A review of green roof incentives as motivators for the expansion of green infrastructure in European cities
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Scientific Review – Engineering and Environmental Sciences (2019), 28 (4), 641–652
Sci. Rev. Eng. Env. Sci. (2019), 28 (4)
Przegląd Naukowy – Inżynieria i Kształtowanie Środowiska (2019), 28 (4), 641–652
Prz. Nauk. Inż. Kszt. Środ. (2019), 28 (4)
http://iks.pn.sggw.pl
DOI 10.22630/PNIKS.2019.28.4.58
Ewa BURSZTA-ADAMIAK, Wiesław FIAŁKIEWICZ
Faculty of Environmental Engineering and Geodesy, Wrocław University of Environmental
and Life Sciences
A review of green roof incentives as motivators for the
expansion of green infrastructure in European cities
Key words: green roof, green infrastructure, adequate space for green infrastructure.
incentives, benefits, European cities As a result, building green roofs, which
are one of the green infrastructure solu-
tions, is becoming increasingly perceived
Introduction as an action with a beneficial influence
on the urban environment. Apart from
City development for residential, the possibility to recreate biologically
commercial and transportation purposes active areas in cities (partly, e.g. 50% in
contributes to the disappearance of green Poland), numerous studies confirm the
areas. Only in Austria, 15–25 ha of land capacity of green roofs to retain rainwa-
are sealed every day (Pendl, Hüfing, ter and delay runoff, as well as to reduce
Muerth, Tributsch & Jäger-Katzmann, the amount of pollutants in air, improve
2009). The urban sprawl tendency only the microclimate and positively influence
enhances this phenomenon. The develop- the urban heat island effect (Shafique,
ment of biologically active areas leads to Kim & Rafiq, 2018; Burszta-Adamiak,
the loss of recreation areas and potential Stańczyk & Łomotowski, 2019). Ano-
habitats. The biodiversity of the given ther factor that is increasingly appreci-
land decreases and the proportional share ated in cities, is the fact that green roofs
of specific elements in the water and heat provide friendly, green leisure spaces and
balance become distorted. According to improve the aesthetical values of build-
the World Health Organization (WHO), ings (Sutton, 2014). Other argument that
the minimum green areas should be supports their construction is the possi-
50 m2 per urban agglomeration resi- bility to reduce carbon footprint in cities
dent (Russo & Cirella, 2018). However, (Ugai, 2016) and direct water footprint
the reality is different. In many Euro- (Fialkiewicz et al., 2018). Green roofs
pean cities, urban areas do not provide can also be included in the “smart city”
A review of green roof incentives as motivators for the expansion... 641policies adopted by numerous cities, tional and regional government policies,
where the aim is to improve service effi- in several Asian and American cities
ciency and urban quality of life by using (Chen, 2013; Olubunmi, Xia & Skitmore,
new technology (Brudermann & Sang- 2016). A review of the green roof legisla-
kakool, 2017; Shafique et al., 2018). The tion, policies and tax incentives in North
increased interest in these solutions also America can be found also at the website
results from the fact that cities are will- of the Environmental Protection Agency
ing to present themselves as regional, na- (EPA, 2019). As a result of the growing
tional or global centres of active adapta- interest in the benefits of constructing
tion to climate changes. This is reflected green roofs in Europe, including in Po-
in the provisions of numerous strategic land, the need to introduce various kinds
documents, climate change adaptation of incentives for the popularisation of
plans, in technical guidelines, as well as green roofs in urban areas has been no-
in legal regulations, including, among ticed in European cities as well. The main
others, construction law and water man- reasons for the realisation of investments
agement regulations. with green roofs in European countries
The current state of knowledge con- include the need to increase biologically
firms that measurable effects of the green active areas in towns, to reduce carbon
roofs application in urban areas may be emissions of cities, mitigate heat island
achieved first of all when large green effects and improve urban flood control.
areas located near one another are con- The main aim of this paper is to re-
structed. Due to that, the construction of view the European experiences (includ-
green roofs in cities should not be limited ing Polish) in the area of implementing
to single investments scattered all over tools used to motivate public investors
the town. The surface of roofs in urban as well as individuals to construct green
areas account for approx. 40–50% of the roofs. All information gathered and col-
total sealed areas in cities (Stovin, Ve- lated were used to identify the most
suviano & Kasmin, 2012), so the poten- popular initiatives for the construction
tial for constructing green roofs is much of green roofs and to formulate recom-
higher than the current state of their real- mendations for creating future incentive
isation. One of the reasons of the limited programmes addressed to various groups
number of green roof investments is the interested in constructing green roofs in
insufficient number of incentives for in- urban areas.
vestors which might reduce the relative-
ly high initial construction costs of such
solutions and contribute to raising social Material and methods
awareness of the possibility to construct
such roofs and the need to maintain them The review of incentives aimed at
in good condition throughout their op- the popularisation of constructing green
eration period. roofs in European cities was based on in-
So far, the practices of stimulating formation contained in research articles,
the development of green roofs have technical reports, design guidelines, law
been recognised quite well through na- regulations and case studies. The scope
642 E. Burszta-Adamiak, W. Fiałkiewiczof the analysis included both financial Czech Republic. In some German lands
and non-financial incentives. Each of the and certain Dutch cities, local govern-
incentives encourages the installation of ment policy combines the possibility
green roofs on existing or new buildings. to obtain subsidies with statutory obli-
The analysis covered 52 cities located gation to construct a green roof during
in 11 countries in Europe. The period the construction of new buildings. This
of implementing the incentives were the incentive involves various requirements
years 1970–2017. All the analysed moti- that have to be met if a green roof is con-
vational tools are still used in the cities structed (e.g. a flat roof or a specific roof
included in the review. inclination). Other financial solutions
used in practice are tax allowances (e.g.
real property tax allowance). This form
Results and discussion of incentive was introduced in Wrocław
(Poland) in 2015. Based on it, the usable
The first initiatives aimed at support- areas of residential premises located in
ing the construction of green roofs in buildings, on which green roofs were
European cities were introduced in Ger- constructed while the resolution was
many in the 1970s (Brudermann & Sang- effective, were exempt from tax. The
kakool, 2017). Since that time, consider- amount of tax allowance depends on
ing the measurable benefits from their im- the number of floors in the building, on
plementation that translated into a grow- which the green roof was constructed
ing number of investments with green and the surface area of the green roof
roofs, an increasing number of countries (the share of the green roof area in the
have become interested in green policies total surface of the roof) (Resolution
for sustainable urban development. XV/268/15). In several cities (e.g. Düs-
Local authorities, who decide wheth- seldorf, Hamburg), constructing a green
er to grant subsidies and to what activi- roof results in decreased fees for dis-
ties and regulate the principles of eligi- charging stormwater and snowmelt to
bility for such donations, are important the sewage system.
elements in promoting environmentally Another group of motivational tools
friendly solutions. The initiatives taken are non-financial incentives. They in-
with the aim to increase the surface area clude instruments that focus on gratifica-
of green roofs in cities are divided into tion (gratifying incentives). Most of the
financial or non-financial incentives society has a positive attitude towards
(Tables 1 and 2). The first ones consist investments that comply with green
in granting financial support aimed at policy and receive various awards and
convincing the potential investors to green certificates for sustainable devel-
construct a green roofs. This group of opment. As a result, residents will be
incentives includes subsidies or dona- more willing to purchase such residen-
tions granted to reimburse part of the tial premises. Such incentives involve
costs incurred on the realisation of the granting additional points during the
investment. This solution is common in green buildings certification process, i.e.
Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and the the Building Environmental Assessment
A review of green roof incentives as motivators for the expansion... 643Method (BEAM) which was established sation. For example, the weighting of
in Hong Kong in 1996 (BEAM Society, surfaces with vegetation unconnected to
2010) or the Leadership in Energy and soil below is 0.5; of green roofs is 0.7
Environmental Design (LEED) which and that of surfaces with vegetation con-
is a certification rating system devel- nected to soil below is 1.0. The develop-
oped by the US Green Building Council ers can thus use a wide range of options
(USGBC, 2009). During the certification, combining different areas with differ-
1–2 points are awarded additionally for ent types of surfaces for achieving the
ensuring biodiversity on roof surfaces. required standard. Such planning tools
This results in the necessity to construct have different names throughout Europe,
green roofs taking into account various such as green space factor, green points
plant species and to design areas that will system, the maximum density of built-
foster the development of small fauna. up area or green-area-per-capita factor
One of the tools used to reduce the (Kruuse, 2011).
surface of sealed areas in towns is the The non-financial incentives also
enforcement of land usage intensity and include the so-called secondary motiva-
the surface of biologically active areas. tional tools, i.e. those that are executed in
Due to that, non-financial incentives the “background”, alongside other forms
also include solutions that introduce the of incentives. They are realised in all the
indicators taken into consideration in analysed European cities. They consist
compensatory environmental activities. in providing expert designer support as
One of such factors is the Biotope Area well as marketing and legal assistance
Factor (BAF), developed in the 1990s in at the stage of planning, designing and
Berlin (Badach & Raszeja, 2019). The realisation of the investment. Such form
BAF factor enables to classify land sur- of support not only allows the investor
faces depending on their ecological val- to save time, but, first of all, to minimise
ue, based on evapotranspiration capacity, the risk of an erroneous project and to
permeability, possibility to store rain wa- expedite formal procedures. Market de-
ter, relationship to soil functioning and mand-related incentives and educational
provision of habitat for plants and ani- incentives are equally important. Ex-
mals. The BAF factor is calculated as the amples of such tools are those that are
quotient of biologically active area for based on promoting the benefits of green
the given area to the total surface area roofs in terms of the pro-environmental
of the land plot, according to the set of actions of the investor (improved micro-
assumptions. The obtained results con- climate, reduced energy consumption in
stitute the basis for formulating target buildings, etc.) aimed at improving the
BAF factors for specific urban func- quality of life of residents. Other types
tions, which the developers are obliged of promotional instruments are market
to comply with at the stage of obtaining demand-related incentives. These tools
building permits for new investments. use the knowledge about the increased
The higher the BAF factor, the more im- demand for buildings with greenery and
portant is the given type of biologically the fact that buyers are willing to pay a
active area in environmental compen- higher price in comparison to traditional
644 E. Burszta-Adamiak, W. FiałkiewiczTABLE 1. Financial incentives in selected cities (own studies based on Carter & Fowler, 2008; Claus &
Rousseau, 2012; Boas Berg, Radziemska, Adamcová & Vaverková, 2017; Brudermann & Sangkakool,
2017)
COUNTRY; City Type of financial support
Subsidies – co-financing the construction of green roof: 8–25
EUR·m–2 (max. 2,200 EUR per project). Additionally, co-fi-
AUSTRIA; Vienna
nancing maintenance costs: 0.19 EUR·m–2 (Inspection twice a
year, removal of growing trees, cutting grass).
Subsidies – co-financing the construction of green roof:
BELGIUM; Flanders
31 EUR·m–2.
Subsidies – co-financing the construction of green roof: around
CZECH REPUBLIC
18 EUR·m–2.
Subsidies – co-financing the construction of green roof: up to
GERMANY; Darmstadt
5,000 EUR.
50% reduction of the fees for rainwater and snowmelt discharge
GERMANY; Düsseldorf
for a constructed green roof.
Subsidies – co-financing the construction of green roof:
GERMANY; Esslingen, Stuttgart
17.9 EUR·m–2, max. up to 50% of the costs.
Real property tax allowance (up to 50%), provisions in the
Hamburg Strategy on the realisation of the green smart city
concept; the Ministry of Environment and Energy provides
financial support needed for the construction of green roofs
GERMANY; Hamburg
(a total of 3 million EUR by the end 2019), co-financing up to
60% of the costs of green roof construction, reduction of storm-
water fees up to 50%. If the green roof is not connected to the
sewage system, then stormwater fees are not charged.
Subsidies – co-financing the construction of green roof:
30 EUR·m–2, reduced stormwater and snowmelt fees (buildings
GERMANY; Munich
with green roofs of a height up to 10 cm and a pitch lower than
15° pay fees reduced by up to 70%).
NETHERLANDS; Alphen aan den
Rijn, Almelo, Amsterdam, Ams-
telveen, Apeldoorn, Co-financing of the construction of green roof: 30 EUR·m–2.
Capelle aan den IJssel, Den Haag, The maximum amount requested is 2,500 EUR for individuals
Groningen, and 25,000 EUR for the construction of apartment buildings
Den Bosch, Leeuwarden, Leiden, and businesses. The maximum subsidy is 50% of the total roof
Nijmegen, Nieuwegein, Rotterdam, cost.
Soest, Utrecht, Tilburg, Zoeter-
woude, Zwijndrech
Local legal regulations on the exemption of usable areas of resi-
dential premises from real property tax (up to 100%) as part of
POLAND; Wrocław
the project of intensification of the development of green areas
in the city of Wrocław (2015–2021).
Reduced stormwater fees (based on the annual amount of storm-
SWEDEN; Stockholm
water discharge per building).
SWITZERLAND; Basel, Zurich, Subsidies – co-financing the construction of green roof:
Lucerne 32 EUR·m–2.
A review of green roof incentives as motivators for the expansion... 645TABLE 2. Non-financial incentives in selected cities (own studies based on Carter & Fowler, 2008;
Boas Berg, Radziemska, Adamcová & Vaverková, 2017; Brudermann & Sangkakool, 2017; Wolański,
2019)
COUNTRY; City Type of non-financial support
The Ministry of Environment together with the State Environ-
CZECH REPUBLIC mental Fund of the Czech Republic announced a new continu-
ous call in the New Green Savings Program (2017–2021).
Green roofs are a part of the Wastewater Plan, the Climate Plan
of the City of Copenhagen, some technical guidelines, e.g. the
guidelines for sustainability in constructions and civil works
DENMARK; Copenhagen and the city’s Strategy for Biodiversity.
Since 2010 green roofs are mandated in most new local plans.
Legislation – green roofs are required for all newly constructed
roofs with a pitch of less than 30°.
GREAT BRITAIN; London, West-
Provisions in the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy set re-
minster, Camden, Islington, Hack-
quirements for green roofs in new buildings in London’s Cen-
ney, Tower Hamlets, Southwark,
tral Activities Zone policy area.
Lambeth, Kensington, Chelsea
Legal regulations – since 2015 all new buildings in commercial
FRANCE zones must be partially covered by either green roofs or solar
panels.
Realisation of numerous programmes aimed at making the city
GERMANY; Berlin greener, e.g. the Courtyard Greening Programme (1983–1996);
Biofactor – Biotope Area Factor (BAF).
Legal regulations – each newly constructed or modernised
GERMANY; Essen
building in the city centre should contain green areas.
Legal regulations – all roofs of a pitch below 12° and all roofs
GERMANY; Esslingen, Stuttgart
of new buildings should be green.
Legal regulations – flat roofs of a surface area over 100 m2 have
GERMANY; Munich
to be green to designate the land area for other purposes.
SWEDEN; Malmö Biofactor – Green Space Factor (GSF).
The requirement to construct green roofs on all newly construc-
SWITZERLAND; Basel, Zurich,
ted buildings with flat roofs; the requirement to select compo-
Bern, Lucerne
nents to increase biodiversity.
buildings. In such event, developers treat conducted review of motivational solu-
green roofs as added value of their in- tions demonstrates that the most com-
vestment, which is an additional incen- monly used forms of incentives are direct
tive for their potential customers. subsidies for the construction of green
Introducing incentives to popularise roofs and legal regulations (Table 3).
green roofs proves the need to perform Practice shows that these are the solu-
actions aimed at increasing biologically tions that achieve the best results. This
active areas in cities and at increasing is proven by Germany, which has a long
city resistance to climate changes by tradition of using this type of incentives.
introducing nature based solutions. The The surface of green areas in Germany
646 E. Burszta-Adamiak, W. Fiałkiewiczincreases by 13.5 million m2 every year mentation of the adopted incentives also
(Mentens, Raes & Hermy, 2006). This leads directly to the realisation of green
translates directly into the increase in roof. The requirements concerning the
studies conducted there to evaluate construction of green roofs included in
various aspects of the functionality and the local spatial development plans ena-
usefulness of constructing green roofs. bled to construct 200,000 m2 of green
One of the tangible effects of these ex- roofs in Copenhagen only in two years
periences was the introduction of the (2010–2011). The most diversified range
Forschungsanstalt Landschaftsentwick- of incentives exists in Germany (Table 3).
lung Landschaftsbau (FLL) guidelines This results from the fact that each of the
(FLL, 2002), which were first developed German lands conducts a separate green
in 1997 and published in 2002 (the last policy in terms of the activities aimed at
update was introduced in 2018). Since sustainable development of cities. Table
then, most European countries have con- 3 demonstrates that the form of incen-
sidered the FLL guidelines as the basis tives that is most often used in European
for constructing green roofs. Another cities is co-financing the construction of
example of a country, where initiatives green roofs and local legal regulations
supporting the development of green that oblige investors to construct such
roofs are successfully implemented, is roofs on newly constructed or modern-
Denmark. There, the successful imple-
TABLE 3. List of incentives used in specific countries
Type of incentive
maintenance of green
construction of green
Reduced stormwater
Co-financing of the
Co-financing of the
Legal requirement
Tax allowance
Country
Biofactor
roof
roof
fees
Austria + +
Belgium +
Czech Republic +
Denmark +
Great Britain +
France +
Germany + + + + +
Netherlands +
Poland +
Sweden + +
Switzerland + +
A review of green roof incentives as motivators for the expansion... 647ised buildings in cities, subject to certain ing incentives may be insufficient infor-
conditions. mation about the required administra-
The conducted analysis reveals that tive actions which are often excessively
the type and number of the introduced in- complex and prolong the procedure of
centives does not depend on the climate, obtaining a building permit. In the opin-
in which green roofs may be developed. ion of the authors, setting the incentives
Semaan & Pearce (2016) proved that it at a low return on investment level might
does not depend on the country’s eco- be another factor that leads to poor inter-
nomic health (gross domestic product – est in the proposed solutions. Such situ-
GDP), either. In fact, many factors exist ation may be encountered when reduced
that influence both the adoption of green stormwater or snowmelt fees are offered,
innovations and the development of poli- or during the settlement of real property
cies to promote that adoption, includ- tax. If savings on fees are in the amount
ing other socio-economic factors. One of several or over 10 PLN annually, the
of these factors is the attitude towards investment costs may be returned after
green solutions, which results from the 20–30 years, which is not an attractive
social awareness of the benefits of con- offer for investors. In some of the cities
structing green roofs and the advisability there is a lack of strategy and vision by
of their use. This makes it extremely im- leaders, executives and administrators.
portant to implement the aforementioned This also translates into insufficient in-
“background” incentives alongside other terest in the construction of green roofs.
financial and non-financial incentives. Incentives based on excessively strict
The analysed countries also include requirements for the structure of the
those, where the incentives were intro- constructed green roof (e.g. minimum
duced only one or two years ago, and surface area or substrate thickness) to be
their measurable effects are not as spec- eligible for co-financing or tax allowance
tacular as in Germany or Denmark. Un- may also make the offer less attractive
fortunately, in many European cities, for investors. Some cities complained
green roofs are still treated as a relatively about the public procurement procedures
unimportant element of the urban envi- (the administratively easiest approach,
ronment (Brudermann & Sangkakool, selecting the cheapest offer, creates a lot
2017). This sceptical attitude of inves- of undesirable side effects and in the lack
tors to constructing green roofs is usu- of integration each managing organiza-
ally linked to the lack of knowledge of tion behaves differently). The monitor-
the technology of their construction and ing systems to measure success are also
of the environmental, social and eco- usually weak. Therefore, maintaining
nomic benefits from their realisation. green space is seen as another financial
This phenomenon is enhanced by the oc- barrier. Many public and private clients
casional news about poorly constructed see maintenance as an obstacle, ignoring
green roof (leaks, dampness, problems the potential it holds. Hence, many cit-
with maintaining the roof vegetation in ies called the attention to the difference
good condition, etc.). Another limitation between the creation vs maintenance
that affects the current state of introduc- of green spaces. Complaints usually
648 E. Burszta-Adamiak, W. Fiałkiewiczconcentrated on the lack of funding for educational programme for residents, in-
regular maintenance. All these barriers vestors, and city policy makers should
directly affect the degree of using the be closely integrated with a municipal
proposed incentives by investors. campaign aimed at the popularisation of
green roofs. Such campaign may be con-
ducted through various channels, includ-
Recommendations ing leaflets, press articles, posters, online
promotion, etc. Another important aspect
Identifying the barriers that emerge of a well-developed incentive should be
during the practical implementation of its flexibility. At the stage of considering
the adopted incentives allowed us to pin- the BAF factors in the design, developers
point the weaknesses of the motivational may choose from several different op-
system. In the opinion of the authors, tions of greenery or creating water-per-
this may be the basis for determining the meable surfaces. Thus, they may select
directions of establishing future incen- such systems that will be the most ben-
tives for cities that will decide to intro- eficial for them, for future users of the
duce them. The awareness of the exist- area and for the environment. Another
ing types of barriers may also encourage important feature of a motivational tool
those cities that have already introduced should be its simplicity. Both the struc-
green policies to modify them in order ture of the proposed incentive (in terms
to improve the current state of use of of calculations) and the implementation
the incentives. The motivational system procedure (administrative issues) should
should be modified on several levels. be simplified. An example of such incen-
First of them is education. The satisfac- tive is determining the subsidy amount
tory level of acceptance of the BAF fac- per each constructed square meter of the
tor in Berlin proves that this aspect has green roof, along with tax allowance or
been taken into account. At the stage of reduction in stormwater or snowmelt dis-
creating the factor, groups of experts, rep- charge fees. The experiences of Europe-
resentatives of the local community, the an cities show that the best results, trans-
public administration, and environmen- lated into the number of realised green
tal NGOs had the possibility to express roof investments, are achieved when the
their opinions on the weighting assigned set amount of subsidies is reasonable, so
to the given type of development (sin- that the investor can receive return on
gle-family, multi-family, etc.). Another investment within several (max. 5–10)
major success of these consultations was years. Incentives should be created in
the fact that BAF was taken into account form of packages (several options at
in urban spatial development (i.e. in lo- the same time), in connection with legal
cal spatial development plans). Another regulations. The aim of such strategy is
form of improving the awareness of the to include the provisions on green roofs
functioning of green roofs in cities is the in legal regulations concerning con-
realisation of demonstration projects, ac- struction, water management and spatial
cessible to those who are interested in planning of green areas. Provisions in le-
learning more about the technology. The gal regulations should be introduced on
A review of green roof incentives as motivators for the expansion... 649statutory or ordinance (national) level. growing interest in this type of solutions
In the existing system, regulations on in- is expected. Due to that, it is necessary to
centives are limited to provisions in local develop motivational instruments for the
laws (city development strategies, local construction of green roofs. Such tools
spatial development plans, etc.), which should include mainly financial incentives
fosters the development of green roofs in and obligatory legal provisions. Addition-
certain parts of the country (often limited ally, promotion, social dialogue, good
to one city), while the issue is neglected tactics (policies, strategies), and studies
in other parts. are required. Further challenges for to-
Future financial incentives should day’s cities include providing technical
not be limited only to co-financing the and administrative support in designing,
stage of construction of the green roof. constructing and maintaining green roofs.
As far as green infrastructure solutions Only such multi-faceted approach will
are concerned, the stage of operation is lead to the increase in the number of cities
extremely important, as it requires, when with well-developed green infrastructure
necessary, conducting maintenance on the map of our continent.
works (fertilising, weeding and irrigation
during long dry periods). Among the an-
alysed cities, only Vienna (Austria) has References
foreseen subsidies on maintenance costs
in the incentives. The maintenance costs Badach, J. & Raszeja, E. (2019). Developing a
are co-financed in the amount of approx. framework for the implementation of land-
0.19 EUR·m–2 and the scope of works scape and greenspace Indicators in sustain-
cover inspection twice a year, removal able urban planning. Waterfront landscape
of growing trees and cutting grass. management: Case studies in Gdańsk,
Poznań and Bristol. Sustainability, 11(8),
2291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082291
BEAM Society (2010). BEAM Plus for New
Conclusions Buildings, Version 1.1. Hong Kong: BEAM
Society.
The degree of realisation of green Boas Berg, A., Radziemska, M., Adamcová, D. &
Vaverková, M.D. (2017). Green roofs as an
roofs in cities that have introduced incen-
alternative solution to reduced green surface
tives, compared with cities where such area in highly urbanized cities of the Europe-
motivational tools have not been imple- an union – the study case of the Netherlands.
mented yet, allows us to conclude that Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Architectura,
the implementation of such incentives 16(4), 59-70.
for various groups of stakeholders is cur- Brudermann, T. & Sangkakool, T. (2017). Green
roofs in temperate climate cities in Europe
rently an indispensable element of local – an analysis of key decision factors. Urban
policy. Nowadays, local governments Forestry and Urban Greening, 21, 224-234.
possess tools that enable them to moti- Burszta-Adamiak, E., Stańczyk, J. & Łomotowski,
vate residents and local entities to con- J. (2019). Hydrological performance of green
struct green roofs in municipal areas. roofs in the context of the meteorological
factors during the 5-year monitoring period.
In spite of several barriers that hinder Water and Environment Journal, 33, 144-
the development of green roofs in towns, -154.
650 E. Burszta-Adamiak, W. FiałkiewiczCarter, T. & Fowler, L. (2008). Establishing green Semaan, M. & Pearce, A. (2016). Assessment of
roof infrastructure through environmental the gains and benefits of green roofs in dif-
policy instruments. Environmental Manage- ferent climates. Procedia Engineering, 145,
ment, 42(1), 151-164. 333-339.
Chen, C.F. (2013). Performance evaluation and Shafique, M., Kim, R. & Rafiq, M. (2018). Green
development strategies for green roofs in roof benefits, opportunities and challenges
Taiwan: a review. Ecological Engineering, – A review. Renewable and Sustainable En-
52, 51-58. ergy Reviews, 90, 757-773.
Claus, K. & Rousseau, S. (2012). Public versus pri- Stovin, V., Vesuviano, G. & Kasmin, H. (2012).
vate incentives to invest in green roofs: A cost The hydrological performance of a green
benefit analysis for Flanders. Urban Forestry roof test bed under UK climatic conditions.
and Urban Greening, 11(4), 417-425. Journal of Hydrology, 414, 148-161.
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2019). Sutton, R. (2014). Aesthetics for green roofs and
Green roof legislation, policies and tax in- green walls. The Journal of Living Architec-
centives. Retrieved from http://myplantcon- ture, 1(2), 1-20.
nection.com/green-roofs-legislation.php Uchwała nr XV/268/15 Rady Miejskiej Wrocławia
Fialkiewicz, W., Burszta-Adamiak, E., Kolonko- z dnia 3 września 2015 r. [Resolution No
-Wiercik, A., Manzardo, A., Loss, A., XV/268/15 of the City Council of Wrocław
Mikovits, C. & Scipioni, A. (2018). Simpli- of 3 September 2015].
fied direct water footprint model to support Ugai, T. (2016). Evaluation of sustainable roof
urban water management. Water, 10(5), 630. from various aspects and benefits of agricul-
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10050630 ture roofing in urban core. Procedia-Social
Forschungsanstalt Landschaftsentwicklung and Behavioral Sciences, 216, 850-860.
Landschaftsbau [FLL] (2002). Dachbegrü- United States Green Building Council [USGBC]
nungsrichtlinie. Richtlinien für die Planung, (2009). LEED 2009 for New Construction
Ausführung und Pflege von Dachbegrünun- and Major Renovations. Washington, DC:
gen [Green roof policy. Guidelines for the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).
planning, execution and maintenance of Wolański, P. (2019). Dachy zielone i ich wpływ
green roofs]. Bonn: Forschungsanstalt Land- na jakość życia mieszkańców miast [Green
schaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau. roofs and their impact on the quality of life of
Kruuse, A. (2011). GRaBS expert paper 6: The city dwellers]. Informator Budowlany-mura-
green space factor and the green points sys- tor. Pokrycia Dachowe i Akcesoria, 1-3.
tem. The GRaBS project. London: Town and
Country Planning Association & GRaBS.
Mentens, J., Raes, D. & Hermy, M. (2006). Green
roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff Summary
problem in the urbanized 21st century? Land-
scape and Urban Planning, 77(3), 217-226. A review of green roof incentives as
Olubunmi, O.A., Xia, P.B. & Skitmore, M. (2016). motivators for the expansion of green in-
Green building incentives: A review. Renew- frastructure in European cities. Nowadays
able and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 59(C), green roofs play a key role in alleviating the
1611-1621. negative effects of urbanization. Despite in-
Pendl, M., Hüfing, G., Muerth, P., Tributsch, I., vestors awareness of the advantages of green
Jäger-Katzmann, S. (2009). Project raport roofs, there are still some barriers that hinder
NWRM-CS-AT 02. Natural water retention investments on a large scale. As a result
measures. Wien: Die Umweltberatung Wien. a financial and non-financial incentives are
Russo, A. & Cirella, G. (2018). Modern compact implemented. The review presented in this
cities: how much greenery do we need? Inter- paper allowed to identify the most popular
national Journal of Environmental Research initiatives and to formulate recommendations
and Public Health, 15(10), 2180. https://doi. for creating incentive supporting implemen-
org/10.3390/ijerph15102180 tation of green roofs in urban areas.
A review of green roof incentives as motivators for the expansion... 651Authors’ address:
Ewa Burszta-Adamiak
(https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3755-2047)
Wiesław Fiałkiewicz
(https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2517-5064)
Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy we Wrocławiu
Instytut Inżynierii Środowiska
pl. Grunwaldzki 24, 50-363 Wrocław
Poland
e-mail: ewa.burszta-adamiak@upwr.edu.pl
wieslaw.fialkiewicz@upwr.edu.pl
652 E. Burszta-Adamiak, W. FiałkiewiczYou can also read
