Sustainability

sustainability
Review
Sustainable Urban Environment through Green Roofs:
A Literature Review with Case Studies
Dimitris Perivoliotis 1 , Iasonas Arvanitis 1 , Anna Tzavali 2 , Vassilios Papakostas 3 , Sophia Kappou 4 ,
George Andreakos 4 , Angeliki Fotiadi 4 , John A. Paravantis 3, * , Manolis Souliotis 5 and Giouli Mihalakakou 1
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering & Aeronautics, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece;
up1051339@upnet.gr (D.P.); up1054468@upnet.gr (I.A.); pmichala@upatras.gr (G.M.)
2 Department of Regional and Economic Development, Agricultural University of Athens,
33100 Amfissa, Greece; taxanna3@gmail.com
3 Department of International and European Studies, University of Piraeus, 18534 Piraeus, Greece;
va.papakostas@gmail.com
4 Department of Sustainable Agriculture, University of Patras, 30100 Agrinio, Greece;
sofiakappou@yahoo.gr (S.K.); gandreakos@yahoo.gr (G.A.); afotiadi@upatras.gr (A.F.)
5 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Western Macedonia, 50100 Kozani, Greece;
msouliotis@uowm.gr
* Correspondence: jparav@unipi.gr
Abstract: This study conducts a literature review coupled with case-study calculations comparing
the thermal contribution of semi-intensive and intensive (deeper) green roofs to non-insulated
and insulated building roofs, and enhancing comprehension by validating applied scenarios with
published literature-based data. Mitigation of the urban heat island is crucial for reducing energy
consumption and enhancing urban sustainability, especially through natural solutions such as green
(i.e., planted) roofs. The energy and environmental benefits of green roofs include energy conservation,
thermal comfort, noise reduction, and aesthetic improvement. Legal mandates, innovative business
models, financial subsidies and incentives, regulations, etc. are all components of green roof policies.
Conflicts between private property owners and the public, regulatory gaps, and high installation
Citation: Perivoliotis, D.; Arvanitis, costs are among the challenges. Green roofs are layered and incorporate interacting thermal processes.
I.; Tzavali, A.; Papakostas, V.;
Green roof models are either based on the calculation of thermal transmittance (U-values), an
Kappou, S.; Andreakos, G.; Fotiadi,
experimental energy balance, or data-driven (primarily neural network) approaches. U-values
A.; Paravantis, J.A.; Souliotis, M.;
were calculated for eight hypothetical scenarios consisting of four non-insulated and four insulated
Mihalakakou, G. Sustainable Urban
roofs, with or without semi-intensive and intensive green roofs of various materials and layer
Environment through Green Roofs: A
Literature Review with Case Studies.
thicknesses. While the non-planted, non-insulated roof had the highest U-value, planted roofs were
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15976. https:// particularly effective for non-insulated roofs. Three of these scenarios were in reasonable accord with
doi.org/10.3390/su152215976 experimental and theoretical thermal transmittance literature values. Finally, a non-insulated planted
roof, particularly one with rockwool, was found to provide a certain degree of thermal insulation in
Academic Editor: Francesco
comparison to a non-planted insulated roof.
Riganti Fulginei
Received: 16 September 2023 Keywords: green roofs; energy benefits of green roofs; green roof models; thermal transmittance;
Revised: 1 November 2023 U-value
Accepted: 13 November 2023
Published: 15 November 2023
1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Excessive urbanization and human activities in the urban environment are responsible
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. for numerous climate change and environmental degradation-related consequences. These
This article is an open access article include global warming, the urban heat island (UHI) effect, acid rain, ozone depletion,
distributed under the terms and polluted air and water, natural resource depletion, and biodiversity loss [1,2]. The building
conditions of the Creative Commons sector, in particular, is responsible for nearly 40% of the primary energy consumption,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// which has a significant impact on energy and the environment; therefore, a reduction
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ in energy consumption is viewed as essential for achieving urban sustainability and cli-
4.0/). mate neutrality [3,4]. As mitigation of the UHI is a key challenge in enhancing urban
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15976. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215976 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 15976 2 of 25
sustainability, many solutions inspired and supported by nature have been developed to
reduce energy consumption while concurrently improving living conditions in the built
environment [5].
The technology of planted or vegetated roofs, also known as green roofs (GRs), is
one of the most well-documented nature-based solutions for reducing building energy
consumption, reducing UHI, and enhancing urban sustainability [6,7]. GR technologies
include roof gardens, vegetation roofs, ecological roofs, agricultural GRs, etc. [8]. GRs are
engineered systems that include layers such as a roof barrier placed above a water-proofing
layer, a drainage layer, a filler layer, the soil substrate, and vegetation [1,9].
GRs can be categorized into three groups regarding the substrate depth: (a) exten-
sive [10], with shallow soil substrate between 15 and 20 cm, short plants, and insignificant
needs of maintenance and irrigation; (b) semi-intensive [6], with medium needs of main-
tenance and irrigation; and (c) intensive [11], with increased soil depth up to one meter,
requiring significant maintenance and irrigation.
Green roofing, also known as eco-friendly or vegetated roofing, entails installing a
living, plant-based covering on the roof of a building. Despite the initial upfront expenses,
this approach yields several economic and environmental benefits:
1. Enhanced energy efficiency, including (a) natural insulation, which helps reduce heating
and cooling expenditures by sustaining comfortable temperatures throughout the year;
and (b) decreased reliance on heating and cooling systems, resulting in substantial
energy savings.
2. Prolonged roof lifespan through protection from UV rays and extreme temperatures, which
extend the life of the roof membrane and reduce the need for repairs or replacements.
3. Effective stormwater management due to the fact that GRs can absorb and retain rain-
water, reducing the burden on stormwater management systems and resulting in
stormwater infrastructure maintenance cost savings.
4. Enhanced air quality, as GRs help filter airborne pollutants and generate oxygen,
fostering a healthier environment even indoors, and potentially reducing healthcare
costs for building occupants.
5. Increased property value due to the fact that properties featuring GRs command higher
resale or rental prices, which can contribute to increased income and profits for
building owners.
6. Tax incentives and refunds, as local authorities and organizations may offer financial
incentives or rebates for the installation of GRs as part of their sustainability initiatives,
which help offset installation costs.
7. Aesthetic improvement through the creation of an aesthetically appealing environment,
potentially attracting more customers to businesses and elevating the reputation of a
building, resulting in increased revenue.
8. Regulatory compliance, as in certain regions, GRs can help meet regulatory require-
ments for sustainability and environmental standards, thereby averting possible fines
and penalties.
9. Mitigation of the Urban Heat Island by absorbing and reflecting less heat, creating a
more comfortable atmosphere in the vicinity of the building, potentially reducing
cooling costs.
10. Noise reduction, as GRs can function as a sound insulator, reducing noise pollution
within the building and enhancing the work or living environment, which can boost
productivity and tenant satisfaction.
Despite the fact that GRs offer numerous cost-related benefits, initial installation
costs can be relatively high compared to those of conventional roofing systems. These
costs may fluctuate depending on factors such as the GR type, climate, and local building
codes. However, the long-term savings and environmental benefits often justify the initial
investment. All in all, GRs deliver a variety of financial benefits to the construction
industry, including increased energy efficiency, extended roof lifespan, efficient stormwater
management, improved air quality, increased property value, financial incentives, and
regulatory compliance. These benefits, coupled with the positive environmental impact,
make GRs an attractive option for sustainable and economically viable construction projects.
This work provides a holistic understanding of the thermal performance and benefits
of GRs through a comprehensive literature review of theoretical models and optimization
techniques. The review contains (1) a comprehensive examination of modeling approaches
for assessing the energy behavior of GRs, with a focus on model assumptions and experi-
mental validation; and (2) a discerning discussion of energy and environmental benefits,
while simultaneously acknowledging the most significant issues and constraints. The re-
view aims to be thorough and analytical, examining the thermal performance modeling of
GR systems and classifying theoretical methods according to the most significant scientific
principles. Considering the scientific diversity of models simulating the thermal perfor-
mance of GRs, which may be based on (a) thermal transmittance improvement, (b) energy
balance at the GR, and (c) machine learning methods, this work also provides a practi-
cal thermal transmittance application enriched with several case studies of different GR
types (intensive and semi-intensive), different insulation materials, and a variety of plants,
thereby enhancing the literature review. The case studies include a simple non-insulated
roof, a non-insulated roof with three different types of semi-intensive GRs, an insulated
roof, and an insulated roof with the aforementioned three GR systems. Presented are an
application of the thermal transmittance coefficient method for calculating the thermal
performance of GR systems, as well as a parametric study evaluating how the primary
system configuration parameters, such as insulation material and thickness or plant se-
lection, impact the energy performance and thermal fluxes of the system. This approach
strengthens the review’s understanding by validating applied scenarios with published
literature data.
The U-value, representing how well a structure prevents the transmission of heat
(with lower values signifying greater insulation), plays a central role in GR research as well
as in the architectural design of energy-efficient buildings. Understanding and optimiz-
ing the U-value is essential for energy efficiency, regulation of both indoor and outdoor
temperatures, urban sustainability, regulatory compliance, and cost reductions.
The rest of the paper includes sections on urban sustainability and green roofs; energy
and environmental benefits of green roofs; sociopolitical aspects of green roofs; modeling
green roofs with U-value models, experimental studies, and data-driven models; green
roof thermal transmittance calculations for eight green roof scenarios; comparison with
bibliographic data; consideration of green roofs as insulators; and a final section offering
discussion and conclusions.
2. Urban Sustainability and Green Roofs

The UHI is a global atmospheric phenomenon that is the most representative manifesta-
tion of climate change, consisting of the difference in air temperature between metropolitan
cities, semi-urban or semi-rural areas, and rural areas [12]. UHI is caused by the low
amount of evapotranspiration because of low vegetation, the absorption of solar radia-
tion because of low albedo, air flow difficulties because of higher rugosity (a measure
of rough and ridged surface morphology), and the large amount of anthropogenic heat
release [13]. Every urban area exhibits UHI, which reflects the microclimate of densely
populated areas [12,14–17].
UHI manifests itself primarily (but not exclusively) at night, particularly when the at-
mosphere is calm and clear. Depending on how the air is heated (solar radiation absorption,
heat transfer from hot surfaces, and anthropogenic heat), two types of UHI are produced:
surface and atmospheric [12]. The surface UHI is detectable in the morning, throughout the
day, and at night. During the summer, when solar radiation descends vertically on Earth,
its intensity ranges from 10 to 15 ◦ C during the day and 5 to 10 ◦ C at night. Typically, it is
recorded with air sensors [12]. The atmospheric UHI is lower during the day and peaks at
night, particularly before dawn. Its average intensity ranges from 1 to 3 ◦ C during the day
and 7 to 12 ◦ C at night. It is measured directly by fixed or mobile meteorological stations

and is frequently subdivided into the canopy layer and boundary layer UHI [18].
Green roofs (GRs) are structural elements of the roof of a building that are either
partially or wholly covered with (green) vegetation. Although the term is occasionally
used to refer to roofs that contain environmentally friendly (“green”) technologies, such as
photovoltaics or wind turbines [19], the focus of this study is exclusively on planted roofs.
These are areas where vegetation has been planted through technological intervention
in an effort to improve living conditions and the urban environment. GRs are presented
as a natural alternative to mitigate the negative effects of greenhouse gasses and traffic
pollution in a sustainable manner, offering environmental, aesthetic, sociological, and
economic benefits, particularly in urban areas [20].
There are three types of GRs [1,21]: extensive [10,22], intensive [23], and semi-intensive [24].
Extensive GRs are most common, with a soil depth of less than 20 cm, which makes them
less expensive and simpler to install. The vegetation comprised grass, herbs, mosses, and
short grass. Extensive GRs do not require additional maintenance because soil water is
retained, making the plants resistant to high temperatures and droughts [10,22,25]. In
intensive GRs, the average soil depth is up to one meter. These GRs are considered to
be more specialized, as they can accommodate a wider plant variety and achieve a more
aesthetically pleasing and realistic outcome. Their structure is, however, more demanding
and intricate, requiring additional care and retention-promoting measures. Consequently,
they are more expensive and require more construction and maintenance [23]. Finally, semi-
intensive GRs represent a compromise between the two alternatives. Typically, small plants,
low vegetation, and grass are used in such situations, while installation, maintenance, and
watering needs are minimal [24].
GRs represent a contemporary variant of the conventional roof garden, as they consist
of soil, vegetation, and plant species. GRs can be installed on any building material,
including concrete and wood, similar to roof gardens. GRs are engineered to improve
the microclimate, reduce the energy load of buildings, and achieve superior aesthetic
results [26,27]. Plant selection is a fundamental aspect of GRs. Due to structural restrictions
on the total weight of a building’s roof, there are constraints on the size and weight of the
plants. Additionally, the choice of vegetation affects air and runoff quality as well as energy
conservation. Root barriers built in the GR serve as an insulating layer and prevent any
structural damage caused by plant roots. Excess water is diverted to rainwater drainage,
while a filtering layer prevents clogging by ensuring that the growing medium has access
to the drainage layer [28].
The layers typically found in GRs include [1,9,20] vegetation, i.e., plants that improve
the air and runoff quality, act as a moisture barrier [29], and contribute to energy conserva-
tion [26,30]; soil, which serves as the growing substrate [31]; filtering, which separates the
soil layer from drainage material [32]; drainage material, which enhances the thermal proper-
ties of GRs and maintains a balance between air and water [30]; root barrier, which prevents
damage to the structure [31]; and the waterproofing layer, which is extremely important
for protecting the building structure [29]. Important parameters that must be considered
in GRs include [33] climatic conditions, such as meteorological parameters, geographic
conditions of the wider urban area, and the in-house temperatures during the different
seasons; the static strength of the building as well as the building type, e.g., residence,
offices, laboratories; and the GR type, taking into account thickness and irrigation, as well
as the overall design of the GR, plant selection, construction materials, etc.
GRs are living ecosystems, and plant selection is important because it can enhance
the functionality, appearance, and overall environment of buildings [34–36]. The type of
plant can vary depending on the GR type (extensive, semi-intensive, or intensive). Plants
may be native or non-native, may exhibit a variety of functional characteristics (annual or
perennial, succulent or not, shrubby or herbaceous), and may possess particular structural
characteristics, such as root growth, which may affect the stability of the roots. The litera-
ture indicates that intensive GRs may host a broader plant selection but require frequent
maintenance, whereas extensive GRs typically rely on a limited range of plant species.
For instance, it is recommended to avoid woody plants (like Phanerophytes), because
their well-developed roots could damage the roof’s insulation layers over time. It is also
recommended to avoid annual plants (like Therophytes) and biennial Hemicryptophytes
due to their shorter lifespans and inability to provide continuous green cover. The use of
native plants has received significant attention lately, due to their superior adaptation to
local environmental conditions, greater ecological benefits, and greater aesthetic appeal
compared to non-native species [37,38].
The scientific literature does not offer specific data on the variation in surface tem-
perature of different types of GRs throughout the day. Regarding indoor and outdoor air
temperatures at the level of a GR, some experimental and simulation studies have been
conducted. An experimental study with a roof lawn garden conducted in Osaka, Japan,
showed a significant indoor air temperature reduction underneath the planted roof of up to
30 ◦ C during the summer months [39]. Two test cells, one with a simple concrete roof and
the other with a GR, were compared experimentally [40]. The concrete roof’s outdoor air
temperature ranged from 14 to 38 ◦ C, while the indoor air temperature varied from 16 to
38 ◦ C. For the GR, the outdoor air temperature ranged from 22 to 27 ◦ C, while the indoor
air temperature fluctuated between 23 and 28 ◦ C. In an experimental study conducted in
Shangai, China, measurements were taken in two experimental rooms, one covered by
a conventional roof and one by a GR system [10]. The results demonstrated that the GR
contributed to a 32.5 ◦ C decrease in the outer surface temperature amplitude variation,
while the roof temperature difference between the green and conventional roofs increased
by up to 5 ◦ C. Simulations in different climatic conditions showed that the air temperature
at the roof level decreased by an average of 12.8 ◦ C and up to a maximum of 26 ◦ C [41].
Green roofs and cool materials can help mitigate the UHI and improve the urban
climate alongside large-scale carbon sinks, such as urban parks or forests near cities,
and negative emission technologies, such as carbon capture and storage [39–42]. GRs in
particular have been associated with many benefits, and scholars have produced substantial
quantitative findings, establishing GRs as a highly favored nature-based approach for
improving urban climate, mitigating the urban heat island effect, and ameliorating living
conditions in urban settings [38].
Several factors influence the thermal (heating/cooling) and energy performance of GRs.
Of these, the GR type (extensive, intensive, and semi-intensive); structural design elements,
such as thermal insulation [42]; growing medium (soil) parameters, e.g., composition,
thickness, thermal conductivity, moisture content; plant types and characteristics (e.g., Leaf
Area Index, LAI), height, leaf reflectivity, leaf emissivity, and stomatal resistance [31,43–46]
play a crucial role [47–50]. The effectiveness of GRs is also affected by the urban structure
in terms of urban block density, height, and arrangement [51,52] as well as building design
characteristics, e.g., building height, materials, orientation, and insulation [42,53–55]. The
potential combination of GRs with green walls and facades, other greenery systems, and
blue infrastructure can improve their overall performance [47,50].
However, the thermal performance and, consequently, the energy savings potential of
GRs are strongly dependent on the prevailing climatic conditions, which drive both the
physical (heat and mass transfer) and the biological (transpiration and photosynthesis)
processes operating through a GR system. The key meteorological and climatic parameters
that control energy transfer processes and mechanisms (such as conduction, convection,
evapotranspiration, evaporative cooling, and thermal storage) in GRs are incident solar
radiation (a major component of the surface energy balance), ambient air temperature,
atmospheric humidity, wind speed, and soil moisture content.
Local climate and prevailing meteorological conditions govern the function of the
structural elements of a GR system. For instance, soil water content affects soil thermal
behavior by increasing thermal conductivity and heat capacity, whereas soil moisture deter-
mines the water availability for evapotranspiration [56]. Soil moisture content is regulated
mostly by the precipitation regime (amount, intensity, and timing), mean air temperature,
and relative humidity. In some climatic zones where precipitation is insufficient, such as
arid and semi-arid climates or climates with distinct dry periods, supplementary irrigation
is applied. The presence of a snow layer during the winter has a negative impact on the
thermal performance of GRs in cold climates [42]. The majority of the cooling effect of
GRs is attributed to evapotranspiration, which (with the exception of soil moisture) is
determined by solar radiation, wind speed, relative humidity, air temperature, and sky
conditions [57]. Moreover, evapotranspiration depends on vegetation characteristics, such
as density, LAI, height, and stomatal resistance [57]. The shading provided by the plant
canopy also contributes to the cooling effect of GRs. The dominant climate conditions
influence the growth and health of plants, whereas plant behavior varies with the seasons.
Thus, the proper selection of plants should take into account both structural characteristics
and ecological factors (for instance, native plants are better adapted to local climatic condi-
tions) [42,58]. Lastly, the seasonality of certain climates modulates the thermal performance
of GRs accordingly, with better energy performance during the warm (cooling) season
rather than in the cold (heating) season [42,47,48,50].
Given the central role of local climate in the energy performance and economic and
environmental benefits of GRs, many research works have investigated and established
the relationship between climatic background and the energy performance of GRs. Several
review papers have attempted to compile and summarize the available findings for different
climate zones and climatic conditions. For instance, Jamei et al. [49] evaluated the profit
in building energy demand from GRs in three climate zones: temperate, hot-humid, and
hot-dry. It was found that the reduction in cooling load is greatest in temperate climates
(mean of 50.2%), whereas the corresponding values for hot-humid and hot-dry climates
were 10 and 14.8%, respectively, highlighting the strong influence of structural elements
such as thermal insulation, growing media, irrigation, and plant selection.
Similar to the findings of Susca [48], the energy savings for cooling purposes due
to the installation of GRs on non-insulated rooftops ranged from 9 to 20% for hot-arid
and continental desert climates, respectively, to 67% for temperate zones, and up to 75%
for tropical climates with dry winters, whereas the decrease in heating energy demand
ranged from 20 to 63% in warm climates (such as equatorial savanna and warm temperate
climates with warm and humid summers). Energy savings are negligible in hot-arid desert
climates, whereas a 30% increase may be observed in warm temperate, fully humid, and
hot summer climates. The performance of insulated GRs degrades as the reduction in
cooling building energy demand varies between 5 and 9% in temperate climates, and 10
to 13% in arid climates. The reduction in heating energy demand can be about 30% in the
Mediterranean climate but is negligible in warm temperate, fully humid with hot summers,
and hot arid steppe climates. The effectiveness of GRs in mitigating the UHI was also
evaluated, revealing a decrease in nocturnal air temperature between 0 and 20 ◦ C at rooftop
level, depending on the climate region, while the effect at pedestrian level was negligible
in all considered climates.
In general, the implementation of GR systems has proved to be more effective for cool-
ing energy savings during the summer than heating energy savings during the winter [42].
According to a literature survey by He et al. [50], the energy reduction potential of GRs for
building cooling ranges from 3% (in fully humid cold climates with hot summers) to 90% (in
warm temperate climates with dry winters), while the potential reduction in heating energy
demand ranges from 0.58% (in a temperate Mediterranean climate) to 60% (in a humid
temperate climate with hot summers) depending on the climatic zone and the characteris-
tics of the GR type. A higher cooling energy reduction was reported in humid temperate
climates with a hot summer (57.6%), in humid temperate climates with a warm summer
(57%), and in Mediterranean climates (50%), whereas in the hot arid and equatorial savanna
climate zone, a decrease of about 45% was observed. Jamei et al. [49] estimated a 50.25%
mean reduction in energy consumption for cooling and 20.2% for heating, respectively.
Note, however, that in hot arid and hot semi-arid climates, certain GR types may cause a
5.9 to 25% increase in heating energy demand [50]. Even in Mediterranean climates, two
extensive GR systems resulted in a 6 and 11% increase in energy consumption during the
heating period, compared to conventionally insulated roofs [59]. GRs have demonstrated
greater energy efficiency in the summer (cooling) in temperate warm climates, whereas
greater energy loss has been observed in the winter in colder climates [42,48,50].
In conclusion, any effort to optimize the energy performance of a GR system by modi-
fying and/or calibrating structural parameters (e.g., insulation, growing media, irrigation
level, and plant varieties) should be designed in accordance with the local climate. Next,
the following section discusses the energy and environmental benefits of GRs [60,61].
2.1. Energy Benefits of Green Roofs

Considering that about 20% of the urban surface is covered by roofs, GRs play a
significant role in the energy efficiency of the building envelope [25,62,63] and the thermal
comfort of inhabitants [64–66]. GRs contribute to a substantial reduction in the cooling
load and annual energy savings [27], with the cooling load reduced by up to 70%, leading
to energy savings of 10 to 60% annually [66]. The energy efficacy of GRs depends on the
type of GR (intensive, extensive, etc.), vegetation, prevailing climatic conditions, and the
architectural shape and characteristics of the building [67,68].
The positive impact of GRs on indoor temperature is evident when comparing white
and green roofs [69]. GRs protect building envelopes from temperature increases above
ambient levels and reduce air temperature through evapotranspiration [70]. GRs can
reduce indoor air temperature by up to 15 ◦ C [71] or even more if there is shading by
adjacent trees, with the benefits primarily confined to the upper floors of buildings with
installed GRs. Combining GR with green walls can reduce indoor temperatures and
improve thermal comfort. GRs can also reduce the outside temperature, with the degree of
temperature reduction contingent on the GR’s surface area and the vertical distance from
the pedestrian level.
Numerous theoretical and practical studies have been conducted to evaluate the
energy conservation attained by GR systems [13,26,27,41,72–75]. GR energy benefits in-
clude a significant reduction in the roof’s thermal transmittance (U-value), leading to
improved roof insulation and a reduction in the cooling and heating load; a decrease in
indoor air temperature during the summer, mainly caused by evapotranspiration, but
also by shading provided by roof plants; a reduction in surface temperature in the sum-
mer, influencing heat transfer processes; and improved indoor air conditions and thermal
comfort [13,26,76,77]. Building characteristics and heat transfer mechanisms, which are
predominantly determined by building components and roof U-values, have a substantial
impact on energy savings, which are reflected in the reduction in cooling and heating loads.
In addition, the characteristics of the plant canopy as reflected by the Leaf Area Index (LAI),
which influence shade, evapotranspiration, and latent and convective heat changes, have a
significant impact on system energy behavior [73,78–80].
2.2. Environmental Benefits of Green Roofs

GRs are characterized by important environmental benefits. Vegetated GR surfaces and
substrates enhance environmental services in urban areas, help regulate building tempera-
tures, improve storm-water management, and mitigate UHI effects [13]. The improvement
in outdoor air quality is directly related to lower carbon emissions by at least 30%, which
are a result of both the reduced energy consumption through evapotranspiration and pho-
tosynthesis as well as the deposition of pollutants in planted areas [81,82]. Water quality is
improved through the control of runoff and the filtration of water pollutants [21].
By providing shading from direct solar radiation, GRs affect the microclimate and
energy consumption of buildings [19,40,83]. GRs improve outdoor air quality because
plants act as sinks for air pollutants [84,85], eliminating emissions [86–88], decreasing sur-
face temperature (through evapotranspiration) by 3 ◦ C, reducing photochemical reactions,
contributing to energy savings by over 35% [87], and playing a significant role in carbon
sequestration (via photosynthesis) [89]. Additionally, GRs improve indoor air quality and
contribute positively to indoor and outdoor thermal comfort. Outdoor comfort pertains
to the condition of having lower surface and ambient temperatures by 5 ◦ C, especially
during the summer, thereby reducing the cooling load [90–93]. GRs further improve air
quality by enhancing the deposition of air pollutants onto vegetated areas, resulting in a
40% reduction in pollutant concentrations near infrastructure, and a 40% improvement
in air purification [81,94]. GRs also contribute to the intensification of carbon dioxide
(CO2 ) concentrations through essential plant functions such as evapotranspiration and
photosynthesis [95].
GRs contribute to a considerable control effect on overflow volume and to the mit-
igation of flooding caused by heavy rainfall. The ability of GRs to control the overflow
of urban rainfall has been demonstrated by research studies [6,11,21,89,96]. Retention of
rainwater, which typically accounts for 40 to 60% of total precipitation, depends on several
factors, including GR type, humidity, vegetation, plant size, as well as rainfall duration and
intensity [97]. In addition, nearly 5% of the water eventually returns to the atmosphere via
evapotranspiration, thereby reducing the burden on the city’s sewage networks. Further-
more, GRs contribute to the preservation and propagation of local flora and fauna, even in
the urban built environment.
In the middle of an urban area, GRs provide a peaceful and quiet place, with noise and
pollution reduced by 10%, which can improve mental, physical, and overall health [98]. GRs
reduce noise in the urban environment outside the building as well as in the living, working,
and leisure spaces inside the building. Ground traffic and other street canyon sounds can
travel to the rooftop of a building. GRs enhance sound absorption relative to a conventional
(non-green) roof and decrease transmission losses relative to a conventional roof. Planted
rooftops are also one of the few remaining means of restoring vegetation to urban space.
The combination of plant material, planting type, and design proposals offers a variety
of landscape architecture possibilities for designing extensive low herbaceous plantings,
accessible gardens with seating areas, dining areas, ponds, promenades, etc. Moreover, the
planted buildings offer a solution for the establishment of additional recreational space
Skinner 2006 [99]. Converting the roof of a building into an accessible garden has a social
dimension in addition to its economic and aesthetic benefits. A space is created that enables
its occupants to engage in a variety of activities, such as play, recreation, or the development
of interpersonal relationships and sociability.
2.3. Sociopolitical Aspects of Green Roofs

UHIs are a growing concern for policymakers and city planners due to their adverse
impacts on natural ecosystems, public health, and economies. Existing reviews typically
investigate UHI policies and technological solutions in isolation, lacking a synthesis of
integrated interventions. Degirmenci et al. [100] identified four key areas that are un-
derrepresented in the literature: coordination effects of policy and technology responses,
synergistic effects of a combined approach of policy and technology interventions, aggravat-
ing effects of inadequate policy and technology responses, and moderating effects of policy
and technology responses on the relationship between anthropogenic heat and incremental
environmental burden. The urgency of the UHI problem underscores the significance of
integrated policies, such as green roof initiatives, for mitigating the adverse environmental
and health effects of urban heat and fostering sustainable urban development.
Countries worldwide are adopting policies to promote green roofs due to their many
environmental, social, and economic benefits, often offering financial incentives or reduc-
tions in water and property fees to encourage their implementation [6]. Examples include
Tokyo’s law requiring certain buildings to have GRs [101]; financial incentives in German
cities such as Darmstadt [101]; drainage fee reductions in Cologne, Mannheim, and Bonn;
and reimbursement in Basal, Switzerland [101]. Toronto has mandated green roofs cover-
ing 50 to 70% of a building; Quebec offers compensations per square meter; and various
US states have their own policies promoting GRs, such as the Floor Area Ratio Bonus in
Portland and sewer charge reductions in Nashville [102,103]. Singapore also offers financial
benefits through its Gross Floor Incentive Scheme, while countries like China, Hong Kong,
Malaysia, and South Korea are actively promoting green roofs and considering putting in
place incentive policies [104].
Liberalesso et al. [105] analyzed 143 policies in 113 cities to determine the prevalence
of green infrastructure incentive policies in Europe and North America. These incentives
include tax reductions, financing mechanisms, permits, certifications, legal obligations,
and streamlined procedures, with financial subsidies and legal mandates being the most
prevalent global strategies. South America prioritizes property tax reductions, whereas
North America takes a balanced approach. The study emphasized policy effectiveness and
suggested tailoring homeowner participation incentives to local contexts. It also promotes
knowledge-sharing networks to accelerate the adoption of effective green policies and
promote sustainability in urban areas worldwide.
The European Union aligns with nature-based solutions via policies inspired by the
H2020 Expert Group report on “Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities” [106] and
the EU research policy [107], focusing on innovative business models, long-term financing,
and legal frameworks for nature-based solutions. In accordance with the United Nations
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals [108], the recently adopted Biodiversity
Strategy by the European Commission aims to protect nature and combat ecosystem
degradation by 2030 [109]. Moreover, certain European cities have implemented policies to
promote GRs, such as mandatory regulations in Copenhagen for roofs with slopes below
30 degrees; financial incentives in Vienna ranging from 8 to 50 euros per square meter; and
Hamburg’s comprehensive strategy, with incentives covering 40% of construction expenses,
along with subsidies for educational institutions [110].
In New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, GR policies may be classified into two
categories [111]: mandatory regulations and incentive programs, each of which has its
own advantages and disadvantages. These policies seek primarily to mitigate the effects
of climate change, such as UHIs and stormwater management. Worldwide, common
incentives include financing and obligations, with notable initiatives like Philadelphia’s
Density Bonus, New York’s Green Infrastructure Grant, and Chicago’s Green Permit Pro-
gram addressing environmental justice concerns. However, prospective conflicts may arise
between private property owners and the public regarding costs, necessitating additional
research in a variety of contexts. These cities are in the early stages of GR implementation,
underscoring the need for expansion to ensure more equitable policies that incorporate
all facets of environmental justice through community education and knowledge-sharing
initiatives at the local level.
However, a review of the literature on GRs in ASEAN countries [112] reveals uneven
development, with challenges such as regulatory gaps, limited expertise, and high instal-
lation costs. Government-backed regulations and the development of region-specific GR
technology to reduce installation costs are required to address these issues.
3. Modeling Green Roofs

GRs combine interacting thermal processes, such as conduction, convection, evapo-
transpiration, evaporative cooling, radiative cooling, shading, and thermal storage, in the
following layers [113]:
1. The support layer, a solid layer that encompasses all layers from the roof surface to the
ground layer. Heat in this layer is conducted as described by Carslaw and Jaeger [114].
2. The soil layer, which consists of solid and fluid elements, such as air, water, and organic
substances. In solid elements, heat transfer occurs via conduction, whereas in fluid
elements, heat transfer occurs via convection [34,73].
3. The canopy layer, which includes vegetation foliage and ambient air, and plays an
important role in mitigating UHI. Many environmental parameters and thermal
processes influence this layer [73,115].
Modeling the thermal performance of a GR system contributes to the evaluation of its
energy potential. Modeling GRs becomes challenging if sensible (i.e., occurring without
a phase change such as evaporation or condensation) and latent (i.e., occurring with a
phase change) heat exchange and all heat transfer events are considered. Several modeling
techniques have been developed to evaluate and forecast the thermal and energy balance
of GRs. These modeling techniques may be grouped into three categories:
1. Models based on thermal transmittance improvement (as measured by the U-value)
through the GR [17,26,27,72].
2. Models based on the description and experimental determination of the energy bal-
ance in the planted GR system [22,39,41,73,78,116–119].
3. Data-driven models (artificial intelligence approaches, primarily neural networks) pre-
dicting the thermal behavior of the planted roof by training a neural network [74,120,121].
These three categories of models are discussed in the next sections.
3.1. U-Value Models

The thermal performance of a GR system is usually denoted by the thermal transmit-
tance coefficient (U-value). The U-value is the rate of heat transfer through a structure made
of a single material or a combination of materials, divided by the temperature difference
across the structure. The U-value is measured in watts over square meters and degrees
Kelvin, or W/(m2 K). Better-insulated structures have lower U-values.
Niachou et al. [26] conducted one of the first investigations of the thermal performance
of a GR and its significant impact on reducing the cooling load of buildings, based primarily
on increasing the thermal capacity of the roof and reducing heat losses. By performing
tests and using mathematical formulations, the U-value was calculated for various roof
types with and without insulation, using different materials, and taking the manufacturer’s
recommendations for material composition into account. The energy performance of a
building in Athens, Greece, was simulated for one year with and without the GR system,
and the contribution of the GR to the reduction in the cooling load and energy savings was
determined. The simulation of the building’s annual energy performance with and without
the GR allowed the calculation of the GR’s contribution to the decrease in cooling load and
energy savings, and it was determined that the model was sufficiently accurate.
Wong et al. [27] evaluated the impact of a GR on the cooling load reduction and
energy consumption of a hypothetical multistory commercial building in Singapore. The
methodology was based on the thermal resistance coefficient (R-value), and various soil
and plant types were taken into consideration for each layer of different GRs. The DOE-2
Energy Simulation Tool (https://www.doe2.com/, accessed on 12 November 2023) was
used to model the annual energy performance of all GR types in conjunction with the
building, and the model was successfully validated against experimental data.
Castleton et al. [60] discussed the beneficial impacts of GRs on the energy efficiency
of buildings in a review article, contending that the efficiency of GRs depends on factors
such as soil thickness, moisture content, and roof insulation. In inadequately insulated
buildings, GRs can reduce cooling and, in some cases, heating requirements. The authors
focused on retrofitting GRs, which can benefit older buildings as long as they have the
structural capacity. The significance of mathematical models and thermal simulations, such
as those provided by modeling systems like EnergyPlus, was emphasized in evaluating
energy savings, particularly when retrofitting GRs into existing structures.
Santamouris et al. [13] investigated the thermal performance of a planted roof system
installed in a nursery school in Athens, Greece, and conducted extensive experimental inves-
tigations and mathematical analyses based on the planted roof’s U-value. The planted roof
was integrated with the building in the TRNSYS computational software (v15), allowing ex-
perimental data to verify the model. Spala et al. [72] conducted a thermal examination of a
GR system installed in an office building also located in Athens, Greece. Their work also re-
lied on the U-value calculation performed by Niachou et al. [26] and Santamouris et al. [17].
The GR system and the building were integrated into the TRNSYS environment.
Kotsiris et al. [122] analyzed GR systems that varied based on the type or depth of
the substratum and focused on determining the U-value, a critical parameter for assessing
energy performance. Utilizing a specialized test method that included a pseudo-adiabatic

shell, they were able to effectively isolate heat loss from all aspects except the roof under
examination. This method, known as PASLINK, has demonstrated remarkable versatility
and adaptability, making it suitable for evaluating diverse building components and ac-
commodating varying weather. After measuring the thermal properties of GR substrates,
U-values were estimated using a parameter identification approach. A transient mathemati-
cal model that incorporated the test component was developed, utilizing iterative processes
and statistical analysis to adjust parameters for optimal agreement between the model
and measured outputs. Their research comprised three main phases: determining the
properties of the GR substrate, estimating U-values using the LORD software (v3.2) [123],
and simulating energy savings with various roof structures (with or without insulation) in
the TRNSYS software. It was concluded that the U-value in the planted roof system with
a rockwool underlay was lower due to its increased porosity, and that by increasing the
substrate depth to 20 cm, the U-value was less than the maximum required by thermal
insulation regulations.
3.2. Experimental Studies

Most mathematical models used to describe the thermal performance of GRs have
been based on the formulation and calculation of the energy balance of the various system
components. Their objective has been to evaluate the contribution of the GR to the thermal
protection of the building and the energy savings from the cooling load, demonstrating
the GR’s impact on UHI mitigation and climate improvement. The research works of
Del Barrio [124] and Sailor [125] have had a substantial impact on many mathematical
formulations for the energy balance of GR systems.
The work of Del Barrio [124] was one of the first mathematical models for evaluating
the thermal performance during the summer and the cooling effect of a GR system using
interpretations of its transient thermal processes that accounted for three GR components:
the structural support layer, the soil layer, and the canopy layer. Soil is composed of
three phases: solid, liquid (aqueous solution), and gas. Under the assumption of solid
homogeneity and constant thermal characteristics, the one-dimensional heat conduction
equation in solids [114] was used to describe the heat transmission process for the first
component. Conduction in solids and convection in fluids were used to represent the
methods of heat transmission as sensible and latent heat, respectively. Due to variations in
soil temperature, heat transfer also results in a migration of soil moisture. The canopy model
expressed thermal processes, including heat and mass transmission. The most influential
factors were leaf absorption of solar radiation, convective processes, evapotranspiration,
and long-wave radiation. As the actual boundary conditions for the three energy balance
formulations (support, soil, and canopy), Del Barrio [124] also proposed two coupling
models based on the heat exchange at each interface.
Sailor [125] presented a thorough, understandable, and concise mathematical model
for comprehending the thermal behavior of GRs. The model was developed and incorpo-
rated within the EnergyPlus building simulation tool (https://energyplus.net/). Several
researchers have utilized that model for parametric analysis and experimental data val-
idation. The model generated a typical GR energy balance that is primarily influenced
by solar radiation, heat from soil and plants, heat from evapotranspiration, heat transfer
from soil conductional processes, and long-wave radiation. These factors were taken into
consideration when creating two energy budgets, one for the leaf layer and the other for
the soil surface.
Current GR heat transfer models are predominantly unidimensional and frequently
assume canopy and substrate coverage homogeneity. Typically, they consider heat fluxes
such as radiation, conduction, and convection, but they may overlook metabolic plant
processes and variations in substrate moisture. As these models evolve to include more heat
flux components, it becomes essential to comprehend their impact on indoor temperatures,
a critical factor in achieving thermal comfort and energy savings via air conditioning.
However, heat exchange due to photosynthesis and respiration may not have a significant
impact on indoor temperatures, posing a challenge for model validations that rely on
canopy or substrate temperatures. Comparing results from different heat transfer models
is hampered by limited literature data, and obtaining precise information about thermal
and botanical properties and evapotranspiration rates remains a challenge [39].
Lei et al. [91] conducted a field experiment in a primary school building in Taipei,
Taiwan, to examine the cooling effect of GRs versus conventional building roofs. Using the
finite element method, three thermal analysis models (3D full, 2D plan, and 1D simplified)
were developed. The 2D plan model was accurate for simulating the actual thermal
behavior of the building. Experiments and analyses revealed that GRs in Taiwan have a
substantial cooling effect during the summer but offer minimal insulation benefits during
the mild winter months. The extent of cooling was correlated with the Leaf Area Index
(LAI), with higher LAI values producing more pronounced cooling effects. GRs reduced
roof edge (soffit) and indoor air temperatures by up to 6 ◦ C and 4 ◦ C, respectively, when
compared to conventional roofs, resulting in improved indoor thermal comfort.
Polo-Labarrios et al. [126] developed a transient heat transfer mathematical model for
both conventional and GR buildings, taking into account one-dimensional heat conduction
through both the roof and walls (unlike many extant models, which ignore heat transfer
through walls). The model assumed that all building elements, including roofs and walls,
are composed of a single, uniform, opaque material; windows were not taken into account.
Importantly, the requisite data for this model are readily accessible and do not require
specialized measuring equipment.
Aguareles et al. [127] developed a mathematical model for estimating energy storage
in GRs, which provides insight into their thermal behavior in comparison to conventional
concrete roofs. The model generated analytical solutions for both shallow and deep sub-
strates, exhibiting linear relationships with parameters such as leaf coverage, albedo, and
irradiance, while the effects of evaporation rate and convective heat transfer were nonlinear.
Even with high-albedo coatings, GRs were found to be significantly cooler and store less
energy than concrete roofs. Compared to an equivalent concrete roof, energy storage
was reduced by more than three times due to soil evaporation. The results support the
predilection for intensive rather than extensive GRs, and the model offers design guidelines
for GRs.
Lokesh et al. [128] investigated the UHI effect and the cooling potential of GRs in
urban areas, analyzing heat transfer through conventional roofs using experimental data
and constructing a numerical model. During peak hours, indoor temperatures were lower
in buildings with GRs, according to simulations conducted under atmospheric conditions
similar to experimental data. This cooling effect was attributable to the ability of the green
layer to absorb solar radiation, which was then released through evapotranspiration and
photosynthesis, thereby diminishing heat penetration through the roof.
Huang et al. [129] developed a mathematical model for assessing how GRs affect the
energy balance of urban building surfaces. Using long-term observational data to analyze
seasonal variations in solar radiation, heat fluxes, and evapotranspiration of both bare
and green roofs, the model explains how GRs affect energy flows throughout the year.
Their mathematical framework sought to improve the accuracy of urban climate models
and provide insights for sustainable urban development by highlighting the interaction
between physical and biochemical processes on GRs, emphasizing their role in mitigating
the UHI effect, and enhancing energy efficiency.
3.3. Data Driven Models

Data-driven models, such as those based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), are
atheoretical computer systems that utilize historical data rather than the mathematical
language of deterministic models. Data-driven models can accurately describe relatively
complex nonlinear systems, are simple and computationally efficient, and require only
historical data for training and testing.
Pandey et al. [74] designed and trained an ANN to forecast the reduction in cooling
demand resulting from the installation of a GR system. Input parameters for training
included relative humidity, average solar intensity, wind speed, and dry bulb temperature
values. The presence of the GR was found to reduce the heat gain significantly. The
performance of the ANN was evaluated using a wide range of experimental values, and its
accuracy was determined to be adequate.
Asadi et al. [120] constructed, trained, and tested a multilayered feed-forward ANN
using back-propagation in order to calculate the mitigating effect of a GR system on the
UHI. Its training used parameters for the morphology and 2D and 3D properties of cities
extracted from satellite images, light detection, and ranging data. Greening a mere 3.2%
of all building roofs would reduce UHI considerably by reducing the average soil surface
temperature by 1.96 ◦ C.
Wei et al. [121] developed an ANN to assess the impact of a GR system on the winter
warming effect. In a subtropical environment in China, three experimental buildings were
examined with GRs that measured the Roof Outer Surface Temperature (ROST) throughout
the winter. Using outdoor temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, solar radiation, soil
moisture content, and soil layer thickness, an ANN was created and trained with ROST as
the output. Using experimental values, a genetic algorithm back-propagation ANN model
was selected, trained, tested, and shown to be accurate. It was demonstrated that a 20 cm
soil thickness and 3.9% soil moisture content resulted in a maximum ROST of 13.5 ◦ C.
Mazzeo et al. [130] developed and validated an ANN to predict the monthly internal
and external surface and internal air temperatures of GRs based on various parameters
and climate variables. The ANN was trained using data from various GR configurations in
Palermo, Italy, a Mediterranean-climate city. The optimal ANN architecture demonstrated
high prediction accuracy, with validation results demonstrating the ANN’s ability to
forecast temperatures for GRs not included in the training data set.
Mousavietal [131] utilized a novel AI-based smart energy-comfort system for opti-
mizing GRs in urban housing estates, with a focus on improving energy conservation
and thermal comfort. Employing machine learning, the DesignBuilder software (v7)
(https://designbuilder.co.uk/), and a Taguchi design, the system maximized GR per-
formance by taking into account important parameters such as Leaf Area Index, leaf
reflectivity, leaf emissivity, and stomatal resistance. The results demonstrated a substantial
12.8% increase in comfort hours and a 14% reduction in energy consumption compared to
the base case. The study determined that the adaptive network-based fuzzy inference sys-
tem was an effective AI method for predicting energy-comfort functions, with a correlation
coefficient exceeding 97%. While the analysis focused on semi-arid climates, it provided
potential plant selection guidelines applicable to a variety of contexts. However, further
research and experimentation are required to refine these guidelines for different climates
and building characteristics.
4. Green Roof Thermal Transmittance Calculations

4.1. Green Roof Case-Studies
As a supplement to the previous literature review and for illustrative purposes, eight
different scenarios (hypothetical case studies) of four non-insulated and four insulated
roofs, with or without semi-intensive and intensive GR, different layer thickness, and
different construction materials were set up as follows [132,133]:
1. A non-insulated, non-planted roof, with the thermal transmittance coefficient of a conventional
roof : The specified non-insulated roof structure was composed of lime mortar and
reinforced concrete with respective thicknesses of 2.5 and 12 cm. The calculated
thermal conductivity of these materials was 0.87 and 2.5 W/(m2 K), respectively.
2. A semi-intensive non-insulated planted roof made of lime mortar and reinforced concrete,
with an 8 cm thick rockwool and a 2 cm thick rooted turfgrass layer: In this scenario, the
planted roof was comprised (from inside to outside) of a double-layered bitumen of
4 mm for each layer, made of refinery asphalt and other materials to prevent root
penetration. It was then covered with a 3 mm thick polyester geotextile (PET) for
the mechanical protection of the waterproofing layer, and a 3 mm thick high-density
recycled polyethylene (HDPE) with perlite-filled cavities, for improved water storage
management. The perlite layer measured 30 mm in thickness. Afterwards, a 3 mm
thick PET filter sheet was placed on top, with the soil substrate consisting of an 8 cm
layer of rockwool and a 2 cm layer of rooted turf.
3. A semi-intensive non-insulated planted roof, with a 5.2 cm thick pumice mixture substrate
and a 2.8 cm thick turf layer: The basic structure of this planted roof remained the same,
with the soil substrate now consisting of 5.2 cm of pumice mixture and 2.8 cm of
turf mixture, as opposed to rockwool. Two centimeters of turfgrass were again used
as vegetation.
4. An intensive non-insulated planted roof with a 20 cm thick pumice mixture substrate and
a 2 cm thick lavender plant cover: In this scenario, the basic roof structure remained
unchanged, but the soil substrate was now set to the limits of intensive GRs (20 cm),
consisting of 13 cm of pumice mixture and 7 cm of turf mixture. A 2 cm thick layer of
vegetation was chosen for the lavender plant cover.
5. An insulated non-planted roof that was insulated with insulating material and aerated
concrete in addition to lime mortar and reinforced concrete.
6. A semi-intensive insulated planted roof with 8 cm of rockwool and 2 cm of rooted turfgrass: As
described previously, the insulated roof consisted of lime mortar, reinforced concrete,
an insulation layer, and aerated concrete. The roof was established on a double
bituminous membrane of 4 mm for each layer, a 3 cm thick PET layer, a 3 mm thick
HDPE, a 30 mm thick perlite water, a 3 mm thick PET filter sheet, and a soil substrate
consisting of an 8 cm rockwool and 2 cm rooted turf layer.
7. A semi-intensive insulated planted roof with an 8 cm thick pumice mixture substrate and 2 cm
thick turfgrass: This roof contained the same materials as the previous roof, but instead
of a soil rockwool substrate, 5.2 cm of pumice mixture and 2.8 cm of turf were used.
8. Finally, an intensive insulated planted roof with a 20 cm thick pumice mixture substrate and
a 2 cm thick lavender plant cover: The basic structure of this planted roof remained the
same, but the soil substrate had different layer thicknesses and plant cover vegetation,
consisting of a mixture of 13 cm of pumice, 7 cm of turf, and 2 cm of lavender.
Table 1 lists the characteristics of the construction materials used in these eight scenarios.
4.2. U-Value Calculations

The U-value (thermal transmittance coefficient) of a construction element can be
calculated using the following equation:
U = 1/Rtotal
where U is the thermal transmittance coefficient in watts per square meter and Kelvin
degree or W/(m2 K), and Rtotal is the total thermal resistance of the construction element in
m2 K/W. The total thermal resistance (Rtotal ) can be calculated using the following formula,
which takes into account the individual thermal resistances (Ri ) of the various layers or
components that make up the construction element, as well as any air spaces or gaps
between them:
Rtotal = R1 + R2 + · · · + Rn
where R1 , R2 to Rn are the thermal resistances of the n individual layers or components.
Each thermal resistance, Ri , may be calculated using the following equation:
Ri = d/k
where d is the thickness of the layer or component in meters (m), and k is the thermal
conductivity of the material in watts per meter and Kelvin degree or W/(mK). By entering
the appropriate values for the thickness and thermal conductivity of each layer or compo-
nent, it is possible to calculate the individual thermal resistances and then sum them to
determine the total thermal resistance, which is the U-value of the construction element.
Table 1. Thickness and thermal characteristics of construction materials.
Thermal Material Layer Thermal Resistance

Construction Materials Conductivity (λ) Thickness (d) of Material (R)
W/(m2 K) m W/(m2 K)
Lime mortar 0.870 0.025 0.029
Reinforced concrete 2.500 0.120 0.048
Insulator 0.039 0.060 1.538
Autoclaved cellular concrete 0.120 0.050 0.417
Asphalt membrane 0.230 0.004 0.017
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 0.045 0.003 0.067
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 0.500 0.003 0.006
Perlite Water 0.258 0.030 0.116
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
0.045 0.003 0.067
filter sheet
Rockwool 0.042 0.080 1.905
Rooted turf 0.433 0.020 0.046
0.052 0.754
Pumice mixture 0.069
0.130 1.884
0.028 0.014
Soil (turf mixture) 2.000
0.070 0.035
Intensive vegetation
0.392 0.020 0.051
(Lavender)
The U-values that were calculated for each of the eight scenarios are displayed in
Table 2, which also recaps their basic characteristics. The relatively high U-value, 4.614,
observed in scenario 1, was to be anticipated for a non-planted, non-insulated roof. The
U-value is reduced to 0.407 (scenario 2), 0.757 (scenario 3), and 0.404 (scenario 4) for
rooftops with vegetation. As expected for the rest of the scenarios, which represented
insulated roofs, the addition of a planted roof reduced further, but not as much, the thermal
transmittance coefficient.
The U-values of these eight scenarios, along with selected characteristics of the corre-
sponding roofs (in parentheses), are depicted in the bar chart in Figure 1.
4.3. Validation Using Bibliographic Data

Kotsiris et al. [122] analyzed GR systems, focusing predominantly on determining the
U-value. Two methods were used: (a) a dynamic calculation of the thermal transmittance
coefficient based on experimental measurements of the thermal properties of the utilized
materials; and (b) a theoretical calculation using the TRNSYS program (https://www.trnsys.
com/). Their approach involved calculations of U-values for the following five scenarios:
(1) 8 cm rockwool with 2 cm fescue sod; (2) 8 cm sandy soil, mixed with 65% perlite and 5%
zeolite, with 2 cm fescue sod; (3) 8 cm pumice, mixed with 30% peat and zeolite, with 2 cm
fescue sod; (4) 20 cm pumice, mixed with 30% peat and 5% zeolite, planted with lavender;
and (5) 20 sandy soil, mixed with 65% perlite and 5% zeolite, planted with lavender. The
scenarios listed in Table 3 correspond to some of those examined in the present study.
The U-values for these three common scenarios are also listed in Table 3, along with the
differences between the two methods.
Table 2. Characteristics and thermal transmittance coefficients (U-values) for the eight scenarios.
Rockwool Pumice Turf

Green Plant
Roof Roof Thick- Thick- Thick- U-Value
Scenario Roof Thickness
Type Materials ness ness ness W/(m2 K)
Type (cm)
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Lime mortar,
1 Non-insulated None – – – – 4.614
reinforced concrete
Double-layered bitumen, PET
2
2 Non-insulated geotextile, HDPE with perlite, Semi-intensive 8 – – 0.407
(grass)
PET filter
2
3 Non-insulated geotextile, HDPE with perlite, Semi-intensive 5.2 2.8 0.757
(grass)
PET filter
2
4 Non-insulated geotextile, HDPE with perlite, Intensive 13 7 0.404
(lavender)
PET filter
Lime mortar, reinforced
5 Insulated concrete, insulating material, None – – – – 0.460
aerated concrete
concrete, insulating material,
aerated concrete, 2
6 Insulated Semi-intensive 8 – – 0.227
double-layered bitumen, PET (grass)
geotextile, HDPE with perlite,
PET filter
aerated concrete, 2
7 Insulated Semi-intensive – 5.2 2.8 0.305
double-layered bitumen, PET (grass)
PET filter
aerated concrete, 2
8 Insulated Intensive – 13 7 0.226
double-layered bitumen, PET (lavender)
PET filter
Figure 1. U-values of the eight scenarios (ins.: insulated; int.: intensive; rock.: rockwool; pum.: pumice).
Table 3. U-values of selected case studies compared to values found in the literature.
U-Value
Kotsiris et al. Corresponding W/(m2 K) (2) − (1)
Planted Roof [122] Scenario (1) (2) Difference
Scenario in This Work Dynamic Theoretical (%)
Experimental (TRNSYS)
8 cm rockwood
1 2 0.380 0.531 39.7
2 cm turfgrass
5.2 cm pumice
2.8 cm turf 3 3 0.606 0.808 33.3
2 cm turfgrass
13 cm pumice
7 cm turf 4 4 0.414 0.542 30.9
2 cm lavender
As shown in Table 4, the discrepancy between the experimental and theoretical U-

values for the uninsulated building roof with an 8 cm rockwool substrate and a 2 cm
turfgrass layer (scenario 2) was 6.6% for the experimental value and 30.5% for the theoretical
value. The experimental and theoretical differences for the non-insulated building roof
with an 8 cm pumice mixture and a 2 cm turfgrass layer (scenario 3) were 19.9% for the
experimental value and −6.7% for the theoretical value. Finally, for the non-insulated
roof with a 20 cm pumice mixture and a 20 cm lavender layer (scenario 4), the U-value
differences were −2.5% for the experimental value and −34.1% for the theoretical value.
Table 4. Comparison of U-values (present study) with the dynamic experimental (PASLINK) and
theoretical (TRNSYS) methods found in the literature.
(2)
(1)
Dynamic (3)
U-Value (1) − (2) (1) − (3)
Experimental Theoretical
Scenario Calculated in This Difference Difference
U-Value in U-Value
Research % %
Kotsiris et al. W/(m2 K)
W/(m2 K)
W/(m2 K)
2 0.407 0.380 6.6 0.531 −30.5
3 0.757 0.606 19.9 0.808 −6.7
4 0.404 0.414 −2.5 0.542 −34.2
Overall, the values calculated in this study differ by relatively small amounts from
both the experimental and theoretical values of Kotsiris et al. [122].
4.4. Green Roofs as Insulation

The U-values of a simple insulated non-planted roof and specified scenarios of insu-
lated planted roofs were compared in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the planted roof
as insulation. The results are summarized in Table 5, where Uσ represents the U-value of the
insulated non-planted roof, and Uµ represents the U-values of the various non-insulated
planted roofs.
In the first two scenarios involving a rockwool substrate, excellent thermal insulation
is created, almost on par with an insulated roof. Compared to the non-planted insulated
roof, the unfavorable 19.7% difference of the first scenario with a 5 cm thick rockwool is in
fact reduced to a favorable difference of −2.2% when the thickness of the rockwool layer is
increased to 7 cm. A planted roof with a pumice mixture is inferior to an equivalent insu-
lated roof in terms of insulation, with 5 or 7 cm of pumice mixture attaining U-values 52.5
and 43.6% greater than that of the non-planted insulated roof. Nonetheless, a planted roof
provides a degree of thermal insulation compared to an insulated roof that is not planted.
Table 5. Effectiveness of planted roofs as insulation.
(1) (2)
Planted Non-Planted (1) − (2)
Scenarios Non-Insulated Insulated Difference
Uσ Uµ %
W/(m2 K) W/(m2 K)
Planted roof with 5 cm rockwool and 2 cm turf 0.573 0.460 19.7
Planted roof with 7 cm rockwool and 2 cm turf 0.450 0.460 −2.2
Planted roof with 5 cm pumice mixture and 2 cm grass 0.968 0.460 52.5
Planted roof with 7 cm pumice mixture and 2 cm grass 0.816 0.460 43.6
5. Discussion
Evaluating the price of various kinds of GRs can be challenging because it depends on
a number of variables, such as the project’s size, location, design, and materials. Here is a
basic framework for assessing the cost of different types of GRs:
1. Roof type and design: The price of a green roof will depend significantly on the type
selected. Intensive GRs resemble gardens in that they require a deeper soil profile,
whereas extensive GRs are lighter and have modest soil depths. Expenditures will
vary depending on the selected design.
2. Location and climate: The cost may vary depending on the local climate and environ-
mental factors. For instance, more structural support and insulation may be necessary
in regions with extreme weather conditions, which could increase costs.
3. Materials and plant selection: The types of plants and substrates chosen for vegetation,
drainage layers, and roof membrane will have a significant impact on the cost of a
project, with some options being more costly.
4. Maintenance and irrigation: Weeding, fertilizing, and occasionally replacing plants are
all part of the continuous maintenance that green roofs require. When calculating the
total cost, these maintenance fees should be accounted for.
5. Installation costs: A significant portion of the total cost is comprised of labor, materials,
and installation techniques.
6. Structural load-bearing capacity: Determining whether reinforcement is necessary and
how much load your current building structure can sustain will impact the cost.
7. Long-term environmental benefits: These can include reduced energy consumption,
increased property values, and stormwater management. These benefits can partially
offset initial expenses.
8. Local regulations and incentives: In some areas, installing a GR may be made more
affordable by rebates or incentives. There may also be regulations governing the
construction of GRs that must be adhered to.
9. Comparative analysis: When evaluating expenses, it is often advantageous to compare
the projected lifetime expenditures associated with a GR and those of a conventional
roof, taking into consideration factors like maintenance, energy savings, and other
associated benefits.
10. Consultation: Experts like architects, engineers, or GR specialists should be consulted
in order to obtain cost estimates and project-specific guidance.
Through the considered numerical experiments, it was determined that the planted
roof system with a rockwool substrate had a very low U-value due to the increased porosity.
However, because of their rapid drainage, some irrigation is frequently required. By
increasing the substrate depth to 20 cm, the planted roof systems with perlite and pumice
substrates achieved U-values that were lower than the maximum value mandated by Greek
thermal insulation regulations. Therefore, it is recommended that they be used when these
greater thicknesses may be attained. Moreover, the U-values are dependent on humidity,
so thermal efficiency can be improved by modulating the substrate’s moisture content.
Considering the analogy between U-values and energy savings, the installation of
any type of GR results in heating energy savings of 25 to 30% compared to insulated roofs.
Taking into account Greek insulation regulations, the rockwool substrate improved GR
performance by 4.42%, while the deeper, coarser insert substrates lagged behind (3 to 4.5%).
Except for substrates containing rockwool (7.8%) and 20 cm pumice (6.1%), planting on a
roof that is already insulated reduced the building’s winter thermal loads marginally. Due
to the evapotranspiration of the plants, all scenarios resulted in significant cooling energy
savings compared to the uninsulated (54 to 62%) and insulated roofs (12%), per Greek
thermal insulation regulations. Planting on a building that is already insulated reduces
summer cooling loads by 12% for all scenarios and by 15.45% for a substrate with a 20 cm
thick layer.
The U-value figures are in good agreement with the literature, with the deviation in
most scenarios not being significant. The U-values for each scenario show that the addition
of a planted roof to a conventional, non-insulated roof reduces the U-value drastically. This
demonstrates that planted roofs can provide excellent thermal insulation in buildings with
non-insulated roofs. In scenarios involving an insulated roof, the additional planted roof
system does have a slight positive influence, further reducing the roof’s U-value.
When considering the future development of GRs, sustainability, cost-effectiveness,
and environmental impact should be prioritized [38]. The following materials are recom-
mended for use in the construction of GRs:
1. Recycled and sustainable materials: Using recycled and reclaimed materials for com-
ponents such as the roof membrane, insulation, and structural supports can reduce
the environmental footprint significantly. Incorporating sustainable materials such
as reclaimed wood, recycled plastics, and eco-friendly insulation materials helps
promote a circular economy and minimize waste.
2. Lightweight solutions: In order to minimize the additional burden on the building’s
structure, it is imperative that lightweight materials be used. Lightweight soils, aggre-
gates, and drainage materials are readily available. Selecting lightweight plant con-
tainers and growing media is particularly advantageous, especially when retrofitting
existing structures with GR.
3. High-performance waterproofing membranes: It is essential to invest in durable, high-
quality waterproofing membranes to safeguard the building structure beneath the GR.
4. Durable vegetation and planting media: The selection of resilient vegetation and planting
media that require minimal maintenance is paramount. Native drought-resistant
plant species can be superb options. In addition, using engineered growing media
specifically designed for GRs optimizes water retention, aeration, and root support.
5. Modular green roof systems: Exploring modular GR systems that are pre-planted and
ready to install is a time- and money-saving option. Typically, these systems employ
lightweight materials. Modular systems also allow for easy replacement, which
facilitates maintenance and repair.
6. Solar-reflective materials: The use of solar-reflective materials on the surface of a GR is
instrumental in reducing heat absorption and, consequently, the building’s cooling
needs. Reflective roof coatings can aid in accomplishing this objective.
7. Innovative irrigation and water management: Considering the adoption of smart irriga-
tion systems that rely on sensors and weather data to optimize water usage, this can
reduce the need for manual watering substantially. Furthermore, the implementation
of rainwater harvesting and retention systems permits the efficient use of rainwater
for irrigation, thereby reducing the demand on municipal water supplies.
8. Insulation and energy efficiency: It is essential to incorporate insulation materials that
make a building more energy efficient. GRs can also play a pivotal role in enhancing
thermal performance, resulting in reduced heating and cooling costs.
9. Monitoring and maintenance technology: Proactive maintenance may be facilitated by

technology for remote monitoring and maintenance of GRs, enabled by sensors that
track soil moisture, temperature, and plant health.
10. Local sourcing: Sourcing materials locally, whenever possible, is a sustainable practice
that helps reduce the environmental impacts of transportation.
11. Life Cycle Assessment: Conducting a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the materials
and components used in the GR is a comprehensive approach to evaluating their
environmental impact over their entire life.
12. Research and innovation: Keeping abreast of emerging materials and technologies in
the GR industry is essential. New innovations may provide solutions that are more
sustainable and cost-effective.
Ultimately, the choice of materials should align with the project’s objectives, budget,
and location. Architects, engineers, and sustainability experts should be consulted in order
to make well-informed decisions regarding the materials and systems that best suit specific
GR projects.
6. Conclusions
In this study, a literature review was followed by the calculation of U-values for eight
hypothetical scenarios of four non-insulated and four insulated roofs, with or without semi-
intensive and intensive GR, various layer thicknesses, and different construction materials.
By considering the results of all scenarios, it is noted that there were evident differences
(up to 95%) between any form of planted or insulated roof and conventional non-insulated
roofs. Consequently, planted roofs constitute an exceptional insulation solution. The
rockwool substrate scenarios are near the U-value of an insulated roof and can be made
even lower by adjusting the thickness. The pumice mixture substrate, on the other hand,
has inferior thermal insulation, but it is cost-effective and highly sustainable. Other GR
types (semi-intensive and intensive) have lower U-values because their underlayment is
thicker. Nonetheless, the disparity between them is not significant.
In conclusion, the construction of GRs primarily benefits non-insulated conventional
roofs, as no noticeable additional thermal insulation is observed on insulated roofs. Exten-
sive GRs are considered suitable for this purpose due to their numerous advantages, such
as low cost and negligible maintenance.
Author Contributions: Case study calculations, D.P. and I.A.; writing—original draft preparation,
A.T.; literature review, V.P., S.K. and G.A.; climate literature, review of additional sources, A.F.;
writing—editing and proofing, construction of graph, J.A.P.; literature review, methodology, economic
aspects, M.S.; supervision, conceptualization, literature review, selection of plants, case studies, G.M.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Vijayaraghavan, K. Green roofs: A critical review on the role of components, benefits, limitations and trends. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 740–752. [CrossRef]
2. Cook, L.M.; Larsen, T.A. Towards a performance-based approach for multifunctional green roofs: An interdisciplinary review.
Build. Environ. 2021, 188, 107489. [CrossRef]
3. Santamouris, M.; Vasilakopoulou, K. Present and future energy consumption of buildings: Challenges and opportunities towards
decarbonisation. E-Prime Adv. Electr. Eng. Electron. Energy 2021, 1, 100002. [CrossRef]
4. Mihalakakou, G.; Souliotis, M.; Papadaki, M.; Halkos, G.; Paravantis, J.A.; Makridis, S.; Papaefthymiou, S. Applications of
earth-to-air heat exchangers: A holistic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 155, 111921. [CrossRef]
5. Pauleit, S.; Andersson, E.; Anton, B.; Buijs, A.; Haase, D.; Hansen, R.; Kowarik, I.; Niemelä, J.; Olafsson, A.; van der Jagt, A. Urban
green infrastructure—Connecting people and nature for sustainable cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 1–344. [CrossRef]
6. Shafique, M.; Kim, R.; Rafiq, N. Green roof benefits, opportunities and challenges—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018,
90, 757–773. [CrossRef]
7. Hussien, A.; Jannat, N.; Mushtaha, E.; Al-Shammaa, A. A holistic plan of flat roof to green-roof conversion: Towards a sustainable
built environment. Ecol. Eng. 2023, 190, 106925. [CrossRef]
8. Liu, H.; Kong, F.; Yin, H.; Middel, A.; Zheng, X.; Huang, J.; Xu, H.; Wang, D.; Wen, Z. Impacts of green roofs on water, temperature,
and air quality: A bibliometric review. Build. Environ. 2021, 196, 107794. [CrossRef]
9. Saadatian, O.; Sopian, K.; Salleh, E.; Lim, C.H.; Riffat, S.; Saadatian, E.; Toudeshki, A.; Sulaiman, M.Y. A review of energy aspects
of green roofs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 23, 155–168. [CrossRef]
10. Zhang, X.; Shen, L.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Lee, W.W.Y. Barriers to implement extensive green roof systems: A Hong Kong study. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 16, 314–319. [CrossRef]
11. Karteris, M.; Theodoridou, I.; Mallinis, G.; Tsiros, E.; Karteris, A. Towards a green sustainable strategy for Mediterranean
cities: Assessing the benefits of large-scale green roofs implementation in Thessaloniki, Northern Greece, using environmental
modelling, GIS and very high spatial resolution remote sensing data. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 510–525. [CrossRef]
12. Voogt, J.A.; Oke, T.R. Thermal remote sensing of urban areas. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003, 86, 370–384. [CrossRef]
13. Santamouris, M.; Pavlou, C.; Doukas, P.; Mihalakakou, G.; Synnefa, A.; Hatzibiros, A.; Patargias, P. Investigating and analysing
the energy and environmental performance of an experimental green roof system installed in a nursery school building in Athens,
Greece. Energy 2007, 32, 1781–1788. [CrossRef]
14. Landsberg, H.E. The Urban Climate; Academic Press: London, UK, 1981.
15. Livada, I.; Santamouris, M.; Niachou, K.; Papanikolaou, N.; Mihalakakou, G. Determination of places in the great Athens area
where the heat island effect is observed. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2002, 71, 219–230. [CrossRef]
16. Mihalakakou, G.; Santamouris, M.; Papanikolaou, N.; Cartalis, C.; Tsangrassoulis, A. Simulation of the Urban Heat Island
Phenomenon in Mediterranean Climates. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2004, 161, 429–451. [CrossRef]
17. Santamouris, M.; Paraponiaris, K.; Mihalakakou, G. Estimating the ecological footprint of the heat island effect over Athens,
Greece. Clim. Chang. 2007, 80, 265–276. [CrossRef]
18. Oke, T.R. The energetic basis of the urban heat island. Q. J. R. Meteor. Soc. 1982, 108, 1–24. [CrossRef]
19. Yang, J.; Kumar, D.I.M.; Pyrgou, A.; Chong, A.; Santamouris, M.; Kolokotsa, D.; Lee, S.E. Green and cool roofs’ urban heat island
mitigation potential in tropical climate. Sol. Energy 2018, 173, 597–609. [CrossRef]
20. Cascone, S. Green Roof Design: State of the Art on Technology and Materials. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3020. [CrossRef]
21. Berndtsson, J.C.; Bengtsson, L.; Jinno, K. Runoff water quality from intensive and extensive vegetated roofs Justyna. Ecol. Eng.
2009, 35, 369–380. [CrossRef]
22. Feng, C.; Meng, Q.; Zhang, Y. Theoretical and experimental analysis of the energy balance of extensive green roofs. Energy Build.
2010, 42, 959–965. [CrossRef]
23. Lee, L.S.H.; Jim, C.Y. Thermal-irradiance of subtropical intensive green roof in winter and landscape-soil design implications.
Energy Build. 2020, 209, 109692. [CrossRef]
24. Stella, P.; Personne, E. Effects of conventional, extensive and semi-intensive green roofs on building conductive heat fluxes and
surface temperatures in winter in Paris. Build. Environ. 2021, 205, 108202. [CrossRef]
25. Theodosiou, T. Green Roofs in Buildings: Thermal and Environmental Behaviour. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2009, 3, 271–288.
[CrossRef]
26. Niachou, A.; Papakonstantinou, K.; Santamouris, M.; Tsagrassoulis, A.; Mihalakakou, G. Analysis of the green roof thermal
properties and investigation of its energy performance. Energy Build. 2001, 33, 719–729. [CrossRef]
27. Wong, N.H.; Cheong, D.K.W.; Yan, H.; Soh, J.; Ong, C.L.; Sia, A. The effects of rooftop garden on energy consumption of a
commercial building in Singapore. Energy Build. 2003, 35, 353–364. [CrossRef]
28. Young, T.; Cameron, D.; Sorrill, J.; Edwards, T.; Phoenix, G. Importance of different components of green roof substrate on plant
growth and physiological performance. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 507–516. [CrossRef]
29. Bianchini, F.; Hewage, K. How “green” are the green roofs? Lifecycle analysis of green roof materials. Build. Environ. 2012,
48, 57–65. [CrossRef]
30. Vijayaraghavan, K.; Joshi, U.M. Can green roof act as a sink for contaminants? A methodological study to evaluate runoff quality
from green roofs. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 194, 121–129. [CrossRef]
31. Zhao, M.; Tabares-Velasco, P.C.; Srebric, J.; Komarneni, S.; Berghage, R. Effects of plant and substrate selection on thermal
performance of green roofs during the summer. Build. Environ. 2014, 78, 199–211. [CrossRef]
32. Wong, G.K.L.; Jim, C.Y. Quantitative hydrologic performance of extensive green roof under humid-tropical rainfall regime. Ecol.
Eng. 2014, 70, 366–378. [CrossRef]
33. Suszanowicz, D.; Wi˛ecek, K.A. The impact of green roofs on the parameters of the environment in urban areas—Review.
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 792. [CrossRef]
34. Ascione, F.; Bianco, N.; de Rossi, F.; Turni, G.; Vanoli, G.P. Green roofs in European climates. Are effective solutions for the energy
savings in air-conditioning? Appl. Energy 2013, 104, 845–859. [CrossRef]
35. Onmura, S.; Matsumoto, M.; Hokoi, S. Study on evaporative cooling effect of roof lawn gardens. Energy Build. 2001, 33, 653–666.
[CrossRef]
36. Ng, E.; Chen, L.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, C. A study on the cooling effects of greening in a high-density city: An experience from Hong
Kong. Build. Environ. 2012, 47, 256–271. [CrossRef]
37. Butler, C.; Butler, E.; Orians, C.M. Native plant enthusiasm reaches new heights: Perceptions, evidence, and the future of green
roofs. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 1–10. [CrossRef]
38. Mihalakakou, G.; Souliotis, M.; Papadaki, M.; Menounou, P.; Dimopoulos, P.; Kolokotsa, D.; Paravantis, J.; Tsangrassoulis, A.;
Panaras, G.; Giannakopoulos, E.; et al. Green roofs as a nature-based solution for improving urban sustainability: Progress and
perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 180, 113306. [CrossRef]
39. Quezada-García, S.; Espinosa-Paredes, G.; Polo-Labarrios, M.A.; Espinosa-Martínez, E.G.; Escobedo-Izquierdo, M.A. Green roof
heat and mass transfer mathematical models: A review. Build. Environ. 2020, 170, 106634. [CrossRef]
40. Foustalieraki, M.; Assimakopoulos, M.N.; Santamouris, M.; Pangalou, H. Energy performance of a medium scale green roof
system installed on a commercial building using numerical and experimental data recorded during the cold period of the year.
Energy Build. 2017, 135, 33–38. [CrossRef]
41. Alexandri, E.; Jones, P. Developing a one-dimensional heat and mass transfer algorithm for describing the effect of green roofs on
the built environment: Comparison with experimental results. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 2835–2849. [CrossRef]
42. Bevilacqua, P. The effectiveness of green roofs in reducing building energy consumptions across different climates. A summary of
literature results. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 151, 111523. [CrossRef]
43. Vera, S.; Pinto, C.; Tabares-Velasco, P.C.; Bustamante, W.; Victorero, F.; Gironas, J.; Bonilla, C.A. Influence of vegetation, substrate,
and thermal insulation of an extensive vegetated roof on the thermal performance of retail stores in semiarid and marine climates.
44. He, Y.; Yu, H.; Ozaki, A.; Dong, N.; Zheng, S. Influence of plant and soil layer on energy balance and thermal performance of
green roof system. Energy 2017, 141, 1285–1299. [CrossRef]
45. Pianella, A.; Aye, L.; Chen, Z.; Williams, N.S.G. Substrate depth, vegetation and irrigation affect green roof thermal performance
in a Mediterranean type climate. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1451. [CrossRef]
46. Pianella, A.; Aye, L.; Chen, Z.; Williams, N. Effects of substrate depth and native plants on green roof thermal performance in
South-East Australia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 588, 022057. [CrossRef]
47. Besir, A.B.; Cuce, E. Green roofs and facades: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 915–939. [CrossRef]
48. Susca, T. Green roofs to reduce building energy use? A review on key structural factors of green roofs and their effects on urban
climate. Build. Environ. 2019, 162, 106273. [CrossRef]
49. Jamei, E.; Chau, H.W.; Seyedmahmoudian, M.; Mekhilef, S.; Hafez, F.S. Green roof and energy—Role of climate and design
elements in hot and temperate climates. Heliyon 2023, 9, e15917. [CrossRef]
50. He, Q.; Tapia, F.; Reith, A. Quantifying the influence of nature-based solutions on building cooling and heating energy demand:
A climate specific review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 186, 113660. [CrossRef]
51. Perini, K.; Magliocco, A. Effects of vegetation, urban density, building height, and atmospheric conditions on local temperatures
and thermal comfort. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 495–506. [CrossRef]
52. Aboelata, A. Assessment of green roof benefits on buildings’ energy-saving by cooling outdoor spaces in different urban densities
in arid cities. Energy 2021, 219, 119514. [CrossRef]
53. Buchin, O.; Hoelscher, M.-T.; Meier, F.; Nehls, T.; Ziegler, F. Evaluation of the health risk reduction potential of countermeasures
to urban heat islands. Energy Build. 2016, 114, 27–37. [CrossRef]
54. Ziogou, I.; Michopoulos, A.; Voulgari, V.; Zachariadis, T. Energy, environmental and economic assessment of electricity savings
from the operation of green roofs in urban office buildings of a warm Mediterranean region. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 346–356.
[CrossRef]
55. Mahmoud, A.S.; Asif, M.; Hassanain, M.A.; Babsail, M.O.; Sanni-Anibire, M.O. Energy and economic evaluation of green roofs
for residential buildings in hot-humid climates. Buildings 2017, 7, 30. [CrossRef]
56. Jim, C.Y.; Peng, L.L. Substrate moisture effect on water balance and thermal regime of a tropical extensive green roof. Ecol. Eng.
2012, 47, 9–23. [CrossRef]
57. Cascone, S.; Coma, J.; Gagliano, A.; Pérez, G. The evapotranspiration process in green roofs: A review. Build. Environ. 2019,
147, 337–355. [CrossRef]
58. Caneva, G.; Kumbaric, A.; Savo, V.; Casalini, R. Ecological approach in selecting extensive green roof plants: A data-set of
Mediterranean plants. Plant Biosyst.–Int. J. Deal. Asp. Plant Biosyst. 2015, 149, 374–383. [CrossRef]
59. Coma, J.; Pérez, G.; Sole, C.; Castell, A.; Cabeza, L.F. Thermal assessment of extensive green roofs as passive tool for energy
savings in buildings. Renew. Energy 2016, 85, 1106–1115. [CrossRef]
60. Castleton, H.F.; Stovin, V.; Beck, S.B.M.; Davison, J.B. Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy
Build. 2010, 42, 1582–1591.
61. Vera, S.; Pinto, C.; Tabares-Velasco, P.C.; Bustamante, W. A critical review of heat and mass transfer in vegetative roof models
used in building energy and urban environment simulation tools. Appl. Energy 2018, 232, 752–764. [CrossRef]
62. Akbari, H.; Menon, S.; Rosenfeld, A. Global cooling: Increasing world-wide urban albedos to offset CO2 . Clim. Chang. 2009,
94, 275–286. [CrossRef]
63. Bevilacqua, P.; Coma, J.; Pérez, G.; Chocarro, C.; Juárez, A.; Sole, C.; Simone, M.D.; Cabeza, L.F. Plant cover and floristic
composition effect on thermal behaviour of extensive green roofs. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 305–316. [CrossRef]
64. Hao, X.; Xing, Q.; Long, P.; Lin, Y.; Hu, J.; Tan, H. Influence of vertical greenery systems and green roofs on the indoor operative
temperature of air-conditioned rooms. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 31, 101373. [CrossRef]
65. La Roche, P.; Yeom, D.J.; Ponce, A. Passive cooling with a hybrid green roof for extreme climates. Energy Build. 2020, 224, 110243.
[CrossRef]
66. Abuseif, M.; Dupre, K.; Michael, R.N. The effect of green roof configurations including trees in a subtropical climate: A
co-simulation parametric study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 317, 128458. [CrossRef]
67. Takakura, T.; Kitade, S.; Goto, E. Cooling effect of greenery cover over a building. Energy Build. 2000, 31, 1–6. [CrossRef]
68. Santamouris, M. Cooling the cities—A review of reflective and green roof mitigation technologies to fight heat island and improve
comfort in urban environments. Sol. Energy 2014, 103, 682–703. [CrossRef]
69. Asmat, I.; Samad, M.H.A.; Rahman, A.M.A. The Investigation of green roof and white roof cooling potential on single storey
residential building in the Malaysian climate. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2011, 76, 129–137.
70. Shishegar, N. The Impacts of Green Areas on Mitigating Urban Heat Island Effect. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 9, 119–130.
[CrossRef]
71. Karachaliou, P.; Santamouris, M.; Pangalou, H. Experimental and numerical analysis of the energy performance of a large scale
intensive green roof system installed on an office building. Energy Build. 2016, 114, 256–264. [CrossRef]
72. Spala, A.; Bagiorgas, H.S.; Assimakopoulos, M.N.; Kalavrouziotis, J.; Matthopoulos, D.; Mihalakakou, G. On the green roof
system. Selection, state of the art and energy potential. Renew. Energy 2008, 33, 173–177. [CrossRef]
73. Jaffal, I.; Ouldboukhitine, S.E.; Belarbi, R. A comprehensive study of the impact of green roofs on building energy performance.
Renew. Energy 2012, 43, 157–164. [CrossRef]
74. Pandey, S.; Hindoliya, D.A.; Ritu, M. Artificial neural network for predation of cooling load reduction using green roof over
building in Sustainable city. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2012, 3, 37–45. [CrossRef]
75. Kolokotsa, D.; Santamouris, M.; Zerefos, S.C. Green and cool roofs’ urban heat island potential in European climates for office
buildings under free floating conditions. Sol. Energy 2013, 95, 118–130. [CrossRef]
76. Zheng, X.; Kong, F.; Yin, H.; Middel, A.; Yang, S.; Liu, H.; Huang, J. Green roof cooling and carbon mitigation benefits in a
subtropical city. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 86, 128018. [CrossRef]
77. Abuseif, M.; Jamei, E.; Chau, H.-W. Simulation-based study on the role of green roof settings on energy demand reduction in
seven Australian climate zones. Energy Build. 2023, 286, 112938. [CrossRef]
78. Kumar, R.; Kaushik, S.C. Performance evaluation of green roof and shading for thermal protection of buildings. Build. Environ.
2005, 40, 1505–1511. [CrossRef]
79. Liu, M. Probabilistic prediction of green roof energy performance under parameter uncertainty. Energy 2014, 77, 667–674.
[CrossRef]
80. Alcazar, S.S.; Olivieri, F.; Neila, J. Green roofs: Experimental and analytical study of its potential for urban microclimate regulation
in Mediterranean-continental climates. Urban Clim. 2016, 17, 304–317. [CrossRef]
81. Tomson, M.; Kumar, P.; Barwise, Y.; Perez, P.; Forehead, H.; French, K.; Morawska, L.; Watts, J.F. Green infrastructure for air
quality improvement in street canyons. Environ. Int. 2021, 146, 106288. [CrossRef]
82. Tan, T.; Kong, F.; Yin, H.; Cook, L.M.; Middel, A.; Yang, S. Carbon dioxide reduction from green roofs: A comprehensive review of
processes, factors, and quantitative methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 182, 113412. [CrossRef]
83. Yaghoobian, N.; Srebric, J. Influence of plant coverage on the total green roof energy balance and building energy consumption.
84. Beckett, K.P.; Freer-Smith, P.; Taylor, G. Urban woodlands: Their role in reducing the effects of particulate pollution. Environ.
Pollut. 1998, 99, 347–360. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Kumar, P.; Druckman, A.; Gallagher, J.; Gatersleben, B.; Allison, S.; Eisenman, T.S.; Hoang, U.; Hama, S.; Tiwari, A.; Sharma,
A.; et al. The nexus between air pollution, green infrastructure and human health. Environ. Int. 2019, 133, 105181. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
86. Benjamin, M.T.; Sudol, M.; Bloch, L.; Winer, A.M. Low-emitting urban forests: A taxonomic methodology for assigning isoprene
and monoterpene emission rates. Atmos. Environ. 1996, 30, 1437–1452. [CrossRef]
87. Akbari, H.; Pomerantz, M.; Taha, H. Cool surfaces and shade trees to reduce energy use and improve air quality in urban areas.
Sol. Energy 2001, 70, 295–310. [CrossRef]
88. Nowak, D.J. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4, 115–123.
[CrossRef]
89. Getter, K.L.; Rowe, D.B.; Robertson, G.P.; Cregg, B.M.; Andresen, J.A. Carbon sequestration potential of extensive green roofs.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 7564–7570. [CrossRef]
90. Di Giuseppe, E.; D’Orazio, M. Assessment of the effectiveness of cool and green roofs for the mitigation of the Heat Island effect
and for the improvement of thermal comfort in Nearly Zero Energy Building. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2015, 58, 134–143. [CrossRef]
91. Lei, K.T.; Tang, J.S.; Chen, P.H. Numerical simulation and experiments with green roofs for increasing indoor thermal comfort. J.
Chin. Inst. Eng. 2019, 42, 346–356. [CrossRef]
92. Mutani, G.; Todeschi, V. Roof-integrated green technologies, energy saving and outdoor thermal comfort: Insights from a case
study in urban environment. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plann. 2021, 16, 13–23. [CrossRef]
93. Wang, X.; Li, H.; Sodoudi, S. The effectiveness of cool and green roofs in mitigating urban heat island and improving human
thermal comfort. Build. Environ. 2022, 217, 109082. [CrossRef]
94. Pugh, T.A.M.; MacKenzie, A.R.; Whyatt, J.D.; Hewitt, C.N. Effectiveness of green infrastructure for improvement of air quality in
urban street canyons. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7692–7699. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
95. Seyedabadi, R.; Eicker, U.; Karimi, S. Plant selection for green roofs and their impact on carbon sequestration and the building
carbon footprint. Environ. Chall. 2021, 4, 100119. [CrossRef]
96. Gong, Y.; Yin, D.; Li, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, W.; Fang, X.; Shi, H.; Wang, Q. Performance assessment of extensive green roof runoff
flow and quality control capacity based on pilot experiments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 505–515. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
97. Li, W.C.; Yeung, K.K.A. A comprehensive study of green roof performance from environmental perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Built
Environ. 2014, 3, 127–134. [CrossRef]
98. Williams, K.J.H.; Lee, K.E.; Sargent, L.D.; Johnson, K.A.; Rayner, J.; Farrell, C.; Miller, R.E.; Williams, N.S.G. Appraising the
psychological benefits of green roofs for city residents and workers. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 44, 126399. [CrossRef]
99. Skinner, C.J. Urban density, meteorology and rooftops. Urban Policy Res. 2006, 24, 355–367. [CrossRef]
100. Degirmenci, K.; Desouza, K.C.; Fieuw, W.; Watson, R.T.; Yigitcanlar, T. Understanding policy and technology responses in
mitigating urban heat islands: A literature review and directions for future research. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 70, 102873.
[CrossRef]
101. Brenneisen, S. Green roofs: How nature returns to the city. Acta Hortic. 2004, 643, 289–293. [CrossRef]
102. Carter, T.; Fowler, L. Establishing green roof infrastructure through environmental policy instruments. Environ. Manag. 2008,
42, 151–164. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
103. Ansel, W.; Appl, R. Green Roof Policies—An International Review of Current Practices and Future Trends; International Green Roof
Association (IGRA): Nürtingen, Germany, 2014.
104. Berardi, U.; Ghaffarian Hoseini, A.; Ghaffarian Hoseini, A.H. State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs.
Appl. Energy 2014, 115, 411–428. [CrossRef]
105. Liberalesso, T.; Cruz, C.O.; Silva, C.M.; Manso, M. Green infrastructure and public policies: An international review of green
roofs and green walls incentives. Land Use Policy 2020, 96, 104693. [CrossRef]
106. European Commission. Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing
Cities—Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on ‘Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities’—(Full Version).
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Publications Office. 2015. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.277
7/479582 (accessed on 29 October 2023).
107. European Commission. Nature-Based Solutions Research Policy—EU Research and Innovation Policy, EU Research and
Innovation Policy, How the Policy Is Implemented, Library and Links. 2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/
research-and-innovation/research-area/environment/nature-based-solutions/research-policy_en (accessed on 29 October 2023).
108. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
109. Pineda-Martos, R.; Calheiros, C.S.C. Nature-based solutions in cities—Contribution of the Portuguese national association of
green roofs to urban circularity. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2021, 1, 1019–1035. [CrossRef]
110. Clar, C.; Steurer, R. Climate change adaptation with green roofs: Instrument choice and facilitating factors in urban areas. J. Urban
Aff. 2021, 45, 797–814. [CrossRef]
111. Razzaghi Asl, S. Rooftops for whom? Some environmental justice issues in urban green roof policies of three North American
cities. Environ. Policy Law 2022, 53, 49–60. [CrossRef]
112. Pratama, H.C.; Sinsiri, T.; Chapirom, A. green roof development in ASEAN countries: The challenges and perspectives. Sustain-
ability 2023, 15, 7714. [CrossRef]
113. Moody, S.; Sailor, D. Development and application of a building energy performance metric for green roof systems. Energy Build.
2013, 60, 262–269. [CrossRef]
114. Carslaw, H.; Jaeger, J. Conduction of Heat in Solids, 2nd ed.; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1986.
115. He, Y.; Lin, E.S.; Tan, C.L.; Tan, P.Y.; Wong, N.H. Quantitative evaluation of plant evapotranspiration effect for green roof in
tropical area: A case study in Singapore. Energy Build. 2021, 241, 110973. [CrossRef]
116. Lazzarin, M.R.; Castelliani, F.; Busato, F. Experimental measurement and numerical modeling of a green roof. Energy Build. 2005,
37, 1260–1267. [CrossRef]
117. Jim, C.Y.; Tsang, S.W. Biophysical properties and thermal performance of an intensive green roof. Build. Environ. 2011,
46, 1263–1274. [CrossRef]
118. Ouldboukhitine, S.E.; Spolek, G.; Belarbi, R. Impact of plants transpiration, grey and clean water irrigation on the thermal
resistance of green roofs. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 67, 60–66. [CrossRef]
119. Heidarinejad, G.; Esmaili, A. Numerical simulation of the dual effect of green roof thermal performance. Energy Convers. Manag.
2015, 106, 1418–1425. [CrossRef]
120. Asadi, S.; Bouvier, N.; Wexler, A.S.; Ristenpart, W.D. The coronavirus pandemic and aerosols: Does COVID-19 transmit via
expiratory particles? Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 635–638. [CrossRef]
121. Wei, T.; Jim, C.Y.; Chen, A.; Li, X. Adjusting soil parameters to improve green roof winter energy performance based on
neural-network modeling. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 2549–2559. [CrossRef]
122. Kotsiris, G.; Androutsopoulos, A.; Polychroni, E.; Nektarios, P.A. Dynamic U-value estimation and energy simulation for Green
Roofs. Energy Build. 2012, 45, 240–249. [CrossRef]
123. Bloem, J.J. Dynamic methods for building performance assessment. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Energy
Performance & Indoor Climate in Buildings (EPIC 2010), Rhodes, Greece, 29 September–1 October 2010.
124. Del Barrio, E.P. Analysis of the green roofs cooling potential in buildings. Energy Build. 1998, 27, 179–193. [CrossRef]
125. Sailor, D.J. A green roof model for building energy simulation programs. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 1466–1478. [CrossRef]
126. Polo-Labarrios, M.A.; Quezada-García, S.; Sánchez-Mora, H.; Escobedo-Izquierdo, M.A.; Espinosa-Paredes, G. Comparison of
thermal performance between green roofs and conventional roofs. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2020, 21, 100697. [CrossRef]
127. Aguareles, M.; Calvo-Schwarzwälder, M.; Font, F.; Myers, T.G. A mathematical model for the energy stored in green roofs. Appl.
Math. Modell. 2023, 115, 513–540. [CrossRef]
128. Lokesh, S.; Nainita, K.; Chandrashekar, R.; Pai, A.; Kumar, B. Heat transfer study of green roof in warm and humid climatic
conditions. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, in press. [CrossRef]
129. Huang, J.; Kong, F.; Yin, H.; Middel, A.; Liu, H.; Meadows, M.E. Green roof effects on urban building surface processes and
energy budgets. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 287, 117100. [CrossRef]
130. Mazzeo, D.; Matera, N.; Peri, G.; Scaccianoce, G. Forecasting green roofs’ potential in improving building thermal performance
and mitigating urban heat island in the Mediterranean area: An artificial intelligence-based approach. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2022,
222, 119879. [CrossRef]
131. Mousavi, S.; Gheibi, M.; Wacławek, S.; Behzadian, K. A novel smart framework for optimal design of green roofs in buildings
conforming with energy conservation and thermal comfort. Energy Build. 2023, 291, 113111. [CrossRef]
132. Perivoliotis, D. Energy and Environmental Applications of an Intensive Green Roof System. Diploma Thesis, Department of
Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, University of Patras, Patras, Greece, 2022.
133. Arvanitis, I. Energy and Environmental Applications of an Extensive Green Roof System. Diploma Thesis, Department of
Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, University of Patras, Patras, Greece, 2022.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Sustainability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 15976. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215976 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Urban Sustainability and Green Roofs

and 7 to 12 ◦ C at night. It is measured directly by fixed or mobile meteorological stations

2.1. Energy Benefits of Green Roofs

2.2. Environmental Benefits of Green Roofs

2.3. Sociopolitical Aspects of Green Roofs

3. Modeling Green Roofs

3.1. U-Value Models

energy performance. Utilizing a specialized test method that included a pseudo-adiabatic

3.2. Experimental Studies

3.3. Data Driven Models

4. Green Roof Thermal Transmittance Calculations

4.2. U-Value Calculations

Table 1. Thickness and thermal characteristics of construction materials.

Thermal Material Layer Thermal Resistance

4.3. Validation Using Bibliographic Data

Rockwool Pumice Turf

As shown in Table 4, the discrepancy between the experimental and theoretical U-

4.4. Green Roofs as Insulation

Table 5. Effectiveness of planted roofs as insulation.

9. Monitoring and maintenance technology: Proactive maintenance may be facilitated by

You might also like