2014 VARIABLE RANKINGS IN COST-BENEFITS FROM INSTALLING GREEN ROOFS IN TEN CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES PRACTICAL EXAM Gon Park Shippensburg University College of Arts and Sciences Department of Geography/Earth Science M.S. Geoenvironmental Studies
2014
VARIABLE RANKINGS IN COST-BENEFITS FROM INSTALLING
GREEN ROOFS IN TEN CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
PRACTICAL EXAM
Gon Park
Shippensburg University
College of Arts and Sciences
Department of Geography/Earth Science
M.S. Geoenvironmental Studies
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables .....................................................................................................................................................ii
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................. ii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................ iii
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
Literature Review ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Impervious Area .......................................................................................................................... 2
Green Roof Basics ...................................................................................................................... 2
Green Roof Benefits ................................................................................................................... 3
Net Present Value ........................................................................................................................ 5
Study Area .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Data and Method ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Geographic Information System Analysis ............................................................................ 7
Cost-Benefits of Green Roofs................................................................................................... 8
Calculations for Total Cost-Benefits of Green Roofs ........................................................12
Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................................................14
Developed Area and City Density Rankings .......................................................................14
Cost-Benefits of Green Roofs in One Year ..........................................................................16
Cost-Benefits after 50 Years ...................................................................................................17
A Relationship between Population Density and Cost-Benefits of Green Roofs ........19
Population Demographics and City Structures to Install Green Roofs ..........................21
Overall Rankings of Ten Cites ..............................................................................................22
Existing Green Roofs in Ten Cities ......................................................................................23
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................25
References ........................................................................................................................................................25
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Life cycle costs of conventional roofs and green roofs during 90 years .............................. 4
Table 2. Electricity prices and annual electric costs for cooling energy of ten cities ........................ 8
Table 3. Annual electric savings by reducing the UHI with green roof installation ........................10
Table 4. Annual average precipitation of ten cities ................................................................................. 11
Table 5. Population demographics and city structures in ten cities ......................................................13
Table 6. The percentage of multifamily over 5 units and effective areas to install green roofs .....14
Table 7. Rankings of city density ................................................................................................................15
Table 8. Comparison of three rankings ......................................................................................................20
Table 9. Rankings of cost-benefits ..............................................................................................................23
Table 10. Rankings of areas of existing green roofs, potential cost-benefits, and income ..............24
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Locations of ten cities that were used for study areas in this study ...................................... 6
Figure 2. One year cost-benefits of ten cities............................................................................................16
Figure 3. The NPVs of total cost-benefits after 50 years .......................................................................18
Figure 4. The year assessment of the NPVs ..............................................................................................18
Figure 5. The comparison of one-year cost-benefits and total cost-benefits ......................................21
Figure 6. The NPVs of total cost-benefits of green roofs.......................................................................22
iii
Abstract
The impervious surface area associated with urbanization causes many negative effects on
environment, health of people, and biodiversity. Green roofs can resolve these problems by
replacing impervious areas with vegetation cover by providing many remarkable benefits such as
energy savings, reducing the urban heat island effect and stormwater runoff, and increasing air
quality. Thus, this study calculated variable cost-benefits of green roofs in the ten cities in the
United States and analyzed the trend of green roof installations and potential possibilities of the
ten cities to install green roofs.
Spatial analyses were used to calculate developed areas in ten cities. Cost-benefits of green
roofs from energy savings and reducing the urban heat island effect, stormwater runoff, and air
pollution, were calculated with considerations of electricity prices and the climate. The net present
value assessment based on a 50-year period was used to suggest investment decisions to install
green roofs. This study recalculated cost-benefits of green roofs with considerations of specific
characteristics of cities such as population size and density, population demographics, and city
structures to assess effects of these factors on cost-benefits of green roofs. With these results, this
study estimated and compared variable rankings of the ten cities. Lastly, the areas of existing green
roofs and the calculated cost-benefits were compared to analyze the trend of green roof installation
of the ten cities and to suggest which cities need to install green roofs. The results show that cost-
benefits of green roofs were affected by variable factors such as electricity price, climate
characteristics, population density, population demographics, and city structures. This study is an
important step in suggesting green roof installation in cities in the United States.
1
Introduction
Green roofs have been increasingly installed in many metropolitan cities across the United
States since the 1990s. Between 2004 and 2013, green roof areas increased approximately
20,000,000 ft2 in the United States (GRHC 2014). Green roofs provide the private benefits of
reduced energy consumption and an increase in roof life span. Additionally, they contribute to
public benefits by reducing stormwater runoff, greenhouse gas emissions, and the urban heat island
effect (Getter and Rowe 2006).
Using GIS, this study extracted developed areas in the United States and calculated cost-
benefits of green roofs in the identified ten cities. Cost-benefits of green roofs were calculated with
considerations of many factors: (1) electricity prices, (2) climate, (3) population size and density,
(4) population demographics such as income and age, (5) city structures upon which to install
green roofs, and (6) existing green roofs in the ten cities. Electricity prices were used to calculate
cost-benefits of green roofs from energy savings and the UHI reduction. Climate impacts were
considered to calculate cost-benefits of green roofs from reducing stormwater runoff and the UHI
effect. Population size and density, population demographics, and city structures were considered
to estimate appropriate and potential areas to install green roofs. Lastly, a comparison of the
calculated cost-benefits, existing green roofs, and incomes in the ten cities was used to assess the
trend of green roof installation and suggest which cities need more green roof installation than
other cities.
2
Literature Review
Impervious Area
The impervious surface area is recognized as the main indicator to assess urban
environments. Impervious surface area associated with urbanization causes many negative effects
on environment, health of people, and biodiversity. The urban heat island (UHI) is occurred by
non-evaporating impervious materials covering with an increase in heat flux in urban areas. Thus,
an increase in the UHI effects has been a major problem of many urban areas (Yuana and Bauerb
2007). Urbanization also threatens native species, causing the extinction of native species
(Mckinney 2002). However, tree cover in urban areas in the United States decreases at a rate of
7900 ha/year and 4.0 million trees per year. City tree cover is also reduced at a rate of 0.27
percent/year, while impervious area increases at a rate of 0.31 percent/year (Nowak and Greenfield
2012). Green roofs can resolve these problems by replacing impervious areas with vegetation
cover (Getter and Rowe 2006).
Green Roof Basics
Green roofs are vegetated systems that provide benefits of cool-roof technologies as well
as environmental benefits. They can be installed during the construction of new buildings or
retrofitted onto existing conventional roofs (Gedge and Kadas 2005). Green roofs are classified
into three types: intensive, extensive, and semi-extensive systems depending on the type of plants,
overall soil depth, the weight of soil, and regular human access (Getter and Rowe 2006). Intensive
green roofs have similar conditions of plants and soil to conventional ground-level gardens. They
require a media depth of at least 6 inches and can use a wide range of plant species from trees to
shrubs. Extensive green roofs, unlike intensive green roofs, require shallower media depth,
3
between 0.8 and 6 inches, and a thinner layer of planting materials such as herbs, turf, and sedum.
Lastly, semi-extensive green roofs exhibit properties of both intensive and extensive systems. They
require an average depth between 4 and 8 inches and contain plant types of both intensive and
extensive green roof systems (Getter and Rowe 2006). In North America, the extensive green roof
system is the most popular type of green roofs. In 2013, green roof systems of North America
consisted of 63% extensive systems, 13% intensive systems, and 14% the semi - extensive systems
(GRHC 2014).
Green Roof Benefits
Green roofs provide many remarkable benefits, especially to dense city areas. Energy
savings are most effective benefit of green roof (Clark et al. 2008). Lower absorbance of vegetation
and low conductance in green roofs lead to lower roof temperature and reduce heat flux (Saiz et
al. 2006). Liu and Baskaran (2005) found that the temperature of a conventional roof peaked at
70°C in the summer, whereas a green roof maintained 25°C. The daily temperature fluctuation
through the conventional roof was 45°C but the green roof’s temperature fluctuation was 6°C.
The UHI effect occurs when urban air temperature is higher than the temperature of the
surrounding countryside. An increase in impervious areas and the concentration of buildings
causes the UHI (Dunnett and Kingsbury 2008). The lack of vegetated areas in cities is a major
cause of the UHI. Planting trees in urban areas can reduce the UHI by altering the heat balance of
the entire city (Akbari and Konopacki 1998). Green roofs increase surface albedo and vegetative
fraction and modify the intensity of the UHI (Taha et al. 1999). Results from Taha et al. (1999)
illustrated that green roofs can reduce air temperature between 1°C to 2°C around 2 PM and lead
to a reduction of energy demand of 10%.
4
The reduction of storm water runoff is a significant benefit of green roofs given the large
amount of impervious area associated with cities. Green roofs absorb rainfall into pore spaces and
capture precipitation in the media and vegetation (Getter and Rowe 2006). The City of Portland
analyzed cost-benefits from replacing 40,000m2 of conventional roofs with green roofs. They
expected that green roofs of 40,000m2 would reduce 56% of annual stormwater runoff and 96% of
peak runoff, and create public benefits of $60,700 and private benefits of $70,330
(Portland 2008).
Green roofs increase air quality by absorbing air pollutants and removing dust particles.
They alleviate airborne contaminants and reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrous (Getter and Rowe
2006). Yang et al. (2008) found that air pollutant removal is highest in May and lowest in February
in Chicago. These results suggest that if all roofs in Chicago are installed with intensive green
roofs, air pollution of 2046.89 metric tons can be removed.
Table 1. Life cycle costs of conventional roofs and green roofs during 90 years
Source: Porsche and Köhler 2003
Roof Type Conventional Roofs Extensive Green Roofs
Construction Costs in $/m² 40 90
Repairs (Interval in Years) Every 10 years
Renovations Costs during 90 years ($/m²) 240 40
Reconstruction Costs ($/m²) 20 40
Disposal and Recycling Costs ($/m²) 20 0
Sum ($/m²) 320 170
Soil layers of green roofs lead to an increase in roof life by reducing energy consumption
(Saiz et al. 2006). Materials of green roofs protect roof membranes from solar radiation during the
day and decrease temperature fluctuations of roofs, which negatively influence the roof life
(Dunnett and Kingsbury 2008; Getter and Rowe 2006). Green roofs extend the roof membrane life
5
by more than 20 years in comparison with the conventional roof membrane (Oberndorfer et al.
2007). A roof life of conventional roofs is typically from 10 to 20 years, whereas green roofs can
continue over 50 years (Dunnett and Kingsbury 2008). Porsche and Köhler (2003) compared roof
life cycle costs of green roofs and conventional roofs during 90 years by calculating the sum of
construction, renovation, and reconstruction cost. Although installation costs of extensive green
roofs are more expensive than conventional roofs, extensive green roofs are more economical than
conventional roofs after 90 years (Table 1).
Net Present Value
The net present value (NPV) leads to a suboptimal investment decision with investment
costs and discretion about the timing of the project. The NPV is an easy-to-use metric for
investment decisions making (Doraszelski 2001). The NPV assessment shows the time to
undertake the project. The simplest statement of the NPV rule is that projects with negative NPVs
are discarded and projects with positive NPVs are undertaken (Ross 1995). For example, the
project is invested $100 million and is expected that $110 million will be generated one year later.
With interest rates at 10.3%, the invested $100 million grows to $110.3 million one year later. This
project should be rejected because expected $110 million is lower than grown $110.3 million one
year later (Ross 1995). The NPV is calculated by
NPV =∑Bt
(1+𝑟)𝑡
𝑇
𝑡=0 (3)
Where T is the life of the project; Bt is the net benefit at time t; and r is the internal rate (Oehmke
2000). The positive NPV is occurred when the NPV is higher than investment costs, and the
negative NPV is occurred when the NPV is lower than investment costs. The project that has the
6
positive NPV is undertaken, whereas the project that has the negative NPV is rejected.
Clark et al. (2008) used the 40-year NPV assessment to calculate cost-benefits of green
roofs of 2,000 m2 from energy savings, stormwater reduction, and an increase in air quality. They
assumed that conventional roofs need renovation after 20 years. An interest rate was estimated at
5% and inflation rate was estimated at 3%. With these data, the NPV assessment indicates that
green roofs have cost-benefits from 20% to 40% more than conventional roofs after 40 years.
Study Area
Ten cities in six states were selected to calculate and compare cost-benefits of green roofs:
New York, NY, Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL, Houston, TX, Philadelphia, PA, Phoenix, AZ, San
Antonio, TX, San Diego, CA, Dallas, TX, and San Jose, CA. These ten cities had variable
characteristics of climate, population density, and population demographics. Figure 1 shows
locations of these ten cities.
Figure 1. Locations of the ten cities.
7
Data and Method
Geographic Information System Analysis
Developed areas cause an increase in impervious areas because of the construction of
streets, buildings, and parking lots (Nowak and Greenfield 2012). Green roofs reduce impervious
areas in metropolitan cities with soil and plants (Dunnett and Kingsbury 2008). Thus, the most
fundamental process to find a relationship between green roof installation and population was the
calculation of population based on developed areas. In order to calculate population in developed
areas, developed areas in the ten cities were extracted by using GIS data.
Spatial analyses were needed to calculate developed areas of the ten cities. GIS data were
used to estimate city boundaries and developed areas. Shape files of city boundaries in the ten
cities were obtained from GIS departments of the cities and the U.S. Census Bureau. The “2011
Land Cover” GIS data set was obtained from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics
Consortium.
The Spatial Analyst Tools of ArcGIS were used to calculate developed areas within city
boundaries. The “2011 Land Cover” GIS data set consists of pixels of 30 × 30 meters and contained
17 land cover class: unclassified, open water, perennial snow/ice, developed (open space),
developed (low intensity), developed (medium intensity), developed (high intensity), barren land,
deciduous forest, evergreen forest, mixed forest, shrub and scrub, herbaceuous, hay and pasture,
cultivated crops, woody wetlands, and emergent herbaceuous wetlands. The four land cover
classes that include developed (open space), developed (low intensity), developed (medium
intensity), developed (high intensity) were reclassified into developed areas, while all others were
reclassified as undeveloped areas. After reclassifying land cover data, the “Zonal Statistics as Table”
8
and “Join” tools were used to calculate developed areas within a city.
Cost-Benefits of Green roofs
Electric costs for cooling energy per m2
Electric costs for cooling energy per m2 were required to calculate cost-benefits of green
roofs from energy savings and reducing the UHI effect. The method of the “Green Roofs in the
New York Metropolitan Region” research was used to calculate electric costs per m2. This method
uses data of annual total electric consumption and annual total cooling consumption from the
“Annual Energy Review 2011” (EIA 2012). Annual total electric consumption in the United States
was 1.043 trillion kWh, and annual total cooling consumption was 0.141 trillion kWh in 2011.
These data indicate that 13.5% of annual total electric consumption was used for cooling
consumption. This percentage was used to calculate annual cooling consumption per m2. Annual
total electric consumption per m2 was 159.94 kWh/m2. Thus, 13.5% of 159.94 kWh/m2 was
estimated as annual cooling consumption per m2.
Table 2. Electricity prices and annual electric costs for cooling energy of the ten cities.
Source: EIA 2014
City Electricity Price ($/m2) Electric Costs for Cooling ($/m2)
New York, NY 0.2031 4.4
Los Angeles, CA 0.1767 3.8
Chicago, IL 0.1162 2.5
Houston, TX 0.12 2.6
Philadelphia, PA 0.1396 3.0
Phoenix, AZ 0.1253 2.7
San Antonio, TX 0.12 2.6
San Diego, CA 0.1767 3.8
Dallas, TX 0.12 2.6
San Jose, CA 0.1767 3.8
9
Annual cooling consumption per m2 in the United Sates was calculated as 21.615 kWh/m2,
and this electric consumption and electricity prices of ten city were applied to calculate annual
cooling consumption per m2 in the cities. Electricity prices of the ten cities were offered from the
“Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers” data of U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA 2014). These data contained average price of electricity of 51 states and cities
in the United States in July 2014. Table 2 summarizes electricity prices and annual electric costs
for cooling energy of the ten cities. These different costs were applied to calculate cost-benefits of
green roofs from energy savings and UHI reduction.
Energy Savings
Green roofs save 25% of cooling energy in comparison with conventional roofs (Dunnett
and Kingsbury 2008). This general description was used to calculate effects of green roofs on
energy savings. Different electric costs for cooling consumption of the ten cities were used to
calculate cost-benefits of green roofs from energy savings with the following equation.
Energy saving cost for annual cooling consumption
= Roof area (m2) × Electric costs for cooling energy per m2 of ten cities × 25% (1)
Urban Heat Island Reduction
The study of Taha et al. (1999) calculated annual electric savings of the ten cities by
reducing the urban heat island (UHI) effect. Their data of annual electric savings were used to
calculate cost-benefits of green roofs from reducing the UHI effect (Table 3). Ten cities in the
study of Taha et al. (1999) contained six cities that were used in this study: New York, Los Angeles,
10
Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and Phoenix. However, the other four cities of this study, San
Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, and San Jose, were not contained in the study of Taha et al. (1999).
In order to estimate annual electric savings of these four cities, this study assumed that cities in the
same state have the same annual electric savings. Although this assumption had limitations of
different energy uses of cities in California and Texas because of variable climate conditions in
two states (CEC 2014; NAST 2001), this study analyzed electricity consumptions based on states.
Annual electric savings of San Antonio and Dallas were estimated by data of Houston, and annual
electric savings of San Diego and San Jose were estimated by data of Los Angeles (Table 3).
Table 3. Annual electric savings (kWH/m2) from reducing the UHI by installing green roofs.
Source: Taha et al. 1999
City Annual Electric Savings
(kWH/m2) City
Annual Electric Savings (kWH/m2)
New York, NY 2.09 Phoenix, AZ 6.13
Los Angeles, CA 6.10 San Antonio, TX 4.13 Chicago, IL 2.22 San Diego, CA 6.10
Houston, TX 4.13 Dallas, TX 4.13
Philadelphia, PA 2.30 San Jose, CA 6.10
Based on these data, cost-benefits from reducing the UHI by installing green roofs were calculated
with the following equation.
Cost-benefits from reducing the UHI =
Roof area (m2) × Annual Electric Savings (kWH/m2) × Electricity Price ($/kWH) (2)
Stormwater Runoff Reduction
Stormwater runoff is related to climate characteristics of cities. The method from the study
of Blackhurst et al. (2010) was used to calculate cost-benefits of green roof in relation to reducing
stormwater runoff. Blackhurst et al. (2010) calculated the cost-benefits from reducing stormwater
11
runoff by using the market values of stormwater from Fisher et al. (2008). They estimated that the
market values of stormwater is $2.27 per Kilogallon. Their calculation for cost-benefits of green
roofs from reducing stormwater runoff can be summarized with the following equation.
Cost-benefits from reducing stormwater runoff
= Roof area × Annual average precipitation (m) in the cities × $2.27/Kgal × (1 Kgal / 3.7854m³)
(3)
In this equation, 3.7854m³ indicates the coefficient to transfer unit of Kgallon to m³. Annual
average precipitation data of ten cities were collected from “The Weather Channel” (Table 4).
Table 4. Annual average precipitation of ten cities. Source: The Weather Channel 2014
City Annual Precipitation (m) City Annual Precipitation (m)
New York, NY 1.18 Phoenix, AZ 0.21
Los Angeles, CA 0.38 San Antonio, TX 0.74
Chicago, IL 0.97 San Diego, CA 0.26
Houston, TX 1.39 Dallas, TX 0.96
Philadelphia, PA 1.17 San Jose, CA 0.40
Air Pollution Reduction
Reducing air pollution increases health of people living in metropolitan cities. The “Green
Roofs in the New York Metropolitan Region” (GRNY) research calculated cost-benefits of green
roofs by reducing air pollution (Rosenzweig et al. 2006). The GRNY report estimated that 1 m2 of
green roofs can reduce 0.44 pounds of airborne particles per year and each one pound reduction of
airborne particle has cost-benefits of $2.20. Based on these data, annual cost-benefits of green
roofs from reducing air pollution were calculated with the following equation.
Annual cost-benefits of green roofs from mitigating air pollution
= Roof area (m2) × 0.44 pounds × $2.20/pounds (4)
12
Calculations for Total Cost-Benefits of Green Roofs
Four cost-benefits from energy savings, the UHI reduction, stormwater runoff reduction,
and air pollution reduction, were calculated based on a one-year time period. Excel was used for
the NPV assessment to calculate total cost-benefits of green roofs after 50 years. Interest rates and
roof areas to install green roofs were needed to calculate the NPV. Roof areas to install green roofs
can have variable values depending on city plans. This study assumed that the roof area of 100
km2 in each city will be the planning area to install green roofs because the calculated developed
area in Philadelphia was 314 km2, which is the lowest developed area in the ten cities. Interest
rates were estimated to be 4.4% based on mortgage interest rates on September 26th, 2014. With
the interest rates and roof areas for green roofs, the NPVs of cost-benefits of green roofs in the ten
cities were calculated from energy savings, the UHI reduction, stormwater runoff reduction, and
air pollution reduction.
Population Density and Cost-Benefits of Green Roofs
The number of people within developed areas of 100 km2 was estimated to assess effects
of population density on cost-benefits of green roofs. This study assumed that people have the
same cost-benefits from installing green roofs. For example, if the areas within 100 km2 have cost-
benefits of $1,000 from energy savings, every person who live in this area has cost-benefits of
$1,000 from energy savings. This method was calculated by the following equation.
Cost-benefits of green roofs depending on population density
= Cost-benefits of green roofs without a consideration of population density × The number of
people within developed areas of 100 km2 in the city (5)
13
Population Demographics and City Structures to Install Green Roofs
Although population density and climate characteristics in the ten cities affect cost-benefits
of green roofs, the calculation with these considerations has limitations regarding detailed cost-
benefit calculations because of variable population demographics and city structures. Thus, this
study recalculated cost-benefits of green roofs with considering population demographics and city
structures in the ten cities. The same calculation process was used to conduct recalculations. This
study used three factors of population demographics: people who are 18 years of age and older,
percentages of house owners, and average income of people in cities (Table 5).
Table 5. Population demographics and city structures in the ten cities.
Source: American Fact Finder 2014
City 18 Years of Age and
Older (%) House Owner (%) Average Income ($)
New York, NY 85.1 53.7 67,099
Philadelphia, PA 77.5 59.2 35,386
Chicago, IL 77.4 67.5 45,214
Los Angeles, CA 76.3 67.7 53,001
San Jose, CA 76.4 55.2 91,425
San Diego, CA 77.1 63.6 60,330
Phoenix, AZ 74.3 45.8 51,432
Dallas, TX 72.7 50.4 47,301
Houston, TX 79.9 50.7 31,529
San Antonio, TX 73.5 39.6 49,874
Blackhurst et al. (2010) suggested that building structures for multi-families have more
cost-benefits than the single-families from installing green roofs. City structures to install green
roofs were considered as multi-family structures because multi-family structures that are over 5
units are effective to install green roofs (Blackhurst et al. 2010). Table 6 shows changed areas to
install green roofs in 100 km2. For example, Philadelphia has the effective area to install green
roofs in the area in 18% of 100 km2. This study also assumed that people who are house owners
14
and 18 years of age and older have cost-benefits of green roofs. With these considerations of ages,
house owners, and city structures, cost-benefits of green roofs in the ten cities were calculated by
the following equations.
Effective areas to install green roofs
= Planned areas to install green roofs × Percent of building structures for multi-families over 5
units × Percentage of people who are 18 years of age and older × Percentage of house owners (6)
Table 6. The percentage of multi-families over 5 units and effective areas to install green roofs in
100 km2 in ten cities. Source: American Fact Finder 2014
City Multi-family over 5 Units
(%)
Effective Areas to Install in 100 km2
(km2)
New York, NY 95.6 43.7
Los Angeles, CA 34.4 17.8
Chicago, IL 33.1 17.3
Houston, TX 2.2 0.9
Philadelphia, PA 18.1 8.3
Phoenix, AZ 20.1 6.8
San Antonio, TX 23.1 6.7
San Diego, CA 28.7 14.1
Dallas, TX 34 12.5
San Jose, CA 26 11.0
Results and Discussion
Developed Areas and City Density Rankings
Developed areas represent impervious areas in cities (Nowak and Greenfield 2012). This
study assumed developed areas to be the most practical for the installation of green roofs. Although
the 2011 Land Cover GIS data contained four classes of developed areas including developed
(open space), developed (low intensity), developed (medium intensity), and developed (high
intensity), this study reclassified these four developed areas into one land cover class that included
all developed land covers
15
Table 7 represents city density based on city boundary areas, developed areas, and
developed areas per one person in the ten cities. New York was the densest city with developed
areas of 83.16 m2 per one person, which is 2.4 times higher than city density in Philadelphia and
7.4 times higher than San Antonio. Table 7 shows interesting results of cities. One person in the
ten cities had an average developed area of 380 m2. New York has a similar city boundary area
with the average city boundary area, but the population is almost 6,000,000 people more than the
average population. Philadelphia has the lowest city boundary area, but the city is the second-
densest city. These results (Table 7) are similar to those of Nowak and Greenfield (2012) who
analyzed land covers of 20 cities in the Unites States, including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Houston. Their results show that New York has a higher percentage of impervious areas than
the other three cities. Chicago has a higher percentage of impervious areas than Los Angeles and
Houston. Los Angeles has a higher percentage of impervious areas than Houston. These results
correspond to the results found in Table 7.
Table 7. Rankings of city density based on population, city boundary areas, developed areas, and
developed areas per on people in the ten cities.
Ranking City Population City Boundary
Area (km2)
Developed
Area (km2)
Developed Area per
One Person (m2)
1 New York, NY 8,405,837 1,216 699 83.16 2 Philadelphia, PA 1,553,165 369 314 202.17
3 Chicago, IL 2,718,782 601 565 207.81
4 Los Angeles, CA 3,884,307 1,239 1,019 262.34 5 San Jose, CA 998,537 467 345 345.51
6 San Diego, CA 1,355,896 836 575 424.07
7 Phoenix, AZ 1,513,367 1,361 760 502.19
8 Dallas, TX 1,257,676 1,013 699 555.79 9 Houston, TX 2,195,914 1,727 1,337 608.86
10 San Antonio, TX 1,409,019 1,259 862 611.77
Average 2,529,250 1,009 718 380.37
16
Cost-Benefits of Green Roofs in One Year
The assessment of cost-benefits in one year shows variable cost-benefits depending on
electricity prices and climate characteristics of the ten cities. Figure 2 shows cost-benefits of the
ten cities from replacing 100 km2 of conventional roof areas with green roofs in a one year time
period.
Figure 2. One-year cost-benefits of the ten cities with replacing conventional roof areas of 100
km2 with green roofs.
Benefits from reducing air pollution in the ten cities, unlike other cost-benefits, had the
same cost-benefit of $96,800,000 because cost-benefits from air pollution were calculated by roof
17
areas without considerations of climate characteristics or electricity prices of cities. For this reason,
four graphs are shown in Figure 2: (1) total cost-benefits, (2) cost-benefits from energy savings,
(3) cost-benefits from reducing the UHI effect, and (4) cost-benefits from reducing stormwater
runoff. San Jose had the highest cost-benefits, whereas Chicago had the lowest cost-benefits from
installing green roofs. Different electricity prices in the ten cities caused different cost-benefits
from energy savings with installing green roofs. New York had the highest cost-benefits from
energy savings because of their higher electricity price. The three cities in California had the
highest cost-benefits from reducing the UHI effect. The cities that have higher air temperature
have more cost-benefits from reducing the UHI effect (Taha et al. 1999). Variable precipitation of
the ten cities caused different cost-benefits from reducing stormwater runoff with installing green
roofs. The cities in Texas had higher cost-benefits from reducing stormwater runoff, whereas the
cities in California had lower cost-benefits from reducing stormwater runoff because of their low
precipitation. These results show that electricity prices and climate characteristics of cities affect
cost-benefits of green roofs.
Cost-Benefits after 50 Years
The NPV assessment for a 50-year time period was used to estimate cost-benefits with
replacing conventional roof areas of 100 km2 in the ten cities with green roofs. The NPVs of four
cost-benefits were calculated based on cost-benefits in a one-year period. Figure 3 shows the NPVs
of total cost-benefits after 50 years with replacing conventional roof areas of 100 km2 in the ten
cities with green roofs. San Jose has the highest NPV of total cost-benefits of $2,749,507,735 after
50 years, and Chicago has the lowest NPV of total cost-benefits of $1,136,273,690 (Figure 3).
However, the NPV of conventional roofs of 100 km2 has -$1,458,198,088 because of their
18
maintenance and renovation costs. Green roof installation in Chicago is more active than San Jose
(GRHC 2014), but cost-benefits of installing green roofs in San Jose were two times higher than
those of Chicago (Figure 3). These results indicate that it would be more economical for San Jose
to install green roofs and the city should consider installing green roofs.
Figure 3. The NPVs of total cost-benefits after 50 years with replacing conventional roof areas of
100 km2 in the ten cities with green roofs.
Figure 4. The years when the NPVs of cost-benefits of green roofs in the ten cities have positive
values and higher the NPV of maintenance and renovation costs of conventional roofs.
19
Figure 4 shows the years when cost-benefits of green roofs have positive NPVs. The results
of this study are similar to those of Clark et al. (2008), who suggested that the NPVs of cost-
benefits of green roofs become positive values after a period of 10 to 22 years. The NPVs of San
Jose, Los Angeles, New York, and San Diego have positive NPVs after 16 years, and Chicago has
a positive NPV after 25 years. The years when the NPVs of cost-benefits of green roofs are higher
than the NPVs of maintenance and renovation costs of conventional roofs were calculated. The ten
cities except Chicago have higher NPVs of green roofs than conventional roofs after 15 years, and
only Chicago has higher NPVs of cost-benefit of green roofs than conventional roofs after 16 years.
These years can be a good suggestion for city planners in their decision for green roof installation
because the years in Figure 4 indicate when green roofs can be economical systems in comparison
with conventional roofs.
A Relationship between Population Density and Cost-Benefits of Green Roofs
Two analyses for developed areas and cost-benefits of green roofs were used to assess city
density and effectiveness of green roofs. Developed areas per one person represented population
density in the ten cities. The cost-benefit assessment showed which cities have more cost-benefits
from installing green roofs. These two analyses were combined to compare which cities have more
cost-benefits from installing green roofs depending on population density.
Table 8 shows three rankings of the ten cities. San Jose has the highest cost-benefits with
green roofs installation in a one year period and ranks fifth in the number of people within
developed area of 100 km2. Chicago has the lowest cost-benefit of the ten cities from installing
green roofs because of the city’s relatively low electricity price and climate characteristic.
However, Chicago has a higher population density than other cities. With these data, this study
20
assessed impacts of population density on cost-benefits from installing green roofs in cities.
Table 8. Comparison of three rankings of the ten cities: (1) total one year cost-benefits with
replacing conventional roof areas of 100 km2 with green roofs, (2) developed areas per one person,
and (3) the number of people within developed areas of 100 km2.
City
Total One Year Cost-
Benefits
Developed Areas per
One Person (m2)
The Number of People within
Developed Areas of 100 km2
Ranking $ Ranking m2 Ranking Number of People
San Jose, CA 1 323,573,897 6 346 5 289,427
Los Angeles, CA 2 322,374,552 7 262 4 381,185 New York, NY 3 320,009,246 10 83 1 1,202,501
San Diego, CA 4 315,178,483 5 424 6 235,810
Houston, TX 5 294,714,467 2 609 9 164,241
Philadelphia, PA 6 274,069,674 9 202 2 494,633 Dallas, TX 7 268,928,553 3 556 8 179,924
San Antonio, TX 8 255,735,759 1 612 10 163,460
Phoenix, AZ 9 253,702,021 4 502 7 199,128 Chicago, IL 10 243,264,625 8 208 3 481,209
In order to calculate cost-benefits of green roofs depending on population density, this
study assumed that people within developed areas of 100 km2 have the same cost-benefits from
installing green roofs. This means that the 289,427 people in San Jose respectively have cost-
benefits of $ 323,573,897. Figure 5 compares two cost-benefits: (1) cost-benefits with replacing
conventional roof areas of 100 km2 in the ten cities with green roofs and (2) total cost-benefits of
people who live within developed areas in 100 km2. New York has the highest total cost-benefits
of people from installing green roofs within developed areas in 100 km2 because of its high
population density (Figure 5 and Table 8). Although Chicago has the lowest one-year cost-benefits,
the city ranked third in total cost-benefits from installing green roofs with a consideration of
population density. Houston had median one-year cost-benefits, but the city had low total cost-
benefits with a consideration of population density because of low population density of the city.
These results indicate that high population density increase cost-benefits from installing green
21
roofs.
Figure 5. The comparison of one-year cost-benefits and total cost-benefits of people within 100
km2.
Population Demographics and City Structures to Install Green Roofs
Ages, house owners, and city structures of the ten cities were considered to calculate cost-
benefits of green roofs. These considerations were also combined with population density. Figure
6 shows the 50-year NPVs of cost-benefits of effective areas to install green roofs (Table 6) with
considerations of ages, house owners, city structures, and population density. New York had the
highest cost-benefits, whereas Dallas had very low cost-benefits in comparison with other cities
because of the low electricity, low precipitation, low city density, and low percentage of people
who are house owners and 18 years of age and older.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
Co
st-b
enef
its
of
peo
ple
wit
hin
100
km
²($
1,00
0,00
0,00
0)
On
e ye
ar t
ota
l co
st-b
enef
its
($)
City
One year total cost-benefits Cost-benefits of people within 100 km²
22
Figure 6. The NPVs of total cost-benefits of effective areas to install green roofs after 50 year. This
graph shows overall cost-benefits of green roofs with considerations of city structures, population
density and population demographics such as ages and house owners.
Overall Rankings of Ten Cites
Overall rankings of the ten cities were estimated to assess effects of city structures,
population density and population demographics on cost-benefits of green roofs. Table 9 shows
the overall rankings of the NPVs of cost-benefits of green roofs. Rankings were classified into
three categories: (1) the first category of rankings was estimated by only the NPVs of cost-benefits
of green roofs after 50 years with considerations of electricity prices and climate, (2) the second
category of rankings was estimated by the NPVs of cost-benefits of green roofs after 50 years with
a consideration of electricity prices, climate, and population density, and (3) the third category of
rankings was estimated by the NPVs of cost-benefits of green roofs after 50 years with
considerations of electricity prices, climate, population density, population demographics, and city
structures. The rankings of the ten cities changed depending on which factors were applied to
calculations for cost-benefits of green roofs.
0
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
Co
st-b
enef
its
($)
City
23
Table 9 shows which factors affect cost-benefits of green roofs. Cost-benefits of green roofs
of cities in the state of California are highly affected by factors of population density, population
demographics, and city structures. Although Chicago had low cost-benefits of green roofs in the
calculation with considerations of electricity prices and climate, the city has higher cost-benefits
in the calculation with considerations of population density, population demographics, and city
structures. These results represent that cost-benefits of green roofs were affected by variable
factors such as electricity price, climate characteristics, population density, population
demographics, and city structures.
Table 9. Rankings of three categories: (1) A is the NPVs of cost-benefits after 50 years with
replacing conventional roof areas of 100 km2 in the ten cities with green roofs with considerations
of electricity price and climate, (2) B is the NPVs of cost-benefits of 100 km2 green roof areas after
50 years with considerations of population density, and (3) C is the NPVs of cost-benefits of
effective areas to install green roofs after 50 years with considerations of population density,
population demographics, and city structures.
Existing Green Roofs in the Ten Cities
The areas of existing green roofs and the calculated cost-benefits were compared to assess
and suggest green roof installation. Income of people also shows the potential possibility to install
green roofs. Potential cost-benefits from installing green roofs were estimated by the NPVs of
24
cost-benefits of green roofs after 50 years with considerations of population density, population
demographics, and city structures. This study assumed that cities that have population with higher
income have the higher possibility to install green roofs. In the results of this study, New York had
the highest cost-benefits from installing green roofs. Table 10 shows that New York has second-
highest incomes and area of existing green roof areas in the ten cities. This result indicates that
New York is the most appropriate city to install green roofs and has the appropriate trend to install
green roofs. Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego, and San Jose had interesting results. Chicago and
Philadelphia have the higher areas of installed green roofs even though they have lower cost-
benefits and incomes when compared with other cities. However, San Diego and San Jose have
low areas of installed green roof despite of their higher cost-benefits and incomes. These results
indicates that green roof installations are required to San Diego and San Jose than other cities
because of their higher incomes and potential cost-benefits from installing green roofs than other
cities.
Table 10. Rankings of areas of existing green roofs, potential cost-benefits from installing green
roofs, and income of people in the ten cities.
City
Ranking
Areas of Existing
Green Roofs
Potential Cost-Benefits
from Installing Green Roofs
Income
Chicago, IL 1 8 8
New York, NY 2 1 2
Philadelphia, PA 3 6 9
Houston, TX 4 3 10
Los Angeles, CA 5 5 4
San Diego, CA 6 2 3
San Jose, CA 7 4 1
Phoenix, AZ 8 7 5
San Antonio, TX 8 9 6
Dallas, TX 8 10 7
25
Conclusion
The impacts of impervious areas associated with urbanization have been a major
consideration in metropolitan cities. Green roofs can mitigate these impacts by replacing
impervious covers with green covers that provide many environmental benefits. This study
calculated cost-benefits in ten cities with replacing conventional roof areas with green roofs in
their 100 km2 developed areas. In order to calculate cost-benefits of green roofs, developed areas
in the ten cities were extracted by using GIS data. Developed areas were the potential area
considered as the most appropriate area to install green roofs and were used to calculate population
density in cities. Cost-benefits of green roofs in a one-year period showed cost-benefits depending
on electric prices and climate characteristics of the ten cities. The NPV assessment was used for
decisions to install green roofs. The years when green roofs have more cost-benefits than
conventional roofs were also calculated with the NPV assessment. This study recalculated cost-
benefits of green roofs with considerations of specific characteristics of cities such as population
size and density, population demographics, and city structures to assess effects of these factors on
cost-benefits of green roofs. With these calculations, this study estimated rankings of the ten cities
with three categories: (1) the NPVs of general cost-benefits with considerations of electricity price
and climate, (2) the NPVs of cost-benefits with a consideration of population density, and (3) the
NPVs of cost-benefits with considerations of population density, population demographics, and
city structures. Overall rankings of these three categories were the most interesting results in this
study. These three types of rankings showed that cost-benefits of green roofs change with
applications of variable factors of population density, population demographics, and city structures.
Lastly, the areas of existing green roofs and the calculated cost-benefits were compared to analyze
the trend of green roof installation of the ten cities and to suggest which cities need to install green
26
roofs. New York had the most appropriate trend of green roof installation. Although Chicago did
not have good conditions to install green roofs, the city had higher green roof installation. However,
San Diego and San Jose did not have an appropriate trend of green roof installation, although they
have more potential for higher cost-benefits from installing green roofs compared to other cities.
With these results, this study clearly shows the overall cost-benefits of green roofs and suggests
the value of green roof installation for the ten cities.
27
REFERENCES
Akbari H, Konopacki SJ. 1998. The impact of reflectivity and emissivity of roofs on building
cooling and heating energy use. In: The thermal performance of the exterior envelopes of building
VII; 1998 Dec 6-10; Clearwater Beach (FL); American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc. p. 29-39.
Blackhurst M, Hendrickson C, and Matthews S. 2010. Cost-effectiveness of green roofs.
Architectural Engineering. 16(4):136-143.
City of Dallas GIS Services [Internet]. City of Dallas Shapefiles; [cited 2014 Sep 28] Available
from http://gis.dallascityhall.com/EnterpriseGIS/shapezip.htm.
City of Los Angeles [Internet]. GIS data sets; [cited 2014 Sep 28] Available from
http://planning.lacity.org/MapGallery/MapGallery_GISdata/MapGalleryData.htm.
City of San Antonio [Internet]. GIS Data; [cited 2014 Sep 28] Available from
http://www.sanantonio.gov/GIS/GISData.aspx.
City of San Jose [Internet]. Maps & Apps; [cited 2014 Sep 28] Available from
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=3308.
Clark C, Adriaens P, Talbot F. 2008. Green roof valuation: A probabilistic economic analysis of
environmental benefits. Environmental Science & Technology 42(6):2155-2161.
David J N and Eric J G. Tree and impervious cover change in U.S. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening 11(1):21-30.
Doraszelski U, 2001. The net present value method versus the option value of waiting: A note on
Farzin, Huisman and Kort (1998). Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. 25(8):1109-1115.
Dunnett N, Kingsbury N. 2008. Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls (PDX): Timber Press, p.
14-79.
Fisher DC, Whitehead CD., and Melody M. 2008. National and regional water and wastewater
rates for use in cost-benefit models and evaluations of water efficiency programs. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory. [cited 2014 August 31] Available from
https://publications.lbl.gov/islandora/object/ir%3A128721
Gedge D, Kadas G. 2005. Green roofs and biodiversity. Biologist 52(3):161-169.
Getter K and Rowe D. 2006. The role of extensive green roofs in sustainable development.
HortScience 41(5):1276-1285.
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities (GRHC). [Internet]. Annual green roof industry survey; [cited
2014 Sep 28]. Available from
http://www.greenroofs.org/resources/GreenRoofIndustrySurveyReport2013.pdf.
Liu K., Baskaran A. 2005. Using garden roof systems to achieve sustainable building envelopes.
Construction Technology 65:1-6.
28
Lua D and Wengb Q. 2006. Use of impervious surface in urban land-use classification. Remote
Sensing of Environment 102(1-2):146-160.
National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST). 2001. Climate change impacts on the United States.
The potential consequences of climate variability and change. US Global Change Research
Program. [cited 2014 Sep 28] Available from
http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/climate-change-impacts-united-states-potential-
consequences-climate-variability-and
New York State [Internet]. NYSGIS Clearinghouse; [cited 2014 Sep 28] Available from
http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=927.
Nowak DJ, Greenfield EJ.2012. Tree and impervious cover change in U.S. cities. Urban Forestry
& Urban Greening. 11(1): 21-30.
McKinney M. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52(10): 883-890.
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) [Internet]. National Land Cover
Database 2011; [cited 2014 Sep 28] Available from http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_data.php.
Oberndorfer E, Lundholm J, Bass B, Coffman RR, Doshi H, Dunnett N, Gaffin S, Kohler M, Liu
KKY, Rowe B. 2007. Green roofs as urban ecosystems: Ecological structures, functions, and
services. BioScience. 57(10):823-833.
Oehmke JF. 2000. Anomalies in net present value calculations. Economics Letters 67(3):349-351.
Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access [Internet]. Philadelphia city limits; [cited 2014 Sep 28]
Available from
http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/PhiladelphiaAgreement.asp?File=http://www.pasda.psu.edu/philac
ity/data/phila-city_limits_shp.zip.
Porsche U, Köhler M. 2003. Life cycle costs of green roofs. In: RIO, Brazil, World Climate &
Energy Event; 2003 Dec 1-5; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: p. 461-467.
Rosenzweig C., Gaffin S, and Parshall L. 2006. Green roofs in the New York metropolitan region.
Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research and NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies.
Ross SA. 1995. Uses, abuses, and alternatives to the net-present-value rule. The Journal of the
Financial Management Association. 24(3):96-102.
Saiz S, Kennedy C, Bass B, Pressnai K. 2006. Comparative life cycle assessment of standard and
green roofs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40(13): 4312-4316.
SanGIS [Internet]. Region Data Warehouse; [cited 2014 Sep 28] Available from
http://www.sangis.org/
Taha H, Konopacki S, Gabersek S, 1999. Impacts of large scale modifications on meteorological
conditions and energy use: A 10-region modeling study. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 62:
175–185.
29
The California Energy Commission (CEC) [Internet]. Energy consumption data management
system; [cited 2014 Oct 21] Available from http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx
The City of Houston [Internet]. My City Maps & Apps; [cited 2014 Sep 28] Available from
http://mycity.houstontx.gov/home/cohgis.html.
The City of Portland. 2008. Portland (OR): Cost benefit evaluation of ecoroofs; [cited 2014 Sep
28] Available from http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/261053.
The Weather Channel [Internet]. [cited 2014 Sep 28] Available from http://www.
http://www.weather.com/
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) [Internet]. Harrisburg (city), Pennsylvania; [cited 2014 Sep 28]
Available from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/4232800.html
U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder [Internet]. [cited 2014 Sep 28] Available from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/4232800.html
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy (EIA). 2012. Annual energy
review 2011; [cited 2014 Sep 28]. Available from
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/archive/038411.pdf.
Yang J, Yu Q, Gong P. 2008. Quantifying air pollution removal by green roofs in Chicago.
Atmospheric Environment 42(31): 7266-7273.
Yuana F and Bauerb M. 2007. Comparison of impervious surface area and normalized difference
vegetation index as indicators of surface urban heat island effects in Landsat imagery. Remote
Sensing of Environment 106(3):375-386.