration cools both the plant foliage and the ambient air their capacity to absorb and reflect sound [113]. The urban form also
around them [96]. Therefore, solutions as green roofs or green walls, can influences sound propagation, as building roofs and facades give rise to
contribute to evaporative cooling from evapotranspiration [97], multiple sound wave reflections and diffractions [53,114,115].
shading, increase the surface albedo (0,7 to 0,85 versus 0,1 to 0,2) [4] Van Renterghem and Botteldooren [116] studied sound propagation
and emissivity, and complement the building insulation [21,34]. The over extensive green roofs. Acoustic green roof improvements among
UHI mitigation potential of greening systems is conditioned by several single diffraction exceeding 10 dB were found for frequencies between
variables as i) climate conditions (solar radiation, outdoor temperature 400 Hz and 1250 Hz. For double diffraction, positive results up to 10 dB
and humidity, wind and precipitation); ii) optical variables (surface al were obtained with less frequency dependency.
bedo and emissivity); iii) thermal variables (thermal capacity and Table 3 shows the results obtained by different authors regarding the
thermal transmittance); iv) and hydrological variables (latent heat loss potential of living walls to contribute to urban noise reduction. Results
through evaporation by plants and soil) [38]. indicate a variation along different frequencies and between systems. A
The UHI mitigation potential of green roofs and green walls is total average urban noise attenuation of 5,5 dB was obtained, ranging
determined based on their effect in the surrounding environment, between 0 and 10 dB.
considering the air temperature difference between the baseline sce
nario and the inclusion of green roofs or green walls in the same sce
3.3. Water management
nario. Fig. 5 presents the UHI mitigation effect of green roofs studied by
different authors. Overall, the average reduction of the surrounding
Stormwater runoff is an increasing problem in urban areas due to the
temperature collected in these studies is l, 34 ◦ C, varying between a
application of ground materials with no water retention capacity
minimum and a maximum average of 1 ◦ C to 2,3 ◦ C.
(impermeable surfaces). Therefore, rainwater is drained directly to the
Fig. 6 shows that fewer studies have been identified regarding the
sewage. Intense rainfall events may overload the sewage system, causing
Fig. 7. Stormwater retention capacity of extensive green roofs [36,107,109,119–124,126–145] and intensive green roofs [72,119,146].
7
Fig. 8. Green roofs pollutants and nutrients retention [125,148].
Fig. 10. Air quality improvement by green roofs [157,162–165].
comparing stormwater runoff average results between green roof solu

tions in similar climates (Cfa and Cfb), representing a 31% difference in
Cfa and 10% in Cfb climates.
In humid climates, like the tropical rainforest climate (Af) and humid
continental climate (Dwa) the average rainwater retention capacity of
extensive green roofs was significantly lower than in drier climates.
Eventually due to substrate saturation and air humidity levels [127,
128].
Apart from reducing water runoff and decreasing the impact in
sewerage systems, green roofs also contribute to water runoff quality,
decreasing the amount of dust, pollutants and nutrients that would be
sent to the sewer system and the receiving stream [125,147,148]. Fig. 8
shows the green roofs pollutants and nutrients removal capacity
modelled in the studies of different authors. According to these results,
green roofs retain up to 92% of Cb, 97% Cu, 99% Pb, 96% Zn, having
seasonal [148] and long-term variations [125]. Also, green roofs retain
Fig. 9. Extensive green roofs peak runoff attenuation (%) [122,126,129,139,
nutrients, showing average retention of 80% NO3 and 68% PO4 [148].
145,149–155].
However, it is important to note that green roof solutions need further
inundations especially in lower urban areas [118]. analysis regarding water quality improvement. As some authors refer
Green roofs can contribute to the reduction of stormwater runoff due adverse results in which water quality is affected by green roofs [129],
to their capacity to retain water. The benefit of stormwater management namely their soil and substrate characteristics [123].
depends on the system characteristics, as the roof age [119], slope Several studies have also proven that green roofs have the capacity to
[120], substrate thickness [121], composition, pore volume and degree not only retain but also have the potential to delay the peak of storm
of saturation [121], plant selection [122] and type of drainage layer water runoff. Peak runoff is influenced by substrate hydraulic conduc
[123]. Also, weather factors [124] as rainfall volume and pattern [122] tivity and moisture, and by drainage system characteristics [139]. The
determine the retention capacity of green roofs [125,126]. Moreover, antecedent rainfall timing and intensity, as well as the evapotranspira
green roofs water retention is influenced by the type of vegetation and tion process, also interfere in the runoff behaviour [149].
the aerial part of plants (leaves, branches and stems) [122]. Fig. 9 represents the peak runoff attenuation of extensive green roofs.
Fig. 7 shows the results obtained by different authors regarding the Most results are for Temperate (Cfa, Cfb) and Mediterranean (Csa) cli
stormwater retention capacity of extensive green roofs and intensive mates. In general, the results obtained for the peak runoff attenuation
green roofs. are significantly high. Considering all studies, a 71% total average peak
Regarding extensive green roofs, high variability was identified runoff attenuation was identified, ranging between an average mini
across studies, ranging between an average minimum stormwater runoff mum of 49% to an average maximum of 90%. These results demonstrate
reduction of 33% and a maximum average of 81%. Overall, extensive the significance of using green roofs to improve stormwater manage
green roofs contribute in average 57% to decrease stormwater runoff. ment, especially in dense urban areas.
Concerning to intensive green roofs, Fig. 7 also shows a 79% average Only the study performed by Qin et al. [97] in the tropical climate of
stormwater runoff retention, which represents a 22% higher water Singapore was identified to demonstrate the capacity of semi-intensive
retention capacity compared to extensive green roofs. This increase may green roofs, retaining 11,4% of stormwater and enabling a peak runoff
be due to substrate depth. This difference is also notorious when attenuation in 65%.
8
Table 4
Air pollutant concentration change (%) of green roofs’ scenario compared to the baseline scenario [159–161,166].
Reference Location Method Air pollutant concentration (%)
O3 NO2 PM10 SO2
Tan and Sia (2005) Singapore Measurements +42a − 37

Pugh (2012) London Local-scale Model − 0.9 − 1.1
Rafael et al. (2018) Porto Local-scale Model +60 +60
Arghavani et al. (2019) Tehran Mesoscale Model +20 − 16
Average +20 +14.4 +33.6 − 37
a
Value still within the pollution level limit of 50 μg/m3 (annual average concentration).
3.4. Air quality improvement the actual value of air quality improvement it is a good way to assess the
potential of green roofs and green walls.
Urban areas usually have higher concentrations of air pollutants Fig. 10 illustrates the pollutants removal capacity of green roofs
which are harmful to human health, mainly due to intense road and air obtained by different authors through dry deposition. All values were
traffic, and concentration of industries. Air pollutants include, among converted to grams (g) per area unit (m2) per year. These studies show
others, ground-level ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate higher average removal capacity of O3 (1,96 g/m2.year), PM10 (1,47 g/
matter less than 10 μm in diameter (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and m2.year) and NO2 (1,03 g/m2.year). Significant average results were
carbon monoxide (CO). According to the European Environment also obtained for SO2 (0,41 g/m2.year), CO (0,41 g/m2.year).
Agency, urban population are being exposed frequently to air pollution Table 4 presents the results obtained by different authors regarding
levels above the limit values [156], becoming mandatory to find solu the percentual air pollution concentration change (%) of green roof
tions to attenuate this problem. The conventional approach to air scenario compared to the baseline scenario. Results indicate an average
pollution is to control the source (e.g. road traffic and industrial emis increase in the concentration of O3 (20%), NO2 (14.4%) and PM10
sions). However innovative solutions can be adopted to remove the (33.6%) and a decrease of SO2 (37%). Authors refer that increased
existing air pollutants in urban areas [157]. Plant species, depending on pollutants concentration may occur due to the green roof system char
their form and dimension, are able to sequester air pollutants and acteristics (e.g. use of crushed stones, gravel and exposed substrates on
consume carbon dioxide to develop their vital functions. For example, green roofs [159]), low wind speed [160]and lack of horizontal airflow
evergreen conifers may provide a greater benefit than deciduous species in urban canyons [161].
as they keep their leaves all year [158]. Green walls can also contribute to air pollutants removal as much as
The assessment of green roofs and green walls impact on air quality is 11,7%–40% of NO2, and 42%–60% of PM10, 40% O3, 3,5% SO2, 1,34%
usually done following one of two approaches: estimating the pollutant CO and also 1,34% PM2.5 [161,162].
deposition or calculating the difference in the pollutant concentration Like previous green roofs and green walls benefits, understanding
values. Most authors apply deposition models, although they do not give the effects of these systems on the air quality is not straightforward.
Fig. 11. Installation cost (€/m2) of extensive green roofs [67,69,73,76,79,154,184,188,192,193], semi-intensive green roofs [184] and intensive green roofs [67,69,
79,193–195].
9
Fig. 12. Installation cost (€/m2) of green walls [68,193,196,197].
Fig. 14. Operation and maintenance cost (€/m2/year) of green walls [68,193].
Fig. 13. Operation and maintenance cost (€/m2/year) of extensive [70,76,88,

184,192,193,198–200], semi-intensive [193] and intensive green roofs [70,
193,200]. Fig. 15. Disposal cost (€/m2) of green roofs [69,76,192,193].
3.5. Other benefits
Several factors, such as the weather conditions, the urban structure, the There are other environmental and social benefits which are not
spatial and temporal scale of the study, or the assessment approach easily quantifiable but provide a qualitative contribution to a more
(measuring or modelling) affect the results. sustainable urban environment as well [167]. This is the case of health
A more comprehensive analysis is needed to consider the physical and well-being, biodiversity, aesthetic value, recreational use of space
and chemical processes that may occur. and urban farming.
10
the local climate [184]. Safayet et al. [185] developed a survey

regarding rooftop farming in Dhaka, Bangladesh and demonstrated that
most people which are non-practitioners are willing to practice rooftop
farming and would like to provide at least 50% of roof space for rooftop
farming.
4. Life-cycle costs
Life-cycle costs (LCC) are typically divided into installation cost,

operation and maintenance cost and disposal cost. Green roofs and green
walls installation and maintenance costs are usually higher than most
conventional cladding systems [5]. When performing a comparative
LCC analysis of green roofs with other systems, studies take into
consideration their environmental [67,77], economic [186], private
[88] and social [69,187,188] benefits. In the case of intensive green
roofs, these may not be cost-effective individually, due to high instal
lation and maintenance costs. However, Ro et al. [189], demonstrated
that if green roof LCC analysis is made at a city scale, taking also into
consideration both, building and urban scale benefits, green roofs can
become cost-effective.
Fig. 16. Disposal cost (€/m2) of green walls [20,193]. Regarding green wall systems, some studies demonstrate that green
facades are the most cost-effective, as living walls have higher initial
Urban green spaces promote mental and physical health, providing costs when compared to other conventional cladding systems [68,186,
psychological relaxation and stress alleviation [168]. Health and 190,191]. Also, long-term maintenance costs usually hinder investment
well-being benefits may be gained without the physical use of green in these solutions [68].
space, as a positive psychological effect may derive from simply viewing This section identifies the installation, operation and maintenance
a green space, even if not accessible [169]. Therefore, improving urban and disposal cost of each greening system obtained by different authors.
spaces with the integration of green roofs and green walls can be used as The values in currency of each study were converted to Euro in the year
a tool to promote citizens health and well-being. of the study. These Euro values were adjusted to Euro 2017 values, and
The implementation of green roofs and green walls can also reinforce the consumer price index (CPI) was applied for the country of the study.
the environmental quality, ecological preservation and urban connec The conversion rate to USD was added between brackets to all presented
tivity of urban areas. Although their impact on biodiversity is dependant costs just after the EURO values.
of their size, replication, plant variety and location [93]. Therefore,
these systems must be integrated with other green infrastructures in the 4.1. Installation cost
urban environment, helping to create urban wildlife corridors especially
in dense urban areas [93]. The installation cost of green roofs and green walls takes into
Some studies have focused on the contribution of these greening consideration the initial investment in the application of the system,
systems to the conservation of biodiversity [93], habitat creation [69] including the cost of transportation, materials and labour [192].
and improvement of ecosystem multifunctionality [170,171]. Green Fig. 11 presents the installation cost of extensive, semi-intensive and
roofs [172–174] and green walls [175,176] can provide a biodiverse intensive green roofs respectively, obtained by different authors. Results
habitat, suitable for microorganisms, insects and birds. As an example, demonstrate a high variability in systems cost between countries. An
Bianchini and Hewage [69] assumed that extensive green roofs, average installation cost of 99 €/m2 (112 USD/m2) was identified for
although they do not provide the same ecological benefits as natural extensive green roofs. Semi-intensive systems tend to be more expensive
habitats, could represent 15% of these benefits and intensive green roofs than extensive green roofs as they usually include a wider variety of
could represent 30%. plant species. Results indicate an average installation cost of 130 €/m2
Other intangible benefits also apply, as green roofs and green walls (147 USD/m2) for semi-intensive green roofs. Intensive green roofs tend
enhance aesthetically buildings and urban spaces and may contribute to to be more expensive to install, as they include more material and
their recreational use [177]. These systems are often used as a strategy heavier plants (e.g. small trees) reaching an average installation cost of
of landscape valorisation being considered aesthetically pleasant [178] 362 €/m2 (409 USD/m2).
and having a restorative effect [179]. Fig. 12 refers to the results obtained by different authors regarding
Although, preferences and perceptions of beauty [180] rely on the the installation cost of green façades and living walls. Significant dif
visual impact of these solutions [181] depending on the system char ferences were also obtained between green wall systems. Green façades
acteristics (e.g. solutions with a wider variety of plants may be more have an average installation cost of 190 €/m2 (215 USD/m2), as they
appealing [182], as intensive green roofs and living walls) and the require less material. Living walls can have more differences in cost, as
conditions of the surrounding environment (e.g these systems may be there are several different systems on the market. An average installa
more valued in urban dense areas with lack of green and leisure areas tion cost of 750 €/m2 (848 USD/m2) was obtained for living walls.
[183]).
The development of activities in green spaces, such as gardens and 4.2. Operation and maintenance
parks, helps people to relax and reduce stress. Green roofs and green
walls help to address the lack of green spaces in urban settings [79], It is also important to understand how green roofs and green walls
creating attractive spaces for recreational use [184]. maintenance is performed. If the maintenance process is not done by the
Additionally, green roofs and green walls can be used by citizens for installer, this means he has no responsibility for its success after the
urban agriculture, reinforcing a more sustainable local production of warranty period. Therefore ideally, the purchase of a living wall should
food and reducing the community ecological footprint. The success of include a service contract [196].
these solutions depends on their accessibility, maintenance needs and Materials replacement (i.e. systems components replacement) must
also be included in systems maintenance. In the case of green roofs is
11
Table 5
Summary of building and urban benefits and costs.
Green Roofs Green Walls
Extensive Semi- Intensive Green Façades Living Walls

Intensive
Ecosystem Measurable Building/ Energy savings (Maximum values) 100% Cooling 67% Cooling 84% Cooling 34% Cooling 66% Cooling
Servicesa Local (Cfb N-Ins.) (Csa N-Ins.) (Csa N-Ins.) (Csa) (Csa)
73% Heating 68% Heating 71% Heating
(Csa Ins.) (Csa N-Ins.) (Csa N-Ins.)
PV performance 1.35%–3.35% increase (Avg = 2.6%) No data available
Sound transmission <5 dB–20 dB No data available
Greywater treatment No data available <80%–90%
TSS
<90% BOD
<30–50% TN
<15–30% TP
<30–70%
COD
<20–80%
E. coli
In-service life 28 years–47 years (Avg = 40 years) Avg = 50 years
Property value 16,2% (Avg = 8.24%) 2%–5% (Avg = 8.24%)
Risk of fire No data available
Incentive policies No data available
Urban UHIE 0.97 ◦ C – 2.29 ◦ C (Avg = 1.34 ◦ C) Avg = 1.37 ◦ C

Urban noise ≈10 dB No data available 0 dB–10 dB
Avg = 5.5 dB
Water Stormwater <33% - < 81% No data Avg < 85% No data available
management runoff (Avg < 57%) available
Rainwater Avg = 8% Cd No data available
retention Avg = 5% Pb
Avg = 80% NO3
Avg = 68% PO4
Peak runoff <49% - < 90% No data available
(Avg < 71%)
Air quality Avg < 20% O3 <40% O3a
(aMaximum values) Avg < 29% NO2 <11,7–40% NO2
Avg < 79% PM10 <42%–60% PM10
Avg > 37% SO2 <3,5% SO2a
<1,34% COa
<1,34% PM2.5a
Urban farming No data available
Intangibleb Health/well-being Use alternative methodologies of measurement as enquiries, multicriteria analysis, etc.
Biodiversity
Aesthetic value
Recreational value
Costs Installation (€/m2) 67 - 128 (Avg = 112 - 148 156 - 627 (Avg 114 - 266 (Avg 408 - 1091
99) (Avg = 130) = 362) = 190) (Avg = 750)
Operation/Maintenance (€/m2/ 0,84–9,16 (Avg Avg = 7.77 0.72–12.75 2.06–9.07 Avg = 18.98
year) = 4.28) (Avg = 5.64) (Avg = 5.57)
Disposal (€/m2) Avg = 12 No data Avg = 26 44 - 146 (Avg Avg = 239
available = 95)
Avg (average); < (decrease); > (increase); N-Ins. (Non-insulated); Ins. (Insulated).
a
Benefits associated with the installation of green roofs/walls.
b
Require other approaches for measuring.
often mentioned that waterproof membranes last around 10 years. 4,28 €/m2/year (4,84 USD/m2/year), 7,77 €/m2/year (8,78 USD/m2/
However, the system itself may last 50 years (see section 2.5). Climate year) and 5,64 €/m2/year (6,37 USD/m2/year) is obtained for extensive,
conditions and plant selection can influence maintenance conditions. semi-intensive and intensive green roofs, respectively.
Some climates require more irrigation and re-planting than others. Also, There is still few data regarding green walls maintenance cost. Cost
choosing native plant species can reduce significantly maintenance may vary according to nutrients and irrigation needs and plants species
needs and associated costs. used. Fig. 14 shows that, according to the most recent literature, the
Although there is no data related to maintenance cost reduction average maintenance cost for green facades is 5,57 €/m2/year (6,29
along the years, usually extensive green roofs require less maintenance USD/m2/year) and for living walls is 18,98 €/m2/year (21,45 USD/m2/
than intensive green roofs. In the first years, green roofs usually have year).
more irrigation needs and re-planting may be needed due to plant
inadaptation. 4.3. Disposal cost
Fig. 13 shows the operation and maintenance costs of extensive,
semi-intensive and intensive green roofs obtained by different authors. Green roofs and green walls systems disposal costs normally include
The analysed studies demonstrate that maintenance cost can vary all system elements including the removal of all plants, substrate and
significantly from country to country. An average maintenance cost of support layers, transport to landfill and dump taxes [192]. Some studies
12
take into consideration the roof replacement, including as well the benefits and costs of green roofs in a SWOT analysis. Similarly, Ascione
recladding and renewal of the support surface [68]. et al. [21] used the SWOT methodology to balance the benefits and costs
Fig. 15 presents the disposal cost of extensive and intensive green of green walls. Viesten et al. [80] combined the monetised amenity
roofs obtained by different authors. An average disposal cost of 12 €/m2 values with noise-attenuation values in a cost-benefit analysis of a green
(14 USD/m2) was identified for extensive green roofs and 26 €/m2 (29 wall. Collins et al. [176] performed a study to estimate the public’s
USD/m2) for intensive green roofs. perceived value of green walls to the urban biodiversity, in the form of
Fig. 16 shows the disposal cost of green walls mentioned by different their willingness to pay (WTP). A multicriteria analysis was performed
authors. For green walls, the disposal cost was calculated considering by Teotónio et al. [201] which uses a decision support tool to identify
plants and support removal, transport to landfill, dump taxes and plaster the best green roof option considering the trade-off between costs and
recladding of the existing façade. An average disposal cost of 95 €/m2 benefits in agreement with the users/investors preferences. A broader
(107 USD/m2) was identified for green façades and 239 €/m2 (270 USD/ analysis was performed by Perini and Rosasco [202] based on a multi
m2) for living walls. Living walls present a higher disposal cost due to the criteria analysis to identify which economic, environmental, social and
diversity of the materials involved [16]. performance criteria influence the preference between a traditional or a
green roof solution.
5. Discussion and conclusions In general, there is a belief that all benefits, either measurable or
intangible are equally significant, which may be relevant to an all-
This research provides a review of the results obtained across the inclusive economic analysis.
existing studies regarding green roofs and green walls building and
urban scale benefits and their life-cycle costs. An assessment of the
collected data was performed to identify the quantitative evidence of Declaration of competing interest
these benefits and costs.
Table 5 presents a summary of the most relevant results regarding The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
the benefits and costs of green roofs and green walls. Results indicate a interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
high variability on benefits, especially concerning the improvement of the work reported in this paper.
energy consumption, sound transmission, greywater treatment and
water management. Acknowledgements
There are also other intangible benefits of green roofs and green
walls which are more difficult to quantify. Still few studies indicate how This work was supported by the FCT (Portuguese Foundation for
and how much green roofs and green walls contribute to the promotion Science and Technology) through the GENESIS project (PTDC/GESURB/
of quality of life and well-being, ecological preservation, promotion of 29444/2017).
biodiversity, aesthetic enhancement and promotion of recreational use. The authors would like to thank other members of the GENESIS
Regarding the life-cycle costs of these systems, the analysed data project team for their contribution to this work. A special thank you to
demonstrate a high variability between systems. Also, when compared Teresa Afonso do Paço and Joana Silva from Instituto Superior de
to other traditional solutions, green roofs and green walls have higher Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal for their contributions to
installation and maintenance costs, which may affect their selection over the information regarding water management of green roofs and green
other solutions. However, green roofs and green walls often have an in- walls.
service life longer than traditional reflective materials (e.g. cool roofs). If A special word of appreciation also to Ana Isabel Miranda, Vera
all their building and urban benefits were considered in life-cycle cost Moreira Rodrigues, Carlos de Sousa Silveira and Ana Ascenso for their
analysis, green roofs and green walls may have the highest long-term contributions regarding green roofs and green walls air quality
cost savings. Further studies should be performed considering the improvement and Urban Heat Island Effect mitigation.
quantification of all their benefits.
Results demonstrate that existing research is centred on the quanti References
fication of green roofs benefits, focusing especially on the potential
benefits of extensive green roofs. In general, fewer studies were per [1] Nations U. Goal 11: make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. 2018.
[2] Santamouris M. Heat island research in Europe: the state of the art. Adv Build
formed regarding the application of green walls. Further studies should
Energy Res 2007;1:123–50.
focus on green walls benefits and costs, as their potential is also [3] van der Meulen SH. Costs and benefits of green roof types for cities and building
significant. owners. J Sustain Dev Energy Water Environ Syst 2019;7:57–71.
Overall, there is high variability in data across most benefits and [4] Berardi U, GhaffarianHoseini A, GhaffarianHoseini A. State-of-the-art analysis of
the environmental benefits of green roofs. Appl Energy 2014;115:411–28.
costs. Also, their universe of analysis is very broad due to the different [5] Manso M, Castro-Gomes J. Green wall systems: a review of their characteristics.
characteristics of the systems (green roofs or green walls), buildings Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41:863–71.
characteristic and local weather conditions. In fact, all these elements [6] Shafique M, Kim R, Rafiq M. Green roof benefits, opportunities and challenges–A
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;90:757–73.
may influence the obtained data. [7] Vijayaraghavan K. Green roofs: a critical review on the role of components,
Current studies on economic analysis show significant differences in benefits, limitations and trends. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:740–52.
their results, ignoring some intangible benefits of greening systems (e.g. [8] Besir AB, Cuce E. Green roofs and facades: a comprehensive review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:915–39.
health and well-being, biodiversity, aesthetic or recreational value), due [9] FLL. Guidelines for the planning, construction and maintenance of green roofing.
to difficulties in their quantification. These will need to be measured Landscape Development and Landscapinf Research Society e.V. (FLL); 2018.
using different methodologies than the ones used to measure/model the [10] Emilsson T. Vegetation development on extensive vegetated green roofs:
influence of substrate composition, establishment method and species mix. Ecol
remaining benefits. Therefore, it is recommended to use specific tools as Eng 2008;33:265–77.
interviews or enquiries, to determine the preferences of a selected group [11] Li WC, Yeung KKA. A comprehensive study of green roof performance from
of people, and perform analyses that correlate the costs and benefits of environmental perspective. Int J Sustain Built Environ 2014;3:127–34.
[12] Medl A, Stangl R, Florineth F. Vertical greening systems – a review on recent
these solutions, using for example multicriteria analysis. The evaluation
technologies and research advancement. Build Environ 2017;125:227–39.
of these intangible benefits (after duly quantified) could then be [13] Perini K, Ottelé M, Fraaij A, Haas E, Raiteri R. Vertical greening systems and the
considered for further integration as parameters of green roofs and green effect on air flow and temperature on the building envelope. Build Environ 2011;
walls cost-benefit analysis and consequently allow the evaluation of 46:2287–94.
[14] Coma J, Pérez G, de Gracia A, Burés S, Urrestarazu M, Cabeza LF. Vertical
their economic value. greenery systems for energy savings in buildings: a comparative study between
Van der Meulen [3] used a preliminary approach, balancing the green walls and green facades. Build Environ 2017;111:228–37.
13
[15] Pérez G, Coma J, Martorell I, Cabeza LF. Vertical Greenery Systems (VGS) for [48] Perez MJ, Wight N, Fthenakis V, Ho C. Green-roof integrated PV canopies–an
energy saving in buildings: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;39:139–65. empirical study and teaching tool for low income students in the South Bronx.
[16] Radić M, Brković Dodig M, Auer T. Green facades and living walls—a review ASES 2012:6.
establishing the classification of construction types and mapping the benefits. [49] Witmer L. Quantification of the passive cooling of photovoltaics using a green
Sustainability 2019;11:4579. roof. The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School; 2010.
[17] Wong NH, Kwang Tan AY, Chen Y, Sekar K, Tan PY, Chan D, et al. Thermal [50] Azkorra Z, Pérez G, Coma J, Cabeza LF, Burés S, Álvaro JE, et al. Evaluation of
evaluation of vertical greenery systems for building walls. Build Environ 2010;45: green walls as a passive acoustic insulation system for buildings. Appl Acoust
663–72. 2015;89:46–56.
[18] Perini K, Ottelé M, Haas E, Raiteri R. Greening the building envelope, façade [51] Essays U. Airports are perfect for green roofs environmental sciences essay.
greening and living wall systems. Open J Ecol 2011;1:1. UKEssays; 2018. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/environmental-scien
[19] Vox G, Blanco I, Schettini E. Green façades to control wall surface temperature in ces/airports-are-perfect-for-green-roofs-environmental-sciences-essay.php?vref
buildings. Build Environ 2018;129:154–66. =1.
[20] Perini K, Ottelé M, Haas E, Raiteri R. Vertical greening systems, a process tree for [52] Connelly M, Hodgson M. Experimental investigation of the sound transmission of
green façades and living walls. Urban Ecosyst 2013;16:265–77. vegetated roofs. Appl Acoust 2013;74:1136–43.
[21] Ascione F, De Masi RF, Mastellone M, Ruggiero S, Vanoli GP. Green walls, a [53] Ismail MR. Quiet environment: acoustics of vertical green wall systems of the
critical review: knowledge gaps, design parameters, thermal performances and Islamic urban form. Front Architect Res 2013;2:162–77.
multi-criteria design approaches. Energies 2020;13:2296. [54] Wong NH, Kwang Tan AY, Tan PY, Chiang K, Wong NC. Acoustics evaluation of
[22] Pradhan S, Al-Ghamdi SG, Mackey HR. Greywater recycling in buildings using vertical greenery systems for building walls. Build Environ 2010;45:411–20.
living walls and green roofs: a review of the applicability and challenges. Sci Total [55] Manso M, Castro-Gomes JP, Marchacz M, Gorski M, Dulak L, Zuchowski R.
Environ 2018. Acoustic evaluation of a new modular system for green roofs and green walls.
[23] Lamnatou C, Chemisana D. A critical analysis of factors affecting photovoltaic- Environment (Wash D C) 2017;15:17.
green roof performance. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;43:264–80. [56] Pérez G, Coma J, Barreneche C, de Gracia A, Urrestarazu M, Burés S, et al.
[24] Schindler BY, Blank L, Levy S, Kadas G, Pearlmutter D, Blaustein L. Integration of Acoustic insulation capacity of vertical greenery systems for buildings. Appl
photovoltaic panels and green roofs: review and predictions of effects on Acoust 2016;110:218–26.
electricity production and plant communities. Israel J Ecol Evol 2016;62:68–73. [57] Lagström J. Do extensive green roofs reduce noise? In: Institute IGR, editor
[25] Cameron RW, Taylor JE, Emmett MR. What’s ‘cool’in the world of green façades? Malmö; 2004. Sweden.
How plant choice influences the cooling properties of green walls. Build Environ [58] Boyjoo Y, Pareek VK, Ang M. A review of greywater characteristics and treatment
2014;73:198–207. processes. Water Sci Technol 2013;67:1403–24.
[26] Saadatian O, Sopian K, Salleh E, Lim C, Riffat S, Saadatian E, et al. A review of [59] Chowdhury RK, Abaya JS. An experimental study of greywater irrigated green
energy aspects of green roofs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;23:155–68. roof systems in an arid climate. J Water Manag Model 2018;26:1–10.
[27] Al-Obaidi KM, Ismail M, Rahman AMA. Passive cooling techniques through [60] Ghaitidak DM, Yadav KD. Characteristics and treatment of greywater—a review.
reflective and radiative roofs in tropical houses in Southeast Asia: a literature Environ Sci Pollut Control Ser 2013;20:2795–809.
review. Front Architect Res 2014;3:283–97. [61] Prodanovic V, Hatt B, McCarthy D, Zhang K, Deletic A. Green walls for greywater
[28] Jaffal I, Ouldboukhitine S-E, Belarbi R. A comprehensive study of the impact of reuse: understanding the role of media on pollutant removal. Ecol Eng 2017;102:
green roofs on building energy performance. Renew Energy 2012;43:157–64. 625–35.
[29] Wong NH, Cheong DKW, Yan H, Soh J, Ong CL, Sia A. The effects of rooftop [62] Fowdar HS, Hatt BE, Breen P, Cook PL, Deletic A. Designing living walls for
garden on energy consumption of a commercial building in Singapore. Energy greywater treatment. Water Res 2017;110:218–32.
Build 2003;35:353–64. [63] Masi F, Bresciani R, Rizzo A, Edathoot A, Patwardhan N, Panse D, et al. Green
[30] Zinzi M, Agnoli S. Cool and green roofs. An energy and comfort comparison walls for greywater treatment and recycling in dense urban areas: a case-study in
between passive cooling and mitigation urban heat island techniques for Pune. J Water, Sanit Hyg Dev 2016;6:342–7.
residential buildings in the Mediterranean region. Energy Build 2012;55:66–76. [64] Masi F, Rizzo A, Bresciani R. Green architecture and water reuse: examples from
[31] Cameron RWF, Taylor JE, Emmett MR. What’s ‘cool’ in the world of green different countries. Sustainable Sanitation Practice 2015;23:4–10.
façades? How plant choice influences the cooling properties of green walls. Build [65] Porsche U, Köhler M. Life cycle costs of green roofs - a Comparison of Germany,
Environ 2014;73:198–207. USA, and Brazil. RIO 3 - world climate & energy event. Rio de Janeiro,
[32] Mazzali U, Peron F, Scarpa M. Thermo-physical performances of living walls via Brazil2003. p. 461-467.
field measurements and numerical analysis. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 2012;165: [66] Cascone S. Green roof design: state of the art on technology and materials.
251–9. Sustainability 2019;11:3020.
[33] Pérez G, Coma J, Sol S, Cabeza LF. Green facade for energy savings in buildings: [67] William R, Goodwell A, Richardson M, Le PVV, Kumar P, Stillwell AS. An
the influence of leaf area index and facade orientation on the shadow effect. Appl environmental cost-benefit analysis of alternative green roofing strategies. Ecol
Energy 2017;187:424–37. Eng 2016;95:1–9.
[34] Ascione F, Bianco N, de’ Rossi F, Turni G, Vanoli GP. Green roofs in European [68] Perini K, Rosasco P. Cost–benefit analysis for green façades and living wall
climates. Are effective solutions for the energy savings in air-conditioning? Appl systems. Build Environ 2013;70:110–21.
Energy 2013;104:845–59. [69] Bianchini F, Hewage K. Probabilistic social cost-benefit analysis for green roofs: a
[35] Costanzo V, Evola G, Marletta L. Energy savings in buildings or UHI mitigation? lifecycle approach. Build Environ 2012;58:152–62.
Comparison between green roofs and cool roofs. Energy Build 2016;114:247–55. [70] Bianchini F, Hewage K. How “green” are the green roofs? Lifecycle analysis of
[36] Fioretti R, Palla A, Lanza LG, Principi P. Green roof energy and water related green roof materials. Build Environ 2012;48:57–65.
performance in the Mediterranean climate. Build Environ 2010;45:1890–904. [71] Clark C, Adriaens P, Talbot FB. Green roof valuation: a probabilistic economic
[37] Niachou A, Papakonstantinou K, Santamouris M, Tsangrassoulis A, analysis of environmental benefits. Environ Sci Technol 2008;42:2155–61.
Mihalakakou G. Analysis of the green roof thermal properties and investigation of [72] Kosareo L, Ries R. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of green
its energy performance. Energy Build 2001;33:719–29. roofs. Build Environ 2007;42:2606–13.
[38] Santamouris M. Cooling the cities – a review of reflective and green roof [73] Niu H, Clark C, Zhou J, Adriaens P. Scaling of economic benefits from green roof
mitigation technologies to fight heat island and improve comfort in urban implementation in Washington, DC. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:4302–8.
environments. Sol Energy 2014;103:682–703. [74] Nurmi V, Votsis A, Perrels A, Lehvävirta S. Cost-benefit analysis of green roofs in
[39] Silva CM, Gomes MG, Silva M. Green roofs energy performance in Mediterranean urban areas: case study in Helsinki. In: Institute FM, Finnish museum of natural
climate. Energy Build 2016;116:318–25. history UoH; 2013. Helsinki.
[40] Wong NH, Cheong DKW, Yan H, Soh J, Ong CL, Sia A. The effects of rooftop [75] Saiz S, Kennedy C, Bass B, Pressnail K. Comparative life cycle assessment of
garden on energy consumption of a commercial building in Singapore. Energy standard and green roofs. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:4312–6.
Build 2002;35:353. [76] Sproul J, Wan MP, Mandel BH, Rosenfeld AH. Economic comparison of white,
[41] Ogaili H, Sailor DJ. Measuring the effect of vegetated roofs on the performance of green, and black flat roofs in the United States. Energy Build 2014;71:20–7.
photovoltaic panels in a combined system. J Sol Energy Eng 2016;138. 061009–8. [77] Wong NH, Tay SF, Wong R, Ong CL, Sia A. Life cycle cost analysis of rooftop
[42] Chemisana D, Lamnatou C. Photovoltaic-green roofs: an experimental evaluation gardens in Singapore. Build Environ 2003;38:499–509.
of system performance. Appl Energy 2014;119:246–56. [78] Ichihara K, Cohen JP. New York City property values: what is the impact of green
[43] Lamnatou C, Chemisana D. Photovoltaic-green roofs: a life cycle assessment roofs on rental pricing? Letters in spatial and resource sciences 2011;4:21–30.
approach with emphasis on warm months of Mediterranean climate. J Clean Prod [79] Peck SW, Callaghan C, Kuhn ME, Bass B. Greenbacks from green roofs: forging a
2014;72:57–75. new industry in Canada. Citeseer; 1999.
[44] Köhler M, Wiartalla W, Feige R. Interaction between PV-systems and extensive [80] Veisten K, Smyrnova Y, Klæboe R, Hornikx M, Mosslemi M, Kang J. Valuation of
green roofs. Proceedings of the fifth annual greening rooftops for sustainable green walls and green roofs as soundscape measures: including monetised
communities conference, awards and trade Show2007. p. 1-10. amenity values together with noise-attenuation values in a cost-benefit analysis of
[45] Nagengast A, Hendrickson C, Scott Matthews H. Variations in photovoltaic a green wall affecting courtyards. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2012;9:3770–88.
performance due to climate and low-slope roof choice. Energy Build 2013;64: [81] DCLG. Fire performance of green roofs and walls. London: Crown; 2013.
493–502. [82] Standard AAAN. ANSI/SPRI VF-1 external fire design standard for vegetative
[46] Moren MSP, Korjenic A. Green buffer space influences on the temperature of roofs. United States of America: SPRI; 2017.
photovoltaic modules: multifunctional system: building greening and [83] Co Sydney. Green roof design resource manual. Sydney, Australia: City of Sydney:
photovoltaic. Energy Build 2017;146:364–82. Sydney City Council Green Roof Resource Manual; 2019.
[47] Hui SC, Chan S. Integration of green roof and solar photovoltaic systems. Joint [84] GRO. The GRO green roof code. Green Roof Code of Best Practice for the UK.
symposium2011. p. 1-12. United Kingdom; 2014.
14
[85] Breuning JGRSL-GRT. Fire & wind on extensive green roofs. Greening rooftops for [117] Lacasta A, Penaranda A, Cantalapiedra I, Auguet C, Bures S, Urrestarazu M.
sustainable communities. Baltimore: Sixth Annual Greening Rooftops for Acoustic evaluation of modular greenery noise barriers. Urban For Urban Green
Sustainable Communities; 2008. USA. 2016;20:172–9.
[86] Liberalesso T, Cruz CO, Silva CM, Manso M. Green infrastructure and public [118] Aljerf LM. Advanced highly polluted rainwater treatment process. J Urban
policies: an international review of green roofs and green walls incentives. Land Environ Eng: JUEE. 2010;12:55–8.
Use Pol 2020;96:104693. [119] Speak AF, Rothwell JJ, Lindley SJ, Smith CL. Rainwater runoff retention on an
[87] Council UGB. LEED reference guide for building design and construction. US aged intensive green roof. Sci Total Environ 2013;461–462:28–38.
Green Building Council; 2013. [120] Getter KL, Rowe DB, Andresen JA. Quantifying the effect of slope on extensive
[88] Claus K, Rousseau S. Public versus private incentives to invest in green roofs: a green roof stormwater retention. Ecol Eng 2007;31:225–31.
cost benefit analysis for Flanders. Urban For Urban Green 2012;11:417–25. [121] Monterusso M, Rowe D, Rugh C, Russell D. Runoff water quantity and quality
[89] Leal Filho W, Echevarria Icaza L, Emanche VO, Quasem Al-Amin A. An evidence- from green roof systems. XXVI international horticultural congress: expanding
based review of impacts, strategies and tools to mitigate urban heat islands. Int J roles for horticulture in improving human well-being and life quality 6392002. p.
Environ Res Publ Health 2017;14. 369-376.
[90] Susca T, Gaffin SR, Dell’Osso GR. Positive effects of vegetation: urban heat island [122] Brandão C, Cameira MdR, Valente F, Cruz de Carvalho R, Paço TA. Wet season
and green roofs. Environ Pollut 2011;159:2119–26. hydrological performance of green roofs using native species under
[91] Brenneisen S, Gedge D. Green roof planning in urban areas. In: Loftness V, Mediterranean climate. Ecol Eng 2017;102:596–611.
Haase D, editors. Sustainable built environments. New York, NY: Springer New [123] Zhang Q, Miao L, Wang X, Liu D, Zhu L, Zhou B, et al. The capacity of greening
York; 2013. p. 268–81. roof to reduce stormwater runoff and pollution. Landsc Urban Plann 2015;144:
[92] Aljerf L. Biodiversity is Key for more variety for better society. Biodiversity Int J 142–50.
2017;1:00002. [124] Berndtsson JC. Green roof performance towards management of runoff water
[93] Mayrand F, Clergeau P. Green roofs and green walls for biodiversity conservation: quantity and quality: a review. Ecol Eng 2010;36:351–60.
a contribution to urban connectivity? Sustainability 2018;10:985. [125] Köhler M, Schmidt M, Wilhelm Grimme F, Laar M, Lúcia de Assunção Paiva V,
[94] Kabisch N, van den Bosch M, Lafortezza R. The health benefits of nature-based Tavares S. Green roofs in temperate climates and in the hot-humid tropics–far
solutions to urbanization challenges for children and the elderly–A systematic beyond the aesthetics. Environ Manag Health 2002;13:382–91.
review. Environ Res 2017;159:362–73. [126] Stovin V, Vesuviano G, Kasmin H. The hydrological performance of a green roof
[95] Perini K, Ottelé M. Vertical greening systems: contribution to thermal behaviour test bed under UK climatic conditions. J Hydrol 2012;414–415:148–61.
on the building envelope and environmental sustainability. WIT Trans Ecol [127] Musa S, Arish M, Arshad N, Jalil M, Kasmin H, Ali Z, et al. Potential of storm
Environ 2012;165:239–50. water capacity using vegetated roofs in Malaysia. In: Proceedings of the
[96] Susorova I. Green facades and living walls: vertical vegetation as a construction international conference on civil engineering practice (ICCE08). Malaysia:
material to reduce building cooling loads. In: Eco-efficient materials for Kuantan, Pahang; 2008. p. 12–4.
mitigating building cooling needs. Elsevier; 2015. p. 127–53. [128] Shafique M, Kim R, Kyung-Ho K. Green roof for stormwater management in a
[97] Qin X, Wu X, Chiew Y-M, Li Y. A green roof test bed for stormwater management highly urbanized area: the case of Seoul, Korea. Sustainability 2018;10:584.
and reduction of urban heat island effect in Singapore. Int J Environ Clim Chang [129] Bliss DJ, Neufeld RD, Ries RJ. Storm water runoff mitigation using a green roof.
2012:410–20. Environ Eng Sci 2009;26:407–18.
[98] Alcazar SS, Olivieri F, Neila J. Green roofs: experimental and analytical study of [130] Charalambous K, Bruggeman A, Eliades M, Camera C, Vassiliou L. Stormwater
its potential for urban microclimate regulation in Mediterranean–continental retention and reuse at the residential plot level—green roof experiment and water
climates. Urban Climate 2016;17:304–17. balance computations for long-term use in Cyprus. Water 2019;11:1055.
[99] Banting D, Doshi H, Li J, Missios P, Au A, Currie BA, et al. Report on the [131] Cipolla SS, Maglionico M, Stojkov I. A long-term hydrological modelling of an
environmental benefits and costs of green roof technology for the city of Toronto. extensive green roof by means of SWMM. Ecol Eng 2016;95:876–87.
City of Toronto and Ontario Centres of Excellence—Earth and Environmental [132] Franco BM, Andres CM, Konrad J, Tassi R, Liberalesso T. Avaliação de
Technologies; 2005. escoamento pluvial em módulos de telhados verdes com diferentes substratos.
[100] Carvalho D, Martins H, Marta-Almeida M, Rocha A, Borrego C. Urban resilience to Acta Brasiliensis 2019;3:69–73.
future urban heat waves under a climate change scenario: a case study for Porto [133] Lee JY, Lee MJ, Han M. A pilot study to evaluate runoff quantity from green roofs.
urban area (Portugal). Urban Climate 2017;19:1–27. J Environ Manag 2015;152:171–6.
[101] Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S. Adapting cities for climate change: the [134] Loiola C, Mary W, da Silva LP. Hydrological performance of modular-tray green
role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ 2007;33:115–33. roof systems for increasing the resilience of mega-cities to climate change.
[102] Herath HMPIK, Halwatura RU, Jayasinghe GY. Modeling a tropical urban context J Hydrol 2019;573:1057–66.
with green walls and green roofs as an urban heat island adaptation strategy. [135] Mentens J, Raes D, Hermy M. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater
Procedia Engineering 2018;212:691–8. runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landsc Urban Plann 2006;77:
[103] Imran HM, Kala J, Ng A, Muthukumaran S. Effectiveness of green and cool roofs 217–26.
in mitigating urban heat island effects during a heatwave event in the city of [136] Simmons MT, Gardiner B, Windhager S, Tinsley J. Green roofs are not created
Melbourne in southeast Australia. J Clean Prod 2018;197:393–405. equal: the hydrologic and thermal performance of six different extensive green
[104] Ismail A, Abdul Samad MH, Rahman AMA, Yeok FS. Cooling potentials and CO2 roofs and reflective and non-reflective roofs in a sub-tropical climate. Urban
uptake of Ipomoea pes-caprae installed on the flat roof of a single storey Ecosyst 2008;11:339–48.
residential building in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2012; [137] Soulis KX, Valiantzas JD, Ntoulas N, Kargas G, Nektarios PA. Simulation of green
35:361–8. roof runoff under different substrate depths and vegetation covers by coupling a
[105] Rosenzweig C, Solecki W, Slosberg R. Mitigating New York City’s heat island with simple conceptual and a physically based hydrological model. J Environ Manag
urban forestry, living roofs, and light surfaces. A report to the New York State 2017;200:434–45.
Energy Research and Development Authority; 2006. [138] Tassi R, da Silva Tassinari LC, Piccilli DGA, Persch CG. Telhado verde: uma
[106] Savio P, Rosenzweig C, Solecki WD, Slosberg RB. Mitigating New York City’s heat alternativa sustentável para a gestão das águas pluviais. Ambiente Construído.
island with urban forestry, living roofs, and light surfaces. Albany, NY: New York 2014;14:139–54.
City Regional Heat Island Initiative The New York State Energy Research and [139] Uhl M, Schiedt L. Green roof storm water retention–monitoring results.
Development Authority; 2006. Edinburgh: 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage; 2008. UK.
[107] Smith KR, Roebber PJ. Green roof mitigation potential for a proxy future climate [140] Van Seters T, Rocha L, Smith D, MacMillan G. Evaluation of green roofs for runoff
scenario in Chicago, Illinois. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 2011;50:507–22. retention, runoff quality, and leachability. Water Qual Res J 2009;44:33–47.
[108] Solcerova A, van de Ven F, Wang M, Rijsdijk M, van de Giesen N. Do green roofs [141] VanWoert ND, Rowe DB, Andresen JA, Rugh CL, Fernandez RT, Xiao L. Green roof
cool the air? Build Environ 2017;111:249–55. stormwater retention. J Environ Qual 2005;34:1036–44.
[109] Sun CY, Lee KP, Lin TP, Lee SH. Vegetation as a material of roof and city to cool [142] Villarreal EL, Bengtsson L. Response of a Sedum green-roof to individual rain
down the temperature. In: Advanced materials research. Trans Tech Publ; 2012. events. Ecol Eng 2005;25:1–7.
p. 552–6. [143] Villarreal EL, Semadeni-Davies A, Bengtsson L. Inner city stormwater control
[110] Chen H, Ooka R, Huang H, Tsuchiya T. Study on mitigation measures for outdoor using a combination of best management practices. Ecol Eng 2004;22:279–98.
thermal environment on present urban blocks in Tokyo using coupled simulation. [144] Whittinghill LJ, Rowe DB, Andresen JA, Cregg BM. Comparison of stormwater
Build Environ 2009;44:2290–9. runoff from sedum, native prairie, and vegetable producing green roofs. Urban
[111] Chen Q, Li B, Liu X. An experimental evaluation of the living wall system in hot Ecosyst 2015;18:13–29.
and humid climate. Energy Build 2013;61:298–307. [145] Yin H, Kong F, Dronova I. Hydrological performance of extensive green roofs in
[112] Van Renterghem T, Botteldooren D. Reducing the acoustical façade load from response to different rain events in a subtropical monsoon climate. Landsc Ecol
road traffic with green roofs. Build Environ 2009;44:1081–7. Eng 2019;15:297–313.
[113] Lunain D, Gauvreau B. In-situ evaluation of the acoustic efficiency of a green wall [146] Deutsch B, Whitlow H, Sullivan M, Savineau A. Re-greening Washington, DC: a
in urban areas. In: INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON congress and conference green roof vision based on environmental benefits for air quality and storm water
proceedings. Institute of Noise Control Engineering; 2016. p. 1149–58. management. In: Proc of 3rd north American green roof conference: greening
[114] Ismail MR. The effect of building density and size on the propagation of sound rooftops for sustainable communities; 2005. p. 4–6. Washington, DC.
through the urban fabric. Cairo, Egypt: JAUES; 2010. [147] Hashemi SSG, Mahmud HB, Ashraf MA. Performance of green roofs with respect
[115] Van Renterghem T, Hornikx M, Forssen J, Botteldooren D. The potential of to water quality and reduction of energy consumption in tropics: a review. Renew
building envelope greening to achieve quietness. Build Environ 2013;61:34–44. Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:669–79.
[116] Van Renterghem T, Botteldooren D. In-situ measurements of sound propagating [148] Steusloff S. Input and output of airborne aggressive substances on green roofs in
over extensive green roofs. Build Environ 2011;46:729–38. Karlsruhe. Springer: Urban ecology; 1998. p. 144–8.
15
[149] Carter TL, Rasmussen TC. Hydrologic Behaviour of vegetated roofs. JAWRA J Am [176] Collins R, Schaafsma M, Hudson MD. The value of green walls to urban
Water Resour Assoc 2006;42:1261–74. biodiversity. Land Use Pol 2017;64:114–23.
[150] Burszta-Adamiak E. Analysis of the retention capacity of green roofs. J Water [177] Kotzen B. Green roofs social and aesthetic aspects. In: Nature based strategies for
Land Dev 2012;16:3–9. urban and building sustainability. Elsevier; 2018. p. 273–81.
[151] Gong Y, Yin D, Li J, Zhang X, Wang W, Fang X, et al. Performance assessment of [178] Sutton RK. Aesthetics for green roofs and green walls. 2014.
extensive green roof runoff flow and quality control capacity based on pilot [179] van den Berg AE, Wesselius JE, Maas J, Tanja-Dijkstra K. Green walls for a
experiments. Sci Total Environ 2019;687:505–15. restorative classroom environment: a controlled evaluation study. Environ Behav
[152] Hathaway AM, Hunt WF, Jennings GD. A field study of green roof hydrologic and 2017;49:791–813.
water quality performance. Trans ASABE 2008;51:37–44. [180] White EV, Gatersleben B. Greenery on residential buildings: does it affect
[153] Johannessen B, Muthanna T, Braskerud B. Detention and retention behavior of preferences and perceptions of beauty? J Environ Psychol 2011;31:89–98.
four extensive green roofs in three nordic climate zones. Water 2018;10:671. [181] Jungels J, Rakow DA, Allred SB, Skelly SM. Attitudes and aesthetic reactions
[154] MacMullan E, Reich S, Puttman T, Rodgers K. Cost-benefit evaluation of ecoroofs. toward green roofs in the Northeastern United States. Landsc Urban Plann 2013;
Low impact development for urban ecosystem and habitat Protection2009. p. 1- 117:13–21.
10. [182] Hoyle H, Hitchmough J, Jorgensen A. All about the ‘wow factor’? The
[155] Palermo SA, Turco M, Principato F, Piro P. Hydrological effectiveness of an relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in
extensive green roof in mediterranean climate. Water 2019;11:1378. designed urban planting. Landsc Urban Plann 2017;164:109–23.
[156] Agency EE. Air quality in Europe - 2019 report. Luxemburg: Publications Office of [183] Carrus G, Scopelliti M, Lafortezza R, Colangelo G, Ferrini F, Salbitano F, et al. Go
the European Union; 2019. greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of
[157] Yang J, Yu Q, Gong P. Quantifying air pollution removal by green roofs in individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc Urban Plann 2015;
Chicago. Atmos Environ 2008;42:7266–73. 134:221–8.
[158] Rowe DB. Green roofs as a means of pollution abatement. Environ Pollut 2011; [184] GSA U. The benefits and challenges of green roofs on public and commercial
159:2100–10. buildings. A Report of the United States General Service Administration; 2011.
[159] Tan PY, Sia A. A pilot green roof research project in Singapore. In: Proceedings of [185] Safayet M, Arefin MF, Hasan MMU. Present practice and future prospect of
third annual greening rooftops for sustainable communities conference. rooftop farming in Dhaka city: a step towards urban sustainability. J Urban
Washington, DC: Citeseer: Awards and Trade Show; 2005. Manag 2017;6:56–65.
[160] Arghavani S, Malakooti H, Bidokhti AA. Numerical evaluation of urban green [186] Rosasco P, Perini K. Evaluating the economic sustainability of a vertical greening
space scenarios effects on gaseous air pollutants in Tehran Metropolis based on system: a Cost-Benefit Analysis of a pilot project in mediterranean area. Build
WRF-Chem model. Atmos Environ 2019;214:116832. Environ 2018;142:524–33.
[161] Pugh TAM, MacKenzie AR, Whyatt JD, Hewitt CN. Effectiveness of green [187] Blackhurst M, Hendrickson C, Matthews HS. Cost-effectiveness of green roofs.
infrastructure for improvement of air quality in urban street canyons. Environ Sci J Architect Eng 2010;16:136–43.
Technol 2012;46:7692–9. [188] Carter T, Keeler A. Life-cycle cost–benefit analysis of extensive vegetated roof
[162] Jayasooriya V, Ng A, Muthukumaran S, Perera B. Green infrastructure practices systems. J Environ Manag 2008;87:350–63.
for improvement of urban air quality. Urban For Urban Green 2017;21:34–47. [189] Rosenzweig C, Gaffin S, Parshall L. Green roofs in the New York metropolitan
[163] Currie BA, Bass B. Estimates of air pollution mitigation with green plants and region: research report. New York: Columbia University Center for Climate
green roofs using the UFORE model. Urban Ecosyst 2008;11:409–22. Systems Research and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; 2006. p. 1–59.
[164] Deutsch B, Whitlow H, Sullivan M, Savineau A. Re-greening Washington, DC: a [190] Ottelé M, Perini K, Fraaij ALA, Haas EM, Raiteri R. Comparative life cycle analysis
green roof vision based on environmental benefits for air quality and storm water for green façades and living wall systems. Energy Build 2011;43:3419–29.
management. Proc of 3rd north American green roof conference: greening [191] Perini K. Chapter 4.7 - life cycle assessment of vertical greening systems. In:
rooftops for sustainable communities, Washington, DC. Canada2005. p. 379-384. Pérez G, Perini K, editors. Nature based strategies for urban and building
[165] Speak A, Rothwell J, Lindley S, Smith C. Urban particulate pollution reduction by sustainability. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2018. p. 333–40.
four species of green roof vegetation in a UK city. Atmos Environ 2012;61: [192] Peri G, Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Rizzo G. The cost of green roofs disposal in a
283–93. life cycle perspective: covering the gap. Energy 2012;48:406–14.
[166] Rafael S, Vicente B, Rodrigues V, Miranda A, Borrego C, Lopes M. Impacts of [193] Perini K, Rosasco P. Is greening the building envelope economically sustainable?
green infrastructures on aerodynamic flow and air quality in Porto’s urban area. An analysis to evaluate the advantages of economy of scope of vertical greening
Atmos Environ 2018;190:317–30. systems and green roofs. Urban For Urban Green 2016;20:328–37.
[167] Sheweka S, Magdy AN. The living walls as an approach for a healthy urban [194] Mahdiyar A, Tabatabaee S, Sadeghifam AN, Mohandes SR, Abdullah A,
environment. Energy Procedia 2011;6:592–9. Meynagh MM. Probabilistic private cost-benefit analysis for green roof
[168] Hedblom M, Gunnarsson B, Iravani B, Knez I, Schaefer M, Thorsson P, et al. installation: a Monte Carlo simulation approach. Urban For Urban Green 2016;20:
Reduction of physiological stress by urban green space in a multisensory virtual 317–27.
experiment. Sci Rep 2019;9:1–11. [195] Peng LL, Jim CY. Economic evaluation of green-roof environmental benefits in the
[169] Urban WHO. Green spaces and health. In: Egorov A, Mudu P, Braubach M, context of climate change: the case of Hong Kong. Urban For Urban Green 2015;
Martuzzi M, editors. Copenhagen: world health organization regional office for 14:554–61.
europe; 2016. [196] Riley B. The state of the art of living walls: lessons learned. Build Environ 2017;
[170] Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, et al. The value 114:219–32.
of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997;387:253–60. [197] Teotónio I, Silva CM, Cruz CO. Eco-solutions for urban environments
[171] Lundholm JT. Green roof plant species diversity improves ecosystem regeneration: the economic value of green roofs. J Clean Prod 2018;199:121–35.
multifunctionality. J Appl Ecol 2015;52:726–34. [198] Acks K, Rosenzweig C, Gaffi S, Parshall L. A framework of green roof cost-benefit
[172] Dunnett N. Green roofs for biodiversity: reconciling aesthetics with ecology. In: analysis: initial estimates. Green Roofs in the New York Metropolitan Region
Proceedings of the 4th annual greening rooftops for sustainable communities; 2006.
2006. p. 11–2. Boston. [199] Evans, Associates I, David. Cost benefit evaluation of ecoroofs. City of Portland:
[173] Getter KL, Rowe DB. The role of extensive green roofs in sustainable development. Portland, USA: Bureau of Environmental Services; 2008.
Hortscience 2006;41:1276–85. [200] Moppes Dv, Klooster J. Groene daken Rotterdam maatschappelijke kosten-
[174] Williams NSG, Lundholm J, Scott MacIvor J. FORUM: do green roofs help urban batenanalyse. Rotterdam: Gemeente; 2008.
biodiversity conservation? J Appl Ecol 2014;51:1643–9. [201] Teotonio I, Cabral M, Cruz CO, Silva CM. Decision support system for green roofs
[175] Brenneisen S. Space for urban wildlife: designing green roofs as habitats in investments in residential buildings. J Clean Prod 2020;249:119365.
Switzerland, vol. 4. Urban habitats; 2006. [202] Rosasco P, Perini K. Selection of (green) roof systems: a sustainability-based
multi-criteria analysis. Buildings 2019;9:134.
16

F9 1-s2.0-S1364032120304020-mainGreen Roof and Green Wall Benefits and Costs A Review of The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F9 1-s2.0-S1364032120304020-mainGreen Roof and Green Wall Benefits and Costs A Review of The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

F9 1-s2.0-S1364032120304020-mainGreen Roof and Green Wall Benefits and Costs A Review of The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Extensive Green Roofs Cooling Insulated 53a 47 1 – 84 − 1 − 6 – − 65 – − 20 − 21

2.3. Sound transmission reduction

Sound transmission on building envelopes usually refers to the

Low frequencies <500 Connelly & Hodgson (2013) – 10

prototypes with different media and plants selection. The appropriate

2.5. In-service life

Current conventional roofs include a waterproofing membrane that

Fig. 5. Urban temperature reduction (◦ C) using green roofs [90,97–109].

the most appropriate incentive policies depending on its socioeconomic

3. Urban scale benefits

If applied in a significant urban scale, green roofs and green walls

Fig. 8. Green roofs pollutants and nutrients retention [125,148].

Fig. 10. Air quality improvement by green roofs [157,162–165].

comparing stormwater runoff average results between green roof solu­

O3 NO2 PM10 SO2

Tan and Sia (2005) Singapore Measurements +42a − 37

Fig. 12. Installation cost (€/m2) of green walls [68,193,196,197].

Fig. 13. Operation and maintenance cost (€/m2/year) of extensive [70,76,88,

3.5. Other benefits

the local climate [184]. Safayet et al. [185] developed a survey

Life-cycle costs (LCC) are typically divided into installation cost,

Extensive Semi- Intensive Green Façades Living Walls

Urban UHIE 0.97 ◦ C – 2.29 ◦ C (Avg = 1.34 ◦ C) Avg = 1.37 ◦ C

You might also like

comparing stormwater runoff average results between green roof solu