Energy & Buildings 261 (2022) 111975

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

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

Measuring the economic value of green roofing in South Korea:

A contingent valuation approach
Qiang Ji 1, Hye-Jeong Lee 1, Sung-Yoon Huh ⇑
Department of Energy Policy, Seoul National University of Science & Technology, 232 Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 01811, South Korea

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

Article history: Green roofs mitigate the adverse effects of urbanization, and provide multiple social, economic and envi-
Received 3 November 2021 ronmental benefits. Many countries are taking bold initiatives to install green roofs to achieve these ben-
Revised 15 February 2022 efits. Considering the high construction and maintenance cost of green roofs, it is necessary to analyse the
Accepted 18 February 2022
economic value of green roof projects and to assess their economic feasibility. This study analyses the
Available online 21 February 2022
public’s willingness to pay for the building of green roofs in South Korea, using the contingent valuation
method. The results show that the public are willing to pay KRW 4,445 (USD 3.77) per household per
Keywords:
year, and the total annual economic value of South Korea’s green roof projects is estimated to be KRW
Green roof
Contingent valuation method
90.5 billion (USD 76.7 million). The results of a cost–benefit analysis show that, in the three cities for
Double-bounded dichotomous choice which the empirical analysis was carried out, the green roof project was only economically feasible for
Willingness to pay Seoul, which implies that the economic feasibility of green roof projects strongly depends on the size
Cost–benefit analysis and population of the city. Therefore, in terms of economic efficiency, it is desirable to implement such
projects mainly in densely populated areas.
Ó 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction various aspects including contributing to the solution of environ-

With the improvement of quality of life and increasing social
interest in sustainability, securing leisure areas and green spaces
in cities is an important issue. Due to the expansion of urban scale
and the growth of buildings and population in urban areas, urban
environmental problems are becoming increasingly serious, and
the improvement of the urban built environment is urgent [1].
Green roof projects have attracted attention from governments
as a form of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques [2–4].
Green roof projects, also called roof gardens or eco roofs, were
designed to encourage social, economic, and environmental bene-
fits by planting a variety of vegetation and plants on roofs [5].
Green roofs are an effective way to increase green area rates in
limited urban spaces, and not only save urban land, but also have
various effects such as environmental pollution reduction, climate
control, air purification, Urban Heat Island (UHI) mitigation,
building protection, energy efficiency increase, and noise reduction
[6–10]. For example, UHI may disappear if the green area in a city
reaches 70% [11]. Therefore, green roofing has a positive effect on
mental problems such as air pollution reduction [12–15].
Green roofing plays an important role in improving the quality
of the ecology and environment in the city.2 According to existing
studies, green roofing can reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration
by lowering the indoor temperature and increasing air humidity
[16,17]. Green roofing can also lower the surface temperature of
the roof, by reducing the indoor air temperature by 2°in summer
[18]. In terms of building energy efficiency, green roofing can reduce
annual energy demand by 6% as passive cooling effects are three
times more efficient than general loops [18]. The practice also
reduces summer cooling load by more than 6% and peak hour cool-
ing load in the upper floors by 25% [19]. In other words, green roof-
ing can reduce the power consumption of air conditioners, it also has
very high cooling effects, and can increase the comfort of the dwell-
ing [20,21]. According to Sailor [22], a 400 m2 area of green roofing
reduced the power consumption of houses by an average of 2% per
annum, and natural gas consumption decreased by an average of
9–11% per annum. In addition, green roofing has been reported to
have the effect of lowering the acidity of rainwater, reducing urban
stormwater runoff [23,24], and removing heavy metals [25].

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jiqiang1995@naver.com (Q. Ji), hyejlee@seoultech.ac.kr
2
(H.-J. Lee), sunghuh@seoultech.ac.kr (S.-Y. Huh). See Shafique et al. [5] for a comprehensive review of history, benefits,
1
Co-first authors. constituents, related policies, challenges and future prospective of green roof.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.111975
0378-7788/Ó 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Q. Ji, Hye-Jeong Lee and Sung-Yoon Huh Energy & Buildings 261 (2022) 111975

There are several disadvantages to consider before encouraging nomic value of green roof projects in monetary units, so that the
green roofs. Green roofs are more expensive than traditional roofs findings can be used as basic information for government min-
in terms of installation costs, maintenance costs, and labour (wa- istries and project officials to set the project direction and budget
ter, fertilizer, weeding, etc.) [5,26]. Roof greening involves instal- scale.
ling plants, soil, and structures on the roof. Structural support is
required as the roof must be strong enough to support the addi-
2. Material and methods
tional weight [26,27]. Another disadvantage is that the allowed
slope is limited. Green roofs can only be installed on flat or gently
2.1. Goods to be valued: Current status green roofs in South Korea
sloping roofs [28]. Although most green roofs have a root barrier
layer, the roots of plants sometimes penetrate the waterproof
It was around the mid-1990 s that discussions on green roofs
membrane and cause roof leakage, resulting in structural damage
began in South Korea. In the 2000 s, as environmental problems
[5,26,27]. As can be seen in various works, although green roofs
in urban areas were highlighted, relevant technologies became
have advantages and disadvantages, they are goods that play an
more applicable, and the advantages of green roofs became known,
important role in improving the ecology of a city, the urban envi-
specific projects were carried out. Among the cities of Korea, the
ronment, and the energy efficiency of buildings. Therefore, rooftop
city of Seoul has been the most active in promoting green roof pro-
greening plans are a part of the global Green New Deal
jects. Seoul has great potential for green roof projects, as its urban-
[29,30,31,32].
ized area is 364 km2, accounting for 60% of the total city area, and
With respect to green roofs that provide such a variety of ben-
its rooftop area is estimated as 166 km2, which is about 46% of the
efits, some papers analysed the willingness to pay (WTP) for green
urbanized area. The Seoul Metropolitan Government started the
roofing by applying the stated preference method as in this study.
green roof project in 2002, and by 2019 had invested approxi-
In the case of South Korea, Lee et al. [33] analysed the economic
mately KRW 71 billion, creating an area of green roofs of
value of green roofing by applying the contingent valuation
315,532 m2 (on 758 sites) [43]. In addition, the level of subsidy
method (CVM) to 500 people living in Seoul. Shin and Kim [34]
for green roofs was increased from 50% to 70% in 2021, and related
estimated the WTP for the aesthetic value and comfort of green
policies will be continuously promoted in the future. Compared to
roofing through CVM analysis for 103 practitioners in urban design
buildings without green roofs, the average surface temperature of
and administration related fields. Other foreign cases include WTP
buildings with green roofs was 3.1 °C lower and the buildings’
for urban green infrastructures (e.g., green roofs, green walls, and
cooling and heating energy was 12 to 15% less, on average. Build-
green lanes) [35], WTP for mitigation of heat island effects through
ings with green roofs are effective as a habitat for animals and
urban green infrastructures [36,37] and WTP for green roofs and
plants, and they help to prevent urban flooding [44]. Existing stud-
green walls [38]. In addition, there are many studies that per-
ies also show that green roofs in South Korea can save between 13
formed cost–benefit analysis (CBA) on green roofs [7,39,40].
and 26% of building energy per unit area [45], cost KRW 153 to 273
Among the existing studies, not many have been conducted
thousands/m2 depending on the structure [45], and lower the sum-
using South Korea as an empirical target. In addition, research
mer temperature by between 1 and 2 °C [46].
has been limited to a specific city, not nationwide. Thus, it is nec-
In South Korea, the building sector is responsible for about a
essary to study WTP estimation nationwide in South Korea. More-
quarter of the country’s indirect greenhouse gas emissions [47].
over, foreign research is difficult to compare directly because many
The South Korean government is trying to reduce greenhouse gas
factors, including the market, national support, and analysis tar-
emissions and improve the built environment through green roof
gets, are different from the situation in South Korea. Therefore, this
projects [32,42,47]. Specifically, several cities announced that they
study can enrich academic research by supplementing and adding
are being implemented green roof projects between 2020 and 2025
to existing and new research. Furthermore, this study can con-
[48,49,50]. In such a situation, this study estimates the mean
tribute to confirming the validity of government plans and policy
annual WTP per household for the green roof projects that are
guidelines by applying WTP results to CBA.
being implemented in South Korea between 2020 and 2025. Based
About 90% of the total population lives in urban areas, due to
on this, the economic feasibility of the green roof projects proposed
rapid urbanization in South Korea. However, urban forests that
by the South Korean government is assessed. The problem is that
can be enjoyed around living areas are severely insufficient [41].
green roofing is a non-market good that is not traded in the mar-
As a result, the South Korean government has specified its response
ket, and currently there is no revealed preference data such as
to the climate and environmental crisis by transforming the living
transaction records or market prices. Thus, a questionnaire survey
environment into green areas through the comprehensive plan for
was conducted to obtain data on the respondents’ stated prefer-
a South Korean version of the Green New Deal announced in 2020.
ences for green roof projects. In order to help respondents gain a
In addition, the government planned a green transition of urban,
better understanding while completing the survey, example cards
spatial, and living infrastructure, and a green architecture (green
consisting of pictures and photos were presented as an auxiliary
roofs, green walls) project [32,42]. Consequently, green roof pro-
material.
jects will be actively promoted in South Korea from a long-term
perspective.
It costs a lot to implement green roof projects. In particular, in 2.2. Survey and data collection
the case of South Korea, public finance is expected to be invested
in the majority of green roof projects in the future according to The survey was conducted for one month through a specialised
the Green New Deal plan. Thus, it is necessary to check the scale polling firm (Research Prime) from September 2020. This study
of the benefits resulting from green roof projects and the economic attempted to obtain data on respondents’ acceptance of green roof
feasibility of projects in advance. Since the government’s fiscal projects and their socioeconomic characteristics through a ques-
input may eventually be passed on to the public’s burden, evaluat- tionnaire survey. The number of samples was allocated in propor-
ing public WTP and the resultant economic value is important in tion to the number of households living in a total of 16 strata in
implementing government-related projects. Therefore, the purpose South Korea. The survey was conducted by selecting 1,000 house-
of this study is to estimate the economic value of green roof pro- holds nationwide through stratified random sampling. In order to
jects, to verify the economic feasibility of projects, and to outline achieve reliable results, it was limited to household owners or their
related implications. The results of this study estimate the eco- spouses aged between 20 and 65. Table 1, which summarises and
2
Q. Ji, Hye-Jeong Lee and Sung-Yoon Huh Energy & Buildings 261 (2022) 111975

Table 1 what a green roof is, what a green roof project is, and what its
Characteristics of the survey respondents. advantages are. In order to make it easier to understand the text
Characteristic Sample General population a of the questionnaire, the respondents were presented with both
Sample size 1000 51,829,023 a questionnaire and an example card, which gave information
Female 50.0% 50.1% through pictures.
Education level
High school and less 39% 40.0%
College and higher 61% 60.0% 2.3. Valuation technique: The contingent valuation method
Age b
20–29 3.4% 18.4% The stated preference methods have been widely applied to car-
30–39 22.5% 18.6%
rying out the measurement of the consumers’ WTP [53]. The CVM
40–49 28.4% 22.4%
50–59 32.6% 23.4% constructs a questionnaire for virtual markets and asks respon-
60–68 (60–64 for general population) 13.1% 17.1% dents about WTP for measures to improve the benefits or safe-
Region guards of specific environmental goods, or their willingness to
Seoul 22.2% 18.9% accept (WTA) in the case of the loss of environmental goods.
Busan 7.4% 6.6%
Finally, the economic value of the environmental goods is esti-
Daegu 4.9% 4.7%
Incheon 5.9% 5.8% mated through the respondents’ WTP or WTA. The CVM has eval-
Gwangju 3.3% 2.8% uated public value by examining public WTP on government
Daejeon 3.3% 2.9% plans or policies, and has already proven its utility in numerous
Ulsan 2.0% 2.2%
papers [54,55,56]. This study benefitted from the effectiveness
Sejong 0.5% 0.7%
Gyeonggi-do 25.3% 26.2%
and accuracy of the methodology application in accordance with
Gangwon-do 2.5% 3.0% the guidelines of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
Chungcheongbuk-do 2.6% 3.1% tration (NOAA), a representative guideline for CV research [57].
Chungcheongnam-do 3.6% 4.1% A variety of elaborations can be applied to CVM, and this study
Jeollabuk-do 3.4% 3.5%
used a dichotomous choice (DC) method. A DC method simplifies
Jeollanam-do 2.2% 3.6%
Gyeongsangbuk-do 4.8% 5.2% the respondent’s valuation tasks and minimises non-response,
Gyeongsangnam-do 6.1% 6.5% thereby avoiding outliers and reducing related biases [58]. Respon-
Montly Household income dents can answer DC questions more easily than open-ended ques-
c
Less than KRW 4 million 31.5% n/a
tions [59]. This study asked respondents’ WTP by selecting double-
KRW 4–5 million 20.5%
KRW 5–6 million 17.7%
bounded dichotomous choice (DBDC) among the DC questions.
KRW 6–7 million 14.5% DBDC improves point estimates and reduces variance compared
More than KRW 7 million 15.8% to single-bounded dichotomous choice (SBDC). Moreover, DBDC
Notes: a General population statistics are extracted from the Korean Statistical
is statistically more efficient [60]. The interviewer randomly
Information Service [52]. b Age distribution for general population was limited to selects one of the suggested bid amounts and presents it to the
the heads of household for a better comparison. c This is the only average monthly respondent. If the respondent answers ‘Yes’ (or ‘No’) to the pro-
income figure per household that could be found: KRW 5.0 million in 2020. posed bid amount, the interviewer asks the respondent the same
question with a high bid amount (or a relatively low bid amount).
The payment vehicle plays an important role in CVM research.
compares the characteristics of sample respondents and the target
This study established a payment vehicle as income tax. Income
population, shows that the sample represents the population.
tax is the most familiar means for respondents, and is commonly
The questionnaire consists of three parts. The first part intro-
used in the literature to estimate the economic value of public pol-
duces the purpose of this study and related information. The
icy and public works [37,61,62]. The frequency of payment is once
related information explains that green roofs are attracting atten-
a year and the payment period is set at five years. This study used
tion as improvements to the urban environment because they
seven multiple bid amounts to minimise starting point bias, con-
can mitigate the heat island effect caused by rapid urban develop-
sisting of KRW 4,000, KRW 6,000, KRW 8,000, KRW 10,000, KRW
ment, and can improve urban energy efficiency. In addition, the
12,000, KRW 14,000, and KRW 18,000.
information explains that if the government promotes the green
roof project for the next five years, the green roof area would be
increased to 141,702 m2. 3. A model of WTP and calculation of cost-benefit
The second part comprises questions about annual WTP per
household for implementing green roof projects. In order to anal- 3.1. DBDC–CV model and spike model
yse the economic value of the green roof project, the questionnaire
asks whether the respondents are willing to pay an additional The DBDC–CV survey provides two bid amounts to respondents.
charge once a year for the next five years. In addition, the question- The i th responder answers ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as to whether to pay the
naire explains that the cost paid by the respondents would be an first bid amount (Ai ). Ai is the first bid amount and AUi ðAi < AUi Þ is
addition to the household’s income tax, and that the income of the second bid amount presented to the respondent who answered
the respondents is limited and has to be spent on various items ‘Yes’ to the first bid amount. ADi ðAi > ADi Þ is the second bid amount
(food, clothing, housing, etc.). The survey suggests that the respon- presented to the respondent who answered ‘No’ to the first bid
dents should answer cautiously, as the projects promoted by the
amount. If the i th responder answers ‘Yes’ to the first bid amount,
government may not have direct benefits for them.
the second bid amount (AUi ) will be twice as large as the first bid
The third part includes questions relating to socioeconomic
amount. On the other hand, if the i th responder answers ‘No’ to
variables in the respondent’s household. For example, it includes
questions about the number of family members and the respon- the first bid amount, the second bid amount (ADi ) will be half of
dent’s education level, age, monthly household income, and area the first bid amount. As a result, four response types (‘yes–yes’,
of residence. This questionnaire structure corresponds to a stan- ‘yes–no’, ‘no–yes’, and ‘no–no’) can be observed and expressed as
dardised CV questionnaire [51]. Additionally, the example card, four indicator variables (IYY
i , IYN
i , INY
i , INN YN
i ) . For example, I i is
presented to help respondents understand, is a card explaining expressed as IYN
i ¼ 1 (i th respondent’s answer is ‘yes-no’), and
3
Q. Ji, Hye-Jeong Lee and Sung-Yoon Huh Energy & Buildings 261 (2022) 111975

has a value of 1 if the condition in parentheses is satisfied, and 0 if project is implemented. Benefits can be estimated from the respon-
not satisfied. dents’ WTP for implementing the project. Existing literature esti-
This study applies the spike model proposed by Kriström [63] mating WTP as benefits can be easily found [65,66,67,68]. First,
when dealing with zero WTP. Respondents who answered ‘No– the annual mean WTP per household (KRW 4,445 per household
No’ to the DBDC–CV model above ask the third follow–up question, per year) obtained from the DBDC–Spike model is divided by the
‘Are you not willing to pay even KRW 1 (a penny)?’ Therefore, it is area (141,702 m2) presented in the first questionnaire to obtain
possible to distinguish between a true zero WTP sample and a pos- the annual mean WTP per household per unit area (KRW 0.031
itive WTP sample greater than zero and less than the proposed bid per household per year per m2). Second, the total annual benefits
amount. If you answer ‘yes’ to the additional question, the respon- is obtained by multiplying the annual mean WTP per household
dent’s WTP (W i ) has range 0 < W i < ADi and is expressed as INNY
i . per unit area (KRW 0.031 per household per year per m2) by the
On the other hand, if you answer ‘no’, W i ¼ 0 and it is expressed as green roof area (m2) of each region (Seoul, Sejong, Daegu) and
INNN . That is, INN can be classified into INNY and INNN . the number of households in each region. According to Statistics
i i i i
The respondent’s WTP is defined as a random variable with Korea, the number of households by region is 4,043,957 in Seoul,
cumulative distribution function (cdf). This is denoted by 131,679 in Sejong, and 979,852 in Daegu [52].
GC ðA; hÞ . C is the random variable for WTP. A is the suggested
bid amount and h is the parameter to be estimated. N means the
size of the sample. The log–likelihood function for the DBDC-CV 4. Results and discussion
spike model is as follows by classifying the response result of the
i th responder. 4.1. Survey results and estimation results of willingness to pay
8 U
9
>
> IYY
i ln½1  GC ðAi ; hÞ >
> The response distribution according to bid amounts are pre-
>
> >
>
>
> þI YN
ðA U
; hÞ  ðA ; hÞ >
> sented in Table 2. As the bid amount increased, the number of
>
> ln½G C G C i >
>
XN < i i
D
= respondents with ‘Yes–Yes’ decreased, and the number of respon-
NY
lnL ¼ þI i ln½G C ðA i ; hÞ  G C ðA ; hÞ ð1Þ dents with ‘No–No–No’ increased. For example, 11.9% of the
> h i
i>
i¼1 >
> >
>
>
> þINNY
i lnGC ðADi ; hÞ  GC ð0; hÞ > >
>
>
respondents answered ‘Yes–Yes’ to the proposed bid amount of
>
> >
> KRW 4,000, and this fell to 4.2% from KRW 18,000. In addition,
: NNN ;
þIi ½GC ð0; hÞ the response of ‘No–No–No’ increased from 55.2% to 60.8%. Specif-
ically, 608 out of 1,000 respondents had zero WTP for green roof
Here, when h ¼ ða; bÞ , GC ðA; hÞ can be expressed by Equation
-1 projects, accounting for a very high proportion. The main reason
(2). The spike model is defined as ½1 þ expðaÞ .
for the refusal to pay was that green roof projects were the work
8 -1 of the government or real estate companies and building owners,
< ½1 þ expða  bAÞ
> if A > 0
so the people should not be responsible for funding them.
GC ðA; hÞ ¼ ½1 þ expðaÞ - 1 if A ¼ 0 ð2Þ
>
: Although 40% of the respondents were willing to pay, many
0 if A < 0 CVM empirical studies have found that more than half of the
 households taking part in the survey had no intention of paying
The mean WTP can be calculated as WTP ¼ ð1=bÞln½1 þ expðaÞ . for the projects to be evaluated [61,62,67]. Based on previous
If a is replaced by a þ X 0i b , where X i is the vector of the indepen- research cases, this study took a rather conservative approach
dent variable (including the suggested bid amount), and b is the and analysed the resistance responses (protest bids) as true zero
vector of the parameter to be estimated. This study can measure WTP responses.
the internal consistency and theoretical validity of modelling by In the DBDC–CV study, when goods subject to evaluation do not
estimating the model with covariates. contribute to the respondent’s utility, zero WTP is a basic solution
to maximise the utility of consumers [69]. Therefore, the attitude
3.2. Calculation of cost-benefit and acceptance of people with zero WTP should be considered
when enacting a policy related to green roof. It is necessary to
In this study, construction cost (Cost1) and operation and main- apply the spike model to deal with zero WTP, as a high proportion
tenance cost (Cost2) are considered to be project costs of green roof of the group constituting 60.8% was found to be not willing to pay
projects. In other words, Cost 1 is the average annual construction for green roof projects at all. Thus, this study applied the spike
cost of each city’s green roof projects. The average annual construc- model, as it is a model that can explicitly deal with zero WTP
tion cost is obtained by dividing the government’s planned input responses. The spike model is a model proposed and widely used
cost by the project period (for example: Seoul City’s five year in the CVM literature [61,62,63,67,69].
planned investment of KRW is 18.8 billion, 18.8/5 = 3.76 billion). In this study, one basic question was included in addition to the
Cost2 is the operation and maintenance cost borne by the building question asking about willingness to pay. In other words, one addi-
owner. The operation and maintenance cost of the green roofing is tional question was asked about whether the respondents were
set at KRW 12,058/m2 per number of times, and the frequency is interested in environmental issues. Since the green roof project is
set to three times per year [34]. For example, the green roof area closely related to the environment, it was necessary to check
of Seoul will grow to 75,000 m2 over the next five years. Thus this whether the interest shown by the respondents affected their
is calculated as KRW 12,058/m2  75,000 m2  3 = 2.71 billion. WTP. In the existing literature, it can be seen that the greater peo-
According to the government plan, the operation and maintenance ple’s interest in the environment, the more positive their payment
cost is set to be maintained for 30 years from the year following the intention is [67,70,71]. The survey found that 70% were interested
completion of the green roof construction. This is because a typical in the environment (strongly agree: 12.7%, agree: 57.3%), and only
building lifespan in South Korea is suggested to be 30 years [64]. 4.4% answered that they were ‘‘not interested” in the environment
This study estimated the total annual benefit for each city by (disagree: 4.4%, not at all: 0%). The remainder, 25.6%, answered
calculating the benefit per unit area. ‘‘Benefit per unit area” refers ‘‘neither agree nor disagree”. Therefore, it was found that more
to the benefit that the respondents would obtain if the green roof than half of the respondents were interested in the environment.
area was increased by 1 m2. In this study, ‘‘Benefits” refers to the Based on the data collected through the survey, the results of
benefits that the general public can obtain when the green roof estimating WTP are presented in Table 3. All estimated coefficients
4
Q. Ji, Hye-Jeong Lee and Sung-Yoon Huh Energy & Buildings 261 (2022) 111975

Table 2
Distribution of responses by bid amount.

Initial Bid Number of Responses (%)

(KRW) Yes–Yes Yes–No No–Yes No–No–Yes No–No–No Sample size
4,000 17(11.9) 22(15.4) 11(7.7) 14(9.8) 79(55.2) 143(100.0)
6,000 9(6.3) 23(16.1) 17(11.9) 16(11.2) 78(54.5) 143(100.0)
8,000 8(5.6) 13(9.1) 14(9.8) 14(9.8) 93(65.0) 142(100.0)
10,000 4(2.8) 25(17.5) 8(5.6) 17(11.9) 89(62.2) 143(100.0)
12,000 9(6.3) 14(9.8) 12(8.4) 22(15.4) 86(60.1) 143(100.0)
14,000 6(4.2) 13(9.1) 6(4.2) 22(15.4) 96(67.1) 143(100.0)
18,000 6(4.2) 10(7.0) 6(4.2) 34(23.8) 87(60.8) 143(100.0)
Total 59(5.9) 120(12.0) 74(7.4) 139(13.9) 608(60.8) 1,000(100.0)

Table 3
Estimation results of the spike model.
b
Variables Coefficient estimates
Constant **
0.4505 (-6.91)
Bid amount a 0.1109 **(-16.20)
Spike 0.61076 **(39.43)
Mean WTP per household per year KRW 4,445 (USD 3.77)
t-value 14.22 **
95% confidence interval c KRW 3,885 to 5,116 (USD 3.30 to 4.34)
Number of observations 1000
Log–likelihood 941.66
Wald statistic (p-value) d 202.44 (0.000)
Note: a The unit is 1,000 Korean won, and the exchange rate is USD 1.0 = KRW
1178.8 at the time of the survey. b The t-values are reported in parentheses beside
the coefficient estimates. **Statistical significance at the 1% level. c The confidence
intervals are computed by use of Krinsky and Robb’s [75] approach with 5,000
replications. d The null hypothesis is that the estimated equation is insignificant and
the corresponding p-value is presented in the parentheses beside the statistic.
are statistically significant at a significance level of 1%. The sign of
bid amount coefficient is negative. This is a common phenomenon
in CVM surveys, meaning that as the bid amount presented
increases, the probability of responding with ‘Yes’ decreases. The
estimated coefficient of spike is 0.61076, which is similar to
60.8% of respondents who say ‘No–No–No’ in Table 2, implying
that the use of the spike model is appropriate.
The annual mean WTP for green roof projects is estimated as
KRW 4,445 (USD 3.77) per household. It is necessary to review
the level of WTP analysed, compared with the existing research
results in similar fields. Although detailed comparisons are difficult
due to the lack of CVM studies associated with green roofing, the
approximate level is nonetheless understandable. Compared to
the findings of Lee et al. [33] (Economic value of green roof:
KRW 10,741) and Shin and Kim [34] (Aesthetic value of green roof:
KRW 4,074, Convenience of green roof: KRW 4,302) and their
domestic research cases, the results of this study are within the
scope of the two findings. Given the values alone, the results of this
study are close to those of Shin and Kim [34].
According to Zhang and He [72], most of the cases of green roof
research between 2000 and 2019 are Chinese papers. In addition,
since there are WTP research cases similar to this study among
the Chinese studies, the results of this study and of the Chinese
cases can be compared. Zhang et al. [35] analysed the annual
WTP for types of small urban green infrastructure (a green roof, a
green wall, and a small green lane in Guangzhou) as 24.5 Chinese
yuan (USD 3.8), and zero WTP was calculated at about 24%. Zhang
et al. [37] concluded that the annual WTP for green roof construc-
tion to mitigate UHI was 148.582 Chinese yuan (USD 22.446), and
that zero WTP was 57%. As mentioned earlier, direct comparison is
difficult, but it can be confirmed that the WTP found in this study is
close to the range of the Chinese case. However, since the zero WTP
was high in this study (at 60.8%), South Korea needs to take action
to implement support policies, such as promoting the social accep-
tance of green roofs and expanding incentive systems such as tax
reduction.
This study complied with the NOAA guidelines and the CVM
guidelines for preliminary feasibility studies of domestic projects.
In addition, this study conducted a face-to-face survey of 1,000
households nationwide to estimate WTP for green roof projects,
which contributed to addressing the limitations of existing studies
(sample bias and information bias [73,74]) and yielding reliable
results.
In addition, a model including covariates was estimated to anal-
yse the effect of individual respondents’ characteristics on their
WTP. The definition and statistics of the variables are given in
Table 4.
The results including covariates are presented in Table 5. The
estimated coefficients of bid amount, monthly household income
and age were statistically significant at the significance level of
1%, and education coefficient at the significance level of 5%. The
higher the education level and the higher the monthly household
income, the higher the probability of answering ‘Yes’ to the given
bid amount. Educational level and household income are impor-
tant variables affecting the WTP, and the results of this study are
the same as those of Borzino et al. [36], Zhang et al. [37], and
Kim et al. [76]. Therefore, it can be said that green roof projects
are normal goods, in that the WTP for green roof projects increases
as the average monthly household income increase. The younger
the respondents are, the more likely they are to say ‘Yes’ to a given
bid amount. This is probably because older people are less likely to
live longer than younger people and less likely to receive environ-
mental benefits, and are therefore less willing to pay for environ-
mental goods [77]. In this study, since the gender variable is not
significant, gender has no direct relationship with the WTP. Thus,
it seems that there is no need to specifically consider gender when
establishing policies and public relations strategies.
One of the important objectives in conducting CVM studies is to
estimate the total WTP or aggregate benefit extended to the entire
population using the estimation results. In this study, the response
rate and sample recovery rate were 100% during the CVM survey.
Furthermore, as presented in Table 1, the representativeness of
the sample was verified because the social characteristics of the
survey subjects and the characteristics of the entire population
were similar. Thus, it is appropriate to estimate the total WTP, or
aggregate benefit, by extending the estimation result to the entire
population. The number of households stated by Statistics Korea in
2020 was 20,349,567 [52]. Therefore, the total WTP or aggregate
benefit can be calculated by multiplying the total number of
households in South Korea and the annual mean WTP per house-
hold. As shown in Table 6, the annual total benefit of green roof
projects in South Korea is KRW 90.5 billion (USD 76.7 million)
per year.

5
Q. Ji, Hye-Jeong Lee and Sung-Yoon Huh Energy & Buildings 261 (2022) 111975

Table 4 essary to evaluate the public level of acceptance and the economic
Definitions and sample statistics of the variables. value of the projects to verify the feasibility of green roof projects.
Variables Definitions Mean Standard Therefore, this study conducted CBA for green roof projects.
deviation South Korea is divided into a total of seventeen administrative
Gender The respondent’s gender (0 = female; 0.50 0.50 districts. Administrative districts consist of the capital (Seoul), six
1 = male) metropolitan cities (Busan, Daegu, Incheon, Gwangju, Daejeon,
Education The respondent’s educational level in 14.08 2.14 Ulsan), eight provinces (Gyeonggi-do, Gangwon-do,
years
Income The household’s monthly income before 4.94 1.98
Chungcheongbuk-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Jeollabuk-do,
tax (unit: million Korean won) Jeollanam-do, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Gyeongsangnam-do), one spe-
Age Age of the respondent 47.48 9.91 cial self-governing Province (Jeju Island), and one special self-
governing city (Sejong).
In this study, regions with high population density were first
Table 5 selected based on the population density (person per km2) of each
Estimation results of the spike model with covariates. administrative district surveyed by the Korea Statistical Informa-
Variables Coefficient estimates b tion Service [52]. Seoul ranked first and Busan ranked second. Next,
Daegu, Daejeon, Incheon, and Gwangju had similarly high popula-
Constant 1.2815 (-1.80)
Bid amount a 0.1153** (-15.56) tion density. The next ranking was Gyeonggi, Ulsan, and Sejong,
Gender 0.1222 (0.94) followed by a high population density. The rest of the regions were
Education 0.0837* (2.25) excluded from the screening because the population density was
Monthly household income 0.1301** (3.68) not high. As a result, the aforementioned nine areas were first
Age 0.0224** (-2.99)
selected. All nine regions are known as large cities in South Korea.
Spike 0.6138** (39.06)
Mean WTP per household per year KRW 4,231 (USD 3.59) Among the first selected regions, the secondary screening was
t-value 13.68 ** conducted as follows. Each local government should be imple-
95% confidence interval c KRW 3,692 to 4,912 (USD 3.13 to 4.17) menting a green roof project. And specific budgets and business
Number of observations 1000
plans for the project should be presented. It was selected for
Log-likelihood 914.02
Wald statistic (p-value)d 187.31(0.000) regions where specific project plans were presented, such as how
to present subsidies, how to support public and private buildings,
Note: a The unit is 1,000 Korean won, and the exchange rate is USD 1.0 = KRW
and how the area and duration of the project were set [48,49,50].
1178.8 at the time of the survey. b The t-values are reported in parentheses beside
the coefficient estimates. * and ** indicate statistical significance at the 5% and 1%
The main reason for selecting cities with specific plans is to per-
levels, respectively. c The confidence intervals are computed by use of Krinsky and form additional cost-benefit analysis in the future. As a result,
Robb’s [75] approach with 5,000 replications. d The null hypothesis is that the Seoul, Sejong, and Daegu were selected. All three regions were suit-
estimated equation is insignificant and the corresponding p-value is presented in able for this study because the population density per area is quite
the parentheses beside the statistic.
high and the project is being actively carried out in them. The rest
of the regions were excluded from the analysis due to unclear bud-
Table 6 gets and business plans of green roofing.
Estimation results of total willingness to pay (WTP). Therefore, this study analysed the economic feasibility of green
roof projects in Seoul, Sejong, and Daegu in South Korea. The three
Estimates 95% confidence
interval cities presented more detailed business plans including the project
area, project period, and budget compared to other cities
Mean annual WTP per KRW 4,445 (USD 3.77) KRW 3,885 to 5,116
household (USD 3.30 to 4.34) [48,49,50]. The summarized business plan is presented in Table 7.
Total annual WTP KRW 90.5 billion (USD 76.7 KRW 79.1 to 104.1 Thus, it is proposed that the results of CBA can be derived, and eco-
million) billion nomic feasibility can be compared, so this study is based on three
(USD 67.1 to 88.3 cities. Seoul, Sejong, and Daegu are all metropolitan cities in South
million)
Korea, with a large population and major urban environmental
problems.
As mentioned earlier, the targets of the green roof project are
4.2. Cost–benefit analysis of green roof projects public buildings and private buildings with a size of 30 m2 or more,
and the green roof projects are taking place from 2020 to 2025.
The cost of green roofing is relatively high compared to a com- Since most buildings in South Korea are built with a wide, flat roof,
mon conventional roof. Thus, it is necessary to check whether such the green roofs are designed in the form of a garden. Within the
additional expenditure can be covered by the economic benefits government budget, the cost of roof greening for public buildings
induced by projects. In addition, the government will actively push is borne entirely by the government, and up to 70% of the cost
for green roof projects in accordance with the government’s com- for private buildings is subsidized by the government. The total
prehensive plan for the Korean Green New Deal, and a huge project cost used in this study is the amount of support given by
amount of money will be invested in the government’s plan. In the government during the project period and paid from the
order for green roof projects to be carried out smoothly, it is nec- national budget. It is assumed that the operation and maintenance

Table 7
Green roof project plan by region.
a
City Year Budget Amount The number of projects Area The number of households
2
Seoul 2020–2024 KRW 188 billion 750 75,000 m 4,043,957
Sejong 2021–2025 KRW 200 billion 8 75,088 m2 131,679
Daegu 2020 KRW 12.23 billion 53 9,302 m2 979,852

Note: a The number of households statistic is extracted from the Korea Statistical Information Service [52]. The sources for green roof projects in three cities were in
[48,49,50].

6
Q. Ji, Hye-Jeong Lee and Sung-Yoon Huh Energy & Buildings 261 (2022) 111975

cost is borne by the owner of the building and is separate from the
subsidy for the green roof project. In other words, Cost 1 is the gov-
ernment subsidy required to create a green roof, and Cost 2 is the
operation and maintenance cost, borne by the building owner.
Based on the calculation method described in Section 3.2, the con-
struction cost (Cost 1), operation and maintenance cost (Cost 2),
and total annual benefit for each city were estimated, and the cal-
culated values are presented in Table 8.
In accordance with the Enforcement Rules of the Korean Corpo-
rate Tax Act (2019.3.20), the ‘Maintenance Period of Benefits for
Buildings, etc.’ (related to Article 15 [3]), the period of benefit gen-
eration (maintenance period) was assumed to be 30 years, and the
lifespan of the green roof was assumed to be the same as that of
the building [78]. In the analysis, the social discount rate proposed
by the Korea Development Institute (KDI) was 4.5%, and the anal-
ysis base year was set at the end of the previous year when the pro-
ject was launched (Seoul, Ulsan, Daegu: 2019, Sejong: 2020). In
other words, the cost–benefit analysis period of each regional pro-
ject is presented in Table 9.
Table 10 shows the economic feasibility of green roof projects in
three cities in South Korea. The total benefit–cost (B/C) ratio for the
three cities is 1.17, which was estimated to be higher than 1, and
the Net Present Value (NPV) is also determined to be more than
0, so the overall green roof projects are economical. However, if
the CBA results were subdivided by city, only the project in Seoul
secured economic feasibility.
Berardi et al. [79] and Tabatabaee et al. [80] reported that green
roofs have environmental benefits and are economically feasible.
When private and public benefits are combined, benefits outper-
form costs in most cases [7,81,82,83,84]. However, in the case of
this study, only Seoul’s project was shown to secure economic fea-
sibility, confirming that the economic feasibility of the project may
vary by region. In other words, the larger the city and the larger the
population, the higher the economic feasibility of the green roof
Table 8
Cost of roof greening and total annual benefits.
City Cost (billion) Benefit (billion)
Cost 1 Cost 2 Total Annual benefits
Seoul KRW 3.76 KRW 2.71 KRW 9.51
Sejong KRW 4.00 KRW 2.7 KRW 0.31
Daegu KRW 1.22 KRW 0.34 KRW 0.14
Note: Cost 1 = Annual average project cost (1 year). Cost 2 = Operation and main-
tenance cost (1 year). Benefit = total annual benefits.
project. Therefore, from an economic point of view, promoting
the project mainly in large cities with dense population is a way
to enhance the effectiveness of fiscal input. The results of the eco-
nomic feasibility may vary depending on the region because each
city has different values, populations, and financial conditions
related to green roofing. In the future, socio-economic and demo-
graphic characteristics are also needed for regional studies investi-
gating the urban environment.
In the CBA of Nurmi et al. [7], the B/C ratio was less than 1 but
slightly exceeded 1 in some regions. These results were similar to
those of this study. However, as stated by Nurmi et al. [7], if this
study could have found a way to quantify benefits such as sound
insulation, energy cost reduction, and air quality improvement
and could have included these in the benefits, a more sophisticated
CBA study could have been conducted. The green roof project
would then have been found to be a more economical project.
Betro et al. [39] and Mahdiyar et al. [85] also suggested that a green
roof is not economical. However, it has been proved that the lack of
economic feasibility can be overcome by reducing maintenance
costs, providing energy management benefits, and providing
incentives. There is existing research on tax reductions and incen-
tives by Bianchini and Hewage [40] and on a subsidy system by
Claus and Rousseau [86], and on this basis if the incentives, subsi-
dies, and energy-related benefits of green roofs are considered, the
economic feasibility of South Korea’s green roof project will also be
competitive. In addition, Manso et al. [87] stated that, in the post
COVID-19 situation, services such as green roofs promote the phys-
ical and psychological well-being of citizens, but concluded that
the main obstacles to installing green roofs are cost and mainte-
nance. Therefore, if South Korea prepares a service and support
programme for maintenance, in addition to cost support for the
current green roof project, the project will be more successful.
Green roof projects are greatly influenced by government poli-
cies [41,42,88,89]. Major countries such as South Korea, China,
Canada, and Germany are activating and legislating on green roof
projects [27,41,42,72,90]. In addition, since green roofs have a pos-
itive effect on citizens’ quality of life, personal satisfaction, and
psychological well-being, several pieces of literature suggest that
studies that consider publicity and benefits (revenues, subsidies,
tax incentives, and loan programmes) should be carried out
[27,91]. However, inefficient government policies can act as obsta-
cles to green roof projects [72,92–94]. Therefore, in order for South
Korea’s rooftop greening project to be economically viable and
socially acceptable, it is important to prepare a practical policy
foundation including aspects such as local publicity, a profit sys-
tem, and the expansion of support for private buildings.

5. Conclusions
Table 9
Period of cost–benefit analysis by region.
This study aims to elicit the public’s willingness to pay for
City Analysis period expanding green roof projects, and to analyses the economic feasi-
Project period Maintenance period bility of these projects. Specifically, this study aims to present the
implications for the Green New Deal plan that is being promoted in
Seoul 2020–2024 2025–2054
Sejong 2021–2025 2026–2055 South Korea. As a result of the analysis, the annual mean WTP per
Daegu 2020 2021–2050 household of green roof projects was KRW 4,445 (USD 3.77), and
the total annual WTP was estimated to be KRW 90.5 billion (USD

Table 10
Results of benefit and cost analysis.

(KRW billion) Benefit Cost NPV B/C

Seoul KRW 52 billion KRW 124 billion KRW 72 billion 2.39
Sejong KRW 53 billion KRW 4 billion KRW 49 billion 0.08
Daegu KRW 6 billion KRW 2 billion KRW 4 billion 0.33
Total KRW 111 billion KRW 130 billion KRW 19 billion 1.17

7
Q. Ji, Hye-Jeong Lee and Sung-Yoon Huh
76.7 million). As a result of conducting CBA for green roof projects
in three cities (Seoul, Sejong, and Daegu) in order to review their
economic feasibility, it was found that the project was only eco-
nomically feasible in Seoul.
The survey showed that South Koreans were generally inter-
ested in environmental issues, but the economic feasibility of the
green roof project differed depending on the number of people in
the city. In the social and public field, public relations are one of
the policies that change public behaviour and consciousness [47].
The more citizens who understand green roof projects, the more
rational decisions they can make to support their construction.
Therefore, if the government and local governments hold an exhi-
bition related to green roof projects to promote the direct and indi-
rect benefits of these projects through the media, this could help
raise the WTP for green roof projects per household.
In South Korea, subsidies for projects are provided differentially
by 50% to 70% by city. Seoul provides a 100% subsidy for public
buildings and a 70% subsidy for private buildings [78]. In order to
continue expanding green roof projects, in addition to subsidies,
providing additional incentives such as various tax reductions
and expansion of the loan system can also have a positive effect.
The low-interest loan system can improve the active participation
of business owners and construction companies in green roof pro-
jects. The results of this study can contribute as policy data to sup-
plement the financial support and incentive system related to
green roof projects.
This study contributes from an academic perspective by adding
new literature as there are few studies on WTP related to green
roof projects. In CV research, the design stage of the questionnaire
is very important. However, existing studies have some limitations.
Existing domestic papers were based on a regional survey rather
than a national survey, and the survey respondents were practi-
tioners rather than the general public. Therefore, this study
addressed the limitations of existing studies, a survey was carried
out in compliance with the guidelines of NOAA and KDI, and this
paper has contributed academically by increasing the reliability
of the research results and presenting differentiation from existing
studies.
This study has several limitations. CVM using stated preference
data designs a hypothetical situation, so it may not match a
respondent’s behaviour in a real situation [95]. Thus, it is necessary
to improve the limitations by conducting preliminary tests based
on more sophisticated assumptions that reflect the characteristics
of each region. For example, various regional characteristics, such
as the level of greening in each area, the height of buildings, and
the standard of buildings that can be greened on the roof could
be considered. As a result of CBA, it was concluded that the larger
the city and the larger the population, the more economical the
business could be. Further studies are needed to support these
results. In addition to the three cities currently analysed, if addi-
tional data can be obtained to compare more analytical cases, the
research results will be abundant. Moreover, if additional research
is conducted taking into account various factors, such as removal
cost and structural safety inspection cost during CBA, it would be
helpful to prepare detailed standards.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This study was financially supported by Seoul National Univer-
sity of Science and Technology.
8
Energy & Buildings 261 (2022) 111975
References
[1] K. Vijayaraghavan, Green roofs: A critical review on the role of components,
benefits, limitations and trends, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57 (2016) 740–
752.
[2] Z. Zahmatkesh, S.J. Burian, M. Karamouz, H. Tavakol-Davani, E. Goharian, Low-
impact development practices to mitigate climate change effects on urban
stormwater runoff: Case study of New York City, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 141 (1)
(2015) 04014043, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000770.
[3] W. Zhan, T.F.M. Chui, Evaluating the life cycle net benefit of low impact
development in a city, Urban For. Urban Gree. 20 (2016) 295–304.
[4] J.C. Tredway, D.G. Havlick, Assessing the potential of low-impact development
techniques on runoff and streamflow in the templeton gap watershed,
Colorado, Prof. Geogr. 69 (3) (2017) 372–382.
[5] M. Shafique, R. Kim, M. Rafiq, Green roof benefits, opportunities and
challenges–A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 90 (2018) 757–773.
[6] H. Doshi, S. Peck, Methods for estimating economic public benefits from
regional implementation of green roof technology: Working draft paper for
review, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, Working Draft Paper for Review 2013.
[7] V. Nurmi, A. Votsis, A. Perrels, S. Lehvävirta, Green roof cost-benefit analysis:
special emphasis on scenic benefits, J. Benefit-Cost Analys. 7 (3) (2016) 488–
522.
[8] J. Yang, Q. Yu, P. Gong, Quantifying air pollution removal by green roofs in
Chicago, Atmos. Environ. 42 (31) (2008) 7266–7273.
[9] D. Roehr, Y. Kong, Runoff reduction effects of green roofs in Vancouver, BC,
Kelowna, BC, and Shanghai, PR China, Can. Water Resour. J. 35 (1) (2010) 53–
68.
[10] E. Shin, H. Kim, Analysing green roof effects in an urban environment: A case of
Bangbae-dong, Seoul, J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 14 (2) (2015) 315–322.
[11] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). https://www.unep.org/
(accessed 16 November 2020).
[12] H.-S. Kim, J.-Y. Choi, E.-H. Shin, Economic analysis based on the type of green
roof initiatives-The case of Jung-gu, Seoul, J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Des. 30
(10) (2014) 159–167.
[13] N.H. Wong, D.K.W. Cheong, H. Yan, J. Soh, C.L. Ong, A. Sia, The effects of rooftop
garden on energy consumption of a commercial building in Singapore, Energy
Build. 35 (4) (2003) 353–364.
[14] M. Zinzi, S. Agnoli, Cool and green roofs. An energy and comfort comparison
between passive cooling and mitigation urban heat island techniques for
residential buildings in the Mediterranean region, Energy Build. 55 (2012) 66–
76.
[15] OECD, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Korea 2017. https://www.
oecd.org/korea/oecd-environmental-performance-reviews-korea-2017-
9789264268265-en.htm (accessed on 20 November 2020).
[16] M. Moghbel, R. Erfanian Salim, Environmental benefits of green roofs on
microclimate of Tehran with specific focus on air temperature, humidity and
CO2 content, Urban Clim. 20 (2017) 46–58.
[17] B. Dvorak, A. Volder, Rooftop temperature reduction from unirrigated modular
green roofs in south-central Texas, Urban For. Urban Gree. 12 (1) (2013) 28–
35.
[18] I. Jaffal, S.-E. Ouldboukhitine, R. Belarbi, A comprehensive study of the impact
of green roofs on building energy performance, Renew. Energy 43 (2012) 157–
164.
[19] S. Saiz, C. Kennedy, B. Bass, K. Pressnail, Comparative life cycle assessment of
standard and green roofs, Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (13) (2006) 4312–4316.
[20] U. Berardi, The outdoor microclimate benefits and energy saving resulting
from green roofs retrofits, Energy Build. 121 (2016) 217–229.
[21] Y. Zhang, L. Zhang, L. Ma, Q. Meng, P. Ren, Cooling benefits of an extensive
green roof and sensitivity analysis of its parameters in subtropical areas,
Energies 12 (22) (2019) 4278.
[22] D.J. Sailor, A green roof model for building energy simulation programs, Energy
Build. 40 (8) (2008) 1466–1478.
[23] D.J. Bliss, R.D. Neufeld, R.J. Ries, Storm water runoff mitigation using a green
roof, Environ. Eng. Sci. 26 (2) (2009) 407–418.
[24] L.I.U. Na-na, The review of ecological benefits for roof-gardening in China [J], J.
Changzhou Inst. Technol. 3 (2009) (In Chinese).
[25] J.C. Berndtsson, Green roof performance towards management of runoff water
quantity and quality: A review, Ecol. Eng. 36 (4) (2010) 351–360.
[26] V.W. Tam, J. Wang, K.N. Le, Thermal insulation and cost effectiveness of green-
roof systems: An empirical study in Hong Kong, Build. Environ. 110 (2016) 46–
54.
[27] M. Xiao, Y. Lin, J. Han, G. Zhang, A review of green roof research and
development in China, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 40 (2014) 633–648.
[28] A. Salter, Disadvantages of Green Roofs. https://www.hunker.com/12003790/
disadvantages-of-green-roofs (accessed 8 Dec 2021).
[29] L. DiCaprio, NYC’s green new deal, Sierra Club NYC group. https://atlantic2.
sierraclub.org/content/nyc%E2%80%99s-green-new-deal (accessed 8 Dec
2021).
[30] P. Pelous, Three ways to make the EU green deal a truly transformative agenda
for Europe in 2020, Knaufinsulation. https://www.knaufinsulation.com/news/
three-ways-to-make-eu-green-deal-a-truly-transformative-agenda-for-
europe-2020 (accessed 8 Dec 2021)
[31] E. Guaranta, A. Pistocchi, Green urban infrastructure and green roofs:
achievable benefits in the context of sustainable cities and the European
green deal. https://www.greenroofs.com/2021/06/22/green-urban-
Q. Ji, Hye-Jeong Lee and Sung-Yoon Huh
infrastructure-and-green-roofs-achievable-benefits-in-the-context-of-
sustainable-cities-and-the-european-green-deal/ (accessed 8 Dec 2021)
[32] GOV.KR. The Korean new deal: National strategy. https://www.gov.kr/portal/
ntnadmNews/2207711 (accessed 26 Oct 2020) (in Korean)
[33] J.H. Lee, U. Lim, M.S. Son, B.H.S. Kim, Economic valuation of green roof system
using contingent valuation method, J. Korea Plan. Assoc. 11 (2010) 137–148
(In Korean).
[34] E. Shin, H. Kim, Benefit–cost analysis of green roof initiative projects: The case
of Jung-gu, Seoul, Sustain. 11 (12) (2019) 3319.
[35] X. Zhang, Z. Ni, Y. Wang, S. Chen, B. Xia, Public perception and preferences of
small urban green infrastructures: A case study in Guangzhou, China, Urban
For. Urban Gree. 53 (2020) 126700, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ufug.2020.126700.
[36] N. Borzino, S. Chng, M.O. Mughal, R. Schubert, Willingness to pay for urban
heat island mitigation: A case study of Singapore, Climate 8 (7) (2020) 82.
[37] L.i. Zhang, H. Fukuda, Z. Liu, Households’ willingness to pay for green roof for
mitigating heat island effects in Beijing (China), Build. Environ. 150 (2019) 13–
20.
[38] I. Teotonio, C. Oliveira Cruz, C. Matos Silva, J. Morais, Investing in sustainable
built environments: The willingness to pay for green roofs and green walls,
Sustain. 12 (8) (2020) 3210.
[39] R. Berto, C.A. Stival, P. Rosato, Enhancing the environmental performance of
industrial settlements: An economic evaluation of extensive green roof
competitiveness, Build. Environ. 127 (2018) 58–68.
[40] F. Bianchini, K. Hewage, Probabilistic social cost-benefit analysis for green
roofs: A lifecycle approach, Build. Environ. 58 (2012) 152–162.
[41] Korea Forest Service. 2020 Urban forest landscape project plan. https://
www.forest.go.kr/kfsweb/cop/bbs/selectBoardArticle.do?nttId=3143446&
bbsId=BBSMSTR_1069&pageIndex=1&pageUnit=10&searchtitle=title&
searchcont=&searchkey=&searchwriter=&searchdept=&searchWrd=&
ctgryLrcls=&ctgryMdcls=&ctgrySmcls=&ntcStartDt=&ntcEndDt=&orgId=&mn=
NKFS_01_01 (accessed 16 November 2020) (In Korean).
[42] Korea policy briefing. I wonder! Korean New Deal. https://www.korea.kr/
fcatalog/ecatalog5.jsp?Dir=1041 (accessed 5 January 2021) (In Korean)
[43] Seoul Information Communication Plaza. Performance of green roof projects.
(2021) https://opengov.seoul.go.kr/public/view/?nid=19566355 (assessed 5
Jan 2022) (In Korean)
[44] W. Kim, Y. Cho, Plans to encourage green roofs for energy saving and
monitoring thereof, Seoul Development Institute, Seoul, 2008 (In Korean).
[45] J.H. Kim, Y.H. Yoon, Economic analysis and energy reduction by the types of
the green roof, Seoul Studies 12 (2) (2011) 125–140 (In Korean).
[46] C.-W. Lee, S.-B. Kim, H.-S. Moon, A study on the analysis of temperature
reduction effect by the types of the green roof, J. Korean Hous. Assoc. 22 (3)
(2011) 25–33.
[47] Ministry of Environment. Amendment to the basic roadmap for achieving the
national greenhouse gas reduction target in 2030. http://www.me.go.kr/
home/web/board/read.do?pagerOffset=1170&maxPageItems=10&maxIndex
Pages=10&searchKey=&searchValue=&menuId=&orgCd=&boardId=
886420&boardMasterId=1&boardCategoryId=&decorator= (accessed 20 Oct
2020) (in Korean)
[48] Seoul Urban Agriculture. https://cityfarmer.seoul.go.kr/brd/view.do?nttSn=
2443&key=1905228807693&pageIndex=1&sc=&sw=&tr_code=sweb (accessed
16 Oct 2020) (In Korean)
[49] Sejong Post. https://www.sjpost.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=54803
(accessed 16 Oct 2020) (In Korean)
[50] Colorful Daegu. Turn a desolate rooftop into a space where life lives and
breathes. 2020. http://info.daegu.go.kr/mnews/view.php?key3=246503
(accessed 30 Jan 2021) (In Korean)
[51] I.J. Bateman, R.T. B. Carson, Day, M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-
Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Özdemiroglu, D.W. Pearce, R. Sugden, J.
Swanson, Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual,
Publisher: Edward Elgar, London, UK, 200.
[52] Korean Statistical Information Service. http://kosis.kr (accessed 1 Oct 2020) (In
Korean).
[53] J.H. Kim, H.J. Kim, S.H. Yoo, Consumers’ willingness to pay for net-zero energy
apartment in South Korea, Sustain. 10 (5) (2018) 1564.
[54] F. Han, Z. Yang, H. Wang, X. Xu, Estimating willingness to pay for environment
conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang,
China, Environ. Monit. Assess. 180 (1) (2011) 451–459.
[55] R. Brouwer, S. Brouwer, M.A. Eleveld, M. Verbraak, A.J. Wagtendonk, H.J. van
der Woerd, Public willingness to pay for alternative management regimes of
remote marine protected areas in the North Sea, Mar. Policy 68 (2016) 195–
204.
[56] S.H. Yoo, S.Y. Kwak, Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A
contingent valuation study, Energy Policy 37 (12) (2009) 5408–5416.
[57] K. Arrow, R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner, H. Schuman, Report of
the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Fed. Reg. 58 (10) (1993) 4601–4614.
[58] J. Woo, S. Lim, Y.G. Lee, S.Y. Huh, Financial feasibility and social acceptance for
reducing nuclear power plants: A contingent valuation study, Sustain. 10 (11)
(2018) 3833.
[59] W.M. Hanemann, Valuing the environment through contingent valuation, J.
Econ. Perspect. 8 (4) (1994) 19–43.
[60] M. Hanemann, J. Loomis, B. Kanninen, Statistical efficiency of double-bounded
dichotomous choice contingent valuation, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73 (4) (1991)
1255–1263.
9
Energy & Buildings 261 (2022) 111975
[61] S.Y. Park, S.Y. Lim, S.H. Yoo, The economic value of the national meteorological
service in the Korean household sector: A contingent valuation study, Sustain.
8 (9) (2016) 834.
[62] J. Kim, H.J. Lee, S.Y. Huh, S.H. Yoo, Households’ willingness to pay for
developing marine bio-hydrogen technology: The case of South Korea, Int. J.
Hydrog. Energy 44 (26) (2019) 12907–12917.
[63] B. Kriström, Spike models in contingent valuation, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79 (3)
(1997) 1013–1023.
[64] K. Yeo, Y. Jung, An analysis of effect of green roofs in urbanized areas on runoff
alleviation and cost estimation, Seoul Stud. Seoul Inst. 14 (2) (2013) 161–177.
[65] M.V. Bala, J.A. Mauskopf, L.L. Wood, Willingness to pay as a measure of health
benefits, Pharmacoeconomics 15 (1) (1999) 9–18.
[66] I.J. Bateman, B.H. Day, S. Georgiou, I. Lake, The aggregation of environmental
benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP, Ecolo. Econ.
60 (2) (2006) 450–460.
[67] H.J. Lee, S.H. Yoo, S.Y. Huh, Economic benefits of introducing LNG-fuelled ships
for imported flour in South Korea, Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 78 (2020)
102220.
[68] G.-E. Kim, J.-H. Kim, S.-H. Yoo, Assessing the environmental benefits of multi-
purpose water uses of hydropower reservoirs on the Han River in South Korea,
Energy Environ. 31 (7) (2020) 1167–1180.
[69] S.-H. Yoo, S.-J. Kwak, Using a spike model to deal with zero response data from
double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys, Appl. Econ.
Lett. 9 (14) (2002) 929–932.
[70] M. Gupta, Willingness to pay for carbon tax: A study of Indian road passenger
transport, Transp. Policy 45 (2016) 46–54.
[71] J.K. Turpie, The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest,
experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local
willingness to pay, Ecol. Econ. 46 (2) (2003) 199–216.
[72] G. Zhang, B.-J. He, Towards green roof implementation: Drivers, motivations,
barriers and recommendations, Urban For. Urban Green. 58 (2021) 126992,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.126992.
[73] M.P. Couper, The future of modes of data collection, Public Opin. Q. 75 (5)
(2011) 889–908.
[74] G. Szolnoki, D. Hoffmann, Online, face-to-face and telephone surveys—
Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer research, Wine
Econ. Policy 2 (2) (2013) 57–66.
[75] I. Krinsky, A.L. Robb, On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities,
Rev. Econ. Stat. 68 (4) (1986) 715, https://doi.org/10.2307/1924536.
[76] D.H. Kim, B.I. Ahn, E.G. Kim, Metropolitan residents’ preferences and
willingness to pay for a life zone forest for mitigating heat island effects
during summer season in Korea, Sustain. 8 (11) (2016) 1155.
[77] M.J. Kotchen, K.J. Boyle, A.A. Leiserowitz, Willingness-to-pay and policy-
instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States, Energy
Policy 55 (2013) 617–625.
[78] Reliable Ministry of Government Legislation Korean Law Information Center.
https://law.go.kr/ (accessed 11 August 2020).
[79] U. Berardi, A. GhaffarianHoseini, A. GhaffarianHoseini, State-of-the-art
analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs, Appl. Energy 115
(2014) 411–428.
[80] S. Tabatabaee, A. Mahdiyar, S. Durdyev, S.R. Mohandes, S. Ismail, An
assessment model of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks of green roof
installation: A multi criteria decision making approach, J. Clean. Prod. 238
(2019) 117956.
[81] M. Manso, I. Teotónio, C.M. Silva, C.O. Cruz, Green roof and green wall benefits
and costs: A review of the quantitative evidence, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
135 (2021) 110111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110111.
[82] M. Blackhurst, C. Hendrickson, H.S. Matthews, Cost-effectiveness of green
roofs, J. Archit. Eng. 16 (4) (2010) 136–143.
[83] Y. Wang, M. Sun, B. Song, Public perceptions of and willingness to pay for
sponge city initiatives in China, Resour. Conserv. Recy. 122 (2017) 11–20.
[84] K. Perini, P. Rosasco, Cost–benefit analysis for green façades and living wall
systems, Build. Environ. 70 (2013) 110–121.
[85] A. Mahdiyar, S. Tabatabaee, K. Yahya, S.R. Mohandes, A probabilistic financial
feasibility study on green roof installation from the private and social
perspectives, Urban For. Urban Green. 58 (2021) 126893.
[86] K. Claus, S. Rousseau, Public versus private incentives to invest in green roofs:
A cost benefit analysis for Flanders, Urban For. Urban Green. 11 (4) (2012)
417–425.
[87] M. Manso, V. Sousa, C.M. Silva, C.O. Cruz, The role of green roofs in post COVID-
19 confinement: An analysis of willingness to pay, J. Build. Eng. 44 (2021)
103388.
[88] M. Shafique, R. Kim, K. Kyung-Ho, Green roof for stormwater management in a
highly urbanised area: the case of Seoul, Korea. Sustainability 10 (3) (2018)
584.
[89] T. Brudermann, T. Sangkakool, Green roofs in temperate climate cities in
Europe–An analysis of key decision factors, Urban For. Urban Green. 21 (2017)
224–234.
[90] D. Banting, H. Doshi, J. Li, P. Missios, A. Au, B.A. Currie, M. Verrati, Report on the
environmental benefits and costs of green roof technology for the city of
Toronto, City of Toronto and Ontario Centres of Excellence—Earth and
Environmental Technologies. (2005).
[91] M. Mesimäki, K. Hauru, S. Lehvävirta, Do small green roofs have the possibility
to offer recreational and experiential benefits in a dense urban area? A case
study in Helsinki, Finland. Urban For. Urban Green. 40 (2019) 114–124.
Q. Ji, Hye-Jeong Lee and Sung-Yoon Huh
[92] H. Niu, C. Clark, J. Zhou, P. Adriaens, Scaling of economic benefits from green
roof implementation in Washington, DC. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (11) (2010)
4302–4308.
[93] X. Zhang, L. Shen, V.W. Tam, W.W.Y. Lee, Barriers to implement extensive
green roof systems: a Hong Kong study, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 16 (1) (2012)
314–319.
10
Energy & Buildings 261 (2022) 111975
[94] W.C. Li, K.K.A. Yeung, A comprehensive study of green roof performance from
environmental perspective, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 3 (1) (2014) 127–134.
[95] J.C. Whitehead, S.K. Pattanayak, G.L. Van Houtven, B.R. Gelso, Combining
revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of
ecological services: An assessment of the state of the science, J. Econ. Surv. 22
(2008) 872–908.