Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Effect of ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure on

indoor environment: A literature review
Yafei Wang a, b, *, Frank Bakker b, Rudolf de Groot a, Heinrich Wörtche b
a
Environmental System Analysis Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
b
INCAS3, P.O. Box 797, 9400 AT Assen, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The influence of urban green infrastructure on the indoor environment and the effects on human
Received 3 November 2013 comfort and economic consequences are still unclear. This paper gives a systematic overview of the
Received in revised form relationship, in terms of so-called ‘ecosystem services’, between urban green infrastructure and the
21 March 2014
indoor environment through a literature review in different disciplines. Urban green infrastructure
Accepted 23 March 2014
Available online 2 April 2014
(mainly trees, green walls and roofs) was found to contribute, both positively and negatively, to the
indoor environment via the influence on the climate, energy use, air quality, sonic environment and
aesthetic quality. Four main factors that influence these effects were identified, being vegetation char-
Keywords:
Urban ecosystem services
acteristics, building characteristics (including layout and geometry), and geographical conditions.
Green infrastructure Although the reviewed papers have investigated the different ecosystem services on a wide range of
Vegetation space and time scales, the performance of urban green on the meso- and macro climate has received less
Indoor environment attention than on the micro scale. Also direct effects of urban green infrastructure on indoor air quality
Human comfort and sonic environment were rarely studied. Another finding is that, whereas the modelling approach on
Literature review climate regulation has been widely adopted by researchers throughout the world, empirical studies have
mainly been performed in the USA. We also analysed the data found on economic implications. The
economic effects of adjoining vegetation and green roofs on climate regulation provided energy savings
of up to almost $250/tree/year, while the air quality regulation was valued between $0.12 and $0.6/m2
tree cover/year. Maximum monetary values attributed to noise regulation and aesthetic appreciation of
urban green were $20 e $25/person/year, respectively. Of course these values are extremely time- and
context-dependent but do give an indication of the potential economic effects of investing in urban green
infrastructure. Based on this review, we conclude that new methods, measurement instruments and field
experiments are needed to improve empirically supported correlations and develop concrete recom-
mendations for urban planning and design.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ecosystem services [8]. Due to the different types of ecosystems

People living in urban areas depend on natural ecosystems not
only beyond the city limits, but also within the urban area [1].
Natural elements in urban areas have many proven benefits to
human society, including material and spiritual aspects [2e4]
which are positively related to human well-being and comfort,
especially human physical and mental health, as demonstrated by
numerous epidemiological studies [5e7]. All the benefits that
people derive, directly or indirectly from ecosystems are known as
* Corresponding author. INCAS3, P.O. Box 797, 9400 AT Assen, The Netherlands.
Tel./fax: þ31 (0) 592 860 000.
E-mail address: yafeiwang@incas3.eu (Y. Wang).
(e.g. grasslands, forests, wetlands), the types of ecosystem services
are different as well. A recent study by Gómez-Baggethun et al.
identified 13 important ecosystem services in urban areas (e.g.
urban temperature regulation, air purification, waste treatment)
[3]. Within the urban system, indoor areas take up a large amount
of space and people spend most of their time indoors. Low quality
indoor environments can therefore pose serious risks to human
health [9].
This paper focuses on the urban ecosystem services and dis-
services relevant for the indoor area. Many studies have discussed
the contribution and effects of urban green infrastructure, espe-
cially urban forests, to the indoor environment through both
direct and indirect processes. The indoor environment is generally
affected by urban green infrastructure (e.g. urban trees, green walls

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.03.021
0360-1323/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100
and roofs) via four main mechanisms. First of all, the climate is
regulated through buffering of solar radiation, lowering of wind
speeds, and evapotranspiration processes [5,10e13]. Secondly, ur-
ban greenery affects the air quality through removing air pollutants
by dry deposition and by influencing the smog (O3) formation
process [1,5,14e17]. The third mechanism relates the urban green
infrastructure to noise abatement [18e20], as well as noise masking
by generating pleasant sounds in the canopy [21e23]. Finally, views
from windows provide both amenities and dis-amenities to resi-
dents [24e26].
In this paper, we reviewed literature from different disciplines
to synthesize the current knowledge on the effects (both positive
and negative) of natural elements on the indoor environment and
human comfort in urban areas. The aim of this study was to (1)
provide a systematic overview of state-of-the-art research in the
field of urban ecosystem services and indoor human comfort; (2)
logically classify the reviewed studies and information into four
main categories of ecosystem services; (3) identify the strengths
and weaknesses in the existing literature and (4) provide sugges-
tions for future studies to improve the knowledge base in this
important research area.
2. Methods
The methods used for this review are described in three sub
sections: 1) search strategy; 2) establishing the relation between
the functions of urban greenery, ecosystem services and the effects
on the indoor environment; and 3) typology of the benefits and
economic analysis.
2.1. Search strategy
In the first selection stage, the keywords “urban ecosystem
services”, “urban green infrastructure”, “indoor environment” and
“human comfort” were used and only peer reviewed scientific
papers were selected. Since the comprehensive relationship be-
tween urban green infrastructure and indoor human comfort is
difficult to establish, this study reviews literature that focussed on
the quantification of four major ecosystem services (i.e. climate
regulation, air quality regulation, sonic environment regulation and
aesthetic information services). For the air quality regulation ser-
vice, direct effects of the urban green infrastructure on the indoor
air quality were rarely studied. To gain more insight into these ef-
fects, specific literature on indoor pollutants from outdoor sources
and the impact of green infrastructure on these pollutants were
reviewed. In addition, articles studying the relationship between
urban green infrastructure and indoor sonic environment have not
be found, since most studies have only explored the effect of urban
green infrastructure on the outdoor sonic environment. In the
second selection stage, socio-economic aspects were obtained by
adding additional keywords: “socio-economic valuation” and
“costs and benefits”. After screening, in total 148 papers were
selected, of which, 86 investigated the quantification of urban
green effects, and 24 explored the costs and benefits of urban green.
The remaining papers were analysed for gaining general knowl-
edge on urban ecosystem services, and their contributions to the
indoor environment.
2.2. Establishing the relation between the functions of urban
greenery, the related ecosystem services and the effects on the
indoor environment
The 86 articles that focused on the quantification of urban green
effects (see Section 2.1) were reviewed by analysing the study
design and their interpretations and findings. Fig. 1 shows the
89
established relations between the main ecosystem services pro-
vided by the urban green infrastructure and the indoor environ-
ment. The main functions associated with each service provided by
green infrastructure were used to classify the selected papers.
The literature that described the effects of urban green infra-
structure on the indoor climate and energy use mainly focused on
two major categories of urban green infrastructure, i.e. adjoining
vegetation [11,27e42], and roof and wall greenery [43e65]. For
both categories we analysed three main biophysical effects, being
shading, evapotranspiration and shelter (Table S1).
Due to the complex biophysical processes involved in the air
quality regulation service, the effect of urban green infrastructure
was grouped into direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are
comprised of removing air pollution via dry deposition processes
[66e73], storing and sequestering carbon [68,72,74e80], and
releasing pollen and spores of fungi [81e85]. In addition, vegeta-
tion indirectly affects the air quality through biogenic volatile
organic compound (BVOC) emissions and by regulating the climate,
thereby reducing the potential air pollution as a result of energy
saving [86e93]. A potential indirect effect of vegetation on air
pollution concentration through regulating temperature and air
flow has been investigated recently [94,95]. Finally, reduced energy
consumption due to the contribution of green infrastructure can
also reduce the CO2 emission [5,96,97] (Table S2).
Urban green infrastructure not only acts as an acoustic screen
between noise-sources and receivers [18,20,22,98e101], but also
masks noise by generating pleasant sounds [21]. This literature
study reviews both perspectives.
Finally, we summarize and integrate the results of studies that
investigated the aesthetic information service of urban green
infrastructure seen from the point of people’s mental and physical
health [102e105], and based on the effect of views on outdoor
green and effect of green spaces on children’s educational results
[106,107].
2.3. Typology of benefits and economic analysis
The urban green infrastructure affects the indoor environment
directly through climate, air quality, sonic and aesthetic aspects.
However, greenery also has many secondary effects on human well-
being and the economy.
Reduced energy costs resulting from indoor temperature
modification provided by urban green infrastructure is often used
to value the benefits of the climate regulation service. The reviewed
articles focused on the direct contribution of urban green on the
indoor energy saving (for cooling and heating) via altering the in-
door thermal environment [14,30,36,37,108e110], and the indirect
contribution through changing the wind speed [37].
The potential value of the air quality regulation service, associ-
ated with both air pollutant removal [67e70,108] and carbon
storage and sequestration [77], was mostly calculated by measuring
the effects on health care and replacement costs of artificial treat-
ment systems.
To value the benefits of sonic environment regulation (noise
abatement) mainly survey-based valuation studies were used, such
as assessing the citizens’ willingness to pay (WTP) for quiet acoustic
environments and small group discussions and consensus building
[19,20,98,111].
In terms of aesthetics information services, the difference in
price of building units in relation to the surrounding vegetation
situation and density (so-called “hedonic pricing”) was often used
to calculate its monetary value [26,112e116]. In addition, people’s
WTP was another method to estimate the value of this service
[117,118].
90 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100

Fig. 1. The main ecosystem services provided by urban ecosystems to the indoor environment. Solid line and dash lines correspond to direct and indirect effects, respectively.

3. Effects of urban green infrastructure on climate and
energy use
During the summertime, trees or bushes provide shade from
solar radiation to buildings, and reduce the surface temperature of
the surroundings during the day. At night, they prevent the heat
flow from the buildings by altering the heat exchange
[5,12,119,120]. The ambient temperature can be also lowered
through evaporation and transpiration from vegetation and sur-
rounding soil [5,12]. In addition, trees as shelter could lower the
wind speed, and consequently reduce the air ventilation and
infiltration [5,12,35]. At the same time, wind shielding from trees
also contribute to maintaining a comfortable building temperature
by reducing hot wind blowing in summer; as evergreen trees
reduce the cold wind blowing in winter. Moreover, the evapo-
transpiration of vegetation increases the ambient moisture, which
raises the humidity inside of buildings [5,12].
However, evergreen vegetation could also reduce the tempera-
ture of adjoining buildings in winter, which could increase the
energy consumption (deciduous vegetation is particularly benefi-
cial) [5,37]. Furthermore, lower wind speeds possibly impede heat
dissipation from sunlit surfaces, and reduce the effectiveness of
open windows in summer by lowering the air infiltration rate [5]. In
addition, the effects of the increased moisture on human comfort
inside buildings could be positive or negative, which are different in
dry and humid areas. The most important types of urban green
infrastructure are classified as adjoining vegetation and roof and
wall greens and grouped into field measurements and experiments,
as well as in modelling studies.
3.1. Influence of adjoining vegetation on the climate & energy use
In order to gather reliable field data, measurements and ex-
periments dedicated to vegetation effects on indoor climate and
 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100
energy use have been widely adopted in scientific research. To fill in
the inevitable data gaps that still exist, a number of models were
designed. Since most experiments are performed on a relatively
small scale, these models are considered very helpful to understand
the processes in larger areas and to conduct predictive and retro-
spective analyses.
3.1.1. Field measurements/experiments
Adjoining green infrastructure ranging from micro (e.g. indi-
vidual trees) to macro (e.g. urban forest) has been investigated via
field measurements in various settings. The contribution of indi-
vidual trees on the solar control and evaporative cooling of build-
ings has been studied by many researchers over the past decades.
The radiative and thermal loads, wall and roof temperature, and air
temperature were confirmed to be significantly lower in the shade
of the trees relative to unshaded areas. It has been found that
insulation in the walls and roof can be reduced by approximately
80% when trees are in leaf [11]. Due to the shading of trees on wall
and roof, the surface temperature was reported to be reduced by
11e25  C in Sacramento, California, USA [27], 9  C in Melbourne,
Australia [28], and 5e7  C in Akure, Nigeria [31]. Moreover, the
indoor air temperature was reported to be lowered by up to 3  C
[31]. Akbari et al. measured both indoor and outdoor thermal pa-
rameters at two houses by placing 16 mobile trees during sum-
mertime [27]. The measurements included indoor and outdoor
temperature and humidity, wind speed and direction, roof and
ceiling temperature, interior and exterior wall temperature, hori-
zontal insolation, and air conditioning energy use. It was concluded
that over 30% of annual cooling energy was saved in the hot period.
Another experimental study on the cooling impact of shade trees
compared the electricity consumption in two identical buildings
under different shade conditions [29]. The study revealed that the
cooling energy required for maintaining a constant indoor tem-
perature was approximately 13% less in the shaded building
compared to the unshaded building.
Besides investigating the effects of (groups of) individual trees
on the single building, the regional effects of trees on the buildings’
microclimate have also been studied. With the vegetative canopy,
an average ambient air temperature reduction of 0.9e2  C was
established [11,30,34], while the energy use for air conditioning
was lowered by 20e30% [30].
Plants can act as wind shields, thereby reducing or blocking the
outdoor air movement, which has been confirmed by many
experimental studies. Wind speed reduction differs with the
structure, size and orientation of the urban green infrastructure
[27,32,34,35]. In 2012, Park et al. carried out a study in an urban
street canyon [33]. As many as 512 concrete cubes with 8 different
vegetation conditions were formed to simulate the urban outdoor
thermal environment. The results indicated that the sidewalk trees
reduced wind speed in the canopy by 51%. However, a vegetated
median strip does not significantly mitigate wind speed or
temperature.
3.1.2. Modelling studies
Both the positive and negative effects of climate regulation by
vegetation have been investigated by a number of modelling
studies. A few studies quantified the impacts of vegetation on in-
door energy consumption at the meso-scale. One study investi-
gated the effects of irradiance reductions on the energy
consumption in 4 US cities (Madison, Salt Lake City, Tucson and
Miami) [37]. The simulation results indicated that, in the warm
period, shade provided by vegetation saved cooling costs by 53%e
61%, but lowered wind speeds by 50%, which reduced the need for
heating but increased the need for cooling. Another study investi-
gated the individual and combined impacts of shading, wind speed
91
reduction (wind shielding), and evapotranspiration in 4 cities in
Canada (Toronto, Edmonton, Montreal and Vancouver) by
increasing the vegetation cover of the neighbourhood by 30% [36].
The energy savings for heating and cooling were estimated at 10%
and 40% in urban houses, respectively, and 20% and 30% in rural
houses, utilizing a building energy simulation program. Shashua-
Bar and Hoffman studied the cooling effects of green areas in the
urban cluster/canyon in 2000, 2002 and 2004 [40e42]. The average
cooling effects of urban trees ranged from 2.8 to 4.5  C and
approximately 80% of the effect was attributed to shading.
Most modelling studies on urban outdoor and indoor thermal
comfort were performed on the micro scale. The effects of tree
species, leaf area index (LAI), distance and orientation of vegetation
on indoor climate mitigation were all addressed. In the northern
hemisphere, energy saving for cooling can be maximized when
trees were positioned on the south and west sides of buildings [36e
38], whereas the heating costs/loads were found most sensitive to
south and east wall shading [37]. Fahmy et al. investigated the
climate effects of two types of trees on the thermal comfort in
residential buildings in Cairo, Egypt [121]. It was found that tree
type, leaf area density and evapotranspiration rate have their spe-
cific impact on the urban climate. A study by Shahidan et al. laid
emphasis on the optimum cooling effects of trees on mitigating the
urban heat island (UHI) effect and building energy performance in
Putrajaya, Malaysia through modifying the tree canopy density and
quantity [39]. The results revealed that trees with a high canopy
density can lead to a reduction in building cooling load, while the
average outdoor air temperature was reduced via doubling the
amount of trees with low LAI (0.9) and high LAI (9.7 by 0.9  C and
1.2  C respectively). Furthermore, 20% of the tree coverage in Tor-
onto was estimated to contribute to 77,140 kWh (167 kWh/tree) of
cooling energy savings in 2009 [38]. However, these benefits highly
dependent on tree species, canopy, and the tree distance and
orientation from buildings.
3.2. Influence of roof and wall greens on the climate and energy use
Vegetation is often planted on roofs or walls of buildings com-
plementary to adjoining vegetation and can regulate both the
climate of the indoor environment and the ambient outdoor envi-
ronment. Green roofs and walls primarily reduce the heat flux
through the roof, shield the roof slab from direct sunlight and
provide evaporative cooling.
3.2.1. Field measurements/experiments
Roof and wall plants affect the indoor thermal environment via
solar control and evaporation, which has been clarified by a number
of empirical studies. First of all, green roofs and walls were reported
to lower the ambient air temperature by 1e4.3  C among different
countries [48e50], whereas the surface temperature reduction
varied by 1.9e60  C [43,45,46,49,51,52]. Furthermore, the heat flux
through roof and wall, responsible for heat gain in summer and
heat loss in winter, is observed to decrease due to vegetation in
several case studies [43,45,46]. Due to these effects, the indoor air
temperature was found to be lowered by 0.5e5  C [43,47,50]. The
energy savings that can be achieved by green roofs and walls is also
significant. The installation of a green roof and wall can result in an
energy reduction of approximately 2e48%, as demonstrated by
Niachou et al. [50]. The energy saving performance of urban green
walls and roofs depend on the properties of façades and substrate,
location, climate, species and amount of plants [49e51]. Plants
contribute to indoor energy reduction (associated with tempera-
ture reduction) in particular for buildings without insulation [50].
Although the positive effects of green roofs and walls have been
confirmed by many studies, an experiment, carried out before and
92 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100
after building an extensive rooftop garden above a multi-storied car
park, put forward that a green roof with sparsely covered vegeta-
tion may increase the substrate and ambient temperatures when
the substrate is dry and wind speed is low [44]. Nevertheless, a
well-covered green roof can stop over 60% of the heat gain of a
building and reduces the risk of glare for surrounding buildings
[44].
3.2.2. Modelling studies
In the past decades, many models based on biophysical pro-
cesses have been created for evaluating the dynamic thermal
behaviour of green roofs. The convective, conductive, evaporative
and radiative heat fluxes on the green roof and wall have been
thoroughly investigated. The presence of green roofs and walls in
the summertime are calculated to lower the ambient air temper-
atures by 0.4e1.7  C [60,61,64] and the surface temperature by 0.7e
30  C [53,57,59,60,62,63]. Moreover, the average indoor air tem-
perature of buildings with green roofs and walls was reduced by
approximately 2  C compared to the bare roof buildings in summer,
which lead to a reduction of the cooling load by 5%e90% [53,56e
58,65]. A decrease of energy use for heating due to reduced heat
losses was also reported [54,60]. However, green roofs may also
increase energy consumption in the wintertime. Jaffal et al.
compared the surface temperature of conventional and green roofs
on a single-family house in wintertime [56]. It was reported that
the green roof lowered heat losses by 5.5 kWh/day on a cold day,
but increased that value by 4.0 kWh/day on a sunny day.
Weather and climate condition, properties of façades and sub-
strate, façade orientation, and properties of plants were often used
as the key parameters to estimate the effects of green roof and wall
on the thermal performance of buildings [55,58]. Alexandri and
Jones examined the thermal effects of green roof and wall on
climate in the built environment with different urban geometries
and climates [53]. The results showed that orientation only plays a
measurable role when there is a significant change of solar inso-
lation on the façade. Kumar and Kaushik simulated the thermal
performance of a green rooftop garden [58]. The results revealed
that a larger LAI (i.e. 3.5 compared with 0.5) stabilized the fluctu-
ation of the canopy air temperature and reduced the penetrating
flux to nearly 4 W/m2. Moreover, it was estimated that the mean
indoor air temperature was reduced by 0.3  C when changing the
LAI of the green roof from 0.5 to 2.0 [56]. Furthermore, the thicker
the soil substrate on the roof, the greater the reduction of heat flux
into the building [54].
The main findings from the field measurements and modelling
studies are systematically presented in Table S3. Table S4 lists the
models used in the reviewed modelling studies.
4. Effects of urban green infrastructure on air quality
Vegetation positively affects urban outdoor air quality as well as
indoor air quality through three processes: removing air pollutants
by dry deposition processes [1,15,17], sequestration of carbon di-
oxide (CO2) by the process of photosynthesis [122], and by slowing
down smog (O3) formation process by cooling the ambient tem-
perature [14,16]. On the other hand, urban green infrastructure can
also have negative effects. For example, biogenic volatile organic
compound (BVOC) emissions from vegetation can contribute to the
formation of O3 through a photochemical reaction with NOx [5], the
formation of secondary organic aerosols (SOA) through photo
oxidation process [88] and the formation of carbon through
oxidation or reduction processes [86]. Also, human allergic
response to pollen and fungi spores is an environmental health
issue [123]. In addition, urban green infrastructure may also in-
crease air pollution inside buildings by reducing the air ventilation.
Inadequate air ventilation caused by shelter of trees reduces dilu-
tion effects of ourdoor air on emissions of indoor sources, as well as
the transfer rate of indoor air pollutants when the pollution con-
centration inside building is higher than outside [124].
The building envelope demarcates indoor and outdoor air by
restricting the movement of airborne contaminants [125]. Never-
theless, the concentration of outdoor pollutants still affects the
quality of indoor air, since many indoor particles are of outdoor
origin [126e129]. Particulate matter (PM), as one of the most
important air pollutants, poses a potential health hazard to humans
[130,131]. According to the particle size categorizations (referred to
as fractions), PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 are the most common particulate
matter pollutants. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO),
originating from outdoor sources, can also cause adverse health
effects [132,133]. Moreover, elemental carbon (EC) pollutants with
more spatial heterogeneity were confirmed [132,134]. As early as
1972, Benson et al. indicated that indoor pollution levels including
sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and CO2 appear to be
controlled primarily by outdoor concentrations [135]. The BVOCs,
especially biogenic non-methane volatile organic compound
(BNMVOC), emissions are mainly emitted by vegetation to act
against various stresses in the environment [91,136]. Moreover, the
outdoor environment is the main source of indoor pollen and
spores of fungi [81,84,137]. The main indoor pollutants from out-
door sources are summarized in Table S5.
4.1. Direct effects of urban green on air quality
4.1.1. Dry deposition
The trunk, branches and leaves of trees and vegetation remove
gaseous pollutants and particulate matter by dry deposition. This
process was mainly investigated via modelling studies. To help the
managers and researchers valuate the urban vegetation, the Urban
Forest Effects (UFORE) model1 was developed to quantify the
structure of the urban forest and its contribution to air pollution
removal. The capability of atmospheric cleansing by trees in con-
gested cities in all over the world was assessed via the UFORE
model [66,67,69e72]. The removal rates for NO2, O3, SO2, PM10 and
CO were estimated to be 0.4e2.88 g/m2/year, 1.1e7.6 g/m2/year,
0.2e2.73 g/m2/year, 1.1e17.3 g/m2/year and 0.1e0.57 g/m2/year,
respectively (see Table S6). These values differed mainly because of
the vegetation coverage and pollutant concentration. Based on
these values, the total air pollutants could be removed by 0.1e0.5%,
0.1e0.8%, 0.1e0.7%, 0.2e1.4% and 0.001e0.003% for NO2, O3, SO2,
PM10 and CO, respectively.
Besides the vegetation coverage and pollutant concentration,
plant species, health, structure and size determine the efficiency of
air pollutant uptake by vegetation as well. In 2011, Yin et al. con-
ducted an experiment to estimate the attenuation effects of urban
vegetation on levels of air pollution at six parks in Shanghai, China
[73]. LAI was proven to be key predictor influencing pollutants
removal rate. Tallis et al. pointed out that the coniferous trees offer
a greater PM10 mitigation potential compared to broadleaved trees
[71]. Furthermore, street trees were proven to have the greatest
exposure to PM10, thereby generating the greatest benefits. Another
study by Martin et al. estimated the air pollution removal between
protected and maintained urban forests in Auburn, Alabama, USA
[68]. The results indicated that the differences in pollutant removal
rate provided by the protected and maintained urban forests are
caused by variations in the forest structure, tree condition and size.
1
Nowak DJ, Crane DE. The urban forest effects (UFORE) model: Quantifying ur-
ban forest structure and functions. In: Hansen M, Burk T, editors. Integrated tools
for natural resources inventories in the 21st century; 2000, p. 714e20.
 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100
Generally, trees in the protected areas are larger and healthier than
in the maintained area.
4.1.2. Carbon storage and sequestration
During photosynthesis, carbon is captured and stored in the
plants as biomass. Carbon storage and sequestration by trees has
been explored as a strategy to alleviate global warming [138]. The
capability of carbon storage and sequestration of vegetation does
not only determine the outdoor carbon emissions, but also affects
the indoor pollution concentration [135]. Total carbon storage and
gross sequestration by trees have been studied in different cities in
the world [72,74,77,79,80]. The amount of carbon stored by the
urban green infrastructure ranges from 321 g C/m2 in Xiamen,
China to 36,100 g C/m2 in Sacramento, California, USA. The gross
carbon sequestration rates were lowest in New Jersey, USA (21 g C/
m2/year) and highest in Beijing, China (202 g C/m2/year). Table S7
summarizes the total amount carbon storage and annual gross
carbon sequestration from the reviewed literature.
In principle, the trees with the higher total photosynthetic leaf
surface and higher photosynthetic rates have more carbon
sequestration capability. Location and diameter at breast height
(DBH) were considered as the two main factors influencing the
amount of carbon accumulation [75]. The other factors, arranged in
order of importance, are the following: density, slope, canopy and
humidity [76,77]. Redondo-Brenes also reported that the wood
specific gravity of plants, which varies within species, locations, and
specific growth conditions, determines the amount of carbon se-
questers [78]. In the short term, fast growing species accumulate
more carbon than slower growing species. However, in the long
term, slower growing species accumulate more [74,78]. The study
by Martin et al. concluded that the trees in protected areas are
larger and healthier than in maintained area, which lead to higher
carbon storage and sequestration rate [68]. Moreover, evergreen
species can perform photosynthesis continuously throughout the
year, which enables the uptake of more carbon than the deciduous
species [76].
4.1.3. Pollen and fungi spores
Indoor airborne pollen and fungi mainly come from outdoor
sources. They enter a home by infiltration through open areas (i.e.
windows and doors) [81]. Their indoor concentrations are depen-
dent on a combination of factors that comprise the geographic
location and climate, season, and characteristics of the home and
occupants [84]. Yli-Panula measured concentrations of pollen in-
side and outside a block of flats, a detached house, and a regional
central hospital in Turku, Finland [85]. The highest indoor con-
centrations were observed in the central hospital, which had the
highest frequency of door openings and a large door. A study car-
ried out in Kerala, India, indicated that peak spore and pollen
incidence were recorded during the late rainy and dry seasons
(October to February) in both indoor and outdoor environments
[83]. A modelling study in Taipei, Taiwan demonstrated the indoor
and outdoor airborne fungi concentration. Air relative humidity
(RH) was found to be significantly correlated with the concentra-
tion of indoor/outdoor ratios of airborne fungi. This can be
explained by the fact that the increase of particle diameter by
condensation or water absorption can influence the kinetics of
aerosols [82].
4.2. Indirect effects on air quality
4.2.1. Biogenic volatile organic compound (BVOC) emissions
In urban areas, the materials used for road, building, etc. have
higher reflectivity; solar radiation and UV exposure occurs
routinely compared to the natural area. The higher radiation
93
exposure for most of the plants’ foliage and the higher temperature
lead to the increase of BVOC emissions. These emissions may offset,
or even overwhelm the benefits of vegetation. During 2001e2006,
the inter annual variations in BVOCs lead to 2e5% differences in
simulated O3 and SOA concentrations in summer in entire China
[88]. The BVOC emissions also contribute to the net ecosystem
carbon flux. During 1999e2000, BVOC emissions caused loss of
carbon by 9.4 g C/m2 at Blodgett Forest, California, USA [86]. These
adverse effects can be reduced by carefully controlling the factors
that can lower BVOCs emission potential of the plants. The bio-
physical environment and vegetation characteristics were identi-
fied as the main factors which determine the emission of BVOC for a
specific region [87].
A BVOC emission model2 has been widely used to estimate the
BVOC emission potential by many researchers. Isoprene (a common
organic compound) and monoterpenes (a class of terpenes), which
constitute a major fraction of BVOCs, were mainly investigated
among these studies. The annual BVOC emission from the urban
green infrastructure ranged from 0.1 to 8 g C/m2/year [87,89e91].
To a large extent, the plant species selection for an urban envi-
ronment determines the amount and type of BVOC emissions [87e
93]. Urban forests were considered the most important sources of
BVOC emission [90,93], whereas desert vegetation was a relatively
small source [89].
Temperature, concentrations of air pollutants, soil moisture and
plant species were proved to affect the BVOC emission in the long
term [91]. Parra et al. showed that approximately 50% of the annual
BVOCs were emitted during June, July and August in Catalonia,
Spain [92]. In the Mojave and Sonoran Desert regions of the USA, at
least a threefold difference in the total annual BVOC emissions
between dry and wet years was observed [89]. Fu and Liao pointed
out that isoprene emissions were more dependent on meteoro-
logical parameters, whereas monoterpene emissions were more
sensitive to changes in the plant functional types and the LAI [88].
4.2.2. Effects on air quality by climate regulation
A potential indirect effect of vegetation on air quality through
climate regulation has been investigated recently. A study exam-
ined the effects of green roofs on air quality in street canyons in
Seoul, South Korea, with a computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
model3 [94]. It was shown that cool air produced by green roofs
flowed into the street canyon resulting in a strengthened street
canyon flow. Therefore, pollutant dispersion was enhanced and the
pollution concentration decreased near the road. However, another
study by Vos et al. stated that dense vegetation in street canyons
should be avoided, especially in busy street canyons with much
traffic [95]. Roadside urban vegetation leads to increased pollutant
concentrations, because the vegetation reduces the air ventilation
that is responsible for diluting the pollutants from traffic. Only high
impermeable green barriers led to a significant improvement in air
quality [95].
4.2.3. Potential energy saving
The savings in energy consumption due to the vegetation have
been translated into reduced CO2 emissions. In two papers in 2000
and 2002, Konopacki and Akbari estimated an annual reduction in
carbon emissions from power plants of 1.9  1010 g C, 6  1010 g C,
and 1.3  1010 g C in Baton Rouge, Sacramento, and Salt Lake City,
2
Guenther AB, Zimmerman PR, Harley PC, Monson RK, Fall R. Isoprene and
monoterpene emission rate variability: Model evaluations and sensitivity analyses.
Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 1993; 98(D7):12609e17.
3
Baik JJ, Kim JJ, Fernando HJS. A CFD model for simulating urban flow and
dispersion. Journal of Applied Meteorology 2003; 42:1636e48.
94 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100
respectively (using the North American average emission of
200 g C/kWh for generated electricity) [14,109]. A modelling study
in 2011 estimated that the CO2 emissions were reduced by between
1.7% and 2.8% through adding 8 cm high grass and 15 m high trees
[96]. In 2011, Lin et al. computed a total amount of 1.3  1010 g C
savings as a result of the green areas’ cooling effect [97]. A strong
correlation between biomass, size and shape of green areas and
carbon savings was confirmed in this study.
5. Effects of urban green infrastructure on the sonic
environment
Noise is defined as an unwanted sound that disturbs people or
prevents people from hearing preferred sounds [139]. Unwanted
sound affects various ecosystem components (e.g. animal habitat)
[140,141], human health [139,142,143] and human behaviour [144].
Growing amounts of traffic and other noise-sources have increased
people’s exposure to noise, leading to many health problems,
especially in urban areas. There is much scientific evidence
demonstrating that noise exposure can induce hearing impairment,
hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, annoyance, sleep distur-
bance, and decreased school performance [1,139,142,143]. Evans
et al. have demonstrated that chronic noise exposure was associ-
ated with elevated neuroendocrine and cardiovascular measures
among elementary school aged children [145], resulting in deficits
in long term memory, speech perception and standardized reading
test scores. In addition, children living in the proximity of a major
airport showed increased annoyance and lower quality of life ac-
cording to the assessments of noise impact on their physical, psy-
chological, social, functional daily life domains [146].
The foliage of trees or shrubs is similar to a sound absorbing
wall. When the sound waves pass through, the flexible leaves of
trees or shrubs absorb part of the energy, thereby contributing to
noise reduction [147]. In addition, the urban green infrastructure
also generates pleasant sounds in the canopy from rustling leaves
and through providing a wide variety of habitats, capable of sup-
porting a range of species (e.g. birds) which produce pleasant
sounds [21,23].
5.1. Noise abatement
Noise abatement is considered as an important service gener-
ated by urban greenery. Yet, the environmental effects of noise and
the health risk that arise from it are typically neglected in economic
analysis of investments in green infrastructure [20]. A recent
experimental study by Van Renterghem and Botteldooren dis-
cussed the effects of green roofs on sound propagation [100].
Extensive green roofs were found to lead to consistent and signif-
icant sound reduction, up to 10 dB(A) for both single and double
diffraction cases, which was highly dependent on sound frequency.
Another study by Van Renterghem et al. demonstrated that a green
roof and wall have the highest potential to reduce noise and
enhance quietness in courtyards, with maximum reductions up to
7.5 dB(A) in confined courtyards [101].
Some scientists pointed out that the sonic environment had
often been evaluated by measuring sound levels without consid-
ering the diversity of sound sources, whereas this could signifi-
cantly influence people’s impression on a sonic environment in the
real world [22,99]. A two dimensional graphic chart, called a time
component matrix chart (TM Chart), is often used to present the
sonic environment. The TM Chart is generated based on the sound
source and sound level and aims to predict the changes of a sonic
environment when a new sound is added or an existing sound is
removed. The relationship between urban green infrastructure and
sound attenuation was elaborated to a certain extent, yet the effects
of urban green infrastructure on indoor sound attenuation or
quality has not been studied in detail. A study, carried out in 21
urban green spaces in the city of Puebla, Mexico proved that both
park size and total tree canopy cover could significantly influence
noise levels, irrespective of park location and composition of tree
species [18].
5.2. Generation of pleasant sounds
In 2009, Irvine et al. studied the soundscapes of three green
spaces in Sheffield, UK with psychological, ecological and acoustical
approaches [21]. They interviewed 70 park users, measured habi-
tats and recorded sound levels. Species rich bird communities were
demonstrated to directly impact the quality of the soundscape in
urban parks. In addition, the sound of rustling leaves was also
considered as being pleasant [22]. Research in this particular field
has thus far not received much scientific attention.
6. Effects of urban green infrastructure on aesthetic
information
In general, there is a positive correlation between exposure to
nature and human health [104,105] and natural landscapes provide
important environmental amenities to citizens [24e26]. Natural
scenery helps people to cope with stress or anxiety by providing
pleasant visual quality. An investigation at a hospital revealed that
green views influence patient recovery. After an operation, patients
who had access to green views through the bedroom windows
required less medication and nursing attention, and recovered
faster [102e105].
Buildings surrounded with visible natural elements or scenes
through windows stimulate peoples’ ability to concentrate [106].
Taylor et al. examined the relationship between near-home nature
and self-discipline in Chicago, USA [107]. The results showed that
green views and green spaces close by homes had a positive effect
on children’s performance on concentration, impulse inhibition,
and ability to delay gratification.
7. Economic effects of ecosystem services provided by urban
green infrastructure
The ecosystem services of urban green infrastructure do not
only have important benefits for indoor human comfort, but also
provide considerable economic benefits in terms of reducing en-
ergy and health care costs. The monetary value of these ecosystem
services has been studied by utilizing different valuation methods,
which are briefly explained below.
The avoided cost method is often used to calculate cost-savings
due to the presence of an ecosystem service. For example, the
avoided cost of energy consumption and carbon storage and
sequestration have been calculated in order to value the climate
and air quality regulation service. The value of air pollutant removal
by green infrastructure can be estimated by determining the cost of
replacing this service with human-made infrastructure. This valu-
ation method is called the replacement cost method. Survey-based
valuation (i.e. contingent valuation method) can be used to deter-
mine the value people place on sonic environment regulation and
the aesthetic information service. For example, a questionnaire
could be designed to assess the respondents’ willingness to pay
(WTP) for quiet and attractive environments, or the willingness to
accept (WTA) compensation for exposure to higher noise levels.
Finally, hedonic pricing can be used to analyse the added value of
building units due to favourable surrounding vegetation or other
landscape features [148].
 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100
All the values found in this review have been converted to US
dollars, according to the exchange rate in that specific year. How-
ever, it was not possible to express all monetary values in the same
unit (e.g. per tree, surface area or number of people) due to the
wide variety of valuation methods and purposes of each service.
The direct and indirect cost-savings from climate regulation by
adjoining vegetation were calculated as $/tree whereas the costs
and benefits of urban green roofs on climate regulation were
calculated as $/m2 roof area. The avoided costs of air pollutant
removal and carbon storage and sequestration was calculated as
$/m2 tree cover area. Finally, the costs and benefits of sonic envi-
ronment and aesthetic information services were calculated as
$/person.
7.1. Monetary valuation of climate regulation
7.1.1. Avoided cost by direct energy saving
Based on computer simulations by Mcpherson et al. in four US
cities (Madison, Salt Lake City, Tucson and Miami), the reduction of
solar irradiance by dense shading was calculated to reduce cooling
costs with 53%e61%, being $155e$249/tree/year; and heating costs
by 24%, saving on average $115/tree/year [37]. Experiments con-
ducted with turf and shrub landscapes in Tucson, Arizona, USA,
reported that vegetation can offset cooling energy up to $33/tree/
year in the summertime [30]. In four cities in Canada (Toronto,
Edmonton, Montreal and Vancouver), the annual costs saved for
heating and cooling by an individual tree ranged from $10/tree/year
to $60/tree/year in urban areas [36].
The costs and benefits of urban green roofs have been studied in
10 US metropolitan areas [110]. The results showed that approxi-
mately $0.1e$0.35 per m2 roof area could be saved on the annual
energy consumption for both residential and commercial buildings.
In two studies in 2000 and 2002, Konopacki and Akbari estimated
the net annual dollar savings in energy expenditure by shading of
trees on the roof area as $0.1e$0.23 per m2 in Baton Rouge, Sac-
ramento and Salt Lake City (all in the USA) [14,109]. Another study
investigated the impacts of green roofs in the federal state of
Belgium over the past two decades [108] where the annual energy
saving for both cooling and heating consumption was estimated by
$0.2 per m2 green roof surface in 2008 (US$1.00 ¼ EURV0.7 in
2008).
7.1.2. Avoided cost by indirect energy saving
Mcpherson et al. also discussed effects of wind on energy saving
in the USA, through altering the air infiltration rate and convective
heat transfer [37]. If wind speed was reduced by 50% due to trees,
the annual heating costs could be reduced by $63/tree/year. How-
ever, this wind reduction also caused the increase of annual cooling
costs by $68/tree/year. Hence, the net annual energy savings caused
by wind reduction are not significant (and in fact slightly negative).
To maximize the benefits of green infrastructure, the vegetation
should be orientated in such a way that it reduces wind in winter,
but avoids wind obstruction in summer.
7.2. Monetary valuation of air quality regulation
7.2.1. Avoided/replacement cost by air pollutants removal
The marginal/additional costs of producing one unit of air
pollutant have often been used to estimate the value of the air
quality regulation service. A study in Guangzhou, China, stated that
on average 3.12  108 g of air pollutants (i.e. SO2, NO2 and PM) were
removed by urban trees in 2000. By determining the marginal costs
for removing each pollutant with a human-made service, the
removed pollution was valued at $6.67  104/m2 of tree cover/year
(US$1.00 ¼ RMB8.26 in 2000) [67]. Nowak et al. concluded that the
95
total monetary value of air pollutants removal, including O3, PM10,
NO2, SO2 and CO, was on average $6  102/m2 of tree cover/year in
55 US cities [69]. The value of pollution removal ranged from $4e
$12  102/m2 of tree cover/year dependent on the tree cover area
and pollution concentrations [70].
The air pollution removal value of green roofs has been studied
by Claus and Rousseau. In 2004, the value of NOx absorption
by green roofs was estimated at $1.5  102/m2 of vegetation/
year in Detroit and Chicago (both in the USA); and $3-$6  101/
m2 of vegetation/year in Sint-Agatha-Berchem, Belgium
(US$1.00 ¼ EURV0.8 in 2004) [108].
Martin et al. pointed out that, besides the amount of green area,
also the structure of green area, the tree condition and the size
determine the extent of air pollutants removal [68]. Protected for-
est areas could provide more ecosystem services at a lower main-
tenance cost by allowing trees to grow more naturally (i.e. without
management). The air pollutant removal capacity of protected
forests, with minimal tree management, was estimated at 1.25 g/
m2/year (equal to $6.7  103/m2/year) and for managed forests
1.02 g/m2/year ($5.5  102/m2/year).
7.2.2. Avoided cost by carbon storage and sequestration
From 1996 to 1999, estimations showed that 700 million tonnes
carbon was stored by the 27% tree cover in the USA [77]. Based on the
estimated marginal social costs of CO2 emissions in 1994
($2.03  105/g C), the monetary value associated with carbon storage
and sequestration can be calculated. It was reported that, by 1999,
7  1014 g C of carbon were stored by urban trees in the USA which
were valued at $5  102/m2. The gross carbon sequestration rate was
estimated at 2.28  1013 g C/year (equal to $1.6  103/m2/year).
7.3. Monetary valuation of sonic environment regulation
The overall health costs attributed to noise from traffic and other
sources were estimated to be in the range of 0.2e2% of the GDP in
the EU in 1998 [19]. A study in the Netherlands suggested that the
WTP per avoided extra decibel of unwanted noise was around $14e
$19/person/year in 2000 [111]. Based on this study, the total WTP in
the Netherlands was calculated to be $5.3 billion [20]. Bjørner
pointed out that WTP significantly depended on the initial noise
level [98]. The expected WTP for one dB(A) noise reduction
increased with the noise level, e.g. from $1.87/person/year at
55 dB(A) to $9.35/person/year at 75 dB(A) in Copenhagen, Denmark
(US$1.00 ¼ EUR1.07 in 2002).
7.4. Monetary valuation of aesthetic information
A study by Tratsaert stated the main reason of population loss in
the city was the lack of public green spaces and children’s play-
grounds [112]. To value attractive landscapes, the Hedonic Pricing
(HP) method and the Contingent Valuation (CV) method are the
two most popular valuation approaches. They reflect people’s WTP
for attractive landscapes by measuring the variation in housing
prices due to the differences in environmental amenities.
7.4.1. Hedonic pricing (HP)
In Bellingham, Washington (USA), the market price of houses
with full ocean view was 60% higher than those without whereby
the value of a view varies substantially depending on type and
quality [113]. A study on nearly 3000 house transactions in the
Netherlands showed a considerable increase in price (by 8e10%) for
houses overlooking water, and by 6e12% for houses surrounded by
open space [114]. In Helsinki, Finland, house prices were found to
drop by 5.9% with increasing distance (up to 1 km) from natural
landscapes. Moreover, residents payed, on average, 4.9% more for
96 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100

Table 1
Overview of monetary values for each ecosystem service.

Ecosystem services Valuation methods Monetary value (approx.) References

Climate regulation Avoided cost Direct energy saving: $10e$249/tree/yeara [30,36,37]

$0.1e$0.35/m2/yearb [14,108e110]
Indirect energy saving: $5e$63/tree/yeara [37]
Air quality regulation Replacement cost Pollutants removal: $7  104e$12  102/m2/yeara [67e70]
$1.5  102e$6  101/m2/yearb [108]
Avoided cost Carbon storage: $5  102/m2a [77]
Carbon sequestration: $1.6  103/m2/yeara [77]
Sonic environment regulation Contingent valuation (WTP) $2e$20/person/yeara [19,20,98,111]
Aesthetic information Hedonic pricing; $2e$25/person/yeara [26,113e118]
Contingent valuation (WTP)
a
Adjoining vegetation.
b
Green roofs and walls.

dwellings with a forest view [116]. A study conducted in Jinan,
China, valued urban green space amenities [26], and revealed that
1% improvement in accessibility to parks increased housing prices
by 1.6% per m2. Each extra percentage point of green space within a
300 m radius increased the price by about 2.1% per m2. Sander and
Haight stated that in Dakota County, Minnesota, USA, road distance
to parks greater than 1 ha had a significantly negative relationship
to the housing price [115].
Despite the positive effects, Kong et al. highlighted that recre-
ation in green spaces can cause negative effects within a 500 m
radius around a property through the impact of noise and neon
lights at night [26]; housing prices declined in these areas.
7.4.2. Contingent valuation (CV)
The CV method has often been used to estimate the WTP for
changes in the quantity and/or quality of an environmental com-
modity by using survey techniques. An empirical study in Joensuu,
Finland, indicated that approximately half of the respondents
were willing to pay for the preservation of forested parks [117].
The total annual WTP of the households in favour of preventing
the reduction of forested parks and construction was $0.73 million
in the whole town area, which was $2e$10/person/year
(US$1.00 ¼ FIM5.19 in 1997). Another study conducted in
Guangzhou City, China, explored the recreational opportunities and
amenities provided by green spaces [118]. Most respondents were
willing to pay to use urban green spaces, stressing the importance
of outdoor recreation as a leisure pursuit. Conservative estimates of
the average WTP was $25/person/year (US$1.00 ¼ RMB8.26 from
2004 to early 2005).
Table 1 shows a summary of the monetary value for each
ecosystem service. Although the urban green infrastructure can
cause slightly higher energy costs, the overall benefits are much
larger.
8. Major findings
8.1. Main factors influencing the service performance of green
infrastructure
In the previous sections, the effects of urban green infrastruc-
ture on the indoor environment were reviewed. Table 2 summa-
rizes the main factors, and sub-factors that are important in the
relationship between urban green infrastructure and the indoor
environment.
Vegetation quality and quantity, which determine the total
ecosystem services capacity, strongly influences all aspects of the
indoor environment. In addition, the variation of the vegetation LAI
and structure were proven to highly affect the indoor climate, air
quality and sound environment. Species composition has a strong
relation with the indoor air quality, since the species determines
the amount and types of pollutant removal. Furthermore, building
characteristics, including façade property and air ventilation/infil-
tration rate, both directly and indirectly influence the ecosystem
services provision by varying the heat transfer coefficient, indoor
outdoor air exchange, and reflection and absorption of solar radi-
ation. Moreover, the effects of local morphology (i.e. layout and
geometry) and geographical conditions were often discussed in
literature on climate and air quality studies. Higher air tempera-
tures could enhance both the BVOC emissions and pollutant
deposition rate.
8.2. Distribution of spatial and time scales covered by the reviewed
studies
The studies reviewed in this paper covered a full range of spatial
and time scales (Table 3). The spatial area covered by the studies
ranged from single houses to multiple cities in different countries,

Table 2
Main factors influencing ecosystem services generation by urban green infrastructure in indoor environment.

Main factorsa Climate & energy use Air quality Sonic environment Aesthetic information

Vegetation characteristics
Vegetation quality and quantity þ þ þ þ
LAI & Structure (height, width and crown property) þ þ þ 0/?
Vegetation species (especially for deciduous or evergreen plants) þ þ þ 0/?
Building characteristics
Façade property (e.g. material, isolation, construction) þ 0 0/? 0/?
Air ventilation/infiltration rate þ þ 0 0
Layout and geometry
Location þ þ þ þ
Orientation of building and vegetation þ 0 0/? 0
Geographical conditions
Ground property (e.g. soil types, surface mulching) þ þ 0/? 0
Local climate þ þ 0 0/?
a
þ have influence; 0 no information from the reviewed papers; ? may have influence with unknown extent.
 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100
while the time scale for the four major services ranged from hours
to years. Ideally, all reviewed studies would have been present in
sufficient number at multi-spatial and temporal scales. However, in
practice, several experimental models were found in the existing
studies on the effects of the different ecosystem services. To iden-
tify those data gaps for each service, the reviewed articles were
categorized into a temporal scale (days, months/seasons and years)
and a spatial scale (specified as: single-several buildings; street
canyon/block/site etc.; village/town/city; and one or more coun-
tries) (Table 3).
Indoor climate regulation by the urban green infrastructure was
mainly investigated at the local scale and covered all time scales. On
the other hand, studies on the effects of vegetation on the air
quality were conducted at both meso- and macro scale, but only on
an annual basis. The review also showed that direct effects of the
urban green infrastructure on indoor air quality have rarely been
studied. The quality of the sonic environment and aesthetic infor-
mation were often only measured or evaluated in short time pe-
riods to obtain instant information. Most of these studies
investigated the effect of vegetation on landscape view on a micro
scale; whereas the sonic environment was studied within all spatial
scales, but only outdoors (no articles were found on the relation-
ship between the urban green infrastructure and the indoor sonic
environment).
9. Discussion and conclusions
This study has reviewed 148 publications discussing the role
of urban green infrastructure on indoor environment and
human comfort. The main factors identified were: effects on
climate and energy use, air quality, sonic environment and
aesthetic information. Also, the economic effects were included
in the analysis.
Table 3
Comparison between the spatial and time scales of the reviewed studies for the four ecosystem services.a
Spatial Time
Day/days Month/months; season/seasons
Country
Village/town/city
Street canyon/block/site etc.
Single/several buildings
No. publications 39 15
a
This pie chart illustrates the percentage of each service at each spatial and time scale. The numbers inside the pie chart and the last column & row represent the number of
the cited articles.
97
The review found that, in general, the influence of the main
factors on indoor climate regulation by urban green infrastructure
has been well studied. However, many of these factors were
investigated using simulations or model studies. Experimental
studies on the involved factors were few and largely limited to the
local scale and environmental conditions (e.g. geographical condi-
tions, geometry). About 80% of the information on climate regula-
tion service at meso- and macro scales was derived from modelling.
Empirical studies were mainly performed on a small scale in the
USA. Moreover, the relationship between the urban green infra-
structure and the indoor air and sonic environment at the local
scale was rarely studied. Since the outcome of modelling studies
requires validation, future studies will require better integration of
modelling with experimental research and field measurements.
The review also revealed that economic information on the ef-
fect of urban green infrastructure on indoor environmental quality
is fragmented and incomplete, and that more and better empirical
studies are needed. For example, the economic effects of adjoining
vegetation and green roofs on climate regulation provided energy
savings of up to almost $250/tree/year, while air quality regulation
was valued between $0.12/m2/year and $0.6/m2/year. Maximum
monetary values attributed to noise regulation and aesthetic
appreciation of urban green were $20e$25/person/year, respec-
tively. Of course these values are extremely time- and context-
dependent, but they do give an indication of the potential eco-
nomic effects of investing in urban green infrastructure. Valuation
of the urban ecosystem services can provide important information
to develop effective and cost-efficient urban planning to optimize
management of urban green infrastructure.
From this review, we conclude that new methods, measurement
instruments and field experiments are needed to improve empiri-
cally supported correlations (both biophysically and economic).
This review can help to identify the main research gaps and support
Year/years No. publications Four main services (No. publications)
16 Micro climate regulation (41)
19 Air quality regulation (33)
18 Sonic environment (7)
34 Aesthetic information (6)
33 87
98 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100
better integration of field measurements and modelling studies to
determine the relations between urban green infrastructure and
indoor environment, and the consequences for human comfort and
socio-economic effects.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.03.021.
References
[1] Bolund P, Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ
1999;29(2):293e301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0.
[2] Folke C, Jansson A, Larsson J, Costanza R. Ecosystem appropriation by cities.
Ambio 1997;26(3):167e72.
[3] Gómez-Baggethun E, Gren A, Barton DN, Langemeyer J, McPhearson T,
O’Farrell P, et al. Urban ecosystem services. In: Elmqvist T, Fragkias M,
Goodness J, Güneralp B, Marcotullio PJ, McDonald RI, et al., editors. Urbani-
zation, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities.
Dordrecht: Springer; 2013. pp. 175e251.
[4] Watson RT. Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the
science policy interface. Philosophical Transactions Royal Soc B
2005;360(1454):471e7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1601.
[5] Akbari H. Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from
power plants. Environ Pollut 2002;116:119e26.
[6] Takano T, Nakamura K, Watanabe M. Urban residential environments and
senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable
green spaces. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56(12):913e8.
[7] Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Ylipelkonen V, Kazmierczak A, Niemela J, et al.
Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infra-
structure: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan 2007;81(3):167e78. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001.
[8] Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, et al. The
value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature
1997;387(15):253e60.
[9] World Health Organization (WHO). WHO guidelines for indoor air quality:
dampness and mould. In: Heseltine E, Rosen J, editors. WHO Regional Office
for Europe; 2009.
[10] Chen WY, Jim CY. Assessment and valuation of the ecosystem services pro-
vided by urban forests. In: Carreiro MM, Song YC, Wu J, editors. Ecology,
planning, and management of urban forests: International perspectives. New
York: Springer; 2008. pp. 53e83.
[11] Heisler GM. Effects of individual trees on the solar radiation climate of small
buildings. Urban Ecol 1986;9(34):337e59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-
4009(86)90008-2.
[12] Huang YJ, Akbari H, Taha H, Rosenfeld AH. The potential of vegetation in
reducing summer cooling loads in residential buildings. Clim Appl Meteo-
rology 1987;26(9):1103e16.
[13] Simpson J, Mcpherson E. The effects of roof albedo modification on cooling
loads of scale model residences in Tucson, Arizona. Energy Build 1997;25(2):
127e37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(96)01002-X.
[14] Konopacki S, Akbari H. Energy savings calculations for heat island reduction
strategies in Baton Rouge, Sacramento and Salt Lake City. Berkeley, CA:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 2000. p. 71.
[15] Nowak DJ. The effects of urban trees on air quality; 1994. pp. 1e4. New York.
[16] Taha H, Douglas S, Haney J. Mesoscale meteorological and air quality impacts
of increased urban albedo and vegetation. Energy Build 1997;25(2):169e77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(96)01006-7.
[17] Thornes J, Bloss W, Bouzarovski S, Cai X, Chapman L, Clark J, et al.
Communicating the value of atmospheric services. Meteorol Appl
2010;17(2):243e50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/met.200.
[18] González-Oreja JA, Bonache-Regidor C, De la Fuente-Díaz-Ordaz AA. Far from
the noisy world? Modelling the relationships between park size, tree cover
and noise levels in urban green spaces of the city of Puebla, Mexico. Inter-
ciencia 2010;35(7):486e92.
[19] Kommunförbundet S. Skönheten och oljudet [The Beauty and the noise].
Stokholm: Handb I Trafikbuller Skydd; 1998.
[20] Nijland HA, Van Kempen EEMM, Van Wee GP, Jabben J. Costs and benefits of
noise abatement measures. Transp Policy 2003;10:131e40. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00064-1.
[21] Irvine K, Devine-Wright P, Payne S, Fuller R, Painter B, Gaston K. Green
space, soundscape and urban sustainability: an interdisciplinary, empirical
study. Local Environ 2009;14(2):155e72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13549830802522061.
[22] Matsui T, Furukawa S, Takashima T, Uchiyama I, Hiramatsu K. Time
component Matrix Chart as a tool for designing sonic environment having a
diversity of sound sources. EURONOISE 2009; 2009. Edinburgh, Scotland.
[23] Miller RW. Urban forestry: planning and managing urban green spaces. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1997.
[24] Driver BL, Rosenthal D, Peterson G. Social benefits of urban forests and
related green spaces in cities. National Urban Forestry Conference; 1978.
pp. 98e111.
[25] Kaplan R. The role of nature in the urban context. Hum Behav Environ
1983;6:127e61.
[26] Kong F, Yin H, Nakagoshi N. Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic
price modeling of the amenity value of urban green space: a case study in
Jinan City, China. Landsc Urban Plan 2007;79(34):240e52. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.013.
[27] Akbari H, Kurn DM, Bretz SE, Hanford JW. Peak power and cooling energy
savings of shade trees. Energy Build 1997;25(2):139e48. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-7788(96)01003-1.
[28] Berry R, Livesley SJ, Aye L. Tree canopy shade impacts on solar irradiance
received by building walls and their surface temperature. Build Environ
2013;69:91e100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.07.009.
[29] Laband DN, Sophocleus JP. An experimental analysis of the impact of tree
shade on electricity consumption. Arboric Urban For 2009;35(4):197e202.
[30] McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Livingston M. Effects of three landscape treat-
ments on residential energy and water use in Tucson, Arizona. Energy Build
1989;13:127e38.
[31] Morakinyo TE, Balogun AA, Adegun OB. Comparing the effect of trees on
thermal conditions of two typical urban buildings. Urban Clim 2013;3:76e
93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.04.002.
[32] Papadakis G, Tsamis P, Kyritsis S. An experimental investigation of the effect
of shading with plants for solar control of buildings. Energy Build
2001;33(8):831e6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(01)00066-4.
[33] Park M, Hagishima A, Tanimoto J, Narita K. Effect of urban vegetation on
outdoor thermal environment: field measurement at a scale model site.
Build Environ 2012;56:38e46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2012.02.015.
[34] Taha H, Akbari H, Rosenfeld A. Heat island and oasis effects of vegetative
canopies: micro meteorological field measurements. Theor Appl Climatol
1991;44:123e38.
[35] Heisler GM. Mean wind speed below building height in residential neigh-
borhoods with different tree different tree densities. Ashrae Trans
1990;96(1):1389e96.
[36] Akbari H, Taha H. The impact of trees and white surfaces on residential
heating and cooling energy use in four Canadian cities. Energy 1992;17(2):
141e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(92)90063-6.
[37] Mcpherson EG, Herrington LP, Heisler GM. Impacts of vegetation on resi-
dential heating and cooling. Energy Build 1988;12(1):41e51.
[38] Sawka M, Millward AA, Mckay J, Sarkovich M. Growing summer energy
conservation through residential tree planting. Landsc Urban Plan 2013;113:
1e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.006.
[39] Shahidan MF, Jones PJ, Gwilliam J, Salleh E. An evaluation of outdoor and
building environment cooling achieved through combination modification of
trees with ground materials. Build Environ 2012;58:245e57. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.07.012.
[40] Shashua-Bar L, Hoffman ME. Vegetation as a climatic component in the
design of an urban street: an empirical model for predicting the cooling
effect of urban green areas with trees. Energy Build 2000;31:221e35.
[41] Shashua-Bar L, Hoffman ME. The Green CTTC model for predicting the air
temperature in small urban wooded sites. Build Environ 2002;37:1279e88.
[42] Shashua-Bar L, Hoffman ME. Quantitative evaluation of passive cooling of the
UCL microclimate in hot regions in summer, case study: urban streets and
courtyards with trees. Build Environ 2004;39(9):1087e99. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2003.11.007.
[43] Eumorfopoulou EA, Kontoleon KJ. Experimental approach to the contribution
of plant-covered walls to the thermal behaviour of building envelopes. Build
Environ 2009;44(5):1024e38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2008.07.004.
[44] Hien WN, Yok TP, Yu C. Study of thermal performance of extensive rooftop
greenery systems in the tropical climate. Build Environ 2007;42(1):25e54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.07.030.
[45] Onmura S, Matsumoto M, Hokoi S. Study on evaporative cooling effect of roof
lawn gardens. Energy Build 2001;33:653e66.
[46] Parizotto S, Lamberts R. Investigation of green roof thermal performance in
temperate climate: a case study of an experimental building in Florianópolis
city, Southern Brazil. Energy Build 2011;43(7):1712e22. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.03.014.
[47] Rashid R, Ahmed MHB. Thermal performance of rooftop greenery system at
the tropical climate of Malaysia: a case study of a 10 storied building R.C.C
flat rooftop at UTM, Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Archit Built Environ 2009;37(1):
41e9.
[48] Susca T, Gaffin SR, Dell’Osso GR. Positive effects of vegetation: urban heat
island and green roofs. Environ Pollut 2011;159(8e9):2119e26. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.03.007.
[49] Wong NH, Chen Y, Ong CL, Sia A. Investigation of thermal benefits of rooftop
garden in the tropical environment. Build Environ 2003;38:261e70.
[50] Niachou A, Papakonstantinou K, Santamouris M, Tsangrassoulis A,
Mihalakakou G. Analysis of the green roof thermal properties and investi-
gation of its energy performance. Energy Build 2001;33(7):719e29. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(01)00062-7.
[51] Blanusa T, Vaz Monteiro MM, Fantozzi F, Vysini E, Li Y, Cameron RWF. Al-
ternatives to Sedum on green roofs: can broad leaf perennial plants offer
 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100
better ‘cooling service’? Build Environ 2013;59:99e106. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.08.011.
[52] Lin BS, Yu CC, Su AT, Lin YJ. Impact of climatic conditions on the thermal
effectiveness of an extensive green roof. Build Environ 2013;67:26e33.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.04.026.
[53] Alexandri E, Jones P. Temperature decreases in an urban canyon due to green
walls and green roofs in diverse climates. Build Environ 2008;43(4):480e93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.055.
[54] Castleton HF, Stovin V, Beck SBM, Davison JB. Green roofs; building energy
savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy Build 2010;42(10):1528e91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.004.
[55] He H, Jim CY. Simulation of thermodynamic transmission in green roof
ecosystem. Ecol Model 2010;221(24):2949e58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolmodel.2010.09.002.
[56] Jaffal I, Ouldboukhitine SE, Belarbi R. A comprehensive study of the impact of
green roofs on building energy performance. Renew Energy 2012;43:157e
64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.12.004.
[57] Kontoleon KJ, Eumorfopoulou EA. The effect of the orientation and propor-
tion of a plant-covered wall layer on the thermal performance of a building
zone. Build Environ 2010;45(5):1287e303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2009.11.013.
[58] Kumar R, Kaushik SC. Performance evaluation of green roof and shading for
thermal protection of buildings. Build Environ 2005;40(11):1505e11. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.11.015.
[59] Ouldboukhitine SE, Belarbi R, Jaffal I, Trabelsi A. Assessment of green
roof thermal behavior: a coupled heat and mass transfer model. Build
Environ 2011;46(12):2624e31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.201
1.06.021.
[60] Ouldboukhitine SE, Belarbi R, Sailor DJ. Experimental and numerical inves-
tigation of urban street canyons to evaluate the impact of green roof inside
and outside buildings. Appl Energy 2014;114:273e82. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.09.073.
[61] Peng L, Jim C. Green-roof effects on neighborhood microclimate and human
thermal sensation. Energies 2013;6(2):598e618. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
en6020598.
[62] Susorova I, Angulo M, Bahrami P, Stephens B. A model of vegetated exterior
facades for evaluation of wall thermal performance. Build Environ 2013;67:
1e13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.04.027.
[63] Takakura T, Kitade S, Goto E. Cooling effect of greenery cover over a building.
Energy Build 2000;31(1):1e6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(98)
00063-2.
[64] Wong NH, Tan AYK, Tan PY, Wong NC. Energy simulation of vertical greenery
systems. Energy Build 2009;41(12):1401e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2009.08.010.
[65] Zinzi M, Agnoli S. Cool and green roofs. An energy and comfort comparison
between passive cooling and mitigation urban heat island techniques for
residential buildings in the Mediterranean region. Energy Build 2012;55:66e
76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.09.024.
[66] Escobedo FJ, Wagner JE, Nowak DJ, De la Maza CL, Rodriguez M, Crane DE.
Analyzing the cost effectiveness of Santiago, Chile’s policy of using urban
forests to improve air quality. J Environ Manage 2008;86(1):148e57. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.029.
[67] Jim CY, Chen WY. Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal
by urban trees in Guangzhou (China). J Environ Manage 2008;88(4):665e76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.035.
[68] Martin NA, Chappelka AH, Loewenstein EF, Keever GJ. Comparison of carbon
storage, carbon sequestration, and air pollution removal by protected and
maintained urban forests in Alabama, USA. Int J Biodivers Sci 2012;8(3):
265e72.
[69] Nowak D, Crane D, Stevens J. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs
in the United States. Urban For Urban Green 2006;4(34):115e23. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007.
[70] Nowak DJ. Institutionalizing urban forestry as a “biotechnology” to improve
environmental quality. Urban For Urban Green 2006;5(2):93e100. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.04.002.
[71] Tallis M, Taylor G, Sinnett D, Freer-Smith P. Estimating the removal of at-
mospheric particulate pollution by the urban tree canopy of London, under
current and future environments. Landsc Urban Plan 2011;103(2):129e38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.07.003.
[72] Yang J, McBride J, Zhou J, Sun Z. The urban forest in Beijing and its role in air
pollution reduction. Urban For Urban Green 2005;3(2):65e78. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2004.09.001.
[73] Yin S, Shen Z, Zhou P, Zou X, Che S, Wang W. Quantifying air pollution
attenuation within urban parks: an experimental approach in Shanghai,
China. Environ Pollut 2011;159(89):2155e63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envpol.2011.03.009.
[74] Cox HM. A sustainability initiative to quantify carbon sequestration by
campus trees. J Geog 2012;111(5):173e83.
[75] Elias M, Potvin C. Assessing inter- and intra-specific variation in trunk carbon
concentration for 32 neotropical tree species. For Res 2003;33(6):1039e45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/X03-018.
[76] Gratani L, Varone L. Carbon sequestration by Quercus ilex L. and Quercus
pubescens Willd. and their contribution to decreasing air temperature in
Rome. Urban Ecosyst 2006;9(1):27e37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-
006-5527-2.
99
[77] Nowak DJ, Crane DE. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the
USA. Environ Pollut 2002;116(3):381e9.
[78] Redondo-Brenes A. Growth, carbon sequestration, and management of
native tree plantations in humid regions of Costa Rica. New For 2007;34(3):
253e68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11056-007-9052-9.
[79] Ren Y, Wei X, Wei X, Pan J, Xie P, Song X, et al. Relationship between
vegetation carbon storage and urbanization: a case study of Xiamen, China.
For Ecol Manag 2011;261(7):1214e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.foreco.2010.12.038.
[80] Wang YC, Lin JC. Air quality enhancement zones in Taiwan: a carbon
reduction benefit assessment. For Policy Econ 2012;23:40e5. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.009.
[81] Hugg T, Rantio-Lehtimäki A. Indoor and outdoor pollen concentrations in
private and public spaces during the Betula pollen season. Aerobiologia
2007;23(2):119e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10453-007-9057-z.
[82] Liao CM, Luo WC, Chen SC, Chen JW, Liang HM. Temporal/seasonal variations
of size dependent airborne fungi indoor/outdoor relationships for a wind
induced naturally ventilated airspace. Atmos Environ 2004;38(26):4415e9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.04.029.
[83] Nayar TS, Jothish PS. An assessment of the air quality in indoor and outdoor
air with reference to fungal spores and pollen grains in four working envi-
ronments in Kerala, India. Aerobiologia 2012;29(1):131e52. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10453-012-9269-8.
[84] Sterling DA, Lewis RD. Pollen and fungal spores indoor and outdoor of mobile
homes. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 1998;80(3):279e85. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1081-1206(10)62971-7.
[85] Yli-Panula E. Birch pollen allergen exposure: profiles, sources and charac-
teristics. Settled dust and aeroallergens in indoor and outdoor environments
of Finnish homes. Aerobiologia 2012;28(4):453e65. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10453-012-9248-0.
[86] Bouvier-Brown NC, Schade GW, Misson L, Lee A, McKay M, Goldstein AH.
Contributions of biogenic volatile organic compounds to net ecosystem
carbon flux in a ponderosa pine plantation. Atmos Environ 2012;60:527e33.
[87] Chang J, Ren Y, Shi Y, Zhu Y, Ge Y, Hong S, et al. An inventory of biogenic
volatile organic compounds for a subtropical urbanerural complex. Atmos
Environ 2012;56:115e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2012.03.053.
[88] Fu Y, Liao H. Simulation of the interannual variations of biogenic emissions of
volatile organic compounds in China: Impacts on tropospheric ozone and
secondary organic aerosol. Atmos Environ 2012;59:170e85. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.05.053.
[89] Geron C, Guenther A, Greenberg J, Karl T, Rasmussen R. Biogenic volatile
organic compound emissions from desert vegetation of the southwestern US.
Atmos Environ 2006;40(9):1645e60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2005.11.011.
[90] Geron C, Guenther A, Greenberg J, Loescher HW, Clark D, Baker B. Biogenic
volatile organic compound emissions from a lowland tropical wet forest in
Costa Rica. Atmos Environ 2002;36(23):3793e802. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00301-1.
[91] Owen SM, MacKenzie AR, Stewart H, Donovan R, Hewitt CN. Biogenic volatile
organic compound (VOC) emission estimates from an urban tree canopy.
Ecol Appl 2003;13(4):927e38.
[92] Parra R, Gassó S, Baldasano JM. Estimating the biogenic emissions of non
methane volatile organic compounds from the North Western Mediterra-
nean vegetation of Catalonia, Spain. Sci Total Environ 2004;329(13):241e59.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.03.005.
[93] Poupkou A, Giannaros T, Markakis K, Kioutsioukis I, Curci G, Melas D, et al.
A model for European Biogenic Volatile Organic Compound emissions:
software development and first validation. Environ Model Softw
2010;25(12):1845e56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.05.004.
[94] Baik JJ, Kwak KH, Park SB, Ryu YH. Effects of building roof greening on air
quality in street canyons. Atmos Environ 2012;61:48e55. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.06.076.
[95] Vos PEJ, Maiheu B, Vankerkom J, Janssen S. Improving local air quality in
cities: to tree or not to tree? Environ Pollut; 2012:1e10. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2012.10.021.
[96] Fahmy M, Sharples S. Urban form, thermal comfort and building CO2
emissions e a numerical analysis in Cairo. Build Serv Eng Res Technol
2011;32(1):73e84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143624410394536.
[97] Lin W, Wu T, Zhang C, Yu T. Carbon savings resulting from the cooling effect
of green areas: a case study in Beijing. Environ Pollut 2011;159(89):2148e
54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.02.035.
[98] Bjørner TB. Combining socio acoustic and contingent valuation surveys to
value noise reduction. Transp Res Part Transp Environ 2004;9(5):341e56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2004.05.002.
[99] Hiramatsu K, Matsui T, Furukawa S, Uchiyama I. The physical expression of
soundscape: An investigation by means of time component matrix chart. In:
Internoise 2008 from science to harmony 37th International Congress and
Exposition on Noise Control Engineering. Shanghai, China; 2008.
[100] Van Renterghem T, Botteldooren D. In-situ measurements of sound propa-
gating over extensive green roofs. Build Environ 2011;46(3):729e38. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.10.006.
[101] Van Renterghem T, Hornikx M, Forssen J, Botteldooren D. The potential of
building envelope greening to achieve quietness. Build Environ 2013;61:34e
44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.12.001.
100 Y. Wang et al. / Building and Environment 77 (2014) 88e100
[102] Ulrich RS. View through a window may influence recovery from Surgery.
Science 1984;224(4647):420e1.
[103] Ulrich RS. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc Urban
Plan 1986;13:29e44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(86)90005-8.
[104] Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M. Stress re-
covery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psy-
chol 1991;11(3):201e30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-
7.
[105] Van den Berg AE, Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP. Green space as a
buffer between stressful life events and health. Soc Sci Med 2010;70(8):
1203e10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.002.
[106] Kaplan R. The nature of the view from home: psychological benefits. Environ
Behav 2001;33(4):507e42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973115.
[107] Taylor AF, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC. Views of nature and self-discipline: evidence
from inner city children. J Environ Psychol 2002;22(12):49e63. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0241.
[108] Claus K, Rousseau S. Public versus private incentives to invest in green roofs:
a cost benefit analysis for Flanders. Urban For Urban Green 2012;11(4):417e
25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.07.003.
[109] Konopacki S, Akbari H. Energy savings for heat island reduction strategies in
Chicago and Houston (including updates for Baton Rouge, Sacramento, and
Salt Lake City); 2002.
[110] Taha H, Konopacki S, Gabersek S. Modeling the meteorological and energy
effects of urban heat islands and their mitigation: A 10 region study; 1996.
Berkeley, CA.
[111] Howarth A, Pearch DW, Ozdemiroglu E, Seccomb-Hett T, Wieringa K,
Streefkerk CM, De Hollander AEM. Valuing the benefits of environmental
policy. The Netherlands: RIVM Report; 2001.
[112] Tratsaert K. Stads(v)lucht maakt vrij. Analyse van de verhuisstromen en een
bevraging van de verhuismotieven en woonwensen van jonge gezinnen in
het Leuvense; 1998.
[113] Benson ED, Hansen JL, Schwartz Jr AL, Smersh GT. Pricing residential ame-
nities: the value of a view. J Real Estate Finance Econ 1998;16(1):55e73.
[114] Luttik J. The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices
in the Netherlands. Landsc Urban Plan 2000;48(34):161e7. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00039-6.
[115] Sander HA, Haight RG. Estimating the economic value of cultural ecosystem
services in an urbanizing area using hedonic pricing. J Environ Manage
2012;113:194e205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.031.
[116] Tyrvainen L, Miettinen A. Property prices and urban Forest amenities.
J Environ Econ Manag 2000;39(2):205e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
jeem.1999.1097.
[117] Tyrväinen L, Väänänen H. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an
application of the contingent valuation method. Landsc Urban Plan
1998;43(13):105e18.
[118] Jim CY, Chen WY. Recreationeamenity use and contingent valuation of ur-
ban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landsc Urban Plan 2006;75(1 2):81e
96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.08.008.
[119] 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(3):
295e310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(00)00089-X.
[120] Heisler GM, Grant RH. Ultraviolet radiation in urban ecosystems with
consideration of effects on human health. Urban Ecosyst 2000;4:193e229.
[121] Fahmy M, Sharples S, Eltrapolsi A. Dual stage simulations to study the
microclimatic effects of trees on thermal comfort in a residential building,
Cairo, Egypt. In: 11th International IBPSA Conference; 2009. Glasgow,
Scotland.
[122] Mcpherson EG, Simpson JR. Carbon dioxide reduction through urban
forestry: guidelines for professional and volunteer tree planters. Albany,
California: Forest Research; 1999.
[123] Townsend AR, Howarth RW, Bazzaz FA, Booth MS, Cleveland CC, Collinge SK,
et al. Human health effects of a changing global nitrogen cycle. Front Ecol
Environ 2003;1(5):240e6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001.
[124] Barro R, Regueiro J, Llompart M, Garcia-Jares C. Analysis of industrial con-
taminants in indoor air: part 1. Volatile organic compounds, carbonyl com-
pounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls.
J Chromatogr 2009;1216(3):540e66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.chroma.2008.10.117.
[125] Hayward SB. Source apportionment of indoor air pollution. Atmos Environ
1986;21(2):407e18.
[126] Dockery DW, Spengler JD. Indoor outdoor relationships of respirable sulfates
and particles. Atmos Environ 1981;15(3):335e43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0004-6981(81)90036-6.
[127] Koponen IK, Asmi A, Keronen P, Puhto K, Kulmala M. Indoor air measure-
ment campaign in Helsinki, Finland 1999-the effect of outdoor air pollution
on indoor air. Atmos Environ 2001;35(8):1465e77.
[128] Long CM, Sarnat JA. Indoor outdoor relationships and infiltration behavior of
elemental components of outdoor PM2.5 for Boston area homes. Aerosol Sci
Technol 2004;38(S2):91e104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/027868290502281.
[129] Meng QY, Turpin BJ, Korn L, Weisel CP, Morandi M, Colome S, et al. Influence
of ambient (outdoor) sources on residential indoor and personal PM2.5
concentrations: analyses of RIOPA data. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol
2005;15(1):17e28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500378.
[130] Colbeck I, Nasir ZA, Ali Z. Characteristics of indoor/outdoor particulate
pollution in urban and rural residential environment of Pakistan. Indoor Air
2010;20(1):40e51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2009.00624.x.
[131] Riley WJ, McKone TE, Lai ACK, Nazaroff WW. Indoor particulate matter of
outdoor origin: importance of size dependent removal mechanisms. Environ
Sci Technol 2002;36(2):200e7.
[132] Baxter LK, Clougherty JE, Paciorek CJ, Wright RJ, Levy JI. Predicting residential
indoor concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, fine particulate matter, and
elemental carbon using questionnaire and geographic information system
based data. Atmos Environ 2007;41(31):6561e71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2007.04.027.
[133] Zipprich JL, Harris SA, Fox JC, Borzelleca JF. An analysis of factors that in-
fluence personal exposure to nitrogen oxides in residents of Richmond,
Virginia. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2002;12(4):273e85. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500226.
[134] Kinney PL, Aggarwal M, Northridge ME, Janssen NAH, Shepard P. Airborne
concentrations of PM2.5 and diesel exhaust particles on Harlem sidewalks: a
community based pilot study. Environ Health Perspect 2000;108(3):213e8.
[135] Benson FB, Henderson JJ, Caldwell DE. Indoor outdoor air pollution rela-
tionship: a literature review. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC; 1972. Office Air Programs.
[136] Guenther A, Geron C, Pierce T, Lamb B, Harley P, Fall R. Natural emissions of
non-methane volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and oxides of
nitrogen from North America. Atmos Environ 2000;34:2205e30.
[137] Lee T, Grinshpun SA, Kim KY, Iossifova Y, Adhikari A, Reponen T. Relationship
between indoor and outdoor airborne fungal spores, pollen, and (1/3) b D
glucan in homes without visible mold growth. Aerobiologia 2006;22(3):
227e35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10453-006-9034-y.
[138] Leung DYC, Tsui JKY, Chen F, Yip WK, Vrijmoed LLP, Liu CH. Effects of urban
vegetation on urban air quality. Landsc Res 2011;36(2):173e88. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2010.547570.
[139] Stansfeld SA, Matheson MP. Noise pollution: non auditory effects on health.
Br Med Bull 2003;68(1):243e57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldg033.
[140] Brown AL, Raghu S. An overview of research on the effects of noise on ani-
mals. Acoust Aust 1998;26:63e8.
[141] Warren P, Katti M, Ermann M, Brazel A. Urban bioacoustics: it’s not just
noise. Anim Behav 2006;71(3):491e502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.anbehav.2005.07.014.
[142] Babisch W. Noise and health. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113(1):A14e5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/NND.0b013e31821f97ef.
[143] Sobotova L, Jurkovicova J, Stefanikova Z, Sevcikova L, Aghova L. Community
response to environmental noise and the impact on cardiovascular risk
score. Sci Total Environ 2010;408(6):1264e70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2009.12.033.
[144] Garza FJE. Reglamentos de ruido vs. naturaleza humana. Ingenierías
2004;VII(25):3e8.
[145] Evans GW, Hygge S, Bullinger M. Chronic noise and psychological stress.
Psychol Sci 1995;6(6):333e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1995.tb00522.x.
[146] Passchier-Vermeer W, Passchier WF. Noise exposure and public health. En-
viron Health Perspect 2000;108(6):123e31.
[147] Magrab EB, Jackson FJ. Noise control. C C Critical Rev Environ Control
1973;3(14):61e83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10643387209381595.
[148] De Groot R, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol
Econ 2002;41(3):393e408.