The Monetary Value of the Soft Benefits of Green Roofs

Final Report

Prepared by: Ray Tomalty, Ph.D. and Bartek Komorowski, MUP with the assistance of Dany Doiron

Smart Cities Research Services, Montreal

Prepared for:

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)

August, 2010

1

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following project advisors for their invaluable guidance in conducting this study: Hitesh Doshi (Ryerson University), Jamie Meil (Athena Institute), Steven Peck (Green Roofs for Healthy Cities), Douglas Pollard (CMHC), and Ralph Velasquez (Tremco Inc.).

2

Table of Contents
1 2 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................... i Valuation Methodologies ............................................................................................. i Valuation of Benefits .................................................................................................... ii
Property Values .............................................................................................................................ii Marketing Benefits ...................................................................................................................... vi Food Production and Food Security...................................................................................... vii Sound Attenuation ..................................................................................................................... vii Stormwater Retention ................................................................................................................ ix Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... x GHG Sequestration....................................................................................................................... xi

4

Case Studies ................................................................................................................ xiii
901 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno, CA ...................................................................................... xiii Fairmont Waterfront Hotel, Vancouver, BC....................................................................... xiii 401 Richmond, Toronto, ON....................................................................................................xiv Rooftop Victory Gardens, Chicago, IL ...................................................................................xiv The Louisa, Portland, OR........................................................................................................... xv

5 1 2

Conclusions ................................................................................................................... xv Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Valuation Methodologies ............................................................................................ 3
2.1 2.2 2.3 Revealed Preference Methodologies............................................................................. 4 Stated Preference Methodologies .................................................................................. 5 Avoided Cost Methodologies ........................................................................................... 6 Property value increase.................................................................................................... 9 Marketing .......................................................................................................................... 16 Food production and food security ............................................................................ 20 Sound Attenuation .......................................................................................................... 24 Stormwater Retention.................................................................................................... 27 Air Quality Improvement .............................................................................................. 32 Greenhouse Gas Sequestration .................................................................................... 36 Case Study 1 Case Study 2 Case Study 3 Case Study 4 Case Study 5 901 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno, CA ................................................. 42 Fairmont Waterfront Hotel, Vancouver, BC ................................. 49 401 Richmond, Toronto, ON ............................................................. 56 Rooftop Victory Gardens, Chicago, IL ............................................. 64 The Louisa, Portland, OR ................................................................... 72

Bibliography....................................................................................................................... xix

3

Valuation of Benefits .................................................................................................... 8
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

4

Case Studies ................................................................................................................. 40
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

5

Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 80

3

.................................................................... 86 4 ......................................................................... 84 Bibliography.............................................Interviewees.....................................................

nonmarket or indirect valuation techniques must be employed. The purpose of this report is to provide methodologies and case studies that can offer guidance in attributing economic value to selected soft benefits of green roofs. Direct use value refers to the value that is derived from actual or planned use of a particular environmental service or good. many benefits are not readily measurable and their values are difficult to estimate (such as the health benefits of a rooftop garden). To determine their monetary value. Articulating the value of those benefits in monetary terms provides an estimate of their contribution to local and regional economies and permits governments. land developers and building owners to assess short. Recreation and food production are two examples of direct use values. Use values can either be direct or indirect. While some benefits are directly measurable and have hard values (such as the energy savings due the insulation provided by the soil and vegetation of a green roof). In other words. We offer methodologies that can be easily employed by stakeholders with limited information about the property concerned. this approach entails a trade-off between ease of use and the level of detail and precision. The two main categories of value are use and non-use values. Non- . the results obtained with the proposed methods should be applied prudently. Needless to say. Keeping this in mind. Estimating the total economic value of a non-market good or service entails calculating the sum of all values associated with that good or service. those benefits that are not directly measurable (or calculated based on any line item on the buildings budget) will be defined as soft benefits. 2 Valuation Methodologies The soft benefits of green roofs are not directly tradable and therefore do not have directly measurable monetary values. climate regulation are examples of the indirect use values of environmental amenities.Summary 1 Introduction The use of green roofs can offer a tangible solution to many challenges faced by communities across Canada today.and long-term public and private gains. For the purpose of this study. Indirect use value occurs when people benefit from an environmental amenity without consciously using it. Water filtration. our goal is to put forward heuristic methods that can be used with data that is usually readily at hand.

Property Values Green infrastructure investments have been shown to positively affect the property value and marketability of nearby real estate. park. In the case of green roofs. revealed preference methods (i.. community garden or wetland. An example of a non-use value is the intrinsic value that people attribute to an environmental amenity (like the boreal forest) simply for its existence. The proposed methods were gathered from current practices and the existing literature.g. stated preference methods.use value refers to the value that individuals place on an environmental amenity without having any planned use for it. Hedonic valuation techniques have been used to measure the relationship between the selling price of a residence and its distance from an urban greenspace. The first category. The second category. there are no studies that have measured the potential of green roofs to increase the selling price of a condominium or other residential building. The benefits that are included here are those for which we could find relatively simple valuation methods that could be applied by non-specialists with limited resources for data gathering. The third category is avoided cost analysis.e. attributes economic value by asking people their willingness to pay for a service or willingness to accept compensation to voluntarily forgo a service. ii . which can be used to determine the value of green infrastructure by quantifying the costs that would be incurred if the services provided by the infrastructure were not available or had to be provided by building conventional infrastructure. The methods used to estimate non-use values are considerably more complex and are beyond the scope of this report. travel cost. to owners of surrounding properties. hedonic pricing. we can use estimates of property value increases generated by other types of green infrastructure. an at-grade community garden or park. and cost avoidance) uses behaviours and information observed in markets to estimate non-market values. to a lesser degree. e. which includes the contingent valuation technique. Three general categories of nonmarket valuation methodologies exist. this benefit would accrue to the owner or owners of a building with a green roof and. market comparables.. 3 Valuation of Benefits The objective of our research is to provide readers with non-technical methods for estimating the soft benefits associated with a green roof project based on readilyavailable information and without the need for undertaking major research. At present. Non-market valuation techniques have been developed in order to estimate the net value that the public or individuals attribute to environmental amenities such as green infrastructure. In the absence of hedonic pricing studies looking specifically at green roofs.

09™ ™ v 2 hv ! 0.045™ Where:  y y y y b = value of benefit ($) vv = value of neighbouring property with a view onto the green roof ($) h = height of the green roof host building (storeys) hv = height of the building with a view onto the green roof (storeys) hv  h ™ vv hv For the purpose of estimating the value of the benefit for a single unit in a building that has a direct view onto a green roof. For them. we assume that only half the neighbouring storeys above the green roof are oriented so as to afford a view onto it. This is based on Wachter s (2004) finding that tree planting along a street in front of a property increases the property's value by up to 9%. Where neighbours of the green rooftop are concerned. we propose using the following formula: iii . For the purpose of estimating the value of the benefit for a whole building. we assume that greening a rooftop is equivalent to tree planting atgrade it adds greenery but does not change the amount of recreational green space to which they have access. the value of the benefit accrued to owners of properties is 9% of the value of the portion of a building that affords a direct view onto a green roof. We do not attribute any increased value to a green roof without trees. the value of the benefit accrued to owners of properties is 9% of the value of the portion of a building that affords a direct view onto a green roof. Where neighbours of the green rooftop are concerned.View onto a Green Roof Assuming that having a view onto a green roof has a similar effect to new tree plantings. the greening of the rooftop has much the same effect as tree planting it adds greenery but does not change the amount of green space to which they have access. We do not attribute any increased value to a green roof without trees. This is based on Wachter s (2004) finding that tree planting increases property values up to 9%. we assume that greening a rooftop is equivalent to tree planting at-grade. The increase in property value that accrues to a building with a view onto a green roof can therefore be estimated using the following formula: 1 h h ™ vv b ! 0. Assuming that having a view onto a green roof has a similar effect to new tree plantings.

This is based on Voicu and Been s (2008) finding that. on average. Using the hedonic method. Crompton (2005) has suggested that homes adjacent to public parks have about a 20% higher property values than similar homes distant from parks. As we do not know from these findings what the effect is in the longer term. properties abutting typical community gardens increased in value by 7.Recreational Rooftop Garden A rooftop garden that is accessible to building dwellers will offer recreational benefits that may be reflected in the value placed on the building. We propose the increase in property value yielded by a recreational rooftop garden be estimated using the following formula: b ! 0.. we propose that the value of the long-term benefit accrued to the owner of the property be estimated at 7% of the value of the property. we turn to studies that have assessed the impact on housing values in locations abutting public parks. To estimate this value. productive rooftop garden be estimated using the following formula: Where: y y b = value of benefit ($) v = value of green roof host property ($) iv . we assume the value remains constant at the five-year level. we deduct the view benefit (9% of property value) calculated above to arrive at a recreational benefit of 11%. We propose the increase in property value yielded by a private.4% by five years after the construction of the garden. Given that an abutting park offers both recreational and view benefits.11™ v Where:  y y b = value of the benefit ($) v = value of the green roof host property ($) Productive Rooftop Garden Assuming that having a productive rooftop garden is tantamount to abutting an atgrade community garden.

Municipal decision makers may be more interested in the total. the values are based on Voicu and Been (2008) and assumed to hold at their five-year level. Where: v . it is necessary to sum the values of the benefit accruing to the host property with those accruing to neighbouring properties.07 when 0 d 5 m F = 0. area-wide increase in property values resulting from a green roof project. We propose the increase in property value accrued to a neighbouring property of a publicly accessible productive rooftop garden be estimated using the following formula: Where: y y y y Let: y y y y F = 0. In this case.02 when 150 m < d 300 m F = 0 when d > 300 m b = value of benefit ($) v = property value ($) d = distance from green roof host property (meters) F = distance factor (function of d) Area-Wide Benefit The above stated formulas are intended for calculating the value of proximity benefits that accrue to individual properties. 5% for those up to 500 feet away.If the productive rooftop garden is open to non-occupants of the building then it is more likely that benefits will accrue to owners of neighbouring properties.05 when 5 m < d 150 m F = 0.000 feet away. the value of the benefit accrued to neighbouring property owners is 7% for owners in the building with the rooftop community garden and the immediate vicinity of the host building. we assume that the rooftop garden behaves exactly like an at-grade community garden. In the long-term. Again. and 2% for those up to 1. In this case.

The value of free publicity can in principle be estimated according to the following formula: Where: y y y y y y y b = value of the benefit ($) pradio = radio ad production cost ($) rradio = radio ad running cost (airtime) ($/30s spot) tradio = total radio equivalent airtime (30s spots)* ptv = tv ad production cost ($) rtv = tv ad running cost (airtime) ($/30s spot)* ttv = total tv equivalent airtime (30s spots) vi . The marketing benefits of green roofs will depend on a number of factors that are unknown in advance or difficult to quantify. The cost for each of the three media is broken down into the production cost plus the cost of running the ad. The value of the free publicity received can be estimated by comparison to the cost of advertizing in three media: radio. Green roofs and other green infrastructure on or near a building can therefore be considered as a marketing amenity that increases a development s exposure and enhances the absorption rate of its units. Applying the comparable costs methodology. television.y y btotal = total area-wide property value benefit ($) bn = property value benefit of an individual property ($) Marketing Benefits The mass media and the public s interest in environmentally friendly products and services continue to rapidly increase in North America. and print. one way of estimating the marketing benefits of green infrastructure would be to assess the value of the publicity gained as a direct consequence of green infrastructure investments. The latter is the cost of having the ad aired on radio and television and printed in newspapers. The former can be assumed to be constant as it is a onetime cost. such as the current interest of local media in green infrastructure and green buildings. The best way to estimate the marketing benefits is by basing it on the value of the publicity received due to the presence of the green roof in the project.

From our review of existing urban gardens. Rooftop and community gardens can help meet nutritional requirements and reduce household expenditures on food while encouraging stewardship of land by site users.y y y ppaper = newspaper ad production cost ($) rpaper = newspaper ad running cost (printing) ($/column inch) l = total equivalent column length (column inches) * Total airtime is divided by 30 to convert to number of spots. improved diet and important household budgetary savings.. and lettuces are at the higher end. herbs. the number of months between the last spring frost and the first fall frost. The productivity of an urban garden also depends on the duration of the growing season i.000 per hectare per growing month.e. Green roofs can provide important noise reduction opportunities for buildings. Urban agriculture can provide city-dwellers with a source of fresh produce. It appears that mixed fruit and vegetable gardens are at the low end of the productivity range while gardens focused more on flowers.000 and $200. Combining average garden plot yields and cost savings from the purchase of produce (based on market prices) can help us evaluate the monetary value of urban food production. especially those vii . Food Production and Food Security Green roofs and at-grade gardens can provide important opportunities for healthy food production. we estimate that their productivity ranges between $20. We propose the value of the food production benefit be estimated using the following formula: Where: y y y y b = annual value of benefit ($/year) g = duration of the growing season (months) P = productivity ($/m2 month) a = green roof area (m2) Sound Attenuation Vegetated surfaces provide important sound insulation properties and are often employed for their noise reduction potential in urban settings.

it would have little or no effect on street level traffic noise. we propose a low (5 dB attenuation) and a high scenario (13 dB attenuation) based on Connelly & Hodgson s (2008) findings on the sound attenuation of 75 mm and 150 mm green roof substrates.64%. the value of the top floor is the total property value divided by the number of storeys.and midrange frequencies. the cost of noise is measured by the Noise Sensitivity Depreciation Index (NSDI). Hedonic pricing and contingent valuation methodologies have both been employed to assess the social costs of noise and estimate values for noise reduction measures such as green roof implementation. which represents the average percentage decrease in total property value per 1-decibel increase in noise level above a baseline level. we propose using an NSDI of 0. Hence. When using the hedonic pricing technique. we propose using an NSDI of 0. such air traffic and elevated roadways and trains. for properties near elevated roadways or railways that are above roof level. Thus. we assume that most ambient noise in an urban setting falls into this category. We assume that a green roof would primarily reduce noises from overhead sources. the benefit would only accrue to properties affected by overhead noise. Sound attenuation provided by a green roof will depend on the properties of the chosen substrate and on the substrate s thickness. Based on the findings of Bateman et al (2000). we assume that each floor is worth an equal portion of the total property value. We assume that a green roof would only affect noise levels only on the top floor of the building.33%. In the absence of data on the noise attenuation properties of different substrates with different thicknesses.under flight paths or elevated transit systems. for properties near airports or under airport flight paths. For the purpose of estimation. We propose the value of the sound attenuation benefit be estimated using the following formula: Where: y y y y y b = value of benefit ($/year) NSDI = noise sensitivity depreciation index (/dB) n = green roof sound attenuation (dB) h = building height (storeys) v = property value ($) viii . The aforementioned findings are those for low.

Thus. including: a surface storm water retention pond. which we take to be a typical figure for an extensive green roof. For the stormwater retention benefit. valuated at $1. mixed at-grade BMPs.66/m3 of stormwater. we will assume an average retention capacity of 42. Cunningham (2001) provides figures for the cost of three types of stormwater retention infrastructure. and an underground retention basin. valuated at $212. we propose that the benefit of this measure be estimated by calculating the avoided cost of expanding stormwater treatment facilities and in erosion control measures. which translates to lower capital expenditures for developers and municipalities.0165™  v h Stormwater Retention  Vegetated surfaces on rooftops can retain considerable amounts of stormwater and reduce peak flows into the stormwater system during storm events.44/m3 of stormwater. Lower peak flows means lower expenditures by the municipality in erosion control measures along streams and rivers. we obtain: b ! (0. For estimation purposes. the City of Waterloo (2005) estimates that conventional stormwater management infrastructure related to erosion control requires a one-time expenditure of C$13.15/m3 of stormwater. We propose the value of the storm water retention benefit be estimated using the following equation: Where: y b = value of benefit ($) ix . valuated at $20.13/m3 of stormwater.059. For the erosion benefit. as used by Carter and Keeler (2008).Using the values given above for the low attenuation scenario and for air traffic. The values per unit of area of the green roof of the stormwater services that we are considering depend critically on the water retention capacity of the green roof.0033 dB)™ (5dB)™ v h ! 0. Less peak runoff means that new storm sewer systems can have a smaller capacity or existing systems can support more development before being upgraded.7L/m2roof.

Other factors include the levels of air pollution at the given location and the climate. In order to assess the economic value of this service. particularly if it is covered with snow. In terms of the latter. The critical determinants of a green roof s capacity to mitigate pollution and yield health benefits include its area and the mix of plant species that is used. Table S-1 . We have calculated values for the pollutant removal health benefit using Yang. Vegetations can also capture some of the particulate matter in the air. causes disabilities or premature death. and reduces the productivity of the workforce. Yu and Gong s (2008) and Kowal s (2008) findings (see Table S-1). we get: Air Quality Green plants absorb gaseous pollutants through their leaf stomates (pores). a retention pond) and erosion mitigation cost given above. Air pollution adds to the burden of the health care system. By mitigating the heat island effect. urban vegetation can further help reduce smog given that higher temperatures favour smog formation. as some species absorb more pollutants than others. We take a seven-month growing season to be the baseline case. we can estimate the avoided cost of health care.Value of annual pollutant removal health benefit for different types of green roof vegetation (US$/m2·year) Type of vegetation SO2 N02 PM10 O3 Total x .y y y y R = stormwater retention cost ($/m3water) E = erosion mitigation cost ($/m3water) C = average green roof retention capacity (m3water/m2roof) a = green roof area (m2roof) Using the values for stormwater retention cost (for the cheapest alternative. the pollution mitigation provided by the green roof may be limited outside the growing season.

0521 0.e.00684 0.00972 0.0240975 0.0013695 0. we obtain: GHG Sequestration A further benefit of green roofs and other green infrastructure is their ability to capture and store i.0010725 0.0392175 0.Short Grass Tall Herbaceous Plants Deciduous Trees 0. Yu and Gong (2008) and Kowal (2008) We propose the following formula for estimating the annual value of the health benefit of pollution mitigation provided by green roofs: Where: y y y y y y y y b = value of benefit ($/year) g = growing season (months) Hsg = health benefit for short grass pollution absorption ($/m2‡year) asg = green roof area covered by short grass (m2) Htg = health benefit for tall grass* pollution absorption ($/m2‡year) atg = green roof area covered by tall grass* (m2) Hd = health benefit for deciduous plant pollution absorption ($/m2‡year) ad = green roof area covered by deciduous plants (m2) *tall herbaceous plant Using the annual pollutant removal values cited in the table.0198450 0..0673 0.0303075 0. Valuating the carbon dioxide sequestration benefit of green infrastructure entails estimating the marginal social cost of damages that would have been caused due to temperature increases if not for the sequestration carried out by the vegetation involved. xi .00504 0.0483975 0.0157275 0. sequester carbon dioxide.0016665 0.0839 Combining data from Yang.

we use hectares rather than meters as units of area.46 Agricultural Lands Cropland Idle land $332 $317 N/A $28.Our formula for estimating the value of sequestered carbon is based on the findings of the David Suzuki Foundation (see Table S-2).59 Source: David Suzuki Foundation.59 Orchards $298 $28. 2008 We propose the following formula for calculating the value of annual carbon sequestration provided by a green roof: Where: y y y y y y y Note: b = value of benefit ($/year) Sd = value of carbon sequestration by deciduous plants ($/ha‡year) ad = area of green roof covered by deciduous plants (ha) Sg = value of carbon sequestration by grasses ($/ha‡year) ag = area of green roof covered by grasses (ha) Sf = value of carbon sequestration by productive agriculture ($/ha‡year) af = area of green roof covered by productive crops (ha) y y asg = area of green roof covered by short grasses (ha) atg = area of green roof covered by tall grasses (ha) xii .11 Grassland $213 $28.59 Hedgerows $328 $28. As the methodologies reviewed estimate the sequestration value of trees on a large scale basis (square kilometres or hectares). Table S-2 . We assume that the annual carbon uptake of these types of vegetation is the same on a green roof as at grade. and because the values are relatively small.Carbon sequestration values per hectare for Greater Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt land types Forest Stored carbon Annual carbon uptake $919 $39.

as such.888 xiii . of which the centerpiece is an undulating 6. The southern portion of the terrace was converted to an herb garden in 1994. a green roof with ivy and pea gravel paths was initially installed on the large third floor terrace on the building s south side. and interviews with architects and developers. 901 Cherry Avenue. The green roof helps provide an acoustic barrier that attenuates sound transmission from aircraft taking off from and landing at the airport. The case studies were chosen in order to represent a variety of building types and locations. is exposed to considerable overhead noise. The garden is maintained year round and harvested between late march and late fall by the hotel s restaurant staff. Together. we apply the methodologies developed in the last section to five case studies in order to estimate the actual benefits associated with these green roofs under realistic conditions. project web sites. CA The 901 Cherry Avenue building houses offices of the clothing maker GAP Inc.248 $568/year $18/year Fairmont Waterfront Hotel. The produce is used primarily in the hotel restaurant but consumers also include hotel staff and patrons. benefit property value (host) type one time value $7. San Bruno. Vancouver. The building includes a number of sustainable design features.216 $293. When the hotel was built in 1991.101 $9.400 m2 (69.000 sq ft) semi-extensive green roof. BC The Fairmont Waterfront Hotel is a luxury hotel on the downtown Vancouver waterfront. benefit sound attenuation stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration type one time one time annual annual value $303. they provide opportunities for the use of all the calculation methods presented in the last section.4 Case Studies In this section. the hotel has a total of 23 storeys. The information for these scenarios is drawn from sources such as Steven Peck's 2008 book Award Winning Green Roof Designs.593.829 $783. The roof features a 15 cm (6 ) growing medium planted with grasses and wildflowers native to the San Francisco Bay Area. A notable feature of the 901 Cherry building is that it is located under the flight path of air traffic landing at the San Francisco International airport and.

939 $11. Chicago.76 401 Richmond. initiated the project in 2005.9 m2 (65.660 xiv . Urban Habitat Chicago (UHC).000 sq ft) floor area now houses over 140 artists and entrepreneurs.057 one time $20. ON Originally constructed in 1899.600 sq ft) of the roof were covered with a lightweight extensive green roof system. a local non-profit group promoting sustainable practices in urban environments. an organic food cooperative and neighbourhood recycling centre in the Edgewater district on the north side of Chicago.73 $0.000 sq ft) cedar deck was constructed on a portion of the roof and covered with numerous planters with flowers. In 2005. providing publicity for the company that owns and manages the building. The 401 Richmond roof garden has attracted a considerable amount of attention from the media in Toronto.$3. bushes.482 $83. consisting of a 2-inch growing medium planted with sedum. a further 241.5 m2 (2. Toronto.406 $3.210 $281 . directly across Richmond Street enjoy the view onto the 401 Richmond roof garden.$38.$31. a 603.$8.41 . Residents living in the 14-storey District Lofts building.409.756 one time one time one time annual annual $24.property value (neighbour) food production stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration one time annual one time annual annual $4.01 $2. benefit property value (host) property value (neighbour) proximity to productive garden type one time value $7.5 m2 (1.79 . the building s 18.580 m2 (200. The first harvest occurred in the summer of 2007. IL The 163.$0.121 . benefit property value (host building) property value (neighbouring condo unit) marketing stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration type one time value $1.$71. The produce grown during the 2007 and 2008 seasons was mostly distributed among project volunteers and some was sold at the store below.760 sq ft) Rooftop Victory Garden is hosted by True Nature Foods. and indirectly for the building s tenants.379.217 . and vines.$18.736 $43.31 Rooftop Victory Gardens.54 .56 . In 1998.126 $1.

The garden is flanked on either side by non-accessible extensive green roofs (292.5 m2 each).64 The Louisa.$144. Portland.22 5 Conclusions This report has provided evidence that soft benefits produce economic advantages for individual property owners. developers.47 $13.641.$61.922 .189.property value (neighbour) view onto green roof marketing food production stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration one time one time annual one time annual annual $9. municipal officials.15 $3. and xv .73 $0. which contains the bulk of the apartments.289 $22. The green roof is situated on top of the podium and can therefore be viewed directly from at least half of the apartments in the tower. Both the intensive and extensive portions are planted with drought-tolerant native species. benefit property value (view) property value (accessible recreational garden) type one time one time value $2.$5.89 .385 $5. which can withstand Portland s relatively dry summers with minimal watering.156 $88.8 m2) portion of the roof is an accessible recreational rooftop garden with intensive vegetation. The green roof features both extensive and intensive components. These are two storeys higher than the garden as they sit on top of two-storey townhouse units facing into the garden. architects. OR The Louisa is a residential high-rise apartment building with 242 apartments and ground floor retail. and a tower set at the back of the podium.47 $0.117 stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration one time annual annual $1. which houses the retails spaces. and society at large. we have provided heuristic methods to estimate the economic value associated with seven soft-benefits. The larger (749.80 .890 $235 $7. These are methods that can be used by property owners.546 $2. situated in the historic Pearl District of downtown Portland. Despite the fact that the benefits depend on the local context. municipalities. The Louisa building is composed of a large podium at the base.491 $8.

Some of these assumptions.other stakeholders with information that is often readily-at-hand. The reader should keep in mind the assumptions that had to be made in order to arrive at these quick calculation methods. along with the beneficiaries. benefiting period. and a short statement of the valuation method appear in the Table S-3. xvi .

3% property value of top floor 2 Beneficiaries Assumptions Type Valuation recreational garden productive garden property owner property owner neighbours (adjacent) neighbours (150 m) neighbours (300 m) independent of area occupant access.Table S-3 .5% property value (portion above green roof) up to 11% property value up to 7% property value up to 7% property value up to 5% property value up to 2% property value see Table 3 $2-$20/m per growing month 1.82/m $521/ha to $839/ha per year $28/ha to $39/ha per year *If the green roof can be seen from at least part of the host property The case studies presented in this report show that the proposed valuation methodologies can be applied in real-life situations without requiring large (or difficult to obtain) data inputs. while those adjacent to rooftop food gardens could gain from 2% to 7%. while those with rooftop food gardens gain 7% in property value. state municipality. air traffic noise only.5% of property value.Summary of Soft Benefit Valuations Benefit Category Property Value view onto a green roof property owner* and/or neighbours independent of area one-time up to 4. independent of area public access.44/m2 to 2 $45. It should be noted that the sum of the all the property value gains accruing to xvii . In general. Among the one-time benefits proposed here. independent of area public access. the valuations returned by applying the methodologies seem to be of a reasonable magnitude. municipality municipality. state one-time ongoing ongoing $1. Neighbours of both types of green roofs also stand to benefit significantly from their presence. Properties with accessible green roofs are subject to a 11% property value premium. the property value benefits are by far the most significant. independent of area but assuming extensive coverage 42. independent of area one-time one-time one-time one-time one-time one-time Marketing Food production property owner property owner excluding labour and material costs affects top floor only. Those who have views onto a green roof could gain up to 4.6% to 4.7L/m2 retention capacity ongoing Sound attenuation property owner one-time Stormwater retention Air quality GHG sequestration developer. independent of area public access.

such as air traffic or an elevated train nearby. For example.76 per year.01% and 0.3% property value premium on the value of the top floor. In places with a year-round growing season. according to our methods of estimation. while air quality improvement is worth $8.47-$13. Sound attenuation offers one-time benefits on a similar order of magnitude. as reported above. In the 401 Richmond case. On the Fairmont Waterfront Hotel herb garden. In contrast. ranging from a 1. while air quality improvement is worth $11.210 per year. food production is estimated to be worth $3. As most of the North American population lives in places where the growing season is at least 6 months long.0521/m2 to $0. such as in the southern coastal states. it is estimated to be worth 0.2% to 6. However. We propose that the value of the food produced on a rooftop garden is worth $2 to $20 per square metre per month in the growing season.0028/m2 to $0.54-$18. it is estimated to be worth between 0. this benefit only arises if there is a significant source of overhead noise.0839/m2 per year and the GHG sequestration benefit is worth $0. it is almost meaningless to include them in an assessment of the benefit values for individual green roofs.73 per year and GHG sequestration is worth a mere $0. the air quality benefit is worth between $0. the experience of the 401 Richmond building in Toronto suggests that it is relatively small 0.56-$0. True Nature Foods has low property value but a relatively large roof and the stormwater benefit is therefore much larger relative to property value.neighbouring properties could be considerably larger than the value of the benefit accruing to the host property. The value of the stormwater management benefit varies considerably when viewed as a fraction of property value.890 per year. whereas in the case of the True Nature Foods Victory Garden. The difference between food production and air quality/GHG benefits is well illustrated by the two case studies that feature rooftop food production.47-$0. for example.28% of property value.6% of property value in this case. This benefit is not tied to property value but rather to the area of the green roof.9% of the property value.121 to $31. the food production benefit is much more valuable than the air quality and GHG sequestering benefits.73 per year and GHG sequestration is worth a mere $0. the annual cost savings xviii . also a one-time benefit. food production is estimated to be worth $2.0039/m2 per year. the benefit is therefore worth at the very least $12/m2 of rooftop growing area per year.289 to $22. Given how small the air quality and GHG sequestration benefits are. Where ongoing benefits are concerned. the benefit could be worth up to $240/m2 per year.64 per year. Bating et al (2005) calculated that if all flat rooftops across the City of Toronto were extensively greened. On the True Nature Foods Rooftop Victory Garden. As for the marketing benefit.6% to a 4. Both of these benefits would be more meaningful if calculated for numerous green roofs covering a substantial portion of a neighbourhood or city.

attributable to reduction in air pollution would amount to US$1,970,000 (C$2,700,000 in 2008). Readers are reminded that the methodologies offered here are heuristic in nature; they are rough estimations based on a number of assumptions that are reasonable in most cases but may not be applicable in specific contexts. Changes in the assumptions will of course lead to a different evaluation of benefits. Also, the report provides calculation methods for a range of greenroof conditions. These are meant to serve as benchmarks only and of course do not cover all potential situations. The user is asked to use their own best judgment as to whether and how the assumptions made and range of conditions covered in this report can be usefully applied or adapted to their own unique situation. As already noted, the goal of this report was to allow users to make rough calculations of benefits without undertaking a major research effort. For the most part, this has been achieved: the equations require data that is usually readily available such as property value, building height, roof area, and so on. The sole exception is the marketing benefit, which requires detailed information on publicity gained due to the green roof. Our experience with the case studies suggests that most green roof property owners do not have precise information on media coverage, if they track it at all. Future research might address this by tacking media coverage across many green roof projects and generating a more generic formula for estimating the value of the marketing benefit. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt in the growing literature on green roofs to offer a means for calculating the value of a range of soft benefits associated with the use of the technology. Clearly, however, it is not the last word. Future research may not only allow us to refine the approaches offered here but to expand the range of soft benefits covered to include, for example, habitat creation and community building. If this report has helped put us on this path, then it has served its purpose.

Bibliography
Bateman, I., Day, B., Lake, I., & Lovett, A. (2000). The Effect of Road Traffic on Residential Property Values: A Literature Review and Hedonic Pricing Study. Edinburgh: Scottish Office, Development Department. Carter, T. & Keeler, A. (2008). Life-cycle cost benefit analysis of extensive vegetated roof systems. Journal of Environmental Management 87, 350-363. City of Waterloo (2005). Green Roof Feasibility Study and City Wide Implementation Plan. Public document (http://www.city.waterloo.on.ca/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-

xix

49f5-b282c6475cdb7ee7/LIBRARY_Plans_documents/GRReport2005Complete.pdf). Connelly, M. & Hodgson, M. (2008). Sound Transmission Loss of Extensive Green Roofs - Field Test Results. Acoustics Week in Canada, October 6-8, 2008. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Acoustical Association. Crompton, J. (2005). The Impact of Parks on Property Values: Empirical Evidence from the Past two Decades in the United States. Managing Leisure 10(4), 203-21. Cunnigham, N. (2001). Rethinking the Urban Epidermis: a study of the viability of extensive green roof systems in the Manitoba capital with an emphasis on regional case studies and stormwater management. Master s thesis dissertation, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. David Suzuki Foundation (2008). Ontario s Wealth, Canada s Future: Appreciating the Value of the Greenbelt s Eco-Services. Public document (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/Conservation/DSF-Greenbelt-web.pdf). Kowal, C. (2008). Measuring Urban Green. The New Planner, Winter (http://www.planning.org/thenewplanner/2008/win/measuringurbangreen.htm) Peck, S. (2008). Award Winning Green Roof Designs. Toronto: Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. Voicu, I. & Been, V. (2008). The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighboring Property Values. Real Estate Economics 36(2), 281-243. Watcher, S. (2004). The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformations in Philadelphia - Identification and Analysis: The New Kensington Pilot Study . University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School. Yang, J., Yu, Q., & Gong, P. (2008). Quantifying air pollution removal by green roofs in Chicago. Atmospheric Environment 42, 7266-7273.

xx

1 Introduction
The use of green roofs can offer a tangible solution to many challenges faced by communities across Canada today. Vegetated surfaces offer social and environmental benefits to building occupants and owners, municipal governments and surrounding communities, from improved stormwater management, habitat creation, absorption of air pollutants, and reduced energy requirements, to crime reduction, community building, and opportunities for food production. In short, the implementation of green roofs can improve the overall functionality of the ecosystem, contribute to economic efficiency, and enhance the quality of human life. Articulating the value of the numerous environmental and social services of green roofs in monetary terms provides an estimate of their contribution to local and regional economies and permits governments, land developers and building owners to assess short- and long-term public and private gains. While some benefits are directly measurable and have hard values (such as the energy savings due the insulation provided by the soil and vegetation of a green roof), many benefits are not readily measurable and their values are difficult to estimate (such as the health benefits of a rooftop garden). For the purpose of this study, those benefits that are not directly measurable (or calculated based on any line item on the buildings budget) will be defined as soft benefits. Green roofs and other green infrastructure1 have traditionally been thought of as cost centres that contribute little or no economic benefit. However, recent work in the field of environmental economics has brought to light the vital economic contribution that green infrastructure makes in terms of providing "services" (such as purifying water and air) to society and individuals alike.2 Excluding soft benefits from assessments of the value of green roofs could lead to a underestimation of their real benefit to society and less policy attention devoted to promoting the infrastructure that gives rise to them. Moreover, without a quantified value, soft benefits cannot be objectively classified or compared to one another or other benefits, making rational decisions about the best return on public and private investment difficult to make. Soft benefit valuation is therefore a critical undertaking to better inform public policy initiatives and private development decisions. By considering soft benefits, we obtain a more complete picture of all the direct and indirect impacts of green roofs on individual buildings, on their
1 Green infrastructure includes wetlands, urban forests and parks, green roofs, community gardens, vegetated

swales, rain gardens and other natural or constructed vegetated areas that perform environmental ecological services for surrounding human populations.
2 Costanza (1998) has estimated that the world s ecosystem services provide a benefit in the range of US$16 54 trillion (10) per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year. Global gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per year.

we draw where necessary on studies related to other types of green infrastructure. Needless to say. Keeping this in mind. The purpose of this report is to provide methodologies and case studies that can offer guidance in attributing economic value to selected soft benefits of green roofs. In other words. this approach entails a trade-off between ease of use and the level of detail and precision. Since very few studies to date have focused directly on the economic valuation of green roof soft benefits. 2 . our goal is to put forward heuristic methods that can be used with data that is usually readily at hand. and on society at large.surroundings. the results obtained with the proposed methods should be applied prudently. It is important to note that our intention here is to offer methodologies that can be easily employed by stakeholders with limited information about the property concerned.

revealed preference methods (i. which can be used to determine the value of green infrastructure by quantifying the costs that would be incurred if the services provided by the infrastructure were not available or had to be provided by building conventional infrastructure. The two main categories of value are use and non-use values. travel cost. which includes the contingent valuation technique. 3 . hedonic pricing. Table 1 presents a summary of non-market valuation methods explored in this report and the strengths and limitations of each. Non-market valuation techniques have been developed in order to estimate the net value that the public or individuals attribute to environmental amenities such as green infrastructure. The third category is avoided cost analysis. An example of a non-use value is the intrinsic value that people attribute to an environmental amenity (like the boreal forest) simply for its existence.. Nonuse value refers to the value that individuals place on an environmental amenity without having any planned use for it. To determine their monetary value. The first category. Direct use value refers to the value that is derived from actual or planned use of a particular environmental service or good. The methodologies and specific valuation frameworks applicable to green infrastructure benefit valuation are outlined in greater detail below. stated preference methods. Use values can either be direct or indirect.e. Three general categories of nonmarket valuation methodologies exist. Recreation and food production are two examples of direct use values. nonmarket or indirect valuation techniques must be employed. The second category. market comparables. The methods used to estimate non-use values are considerably more complex and are beyond the scope of this report.2 Valuation Methodologies The soft benefits of green roofs are not directly tradable and therefore do not have directly measurable monetary values. Water filtration. Indirect use value occurs when people benefit from an environmental amenity without consciously using it. Estimating the total economic value of a non-market good or service entails calculating the sum of all values associated with that good or service. and cost avoidance) uses behaviours and information observed in markets to estimate non-market values. climate regulation are examples of the indirect use values of environmental amenities. attributes economic value by asking people their willingness to pay for a service or willingness to accept compensation to voluntarily forgo a service.

Consumer or clients are asked how much they would be willing to pay for a good or service. Choosing the appropriate variables is difficult. Hedonic pricing can measure direct and indirect use value. Uses data on the price of similar goods or services that are traded in the market as a proxy for willingness-to-pay.Table 1 .e.g. travel cost. 2007 p.37 2. a pleasant view or the disamenity of a nearby landfill site).: identifying all relevant attributes for a particular good). or avoided health costs to estimate value of ecosystem services. These methodologies rely on observed market behaviours . Uses cost of replacing ecosystem services with conventional infrastructure. Very data-intensive approach to economic valuation (e. The value of the environmental component can therefore be captured by modeling the impact of all possible influencing factors on the price of the property. 2. Typically administered through a public survey.. as well as other property features. Avoided Cost Analysis Direct and indirect use Costs can often be estimated from market prices Avoided costs do not necessarily reflect the social value of an ecosystem service.1. three revealed preference methods are described: hedonic pricing. are reflected in property prices.. Below. Source: Adapted from DEFRA. Contingent Valuation Use and nonuse Captures use and non-use ecosystem functions Based on individual responses. Prices of non-market goods are inferred by associating them with consumers purchase decisions using a defined theoretical framework. people tend to under-value amenities.i. how much people actually pay for existing goods and services available on the market. Value captured Strengths Limitations Hedonic pricing Direct and Indirect use Based on market data and prices relatively important figures. or how much they would be willing to accept in compensation for its loss.g. Market comparables Direct and indirect use Market data readily available and robust Limited to benefits for which markets exist.1 Hedonic Pricing Hedonic pricing is a methodology that has been extensively used to estimate the economic value ascribed to various non-market environmental goods and services 4 .Non-market valuation techniques Methodology Description Assumes that the environmental characteristics (e. and market comparables.1 Revealed Preference Methodologies Revealed preference methodologies are relevant for estimating the monetary benefit accrued to occupants and/or owners of a building as a result of the addition of a green roof.

a good or service must be decomposed into its constituent attributes. the age of the property.. transportation access and the neighbourhood s socioeconomic characteristics. number of bedrooms. Hedonic pricing may be used to estimate direct and indirect use values. the prices charged by public sector providers are usually well below people s willingness to pay and should be considered as the absolute minimum value of a good or service.1. It is most commonly used to evaluate the individual contribution of environmental amenities on real estate prices. When no similar good or service is provided by the private sector. park entrance fees). Identifying every relevant attribute that makes up the total value of a good can be a long and difficult process.2 Market Comparables The market comparables method examines the amount that is charged and paid for by consumers of a good or service traded in the market that is comparable to the one being assessed. Hedonic pricing models have estimated the variations based in the following attributes: the square footage of a property. 2. number of storeys. values can be derived from charges collected by public sector providers such as municipal. 2. charges collected by firms offer good proxies for people s willingness to pay for a similar good or service that is offered for free or below market price through the public sector. number of bathrooms. When a good or service is provided in the private sector.such as air and water quality. For this reason. One shortcoming of the hedonic pricing approach is that it s a very data intensive methodology. distance from the central business district (CBD).g. In most cases. 2002): value of a good = (value of attribute 1) (quantity of attribute 1) + (value of attribute 2) (quantity of attribute 2) + + (value of attribute n) (quantity of attribute n) Variations in real estate value are dependent on a large number of factors.2 Stated Preference Methodologies Stated preference methodologies attribute monetary value to environmental goods 5 . Regression analysis is then used to estimate the individual contribution of each attribute to the total value of the good. The technique regards a good as a set of attributes and considers the total economic value of that good as the sum of values of each attribute. these institutions will charge well below market rates or actual willingness to pay for a good or service. provincial or federal levels of governments (e. aesthetic views and proximity to green spaces or recreational sites. The hedonic pricing model is usually expressed using the following function (Hidano. number of units. Private sector market comparables provide good estimates of the value of a non-market good given that they are based on the actual cost of provision and consumer preferences and demand for this good. First.

resulting in inaccurate estimates of that good s or service s monetary value. analysts advocate using avoided cost methodologies. A number of problems have been associated with stated preferences methods. Each angler s expression of his or her maximum willingness to pay represents how much the angler is prepared to compensate the rest of society for the increased individual enjoyment gained from the improved recreational fishing. We can therefore use the cost of an alternative treatment method..e. Nevertheless. Surveys are used to collect information about how much an individual is willing to pay for a particular environmental good or service. The most common stated preference methodology is contingent valuation. to represent the value of the wetland s natural water treatment service (De Groot.and services based on people s stated preferences rather than their observed behaviour. there can be a discrepancy between how much people state they are willing to pay and how much they actually pay for a given good or service. 2003). the public can be asked how much they would be willing to accept in compensation for the loss of an environmental amenity. which would improve sport fishing opportunities. This can include goods and services that are provided by the public sector for free or below cost. for example. Alternately. the presence of a wetland may reduce the cost of municipal water treatment for drinking water because the wetland system filters and removes pollutants. Contingent valuation is the economic valuation technique most commonly employed when revealed preferences techniques are not applicable.. Maximum willingness to pay is aggregated for all anglers who benefit to determine whether the benefits of the wetland project exceed the costs. This approach can be used to determine the value of green roofs and other green infrastructure by quantifying the costs that would be incurred if the services were to be provided with conventional infrastructure. The direct beneficiaries are people who fish recreationally.3 Avoided Cost Methodologies In circumstances where an ecological service is difficult to value by any of the above methods. One critique is that people are potentially unwilling or unable to express willingness to pay truthfully or accurately . The technique can also be used for assessing order of preference for a set of goods. Surveys are used to ask people how much they are willing to pay for a particular environmental service or good. 1992). Valuation would be used to estimate the maximum that anglers would pay for this improvement in fishing. Contingent valuation could be applied. 2. which facilitates an assessment of whether public funds should be spent on the project.i. 6 . For example. such as the building and operation of an industrial water treatment plant. to a project to enhance a freshwater wetland. It can also include goods and services that are not widely available and for which revealed preferences therefore cannot be observed (Champ et al. this valuation method is useful in estimating the value of goods and services that are not sold on the market.

7 . but only the cost of replacing that service if it were lost. It is a valid approach if the human-made alternatives are equivalent in quantity and magnitude to the natural functions. 2007). and individuals in aggregate would be willing to incur these costs to obtain the services (DEFRA.It is important to note that this method does not provide a direct estimate of the value of the ecological service to the public. the alternative is the least-cost alternative method of performing the function.

The benefits that are included here are those for which we could find relatively straightforward valuation methods that could be applied by non-specialists with limited resources for data gathering.. The purpose here is to provide readers with non-technical methods for estimating the soft benefits associated with a green roof project based on readily available information and without the need for undertaking major research. It is important to note that the methodologies offered here are heuristic in nature. some benefits are simply too context-specific to include in an analysis of this type and are excluded from the following analysis. values for a reasonable range of situations is provided for readers to consider when evaluating the benefits of a specific green roof. they are rough estimations based on a number of assumptions that are reasonable in most cases but may not be applicable in specific contexts. The ranges provided are benchmarks only and of course do not cover all potential situations. and offer a method that could be used by non-specialists to estimate the value of that benefit in a given context. For most of the benefits included in this report. length of growing season. depth of growing medium. The benefits covered are: y y y y y y y property value increases marketing sound attenuation food production stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration For each benefit. we include information related to other forms of green infrastructure if the information is readily transferrable to green roofs. Although all soft benefits tend to be context-specific to some degree. or mix of plant types). While our primary focus is on green roofs. review existing practices and literature that contributes to an understanding of the monetary value of the benefit. we discuss the nature of the benefit.g. Examples of excluded soft benefits are improved 8 . The assumptions are clearly stated in the description of each methodology below. The proposed methods were gathered from current practices and the existing literature. The user is asked to use their own best judgment as to whether the methods provided can be usefully applied or adapted to their own unique situation (e.3 Valuation of Benefits This section presents methodologies for valuating a variety of soft benefits that accrue to green roofs.

air quality improvements) or planetary (e. while some go to the regional (e. some go to the owner(s) of the building on which the green roof is found (e. Benefits accrue either on a one-time basis (such as an increase in property value) or an annual basis (such as greenhouse gas mitigation). to a lesser degree. we have adjusted the values for inflation to show the value in 2008 dollars..g. the hedonic pricing model is the most common method used to measure the impact on property values from nearby green infrastructure. Essentially. property value increases).g. As property taxes are in most cases proportional to property value. The proximity principal suggests that the value of parks and other green infrastructure is captured in the price of surrounding real estate. park. In the case of benefits that consist of an increase in property value. The value of the amenity is capitalized in the form of home prices and property taxes collected by 9 .aesthetics. a benefit in the form of increased property tax revenues can accrue to municipalities. In particular. greenhouse gas mitigation) population.. to owners of surrounding properties. this benefit would accrue to the owner or owners of a building with a green roof and. In the case of green roofs. crime reduction. Although it is a very data intensive methodology. community garden or wetland. the hedonic pricing model estimates the impact of green infrastructure on real estate market value by comparing properties that differ with respect to their distance from an amenity such as a park.. wetland.. Edwards (2007) and Wachter (2004) have all used the hedonic pricing methodology to measure the relationship between the selling price of a residence and its distance from an urban greenspace. we do not account for direct inputs such as the cost of materials and labour. All monetary values given below are in US dollars unless stated otherwise. The different benefits covered in this section accrue to different stakeholders. The methods do not account for the costs involved in producing the benefits. 2007).1 Property value increase Green infrastructure investments have been shown to positively affect the property value of nearby real estate.g. and building a sense of community. Where possible and relevant. increased biodiversity. open space or community garden. we do not account for the extra costs involved in creating a green roof compared to a conventional roof. 3. others go to the municipality (e. stormwater retention).g. It is important to note that the methods presented below are intended to calculate the gross value of the benefits considered. we do not consider the higher property taxes that could be applied as a result. The positive relationship between the relative value of a dwelling and its distance from green infrastructure elements is called the proximity principle (Edwards. In the case of food production. Voicu & Been (2008). Morancho (2003). Miller (2001).

The author underlines that this is an underestimation of the true premium of urban parks in 10 y y . Also in Philadelphia.64% accumulated over 20 years. all else being equal.000 of assessed property value. Results from a hedonic pricing model showed that. property value increased by $12 million due to vacant lot conversion and $4 million due to tree plantings. A hedonic regression model was developed that integrated variables on sales and structural characteristics of homes (e. Study results suggested that replacing unsightly vacant lots with grass landscapes and trees increased surrounding property values by up to 30 percent. calculated to 314% around average parks ). home size. Edwards (2007) conducted a similar study in the San Francisco region by dividing homes into two categories.local governments. personal communication). proximity to parks was calculated to yield additional annual property tax revenues of $82. elements of location). Here.555 when corrected for under assessment. the Trust for Public Land (2008 a) used a hedonic pricing model to estimate the effect of proximity to a park on property value.378. Specifically.g. Wachter (2004) quantified the effect that investing in green infrastructure would have on property values. the benefits gained from lot improvements and new tree plantings would represent a respective property tax base increase of $6. lot size. number of storeys. homes in the former category sold for an average of $125. we present a few case studies that have estimated the relative impact of green infrastructure investments on property prices using the hedonic pricing model..387. the author looked at the impact of converting vacant lots into green spaces on surrounding home prices.838 more than residences in the latter category.703 (or $688. They calculated the total assessed 2007 value of all properties within 500 feet of a park to $4.128 corrected for under assessment).776. Based on an effective tax rate of 2.112.64 per $1.849. residences that were 500 feet or less of a park and homes located between 500 and 1000 feet of a park.982. date of sale.336. Houses sold within 50 feet from new tree plantings showed a 9 percent increase in property value.000 for the local government (Steve Wise.062 (or $13. y Using data on over 3000 property sales between 1980 and 2003 in the New Kensington area of Philadelphia. it was calculated that the portion of total assessed property value attributed to proximity to parks was $219. In the sample neighbourhood chosen for this study.000 and $2. The model included data on the real estate s proximity to green infrastructure as well as its distance from disamenities such as vacant lots.574. Assuming conservatively that parks contribute on average 5% to the assessed value of properties. In terms of tax revenues.

properties with small lots that presumably have limited private open space appreciate parks more than properties on large lots with generous open space. Voicu and Been (2008).Impacts of a typical community garden on residential property values Time since completion Right after completion 1 year 3 years 5 years $ 2. In particular. The authors observed that value of properties near community gardens.4 6.4 3.6 4. usage and design of parkland and differences in residential zones that surround them influence the magnitude of the park proximity premium. increased over time after implementation. In all cases.607 2. They studied the effect of property values at four different points in time with respect to the completion of the community garden: at the moment of completion.670 *percent change in price within ring versus outside the ring **change in price applying the percent change in price to the median per unit sale price of properties sold within the ring 11 .San Francisco because there is a wide range of other possible economic benefits associated with urban parks such as health benefits. Crompton proposes a 20 percent increase in the value of properties abutting or fronting a park area as a point of departure that decision-makers may use to calculate property value increases attributed to urban green spaces. such as Miller (2001).5 1. The reviewed studies show that variations in size. 2005). and up to 1.6 1. and five years after completion.450 3.8 5.7 y Table 2 .172 4. Distance to garden site (meters) 0 150 %* $** % 3.207 2.191 2.293 1. Such variations notwithstanding. The authors also found that the effect was significantly stronger in low-income areas than in high-income areas. using a hedonic price model.6 7.111 300 % 1. and revenue generated from special events.551 4. environmental benefits. the effect was calculated for three ranges of distance from the community garden: abutting the garden.1 3.9 $ 1. especially those abutting them. up to 500 feet from the garden.5 1. certain studies.5 4.355 1. three years. found that the implementation of new community gardens had a significant impact on surrounding property values in New York City.000 feet from the garden (see results in Table 2 below).971 3. have observed that lot size has a significant impact on magnitude of the premium. y An analysis of about 30 studies exploring the relationship between real estate value and proximity to parks confirmed the argument that parks and open spaces contribute to higher proximate property values (Crompton. one year.373 1. In general.

1. In the hedonic price model.e.Source: Voicu and Been. the benefits of rooftop infrastructure accrue mostly. At present. This is based on Wachter s (2004) finding that tree planting along a street in front of a property increases the property's value bys up to 9%. In the absence of hedonic pricing studies looking specifically at the effect of green roofs on property values. the benefits. In the former case. This would be the least data intensive approach but would also provide the least accurate estimate. An accessible green roof could be used in two broad ways: as a recreational space or as a food production space.). however. benefits may accrue to neighbouring properties. there are no hedonic studies that have measured the potential of green roofs in increasing the selling price of a condominium or other residential building.. failing to account for qualitative differences between green roofs. however. etc. Thus. accessible versus inaccessible. the best comparable would be at-grade community gardens. i.. it would seem that the best comparable would be at-grade public parks. 2008 The hedonic pricing model would be an ideal technique to calculate green roofs effect on property value. and whether it is visible from other locations. Accessibility to the rooftop would not be a significant consideration in this case. green roofs could be represented as a single Boolean value. extensive versus intensive. denoting whether the building has a green roof or not. Where neighbours of the 12 . In this case. accruing to neighbouring properties are likely to be limited. the value of the benefit accrued to owners of properties is 9% of the value of the portion of a building that affords a direct view onto a green roof. we must make an estimate using studies performed on other types of green infrastructure. In the case of a green roof that is visible from surrounding buildings. if not exclusively. 3. denoting the percentage of the given roof that is green. Additional Boolean variables could be added to represent qualitative differences between green roofs (e. if any. The key difference between rooftop green infrastructure and at-grade green infrastructure is that the former are likely to be accessible only to the occupants or users of the building with the rooftop facility whereas the latter are likely to be accessible to the community at large. Using this method. A more accurate approach would be to use a continuous variable. The selection of the appropriate type of green infrastructure for this purpose would depend on the features of the green roof being assessed.g. to the properties on which it is located. whether food is grown on it. whether the roof is accessible. an appropriate comparable would be the value of having a view onto an at-grade park or woodlot. in the latter case.1 View onto a Green Roof Assuming that having a view onto a green roof has a similar effect to new tree plantings. the value of buildings with green roofs could be compared to that of buildings with conventional roofs while controlling for other variables that are known to have an effect on property value.

Whole building gain in property value For the purpose of estimating the value of the benefit for a whole building. Using the hedonic method. we assume that only half the neighbouring storeys above the green roof are oriented so as to afford a view onto it.. we assume that greening a rooftop is equivalent to tree planting at-grade . The increase in property value that accrues to a building with a view onto a green roof can therefore be estimated using the following formula: 1 h h ! 0.2 Recreational Rooftop Garden A rooftop garden that is accessible to building dwellers will offer recreational benefits that may be reflected in the value placed on the building.045™ Where: y y y y b = value of benefit ($) vv = value of neighbouring property with a view onto the green roof ($) h = height of the green roof host building (storeys) hv = height of the building with a view onto the green roof (storeys) hv  h ™ vv hv Single unit gain in property value For the purpose of estimating the value of the benefit for a single unit in a building that has a direct view onto a green roof. We do not attribute any increased value to a green roof without trees. Crompton (2005) has suggested that homes adjacent to public parks have about a 20% higher property values than similar homes distant from parks. To estimate this value.09™ v v . the greening of the rooftop has much the same effect as tree planting it adds greenery but does not change the amount of recreational green space to which they have access. Given that an abutting park offers 13   ¡ ! 0. For them.green rooftop are concerned. we propose using the following formula: 3. we turn to studies that have assessed the impact on housing values in locations abutting public parks.1.09™ ™ v ™ vv 2 hv ! 0.

In this case.both recreational and view benefits.07™ v Where:  y y b = value of benefit ($) v = value of green roof host property ($) If the productive rooftop garden is open to non-occupants of the building then it is more likely that benefits will accrue to owners of neighbouring properties.11™ v Where:  y y b = value of the benefit ($) v = value of the green roof host property ($) 3. we propose that the value of the long-term benefit accrued to the owner of the property be estimated at 7% of the value of the property. 5% for those up to 500 feet away. In the long-term. the value of the benefit accrued to neighbouring property owners is 7% for owners in the building with the rooftop community garden and the immediate vicinity of the host building. we assume the value remains constant at the five-year level. This is based on Voicu and Been s (2008) finding that. the values are based on Voicu and Been (2008) and assumed to hold at their five-year level. on average. We propose the increase in property value yielded by a recreational rooftop garden be estimated using the following formula: b ! 0.000 feet away.1. and 2% for those up to 1. properties abutting typical community gardens increased in value by 7. we deduct the view benefit (9% of property value) calculated above to arrive at a recreational benefit of 11%. productive rooftop garden be estimated using the following formula: b !0. Again. As we do not know from these findings what the effect is in the longer term. We propose the increase in property value yielded by a private.3 Productive Rooftop Garden Assuming that having a productive rooftop garden is tantamount to abutting an atgrade community garden. we assume that the rooftop garden behaves exactly like an at-grade community garden. We propose the increase in property value accrued to a neighbouring property of a publicly accessible productive rooftop garden be estimated using the following formula: 14 .4% by five years after the construction of the garden.

or property with a view.b ! F ™v Where:  y y y y Let: y y y y b = value of benefit ($) v = property value ($) d = distance from green roof host property (meters) F = distance factor (function of d) F = 0.07 when 0 d 5 m F = 0. Municipal decision makers may be more interested in the total. recreational or productive rooftop garden. btotal ! § bn Where:  y y btotal = total area-wide property value benefit ($) bn = property value benefit of an individual property ($) The property value benefit for each individual property (bn) must be calculated using the appropriate formula for the given case i. In such cases.02 when 150 m < d 300 m F = 0 when d > 300 m 3. both the productive rooftop garden 3 It is unknown whether these two benefits are additive. In this case. In cases where more than one formula applies. it is common practice to use the larger of the two benefits. it is necessary to sum the values of the benefit accruing to the host property with those accruing to neighbouring properties.e.3 For example. area-wide increase in property values resulting from a green roof project.05 when 5 m < d 150 m F = 0. if a building affords views onto a directly adjacent productive rooftop garden. nearby property.. both values should be calculated but only the larger of the two should be used in the summation.1. 15 .4 Area-Wide Benefit The above stated formulas are intended for calculating the value of proximity benefits that accrue to individual properties.

Since 2005. The project has garnered extensive amounts of media coverage for its green amenities. A developer representative reports that they have had greater sales compared to other real estate presentation centers in the area. Green roofs and other green infrastructure on or near a building can therefore be considered as a marketing amenity that increases a development s exposure and enhances the absorption rate of its units. converting an adjacent piece of municipal land into a park and reducing or eliminating the need for streets on the property. installing green roofs on residential and commercial buildings. which covers approximately half of at the total 16 y .) apply. reducing the buildings foot print. Applying the comparable costs methodology. personal communication). The development has focused on maximizing green space and green infrastructure amenities by taking steps such as locating 95 percent of all parking spaces underground. y Dockside Green.3) and the view onto a green roof formula (Error! Reference source not found. The first phase of the development is already occupied and 80 percent of units have been sold for the second phase.2 Marketing Green infrastructure in general and green roofs in particular not only increase the monetary value of a property due to proximity benefits. but may also improve the marketability of real estate. which have been retrofitted with green roofs.000 square feet rooftop garden.000 trees on the site. The mass media and the public s interest in environmentally friendly products and services is increasing rapidly in Canada. planting over 1. The benefit attributed to proximity to a productive garden will clearly be larger than that attributed to having a view onto it and should therefore be used in the area wide benefit summation. a 15-acre mixed use community under development in Victoria. which is due to open in February 2009 (Martine Desbois. one way of estimating the marketing benefits of green infrastructure would be to assess the value of the publicity gained as a direct consequence of green infrastructure investments. Dockside green is also integrating green wall elements in the development (City of Victoria. Garden plots have been installed on the roofs of residential buildings and the connectivity of at-grade green space has ensured its accessibility to Dockside Green residents as well as citizens living outside the community. The two Canadian case studies below illustrate green infrastructure and green roofs marketing potential. 3. 2005). British Columbia. Robertson Building tenants have access to a 4.1. Dockside Green has benefited from media coverage worth about $5 million.formula (3. Urbanspace is a property group that owns and operates two heritage buildings in downtown Toronto.

The marketing benefits of green roofs will depend on a number of factors that are unknown in advance or difficult to quantify. television. vacancies in both buildings are rare to non-existent and waiting lists are extensive. The cost for each of the three media is broken down into the production cost plus the cost of running the ad.500 square feet deck that includes a container garden. and print. Both of the buildings green roofs have garnered public attention through media exposure. The 401 Richmond building has a 2.600 square feet extensive green roof and a 6. The value of free publicity can in principle be estimated according to the following formula: b !(pradio  rradio ™tradio)(ptv  rtv ™ttv )(ppaper  rpaper ™ l) Where:  y y y y y y b = value of the benefit ($) pradio = radio ad production cost ($) rradio = radio ad running cost (airtime) ($/30s spot) tradio = total radio equivalent airtime (30s spots)* ptv = tv ad production cost ($) rtv = tv ad running cost (airtime) ($/30s spot)* 17 . Many of the properties prospective tenants have heard of the buildings because of the public attention they have gained due to their respective green roofs. The former can be assumed to be constant as it is a onetime cost. such as the current interest of local media in green infrastructure and green buildings. This rooftop garden is accessible to both building tenants and the public at large. as the case studies suggest. The value of the free publicity received can be estimated by comparison to the cost of advertizing in three media: radio. Although Urbanspace has never invested in advertizing campaigns.roof area. The building owners have used the media attention the gardens have attracted as a way to market the buildings as a whole. The roofs were created with the intention of providing common space where people can socialize and relax while improving the general livability of the buildings. Nonetheless. Tenants have also expressed that the accessible green roofs are amenities that they value and improves the livability of the buildings. The latter is the cost of having the ad aired on radio and television and printed in newspapers. the marketing benefits can be estimated based on the value of the publicity received due to the presence of the green roof in the project.

they are negotiated on an individual basis with every advertiser. rather. and the station s relative popularity. the population within the radio broadcast s reach). such as a local news report. 2006) but the cost of airing an ad on a local stations in medium markets outside prime time can be as low as US$5 (C$6) per 1. spots on local stations during local programming.000 viewers or even lower (Gaebler. As real estate ads are generally intended for the local audience.000 and $600. Unlike newspaper ad prices.e. Market research shows that.y y y y ttv = total tv equivalent airtime (30s spots) ppaper = newspaper ad production cost ($) rpaper = newspaper ad running cost (printing) ($/column inch) l = total equivalent column length (column inches) * Total airtime is divided by 30 to convert to number of spots. it would be very difficult to account for all the variations in advertizing cost between different media outlets and 4 We contacted a few television stations. not sold as part of a bundle of several spots) generally range from $50 to $1. the cost of running an ad is proportional to the circulation of the newspaper a local paper in a small market will have low prices while a leading paper in a large city or a nationally distributed paper will have higher prices.. radio and television ad prices are not published. Spots that run on national networks during weekday prime time range between $80. Radio and television ad airtime is generally sold in 30-second blocks or spots . the size of the audience depends more on the popularity of individual programs than on the popularity of any given station. However. in the US. The Globe and Mail in Canada) run a few local or regional editions with different ads. ad prices are related to the size of the audience.000 viewers will command a price in the range of $500 to $2. In performing an estimate of the value of free publicity. For a radio station. all of which refused to send us their advertizing rate cards stating that they would only send to professional media buyers.4 For both media.000 for airing a single 30 second spot. Single radio spots (i...g. Newspaper space is priced by modular agate lines (MALs) in Canada or by column inches in the US (there are 14 MALs per column inch). the advertizing prices of local papers or local editions of national papers are more relevant for estimating the value of free publicity. 18 . undated). For television. Some national papers (e. the programs with the highest ratings command the highest advertizing prices. which are usually priced lower than ads printed nationwide.000 per 30-seconds. the cost of television advertizing is on average US$20 (C$24) per 1. are considerably less expensive. the size of the audience will depend mostly on the time of day. Thus. Generally.000.000 and average around $120. the size of the market (i. a show with 100.000 viewers (Grover.e.

a cost of US$10 per 1.69 $1.405 $899 $209 $516 Cost per 1.741 Newspaper (column inch) Cost per Average 1.ca.47 $1.019 $3. To convert mentions on radio or television to equivalent paid airtimes. ON Vancouver. www.69 Sources: www.000 7. A sample of average advertising costs for the three media are summarized in Table 3 below. 19 .41 $199 $303 $1.000 viewers was assumed.03 $1.91 $1. Where data was unavailable. and newspaper advertizing in selected cities City Metro Population Radio (30s spot) Average cost $250 $158 $173 $1.588 $9.com.887 4.g. the key determinant of the cost of radio and television airtime and column inch price in a major newspaper is the size of the market.038. A brief mention of a green roof project in a factual news report is equivalent to one 30-second spot 2. Ultimately.778 $1. Figures in italics are estimates.285. For the cost of television ads. costs are estimated..506 Cost per 1. we propose using the population of the census metropolitan area (CMA) in Canada and of the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in the US as proxies for market size.38 $1.143 $1. a 2:09 news report is rounded down to 2:00 and therefore equivalent to four 30 second spots).com.com.38 Television (30s spot) Average cost $2. NY San Francisco. which is proportional to the population of the area covered by the given radio or television station or the distribution area of a newspaper.000 cost readers $392 $1. All prices in US dollars. MN New York. We propose that the size of the audience for any of the three media be assumed to be 5% of the metropolitan population.42 $2.gaebler.750.041 19.theglobeandmail. the duration of the news report should be rounded down to the nearest 30 second increment (e.875 $3.632 $2. For the purpose of estimating free publicity.74 $1.different times of day.912 2.59 $1.Average cost of radio.575 $613 $365 $597 $1. Table 3 .900 3.conestoga. www. television.555.175. A factual news report on the subject of the green roof project is equivalent minute-to-minute to a television spot.09 $1. in the case of radio and television. www.90 $1. we propose the following conservative rules and applying the discount factors described below. WA Average 5.81 $1.264. personal communication.000 listeners $0. BC Minneapolis. 1. and Lotz. CA Seattle.canada.000 viewers $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 Toronto.

05 (95% discount) To convert mentions in the newspapers to column inches. A positive endorsement in an editorial or opinion piece whose main subject is the green roof project is equivalent to a half-page ad or 128 column inches.96 wide). Combining average garden plot yields and cost savings from the purchase of produce (based on market prices) can help us evaluate the monetary value of urban food production. 4. 20 .1 (90% discount) 3. In a factual article whose main subject is not the green roof project.3. we propose applying the following general rules and applying the discount factors described below: 1.25 (75% discount) If mention is in a specialty or community publication. D = 0.1 (90% discount) If mention is on a public access channel. If mention includes a picture. convert picture to column inches by dividing the area by 2 (one column is 1. personal communication) Discount factor (D): y y y If mention is on a major network. Discount factor (D): y y y If mention is in a major daily newspaper. each sentence in which the project is mentioned is worth one column inch. D = 1 (no discount) If mention is in a citywide weekly magazine.3 Food production and food security Urban agriculture (whether at grade or on rooftops) can provide city-dwellers with a source of fresh produce. D = 1 (no discount) If mention is on a specialty channel. 5. improved diet and important household budgetary savings. A factual article whose main subject is the green roof project is worth double the number of column inches taken by the article 3. D = 0. Successes in cities across North America illustrate the potential relief that urban food production can offer to those in need. A positive endorsement in an editorial or opinion piece whose main subject is not the green roof project is equivalent to a half-page ad or 64 column inches. D = 0. Furthermore. 2. A positive endorsement in an editorial or opinion piece is equivalent to twenty 30 second spots (Lotz. D = 0.

000 kg/ha of food. 2006). 1991). Commercial urban agriculture enterprises across North America offer important sources of income to urban and peri-urban food producers. British Columbia. y y y 21 . When adjusting for inflation this amounts to an economic benefit of over C$800 in 2008.800 residents would have 4. ft. on the average 65 m2 (720 sq.900 to 13. The authors calculated that gardening one hectare of land would fulfill 3% of the 10. social cohesion and health effects. which is addressed in Section 3. The rooftop herb garden at the Fairmont Waterfront Hotel in Vancouver has provided important monetary benefits for the hotel s restaurant. ft. Given the average household size of 2.300. such as CO2 absorption.1 m2 (2. Therefore.) community garden in Newark. Given that Canadian households with middling incomes ($40-59K) spend around $20 per week on fruits and vegetables (Statistics Canada.800 community residents vegetable needs (Barrs. not including labour.20.000 to $300.000 to $30. 2002). a study revealed that. we have compiled some case studies from Canada and the US: y A study of the urban agriculture potential of an infill development in Vancouver.100 and $191.76 m2 (17417.6 below.133 households. The Kon Kai urban farm in Berkley California earns on average $250. 2002). estimated that a market garden could yield 50.000 per year from the gourmet lettuces it grows on 1618. we can estimate that 3% of annual household spending on the same would be $31. Market gardens generally grow a variety of produce. 2002).900 to 13. a community of 10. ft.100 sq. usually focusing on highly perishable items that fetch a high price.844 to 6.9 sq. these topics are not explored here due to a lack of existing research. annual vegetable production amounted to just over $500 (Patel. Herbs grown on the 195. In 1991.calculating the amount of locally grown produce that can be distributed to lowincome citizens through community organizations such as food banks can provide an estimate of the food security benefits related to urban agriculture.25 people (City of Vancouver.) of land (Barrs.) rooftop garden provide an estimated $25. To help assess the productivity and monetary value of urban agriculture.000 annual saving in food costs for the hotel restaurant (September & Peck). With the exception of CO2 absorption. Urban food production has many other potential benefits. The net economic benefit of gardens was estimated to be $475 after deducting a $25 average input cost. New Jersey. we can estimate that a market such as the one described in this scenario could save the community between $151.

547 kilos of vegetables were harvested from the 4. Since its opening in 1990.000 for the community. 1. In a rooftop setting. Vegetables harvested from the garden are shared among the volunteer gardeners and the rest is donated to community organizations such as local food banks and housing projects. In Seattle.99 per pound. mixture of plants. personal communication). At a retail price of $2. composting. California grows herbs. produce and flowers on its 2. Other factors.000 annually (Brown. the organic plum harvested through the project represented a direct benefit of over $30. The organization has set a goal of harvesting 2. the number of days between the last spring frost and the first fall frost. about 11.e. For the 2008 growing season. the group aims to cultivate around 750 kilos of vegetables on the 80 m2 of cultivable rooftop land area.000 pounds of fresh produce to local food banks in 2007. irrigation. Through these sales. In 2007. these factors are largely independent of location and can be controlled by the gardener. such as climate and sun exposure.900m2 land area occupied by the organization s 10 collective gardens. The Homeless Garden Project based out of Santa Cruz. the garden raises an estimated $26. recycling. Garden volunteers are also offered informational workshops on gardening. the garden provides training and meaningful work experience to less fortunate citizens in the region. Apart from the produce that is donated to local charities.000 gardeners on 23 acres of land across the city and provides a source of fresh produce and economic opportunities to low income citizens. In southern coastal regions. 36 percent of respondents received over half of their produce needs from their garden plot (Rich McDonald. In 2007.5-acre plot of land. which produced 150 kilos of fresh vegetables. and food security. The main constraint in terms of climate is the duration of the growing season i. Seattle gardeners also contribute to local food security by donating approximately 44. 22 .500 kilos in the gardens during the 2008 growing season. the P-Patch program provides gardening space to over 6. y y The productivity of an urban garden depends on a number of factors: soil conditions. are location-specific and beyond the control of the gardener. flowers and herbs wholesale and through a community supported agriculture program. A 2007 survey of community gardeners in Seattle revealed that between the months of April and October. Out of this. and farming intensity.. including parts of California. the organization sells its vegetables.000 pounds of fruit (mostly plums) were harvested from Seattle fruit trees and delivered to people with limited access to organic produce. 2002).y Action Communiterre is non-profit organization that operates 10 collectively managed organic gardens in the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce area of Montreal. the group initiated a rooftop vegetable garden pilot project.

23 . The data suggest that the productivity of outdoor rooftop gardens ranges between $20. We assume that rooftop gardens have yields similar to at-grade gardens under similar conditions.nrcan. Figure 1 . It appears that mixed fruit and vegetable gardens are at the low end of the productivity range while gardens focused more on flowers. Current climate change predictions suggest that the duration of the growing season is set to increase in the cooler parts of the continent. we have added the duration of the growing season for each location and we have standardized all monetary values to be in 2008 Canadian dollars. Further from the coasts and further north.5 To the data taken from the examples.gc.000 and $200. and lettuces are at the higher end. outdoor agricultural production is possible year round. herbs.Duration of Growing Seasons in Canada Source: The Atlas of Canada (atlas.Florida. we have calculated the mean productivity per unit of area per month of growing season. the growing season becomes shorter (see Figure 1 for Canada).000 per hectare per growing month. Table 4 . and Texas.Productivity of urban agriculture (selected examples) City Area (ha) Growing season (months) Output type Annual output ($*/year) Productivity ($/month ha) 5 This table brings together at-grade and rooftop garden information.ca) Table 4 below summarizes key information from the examples above that included monetary values for agricultural or horticultural output. To be able to compare data on gardens of different sizes and in different climates.

by decreasing heat exchange between the building and the environment and by mitigating the heat island effect.400 28. green roofs can reduce the use of air conditioning. Plants and trees tend to absorb high-frequency sounds.000 ~1.000 370. CA 1. especially in urban environments where hard surfaces such as pavement and buildings tend to reflect noise. CA Newark. We propose the value of the food production benefit be estimated using the following formula: b ! P ™ g™ a Where: y y y y b = annual value of benefit ($/year) g = duration of the growing season (months) P = productivity ($/m2 month) a = green roof area (m2) Low scenario (mixed fruits and vegetables) b !($2/m2 ™ month)™ g™ a High scenario (lettuces. NJ Santa Cruz. herbs. 2002). 24 . Although the vegetated surface of other green infrastructure elements can provide noise reduction benefits. Green roofs can provide important noise reduction opportunities for buildings.500 24.000 ~38.100 to 216. a source of noise. BC Vancouver.4 Sound Attenuation Vegetated surfaces provide important sound insulation properties.000 0.000 * Converted to 2008 CAD.200 194.300 to 34.020 0.007 1. which are the most bothersome to human-ear. most of the available data pertains to green roofs (Navrud. BC Berkeley.400 23.800 38. & flowers) b !($20/m2 ™month g™a )™ 3.012 8 8 12 6 12 Assorted highly perishable vegetables Herbs Gourmet lettuces Vegetables Vegetables. flowers.000 to 444.162 0.Vancouver.6 Hedonic pricing and contingent valuation 6 Less directly. herbs 170. especially for those under flight paths or elevated transit systems. and are often employed for their noise reduction potential in urban settings.700 209.

the results can be multiplied by the mean household size. 2002). depending on the valuation method employed (e. When using the hedonic pricing technique.08% and 2. (2000) have compiled lists of NSDIs for road traffic and air traffic noise based on the findings of studies from the US and abroad.3% of property value per decibel.33% for air traffic pollution. Navrud (2002) reports that NSDIs will be higher where households are relatively wealthy or where levels of sound pollution are relatively higher. Sound attenuation provided by a green roof will depend on the properties of the chosen substrate and on the substrate s thickness. 25 . Typically. Statistical analysis of these results showed an average NSDI of 0. 2006).16 (Navrud. To convert the results of a valuation study to an approximate ERF. whereas Exposure Response Functions (ERF) express the cost per household. mean household size is 2. few research studies have estimated the noise reduction potential of green roofs. range transmission attenuation ranged between 2 dB to 8 dB. Bateman et al.29% to 2. Connelly & Hodgson (2008) examined the sound transmission loss of two green roofs.64% for road traffic pollution and 0. road. To date. In a study commissioned by the European Union. This implies that noise levels below this benchmark do not cause any depreciation of property value.methodologies have both been employed to assess the social costs of noise and estimate values for noise reduction measures such as green roof implementation. Road traffic NSDIs range between 0. rail) by performing an extensive literature review of noise valuation studies. it is 2.7 Too few stated preferences studies for aircraft noise had been conducted to narrow the large range of willingness-to-pay in the literature.to midfrequency range (50Hz to 2000 Hz). hedonic pricing or contingent valuation). 2007). and in Canada it is 2. In the absence of data on the noise attenuation properties of different substrates with different thicknesses. In the higher frequency. Navrud (2002) attempted to establish interim values for noise reduction from different transportation modes (air. in the US. which represents the average percentage decrease in total property value per 1-decibel increase in noise level above a baseline level. However.6 (US Census Bureau. The authors report a transmission attenuation of 5 dB to 13 dB over the low. the cost of noise is measured by the Noise Sensitivity Depreciation Index (NSDI). the cost of aircraft and road noise pollution is calculated above a 55 dB baseline.. one with a 75 mm substrate and the other with a 150 mm substrate. In Europe. The economic values attributed to road and air noise level reductions ranged substantially from study to study.22% of property value per decibel and air traffic NSDIs range between 0.5 (Statistics Canada. we 7 Contingent valuation studies measure the willingness to pay per person.g. Based on stated preferences techniques. the author found that the average willingness-to-pay for reduction in road traffic noises ranged from 2 to 32 (3 to 45 $CAN) per household per dB per year. Noise valuation estimates generated by hedonic pricing and contingent valuation techniques can help to quantify the noise reduction benefits of green roofs.

We propose the value of the sound attenuation benefit be estimated using the following formula: b ! NS I ™ n™ Where:  y y y y y b = value of benefit ($/year) NSDI = noise sensitivity depreciation index (/dB) n = green roof sound attenuation (dB) h = building height (storeys) v = property value ($) v h Low attenuation scenario for air traffic b ! (0.64%. for properties near airports or under airport flight paths. We assume that a green roof would primarily reduce noises from overhead sources. we assume that each floor is worth an equal portion of the total property value. We also assume that a green roof would only affect noise levels only on the top floor of the building. Thus. such air traffic and elevated roadways and trains. Hence. we assume that most ambient noise in an urban setting falls into this category.33%.propose a low (5 dB attenuation) and a high scenario (13 dB attenuation) based on Connelly & Hodgson s (2008) findings on the sound attenuation of 75 mm and 150 mm green roof substrates. For the purpose of estimation. for properties near elevated roadways or railways that are above roof level.0165™  ¢ v ) ™ (5dB) ™ ™ h v h 26 . we propose using an NSDI of 0.and midrange frequencies.0033/ ! 0. it would have little or no effect on street level traffic noise. The aforementioned findings are those for low. the benefit would only accrue to properties affected by overhead noise. Based on the findings of Bateman et al (2000). We therefore assume that only the portion of the property value represented by the top floor increases in value. we propose using an NSDI of 0. the value of the top floor is the total property value divided by the number of storeys.

High attenuation scenario for air traffic b ! (0.0033/dB)™ (13dB) ™ ! 0.5 Stormwater Retention Less peak runoff means that new. Thus. green roofs can at least partially obviate pollution control measures. By reducing the amount of stormwater conveyed off-site. which without mitigating measures end up draining into and polluting local waterways. by reducing the volume of runoff.0064/dB) ™ (13dB) ™ ! 0. Municipalities also stand to derive ongoing benefits in terms of reduced operating costs related to storm management infrastructure less infrastructure means lower operating costs.0429™ v h v h  Low attenuation scenario for elevated road and rail b ! (0. depending on who pays for new stormwater infrastructure in the given context.0064/dB) ™ (5dB) ™ ! 0. reducing the amount of runoff. 3. vegetated surfaces absorb stormwater and allow some of it to infiltrate into the ground or slowly release it after storm events.032 ™ v h v h High attenuation scenario for elevated road and rail  b ! (0. it picks up particles and various pollutants. which translates to lower capital expenditures for developers or municipalities. especially impermeable surfaces such as road and parking. conventional stormwater retention and conveyance systems can have a smaller capacity or existing systems can support more development before being upgraded. which causes additional swelling of local bodies of water during 27 . When located at-grade. Reducing the peak volume of runoff and increasing on-site re-absorption of stormwater helps to prevent water pollution.0832™ v h v h  Vegetated surfaces have the capacity to absorb and retain stormwater. Vegetated surfaces on rooftops can also retain considerable amounts of stormwater and reduce peak flows into the stormwater system during storm events. As runoff washes over various surfaces.

this yielded a 17% reduction in the total volume of runoff. A combination of bioretention areas. Site wide.4 ha. the volume of runoff remains the same elsewhere. Data on the water retention capacity of the green roof was obtained from a test plot located on a rooftop on the University of Georgia campus. site wide. while flat roofs cover 10. from 42 inches to 36 in the second of three zones. green roofs can also at least partly obviate the need for erosion mitigation measures.9% of the total land cover.721 m3/s) for a 5-year storm. which covers much of the central area of Athens. reductions in the diameter of drainage pipes required to convey runoff were calculated.17 cfs (2. as compared to a coefficient of 0. The runoff from the roofs themselves was reduced by 58%.76 acres (4. The author obtained per meter cost estimates to install different diameters of drainage piping in a development site and used these to estimate the cost of servicing the test site under 8 Roofs account for only a fraction of the total area of the site i.. Published retention and one-time cost data for stormwater best management practices (BMPs) (EPA. The test site has 53.27 cm of rainfall (or 42. it was estimated that pipes could be reduced from 48 inches to 42 inches under the green roof scenario.95 for flat gravel roofs. assuming a 40year reroofing cycle. porous pavement. In a recent lifecycle cost-benefit analysis of green roofs. the overall reduction is much smaller than it is on the roofs themselves. The avoided cost is therefore US$9.40. with rooftops accounting for 15.25 cfs (2. assuming an equal distribution of these three BMPs. Georgia. with a 7. The reduction in runoff occurred only on the roofs.06/m2 of green roof. The total runoff in the site was calculated to be 60. 4.8 % impervious land cover. Under the test scenario. and 91.e.62 cm (3 inch) layer of growing media. low-rise commercial and industrial buildings in the City of Winnipeg. 80. In one of the three land use zones. The study site was subdivided into three zones.582 m3/s) for a 50-year storm. Chapter 5) explores a theoretical scenario in which extensive green roofing is implemented on a site containing mostly large.storm events. roofs in the test site were extensively greened and assumed to have a run-off coefficient of 0. They estimated the costs and benefits per square meter of an extensive green roof. 28 . The test site for which the estimates are calculated is the Tanyard Branch watershed. Carter and Keeler (2008) looked at the financial dimensions of several benefits. The purpose of the exercise is to explore potential avoided costs for conventional stormwater infrastructure.4 ha). including stormwater management.77 cubic feet per second (cfs) (1.15/m3 of runoff treated.4 ha).8 Based on estimated reductions in stormwater runoff volume. The test site has an area of 43. 1999) is used to determine the cost for an equivalent amount of rainwater retention at-grade given the available land cover in the watershed.272 m3/s) for a 20-year storm. each having a distinct pattern of land use. Hence. and would remain the same in the third of three zones. The 7.06 acres (17. and sand filters would cost US$212.7L of water per m2 of roof). Cunningham (2001.62 cm vegetated layer assumed in the test scenario can hold 4.4 ha of 17.

In some cases.28 for every square meter of green roof they add. helps control both the quantity and the quality of runoff. land costs can be so low that retention ponds can indeed be quite inexpensive. In its calculations. independent from fees or taxes for water and wastewater services.28 /m2 per year for impervious surfaces. Cunningham also compared the cost of building conventional stormwater retention infrastructure i. not including the cost of land and maintenance costs. subgrade retention basins and stormwater retention ponds with the cost of retaining stormwater with extensive green roofing.existing conditions and the green roof scenario. 10 Some municipalities in North America assess stormwater fees. The cost of retaining water with green roofing is estimated to be $14. stormwater retention by means of extensive green roofing is about 25-fold more expensive than using a conventional stormwater retention pond.00 per cubic foot ($1. conventional stormwater infrastructure for pollution 9 This does not factor in land costs. However. According to his calculation. green roofing is about half as expensive as underground retention basins.13/m3) for a retention pond. MI.41 per cubic foot ($508.10 In Ann Arbor.08/m2 per year for green roofs. in already urbanized areas.9 Clark et al (2008) valuate stormwater benefits of green roofs in terms of stormwater fee reductions accrued to property owners. For greenfield development in the periphery of a city. stormwater management infrastructure reduces the volume of runoff by retaining and storing a certain amount of stormwater. it was estimated that the latter would yield one-time material cost savings of 10% for stormwater drainage infrastructure. valuated a number of related costs and benefits..17/m2 per year for impervious surfaces and US$0. the municipality provides stormwater fee discounts to property owners who implement recognized forms of on-site stormwater management.059. property owners save US$0. making green roofs a viable alternative.88/m3). the stormwater fee is US$0. in a report on the feasibility of green roofs. which Clark et al use as a case study. Thus. on average.e. the annual benefit accrued to commercial property owners is US$0. On this basis. The average stormwater fee charged by 11 municipalities in the US is US$0. Assuming that conventional stormwater storage infrastructure costs C$42/m3 and that an extensive green roof holds 37L/m2. In terms of quality of the runoff. land costs would most likely render retention ponds prohibitively expensive.56/m2. including green roofs. at a cost of C$42/m3 of stormwater.57 per cubic foot ($20. which could be significant. the City of Waterloo estimated that. Cunningham concludes that.44/m3) for an underground retention basin and $0. Thus. the City assumed that stormwater management. The cost is $30. In terms of quantity. it was estimated that the stormwater retention benefit provided by green roofs is worth C$1. in terms of water retention. 29 . The City of Waterloo (2005). As the City of Ann Arbor considers a green roof to be a pervious surface. whether by means of conventional infrastructure or a green roof.09 annually in stormwater fees for every square meter of green roof they add.

In tighter land markets. is in the range of C$1. Assuming that green roofs reduce pollutant loading in stormwater by 90%. The erosion reduction benefit. Based on calculations made by the City of Mississauga.984 ha of flat rooftops in Toronto were extensively greened. they discount pollution mitigation provided by green roofs by 50% rather than by 10%. They use the same values for pollutant reduction (C$0. the cost of a surface retention pond could be considerably higher.51/m2 (C$5.49/m2 (C$4.000.000 in avoided infrastructure costs would accrue to the City. However.000 and C$118. Therefore. pollution mitigation and erosion control benefits. The total value of the benefit. From the literature reviewed above. we take the combined value of the benefit to be the higher value of either the stormwater retention service or the pollution mitigation service.44/m3 of stormwater. in contrast. and an underground retention basin. mixed at-grade BMPs. which is a sum of the retention. which range from C$0. a one-time benefit worth C$41.460/ha) of serviced land. the City of Waterloo estimated that conventional stormwater management infrastructure related to erosion control requires a one-time expenditure of C$0. the one-time value of the runoff quality benefit is C$0. plus the value of the erosion mitigation service provided by green roofs. we have figures for the cost of three types of stormwater retention infrastructure.059. valuated at $1.15/m3 of stormwater. for development in dense urban locations. If all 4. the one-time value of the erosion control benefit is C$0.95/m2 to C$26. Thus. we follow the methodology established by the City of Waterloo. the cost could be prohibitive.51/m2 of green roof. However.55/m2 (C$5. We will therefore consider the 30 .51/m2) values as the City of Waterloo. is considered separately in the study. The estimates are based on the cost of providing equivalent stormwater retention using the cheapest up to the most expensive BMPs. the authors point out that the values for the retention and pollutant reduction benefits are not additive because stormwater management infrastructure provides both benefits simultaneously. in addition to the other one-time stormwater benefits.73/m2 and C$27. For the surface retention pond. they use their own estimates.800. assuming that extensive green roofs provide an equivalent service.20/m2.055/ha) of developed land. Thus. To calculate the combined one-time value of the stormwater benefits provided by green roofs. Banting et al (2005) use the pollutant reduction and erosion reduction benefits calculated by the City of Waterloo to estimate the one-time value of stormwater benefits accrued to the City of Toronto if all of its flat rooftops (4.914/ha). only the benefit with the higher value is considered. as the City of Waterloo did and they consider the pollution benefit to be independent of the other benefits and therefore additive.55/m2) and the same erosion mitigation (C$0.13/m3 of stormwater. valuated at $20.984 ha) were extensively greened.control costs C$0. valuated at $212. the figure cited here presumably applies to a greenfield development on the periphery of Winnipeg where land is likely to be relatively inexpensive.42/m2. including: a surface storm water retention pond. For the value of stormwater retention.

it appears that the retention service will always be more valuable than the pollution removal service.79/m3 ]™ (0. For estimation purposes. we will assume an average retention capacity of 42.aforementioned cost as the lowest possible cost for stormwater retention.7L/m2roof. which assumed that a green roof retains 37L/m2. b ! [($20. As a result.28/m3 while erosion control is worth C$13. which we take to be a typical figure for an extensive green roof.13/m3 )  ($13. We propose the value of the storm water retention benefit be estimated using the following equation: b ! (R  E)™ C ™ a Where:  y y y y y b = value of benefit ($) R = stormwater retention cost ($/m3water) E = erosion mitigation cost ($/m3water) C = average green roof retention capacity (m3water/m2roof) a = green roof area (m2roof) Low-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario For the purpose of estimating the lower bound of the stormwater retention benefit. as used by Carter and Keeler (2008).66/m3 )]™ (42.13/m3 for a retention pond.44/m2 ™ a roof  31 . this figure will be used to calculate the lower bound of the value of this green roof benefit. the least expensive type of retention system. we calculate that pollution mitigation is worth C$13. we can ignore the value pollution removal benefit in our calculation of the total value stormwater benefits provided by green roofs. The values per unit of area of the green roof of the stormwater services that we are considering depend critically on the water retention capacity of the green roof.66/m3. we employ Cunningham s (2001) calculation for the cost of a retention pond. Based on the data taken from the City of Waterloo study. Given that the lowest value for stormwater retention services cited in the literature reviewed here is C$20. as calculated by Cunningham (2001). barring land costs.0427m3 /m2 )™ a water water roof ! $1.7m3 /m2 ) ™ a water water water roof ! [$33.

The UFORE model was developed to calculate the pollution removal capacity of urban vegetation.44/ ! [$1. Air pollution s impacts on human health entail significant albeit indirect costs.82/ m2 ™ a roof  3. 3 water / 2 roof )™ a ]™ (0. Other factors include the length of 32 .059. and ozone (O3) (Kowal. carbon monoxide (CO). air pollution related health problems have the following economic consequences: (1) cost to the health care system. (2) cost due to lost productivity in the workplace.073. b ! [($1. particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10). Thus.66/ 3 water )]™ (42. the New York State Utilities Commission estimated the health care costs attributable to several atmospheric pollutants. In the 1990s. (3) economic value of pain and suffering due to pollution induced illnesses. high temperatures accelerate this process.6 Air Quality Improvement Vegetation in urban areas affects air contaminant levels and therefore has an impact on air quality.High-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario For the purpose of estimating the upper bound of the stormwater retention benefit. reduction of solid particulate pollutants. consider several factors. and its monetary value. or downward pollutant flux.0427m3 / m2 ) ™ a water roof ! $45. 2008) (see Table 5). By mitigating the heat island effect. and the concentration of pollutants at the given location. As the OMA points out. According to the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) (2000). and inhibition of smog formation. the first two are out-of pocket expenses for taxpayers. including nitrogen dioxide (NO2). urban vegetation can further help reduce smog given that higher temperatures favour smog formation. These estimates were incorporated into the Urban Forests Effects (UFORE) computer model to calculate the value of the pollution removal benefit provide by trees and other vegetation in urban areas. and (4) economic damages associated with premature death.10/ 3 water 3 water )  ($13. sulfur dioxide (SO2). Green plants absorb gaseous pollutants through their leaf stomates (pores). The air pollution mitigating benefits of green roofs and other green infrastructure therefore accrue to society at large in the form of avoided health care costs. urban vegetation offers three distinct benefits in terms air quality: reduction of gaseous pollutant. we employ Cunningham s (2001) calculation for the cost of an underground retention basin. Pollution removal calculations. Smog is formed when nitrogen oxides react with volatile organic compounds that are released due to the combustion of fossil fuels. The gases then react with water to form acids and other chemicals. the most expensive retention solution of among those explored above. which is related to wind. Vegetations can also capture some of the particulate matter in the air. The key factors are pollutant deposition velocity.

14% of large herbaceous plants.481 a year in terms of avoided healthcare costs.. juniper hedges). shrubs and grasses. Covering all flat rooftops. temperature and other meteorological variables (Nowak and Crane. S02. levels of precipitation. the annual cost savings attributable to reduction in air pollution would amount to US$1.500 6. in the Midtown area of Toronto. (2005) calculated the annual monetary value of extensive green roofs in Toronto to be about US$0. can nonetheless have a very substantial effect on air pollution and a significant monetary value. to be used as a baseline scenario. equivalent to about 20% of all roof surfaces in the study area. The key findings of the study were that. The data was fed into the UFORE model to estimate the 03. Aerial photographs of the roofs were analyzed to determine the distribution of different types of surfaces on the green roofs.700. such as green walls (i. Banting et al. while trees clearly have a greater pollution mitigating capacity.650 950 4. 11% of trees and shrubs. 2008 Currie and Bass (2008) used UFORE to explore the pollution mitigating capacity of green roofs and green walls.0394/m2 (C$0. Based on the results of Currie and Bass s study.e. with a grassy vegetated surface would augment the pollution mitigation provided by existing trees and shrubs by as much as 10% and be worth US$17. If all flat rooftops across the City of Toronto (4984 ha) were extensively greened. such as trees and shrubs.000 in 2008). Yang. Table 5 .0541/m2 in 2008) of extensively vegetated roof area.Costs of selected atmospheric pollutants Pollutant Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Particulate Matter <10 Qm (PM10) Ozone (O3) Cost (US$/ton) 6. Yu and Gong (2008) quantified the volume of air pollution mitigation provided by green roofs in Chicago. N02.000 (C$2. each 400m2 and having a different distribution of vegetation. 1998). They obtained detailed data on 71 out of some 170 green roofs. The difference between the baseline scenario and each hypothetical scenario was taken to be the pollution mitigating capacity of the individual vegetative element that was added or removed in the given scenario. or subtracted existing vegetative elements. extensive and intensive green roofs. A pollutant deposition model for big-leaf plants employing atmospheric data collected in Chicago over a one-year period were used 33 . It was found that 63% of the green roofs aggregated area consisted of short grasses. which can be readily planted on flat rooftops. and that of six hypothetical vegetation scenarios. Field data was collected from 72 circular plots.750 Source: Kowal.the in-leaf season.750 1. totaling 19. The hypothetical scenarios either added new vegetative elements to the study area.8 ha. and the remaining 12% of various structures and hard surfaces. C0 and PM10 removal capacity of the current vegetation in the study area.970.

91 Source: Yang.65 0.0483975 Total 0.0198450 0. In places with a longer growing season.0839 Combining data from Yang. Yu and Gong (2008) and Kowal (2008) As suggested by the studies cited above. Using the values for the pollutant removal health benefit that we have calculated using Yang. the annual volume of pollution absorbed is likely to be higher given the same plant species.33 2.00504 0.83 1. Yang. and O3) by each of the three observed types of vegetation (summarized in Table 6). PM10. NO2. the pollution mitigation provided by the green roof may be limited outside the growing season.49 5.0010725 0. We take a seven-month growing season to be the baseline case.0392175 0.to estimate the absorption of four principal air pollutants (SO2. estimate pollution mitigation of green roofs in locations with relatively short growing seasons (about seven months) and long.17 Total 8. 2008 Table 7 .0013695 0.0303075 0.81 7. from Toronto and Chicago.0016665 N02 0.12 1. particularly if it is covered with snow.1 13.01 N02 2.0240975 PM 10 0.59 11.52 2.0157275 0.0673 0. Table 6 . Other factors include the levels of air pollution at the given location and the climate. Yu and Gong s (2008) results can be combined with the health cost data cited by Kowal (2008) to calculate the value of the pollution mitigation provided by each type of plant (see Table 7). Yu and Gong s (2008) and Kowal s (2008) findings (Table 7). Yu and Gong.16 O3 4. we propose the following formula for estimating the annual value of the health benefit of pollution mitigation provided by green roofs: b! g ™[H sg ™ asg  H tg ™ atg  Hd ™ ad ] 7™ mont s Where:  y y b = value of benefit ($/year) g = growing season (months) 34 .00972 O3 0.94 3.0521 0. snowy winters.57 PM10 1.Annual pollutant removal by different types of green roof vegetation in Chicago (g/m2·year) Type of vegetation Short Grass Tall Herbaceous Plants Deciduous Trees SO2 0.00684 0. as some species absorb more pollutants than others. In terms of the latter. The examples above. the critical determinants of a green roof s capacity to mitigate pollution and yield health benefits include its area and the mix of plant species that is used.Value of annual pollutant removal health benefit for different types of green roof vegetation (US$/m2·year) Type of vegetation Short Grass Tall Herbaceous Plants Deciduous Trees SO2 0.

0673/m2 )™(0) ($0. we obtain: b! g ™[($0.y y y y y y Hsg = health benefit for short grass pollution absorption ($/m2‡year) asg = green roof area covered by short grass (m2) Htg = health benefit for tall grass* pollution absorption ($/m2‡year) atg = green roof area covered by tall grass* (m2) Hd = health benefit for deciduous plant pollution absorption ($/m2‡year) ad = green roof area covered by deciduous plants (m2) *tall herbaceous plant Using the annual pollutant removal values cited in Table 7.0521/m2 )™ a sg  ($0. the estimate will lie somewhere between a lower bound defined by a green surface area composed entirely of short grass (the least absorbent) and an upper bound defined by a green surface composed entirely of deciduous plants (the most absorbent).0839/ m2 )™(0)] 7™ mont s g ! ™[($0.0839/m2 )™ ad ] 7™ mont s  The above equation can only be applied if the distributions of the three categories of vegetation within the green portion of the roof are known. If the distribution is unknown.0074/m2 ™ mont s)™ g™ a Where:  a = area of the green roof (m2) 35 .0521/m2 )™ a  0 0] 7™ mont s ! ($0.0673/m2 )™ atg  ($0. Low scenario (100% short grass coverage) b! g ™[($0.0521/m2 )™(a) ($0.

High scenario (100% deciduous tree coverage) b! g ™[($0. urban trees store 25.0839/m2 )™ a] 7™ mont s ! ($0.3 billion and US$460 million per year. the average value of carbon storage by urban trees would be approximately $510/ha for stored carbon and $16/ha for annual carbon uptake. The authors note that carbon storage and uptake are lower in urban than non-urban tree stands because the density of the tree cover is generally much lower.0673/m2 )™(0) ($0.0120/m2 ™ mont s)™ g™ a Where:  y a = area of the green roof (m2) 3. The authors determined that there were approximately 281. Thus.1 tonnes/ha of carbon whereas forest stands store 53. All photosynthesizing plant species have the capacity to capture and store atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).5 tonnes/ha more than twofold as much.0521/m2 )™(0) ($0. Urban trees sequester on average 0.000 km2 of urban tree cover across the US.0839/m2 )™(a)] 7™ mont s g ! ™[0 0 ($0. respectively.0 tonnes/ha per year and tree plantations sequester as much as 2. Based on these estimates.8 million tons. The carbon storage and annual carbon uptake provided by urban trees are valued at US$14.7 Greenhouse Gas Sequestration Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas and its rising levels in the atmosphere are believed to contribute to global warming.e. Reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and capturing the carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere are increasingly being pursued as strategies to mitigate global warming. 36 . sequester carbon dioxide. Nowak and Crane (2002) assess the carbon sequestration capacity of urban trees across the US. Valuating the carbon dioxide sequestration benefit of green infrastructure entails estimating the marginal social cost of damages that would have been caused due to temperature increases if not for the sequestration carried out by the vegetation involved.3 tonnes/ha per year while natural growth tree stands sequester 1. On average. storing 700 million metric tones of carbon and annually sequestering 22. Most studies on carbon dioxide sequestration provided by plants have focused on trees.6 tonnes/ha per year.. a further benefit of green roofs and other green infrastructure is their ability to capture and store i. Trees and other plants in urban environments are no exception.

A number of authors have noted that green roofs produce energy savings by reducing heat exchange through the roof.59 Hedgerows $328 $28. The indirect carbon dioxide emissions reductions. in terms of both annual uptake and total storage. would be very difficult to valuate. Most depend on factors that could vary significantly from place to place and could be difficult to determine without a substantial research effort.Carbon sequestration values per hectare for Greater Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt land types Forest Stored carbon Annual carbon uptake $919 $39.59 Source: David Suzuki Foundation. resulting in lower energy use for heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. It is also suggested that some GHG emission reductions can result from reduced transportation use.11 Grassland $213 $28. A recent paper by The Trust for Public Land (2008 b) on the greenhouse gas benefits of urban parks suggest other indirect energy saving benefits that could also apply to green roofs. To convert these sequestration capacities to monetary values. 37 . Among other benefits. including carbon sequestration. as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007). given that the provision of parks (or accessible rooftop gardens) can provide more accessible leisure opportunities. The authors suggest that urban parks can reduce the amount of energy used to manage stormwater runoff. Akbari and Konopacki (2003) calculated that mitigation of the urban heat island effect provided by trees and green infrastructure could reduce building carbon emissions by 5-20 percent. though potentially significant. 2008 While the aforementioned studies focus on the sequestration of atmospheric carbon provided by trees and other vegetative covers. For instance. other studies have explored indirect carbon dioxide emissions reductions provided by green infrastructure. 11 is calculated for the different biomes in the Greenbelt using a software package called CITYgreen (similar to UFORE). the annual carbon sequestration values for different biomes within the greenbelt are estimated (see Table 8). This value is based on the average cost of global damages due to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005. Carbon storage is the total amount of carbon sequestered over a longer period for an individual plant. Carbon sequestration per hectare.46 Agricultural Lands Cropland Idle land $332 $317 N/A $28. the author assumes a cost of $43/tonne (2005 US dollars) for global damages due to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. the extent of emission reductions achieved 11 Annual carbon uptake is a measure of the average amount of carbon sequestered per year by given plant or by a vegetated area.59 Orchards $298 $28. over its lifetime. the David Suzuki Foundation (2008) examines a number of ecosystem services provided by the Greater Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt in southern Ontario. This is especially likely to be true in communities that do not have separate stormwater sewer systems and send stormwater mixed with regular wastewater through energy consuming sewage treatment plants.In a recent report. Table 8 .

For this reason. both of which are more likely to be found on a green roof than trees. We propose the following formula for calculating the value of annual carbon sequestration provided by a green roof: b ! Sdad  Sgag  S f af Where:  y y y y y y y Note: b = value of benefit ($/year) Sd = value of carbon sequestration by deciduous plants ($/ha‡year) ad = area of green roof covered by deciduous plants (ha) Sg = value of carbon sequestration by grasses ($/ha‡year) ag = area of green roof covered by grasses (ha) Sf = value of carbon sequestration by productive agriculture ($/ha‡year) af = area of green roof covered by productive crops (ha) ag ! asg  atg y asg = area of green roof covered by short grasses (ha) atg = area of green roof covered by tall grasses (ha)  y 38 . we do not attempt to devise a method for valuating the indirect benefits of CO2 emissions reductions afforded by green roofs. namely grassland and croplands. and because the values are relatively small. Our formula for estimating the value of sequestered carbon is based on the findings of the David Suzuki Foundation (2008). we restrict our method to valuating direct carbon sequestration. we use hectares rather than meters as units of area. As the methodologies reviewed estimate the sequestration value of trees on a large scale basis (square kilometres or hectares).by reducing energy use depends crucially on how much of the local energy supply is fossil fuel based. We chose these findings because they provide sequestration values for types of vegetation other than forests. We assume that the annual carbon uptake of these types of vegetation is the same on a green roof as at grade.

11/ ha)(a) ($28.46/ ha)ag ($28.46/ ha)(0) ($28.46/ a)™ a  0 ! ($28.46/ a)™ a Where:  y a = area of the green roof (ha) High scenario (100% deciduous coverage) b ! ($39.11/ a)(0) ($28.59/ha)a f Low scenario (100% grass coverage)  b ! ($39.11/ ha)™ a  0 0 ! ($39. we obtain: b !($39.Using the David Suzuki foundations sequestration data.59/ a)(0) ! 0 ($28. and assuming that productive agriculture on green roofs resembles hedge rows or orchards.11/ ha)ad ($28.46/ a)(a) ($28.11/ ha)™ a Where:  y a = area of the green roof (ha) 39 .59/ ha)(0) ! ($39.

The case studies were chosen in order to represent a variety of building types and locations. 40 . The case studies use a consistent notation to signify variables that go into the calculation of benefits. Together. they provide opportunities for the use of all the calculation methods presented in Section 3 of this report. only those benefits that apply to each case study and for which data was available are included in the write-ups. which are designed to help the reader interpret the results. In the following section. project web sites. Not all of the benefits apply to each case study. we present key features of the project and associated green roof. we apply these methodologies to five case studies in order to estimate the actual benefits associated with these green roofs under realistic conditions.4 Case Studies The last section provided valuation methodologies that could be used to quantify several of the soft benefits associated with green roofs. We conclude each case study with some observations about the calculations. Table 18 summarizes the variables needed as inputs into the equations and the notation used in the case studies. The information for these scenarios is drawn from sources such as Steven Peck's book Award Winning Green Roof Designs (2008). For each case study. a summary of the development context and process. and interviews with architects and developers. and the benefit calculations themselves.

and units benefit property value (recreational garden) property value (productive garden) property value (property with view) input variable property value neighbouring property value neighbouring property distance property with view value property with view height green roof height food production growing season food production area actual value of food production sound attenuation property value building height stormwater retention air quality vegetative roof area growing season vegetative roof area (total) short grass area tall grass area deciduous plant area GHG sequestration vegetative roof area (total) food production area grass area (short + tall) deciduous area notation v vn dn vv hv h g af vf v h a g a asg atg ad a af asg + atg ad unit dollars dollars meters dollars meters stories months square meters dollars dollars stories square meters months square meters square meters square meters square meters square meters square meters square meters square meters 41 . input variables.Table 9 . notations.List of benefits.

William McDonough + Partners 6. of which the centerpiece is an undulating 6.000 sq ft) 15. CA 4.000 sq ft) semi-extensive green roof.1 Case Study 1 901 Cherry Avenue. CA office building 3 semi-extensive new construction 1997 GAP Inc. San Bruno. San Bruno.2 Summary of Project The 901 Cherry Avenue building houses offices of the clothing maker GAP Inc. including a café and a fitness centre.4. The building also includes a number of sustainable design features.400 m2 (69.1 Key Features location type of building number of storeys type of green roof roof construction completion date developer designer vegetative area depth of growing medium type of vegetation accessibility 901 Cherry Avenue.1.400 m2 (69. The building was commissioned by GAP above all to be a high quality work environment with a number of amenities. The roof features a 15 cm (6 ) growing medium planted with grasses and wildflowers native to the San 42 .1.2 cm (6 ) native grasses and wildflowers inaccessible 4.

A notable feature of the 901 Cherry building is that it is located under the flight path of air traffic landing at the San Francisco International airport and. is exposed to considerable overhead noise. as such. The green roof helps provide an acoustic barrier that attenuates sound transmission from aircraft taking off from and landing at the airport. the roof vegetation is highly selfsustaining. requiring minimal maintenance (Peck. 43 . 2008). Much like wild grassland.Francisco Bay Area.

400 m2 12 months 4. we let: vx = property value excluding the sound attenuation benefit ($) 44 .5.4 Variables See Table 9 for a definition of the variables.productive rooftop garden .1.1.recreational rooftop garden .1 sound attenuation Low attenuation scenario for air traffic Since the current property value includes the sound attenuation benefit.545.399 3 stories 6. v h a g = = = = US$55.view onto a green roof marketing sound attenuation food production stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration applicable          comment not accessible no food produced no taller building nearby data unavailable building lies under the runway flight path for the San Francisco International Airport no food produced 4.1.4.1.5 Calculations 4.3 Benefits Calculations benefit property value .

v ! vx  b and b ! 0.0165™ ! $55.0165 ) v ! v x ™(1 h v vx ! 0.570 b ! v  vx ! ($55.0165 1 (3) v ! v x  (0.0165™ vx h therefore vx ) h 0.399)($55.241.0165 1 h ($55.241.829  45 .545.545.570) ! $303.399) ! 0.

101 4.399) ! 0.High attenuation scenario for air traffic v ! vx  b and b ! 0.545.216 High-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario b ! $45.400m2 ) ! $293.0429 v ! v x ™(1 ) h v vx ! 0.0429™ vx h t erefore vx ) h 0.0429 1 h ($55.44/m2 ™ a ! $1.82/m2 ™ (6.44/m2 ™ (6.2 stormwater retention  Low-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario b ! $1.0429™ b ! v  vx ! ($55.5.399)($54.762.762.82/m2 ™ a ! $45.248 46 .0429 1 (3) ! $54.298 v ! v x  (0.545.1.400m2 ) ! $9.298) ! $783.

46/ a) ™ a ! ($28. which was determined to attenuate sound by 13 dB and which is the basis for calculating the upper bound of the value of this benefit.1.64ha) ! $18.6 Benefits Summary benefit sound attenuation stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration type one time one time annual annual value $303.4.1.216 and $293.248 $568/year $18/year 4. conventional stormwater infrastructure would not be 47 .3 air quality Low scenario (100% short grass coverage) b ! ($0.5.829 $783.21 Note: only the low scenario is calculated as it is known that the green roof is covered only with short grasses 4.101 $9. Given that there is relatively little precipitation in the San Francisco Area.7 Observations  The value of the sound attenuation benefit is estimated to be between $303. This corresponds almost exactly to thickness of the thicker. 150 mm substrate tested by Connelly and Hodgson (2008).1. The value of the benefit is likely to be in the upper range given that the thickness of the green roof substrate is 15.248.5.0074/m2 ™ mont s)™ g™ a ! ($0.46/ a) ™ (0.829 and $783.  The value of the stormwater benefit is estimated to be between $9.101.0074/m2 ™ mont s)™(12mont s)™(6. and given that the building is in a relatively low-density suburban setting.400m2 ) ! $568 Note: only t e low scenario is calculated as it is known t at t e green roof is covered only wit s ort grasses 4.216 $293.4 GHG sequestration Low scenario (100% grass coverage) b ! ($28.2 cm.1.

Thus. the value of the stormwater benefit is likely to be in between the bottom and middle of this range. If other types of plants were present. pollution mitigation and GHG sequestration would most likely be higher.  The pollution mitigation and GHG sequestration benefits were estimated to be worth $568 and $18 per year respectively. such as deciduous bushes or trees. 48 . As this green roof has 100% grass cover. only the lower bound calculation methods were used to estimate the values of these benefits.particularly expensive in this case.

Vancouver.4.100 sq ft) 46 cm (18 ) primarily herbs.2.1 Key Features location type of building number of storeys type of green roof roof construction completion date developer designer vegetative area depth of growing medium type of vegetation accessibility 900 Canada Place Way.2 Case Study 2 Fairmont Waterfront Hotel.1 m2 (2.2. Vancouver.2 Summary of Project The Fairmont Waterfront Hotel is a luxury hotel on the downtown Vancouver waterfront. a green roof with ivy and pea gravel paths was initially installed on the large third floor terrace on the building s south side. the hotel has a total of 23 storeys. BC 4. some flowers. fruits and vegetables accessible to hotel staff and guests 4. replaced by herb garden in 1994 Canadian Pacific Hotels (now Fairmont Hotels) Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership 195. The hotel designers 49 . When the hotel was built in 1991. BC hotel 23 intensive new construction ivy garden 1991. adjacent to the Canada Place cruise ship terminal and the Waterfront train station and transit terminal.

Several species of decorative and edible plants are grown as well (Jamieson. rooms on the north side already had views into the harbour and the mountains in the distance. and grapes. facing directly into the garden 50 .productive rooftop garden applicable   comment not recreational not accessible to tenants/owners of surrounding properties. The majority of the species grown are herbs but the garden also produces leafy green vegetables such as chard. plums. The garden is maintained year round and harvested between late march and late fall by the hotel s restaurant staff. arugula. The garden is divided into 11 plant beds in which over 60 species were grown in the 2008 season. applies only to the host property tested on Pricewaterhouse Coopers Place at 250 Howe.recreational rooftop garden .000. 2003).view onto a green roof  . The southern portion of the terrace was converted to an herb garden in 1994 at a cost of C$25.intention was to provide pleasant views for occupants of the rooms on the south side of the high-rise tower above the terrace. The herb garden was implemented on the south terrace because sun exposure was not sufficient elsewhere. and Chinese greens. as well as a few small fruits such as strawberries.2. The produce is used primarily in the hotel restaurant but consumers also include hotel staff and patrons. 2008). 4.3 Benefits Calculations benefit property value . bok choy. recognizing that it would also afford pleasant views for the neighbouring buildings (CMHC. The City of Vancouver supported the creation of the green terrace. The garden also provides habitat for a large number of small birds.

marketing sound attenuation food production stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration       data unavailable no significant source of overhead noise 4.4 Variables See Table 9 for a definition of the variables.2.2. v = C$116.5 Calculations 4. directly across from the herb garden (source: City of Vancouver) 4.000 vv = C$119.1 m2 g = 8 months * PricewaterhouseCoopers Place at 250 Howe Street.1 property value Host property with productive rooftop garden Since the current property value includes the benefit. we let: vx = property value excluding the benefit ($) 51 .000* h = 3 stories hv = 20 stories* a = 195.688.078.5.2.

000) ! 1.484.078.v ! vx  b and b ! 0.07™ v x ) v ! 1.593.112) ! $7.07™ v x therefore v ! v x  (0.07($108.888 View onto a green roof: Whole building gain in property value Since the current property value includes the benefit.112 b ! 0.07 ! $108.07™ v x vx ! v 1.484. we let: vnx = property value of the neighbouring excluding the benefit ($) 52 .07 ($116.

000)($115.03825™ vnx vnx ! b ! v v  vnx ! ($119.856) ! 1.278.594) ! $4.2 food production Low scenario High scenario £ and hv  h ™ vnx hv hv  h ™ vnx ) hv (20)(3) ™ vnx ) (20) therefore vv 1.5.v v vnx  b b ! 0.2.688.045™ v v ! vnx  (0.03825 ! $115.045™ ! vnx  (0.406 4.03825 ($433.409.593 53 .278.045™ v v ! 1.

4.2.5.3 stormwater retention Low-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario

High-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario

4.2.5.4 air quality Low scenario (100% short grass coverage)

High scenario (100% deciduous tree coverage)

4.2.5.5 GHG sequestration Low scenario (100% grass coverage)

High scenario (100% deciduous coverage)

54

4.2.6 Benefits Summary benefit property value (host) property value (neighbour) food production stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration

type one time one time annual one time annual annual

value $7,593,888 $4,409,406 $3,121 - $31,210 $281 - $8,939 $11.54 - $18.73 $0.56 - $0.76

4.2.7 Observations  The property value benefit of $7,593,888 that accrues to the hotel seems realistic. The PricewaterhouseCoopers Place across the street from the herb garden was calculated to receive a boost in property value on the order of $4,409,406, also seemingly realistic.  The production food production value was estimated to be between $3,121 and $31,210. Given that the garden produces herbs, lettuces, and flowers primarily, all of which have a high market value, the total value of production is likely to be at the upper end of this range. The stormwater management benefit is estimated to range between $281 and $8,939. Given that the building is located in an extremely dense urban environment with very high land values, low cost stormwater management solutions (which are land intensive) are not an option. For this reason, the value of the benefit is likely to be at the upper end of the range in this case. The value of the air quality benefit is estimated to be between $11.54 and $18.73. Given the prevalence of leafy plants, the value is likely to tend towards the upper range. The GHG sequestration benefit is estimated to be worth between $0.56 and $0.76. Given that garden includes mostly small plants and few bushes and trees, the value of the benefit is likely to tend towards the lower end of the range.   

55

4.3 Case Study 3 401 Richmond, Toronto, ON

4.3.1 Key Features location type of building number of storeys type of green roof roof construction completion date developer designer vegetative area depth of growing medium type of vegetation accessibility

401 Richmond Street West, Toronto, ON commercial 4 semi-intensive retrofit intensive portion built in 1998; extensive portion added 2005 Urbanspace Property Group intensive portion by Margaret Zeidler and Monika Kuhn; extensive portion by Xero Flor 603.9 m2 (6,500 sq ft) intensive; 241.5 m2 (2,600 sq ft) extensive; 65.0 m2 (700 sq ft) greenhouse intensive portion made up of containers of various depth; extensive portion is 5 cm (2 ) deep intensive portion has flowers, vines, and bushes; extensive portion is covered in sedum accessible to the general public 56

In 2008. Later. milliners. The rooftop was already a popular gathering space for the building s tenants. The building underwent major refurbishment over next few years. residents living in the 14-storey District Lofts building. was added in 2000. a further 241. A 65. In 1998. galleries.4. The building s 18. arts organizations. purchased the building.3. providing publicity for Urbanspace Property Group. 2008).9 m2 (6. a 603.2 Summary of Project The 401 Richmond building was originally constructed in 1899 and housed a factory producing lithographed tinware.000 sq ft) floor area now houses over 140 artists and entrepreneurs.600 sq ft) of the roof were covered with a lightweight extensive green roof system. The species were selected primarily for their decorative value (Urbanspace Property Group. musicians. The building was expanded between 1903 and 1923. and vines. architects.580 m2 (200. The 401 Richmond roof garden has attracted a considerable amount of attention from the media in Toronto. directly across Richmond Street. and indirectly for the building s tenants. The building changed hands several times in the postwar era and was slated for demolition when Toronto impresarios. 57 . the City of Toronto awarded Urbanspace Property Group a Green Toronto Award for the 401 Richmond roof garden. According to an employee at Urbanspace. in 2005.500 sq ft) cedar deck was constructed on a portion of the roof and covered with numerous planters with flowers. The roof garden was informally initiated in 1995 on top of the third floor roof on the south side (back) of the property. including fine artists. say that they enjoy the view onto the 401 Richmond roof garden.0 m2 (700 sq ft) greenhouse. consisting of a 2-inch growing medium planted with sedum (Urbanspace Property Group. spearheaded the development of the garden. a plant aficionado.5 m2 (2. 2007a). the company that owns and manages the building. the Zeidler Family. which serves as a winter nursery for some of the plants. A group of residents at District Lofts was reportedly inspired to create their own rooftop garden and contacted Urbanspace to obtain information for this purpose. bushes. The property manager. filmmakers. 2007b). taking on it current letter A floor plan (see aerial photo below). The initiative has yet to be realized. and magazines (Urbanspace Property Group. designers.

3 spots see calculation below 58 .view onto a green roof .4 m2 (= 603.778/spot from Table 3 2.4. West primarily recreational.productive rooftop garden marketing sound attenuation food production stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration applicable          comment tested on a loft condominium unit at 388 Richmond St. currently no food production no source of significant overhead noise currently no food production 4.923.000 C$296.4 Variables See Table 9 for a definition of the variables.5 m2) 7 months 0 note: there has been no known radio coverage of 401 Richmond $250/spot from Table 3 0 $2.recreational rooftop garden .500* 845. v vv a g pradio rradio tradio ptv rtv ttv = = = = = = = = = = C$13.3.3.3 Benefits Calculations benefit property value .9 m2 + 241.000 assumption $2.

4 inches see calculation below l = $392/inch from Table 3 * Sale price of a condominium loft unit at 388 Richmond West with a view onto the 401 Richmond roof garden (source: REMAX) 4.3.1 property value View onto a green roof: Single unit gain in property value Since the current property value includes the property view benefit.5.500)($272. we let: vnx = property value of the unit with a view excluding the benefit ($) v v ! vnx  b and b ! 0.5 Calculations 4.482 Host property with recreational rooftop garden Since the current property value includes the property value benefit. we let: vx = property value excluding the benefit ($) 59 .500) ! 1.09 ! $272.pprint = $100 assumption rprint = 190.3.09™ vnx ) v v ! 1.09™ vnx therefore v v ! v vnr  (0.018) ! $24.09™ vnx vnx ! vv 1.018 b ! v v  vnx ! ($296.09 ($296.

5 X 5 Conv.5 Discount factor (D) 1 1 1 1 1 Column Inches 34 27.11 (13.0 21. factor 2 0.923.379.3 2.v ! vx  b and b ! 0.0 12.000) ! 1.11™ v x ) v ! 1. factor 1/min Discount factor (D) 0.5 2 0.543.756 4.2 marketing  Table 10 Media Coverage of the 401 Richmond Green Roof in Toronto TELEVISION Station Vision TV Program Recreating Eden Type of mention factual Dimension 23 min Conv.243 b ! 0.5 0.3 60 .11(12.3 PRINT Source The Globe and Mail The Globe and Mail The Globe and Mail The Globe and Mail The Globe and Title "A garden rooted on the rooftop" "Zeidler combines building and activism" "The places that mattered to Jane Jacobs" "Growing an Eden up near heaven" "Growing an Eden up Type of mention article picture picture article picture Dimension 17 9 X6 6 X4 21.771.5.11™ v x v vx ! 1.5 8.0 43.3.513) ! 1.11™ v x therefore v ! v x  (0.11 ! 12.1 Total Spots 2.

44/m2 ™ (845.5 3.736.1 1.3)]tv [($100) ($392)(190.000) ($2.4m2 ) ! $1.5 2 0.0 2.0 11.5.5 X 3.80 ! $83.1 0.3 0.5 2.736 61 .217 High-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario b ! $45.40 $74.3.5 1.1 0.82/m2 ™ a ! $45.Mail Toronto Star Toronto Star Toronto Star Toronto Star Toronto Star Toronto Star Toronto Star Eye Weekly Now Magazine Green Living Magazine Green Living Magazine Our Neighbourhood The Liberty Gleaner Your Source Magazine near heaven" "It's easier being green" "Rooftop relief" "Rooftop relief" "Feeling the need for green" "Office oasis" "Office oasis" "Gardens in the sky yield earthly delights" "Look up.25 0.9 7.1 0.82/m2 ™ (845.0 16.5 1.7 190.4)]paper ! 0 $8.8 1.126 4.4 1.389.3 stormwater retention Low-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario b ! $1.5 3.9 3.4m2 ) ! $38.0 0.7 1.5 2 2 2 2 2 0. look way up" "Best Free Hangout" Green Toronto Award Nominations "A roof that's a view" Arts Feature "Green groceries" Rooftop gardens sentence article picture article article picture article article article article article picture article article 1 sentence 1 7.4 3.5 2 17 5.778)(2.44/m2 ™ a ! $1.25 0.5 X 4.5 2 2 Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 1 9 X 5.5 2 2 0.0 2.4 Source: Urbanspace Property Group b ![pradio  rradio ™tradio ][ptv  rtv ™ttv ][ppaper  rpaper ™ l] ![(0) ($250)(0)]radio [($2.0 0.1 0.

126 $1.736 $43.08454ha) ! $2.6 Benefits Summary benefit property value (host building) type one time value $1.46/ ha) ™ (0.5 GHG sequestration Low scenario (100% grass coverage) b ! ($28.01 4.0074 / m2 ™ months) ™ (7months) ™ (845.379.4m2 ) ! $71.5.756 property value (neighbouring condo unit) marketing stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration one time one time one time annual annual $24.3.0120/ m2 ™ months)™(7months)™(845.79 .217 .482 $83.41 High scenario (100% deciduous coverage) b ! ($39.3.3.11/ ha) ™ (0.46/ ha) ™ a ! ($28.31 4.5.79 High scenario (100% deciduous tree coverage) b ! ($0.4m2 ) ! $43.$38.$3.31 62 .0120/ m2 ™ months)™ g™ a ! ($0.4 air quality Low scenario (100% short grass coverage) b ! ($0.11/ ha) ™ a ! ($39.01 $2.08454ha) ! $3.$71.4.41 .0074 / m2 ™ months) ™ g ™ a ! ($0.

. The GHG sequestration benefit is estimated to be worth between $2. Given that the building is located in an extremely dense urban environment with very high land values. sedum on the extensive portion).217 and $38. the 401 Richmond property has enjoyed an estimated $83. The stormwater management benefit is estimated to range between $1.736.756 that accrues to the owner of 401 Richmond seems realistic.79 and $71. Given that the garden includes a mix of bushy plants.379. low cost stormwater management solutions (which are land intensive) are not an option.  Since the construction of the rooftop garden. Given the prevalence of bushes and vines and the relatively small area of the extensive portion of the roof.482 attributed to its view onto the 401 Richmond rooftop garden.126 in free publicity. some small trees and various small plants (i.    63 . the value of the benefit is likely to be at the upper end of the range in this case.01. For this reason.41 and $3. the value of the benefit is likely to tend towards the middle of the range. The sale price of a condominium unit in the District Lofts building across the street was estimated to include a benefit of $24.3.e. The estimate appears to be realistic.4.7 Observations  The property value benefit of $1. the value is likely to tend towards the upper range.31. The air quality benefit is estimated to be worth between $43.

3 m 64 . IL 4.1 Key Features location 6034 North Broadway. IL type of building supermarket.4.5 to 4 ) type of vegetation various herbs and vegetables accessibility accessible to project volunteers only 2 (800 sq ft) planned Phase II expansion.760 sq ft)* depth of growing medium 1.4 Case Study 4 Rooftop Victory Gardens. Chicago. former auto mechanic shop number of storeys 1 type of green roof intensive roof construction retrofit completion date 2006 developer Urban Habitat Chicago and True Nature Foods designer Dave Hampton / Echo Studio vegetative area 163.5 m2 (1. * Includes 74.3 cm to 10.2 cm (0.4. Chicago.

the UK. The garden takes its name from the fact that the same site was used as a victory garden during the World Wars. The garden s peak growing season is between May and August. the first phase of the garden was implemented in October 2006. snap peas. No other financing was provided. wheat. collard greens. After over a year of research and design. So-called victory gardens or war gardens were planted at private residences in the US. onions. The first harvest occurred the following summer. mushrooms.000 grant from the City of Chicago Green Roof Grants Program towards the realization of the project. Urban Habitat Chicago (UHC). The project has been the subject of news reports in local. The produce grown during the 2007 and 2008 seasons was mostly distributed among project volunteers and some was sold at the store below (UHC. bell and chili peppers.4. an organic food cooperative and neighbourhood recycling centre in the Edgewater district on the north side of Chicago. 2008). 65 . basil. horseradish.2 Summary of Project The Rooftop Victory Garden is hosted by True Nature Foods. In addition. green beans. dandelions. marigolds. and zucchini. potatoes. lavender. clover. undated). various tomatoes. According to the UHC. Species grown have so far included: amaranth. the project was developed through volunteer labour and pro-bono architectural consultations. thyme. the Rooftop Victory Gardens have become the poster child for the City of Chicago's Green Roof Grants Program. burdock. initiated the project in 2005. sage. UHC was awarded a $5. The species are rotated depending on the season. cleome.4. and a variety of grasses have been planted to help establish the growing medium and attract beneficial insects. mustard greens. a local non-profit group promoting sustainable practices in urban environments. national and even some international media (UHC. cosmos. buckwheat. eggplant. and Canada during the wars to reduce pressure on the public food supply.

66 .

view onto a green roof .4.4.3 Benefits Calculations benefit property value .productive rooftop garden marketing sound attenuation food production stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration applicable          comment tested on residential property at 1214 W Norwood St.1 property value View onto a green roof: Whole building gain in property value Since the current property value presumably includes the benefit of a view onto a green roof. v = US$107.871 vv = US$433.recreational rooftop garden . insufficient data no source of significant overhead noise 4.856* d = 11 m h = 1 storeys hv = 2 storeys* a = 163.5 Calculations 4.5. we let: vnx = neighbouring property value excluding the benefit ($) 67 . directly behind the True Nature Foods property (source: Cook County Assessor s Office.4 Variables See Table 9 for a definition of the variables.4.5 m2 g = 7 months * Four-unit residential property at 1214 W Norwood St. not recreational assumed to accrue to host and to neighbouring properties.4. tested on residential property at 1214 W Norwood St.4. 2009) 4..

0225 ! $424.309) ! $9.0225™ vnx vnx ! vv 1.309 b ! v v  vnx ! ($433.v v ! vnx  b and b ! 0.045™ v v ! 1.856)($424.0225 ($433. we let: vx = property value excluding the benefit ($) 68 .045™ ! vnx  (0.856) ! 1.546 Host property with productive rooftop garden Since the current property value includes the productive green roof benefit.045™ hv  h ™ vnx hv hv  h ™ vnx ) hv (2)(1) ™ vnx ) (2) therefore v v ! vnx  (0.

07 ! $100.07™ v x therefore v ! v x  (0.660 69 .871) ! 1.814 b ! 0.856) ! 1.07($11.05 ($433.07™ v x ) v ! 1.05 ! $413.05($413.07 ($107. we let: vnx = neighbouring property value excluding the benefit ($) v ! vnx  b and b ! F ™ vnx therefore v ! vnx  (F ™ vnx ) v ! vnx [(0.196 b ! 0.v ! vx  b and b ! 0.07™ v x vx ! v 1.500) ! $7.057 Property neighbouring with a productive rooftop garden Since the current property value includes the productive green roof benefit.602.05)™ vnx ] v ! 1.05™ vnx vnx ! v 1.196) ! $20.

4.0074 / m2 ™ months) ™ (7months) ™ (163.3 stormwater retention Low-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario b ! $1.44/m2 ™ (163.5m2 ) ! $7.82/m2 ™ a ! $45.5m2 ) ! $8.289 High scenario b ! ($20/m2 ™ month) ™ g ™ a =($20/m2 ™ month) ™ (7months)™ (163.5m2 ) ! $2.4 air quality Low scenario (100% short grass coverage) b ! ($0.47 70 .4.0074 / m2 ™ months) ™ g ™ a ! ($0.5.890 4.5.82/m2 ™ (163.44/m2 ™ a ! $1.5m2 ) ! $22.491 4.4.4.5m2 ) ! $235 High-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario b ! $45.5.2 food production Low scenario b ! ($2/m2 ™ month) ™ g ™ a =($2/m2 ™ month) ™ (7months) ™ (163.

491 $8.289 $22. It should be noted that the garden is not designed 71 .46/ ha) ™ (0.057 $20.5m2 ) ! $13.46/ ha) ™ a ! ($28.4.High scenario (100% deciduous tree coverage) b ! ($0. was assumed to benefit from being close to what is more or less a community garden.890 $235 $7.0120/m2 ™ months)™ g ™ a ! ($0.660 $9.4.47 High scenario (100% deciduous coverage) b ! ($39.660 from its proximity to the garden. which affords a considerably smaller benefit of $9.546. The 1214 W Norwood building also has a view onto the garden. at 1214 W Norwood.01635ha) ! $0.01635ha) ! $0. This assumption implies that the residents of 1214 W Norwood are able to participate in the gardening activities at True Nature Foods and they receive part of the garden s yield.64 4.11/ ha)™ (0.47 $13.5 GHG sequestration Low scenario (100% grass coverage) b ! ($28.47 $0.4.7 Observations  The property value benefit of $7.057 that accrues to the True Nature Foods store seems realistic.546 $2.73 $0. gaining as much as $20.0120/m2 ™ months)™(7months)™(163.6 Benefits Summary benefit property value (host) property value (neighbour) proximity to productive garden property value (neighbour) view onto green roof marketing food production stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration type one time one time one time one time annual one time annual annual value $7.5.11/ ha)™ a ! ($39. The residential building behind True Nature Foods.73 4.64 4.

64. tending towards the higher end.5 Case Study 5 The Louisa. OR 72 . the value of the benefit is likely to be in the middle of the range. the value is likely to tend towards the upper range. The GHG sequestration benefit is estimated to be worth between $0. Given that the building is located in a medium-density urban area with moderate land values. Given the prevalence of leafy plants. Given that the garden produces many vegetables.491. some below grade stormwater retention infrastructure is likely to be needed. the value of the benefit is likely to tend towards the lower end of the range. The stormwater management benefit is estimated to range between $235 and $7. The production food production value was estimated to be between $2.    for visual appeal and therefore it is questionable whether the view benefits apply in this case. For these reasons. the value of the benefit is likely to be in the middle of the range.47 and $13. including inexpensive staples but also some high value-added species such as herbs and lettuces.47 and $0. 4.289 and $22. The air quality benefit is estimated to be worth between $8. high cost (below grade) stormwater management solutions are unlikely to be necessary. Given that garden includes mostly small plants.890.73. Portland. being an urban environment. At the same time.

296 sq ft) extensive.4. a development firm specializing in mixed-use.5. The Louisa building is composed of a large podium at the base. These are two storeys higher than the garden as they sit on top of two-storey townhouse units facing into the garden. The Louisa was built to meet the US Green Building Council s strict LEED criteria for new buildings. Both the intensive and extensive portions are planted with drought-tolerant native species. takes its name from the defunct brewery that once occupied the site. In the 2007. 749.1 Key Features location type of building number of storeys type of green roof roof construction completion date developer designer vegetative area depth of growing medium type of vegetation accessibility 123 Northwest 12th Avenue. and a tower set at the back of the podium. OR residential 18 semi-intensive new construction 2005 Gerding Elden Development Walker Macy 584. Its intensive and extensive green roofs are among its many green features. 73 . which can withstand Portland s relatively dry summers with minimal watering (Peck. The project.2 cm (4 ) to 61. The garden is flanked on either side by non-accessible extensive green roofs (292. which covers five city blocks.8 m2) portion of the roof is an accessible recreational rooftop garden with intensive vegetation. The larger (749. which have earned it a rating of LEED-Gold the second highest sustainability rating given by the Green Building Council.0 cm (24 ) drought tolerant native species (grasses and bushes) accessible to tenants of The Louisa only 4. situated in the historic Pearl District of downtown Portland. which contains the bulk of the apartments.5.071 sq ft) intensive 10.8 m2 (8. The property was developed and is owned by Gerding Elden. The green roof features both extensive and intensive components. Portland. The green roof is situated on top of the podium and can therefore be viewed directly from at least half of the apartments in the tower. The Louisa is part of the Brewery Blocks redevelopment project.2 Summary of Project The Louisa is a residential high-rise apartment building with 242 apartments and ground floor retail.9 m2 (6. sustainable urban development. 2008). the Green Roofs for Healthy Cities annual award for best intensive residential green roof project was conferred upon the Louisa.5 m2 each). which houses the retails spaces.

74 .

3 Benefits Calculations benefit property value .9 m2 + 749.5.00 h = 2 hv = 18 a = 1.view onto a green roof marketing sound attenuation food production stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration applicable          comment no food produced from upper floors of the Louisa data unavailable no source of significant overhead noise no food produced 4.924.4 Variables v = US$56.000. we let: vx = property value excluding the view benefit ($) 75 .5.000.5.8 m2) g = 9 months 4.4.5.recreational rooftop garden .5.924.5 Calculations 4.productive rooftop garden .00 vv = US$56.1 property value View onto a green roof: whole building gain in property value Since the current property value includes the view benefit.7 m2 (= 584.334.

045™ v v ! 1.045™ ! v x  (0.04™ v x vx ! vv 1.924.924.385 Host property with recreational rooftop garden Since the current property value includes the property value benefit.734.v v ! vx  b and b ! 0.615) ! $2.045™ hv  h ™ vx hv hv  h ™ vx ) hv (18)(2) ™ vx ) (18) therefore v v ! v x  (0.04 ! $54.189.000) ! 1.615 b ! vv  v x ! ($56.000)($54.04 ($56.734. we let: vx = property value excluding the benefit ($) 76 .

11 (56.5.7m2 ) ! $1.117 4.11™ v x v vx ! 1.5.89 77 .82/m2 ™ (1.922 High-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario b ! $45.2 stormwater retention  Low-cost stormwater retention infrastructure scenario b ! $1.882) ! 5.3 air quality Low scenario (100% short grass coverage) b ! ($0.82/m2 ™ a ! $45.11 ! 51.156 4.0074 / m2 ™ months) ™ g ™ a ! ($0.000) ! 1.11™ v x therefore v ! v x  (0.334.7m2 ) ! $61.282.11™ v x ) v ! 1.5.44/m2 ™ a ! $1.44/m2 ™ (1.0074 / m2 ™ months) ™ (9months) ™ (1.11(51.7m2 ) ! $88.5.v ! vx  b and b ! 0.334.641.882 b ! 0.282.334.924.

22 4.89 .22 4.334.13347ha) ! $5.7m2 ) ! $144.46/ ha) ™ (0.$144.11/ ha) ™ a ! ($39.13347ha) ! $3.15 $3.11/ ha) ™ (0.641.156.4 GHG sequestration Low scenario (100% grass coverage) b ! ($28.5.718.333.5.$5.0120/m2 ™ months)™ g™ a ! ($0. The two benefits added together would thus yield a total property value benefit of $11. It is plausible to argue that these two benefits are additive. If the rooftop were on top of the building. low cost stormwater management 78 .922 .117 stormwater retention air quality GHG sequestration one time annual annual $1.46/ ha) ™ a ! ($28.5.487. worth $9.385.15 4.7 Observations  Two types of property value benefits can accrue to the Louisa property: a benefit due to having an accessible recreational rooftop garden. worth $2. we would still estimate a property value of benefit of $9. affording no views from within the building itself.189.333.5.80 High scenario (100% deciduous coverage) b ! ($39.385 $5.0120/m2 ™ months)™(9months)™(1.676. and a benefit resulting from close to half the units in the Louisa having a view onto the rooftop garden.$61. Given that the building is located in a very dense urban environment with very high land values.High scenario (100% deciduous tree coverage) b ! ($0.487.  The stormwater management benefit is estimated to range between $1.6 Benefits Summary benefit property value (view) property value (accessible recreational garden) type one time one time value $2.156 $88.189.922 and $61.80 .

with both mixed grassy and leafy vegetation. the value of the benefit is likely to tend towards the middle of the range. Given that the roof is semi-extensive. Given that the roof is semi-extensive. The GHG sequestration benefit is estimated to be worth between $3. The air quality benefit is estimated to be worth between $88. with both mixed grassy and leafy vegetation. For this reason.15. the value of the benefit is likely to be at the upper end of the range in this case.22. the value of the benefit is likely to lay in the middle of the range. 79 .  solutions (which are land intensive) are not an option.80 and $5.89 and $144.

3. developers.5% property value (portion above green roof) up to 11% property value up to 7% property value up to 7% property value up to 5% property value up to 2% property value see Table 3 $2-$20/m per growing month 1. municipality one-time $1. Some of these assumptions.3 Marketing Food production property owner tenants.5 Conclusions This report has provided evidence that soft benefits produce economic advantages for individual property owners. and a short statement of the valuation method appear in Table 11. independent of area public access.1.1.44/m2 to 2 $45. and society at large.1 3. along with the beneficiaries.Summary of Soft Benefit Valuations Section 3.2 3.82/m 80 .5 Stormwater retention developer.4 Sound attenuation one-time 3.7L/m2 retention capacity one-time one-time one-time one-time one-time one-time ongoing 3. These are methods that can be used by property owners. each floor is worth an equal portion of the total property value. municipalities. Table 11 .1 Error! Reference source not found. municipal officials.6% to 4.3% property value of top floor 2 Beneficiaries Assumptions Type Valuation recreational garden productive garden property owner property owner neighbours (adjacent) neighbours (150 m) neighbours (300 m) independent of area occupant access.3 Benefit Category Property Value view onto a green roof property owner* and/or neighbours independent of area one-time up to 4. and other stakeholders with information that is often readily-at-hand. Despite the fact that the benefits depend on the local context. independent of area public access. independent of area comparable to free publicity excludes labour and material costs affects top floor only. we have provided heuristic methods to estimate the economic value associated with seven soft-benefits. independent of area public access. architects. property owner property owner 3. The reader should keep in mind the assumptions that had to be made in order to arrive at these quick calculation methods. independent of area but assume extensive coverage 42. benefiting period.

28% of property value. region. it is estimated to be worth 0. In the 401 Richmond case.6 Air quality municipality. also a one-time benefit. while those with rooftop food gardens gain 7% in property value. region municipality. Section 4. As most of the North American population lives in places where the growing season is 81 . whereas in the case of the True Nature Foods Victory Garden.6% of property value in this case.9% of the property value. In general.2% to 6. this benefit only arises if there is a significant source of overhead noise. Neighbours of both types of green roofs also stand to benefit significantly from their presence. Among the one-time benefits proposed here.3) suggests that it is relatively small 0. the valuations returned by applying the methodologies seem to be of a reasonable magnitude. Buildings with views onto a green roof could gain up to 4.6% to a 4. the food production benefit is much more valuable than the air quality and GHG sequestering benefits.7 GHG sequestration ongoing *If the green roof can be seen from at least part of the host property The case studies presented in this report show that the proposed valuation methodologies can be applied in real-life situations without requiring large (or difficult to obtain) data inputs. for example. while those adjacent to rooftop food gardens could gain from 2% to 7% (depending on distance from the building with the rooftop garden). planet ongoing $521/ha to $839/ha per year $28/ha to $39/ha per year 3. Where ongoing benefits are concerned. We propose that the value of the food produced on a rooftop garden is worth $2 to $20 per square metre per month in the growing season. True Nature Foods has low property value but a relatively large roof and the stormwater benefit is therefore much larger relative to property value. Sound attenuation offers one-time benefits on a similar order of magnitude.01% and 0. Properties with accessible green roofs are subject to a 11% property value premium. It should be noted that the sum of the all the property value gains accruing to neighbouring properties could be considerably larger than the value of the benefit accruing to the host property. As for the marketing benefit. The value of the stormwater management benefit varies considerably when viewed as a fraction of property value.3% property value premium on the value of the top floor. it is estimated to be worth between 0. ranging from a 1. The observations presented at the end of each case study should help the reader interpret the results and judge how best to apply the methodologies in their own context.5% of property value (depending on how many floors have a view of the greenroof). the property value benefits are by far the most significant. This benefit is not tied to property value but rather to the area of the green roof.3. according to our methods of estimation. such as air traffic or an elevated train nearby. However. the experience of the 401 Richmond building in Toronto (Case Study 3.

Finally. we did not account for the extra costs involved in creating a green roof compared to a conventional roof.47-$13.000 in 2008). it is almost meaningless to include them in an assessment of the benefit values for individual green roofs. In Case Study 4. In places with a year-round growing season.000 (C$2. the benefit could be worth up to $240/m2 per year. Nor did we include the higher property taxes that might accrue to buildings whose property values have been increased due to the presence of a green roof. while air quality improvement is worth $11. 82 .0039/m2 per year.73 per year and GHG sequestration is worth a mere $0. For example. they are rough estimations based on a number of assumptions that are reasonable in most cases but may not be applicable in specific contexts. The user is asked to use their own best judgment as to whether and how the assumptions made and range of conditions covered in this report can be usefully applied or adapted to their own unique situation. Most importantly. Bating et al (2005) calculated that if all flat rooftops across the City of Toronto were extensively greened. Given how small the air quality and GHG sequestration benefits are. food production is estimated to be worth $3. we did not account for direct inputs such as the cost of materials and labour that go into food production.0028/m2 to $0.at least 6 months long. food production is estimated to be worth $2.0521/m2 to $0. the air quality benefit is worth between $0. Changes in the assumptions will of course lead to a different evaluation of benefits.289 to $22.700. In Case Study 2.890 per year. while air quality improvement is worth $8. In contrast. on the True Nature Foods Rooftop Victory Garden. such as in the southern coastal states. the benefit is therefore worth at the very least $12/m2 of rooftop growing area per year. Also.64 per year. Both of these benefits would be more meaningful if calculated for numerous green roofs covering a substantial portion of a neighbourhood or city. the annual cost savings attributable to reduction in air pollution would amount to US$1. It is also important to keep in mind when using the calculation methodologies presented in this report that we did not account for any of the costs involved in producing the benefits.210 per year.970.0839/m2 per year and the GHG sequestration benefit is worth $0. the report provides calculation methods for a range of greenroof conditions.73 per year and GHG sequestration is worth a mere $0. as reported above.47-$0.56-$0.76 per year.54-$18. These are meant to serve as benchmarks only and of course do not cover all potential situations.121 to $31. The difference between food production and air quality/GHG benefits is well illustrated by the two case studies that feature rooftop food production (Case Studies 2 and 4). Readers are reminded that the methodologies offered here are heuristic in nature. on the Fairmont Waterfront Hotel herb garden.

this is the first attempt in the growing literature on green roofs to offer a means for calculating the value of a range of soft benefits associated with the use of the technology. the goal of this report was to allow users to make rough calculations of benefits without undertaking a major research effort. then it has served its purpose. For the most part. To our knowledge. The sole exception is the marketing benefit. Future research may not only allow us to refine the approaches offered here but to expand the range of soft benefits covered to include. building height. and so on. Clearly. for example. If this report has helped put us on this path. 83 . habitat creation and community building. Our experience with the case studies suggests that most green roof property owners do not have precise information on media coverage.As already noted. this has been achieved: the equations require data that is usually readily available such as property value. roof area. if they track it at all. which requires detailed information on publicity gained due to the green roof. Future research might address this by tracking media coverage across many green roof projects and generating a more generic formula for estimating the value of the marketing benefit. however. it is not the last word.

org 416-595-5900 x 25 Rich McDonald P-Patch Program Manager Department of Neighborhoods City of Seattle 84 .Interviewees Michelle Bates-Benetua Lettuce Link Program Manager Solid Ground michelleb@solid-ground.jamieson@fairmont.9 PROUD-FM robertlotz@hotmail.com 604-691-1991 x1611 Emily Lake Director of Urban Agriculture Urban Habitat Chicago emilyhlake@gmail.com 250-360-1100 x 227 Neil Jamieson Executive Sous Chef Fairmont Waterfront neil.org 206-694-6754 Martine Desbois Coordinator of Sustainability Initiatives Dockside Green mdesbois@docksidegreen.com 416-948-7944 Erin MacKeen Communications Director Urbanspace erin@urbanspace.com Robert Lotz Advertising Sales Representative 103.

macdonald@seattle.rich.ca 250-380-7278 85 .gov 206-386-0088 Sky Seeley Sales Coordinator Dockside Green sky@docksidegreen.

A.ca/cityhall/currentprojects_dockside.pdf). Barrs. Banting. & Keeler.baylocalize. P. Champ. Development Department. Doshi. I.. & Konopacki. Missios. 350-363.. (2002).org/webgallery/thumbnails. & Brown. Report on the Environmental Benefits and Costs of Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto.cmhcschl. S. Retrieved from: http://www.Bibliography Akbari. Brown.. Holland-Barrs Planning Group in Association with Lees + Associates. Vancouver.. Fairmont Waterfront Hotel Green Roof Herb Garden Case Study. Li.toronto.php?album=48&page=2).gc. Streamlined energy-savings calculations for heatisland reduction strategies. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.pdf. Boyle. D. (2002). Journal of Environmental Management 87. B. (2003). The Effect of Road Traffic on Residential Property Values: A Literature Review and Hedonic Pricing Study. Currie.victoria. (2000). LBNL Paper #47307.. A.caa. J. R. Bay Localize (2008). Driving Costs. (2008). Au. 86 . Canadian Automobile Association (2008). P. K. Bay Localize Web Gallery True Nature Foods Rooftop Victory Garden. Dockside Development. H..A. City of Victoria (2005). 2008 Edition. M. Bateman. CA.ca/en/inpr/bude/himu/inbu/upload/Fairmont-Waterfront-Hotel. Day.. British Columbia. Life-cycle cost benefit analysis of extensive vegetated roof systems. T.shtml. (2003). K. From the CMHC Innovative Buildings series (http://www. A Primer on Non-market Valuation.. Report prepared for the City of Toronto and Ontario Centres of Excellence Earth and Environmental Technologies (OCE-ETech) (http://www. Webpage (http://www. Dordrecht. & Verrati.ca/greenroofs/pdf/fullreport103105. A... Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley. B. Carter.. Southeast False Creek Urban Agriculture Strategy. Lake.ca/documents/DrivingCostsBrochure-2008-eng-web. & Lovett. Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe. H. I. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2003). Master Development Agreement.pdf). (2005). Community Food Security Coalition. Edinburgh: Scottish Office. Retrieved from: http://www. T.

ca/Portals/57ad7180-c5e749f5-b282c6475cdb7ee7/LIBRARY_Plans_documents/GRReport2005Complete. Connelly. J.pdf).html). University of Manitoba.pdf). Toronto. & Hodgson. (2001).cgi/esthag/2008/42/i06/abs/es0706652. Acoustics Week in Canada. Farber. Department of Landscape Architecture. Public document (http://www. R. Economic Benefits of Natural Green Space Protection..org/files/Conservation/DSF-Greenbelt-web. 2155-2161 (http://pubs. 25(1). Environmental Science Technology 42(6). Currie. Adrieans. In Proceedings from Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference 2005. Grasso.B. Air Pollution Mitigation with Green Roofs Using the UFORE Model. Public document (http://www.Field Test Results.. (2008). 409-422. (2008). B. R. Canada s Future: Appreciating the Value of the Greenbelt s Eco-Services. S. M. B. de Groot. The value of the world s ecosystem services and natural capital. Estimates of air pollution mitigation with green plants and green roofs using the UFORE model. (2008). Master s thesis dissertation. Winnipeg. Ontario s Wealth. P. & Bass.acs. et al. C. B. Vancouver.. D.on. Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff. Clark.waterloo. Green Roof Valuation: A probabilistic economic analysis of environmental benefits. (1992). Sound Transmission Loss of Extensive Green Roofs . Rethinking the Urban Epidermis: a study of the viability of extensive green roof systems in the Manitoba capital with an emphasis on regional case studies and stormwater management.city. Clark. The POLIS Project on Ecological Governance and Smart Growth BC.. Ecological Economics. Optimization of Green Roofs for Air Pollution Mitigation. In Groningen.City of Waterloo (2005). Costanza. Ryerson University.A. Washington DC. 87 . (2001). Functions of nature: Evaluation of nature in environmental planning. R. Managing Leisure 10(4). October 6-8. S. (2005). 203-21...org/cgibin/abstract. M. Manitoba. C. (1998). F. Urban Ecosystems 11. BC: Canadian Acoustical Association. Curran.A. M. (2005). B. De Groot.davidsuzuki. Currie. 3-15. d'Arge. Crompton. R. Hannon. (2005). 2008. Green Roof Feasibility Study and City Wide Implementation Plan. N. Cunnigham. Unpublished Master s Thesis. The Impact of Parks on Property Values: Empirical Evidence from the Past two Decades in the United States.. & Talbot. David Suzuki Foundation (2008).

Inc.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf20060511_7450_db 011. Washington. Adaptation and Vulnerability. An Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services. N. Richard and Rhoda School of Public Policy. Preliminary data summary of urban storm water best management practices.Department for Environment. 88 .pdf). (2008). The Economic Valuation of the Environment and Public Policy. Fankhauser. (2005). Report EPA-452/R-98 003A. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998).htm?campaign_id=rss_daily).F. Millennium Park: Economic Impact Study. UK. Cambridge. FIP. P. (1994).L Parry. (2006). Olivieri. and Section 126 Petitions. Media factsheet prepared by the Executive Sous Chef of the Fairmont Waterfront Hotel restaurant. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R. J. DC. (2007). 7-22. O. Report EPA 821-R-99-012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the NOx SIP Call. Goodman Williams Group and URS Corporation. The social costs of greenhouse gas emissions: an expected value approach. Zeroing on the Decision-Makers: Knowing the Potential Green Roof Client. Greening Rooftop for Sustainable Communities. Are DVRs killing network TV? Business Week. Do Parks Make Cents?: An Analysis of the Economic Value of Parks in San Francisco.P. Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Hendricks. Eds. Cheltenham. The Energy Journal 15(2). van der Linden and C. S. Quantifying our Quality of Life: An Economic Analysis of the East Bay's Unique Environment. Economic and Planning Systems. Summary for Policymakers. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1999). K. J. May 11 (http://www. 157 184.com/pdfs/0607/SC_Site_Design_Manual_Final_0207. Roof Top Herb Garden.businessweek. Hanson. UC Berkeley. Jamieson. Developments Protecting Water Quality: A Guidebook of Site Design Examples. Grover.scvurpppw2k. Hidano. (2000). & Associates.E. (EOA) (2007). (2002). Canziani. Cambridge University Press. Palutikof. (2005). (2007).J. M. N. Report produced for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (http://www. Edwards. Eisenberg. Inc. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts.

Toronto: Green Roofs for Healthy Cities.planning. The State-Of-The-Art on Economic Valuation of Noise. 5(1).htm). Reed. & Peck. and Kawamura. Patel. Journal of Extension .. (2008). Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the United States. Public report (http://www. C. (2002). Cell & Environment 21. (2001).pdf). J. Journal of Industrial Ecology.fed. A. & Callaghan. (1991). by province and territory (2006 Census). Measuring Urban Green. Plant. Itskowitz. A. (1999). 89 . Ontario Medical Association (OMA) (2000).. (2002). Public report (http://www. Kowal. Statistics Canada (2007).1/8754). (2008). R. S. Peck. 16-20 (http://www. Annual RECLAIM Audit Report for the 2005 Compliance Year. Web page (http://www40. Winter (http://www..nrs.gov/hb/2007/March/070334a.net/1721. Cambridge.html#_ftn1).. Integrated Tools Proceedings. (2001). & Crane.. 29 (4). D.htm) Miller. MIT Center for Real Estate (http://hdl. Idaho. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model: quantifying urban forest structure and functions. S. Greenbacks From Green Roofs: Forging a New Industry In Canada. Does It Really Pay to Be Green?: An Empirical Study of Firm Environmental and Financial Performance.gc. A. Environmental Pollution 116.htm). (1998). & Lenox. September.ca/l01/cst01/famil53b-eng. Frazão. Y. Takahasi. 381-389.org/phealth/icap. Economic Research Service.aqmd. Award Winning Green Roof Designs. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (2007). Nowak. Peck. 7-9. Gardening's Socioeconomic Impacts: Community Gardening in an Urban Setting. E. (2004).us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc212/gtr_nc212_714. The New Planner. D. S.fs. Final Report to European Commission DG Environment.org/thenewplanner/2008/win/measuringurbangreen. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. C. Morikawa. S.. Navrud. Innovative Buildings: Fairmont Waterfront Hotel. Peck and Associates.handle. The Illness Costs of Air Pollution in Ontario. D. MA. Valuing open space: Land economics and neighborhood parks.. 180 190. I. M. H..King. R. How much do Americans Pay for Fruit and Vegetables?. D.oma.. United Sates Department of Agriculture. Household size. Nowak. More than a 600-fold variation in nitrogen dioxide assimilation among 217 plant taxa. M.statcan. (1998). 105-116. & Crane.

I. Rooftop-integrated food production FAQ. & Gong.org/projects/true-nature-foods/).urbanhabitatchicago. Atmospheric Environment 42.pdf).. V. Intensive Roof Garden.Trust for Public Land (2008 a). How Much Value Does the City of Philadelphia Receive from its Park and Recreation System? Report for the Philadelphia Parks Alliance. True Nature Foods. The Wharton School. 2006 American Community Survey Data Profile Highlights. Webpage (http://www. Trust for Public Land (2008 b). The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformations in Philadelphia .. Quantifying air pollution removal by green roofs in Chicago.urbanhabitatchicago. Urban Habitat Chicago (undated). (2004). Webpage (http://www.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_g eoContext=01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_s se=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&d s_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=&_keyword=&_industry =).net/gardens/401%20Roof%20Garden%20Posters.401richmond. Extensive Roof Garden.net/building/). Q. J. 90 . Web page (http://factfinder. Urbanspace Property Group (2008). August 2008 White Paper prepared by IFC International. Urbanspace Property Group (2007b). Real Estate Economics 36(2). 7266-7273. Yu. Urban Habitat Chicago (2008). S.pdf). & Been. (2008). Poster prepared for Doors Open Toronto 2007 (http://www. Yang. Poster prepared for Doors Open Toronto 2007 (http://www. US Census Bureau (2006). (2008).census. University of Pennsylvania.401richmond.401richmond. 281-243.Identification and Analysis: The New Kensington Pilot Study . P. Quantifying the Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Urban Parks. Urbanspace Property Group (2007a). Voicu. 401 Richmond: Building.org/blog/rooftopintegrated-food-productionfaq/). Wachter.net/gardens/401%20Roof%20Garden%20Posters. The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighboring Property Values. Webpage (http://www.