City and Environment Interactions 6 (2020) 100043

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

City and Environment Interactions

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

Research Article

Evaluating the potential of nature-based solutions to reduce ozone, nitrogen

dioxide, and carbon dioxide through a multi-type green infrastructure study
in Ontario, Canada
⁎
Vidya Anderson a, , William A. Gough a,b
a
Climate Lab, Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
b
Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The application of green infrastructure presents an opportunity to improve air quality using a multi-faceted
Received 4 February 2020 ecosystems-based approach. A controlled field study evaluates the impact of multiple green infrastructure applications
Received in revised form 24 July 2020 on air pollution and carbon dioxide concentrations across different urban, suburban and peri-urban morphologies. This
Accepted 27 July 2020
study demonstrates that multiple types of green infrastructure applications are beneficial in air pollution abatement,
Available online 31 July 2020
specifically the reduction of ozone and nitrogen dioxide. This study also shows that multiple types of green infrastruc-
Keywords:
ture applications are beneficial in reducing carbon dioxide concentrations and are not limited to specific treatments
Green roofs regardless of location, geography, or land use type.
Green walls
Urban forestry
Urban agriculture
Tree-based intercropping
Agroforestry
Built environment
Urban design

1. Introduction production [11]. Agricultural production accounts for approximately 10%

Air quality and climate are interdependent. Traditional air pollutant
sources can also be sources of greenhouse gases and particulate matter
that influence climate. Interactions occur between these air pollutants and
radiation (both solar and terrestrial). These interactions affect the Earth's
energy balance and lead to changes in climate [1,2]. Air pollution is influ-
enced by climate change as a result of changes in the intensity, duration
and frequency of air stagnation events, heat waves, precipitation and
other meteorological phenomena [1,3–7]. Air quality in most urbanized
areas is compromised by localized air pollution from industrial and vehicu-
lar emissions [8]. Within urbanized areas, ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) and particulate matter (PM) are the most abundant air pollutants [9].
Anthropogenic activities continue to change the atmospheric and sur-
face conditions of the Earth, with a large proportion of global greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions being generated in urbanized areas from deforesta-
tion, agricultural production, land use development, electrical power and
energy systems, transportation, industrial processes, and buildings [10].
Nearly 25% of global GHG emissions can be attributed to agricultural
of Ontario's GHG emissions with emissions remaining stable since 1990 at
approximately 10 megatons [12]. Globally, buildings account for approxi-
mately 20% of GHG emissions [10]. In Ontario, the building sector ac-
counts for approximately 35 megatons of the province's total GHG
emissions and the third largest source of emissions after transportation
and industrial emissions respectively [12]. As of 2014, building sector emis-
sions in the province for residential, commercial and institutional buildings
totaled 34.8 megatons. The breakdown includes residential building emis-
sions of 21.8 megatons and commercial and institutional building emis-
sions of 13 megatons, primarily from the use of natural gas in these
structures. There has been a 28 percent increase since 1990, in emissions
from the buildings sector, with growth in emissions from commercial build-
ings. Population growth and an increase in building inventory, have led to
substantial growth in total emissions [12].
The application of green infrastructure delivers a nature-based solution
to bridge the gap between climate change mitigation and adaptation inter-
ventions, and to reduce air pollution. Nature-based solutions have been de-
fined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Vidya.Anderson@utoronto.ca, (V. Anderson), William.Gough@utoronto.ca. (W.A. Gough).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2020.100043
2590-2520/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.
0/).
V. Anderson, W.A. Gough /
“actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified
ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, si-
multaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits”
[13]. Nature-based solutions provide an umbrella descriptor for the five
categories of ecosystem-based approaches of which green infrastructure is
one [13–15].
2. Literature review
Greenhouse gas emission reductions and enhancement of carbon se-
questration capacity are integral to mitigating climate change. Green infra-
structure can act as a form of climate change mitigation by improving
energy efficiency in buildings and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions. Studies have shown that the application of green infrastructure can
reduce GHG emissions from the built environment and lower carbon diox-
ide concentrations [16–24]. Green infrastructure also provides multiple
benefits such as creating green space, mitigating urban heat island effect,
cooling the environment, and removing air pollutants such as ozone and ni-
trogen dioxide through absorption and capture [16–18,25–30]. The appli-
cation of green infrastructure such as urban agriculture systems provides
multiple ecosystem services in addition to capturing air pollutants and pro-
viding carbon sequestration capacity [31–33]. Urban agriculture systems
can reduce the food miles and carbon footprint associated with conven-
tional agriculture through local food production and distribution. These
systems can also reduce the pressures on conventional agriculture and
can improve food security when large-scale agricultural production is af-
fected by weather variation. Green infrastructure applications such as
tree-based intercropping systems reduce GHG emissions associated with
conventional agricultural practices by reducing reliance on pesticides and
fertilizers and increasing canopy cover [34,35]. Tree-based intercropping
systems also act as a carbon sink by sequestering carbon in the trees and
by enhancing soil carbon sequestration capacity through improved soil
health [35].
Air quality is improved by green infrastructure through GHG pollutant
and particulate capture. Green infrastructure applications such as green
roofs and green walls have been shown to reduce air pollutant concentra-
tions and provide urban cooling [36–39]. Green infrastructure applications
have also been shown to improve health outcomes from extreme heat and
air pollution [28,40–46]. Green infrastructure affects air quality to varying
degrees through deposition and immobilization of local air pollutants such
as ozone and particulate matter [27–29,41,43,44,47]. Studies have shown
that the application of green infrastructure can remove air pollutants
including ozone, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter
[25,27–30,41,43,44]. Other applications of green infrastructure such as
urban vegetation strategies like tree and shrub plantings in urban corridors
have also been shown to be effective in the immobilization of particulates
and improvement of air quality [21,28,36,43,48,49].
Studies of the air pollution abatement and carbon sequestration benefits
of green infrastructure have focused primarily on single applications and in-
dividual benefits. The reduction of individual air pollutants (e.g. ozone, ni-
trogen dioxide, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide) by
specific applications of green infrastructure such as trees and shrubs and
green roofs have been highlighted across multiple studies
[25,27–30,36,41,43,44,50,51]. The carbon sequestration potential of
green infrastructure applications has been shown in studies of specific ap-
plications of green infrastructure including green roofs, green walls, and
trees [19,20,22–24,35,52].
Although trees have demonstrated the highest uptake of air pollutants,
combining green infrastructure applications like tree planting, green roofs
and green walls can be beneficial as they have greater potential to mitigate
point source air pollution in industrial areas and require less space than
trees [53]. In addition, tree size and continuity of form affect performance
[28,50,54]. The efficacy of a single tree to reduce air pollution is much less
than that of an urban forest. Other forms of urban vegetation such as hedge-
rows have been shown to improve air quality in street canyons and are par-
ticularly effective in filtering particulate matter due to proximity to
2
City and Environment Interactions 6 (2020) 100043
emission sources [36,48,51,54]. Green roofs have been shown to reduce
air pollution with extensive implementation [36,39,55]. Green walls have
been shown to be quite effective at reducing air pollution [36,53,67]. Fac-
tors influencing efficacy of green infrastructure applications include config-
uration, wind flows, and orientation and geometry of the streetscape
[28,36,48,56,57].
Research on air pollution abatement and carbon sequestration potential
thus far has been limited to specific applications of green infrastructure;
however, a comprehensive evaluation across multiple applications has
not been undertaken. This paper evaluates the potential of different appli-
cations of green infrastructure to reduce air pollution and sequester carbon
dioxide in different urban, suburban, and peri-urban settings, through a
controlled field study.
For the purposes of this study, the application of green infrastructure
has been categorized into five areas: green roofs, green walls, urban vegeta-
tion and forestry, urban agriculture systems, and tree-based intercropping
systems. Although the application of green infrastructure provides a mech-
anism for addressing climate change, each application is a complex climate
change intervention with unique characteristics and multiple co-benefits
such as biodiversity and pollinator support, building energy efficiency,
and stormwater management that can be leveraged if strategically applied.
There are common functions shared among green infrastructure applica-
tions as illustrated in Fig. 1 while others are exclusive to particular applica-
tions. Key functions for this study include: air pollution abatement and
carbon sequestration.
Green infrastructure may be broadly defined as inter-connected net-
works of natural and engineered green space that provide various ecosys-
tem services. As shown in Fig. 1, applications of green infrastructure can
be categorized into five areas: green roofs, green walls, urban vegetation
and forestry, urban agriculture systems, and tree-based intercropping sys-
tems. Green roofs may be characterized as being extensive, weighing less
as a result of shallower depth and also allowing for sloped roof application.
Green roofs can also be characterized as being intensive wherein there is
substantial depth to the soil layer and greater variety in vegetation [17].
Green walls can be characterized as building façades covered by plant
growth or vegetated structures fixed to building facades fed by an auto-
matic fertilization and hydration system [23,59]. Urban vegetation and for-
estry includes shrubs, bioswales (e.g. vegetated ditches for stormwater
storage, drainage and infiltration), green permeable pavements (e.g.
paved surfaces replaced with grass or herbs), rain gardens and trees
([28,43]; [56]). Urban agriculture systems include growing roofs, rooftop
gardens, market gardens, community gardens, and micro gardens
[31,32]. Tree-based intercropping systems can be characterized as agricul-
tural lands where trees or shrubs are inter-cropped with crops [34].
The objectives of this controlled field study were to evaluate the poten-
tial of multiple green infrastructure applications within the five categories
shown in Fig. 1, to reduce air pollutants, specifically ozone and nitrogen di-
oxide, and to reduce carbon dioxide concentrations across different urban,
suburban and peri-urban morphologies in Ontario, Canada. This study does
not evaluate the differences in green infrastructure performance between
sites and morphologies. Rather, this study evaluates how various green in-
frastructure treatments can reduce ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon di-
oxide concentrations regardless of location, geography, or land use type.
3. Methods
In this field study, a data collection campaign was undertaken across
various applications of green infrastructure that include green roofs,
green walls, urban vegetation and forestry, urban agriculture systems,
and tree-based intercropping systems The data collection campaign to mea-
sure the potential of green infrastructure to reduce air pollutants (i.e. ozone
and nitrogen dioxide) and carbon dioxide concentrations was undertaken
using portable air quality monitors for the period of June to October 2017.
Field study sites were selected to be representative of the five green in-
frastructure categories and different urban, suburban and peri-urban mor-
phologies. A total of nine sites were selected for both data collection
V. Anderson, W.A. Gough / City and Environment Interactions 6 (2020) 100043

Fig. 1. Green infrastructure form and function [58].

campaigns as shown in Fig. 2. Of these sites, three contained more than one
application of green infrastructure. The nine sites selected for the field
study included: 1) the extensive green roof located at the Environmental
Science and Chemistry (EV) building on the University of Toronto campus
in suburban Scarborough; 2) the rooftop fruit and vegetable garden located
at the Instructional Centre (IC) building on the University of Toronto cam-
pus in suburban Scarborough; 3) the urban forest sites (2) located at the cor-
ner of Military Trail and Ellesmere Road on the University of Toronto
campus in suburban Scarborough; 4) the extensive green roof at Alvin Curl-
ing Public School located near the Rouge Trail Park in suburban Scarbor-
ough 5) the vegetable growing roof, extensive green roof, green wall and
community rooftop medicine garden located at the Carrot Common in
east Toronto; 6) the extensive green roof located at the Mountain Equip-
ment Co-op (MEC) outdoor retail store in downtown Toronto; 7) the
green roof test beds and green walls located at the Green Roof Innovation
Testing (GRIT) Lab located at the Daniels Faculty of Architecture on the

Fig. 2. Map of field study sites.

3
V. Anderson, W.A. Gough /
Fig. 3. Difference (ppm) between test and control sites for ozone (O3) June to
October 2017. Control. Test.
University of Toronto St. George campus in downtown Toronto; 8) the ex-
tensive green roof located at the Sherway Gardens retail shopping mall in
suburban Etobicoke; and 9) the tree-based intercropping system located
at the Guelph Agroforestry Research Station on the peri-urban University
of Guelph campus.
As shown in Fig. 2, the site at the Guelph Agroforestry Research Station
is located within the rural area of Guelph among extensive farmlands and
rural residential properties. The Sherway Gardens site is located west of
downtown Toronto beside the interchange of three highways in a highly ur-
banized suburb comprised of mixed low and medium-rise light industrial,
commercial and residential buildings. The GRIT Lab site is located in the
downtown core of Toronto in a highly urbanized area of mixed low and
medium-rise institutional, commercial and residential buildings. The MEC
site is located in the downtown core of Toronto among a mix of tall high-
rise buildings including residential condominium dwellings and commer-
cial office towers. The Carrot Common site is located east of the Toronto
downtown core in a highly urbanized area of mixed low-rise commercial
Fig. 4. Average ozone (O3) reduction in parts per million (ppm) from June to October 2017 – Green Roof Systems: a) MEC, b) Sherway, c) Alvin Curling, d) UTSC, e) GRIT Lab;
Green Wall System: f) GRIT Lab; Tree-based Intercropping System: g) Guelph Agroforestry TBI; Urban Agriculture Systems: h) UTSC Rooftop Garden and i) Carrot Growing
Roof & Medicine Garden; and Urban Forestry & Vegetation Systems: j) UTSC Forest 2 and k) UTSC Forest 1.
4
City and Environment Interactions 6 (2020) 100043
and residential buildings. The Alvin Curling Public School site is located ad-
jacent to a subdivision comprised of townhouses, the Toronto Zoo which is
comprised of naturalized areas, and the Rouge Trail Park. Each of the UTSC
sites is located in Scarborough, an eastern suburb of Toronto characterized
by mixed residential, institutional, commercial and industrial buildings that
range from single-story family dwellings to high-rise apartments and low-
rise commercial and industrial building developments.
During the data collection campaign to measure the potential of green
infrastructure to reduce air pollutants (i.e. ozone and nitrogen dioxide)
and carbon dioxide concentrations, monitoring was undertaken from
June to October 2017 at each of the nine sites for six to eight-hour periods
at a time at five-minute intervals between the daytime hours of 8 AM to
6 PM. Given the time constraints, number of locations, and the fact that
some sites contained multiple green infrastructure applications, monitoring
of individual sites and applications occurred three days per month. Of the
individual sites, two were monitored for multiple green infrastructure ap-
plications. These included the urban forest at the University of Toronto
Scarborough campus which contained two separate urban forestry applica-
tions and the GRIT Lab at the University of Toronto St. George campus
which contained separate green roof and green wall applications. Each of
the nine sites was monitored in approximately ten-day intervals in order
to have a representative sample of air quality and carbon dioxide concentra-
tions for each month. A testing and calibration period was undertaken for
the month of June 2017 prior to commencing monitoring.
During the data collection campaign to measure the potential of green
infrastructure to reduce air pollutants (i.e. ozone and nitrogen dioxide)
and carbon dioxide concentrations, two locations were set up at each site
to establish a control and a test position for the monitors. Control and test
positions for each site were established approximately 30 to 50 m apart
to minimize any influence on the control positions from the treatment
areas. Three portable monitors were placed at a designated control position
and another three identical monitors were set up at a designated test posi-
tion. Measurements of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide, tempera-
ture, and relative humidity were undertaken simultaneously. Monitors
were positioned directly on or near the control surface or green infrastruc-
ture application surface being monitored to capture the flow of air across
the monitor. Each pollutant monitor was placed in the same area and direc-
tion, side by side with a space of approximately 15 cm between each
monitor.
Aeroqual (S500 model) portable air sampling monitors with gas and
temperature and relative humidity sensors were used to collect measure-
ments of air pollutants (i.e. ozone and nitrogen dioxide) and carbon dioxide
concentrations, in addition to measuring temperature and relative
V. Anderson, W.A. Gough /
Fig. 5. Daily average ozone (ppm) for test and control across all sites from June to October 2017.
humidity. The Aeroqual portable monitors each have an internal fan that
draws air across the gas sensor every 60 s. Detection limits for the Aeroqual
S500 model portable monitors and individual gas sensors range from 0 to
2000 ppm with a minimum detection limit of 10 ppm for the carbon dioxide
sensor; 0–1 ppm with a minimum detection limit of 0.005 ppm for the nitro-
gen dioxide sensor; and 0–0.15 ppm with a minimum detection limit of
0.001 ppm for the ozone sensor. Operational temperatures for the Aeroqual
S500 model portable monitors and gas sensors range from 0 to 40 °C. Next
generation air monitoring tools like the Aeroqual portable monitors and gas
sensors represent advancements in technology being increasingly used by re-
searchers to monitor, measure, and study air quality [60]. The Aeroqual
brand of monitors was selected for use in this field study due to portability,
ease of configuration, and the relatively low cost compared to conventional
stationary air quality monitoring stations that are only accessible to a limited
number of specialists. Additionally, the U.S. EPA has entered into a Coopera-
tive Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Aeroqual to inves-
tigate new applications, methodologies and technologies for the low-cost
measurement of outdoor air pollutants [60].
4. Results
The data collected was used to evaluate the potential impact of green in-
frastructure to reduce air pollutants and carbon dioxide concentrations.
Fig. 6. Daily ozone standard deviation for test and control across all sites June to October 2017.
5
City and Environment Interactions 6 (2020) 100043
Control. Test.
4.1. Reduction of air pollutants - ozone
Across all sites and green infrastructure applications, there was an ob-
served reduction in ozone in most instances with an average reduction of
0.01 parts per million (ppm) for the monitoring period of June to October
2017 as shown in Fig. 3.
There was an observed reduction in ozone across all sites and applica-
tions of green infrastructure with an average of 0.01 ppm (Fig. 4)
representing an average reduction of 31% resulting from the application
of green infrastructure (Fig. 3).
4.2. Analysis of reduction of pollutants – ozone
The daily average of the ozone test values is less than the control values
when monitoring took place. The errors bars in Fig. 5 are 5% of the mea-
sured value which is consistent with the detection limits of the
instrumentation.
A t-test was conducted for the test and control pair at each site
yielding a p value below the 0.001 margin of error indicating there
is a statistically significant difference in ozone between the means
of the test and control for all applications of green infrastructure
(Fig. 6).
Control. Test.
V. Anderson, W.A. Gough /
Fig. 7. Difference (ppm) between test and control sites for nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
June to October 2017. Control. Test.
4.3. Reduction of air pollutants – nitrogen dioxide
Across all sites and green infrastructure applications, there was an ob-
served reduction in nitrogen dioxide in most all instances with an average
reduction of 0.11 parts per million (ppm) for the monitoring period of
June to October 2017 as shown in Fig. 7.
There was an observed reduction in nitrogen dioxide across all sites and
applications of green infrastructure with an average of 0.11 ppm (Fig. 8)
representing an average reduction of 65% resulting from the application
of green infrastructure (Fig. 7).
4.4. Analysis of reduction of air pollutants – nitrogen dioxide
The daily average of the nitrogen dioxide test values is less than the con-
trol values when monitoring took place. The errors bars in Fig. 9 are 5% of
the measured value which is consistent with the detection limits of the
instrumentation.
Fig. 8. Average nitrogen dioxide (NO2) reduction in parts per million (ppm) from June to October 2017 – Green Roof Systems: a) MEC, b) Sherway, c) Alvin Curling, d) UTSC,
e) GRIT Lab; Green Wall System: f) GRIT Lab; Tree-based Intercropping System: g) Guelph Agroforestry TBI; Urban Agriculture Systems: h) UTSC Rooftop Garden and
i) Carrot Growing Roof & Medicine Garden; and Urban Forestry & Vegetation Systems: j) UTSC Forest 2 and k) UTSC Forest 1.
6
City and Environment Interactions 6 (2020) 100043
A t-test was conducted for the test and control pair at each site yielding a
p value below the 0.001 margin of error indicating there is a statistically
significant difference in nitrogen dioxide between the means of the test
and control for all applications of green infrastructure (Fig. 10).
4.5. Reduction of carbon dioxide concentrations
There was an average reduction in carbon dioxide concentrations across
all sites and green infrastructure applications of 23.4 ppm with an average
site reduction as high as 43.1 ppm for the Mountain Equipment Co-op green
roof and as low as 18.2 ppm for the Guelph tree-based intercropping site for
the monitoring period of June to October 2017 as shown in Fig. 11.
There was an observed reduction in carbon dioxide across all sites and
applications of green infrastructure with an average of 23.4 ppm (Fig. 12)
representing an average reduction of 6% resulting from the application of
green infrastructure (Fig. 11).
4.6. Analysis of reduction of carbon dioxide concentrations
The daily average of the carbon dioxide test values is less than the con-
trol values when monitoring took place. The errors bars in Fig. 13 are 5% of
the measured value which is consistent with the detection limits of the
instrumentation.
A t-test was conducted for the test and control pair at each site yielding a
p value below the 0.001 margin of error indicating there is a statistically
significant difference in carbon dioxide between the means of the test and
control for all applications of green infrastructure (Fig. 14).
5. Discussion
Analysis of the data collected to measure the potential of green infra-
structure to reduce air pollutants (i.e. ozone and nitrogen dioxide) and car-
bon dioxide concentrations is consistent with the hypothesis that multiple
green infrastructure applications can reduce ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and
provide carbon sequestration capacity across different urban, suburban,
and peri-urban morphologies in Ontario, Canada regardless of location, ge-
ography, or land use type.
The findings of this field study, while limited to one summer season,
suggest that the application of green infrastructure across different urban,
V. Anderson, W.A. Gough /
Fig. 9. Daily average nitrogen dioxide (ppm) for test and control across all sites June to October 2017.
suburban and peri-urban morphologies is beneficial in air pollution abate-
ment, specifically the reduction of ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Statistical
analysis confirms the observed reduction of ozone and nitrogen dioxide.
This study is novel because it shows the significant potential of multiple
types of green infrastructure applications to reduce air pollutants in urban-
ized areas where air quality is compromised by localized air pollution from
industrial and vehicular emissions, with ozone and nitrogen dioxide being
the most abundant pollutants. In addition, this research uniquely shows
the potential air pollution abatement benefits of productive green infra-
structure applications such as urban agriculture and tree-based
intercropping systems within suburban and peri-urban landscapes. This re-
search also shows the potential of productive green infrastructure applica-
tions to reduce agricultural point source emissions.
There are multiple studies that evaluate the potential of specific applica-
tions of green infrastructure such as trees, shrubs, and green roofs to reduce
individual air pollutants. King et al. [41] evaluated the potential of urban
forests to reduce air pollution from nitrogen dioxide among other pollutants
using the iTree Streets model. Findings from this study showed reductions
in nitrogen dioxide of up to 13% from the application of urban forestry in
New York City [41]. Nowak et al. [28,43] evaluated the potential of
urban trees and shrubs to reduce air pollution from ozone and nitrogen di-
oxide among other pollutants through computer modelling of air pollution
removal. Findings from these studies showed reductions in ozone as high as
Fig. 10. Daily nitrogen dioxide standard deviation for test and control across all sites June to October 2017.
7
City and Environment Interactions 6 (2020) 100043
Control. Test.
16% and a reduction in nitrogen dioxide as high as 9% from the application
of trees and shrubs across the United States, while average reductions of 4%
in ozone and 3% in nitrogen dioxide from the application of urban forestry
and vegetation were shown across Canadian cities [28,43]. Rao et al. [44]
evaluated the potential of urban trees to reduce nitrogen dioxide using a
land use regression model. Findings from this study showed a reduction
in nitrogen dioxide air pollution as high as 45% from the application of
urban trees in Portland [44]. Yang et al. [30] evaluated the potential of
green roofs to reduce air pollution from ozone and nitrogen dioxide
among other pollutants using a dry deposition model. Findings from this
study showed a reduction in ozone of 52% and a reduction in nitrogen di-
oxide of 27% over a one-year period from the application of green roofs
in Chicago [30].
It should be noted that there is an emerging body of literature wherein
the efficacy of trees in removing air pollutants, specifically nitrogen diox-
ide, has not been shown to be significant [61–64]. Xing and Brimblecombe
[65] and Yin et al. [66] are interesting studies but the sites for the current
research were not chosen from the perspective of the landscapes surround-
ing the study sites, although we acknowledge the impact of such on ambi-
ent levels. Rather this study has focused on the differences between
treatment and control within these contexts. We acknowledge that the am-
bient air pollutants are impacted by the local morphologies which explains
the differences among the sites. The paired experiments illustrate the
Control. Test.
V. Anderson, W.A. Gough /
Fig. 11. Difference (ppm) between test and control sites for carbon dioxide (CO2)
June to October 2017. Control. Test.
impacts of the treatments. The three green infrastructure test sites where
treatments incorporate trees were located in suburban and rural areas
that were not part of parklands or structural canyons. The relative impacts
of dispersion and deposition remain an open question.
Compared to other studies, this field study is novel because multiple
types of green infrastructure were tested in a controlled field experiment
across different urban, suburban and peri-urban morphologies. Observa-
tions indicate that multiple types of green infrastructure applications are
beneficial in reducing air pollution from ozone and nitrogen dioxide and
are not limited to either specific applications such as green roofs, green
walls or trees, or specific land use types.
In this controlled field study, multiple green infrastructure applications
have also demonstrated a positive impact on carbon dioxide concentra-
tions. Statistical analysis confirms the observed reduction of carbon diox-
ide. Other studies of carbon sequestration potential in specific
applications of green infrastructure include the study by Li et al. [22]
Fig. 12. Average carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction in parts per million (ppm) from June to October 2017 – Green Roof Systems: a) MEC, b) Sherway, c) Alvin Curling, d) UTSC,
e) GRIT Lab; Green Wall System: f) GRIT Lab; Tree-based Intercropping System: g) Guelph Agroforestry TBI; Urban Agriculture Systems: h) UTSC Rooftop Garden and
i) Carrot Growing Roof & Medicine Garden; and Urban Forestry & Vegetation Systems: j) UTSC Forest 2 and k) UTSC Forest 1.
8
City and Environment Interactions 6 (2020) 100043
which evaluated the potential of green roofs to reduce carbon dioxide con-
centrations using numerical simulations based on chamber and field exper-
imentation. Study findings show that green roofs can lower carbon dioxide
concentrations by as much 2% in urban areas in Hong Kong [22]. Velasco
et al. [24] evaluated the potential of urban vegetation to reduce carbon di-
oxide concentrations using direct measurements and growth prediction
models. Study findings show that urban vegetation can lower carbon diox-
ide concentrations by 1.4% in Mexico City and by 4.4% in Singapore [24].
Whittinghill et al. [52] evaluated the potential of green roof and ornamen-
tal landscape systems to sequester carbon dioxide in above and below
ground biomass using field measurements. Findings from this study showed
an increase in the total carbon content of the green roof systems measured
of up to 81% over a one-year period in Michigan [52].
This field study is novel, compared to other studies, because multiple
types of green infrastructure were tested in a controlled field experiment
across different urban, suburban and peri-urban morphologies. Observa-
tions indicate that multiple types of green infrastructure applications are
beneficial in reducing carbon dioxide concentrations and are not limited
to specific applications such as green roofs, green walls or trees. In addition,
observations indicate the application of green infrastructure is beneficial
across different land use types.
Green infrastructure can act as an effective form of climate change mit-
igation by improving energy efficiency in buildings and reducing green-
house gas pollutants such as carbon dioxide. Because urban density and
the built environment have such a significant impact on anthropogenic
heat emissions and micro and regional climate conditions, the wide adop-
tion of multiple green infrastructure applications is integral in reducing
greenhouse gas pollutants, decarbonizing urbanized areas through en-
hanced carbon sequestration capacity, and building climate resilience.
6. Conclusions
The results of this field study, while limited to one summer season, pro-
vide comprehensive insight into the impact of multiple green infrastructure
applications (e.g. green roof systems, green wall systems, urban agriculture
systems, urban forestry and vegetation systems and tree-based
intercropping systems) on air quality and carbon dioxide concentrations.
V. Anderson, W.A. Gough /
Fig. 13. Daily average carbon dioxide (ppm) for test and control across all sites June to October 2017.
Fig. 14. Daily carbon dioxide standard deviation for test and control across all sites June to October 2017.
This field study also shows that multiple types of green infrastructure appli-
cations can be beneficial in air pollution abatement, specifically the reduc-
tion of ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Finally, this study shows that multiple
types of green infrastructure applications can be beneficial in reducing car-
bon dioxide concentrations and are not limited to specific applications. Fu-
ture work of interest includes undertaking this controlled field study over a
multi-year period to incorporate seasonal variation. In addition to air pollu-
tion abatement, the broad application of green infrastructure has the capac-
ity to function as an effective climate change intervention. Green
infrastructure offers a multi-faceted nature-based solution to the challenges
presented by different urban, suburban, and peri-urban morphologies, re-
gardless of location, geography, or land use type.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Vidya Anderson:Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.William A. Gough:Con-
ceptualization, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial inter-
ests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the
work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors are supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Re-
search Council of Canada (NSERC) Grant RGPIN-2018-06801. The authors
wish to express their appreciation to Next Level Storm Water Management,
Mountain Equipment Co-op, the Seeds of Hope Foundation, and the
9
City and Environment Interactions 6 (2020) 100043
Control. Test.
Control. Test.
University of Guelph Agroforestry Research Station for providing site ac-
cess. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Fiore AM, Naik V, Leibensperger EM. Air quality and climate connections. Journal of the
Air & Waste Management Association. 2015;65(6):645–85.
[2] Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Alexander LV, Allen SK, Bindoff NL, et al. Technical
summary. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels
A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM, editors. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmen-
tal Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA:
Cambridge University Press; 2013.
[3] Jacob DJ, Winner DA. Effect of climate change on air quality. Atmos Environ. 2009;43
(1):51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.051.
[4] Ordóñez C, Mathis H, Furger M, Henne S, Hüglin C, Staehelin J, et al. Changes of daily
surface ozone maxima in Switzerland in all seasons from 1992 to 2002 and discussion of
summer 2003. Atmos Chem Phys. 2005;5(5):1187–203. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-
5-1187-2005.
[5] Tressol M, Ordonez C, Zbinden RM, Brioude J, Thouret V, Mari C, et al. Air pollution
during the 2003 European heat wave as seen by MOZAIC airliners. Atmos Chem Phys.
2008;8(8):2133–50. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-2133-2008.
[6] Vieno M, Dore AJ, Stevenson DS, Doherty R, Heal MR, Reis S, et al. Modelling surface
ozone during the 2003 heat-wave in the UK. Atmos Chem Phys. 2010;10(16):
7963–78. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7963-2010.
[7] Weaver CP, Liang X-Z, Zhu J, Adams PJ, Amar P, Avise J, et al. A preliminary synthesis
of modeled climate change impacts on U.S. regional ozone concentrations. Bull Am
Meteorol Soc. 2009;90(12):1843–63. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2568.1.
[8] Revi A, Satterthwaite DE, Aragón-Durand F, Corfee-Morlot J, Kiunsi RBR, Pelling M,
et al. Urban areas. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD,
Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN,
MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL, editors. Climate change 2014: impacts, adap-
tation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University
Press; 2014. p. 535–612.
[9] Hassan NA, Hashim Z, Hashim JH. Impact of climate change on air quality and pub-
lic health in urban areas. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2016;28(2S):
38S–48S.
V. Anderson, W.A. Gough /
[10] Lucon O, Ürge-Vorsatz D, Zain Ahmed A, Akbari H, Bertoldi P, Cabeza LF, et al. Build-
ings. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K,
Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von
Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC, editors. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate
change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
[11] Smith P, Bustamante M, Ahammad H, Clark H, Dong H, Elsiddig EA, et al. Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y,
Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann
B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC, editors. Climate
change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
[12] Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Facing climate change: greenhouse gas prog-
ress report 2016. http://docs.assets.eco.on.ca/reports/climate-change/2015/2015-
GHG.pdf; 2016.
[13] Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S, editors. Nature-based solutions to
address global societal challenges. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. ISBN 978-2-8317-1812-
5; 2016. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en [xiii + 97pp].
[14] Cohen-Shacham E, Andrade A, Dalton J, Dudley N, Jones M, Kumar C, et al. Core prin-
ciples for successfully implementing and upscaling nature-based solutions. Environmen-
tal Science and Policy. 2019;98:2019) 20–29.
[15] Seddon N, Chausson A, Berry P, Girardin CAJ, Smith A, Turner B. Understanding the
value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global chal-
lenges. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2020;375:20190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.
0120.
[16] Alexandri E, Jones P. Temperature decreases in an urban canyon due to green walls and
green roofs in diverse climates. Building and Environment. 2008;43:480–93. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.055.
[17] Berardi U, AmirHosein GH, Ali G. State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental benefits
of green roofs. Applied Energy. 2014;115:411–28.
[18] Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali L, Knight TM, Pullin AS. Urban greening to cool towns and cities:
a systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2010;97
(3):147–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.006.
[19] Fargione JE, et al. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci Adv. 2018;4:
eaat1869.
[20] Graves RA, Haugo RD, Holz A, NielsenPincus M, Jones A, Kellogg B, et al. Potential
greenhouse gas reductions from Natural Climate Solutions in Oregon, USA. PLoS
ONE. 2020;15(4):e0230424. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230424.
[21] Hall JM, Handley JF, Ennos AR. The potential of tree planting to climate-proof high den-
sity residential areas in Manchester, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2012;104:
410–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.015.
[22] Li J, Wai OWH, Li YS, Zhan J, Ho YA, Li J, et al. Effect of green roofs on ambient CO2
concentration. Building and Environment. 2010;45(12):2644–51. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.buildenv.2010.05.025.
[23] Marchi M, Pulselli RM, Marchettini N, Pulselli FM, Bastianoni S. Carbon dioxide seques-
tration model of a vertical greenery system. Ecological Modelling. 2015;306:46–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.013.
[24] Velasco E, Roth M, Norford L, Molina LT. Does urban vegetation enhance carbon seques-
tration? Landscape and Urban Planning. 2016;148:99–107.
[25] Baik J, Kwak K, Park S, Ryu Y. Effects of building roof greening on air quality in street
canyons. Atmospheric Environment. 2012;61:48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2012.06.076.
[26] Feng H, Hewage K. Lifecycle assessment of living walls: air purification and energy per-
formance. Cleaner Production. 2014;69:91–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.
01.041.
[27] Gourdji S. Review of plants to mitigate particulate matter, ozone as well as nitrogen di-
oxide air pollutants and applicable recommendations for green roofs in Montreal, Que-
bec. Environmental Pollution. 2018;241:378e387.
[28] Nowak DJ, Hirabayashi S, Doyle M, McGovern M, Pasher J. Air pollution removal by
urban forests in Canada and its effect on air quality and human health. Urban Forestry
& Urban Greening. 2018;29:40–8.
[29] Sicard P, Agathokleous E, Araminiene V, Carrari E, Hoshika Y, De Marco A, et al. Should
we see urban trees as effective solutions to reduce increasing ozone levels in cities? En-
vironmental Pollution. 2018;243:163e176.
[30] Yang J, Yu Q, Gong P. Quantifying air pollution removal by green roofs in Chicago. At-
mospheric Environment. 2008;42:7266–73.
[31] Lin B, Philpott SM, Jia S. The future of urban agriculture and biodiversity-ecosystem ser-
vices: challenges and next steps. Basic and Applied Ecology. 2015;16:189–201. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.01.005.
[32] Thornbush Mary J. Urban agriculture in the transition to low carbon cities through
urban greening. AIMS Environmental Science. 2015;2(3):852–67. https://doi.org/10.
3934/environsci.2015.3.852.
[33] Thornbush Mary J. Vehicular air pollution and urban sustainability: an assessment from
central Oxford, UK. Springer Briefs in Geography, 2015; 2015.
[34] Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM. Ecology of tree intercropping systems in the North tem-
perate region: experiences from southern Ontario, Canada. Agroforestry Systems.
2004;61:257–268, 2004.
[35] Wotherspoon A, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, Voroney P. Carbon sequestration poten-
tial of five tree species in a 25-year-old temperate tree-based intercropping system in
southern Ontario, Canada. Agroforestry Systems. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10457-014-9719-0.
[36] Abjijith KV, et al. Air Pollution Abatement performances of green infrastructure in open
road and built-up street canyon environments – a review. Atmospheric Environment.
2017;162:71–86.
10
City and Environment Interactions 6 (2020) 100043
[37] Kessler R. Urban gardening: managing the risks of contaminated soil. Environ Health
Perspect. 2013;121(11−12):326–33.
[38] Morakinyo TE, Lam YF, Hao S. Evaluating the role of green infrastructures on near-road
pollutant dispersion and removal: modelling and measurement. J Environ Manage.
2016;182:595–605.
[39] Speak AF, Rothwell JJ, Lindley SJ, Smith CL. Urban particulate pollution reduction by
four species of green roof vegetation in a UK city. Atmospheric Environment. 2012;
61:283–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.07.043.
[40] Chen D, Wang X, Thatcher M, Barnett G, Kachenko A, Prince R. Urban vegetation for re-
ducing heat related mortality. Environmental Pollution. 2014;192:275–84. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.05.002.
[41] King K, Johnson S, Kheirbek I, Lu J, Matte T. Differences in magnitude and spatial distribu-
tion of urban forest pollution deposition rates, air pollution emissions, and ambient neigh-
borhood air quality in New York City. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2014;128:14–22.
[42] Liang TC, Wong NH, Jusuf SK. Effects of vertical greenery on mean radiant temperature
in the tropical urban environment. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2014;127:52–64.
[43] Nowak D, Crane D, Stevens JC. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the
United States. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 2006;4:115–23.
[44] Rao M, George L, Rosenstiehl TN, Shandas V, Dinno A. Assessing the relationship among
urban trees, nitrogen dioxide, and respiratory health. Environmental Pollution. 2014;
194:96–104.
[45] Susca T, Gaffin, Dell’Osso GR. Positive effects of vegetation: urban heat island and green
roofs. Environmental Pollution. 2011;159(8–9):2119–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2011.03.007.
[46] Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kazmierczak A, Niemela J, et al. Promot-
ing ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature
review. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007;81(3):167–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2007.02.001.
[47] Kleerekoper L, van Esch M, Salcedo TB. How to make a city climate-proof, addressing
the urban heat island effect. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2012;64:30–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.06.004.
[48] Abjihith KV, Kumar P. Field investigations for evaluating green infrastructure effects on
air quality in open-road conditions. Atmospheric Environment. 2019;201:132–47.
[49] Weber F, Kowarik I, Säumel I. Herbaceous plants as filters: immobilization of particu-
lates along urban street corridors. Environ Pollut. 2014;186:234–40.
[50] Bottalico F, Chirici G, Giannetti F, De Marco A, Nocentini S, Paoletti E, et al. Air pollu-
tion removal by green infrastructures and urban forests in the city of Florence. Agricul-
ture and Agricultural Science Procedia. 2016;8:243–51.
[51] Gromke C, Jamarkattel N, Ruck B. Influence of roadside hedgerows on air quality in
urban street canyons. Atmospheric Environment. 2016;139:75–86.
[52] Whittinghill L, Rowe DB, Schutzki R, Cregg B. Quantifying carbon sequestration systems
of various green roof and ornamental landscape systems. Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning. 2014;123:41–8.
[53] Jayasooriya VM, Ng AW, Muthukumaran S, Perera BJ. Green infrastructure practices for
improvement of urban air quality. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2017;21:34–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.11.007.
[54] Vos PE, Maiheu B, Vankerkom J, Janssen S. Improving local air quality in cities: to tree or
not to tree? Environ Pollut. 2013;183:113–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.
10.021.
[55] Tan PY, Sia A. A pilot green roof research project in Singapore. Proceedings of Third An-
nual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Awards and Trade
Show, Washington, DC, May 4–6, 2005; 2005.
[56] Janhäll S. Review on urban vegetation and particle air pollution – deposition and disper-
sion. Atmospheric Environment. 2015;105:130–7.
[57] Taleghani M, Clark A, Swan W, Mohegh A. Air pollution in a microclimate; the impact of
different green barriers on the dispersion. Science of the Total Environment. 2020;
711:134649.
[58] Anderson V. Deep adaptation: a framework for climate resilience, decarbonization and
planetary health in Ontario. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/; 2018. [dissertation,
temporary restricted access].
[59] Voskamp IM, Van de Ven FHM. Planning support system for climate change: composing ef-
fective sets of blue-green measures to reduce urban vulnerability to extreme weather events.
Building and Environment. 2015;83:159–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.07.
018.
[60] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA combines expertise with New Zealand
company to advance air sensor technologies. https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/
epa-combines-expertise-new-zealand-company-advance-air-sensor-technologies; 2019.
[61] Viippolaa V, Whitlow TH, Zhao W, Yli-Pelkonen V, Mikolaa J, Pouyatd R, et al. The ef-
fects of trees on air pollutant levels in peri-urban near-road environments. Urban For-
estry & Urban Greening. 2018;30:62–71.
[62] Yli-Pelkonen V, Setälä H, Viippola V. Urban forests near roads do not reduce gaseous air
pollutant concentrations but have an impact on particles levels. Landscape and Urban
Planning. 2017;158:39–47.
[63] Yli-Pelkonen V, Scott AA, Viippola V, Setälä H. Trees in urban parks and forests reduce
O3, but not NO2 concentrations in Baltimore, MD, USA. Atmospheric Environment.
2017;167:73e80.
[64] Yli-Pelkonen V, Viippola V, Kotzea DJ, Setälä H. Greenbelts do not reduce NO2 concen-
trations in near-road environments. Urban Climate. 2017;21:306–17.
[65] Xing Y, Brimblecombe P. Role of vegetation in deposition and dispersion of air pollution
in urban parks. Atmospheric Environment. 2019;201:73–83.
[66] Yin S, Shen Z, Zhou P, Zou X, Che S, Wang W. Quantifying air pollution attenuation
within urban parks: an experimental approach in Shanghai, China. Environmental Pol-
lution. 2011;159:2155e2163.
[67] Joshi S, Gosh S. On the air cleansing efficiency of an extended green wall: a CFD analysis
of mechanistic details of transport processes. J Theor Biol. 2014;361:101–10. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.07.018.