Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422

DOI 10.1007/s11252-008-0054-y

Estimates of air pollution mitigation with green plants

and green roofs using the UFORE model

Beth Anne Currie & Brad Bass

Published online: 17 April 2008

# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of green roofs and green
walls on air pollution in urban Toronto. The research looked at the synergistic effects on air
pollution mitigation of different combinations of vegetation by manipulating quantities of
trees, shrubs, green roofs and green walls in the study area. The effects of these
manipulations were simulated with the Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model developed by
the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Regional Station. While UFORE contains several
modules, Module—D quantifies the levels of air pollution for contaminants such as NO2,
S02, CO, PM10 and ozone as well as hourly pollution removal rates and the economic value
of pollutant removal. Six vegetation scenarios were developed within the Toronto study
area to compare different subsets of vegetation and their effect on air contaminants. Results
of the study indicate that grass on roofs (extensive green roofs) could augment the effect of
trees and shrubs in air pollution mitigation, placing shrubs on a roof (intensive green roofs)
would have a more significant impact. By extension, a 10–20% increase in the surface area
for green roofs on downtown buildings would contribute significantly to the social,
financial and environmental health of all citizens.

Keywords Green roof . Air quality . Air contaminants . Trees . Shrubs . UFORE Model .
Urban . Planning . Smart growth . Benefits . Density

Introduction

It is well known that trees, shrubs and other natural vegetation in urban areas affect air
contaminant levels, and by extension, air quality and the overall experience of health and

B. A. Currie (*)
Centre for Social Innovation, 215 Spadina Street, Suite 400, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5V 2A8
e-mail: bethanne@hurontel.on.ca

B. Bass
Adaptation and Impacts Research Group (AIRG), Atmospheric and Climate Science Directorate (ACSD),
Institute for Environmental Studies University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Suite 1016V, Toronto,
ON, Canada, M5S 3E8
e-mail: brad.bass@ec.gc.ca
410 Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422

well-being of humans living in urban areas (Nowak et al. 1998). Quantifying the contribution
made by green walls and green roofs on air contaminant levels within an urban
neighbourhood however, is a relatively new application within the emerging discipline of
green roof study. In general, green plants affect air pollutants by taking up gaseous pollutants
primarily through leaf stomates. Once inside the plant, these gases react with water to form
acids and other chemicals (Baldocchi et al. 1987). Green plants can also intercept particulate
matter as wind currents blow them into contact with sticky plant surfaces (Bidwell and Fraser
1972). Some of these particulates can be absorbed into the plant while others simply adhere to
the surface. Vegetation can be a temporary site for particulates as they can be re-suspended
into the atmosphere by winds or washed off by rain water to the soil beneath (Wesely 1989).
This study was part of a larger policy exercise to assess how municipalities could
integrate green roofs, green walls and other vegetation to meet energy and air quality targets
at the neighbourhood or community scale. The community scale was chosen as this allows
comparison of different scenarios that go beyond the scale of a building, that may not be
evident when aggregated up to the whole city. For example, at the community scale, the
impact of urban density on tree growth, the impacts of greening flat roofs versus every roof
and the impact of installing extensive versus intensive roofs can be separated or integrated
while also accounting for the effects of tree placement and specific building orientation.
Beyond the integration question, recent policy changes in the Province of Ontario on
growth management, could lead to significantly higher residential densities in many
municipalities (Winfield 2005). Higher densities do not always accommodate the same
amount of tree planting and growth. The results of this study can also be used to estimate
what the loss of trees will mean in terms of air quality, and to what degree this loss can be
mitigated through green roofs and green walls.

Toronto and air pollution

It is well documented that air pollution can aggravate existing breathing and heart problems
to such an extent that medical treatment is necessary (Ontario Medical Association 2001).
Of particular concern is asthma, which currently affects about 12% of children and 6% of
adults in Canada (Yaffe 2004). Children are the most vulnerable, and Toronto-based
hospitalization data reveal that children account for the largest number of asthma-related
hospital admissions. While public health responses to a predicted or sudden peak in air
pollution levels can be planned at the municipal level, a bigger concern is the chronic, long-
term effect of air pollution on residents in urban areas.
A study by Toronto Public Health Unit (2000) estimated that exposure to five common
smog-related air pollutants contributes to over 1,000 premature deaths and about 5,500
hospitalizations each year in Toronto. One of the major components of smog is ground level
ozone, a gas that is created when oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) mix with the atmosphere in sunlight. The Ontario Medical Association (OMA)
reports that each day in Canadian cities we are exposed to a chemical “soup” that contains
several poisons, particularly, ground level ozone and particulate matter, otherwise known as
acidic water droplets (Ontario Medical Association 2001). The OMA estimates that air
pollution costs Ontario more than one billion dollars per year from hospital admissions,
emergency room visits and absenteeism. The extreme consequence of inhaling smog and
particulates is sudden death, but more common health-related consequences include
breathing difficulties, cardiac exacerbations and asthma. The effects are most noticeable
immediately after air pollution levels peak, especially in hot summer temperatures.
Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422 411

Vegetation and air pollution

It is well known that trees, shrubs and other natural vegetation affect urban air contaminant
levels, and, by extension, air quality and the overall experience of health and well-being of
humans living in urban areas (Bass 2001; Bass and Baskaran 2001; Cheney and
Rosenzweig 2003; Chiotti et al. 2002). In response to urban environmental problems some
authors have studied the effects of vegetation, particularly trees, on cooling ambient urban
air, shading buildings and absorbing gaseous air contaminants (Akbari et al. 2001; Bass
and Baskaran 2001; Bass 2001). Research in Los Angeles measured the effects of tree
planting and re-roofing in lighter colours, on ambient temperatures and air pollution. The
results confirmed that combining trees with cool roofs could lower the ambient temperature
in Los Angeles by 3°C and cool the air around buildings (Akbari et al. 2001). Smog
formation occurs when nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with volatile organic compounds that
are released from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and is accelerated at higher
ambient temperatures (Chiotti and Urquizo 1999). Although the chemistry behind smog
formation is complex, it is caused by a photochemical reaction that is accelerated under
higher temperatures. Cooler air reduces the reaction rate and hence the formation of smog
and is also more comfortable hence reducing the need for air conditioning.
Akbari (2002) calculated that daytime temperature reductions would decrease reliance on
air conditioning and reduce emissions of NOx from coal fired electricity plants resulting in
an estimated 10% reduction in smog precursors or a reduction of 350 tons of NOx per day
(Akbari et al. 2001). Los Angeles has a smog offset trading mark that trades NOx at $3,000
US per ton. Multiplying by 0.5 kg/MWH to get 0.15 c/kWh converts the 350 tons/day of
avoided “equivalent” NOx into approximately one million US dollars per day to a city like
Los Angeles (Akbari et al. 2001).
Other researchers reported that air pollution levels are reduced when wind blown
particulates (PM2.5 and PM10) stick to the leaves and stems of plants (Hosker and Lindberg
1982). Similarly, gaseous air pollutants can be dissolved or sequestered, particularly carbon
dioxide, through stomata on plant leaves (McPherson et al. 1994; McPherson et al. 1998;
Nowak et al. 2000; Nowak and Crane 1998; Nowak and Dwyer 2001). Johnson et al.
estimated that 2,000 m2 of un-mowed grass on a roof could remove as much as 4,000 kg of
particulates in their leaves and stems (Johnson and Newton 1996). Peck cites German
research, currently not available in English, that suggests that 1 m2 of uncut grass on a roof
would create enough oxygen to meet the needs of one human over 1 year (Minke and Witter
1982). More recently, Tan and Sia (2005) sampled roof temperatures, roof glare and other
air quality parameters both pre- and post-green roof installation in Singapore. Using light
sensors, mini-volume aerosol samplers, particle counters, an aethalometer for black carbon
mass concentration and a weather station, they reported that acidic gaseous pollutants, glare,
ambient green roof surface temperatures and black carbon mass (or soot) levels all dropped
significantly after the installation of the green roof. These results lend further support to the
increased use of urban vegetation to improve urban air quality (Tan and Sia 2005).

Method

The urban forest effects model (UFORE) provided a field collection tool to guide
researchers in the collection and measurement of plot features such as buildings, amount of
cement, tar, impervious material, soil, rock, duff/mulch, herbaceous, grass, wild grass,
water, shrubs and other ground cover (Bass 2001). Other plot features were recorded as
412 Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422

point items including: trees, shrubs, telephone poles, light standards, traffic signs, sewer
grates, fire hydrants and other above ground point utilities; or as polygons with each vertex
recorded: shrub beds, grass, wild grass, soil, duff/mulch, herbaceous (excluding grass and
shrubs), water, buildings, asphalt, cement, rock, wood and other impervious material.
A geographic study area known as Midtown was selected within the Greater City of
Toronto. Midtown is constituted by parts of Ward 22 (St. Pauls), Ward 27 (Toronto central-
Rosedale) and Ward 20 (Trinity Spadina) and bounded by Spadina Avenue in the west,
Bloor Street in the south, Eglinton Avenue in the north and the Don Valley ravine, Bayview
Avenue, Moore Street, Frobisher Street and Chaplin Street in the east, as indicated by the
yellow square (Fig. 1).
Urban forest health in this neighbourhood had been previously investigated by Kenney
(2001), in a study which quantified the environmental role of Toronto’s urban forest in the
Greater City of Toronto. Kenney’s study provided criteria data from 72 randomly selected
on-the-ground study plots within the Midtown neighbourhood. Criteria data were adapted
from these plot data that had been collected in accordance with the requirements of the
UFORE (Urban Forest Effects) Model field collection tool (Nowak et al. 1998). This model
formed the basis for the investigation of the effect of vegetation, particularly green roofs, on
air pollution in an urban setting.
Each plot was circular with a radius of 11.287 m and provided a total surface area of
400 m2 or 0.04 ha per plot (Fig. 2). The total area of the Midtown neighbourhood was
approximately 1,216 ha within the City of Toronto. Plots were selected from land-use types
by randomly selecting points from a 50×50 m grid, overlaid on a GIS-based map of
Midtown (Map Library, University of Toronto), using ArcView GIS 3.1. Colour
orthophotos of the area were analyzed using Arc View GIS 3.1 to calculate plot details
as required. Each orthophoto was examined separately at a scale of approximately 1:5000.
Within each plot, a forest surveyor’s transit was utilized to determine the UTM (Universal
Transverse Mercator) co-ordinates of each feature within the plot relative to a GPS-
established plot center.
A method for plot classification within Midtown was developed by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (Nowak et al. 1998). Midtown was
stratified into eight land-use classes: low, medium and high residential; commercial;

Fig. 1 The ward boundary map of Toronto

Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422 413

Fig. 2 Sample circular plot

industrial; institutional; unclassified, and open areas, including parks, ravines, cemeteries,
transportation corridors and golf courses. These categories were derived from GIS data
obtained from CanMap ® Streetfiles V2.0 from DMTI Spatial 2000.
On each of the 72 plots, the following additional information was recorded:
& Land use
& Plot tree cover (%)
& Ground cover (%)
& Building information (wall material, roof material, building height in meters)
& Shrub information (species, height [meters], percent missing, and percent of
coverage of the plot)
& Tree information including species, diameter at breast height (dbh) taken at 1.37 m,
total height, bole height—height to base of live crown, crown width, missing
crown, health of tree and distance to buildings.
The UFORE computer model used these measured field data inputs as well as local
hourly meteorological data and air pollutant concentration measurements (collected from
Environment Canada 1998) to quantify Midtown neighbourhood—specific vegetation
effects on urban air pollutant concentrations. There were four UFORE modules available,
but only module D was used in this research. UFORE—D, the dry deposition of air
pollution, quantifies the hourly amount of pollution removed by the urban vegetation and
the associated per cent improvement in air quality through out a year. Pollution removal is
calculated for 03, S02, N02, C0 and PM10. UFORE calculations are based on vegetation
cover data, hourly weather data and pollution concentration data. This hourly weather data
was collected and collated from three Environment Canada weather sites: Toronto’s Pearson
414 Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422

International Airport; Buttonville Airport, Richmond Hill: and, Toronto Island Airport
down town Toronto. The research used 1 year of hourly pollution data from Environment
Canada due to the logistics of converting hourly data to a UFORE compatible format.

Pollution deposition

Hourly pollution concentrations in parts per million (ppm), for gaseous pollutants over the
city of Toronto, were obtained from the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment
(six monitors at three sites). Hourly parts per million values were converted to micrograms
per cubic meter based on measured atmospheric temperature and pressure. Average daily
concentrations of PM10 (micrograms per cubic meter) were averaged across three sites.
Missing hourly meteorological or pollution-concentration data were estimated using the
monthly average for that specific hour. For example, O3 concentrations were not measured
during winter months and existing O3 concentration data were extrapolated to missing
months based on an average Canadian O3 concentration monthly pattern. Average hourly
pollutant flux (grams per square meter of canopy coverage) among the pollutant monitor
sites was multiplied by Midtown’s grass coverage (square meter) to estimate total hourly
pollutant removal across Midtown. Bounds of total removal of O3, NO2, SO2, and PM10
were estimated using the typical range of published tree and shrub in-leaf dry deposition
velocities (Lovett 1994).
To approximate boundary-layer heights in the study area, mixing-height measurements
were used. Daily morning and afternoon mixing heights were interpolated to produce
hourly values using a program from the US EPA (1995). Minimum boundary-layer heights
were set to 150 m during the night and 250 m during the day based on estimated minimum
boundary layer heights in cities. Heights of buildings that would have green roofs in the
scenario analysis were estimated to be around two stories—or 15 m in height—a similar
height to many trees in the Midtown study area. Hourly mixing heights (meters) were used
in conjunction with pollution concentrations (micrograms per cubic meter) to calculate the
amount of pollution within the mixing layer (micrograms per square meter). This
extrapolation from ground-layer concentration to total pollution within the boundary layer
assumes a well-mixed boundary layer, which is common during the day when unstable
conditions prevail (Colbeck and Harrison 1985). The amount of pollution in the air was
contrasted with the amount removed by the vegetation on an hourly basis to calculate the
relative effect of vegetation in reducing local pollution concentrations.
The ability of individual vegetation (trees, shrubs and grass) to remove pollutants was
estimated for each diameter class yielding an estimate of pollution removal by individual
trees, shrubs and grass based on leaf surface area, which is the major surface for pollutant
removal. Particle collection and gaseous deposition on deciduous trees in winter assumed a
surface-area index for bark of 1.7 m2 of bark per m2 of ground surface covered by the tree
crown (Whittaker and Woodwell 1967). To limit deposition estimates to periods of dry
deposition, deposition velocities were set to zero during periods of precipitation.

Scenario development

Seven scenarios were created that representing different levels of natural vegetation within
the Midtown Toronto study area. These varying amounts of natural vegetation were created
by manipulating the number of trees, shrubs and grass species within the 72 study plots in
Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422 415

Midtown. UFORE-D was used to quantify the impact of varying urban vegetation on air
pollutant levels.

Scenario 1

Baseline This scenario was based on the reductions in pollutants provided by existing trees
and shrubs in Midtown.

Scenario 2

Green Walls This scenario examined the effect on air pollutant reductions in Midtown
when existing trees and shrubs were removed and vertical “hedges” or walls of Juniper1
species were added within 3 m of residential (medium and low) houses.

Scenario 3

No big trees This scenario examined the effect on air pollutant reductions in Midtown
when all big trees with a diameter-at-breast-height greater than 22 cm were removed and
was considered as a potential smart growth scenario.

Scenario 4

No trees This scenario examined the effect on air pollutant reduction in Midtown when all
trees are removed, and the existing shrubs were augmented with shrubs or intensive green
roofs on flat roof surfaces (represented 20% of Midtown roofs in total) such as commercial,
high residential and institutional buildings. The surface area for shrub roofs was derived by
adding the total eligible roof surface areas of buildings that would typically quality for an
intensive green roof. Hence the accumulated flat roof surface areas from commercial,
institutional, and high residential buildings located on the 72 plots added up to be
approximately 20% of the total surface area available in the Midtown study area. UFORE
calculated the removal effect of trees, shrubs and grass separately. The combined effect is a
linear combination of all three. Results from this scenario can also be derived from the
baseline scenario by subtracting the impact of the trees.

Scenario 5

Trees off Buildings This scenario examined the effect on air pollutant reduction in Midtown
when trees that provided shade to buildings (within 3–5 m) were removed as occurs in
many urban areas with higher densities.

1
Walls of Juniper trees were chosen to represent a green wall as UFORE is able to estimate the impacts of
this green wall on energy consumption, which was utilized in a parallel study. Although vines can be selected
for green walls, UFORE does not simulate the impacts of vines on energy consumption. Vines would not
have a significantly different impact on air quality as their LAI is similar to that of the Juniper species
selected for the green walls.
416 Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422

Scenario 6

Trees Low Residential This scenario examined the effect on air pollutant reduction in
Midtown when baseline trees and shrubs were augmented with grass on flat roof surfaces
(represented 20% of Midtown roofs in total) such as commercial, high residential and
institutional buildings. The surface area for grass roofs was derived by adding the total
eligible roof surface areas of buildings that would typically quality for an extensive green
roof. Hence, the accumulated flat roof surface areas from commercial, institutional, and
high residential buildings located on the 72 plots to be approximately 20% of the total
surface area available in the Midtown study area.

Scenario 7

Grass roofs This scenario examined the effect on air pollutant reduction in Midtown when
baseline trees and shrubs were augmented with grass on all available roof surface areas
across Midtown.

Results

Results of the study are presented in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 below. In Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6,
the histograms illustrate the amount of a particular air contaminant that was removed—
nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone and particulate matter—for each scenario. In
Fig. 7, the histogram reflects the US dollar monetary value of the overall reduction of the
four major air contaminants considered in this study. The UFORE model illustrates that
trees and shrubs remove air contaminants more effectively than green roofs or green walls.
Further, when trees are compared with shrubs, trees exceed shrubs in their ability to reduce
pollutants. This result is expected based on the number of functioning leaf units that

8.00
Removal (Mg) by grass on roofs
Shrub Pollution removal (Mg)
7.00 Tree Pollution removal (Mg)

1.60
6.00
0.65

5.00
1.67 1.67 1.67
Mg

4.00
1.67
3.00

2.00 1.67
3.74 3.74 3.74
2.91 2.73
1.00
1.23
0.62
0.00
BASELINE Green walls No big trees No trees Trees off bldg Trees low res Grassroofs

Fig. 3 Total NO2 removal (Mg) by trees, shrubs and grass in Midtown per Annum
Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422 417

16.00

14.00
Removal (Mg) by grass on roofs
Shrub Pollution removal (Mg)
3.14
12.00 Tree Pollution removal (Mg)
1.27

10.00

3.26 3.26 3.26

Mg

8.00
3.26

6.00

4.00 3.26
7.40 7.40 7.40

5.00 5.42
2.00
2.54
1.09
0.00
BASELINE Green walls No trees No big trees Trees off Trees low Grassroofs
bldg res

Fig. 4 Total O3 removal (Mg) by trees, shrubs and grass in Midtown per Annum

provide maximal surface area in contact with air and particulates. However, in the No Trees
scenario, which utilizes intensive green roofs composed of shrubs, the shrubs make up for
some of the lost pollutant removal, and in the case of PM10, existing shrubs and intensive
green roofs almost equal the removal that occurred in the baseline scenario.

12.00
Removal (Mg) by grass on roofs
Shrub Pollution removal (Mg)
Tree Pollution removal (Mg)
10.00
2.17
0.88
8.00

2.69 2.69 2.69

Mg

6.00
2.69

4.00
7.17
2.69
5.57 5.57 5.57
2.00 4.06

1.37 1.70
0.00
BASELINE Green walls No big trees Trees off bldg No trees Trees low res Grassroofs

Fig. 5 Total PM10 removal (Mg) by trees, shrubs and grass in Midtown per Annum
418 Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422

3.00
Grass Pollution removal (Mg)
Shrub Pollution removal (Mg)
2.50 Tree Pollution removal (Mg)
0.61
0.25
2.00

0.63 0.63 0.63

1.50
0.63

1.00
0.63
1.37 1.37 1.37
0.50 1.04 1.01

0.48
0.23
0.00
BASELINE Green walls No trees No big trees Trees off bldg Trees low res Grassroofs

Fig. 6 Total SO2 removal (Mg) by trees, shrubs and grass in Midtown per Annum

Despite the strong performance of trees and shrubs, it is neither practical nor plausible to
seed most elevated roof surfaces with these heavy, tap and fibrous rooted species. The
UFORE model illustrated that when grassy species were added to a mixture of vegetation
groupings, they too contribute to air contaminant reductions. Adding grass resulted in
significant reductions, but smaller with respect to shrubs and trees, across all four air
contaminant levels measured by the UFORE model. Green walls also had a small impact on
pollutant removal. Generally, their impact was slightly less than the extensive roofs in the
20% coverage scenario, except for PM10, where they removed a higher level of pollutant
than the extensive green roof scenario. The monetized benefit of reducing air contaminants
across the seven scenarios favours trees, but shrubs and intensive roofs can make up more
than 50% of the monetary benefits in the most extreme high density scenario where

200000

180000 Grass on roofs

Shrub 43106
160000 Tree 17481

140000
46740 46740 46740
120000

100000 46740

80000

60000 46740
103176 103176 103176
40000 87628
75452

20000 34088
18101
0
BASELINE Green walls No big trees No trees Trees off bldg Trees low res Grassroofs

Fig. 7 Total pollution removal value (US$) by trees, shrubs and grass in Midtown per Annum
Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422 419

sufficient space for trees does not exist. Green walls had a higher value than the 20%
extensive green roof coverage but not as high as the complete roof coverage scenario.

Discussion

Trees are the most important vegetation strategy for removing all pollutants at the
community scale. However, shrubs, green walls and green roofs can complement, and in
some cases, almost equal the capacity of existing trees, specifically in Midtown. Extensive
green roofs can play a small, but important complementary role, but intensive green roofs
can play a much more significant role in terms of improvements to air quality. Due to the
added expense of structural loading requirements for intensive green roofs,, it is unlikely
that this technology can be widely implemented in existing urban areas. In addition,
although the intensive green roofs were almost as effective as the baseline for the removal
of PM10, their performance was not as good for the other pollutants and hence the total
value of this scenario is still much lower than the baseline.
The benefits of extensive green roof coverage did not increase in a linear fashion. The
benefits of 100% coverage are not five times the benefits of the 20% coverage. Although a
linear increase in pollutant removal was not expected, the removal rate may have also been
affected by the orientation of the existing urban forest with respect to each building in the
sample. The existing orientation would result in some of the roofs being shaded, and this
would reduce their impacts on benefits such as pollutant removal and energy conservation.
The green wall scenario may be more promising than initially suggested by the
outcomes of the UFORE modelling exercise. Although they did not replace the capacity of
the trees, even though these walls were used on every building in that scenario, they did
yield a slightly higher benefit than the 20% coverage of extensive green roofs. The cost of
creating green walls may be lower than the 20% green roof option, and should be afforded
serious consideration for improving air quality. In addition, a separate analysis revealed that
the green walls scenario had a more significant impact on energy consumption than the
baseline. Green walls could also have a larger impact on energy consumption than green
roofs, but the exact difference depends on building orientation, the roof-to-building
envelope ratio and the specific design technicalities associated with the green roof and the
insulation in each building roof.
From a policy perspective, extensive green roofs and green walls will complement
existing urban vegetation, but cannot replace a widespread removal of urban trees that
might occur with an outbreak of disease, or a lack of planning for trees that might occur in
newer, higher density developments. Extending the results to a smart or compact growth
policy means that higher densities should still be planned to accommodate the addition of
trees to avoid a further reduction in air quality. However, with widespread implementation,
green roofs and green walls can compensate for some reduction, but not a complete
removal of urban trees. In Midtown, combining Scenario 6, 20% coverage with extensive
green roofs, with some coverage of green walls would provide an impact approximately
equal to 20% of the trees.

Limitations

In this study, grass was chosen as a proxy unit for green roofs because it is a known
quantity in seed mixtures for green roof planting. The UFORE model was able to predict
420 Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422

leaf area index and evapotranspiration rates for grass in its calculation of air pollution
values, so that green roofs could be compared with other vegetation scenarios involving
trees and shrubs. Similar data were not available for other vegetation such as sedums that
are also typically used on extensive green roofs. In the grass roof scenario, data was
estimated based on a predicted Leaf Area Index (LAI) of 3 for most grass species (Kenney
2001). The UFORE model was the only model available in North America that estimated a
vegetation effect on air contaminants. As a result, the accuracy with which the UFORE
model calculated outputs in air contaminants is unknown. Shrub coverage was used as a
proxy for intensive green roofs. The UFORE model is programmed with data including the
leaf area index for many individual species of tree and shrub data. Local leaf-on and leaf-off
dates were given to the model so that deciduous-tree transpiration and related pollution
deposition were limited to the Toronto (Canada) in-leaf period.
The plant selection was limited by the UFORE database. Another limitation is in the
economic analysis, specifically the dollar values associated with the removal of pollutants
over the year. The monetary values are based on American externality values that have been
derived from the work done by (Murray et al. 1994) in New York State’s energy
department. These values incorporate the perceived cost to society of pollution emissions
based on predicted air pollution consequences to health and the environment. Exact
monetary values, even using Murray’s assumptions, would most likely differ between
countries with different government priorities for funding health care.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that green roofs improve air quality and by extension public health
safety and thereby a perceived improvement in quality of life in urban settings. Clearly,
trees had the largest impact on pollutant removal, but shrubs and grass made important
contributions to air quality in this case study. In the case of PM10, shrubs were shown to be
almost equivalent to trees in the baseline in terms of air pollutant removal. The results
demonstrate the degree to which green roofs and green walls can be used in populated
urban areas to supplement existing vegetation and improve air quality when installed in
sufficient quantities.
Information derived from these model outputs can however, be applied to the
development of policy across several levels of municipal, provincial and federal govern-
ments. As many jurisdictions begin to consider or implement policies that support compact
development and reduced urban sprawl, it is clear that planning for trees and shrubs is
essential to maintaining local air quality. If a green roof policy were being developed to
improve air quality, it would need to target a large number or aggregation of roofs in order
to bring about a significant air quality impact. Air quality improvements such as reduced
amounts of particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulphur dioxide take place
during daylight hours and during the in-leaf season—hence, the selection of coniferous or
evergreen species would serve best to improve air pollution levels year round in Toronto.
Junipers would serve to trap particulates with sticky plant surfaces and work year round—
when not covered with snow on roofs—to reduce air contaminants through their
functioning stomates.
These results might also be useful to disciplines such as urban public health and regional
planners, watershed managers, neighbourhoods, parks and recreation departments,
architects and urban forest and landscape management practitioners. A commitment to
primary research will contribute to a growing body of Canadian evidence that will further
Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422 421

assist green roof study, species choices and performance comparisons and contribute to a
continuous quality improvement cycle in green roof research. It is hoped that this study will
also provide rationale for ongoing research on the environmental benefits of green roofs as
well as support the development of municipal policy to support the installation and
proliferation of green roofs.

References

Akbari H (2002) Heat island reduction: an overview—effects of trees and implementation issues.
Presentation by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania, LAPR 760,
November 13th, 2002
Akbari H, Pomerantz M, Taha H (2001) Cool surfaces and shade trees to reduce energy use and improve air
quality in urban areas. Sol Energy 70(3):295–310
Baldocchi DD, Hicks BB, Camara P (1987) A canopy stomatal resistance model for gaseous deposition to
vegetated surfaces. Atmos Environ 21:91–101
Bass B (2001) Addressing urban environmental problems with green roofs. Encyclopaedia of global
environmental change, vol. 3. Wiley, Chichester, UK
Bass B, Baskaran B (2001) Evaluating rooftop and vertical gardens as an adaptation strategy for urban areas.
National Research Council Canada Technical Report NRCC-46737, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ircpubs
Bidwell RGS, Fraser DE (1972) Carbon monoxide uptake and metabolism by leaves. Can J Bot 50:1435–
1439
Cheney C, Rosenzweig C (2003) Green roofs and environmental restoration: towards an ecological
infrastructure for New York City; Earth Pledge Foundation/NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies;
Proceedings from Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, First North American Green Roof
Infrastructure Conference, May 29th and 30th, Chicago, 2003
Chiotti Q, Urquizo N (1999) The relative magnitude of the impacts and effects of GHG related emission
reductions. Report prepared by Pollution Probe, for Environment Canada ISBN: 0-662-28845-9.
Catalogue No: En 56-150/2000E
Chiotti Q, Morton I, Ogilvie K, Maarouf A, Hellecher M (2002) Toward an adaptation action plan. Climate
change and health in the Toronto—Niagara Region—Summary for policy makers. Prepared for the
Science, Impacts and Adaptation Issues Table, Government of Canada, and the Toronto—Niagara
Region Study on Atmospheric Change
Colbeck I, Harrison RM (1985) Dry deposition of ozone: some measurements of deposition velocity and of
vertical profiles to 100 metres. Atmos Environ 19(11):1807–1818
Hosker RP Jr, Lindberg SE (1982) Review: atmospheric deposition and plant assimilation of gases and
particles. Atmos Environ 16(5):889–910
Johnson J, Newton J (1996) Building green, a guide for using plants on roofs walls and pavement, the
London ecology unit, London
Kenney WA (2001) The environmental role of Toronto’s urban forest. University of Toronto Department of
Forestry, Toronto, Ontario
Lovett GM (1994) Atmospheric deposition of nutrients and pollutants in North America: an ecological
perspective. Ecol Appl 4:629–650
McPherson EG, Nowak DJ, Rowntree RA (1994) Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago
Urban Forest Climate Project. Gen Tech Rep NE -186. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 5 Radnor Corporate Center, Pennsylvania
McPherson EG, Scott KI, Simpson JR (1998) Estimating cost effectiveness of residential yard trees for
improving air quality in Sacramento, California, using existing models. Atmos Environ 32(1):75–84
Minke G, Witter G (1982) Haeuser mit Gruenem Pelz, Ein Handbuch zur Hausbegruenung, Verlag Dieter
Fricke GmbH, Frankfurt (partially translated in English)
Murray FJ, Marsh L, Bradford PA (1994) New York State energy plan Vol II issue reports. New York State
Energy Office, Albany NY
Nowak DJ (1995) Trees, pollute? A TREE explains it all. In: Kollin C, Barratt M (eds) In Proceedings of the
national urban forestry conference. Washington, DC American Forests, pp 28–30
Nowak DJ, Crane DE (1998) The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model: quantifying urban forest structure
and functions. Integrated Tools Proceedings. Boise, Idaho, USA, August 16–20th
Nowak DJ, Dwyer JF (2001) Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: Handbook
of Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast. Kluwer, New York
422 Urban Ecosyst (2008) 11:409–422

Nowak DJ, McHale PJ, Ibarra M, Crane D, Stevens JC, Luley C (1998) Modeling the effects of urban
vegetation on air pollution. Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application XII . In: Sven-Erick Gryning,
Nadine Chaumerliac (eds). Plenum, New York
Nowak DJ, Civerolo KL, Rao ST, Sistla G, Juley CJ, Crane DE (2000) A modeling study of the impact of
urban trees on ozone. Atmos Environ 34:1601–1613
Ontario Medical Association (2001) Ontario’s air: years of stagnation. www.oma.org/phealth.report. accessed
July 2004.
Pederson JR, Massman WJ, Mahrt L, Delany A, Oncley S, den Hartog G, Neumann HH, Mickle RE, Shaw
RH, Paw KT, Grantz DA, MacPherson JI, Desjardins R, Schuepp PH, Pearson R Jr, Arcado TE (1995)
California ozone deposition experiment: methods, results, and opportunities. Atmos Environ 29
(21):3115–3132
Smith FW, Sampson DA, Long JN (1991) Comparison of leaf area index estimates from allometrics and
measured light interception. For Sci 37(6):1682–1688
Tan PW, Sia A (2005) A pilot study green roof project in Singapore. Proceedings from the third Greening
Rooftops for Healthy Cities. Washington DC, May 2005
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1995) PCRAMMIT users guide. Research Triangle Park,
NC. US Environmental Protection Agency, p 53
Wesely ML (1989) Parameterization for surface resistance to gaseous dry deposition in regional scale
numerical models. Atmos Environ 23:1293–1304
Whittaker RH, Woodwell GM (1967) Surface area relations of woody plants and forest communities. Am J
Bot 54:931–939
Winfield MS (2005) Building sustainable communities in Ontario: a provincial progress report. The Pembina
Institute Sustainable Energy Solutions. Drayton Valley, Alberta, Canada
Yaffe B (2004) Toronto public health. Air pollution burden of illness in Toronto: 2004 Summary. Toronto:
City of Toronto