Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 386–395

A preliminary study on the local cool-island intensity of Taipei city parks

Chi-Ru Chang a,∗ , Ming-Huang Li b,1 , Shyh-Dean Chang c
a Department of Landscape Architecture, Chinese Culture University, 55 Hwakang Road, Yangmingshan, Shihlin 111, Taipei, Taiwan
b Graduate Program in Landscape Architecture, Chinese Culture University, 55 Hwakang Road, Yangmingshan, Shihlin 111, Taipei, Taiwan
c Department of Architecture and Urban Design, Chinese Culture University, 55 Hwakang Road, Yangmingshan, Shihlin 111, Taipei, Taiwan

Received 14 July 2006; accepted 12 September 2006

Available online 22 November 2006

Abstract
That green-spaces relieve urban heat is well known in urban landscape planning. Scientific information on what kinds of green-spaces best
reduce heat, however, is still largely unknown. This is a preliminary study aimed at (1) devising a method to detect and compare the local cool-
island intensities of various urban parks; (2) verifying that this local cool-island intensity differs among parks; (3) determining whether this local
cool-island intensity is related to park characteristics.
Results from air–temperature measurements in and around 61 Taipei city parks showed that urban parks were on average cooler than their
surroundings, confirming the term “urban cool-islands.” However, approximately one-fifth of the parks were warmer than their urban surroundings.
At noon in summer, parks with ≥50% paved coverage and little tree- and shrub-cover were on average warmer than their surroundings. Large
parks were on average cooler than the smaller ones, but this relationship was non-linear.
In Taipei, parks differed in their local cool-island intensity and this intensity can be related to park characteristics. Before further details
concerning better planning and design approaches to mitigate urban heat-islands can be addressed, a neighborhood-scaled understanding of the
urban microclimate is first needed as a basis.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Urban heat island; Urban green-space design; Urban green-space planning; Sustainable cities

1. Introduction
The most prominent characteristic of urban climate is the
urban heat island phenomenon (Oke, 1995), in which the urban
temperature is higher than its rural surroundings. The intensity
of the urban heat island is measured by the temperature differ-
ence between the heat center in the cities and its suburbs. Such
heat island intensity is proportional to the population size and
density of a city (Oke, 1973; Gyr and Rys, 1995; Brazel et al.,
2000), averages 2 K (Taha, 1997), and can reach as high as 10 K
(Zipperer et al., 1997).
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 28610511x41531;
fax: +886 2 2861 7507.
E-mail addresses: crchang@faculty.pccu.edu.tw (C.-R. Chang),
whing@seed.net.tw (M.-H. Li), sdchang@faculty.pccu.edu.tw (S.-D. Chang).
1 Current address: Zhishan Cultural and Ecological Garden, 120 Yusheng
Street, Shihlin 111, Taipei, Taiwan.
Many factors contribute to the urban heat island effect, includ-
ing intense human activity and traffic that releases heat and
pollutants, the many tall buildings in cities that trap short-wave
radiation and obstruct air movement, the high heat conductivity
of urban surfaces that results in a higher temperature response to
the same energy level, and high heat capacity of urban surfaces
that consequently absorb short-wave radiation during daytime
only to release it at night, resulting in nocturnal heat islands, in
which the urban temperatures continue to be high at night (Oke,
1995; Ca et al., 1998).
The negative effects of urban heat islands are many. First,
increased heat affects the well being of city residents through an
uncomfortably warm environment, and in the most severe case,
mortality may result from heat stroke. In 1980, for example, sev-
eral weeks of high temperatures exceeding 38 ◦ C in Texas, USA,
resulted in at least 1200 deaths due to heat stroke (Landsberg,
1981). Urban heat islands also worsen air pollution through
the dust dome effect, a phenomenon in which higher temper-
atures in the cities cause a cyclic air circulation pattern above

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.09.005
 C.-R. Chang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 386–395
and around them, trapping air pollutants within the cities. As
a result, it has been estimated that the air pollutant concentra-
tions in cities are approximately 10 times that of clean air (Taha,
1997). In addition, the increased use of air-conditioning under
warm conditions not only violates the principles of sustainabil-
ity, but also contributes to the greenhouse effect. A study of five
major US cities (Los Angeles, CA; Washington, DC; Phoenix,
AZ; Tucson, AZ; Colorado Springs, CO) estimated that once
temperatures exceed 15–20 ◦ C, an 1 ◦ C increase in temperature
will increase peak electricity demand by 2–4%. Therefore, it is
estimated that increased air-conditioning in response to urban
heat islands consume approximately 5–10% of peak electricity
demand (Akbari et al., 1992). In warmer areas such as Taiwan,
it is estimated that an increase of 1 ◦ C in summer temperature
results in a 6% rise in electricity usage due to air-conditioning.
That, multiplied by the 3–5 K temperature difference between
cities and their rural surroundings, results in an estimation of
25% increase in electricity consumption in Taiwanese cities
attributed to the urban heat island effect (Lin, 2000).
The problem of urban heat islands is also becoming increas-
ingly serious globally. In past decades, a steady increase of city
temperatures has been detected worldwide. For example, over
the past 50 years, downtown temperatures in US cities have
risen by about 0.1–1.1 ◦ C per decade (McPherson, 1994), mak-
ing them 0.5–5.5 ◦ C warmer than half a century ago. With the
world’s population rapidly urbanizing, and a projected 61% of
the world’s population living in cities and towns by 2030 (United
Nations, 1997), the seriousness of the urban heat island effect
and the importance of its consequences in the policy-making
process will certainly intensify.
Many strategies to mitigate the urban heat island effect have
been suggested in the literature, and can mainly be classified
into six categories: (1) modification of urban geometry, (2) use
of light-colored surfaces, (3) policies and measures to increase
energy efficiency, (4) management of traffic and better trans-
portation system design, (5) use of permeable surfaces, and
(6) use of vegetated surfaces (Oke, 1988; McPherson, 1994;
Rosenfeld et al., 1995; Ouyang, 2001). Vegetation can mitigate
urban heat islands through the shading of otherwise heat-
absorbing surfaces and through evapotranspiration, in which
heat in the surrounding environment is converted to latent
heat thereby lowering neighborhood temperature. It has been
reported that a large tree can expend 9.6E+05 kJ (230,000 kcal)
of energy per day, equivalent to five air-conditioners working
19 h per day (Federer, 1971). As a result, vegetation planted
close to buildings lowered wall surface temperatures by about
17 ◦ C, lowered noon time in-door air temperatures by 0.47 ◦ C,
and reduced air-conditioning costs by 25–80% (Meier, 1991;
Dhakal and Hanaki, 2002). At a larger scale, temperature close
to green space can be lowered by 2–8 ◦ C (Taha et al., 1991),
and this effect can be detected until approximately one park’s
width away from the park (Jauregui, 1990). Of the increased
temperature due to urban heat islands, it is estimated that about
25–50% can be mitigated through vegetation (Rowntree et al.,
1982). It is also estimated that if all US cities used light-colored
surfaces and increased vegetation, a decrease of 108E+06 kWh
in electric usage can be expected annually, which is equivalent
387
to a savings of 10 billion US dollars (in 1990 currency), and a
reduction of 27 Mt of carbon emission to the air (Rosenfeld et
al., 1995).
Although the effectiveness of increased green space in reliev-
ing the urban heat island effect has been established, it is vexing
that climatology has a low impact on the planning process
(Eliasson, 2000). Several barriers have been identified, includ-
ing communication problems, conflicting interests, economy,
lack of knowledge, low priority, changed or unclear policy, and
time. Several needs have also been recognized, including eas-
ily accessible literature, handbooks, simple techniques/methods
for an overstrained planner, and maps and models for climatic
assessments.
By reviewing the literature more commonly used by planners
and designers (for example, American Planning Association,
2006), it becomes obvious that planners and designers seldom
have the time or the training to transform complex scientific
concepts into planning. Instead, they usually rely on regula-
tions and relatively straightforward guidelines and visual graphs
(for example, Akbari et al., 1992; Givoni, 1997) to guide their
already overly complicated planning process. Therefore, if the
target is to increase the number of planners applying climatolog-
ically sensible approaches, and not climate knowledge per se,
into their planning processes, climatologists and environmental
researchers would have to supply them with simple applicable
rules regarding what types of urban and open space designs best
mitigate undesirable microclimatic conditions.
Because most studies of urban heat islands are implemented
at the scale of an entire city, little information is available for the
microclimatic conditions of individual green-spaces, and even
less scientific information is available regarding what types of
green-spaces best mitigate the urban heat. For example, when
planning for green space systems, information on what sized
green spaces has the best cooling effect would be needed. Spatial
mapping of temperature in four Taiwanese cities have estab-
lished that the urban temperature gradient is strongly affected
by large parks (Lee et al., 1999). But how much the temperatures
in small parks differ from those of large parks, and whether a
large green space can be substituted with several small green
spaces of the same total area is still unknown. When designing
green space, information on if and how the land-cover within
a green space affects the green space’s cooling effect may also
be needed. For example, do paved surfaces reduce the cooling
effect of parks, and to what degree? Moreover, are there limits
to the amount of paved surfaces in green spaces beyond which
they may offset the green space’s ability to cool the urban heat?
Also, are turfs as effective as shrubs, and are shrubs as effec-
tive as trees? A citywide study of Tainan, Taiwan, showed that
at a scale of 100 m, dark-colored pavements and impermeable
surfaces both contribute to an increase in ambient tempera-
ture, whereas a 10% increase in vegetated surface reduced the
temperature by 0.14–0.32 ◦ C (Kuo, 2000). A study in Illinois,
US, showed that trees planted on turfs had better evapotran-
spiration rates than those on asphalt. This is because increased
long-wave radiation from asphalts resulted in higher leaf surface
temperatures, which eventually lead to a higher stomatal closure
(Kjelgeren and Montague, 1998). Previous studies using quarter-
388 C.-R. Chang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 386–395

scale buildings suggested that evapotranspiration cooling from

turf can provide cooling savings equivalent to those gained from
shrubs and trees, thus recommending turf as a water-conserving
alternative to shrubs and trees, especially in water-scarce regions
(McPherson et al., 1989). From the above, it may be inferred that
land-cover within a park, including the proportion of vegetated
surface versus paved surfaces and the type of plant cover should
affect a park’s cooling effect, but questions on thresholds and
how they affect the intensity of the cooling effect still remain.
The answer to such questions would require studies that
examine the “coolness” of multiple parks and relate their cool-
ness to specific park characteristics. However, current literature
focusing on the comparison of temperature between parks and
their surroundings are limited to single or several parks. This
is, therefore, a preliminary study aimed at confirming that the
coolness of multiple parks can be scientifically measured and
compared, and that the coolness can be related to park char-
acteristics. Specific objectives include: (1) devise a method to
detect and compare the local cool-island intensities of vari-
ous urban parks; (2) verify that this coolness differs among
parks; (3) determine whether the park’s coolness is related
to park characteristics. It is the authors’ hope that the results
from this study would provide useful information on the local-
scale climates within a city, and serve as a basis for future
research.

2. Methods

2.1. Study site Fig. 1. Map of Taipei city and sample parks used in this study. Within the bor-
derlines, the light gray lines indicate streets, gray areas indicate dense streets and
the dark gray lines indicate streams. The black spots indicate the sample parks.
Taipei city (24◦ N and 121.5◦ E), the largest city in Taiwan, The open areas towards the northern, eastern, and southeastern sections of Taipei
is located in the north of the island. It covers 271.79 km2 , and are hilly terrain, and were not sampled because their change in elevation would
is sited in a basin surrounded by hills to the north, east, and confound air temperatures (data courtesy of the Taipei Municipal Government).
south, the Tamsui River to the west, and the Hsintien Creek to the
southwest (Fig. 1). Its population of 2.6 million is predominantly
distributed in the flatter parts of the basin to the west where
the population density exceeds 20,000 persons per km2 (data
courtesy of the Taipei Municipal Government).
The climate of Taipei city is basically that of humid sub-
tropical, with an annual average temperature of 22.7 ◦ C (data
courtesy of the Central Weather Bureau). Its coldest month is
January (15.8 ◦ C) and warmest month July (29.3 ◦ C). Previous
studies of the urban heat phenomenon in Taiwan have found
that, unlike cities in higher latitudes whose urban heat maxi-
mum occurs during the winter, Taipei’s urban heat maximum
occurs during noon in summer, with a heat island intensity of
4.9 K (Lin et al., 1999.)
Taipei city has a total of 490 municipal parks, with an aver-
age size of 1.07 ha and a median of 0.24 ha. The smallest parks
are less than 0.01 ha (Fig. 2a), and the largest, located in the
suburban hills, is 39.7 ha (data courtesy of the Taipei Municipal
Government).

2.2. Research design

The time- and location-specific air temperatures inside a city Fig. 2. Size distribution of Taipei city parks: (a) all 490 parks; (b) 61 sample
beneath the boundary layer are affected by many factors, ranging parks surveyed in this study.
 C.-R. Chang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 386–395
from mesoscale weather and climate of the whole city, local scale
climate as shaped by landscape features and urban development
(surface cover, site and spacing of buildings, activities, etc.),
and microscale climate as determined by the dimensions of indi-
vidual buildings, trees, and roads and extraneous microclimate
signals such as caused by a vehicle with a hot engine (Oke, 2004).
In an attempt to distinguish the local temperature effects of a spe-
cific park, a new term “local cool-island intensity” of a park is
defined as the temperature difference between the park interior
and its nearby surroundings, where the general setting is similar.
However, because the park itself also affects the temperature of
its nearby surroundings, it is best that the neighborhood refer-
ence point be located just beyond the range of park influence,
so that the data may fully capture the local scale temperature
differences between park interior and park surroundings. Hypo-
thetically, this range should show up as a plateau in temperature
as the distance from the park is increased. In the test surveys, this
distance was assessed by measuring the temperature from within
a park to the edge of a major city road. Unfortunately, results
showed that the temperature fluctuated too much along the way,
such that a convincing “temperature influence threshold” can-
not be detected for any single park. This influence range was
therefore hypothesized at one park-width away from the park,
according to results from Jauregui (1990). As a result, this study
was implemented at the scale of 10–100 m, conducted on foot
for over 2 months, and included varying weather conditions. To
exclude potential biases in the data that may stem from such tem-
poral variations in mesoscale climate, seasons were separately
studied, and so were day and night measurements. Rainy and
windy days were avoided. Parks of the same sampling stratum
(size class and administrative districts) were not surveyed on
the same date. Also, instead of using the actual air–temperature,
all the analyses were based on the “local cool/heat island
intensity”, operationally defined as the temperature differ-
ence between the park interior and the reference points in its
surroundings.
2.3. Samples
Sample municipal parks were selected through a stratified
random sampling process, in which park size classes and admin-
istrative districts were used as strata. Although most parks were
smaller than 0.5 ha, Taipei city has municipal regulations spec-
ified for parks larger than 1 ha. Parks were therefore classified
into three classes: large (>1 ha), medium (0.5–1 ha), and small
(<0.5 ha), to ensure that the samples include adequate numbers
of parks larger than 1 ha. Administrative district was chosen
as a stratum because the districts are slightly different in their
land use, and also, this would allow the samples to be evenly
distributed geographically.
Because the local scale climate in Taipei is strongly influ-
enced by the rivers and hills, parks in the proximity of rivers
and hills were excluded from the samples. Also, because
the combined effects of neighboring green spaces is not yet
known, parks that were adjacent to other green spaces (such
as schools or other parks) were also excluded from the sam-
ples. A resulting total of 61 samples were surveyed, of which
389
30 were less than 0.5 ha, 17 larger than 1 ha, and 14 in between
(Fig. 2b).
2.4. Survey methods
Temperature measurements in parks and their surroundings
were taken in the summer of 2003 (August–September) and the
winter of 2004 (December 2003 to February 2004). Survey times
were noon (11:00–15:00 h) and night (21:00–1:00 h). Tempera-
ture measurements were taken with the Lutron LM-8000 sensor.
This instrument has an operating range of −100 to 1300 ◦ C,
resolution of 0.1 ◦ C, and an accuracy of ±1% rdg + 1 ◦ C. The
instrument was set under a radiation shield and onto a pole
attached to a measuring wheel, such that it stayed 2 m above sur-
face level. At each measurement point, the surveyors waited until
the wind speed slowed below 2.1 m/s and waited for an addi-
tional few minutes for the temperature measurement to stabilize
before taking the temperature measurements.
For each park, five temperature measurements were taken:
one inside the park and four in its surroundings. Within each
park, temperature measurements were taken in an open area
(unshaded during the noon measurement) to match the condi-
tions of their unshaded counterparts outside the parks. Although
the temperature within large parks may differ with location, sev-
eral parks were either too small or too densely treed to allow for
more than one open-area measurement. To assure constancy in
the survey process, one measurement was therefore used for
each park interior. Measurements of park surroundings were
taken on four streets radiating from the four sides of the park,
one in each direction. In each direction, one measurement was
taken approximately one park-width away from the park, cal-
culated using the square root of park area and located with the
distance determined by a measuring-wheel. This resulted in four
local reference points for each park, one in each direction. These
exterior points were then used as the local reference points, and
used in the calculation of local “cool/heat island intensity.”
Within each park, four types of land-cover were recorded and
their proportions estimated: trees, shrubs, turf, and paved sur-
faces. Their proportions were estimated by eye, with the surveyor
positioned in the center of the park, using a gross classification
of fifths, quarters, or thirds. For larger parks, aerial photographs
were used to aid this estimation.
2.5. Data analysis
From the measurements mentioned before, a total of four
variable classes were derived and used in the analysis:
(1) Local cool/heat island intensity of a park (LCI, in K): cal-
culated by subtracting the temperature measurement taken
inside a park (◦ C) from the temperature of one of its ref-
erence point (◦ C). Because each park has four reference
points, each park has four LCIs.
(2) Mean local cool/heat island intensity of a park (MLCI, in
K): the mean of the four LCIs per park.
(3) Percent coverage inside the park:
390 C.-R. Chang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 386–395

(i) paved (Pa, %), 3. Results

(ii) turf (Tu, %),
(iii) shrub (Shr, %),
(iv) tree (Tr, %),
(v) ShrTr (%) = tree (%) + shrub (%).
(4) Park size: park area (A, ha).
For the analysis of data, graphical displays, ANOVA, t-tests
and correlations were implemented using S-Plus (Insightful,
2001). All t-tests were performed under assumption of unequal
variance. In the analysis of the relationship between park local
cool/heat island intensities and park characteristics, the LCI
was used as the dependent variable, and park size and park
cover were used as independent variables. The mean LCI
(MLCI) was used to analyze the among- versus within-park
variance in LCI and other park-specific descriptive statis-
tics. Although administrative sub-regions were used and also
showed up as significant in earlier analyses, similarity within
the formed groups could not be found, and were not used in this
presentation.
3.1. General results
As a general rule, parks were on average cooler than their
surroundings. At noon in summer, the parks were on average
0.81 K cooler than their surroundings. On summer nights, the
parks were on average 0.29 K cooler. At noon in winter, the parks
were on average 0.57 K cooler. On winter nights, the parks were
on average 0.16 K cooler.
The parks were, however, quite different in their local cool-
island intensity. Analyses of the among-park versus within-park
variance in local cool/heat island intensities (Fig. 3) revealed that
the local cool/heat island intensities were more different among
parks than within parks (p = 0.000 for ANOVA tests for all four
periods), indicating that the parks were significantly different in
their local cool/heat island intensities. The data also showed that
not all parks were cool islands. At noon in summer, 14 out of 61
parks were local heat islands, with an average of 0.42 K warmer
than their surroundings. On summer nights, the proportion was 8
out of 61, averaging 0.39 K warmer. At noon in winter, 16 out of

Fig. 3. Box plots showing among-park vs. within-park variance in their local cool/heat island intensities: (a) summer noon; (b) summer night; (c) winter noon; (d)
winter night. The parks are ranked by their mean local cool/heat island intensities. The bulging dots in the middle indicate the median, the boxes indicate the upper
and lower quantiles, and the whiskers indicate the range.
 C.-R. Chang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 386–395
Fig. 4. Scatter plots showing relationship between local cool/heat island intensities and park size (ha): (a) summer noon; (b) summer night; (c) winter noon; (d)
winter night.
61 parks were local heat islands, averaging 0.59 K warmer. On
winter nights, the proportion was 12 out of 61 parks, averaging
0.45 K warmer then their surroundings.
3.2. Relationship between park local cool/heat island
intensities and park area
At noon in summer, larger parks were more consistently
cooler than their surroundings (Fig. 4a): parks larger than 12 ha
were consistently cooler than their surroundings; parks between
3 and 12 ha were cooler than most surrounding measurements;
whereas parks smaller than 3 ha were more variable in their
temperature comparison with their surroundings. All local heat-
island parks were smaller than 2 ha.
On summer nights, compared to their daytime counterparts,
the parks were more similar to their surroundings, and large
parks were not as distinctively cooler (Fig. 4b). Parks smaller
than 3 ha were also more variable in their temperature compari-
son with their surroundings, but the largest heat island park was
7 ha.
At noon in winter, again, larger parks were more consistently
cooler than their surroundings (Fig. 4c): parks larger than 15 ha
were consistently cooler than their surroundings; parks between
7 and 15 ha were cooler than most surrounding measurements;
whereas parks smaller than 3 ha were more variable in their tem-
391
perature comparison with their surroundings. The largest heat
island park was 6.5 ha.
In comparison to their daytime counterparts, winter night
measurements of the local cool/heat island intensities were
more centered around the zero line (Fig. 4d). Parks larger than
3 ha were more consistently cooler, whereas parks smaller than
3 ha were more variable in their temperature comparison with
their surroundings. All heat-island parks were smaller than
2 ha.
3.3. Relationship between park local cool/heat island
intensities and park cover
3.3.1. Summer noon
Among the parks smaller than 3 ha, the local cool/heat
island intensity was most visibly related to two factors: tree
and shrub cover and paved area. The higher the tree and
shrub coverage combined, the cooler the park was compared
to its surroundings (Fig. 5a, correlation = −0.26 for individ-
ual measurements; −0.31 for park average). When paved area
was ≥50%, the parks were on average warmer than their sur-
roundings (Fig. 5b, p = 0.00 for t-test, mean = 0.01 K versus −
0.88 K).
Among the parks larger than 3 ha, the local cool/heat island
intensity was most visibly related to paved area. The greater
392 C.-R. Chang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 386–395

Fig. 5. Box plots showing relationship between local cool/heat island intensities and park cover at noon in summer: (a) tree and shrub cover (%) for parks smaller
than 3 ha; (b) paved cover (%) for parks smaller than 3 ha; (c) paved area for parks larger than 3 ha.

the paved area, the warmer it became (Fig. 5c, p = 0.009 for t- than 40% turf were cooler than those with less turf (Fig. 6a,
test on paved area = 25% versus 50%, mean = −1.95 K versus p = 0.001 for t-test, mean = −0.60 K versus −0.27 K), but the
−0.68 K). coolest parks were those with no tree cover (Fig. 6b).

3.3.2. Summer night 3.3.3. Winter noon

On summer nights, the local cool/heat island intensities of the For parks smaller than 3 ha, the relationship between park
parks were most related to tree and turf area. Parks with more cover and local cool/heat island intensity was not very clear.

Fig. 6. Box plots showing relationship between local cool/heat island intensities and park cover on summer nights: (a) turf cover (%); (b) tree cover (%).
 C.-R. Chang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 386–395
Fig. 7. Box plots showing relationship between local cool/heat island intensities and park cover at noon in winter for parks larger than 3 ha: (a) tree cover (%); (b)
tree and shrub cover (%); (c) turf cover (%); (d) paved cover (%).
The only relationship found was that the park with 100% paved
area was most consistently warmer then its surroundings.
For parks larger than 3 ha, their local cool/heat island intensity
was more apparently related to cover. The parks with 50% tree
were cooler than those with 25% trees (Fig. 7a, p = 0.04 for t-
test, mean = −1.51 versus −0.78). When tree and shrub area
combined was equal to 25% and turf area equal to 50% (Fig. 7b
Fig. 8. Box plot showing relationship between local cool/heat island intensities
and park paved cover (%) on winter nights.
393
and c), the parks were warmer than those with less turf area
and more tree and shrub area (t-test p = 0.01, mean = 0.13 versus
−1.42). The effect of paved area (Fig. 7d) was less clear.
3.3.4. Winter night
For parks smaller than 3 ha, the relationship between park
cover and local cool/heat island intensity was not clear. The
only relationship found was that parks with ≥75% paved area
were consistently cooler then their surroundings (Fig. 8, p = 0.01
for t-test with assumption of unequal variance for groups ≥75%
versus <75% paved area, mean = −0.41 versus −0.11).
For parks larger than 3 ha, the relationship between park cover
and local cool/heat island intensity could not be detected by
graphical methods.
4. Discussion
Results from the surveys suggest that urban parks are indeed,
on average cooler than their surroundings, thus confirming the
term “cool islands”. The results also show that the parks’ local
cool-island intensities differ greatly among parks and such dif-
ferences can be related to park characteristics. The parks’ local
cool-island intensities, however, also varied among different
times and seasons. In summer, the parks have a stronger cool-
ing effect than in winter, and the cooling effect is also much
394 C.-R. Chang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 386–395
stronger at noon compared to night. This phenomenon may be
associated with the fact that Taipei’s heat island is most promi-
nent in summer at noon (Lin et al., 1999), and thus may show
different patterns in other regions where the maximum urban
heat island occurs in winter.
In the authors’ opinion, the most interesting finding of this
study was the realization that whereas most parks are cooler than
their surroundings, some urban parks are, contrary to expec-
tations, warmer than their surroundings. As a matter of fact,
approximately one-fifth of the sampled parks function as such
local heat islands. So what makes a park a cool island, and what
makes a park a heat island?
Because of the preliminary nature of this study, many factors
useful in the planning and design processes, such as the local
urban morphology around the parks, the shapes of the parks,
the types of pavements, and the spatial arrangement and types
of trees were not studied. As a result, the regression results all
had low R2 values and were not used in this presentation. How-
ever, with minimal park characteristics, park coverage and park
area, the stronger cool-island parks and warmer parks were still
separable from the rest.
For reasons addressed later, the authors are more confident
with the results that attend to park coverage, and shall discuss
them first. In regard to park coverage, trees and paved cover-
age affect park temperatures the most, but their effects differ
with time. At noon in summer, large proportions of paved sur-
faces absorb and reflect much incoming radiance, resulting in
increased temperatures and local “heat-island parks”. On win-
ter nights, however, increased paved area results in openness of
the parks, which allows for heat to escape the parks and create
strong cool islands. Trees and shrubs function as shade-providers
at noon in both summer and winter, such that increased tree
and shrub cover result in cooler parks at noon. Trees, however,
function as a buffer on summer nights, hindering heat exchange
between the interior of a park and the cooler air mass above it,
and create warmer parks during such times. Although turfs do
not provide the much needed shading effect trees and shrubs can
offer, and are not as successful as trees and shrubs in lowering
the temperatures of Taipei parks at noon in summer, they do not
absorb as much heat as paved surfaces, and thus increased turf
area creates cooler parks on summer night. In conclusion, at noon
in summer, parks with more than or equal to 50% paved surfaces
and little tree and shrub cover become local heat islands amidst
an already very warm city, and should be avoided in the design
of urban parks. As opposed to paved surfaces, turfs decrease
the amount of heat absorbed during the day and allow for heat
to escape at night, and thus should be encouraged in residen-
tial areas where night temperatures may affect the well-being of
nearby residents.
In regard to park size, the results show that the larger parks are
on average stronger cool islands than the smaller ones, regard-
less of time. In particular, parks larger than 3 ha were found to
be more consistently cooler than their surroundings at noon in
summer, whereas smaller parks varied widely in their cool/heat
island intensity. Although most of the parks smaller than 3 ha
were local cool islands (41/55), all heat island parks at noon
in summer were smaller than 2 ha. This “cool large-park” phe-
nomenon, however, was more exaggerated at night in summer
and at noon in winter. At these times, only the largest parks were
consistently cooler than their surroundings, with parks as large
as 7 ha still functioning as local heat islands.
As a result of the way neighborhood reference points were
defined (i.e. one park-width away from the parks), the refer-
ence points were by default farther away from larger parks than
from smaller parks. This was an assumption based on best avail-
able information, but was none-the-less a cause for precaution.
Because heat transfers from a warmer area towards cooler places,
it would be reasonable for two locations closer together to be
more similar in their temperatures than two more distant ones.
Therefore, if there was a bias caused by the decision on reference
points, then the results should show that the larger parks are more
different than their surroundings than the smaller ones. This,
however, was not the case. The data (Fig. 4) show a decreased
variance in the local cool/heat island intensities towards the
larger parks. In other words, the temperatures in smaller parks
were more dissimilar to those of their surroundings than the
larger ones. Although this heteroscedasticity may be biased by
the small number of larger parks in the sample, large parks are
not always more different from their reference points than the
small parks.
So how much confidence do the authors have in the results?
The authors believe that large parks are very likely cooler than
their counterparts, and that the relationship between park size
and their local cool-island intensity are likely non-linear. How-
ever, the uncertainty surrounding whether the reference points
are suitably positioned impedes confident suggestions as to what
sized parks are best for cooling Taipei city. There is also still
much unanswered, given that the R2 from the regression analyses
were quite low. This may be improved by including more vari-
ables, such as local urban morphology around the parks, land use
around the parks, wind-flow, types of pavements, and types and
spatial arrangements of trees, into the research design. However,
in the authors’ opinion, given the complexity of air–temperature
changes at a scale of the vicinity of an urban park, a much more
important and basic question would be: “In the study of such
local-scale studies, where exactly should the reference points
be placed?” In larger scale studies where the study framework
is a whole city, the heat island intensity is usually defined by
the temperature difference between the heat-center of a city,
where it is warmest, and a nearby rural area, usually conveniently
defined by the location of a nearby rural weather station. At such
scales, questions that can be answered are those that address city-
wide issues, such as the relationship between a city’s heat island
intensity and its population or green coverage. But to address
fine-scaled questions that attend to the planning and design of
urban green spaces, such as the choice between many small parks
versus a few large parks, the limits to types and area of paved
surfaces, and the proportions and spatial arrangements of vegeta-
tion within a park, and so forth, would require a more fine-scaled
understanding of the urban microclimate with detailed mapping
and spatial analyses of the temperature changes within a city, and
the relationships between such local-scaled urban microclimate
and urban green-space characteristics. The authors hope that the
results from this study will spark continual interest in providing
 C.-R. Chang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 386–395
intra- and inter-park-scale information on the characteristics of
effective cool-island parks that would eventually result in a set
of “cool park guidelines” that planners and designer could easily
apply to their planning and design process.
Acknowledgements
This study has been funded in part by the National Science
Council of the Republic of China (Taiwan) to Chi-Ru Chang and
Shyh-Dean Chang. The authors thank Prof. Andrew Kwong-
Fai Lo, Prof. Hou-Nan Tsai and two anonymous reviewers for
helpful comments. The authors also thank Yi-Sheng Tsai and
Yi-Hsin Chang for their help in data collection.
References
Akbari, H., Davis, S., Dorsano, S., Huang, J., Winnett, S. (Eds.), 1992. Cool-
ing Our Communities: A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored
Surfacing. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis,
Climate Change Division.
American Planning Association, 2006. Planning and Urban Design Standards.
John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Brazel, A., Selover, N., Vose, R., Heisler, G., 2000. The tale of two
cites—Baltimore and Phoenix urban LTER sites. Climate Res. 15, 123–135.
Ca, V.T., Asadea, T., Abu, E.M., 1998. Reductions in air conditioning energy
caused by a nearby park. Energy Build. 29, 83–92.
Dhakal, S., Hanaki, K., 2002. Improvement of urban thermal environment by
managing heat discharge sources and surface modification in Tokyo. Energy
Build. 34, 13–23.
Eliasson, I., 2000. The use of climate knowledge in urban planning. Landscape
Urban Plan. 48, 31–44.
Federer, C.A., 1971. Effects of trees in modifying urban microclimates. In:
Proceedings of the Symposium on Trees and Forests in an Urbanizing
Environment, Co-operative Extension Service, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Givoni, B., 1997. Climate considerations in Building and Urban Design. Wiley,
New York.
Gyr, A., Rys, F., 1995. Diffusion and Transport of Pollutants in Atmospheric
Mesoscale Flow Fields. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
Insightful, 2001. S-Plus 6 for Windows Guide to Statistics, vol. 2. Insightful
Corporation, Seattle, WA.
Jauregui, E., 1990. Influence of a large urban park on temperature and convective
precipitation in a tropical city. Energy Build. 15/16, 457–463.
Kjelgeren, R., Montague, T., 1998. Urban tree transpiration over turf and asphalt
surfaces. Atmos. Environ. 1, 35–41.
Kuo, B.-Y., 2000. An analysis of microclimates in urban parks—a case study
in Taiwan. Master’s Thesis. Institute of Architecture, National Cheng Kung
University (in Chinese).
Landsberg, H.E., 1981. The Urban Climate. Academic Press, New York.
Lee, K.-P., Lin, H.-T., Lin, L.-J., Kuo, H.-C., Chen, T.-C., 1999. Experimental
analyses of urban heat island effects of the four metropolitan cities in Taiwan
(II)—the analyses of the spatial and temporal features of urban heat islands
in summer. J. Architect. 31, 75–90 (in Chinese).
Lin, H.-T. (Ed.), 2000. Green Building Technical Handbook. Architecture and
Building Research Institute, Taipei (in Chinese).
Lin, H.-T., Lee, K.-P., Chen, K.-T., Lin, L.-J., Kuo, H.-C., Chen, T.-C., 1999.
Experimental analyses of urban heat island effects of the four metropolitan
cities in Taiwan (I)—the comparison of the heat island intensities between
Taiwan and the world cities. J. Architect. 31, 51–73 (in Chinese).
395
McPherson, E.G., 1994. Cooling urban heat islands with sustainable
landscapes. In: Platt, R.H., Rowntree, R.A., Muick, P.C. (Eds.), The
Ecological City. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, pp. 151–
171.
McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Livingston, M., 1989. Effects of three land-
scape treatments on residential energy and water use in Tucson, Arizona.
Energy Build. 13, 127–138.
Meier, A.K., 1991. Measured cooling savings from vegetative landscaping. In:
Energy Efficiency and the Environment: Forging the Link. American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington.
Oke, T.R., 1973. City size and urban heat island. Atmos. Environ. 7, 769–779.
Oke, T.R., 1988. Street design and urban canopy layer climate. Energy Build.
11, 103–113.
Oke, T.R., 1995. The heat island of the urban boundary layer: characteristics,
causes and effects. In: Cermak, J.E. (Ed.), Wind Climate in Cites. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 81–107.
Oke, T.R., 2004. Initial guidance to obtain representative meteorological obser-
vations at urban sites. Instruments and Observing Methods Report No. 81.
World Meteorological Organization, Geneva.
Ouyang, C.-F., 2001. Urban Environment. Chan’s Arch Books, Taiwan (in Chi-
nese).
Rosenfeld, A.H., Akbari, H., Bretz, S., Fishman, B.L., Kurn, D.M., Sailor, D.,
Taha, H., 1995. Mitigation of urban heat islands: materials, utility programs,
updates. Energy Build. 22, 255–265.
Rowntree, R.A., Sanders, R.A., Stevens, J.C., 1982. Evaluating urban forest
structure for modifying microclimate: the Dayton climate project. In: Pro-
ceedings of the Second National Urban Forestry Conference, American
Forestry Association, Washington, DC, pp. 136–142.
Taha, H., 1997. Urban climates and heat islands: albedo, evapotranspiration, and
anthropogenic heat. Energy Build. 25, 99–103.
Taha, H., Akbari, H., Rosenfeld, A., 1991. Heat island and oasis effects of
vegetative canopies: micrometeorological field measurements. Theor. Appl.
Climatol. 44, 123–138.
United Nations, 1997. Urban Agglomerations 1996. UN Population Division,
United Nations, New York.
Zipperer, W.C., Foresman, T.W., Sisinni, S.M., Pouyat, R.V., 1997. Urban tree
cover: an ecological perspective. Urban Ecosyst. 1, 229–247.
Chi-Ru Chang is a landscape ecologist and an assistant professor at the Depart-
ment of Landscape Architecture, Chinese Culture University, Taiwan. She holds
a Ph.D. degree in environment (ecology) from Duke University, USA. Her major
research and teaching interests are the spatial ecological dynamics at the human-
nature interface and the merging of landscape ecology with landscape planning,
design and management. Her recent research is focused on the ecological role
of green spaces in the urban environment.
Ming-Huang Li is an environmental manager at the Zhishan Cultural and Eco-
logical Garden. He holds a Master’s degree in Landscape Architecture from
Chinese Culture University. His interests include landscape ecology and urban
climate. He has participated in several landscape design projects, including the
shoreline design for Shihsanhang Museum and the ecotourism plan for Kinmen
National Park.
Shyh-Dean Chang is a professor of architecture and urban planning at the Chi-
nese Culture University, Taiwan. He holds a Doctor of Engineering in urban
planning from Tokyo University, Japan. His honors include the “Medal of
Planning” from the Taiwan Institute of Urban Planning (1998), the “Medal of
Architecture” from the Architectural Institute of the Republic of China (1999),
the “Award for International Exchange” from the City Planning Institute of Japan
(2002), and is Fellow of the Architectural Institute of the Republic of China
(2003). His current research interest is green living environment, spanning from
green buildings, green communities, to green cities.