Cost-Effectiveness of Green Roofs

Blackhurst, Michael; Hendrickson, Chris; Matthews, H. Scott

doi:10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000022

Cited by 80 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Assigning the various reported emissions factors at the county level, we found an average change from the base case (using NERC emissions factors) of about 13-15%. Thus, similar to other studies, we find using inappropriate emissions factors may be misleading when measuring and planning emissions reductions at the local scale (Katherine and Sundquist 2008, Blackhurst et al 2010. This partial accounting of uncertainty in total emissions is well within the range of planned GHG reduction targets (ICLEI 2012), thus complicating planners' ability to set representative baseline emissions and to benchmark changes to emissions.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 68%

Do US metropolitan core counties have lower scope 1 and 2 CO ₂ emissions than less urbanized counties?

Tamayao

Blackhurst

Matthews

2014

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent sustainability research has focused on urban systems given their high share of environmental impacts and potential for centralized impact mitigation. Recent research emphasizes descriptive statistics from place-based case studies to argue for policy action. This limits the potential for general insights and decision support. Here, we implement generalized linear and multiple linear regression analyses to obtain more robust insights on the relationship between urbanization and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the US We used consistently derived county-level scope 1 and scope 2 GHG inventories for our response variable while predictor variables included dummy-coded variables for county geographic type (central, outlying, and nonmetropolitan), median household income, population density, and climate indices (heating degree days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD)). We find that there is not enough statistical evidence indicating per capita scope 1 and 2 emissions differ by geographic type, ceteris paribus. These results are robust for different assumed electricity emissions factors. We do find statistically significant differences in per capita emissions by sector for different county types, with transportation and residential emissions highest in nonmetropolitan (rural) counties, transportation emissions lowest in central counties, and commercial sector emissions highest in central counties. These results indicate the importance of regional land use and transportation dynamics when planning local emissions mitigation measures.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 68%

Do US metropolitan core counties have lower scope 1 and 2 CO ₂ emissions than less urbanized counties?

Tamayao

Blackhurst

Matthews

2014

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples of this can be found in literature on the sustainability of GI. Comprehensive life cycle cost-benefit assessments where both multiple functions and embedded material impacts are included are typically found only for single technologies or installations, such as a green roof project (Blackhurst, Hendrickson, & Matthews, 2010), a stormwater treatment trail (Xu, Hong, Jia, Liang, & Xu, 2017), or a rain garden (Flynn & Traver, 2013). When assessments are scaled up to compare alternative technologies, focus typically lies on either benefits/performance or impacts/costs: Assessments of multiple performance for alternative GI solutions on a specific site tend to not fully consider life cycle impacts (Fioretti, Palla, Lanza, & Principi, 2010;William et al, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi‐functionality of nature‐based and other urban sustainability solutions: New York City study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an increasingly urban world, developing sustainable cities is crucial for global sustainability. Urban nature‐based solutions (NBS), such as green infrastructure, are often promoted for their potential to provide several urban services. These include stormwater mitigation, improving energy efficiency of buildings, and carbon emissions mitigation, but few studies have compared the multifunctionality of NBS to conventional urban solutions providing similar services. Fewer yet have acknowledged the indirect resource (specifically climate, land, energy, water [CLEW] nexus) impacts that these solutions may have. This paper analyzes these aspects, employing a simple CLEW nexus accounting framework, and attempts a consistent comparison across different resource systems. The comparison includes direct and indirect impacts of a set of stylized—and diverse—solutions, each with different primary objectives: green roofs, representing a multifunctional urban NBS; permeable pavements targeting mitigation of stormwater flows; window retrofits targeting energy efficiency; and rooftop PV installations targeting CO2 emissions mitigation. The results highlight both the direct and total (CLEW nexus) impacts of green roofs on stormwater retention, energy use, and CO2 emissions. However, also for the studied conventional solutions with primarily a single direct function, CLEW nexus impacts spread across all measured dimensions (energy, water, and CO2) to varying degrees. Although the numerical results are indicative and uncertainty needs to be further assessed, we suggest that the development of this type of multifunctional, multisystem assessment can assist urban sustainability planning, with comprehensive and consistent comparison of diverse (NBS and conventional) solutions.

show abstract

“…https://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/en/ current/) for the US and surveys of rooftop garden applications. The one-time installation costs (excluding land) can range from under $10 (on vacant lots) to $30-$200 per square meter (for rooftop operations) and annual operating costs can range from $1/m 2 to $14/m 2 (Rosenzweig et al 2006, Carter and Keeler 2008, Conner and Rangarajan 2009, Blackhurst et al 2010. Use of permanent or semi-permanent structures (a hoop-house, fixed planters, fencing, cooler, or storage sheds) would lead to higher installation costs.…”

Section: Economic and Policy Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban agriculture’s bounty: contributions to Phoenix’s sustainability goals

Aragon

Stuhlmacher

Smith

et al. 2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With over half of the world's population living in cities, there is mounting evidence indicating that investments in urban sustainability can deliver high returns on socioeconomic and environmental fronts. Current scholarship on urban agriculture (UA) reports a wide range of benefits which have been shown to vary with the scale and type of benefit examined. Notably, most city-scale studies do not align benefits of UA with locally meaningful goals. We fill this gap by conducting a city-scale analysis for Phoenix, the fifth largest city in the USA by population, and evaluate these benefits based on their ability to contribute to select desired outcomes specified in Phoenix's 2050 Sustainability Goals: the elimination of food deserts, provision of green open space, and energy and CO 2 emissions savings from buildings. We consider three types of surfaces for UA deployment-undeveloped vacant lots, flat rooftops, and building façades-and find that the existing building stock provides 71% of available UA space in the study area. The estimated total food supply from UA is 183 000 tons per year, providing local produce in all existing food deserts of Phoenix, and meeting 90% of current annual consumption of fresh produce based on national per capita consumption patterns. UA would also add green open space and reduce by 60% the number of block groups underserved by public parks. Rooftop deployment of UA could reduce energy use in buildings and has the potential to displace more than 50 000 tons of CO 2 per year. Our work highlights the importance of combining a datadriven framework with local information to address place-based sustainability goals and can be used as a template for city-scale evaluations of UA in alternate settings.

show abstract

Cost-Effectiveness of Green Roofs

Cited by 80 publications

References 20 publications

Do US metropolitan core counties have lower scope 1 and 2 CO ₂ emissions than less urbanized counties?

Do US metropolitan core counties have lower scope 1 and 2 CO ₂ emissions than less urbanized counties?

Multi‐functionality of nature‐based and other urban sustainability solutions: New York City study

Urban agriculture’s bounty: contributions to Phoenix’s sustainability goals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Cost-Effectiveness of Green Roofs

Cited by 80 publications

References 20 publications

Do US metropolitan core counties have lower scope 1 and 2 CO 2 emissions than less urbanized counties?

Do US metropolitan core counties have lower scope 1 and 2 CO 2 emissions than less urbanized counties?

Multi‐functionality of nature‐based and other urban sustainability solutions: New York City study

Urban agriculture’s bounty: contributions to Phoenix’s sustainability goals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Do US metropolitan core counties have lower scope 1 and 2 CO ₂ emissions than less urbanized counties?

Do US metropolitan core counties have lower scope 1 and 2 CO ₂ emissions than less urbanized counties?