Articles

Green Roofs as Urban

Ecosystems: Ecological
Structures, Functions, and
Services
ERICA OBERNDORFER, JEREMY LUNDHOLM, BRAD BASS, REID R. COFFMAN, HITESH DOSHI, NIGEL DUNNETT,
STUART GAFFIN, MANFRED KÖHLER, KAREN K. Y. LIU, AND BRADLEY ROWE

Green roofs (roofs with a vegetated surface and substrate) provide ecosystem services in urban areas, including improved storm-water management,
better regulation of building temperatures, reduced urban heat-island effects, and increased urban wildlife habitat. This article reviews the evidence
for these benefits and examines the biotic and abiotic components that contribute to overall ecosystem services. We emphasize the potential for
improving green-roof function by understanding the interactions between its ecosystem elements, especially the relationships among growing media,
soil biota, and vegetation, and the interactions between community structure and ecosystem functioning. Further research into green-roof technology
should assess the efficacy of green roofs compared to other technologies with similar ends, and ultimately focus on estimates of aggregate benefits at
landscape scales and on more holistic cost-benefit analyses.

Keywords: urban ecology, biomimicry, built environments, habitat creation, energy conservation

B uildings change the flow of energy and matter

through urban ecosystems, often causing environmen-
tal problems. These problems can be partially mitigated by
collecting and retaining precipitation, thereby reducing the
volume of flow into storm-water infrastructure and urban
waterways. Other potential benefits include green-space
altering the buildings’ surficial properties. Roofs can represent amenity, habitat for wildlife, air-quality improvement, and re-
up to 32% of the horizontal surface of built-up areas (Frazer duction of the urban heat-island effect (Getter and Rowe
2005) and are important determinants of energy flux and of 2006). Architects have applied green-roof technology world-
buildings’ water relations. The addition of vegetation and wide, and policymakers and the public are becoming more
soil to roof surfaces can lessen several negative effects of aware of green-roof benefits. Although green roofs are initially
buildings on local ecosystems and can reduce buildings’ en- more expensive to construct than conventional roofs, they can
ergy consumption. Living, or green, roofs have been shown be more economical over the life span of the roof because of
to increase sound insulation (Dunnett and Kingsbury 2004), the energy saved and the longevity of roof membranes
fire resistance (Köhler 2003), and the longevity of the roof (Porsche and Köhler 2003).
membrane (Porsche and Köhler 2003). They can reduce the Although green roofs represent a distinct type of urban
energy required for the maintenance of interior climates habitat, they have been treated largely as an engineering or
(Del Barrio 1998), because vegetation and growing plant horticultural challenge, rather than as ecological systems.
media intercept and dissipate solar radiation. Green roofs can The environmental benefits provided by green roofs derive
also mitigate storm-water runoff from building surfaces by from their functioning as ecosystems. The first goal of this

Erica Oberndorfer (e-mail: [email protected]) and Jeremy Lundholm work in the Department of Biology at Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada. Brad Bass works in the University of Toronto’s Centre for Environment in Ontario, Canada. Reid R. Coffman works in the Division of Landscape Architecture
at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. Hitesh Doshi works in the Department of Architectural Science at Ryerson University in Toronto. Nigel Dunnett is with
the Department of Landscape, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, United Kingdom. Stuart Gaffin works at the Columbia University Center for Climate
Systems Research in New York. Manfred Köhler works at Hochschule Neubrandenburg in Germany. Karen K. Y. Liu is with Wolfgang Behrens Systementwicklung,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Bradley Rowe is with the Michigan State University Department of Horticulture in East Lansing. © 2007 American Institute
of Biological Sciences.

www.biosciencemag.org November 2007 / Vol. 57 No. 10 • BioScience 823

Articles

article is to describe the history and components of living-roof appearance of conventional ground-level gardens, and they
ecosystems; the second is to review the ways in which the struc- can augment living and recreation space in densely populated
ture of a green roof—including vegetation, growing medium, urban areas (figure 1, table 1). Intensive green roofs typically
and roof membrane—determines its functions. require substantial investments in plant care. Furthermore,
they emphasize the active use of space and carry higher
History of green roofs aesthetic expectations than “extensive” green roofs, which
Roof gardens, the precursors of contemporary green roofs, generally have shallower soil and low-growing ground cover.
have ancient roots. The earliest documented roof gardens were Extensive green roofs are a modern modification of the
the hanging gardens of Semiramis in what is now Syria, con- roof-garden concept. They typically have shallower sub-
sidered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Today, strates, require less maintenance, and are more strictly func-
similarly elaborate roof-garden projects are designed for tional in purpose than intensive living roofs or roof gardens
high-profile international hotels, business centers, and private (figure 1, table 1; Dunnett and Kingsbury 2004). In their
homes. These green roofs, known for their deep substrates and simplest design, extensive green roofs consist of an insulation
variety of plantings as “intensive” green roofs, have the layer, a waterproofing membrane, a layer of growing medium,

a b

Figure 1. Examples of (a, b) intensive green roofs (with deeper substrate, more elaborate vegetation,
and higher maintenance requirements) and (c, d) extensive green roofs (with shallow substrate; hardy,
drought-tolerant vegetation; and low maintenance requirements). Photographs: Brad Rowe.

824 BioScience • November 2007 / Vol. 57 No. 10 www.biosciencemag.org

 Articles

Table 1. A comparison of extensive and intensive green roofs.

Characteristic Extensive roof Intensive roof

Purpose Functional; storm-water management, thermal Functional and aesthetic; increased living space
insulation, fireproofing
Structural requirements Typically within standard roof weight-bearing Planning required in design phase or structural
parameters; additional 70 to 170 kg per m2 improvements necessary; additional 290 to 970
(Dunnett and Kingsbury 2004) kg per m2
Substrate type Lightweight; high porosity, low organic matter Lightweight to heavy; high porosity, low organic
matter
Average substrate depth 2 to 20 cm 20 or more cm
Plant communities Low-growing communities of plants and mosses No restrictions other than those imposed by
selected for stress-tolerance qualities (e.g., substrate depth, climate, building height and
Sedum spp., Sempervivum spp.) exposure, and irrigation facilities
Irrigation Most require little or no irrigation Often require irrigation
Maintenance Little or no maintenance required; some weeding Same maintenance requirements as similar
or mowing as necessary garden at ground level
Cost (above waterproofing membrane) $10 to $30 per ft2 ($100 to $300 per m2) $20 or more per ft2 ($200 per m2)
Accessibility Generally functional rather than accessible; will Typically accessible; bylaw considerations
need basic accessibility for maintenance

and a vegetation layer. This basic green-roof design has been elevated) temperatures, high light intensities, and high wind
implemented and studied in diverse regions and climates speeds increase the risk of desiccation and physical damage
worldwide. to vegetation and substrate (Dunnett and Kingsbury 2004).
The modern green roof originated at the turn of the 20th Plants suitable for extensive green roofs share adaptations that
century in Germany, where vegetation was installed on roofs enable them to survive in harsh conditions. These plants
to mitigate the damaging physical effects of solar radiation on have stress-tolerant characteristics (sensu Grime 2001),
the roof structure. Early green roofs were also employed as fire- including low, mat-forming or compact growth; evergreen
retardant structures (Köhler 2003). There are now several com- foliage or tough, twiggy growth; and other drought-tolerance
peting types of extensive green-roof systems, which provide or avoidance strategies, such as succulent leaves, water stor-
similar functions but are composed of different materials age capacity, or CAM (crassulacean acid metabolism) phys-
and require different implementation protocols (figure 1). iology (figure 2; Lee and Kim 1994). However, frequent
In the 1970s, growing environmental concern, especially in drought-related disturbance to green-roof vegetation also
urban areas, created opportunities to introduce progressive favors some ruderal species (sensu Grime 2001) that can
environmental thought, policy, and technology in Germany. rapidly occupy gaps. Green-roof communities are dynamic,
Green-roof technology was quickly embraced because of its and with time, vegetation is likely to change from the origi-
broad-ranging environmental benefits, and interdisciplinary nal composition (Köhler 2006).
research led to technical guidelines, the first volume of which Since the 1980s, researchers have tested many herbaceous
was published in 1982 by the Landscape, Research, Devel- and woody taxa in different rooftop conditions (Heinze 1985,
opment and Construction Society (FLL 2002). Many German Boivin et al. 2001, Köhler 2003, Durhman et al. 2004, Mon-
cities have since introduced incentive programs to promote terusso et al. 2005). Heinze (1985) compared combinations
green-roof technology and improve environmental stan- of various Sedum species, grasses, and herbaceous perenni-
dards. Building law now requires the construction of green als, planted at two substrate depths in simulated roof plat-
roofs in many urban centers (Köhler and Keeley 2005). Such forms. Sedum species outperformed the other taxa, except in
legal underpinnings of green-roof construction have had a consistently moist substrate deeper than 10 centimeters (cm).
major effect on the widespread implementation and success In these conditions, a taller grass and herbaceous canopy
of green-roof technology throughout Germany. Green-roof layer created shaded conditions that proved unfavorable to
coverage in Germany alone now increases by approximately the Sedum species. Other studies support the suitability of
13.5 million square meters (m2) per year. Haemmerle (2002) low-growing Sedum species for use in green roofs because of
calculates that approximately 14% of all new flat roofs in their superior survival in substrate layers as thin as 2 to 3 cm
Germany will be green roofs; the total area covered by green (VanWoert et al. 2005a). Physical rooftop conditions, suitability
roofs is unknown. The market for sloped green roofs is also for plant growth, and the cost of various substrates have also
developing rapidly, and accessible green roofs have become been examined (Dunnett and Nolan 2004, Rowe et al. 2006).
a driving force in neighborhood revitalization. The composition and character of green-roof vegetation
depend on many factors. To a large extent, substrate depth
Green-roof vegetation dictates vegetation diversity and the range of possible species.
Rooftop conditions are challenging for plant survival and Shallow substrate depths between 2 and 5 cm have more
growth. Moisture stress and severe drought, extreme (usually rapid rates of desiccation and are more subject to fluctuations

www.biosciencemag.org November 2007 / Vol. 57 No. 10 • BioScience 825

Articles

in temperature, but can support simple Sedum–moss com- Climatic conditions, especially rainfall and extreme tem-
munities. Substrate depths of 7 to 15 cm can support more peratures, may restrict the use of certain species or dictate the
diverse mixtures of grasses, geophytes, alpines, and drought- use of irrigation. Native plants are generally considered ideal
tolerant herbaceous perennials, but are also more hospitable choices for landscapes because of their adaptations to local
for undesirable weeds. climates, and the native stress-tolerant floras (particularly
Green-roof substrates tend to be highly mineral based, with dry grassland, coastal, and alpine floras) of many regions
small amounts of organic matter (approximately 10% by offer opportunities for trial and experiment. Furthermore,
weight). The mineral component may come from a variety policies for biodiversity and nature conservation may favor
of sources, and can be of varying weight depending on the the establishment of locally distinctive and representative
load capacity of the roof. Light expanded clay granules and plant communities. Unfortunately, many native plants appear
crushed brick are two common materials. There is increas- to be unsuitable for conventional extensive green-roof systems
ing interest in the use of locally derived lightweight granu- because of the roofs’ harsh environmental conditions and typ-
lar waste materials as sustainable sources for green-roof ically shallow substrate depths. In a study at Michigan State
substrates. University, only 4 of the original 18 native prairie perennial

a b

Figure 2. Typical extensive green-roof vegetation. (a) Sedum species and mosses; (b) Rhodiola rosea, a succulent alpine and
rock outcrop species of northeastern North America and northern Europe, in one of its native habitats (limestone barrens in
Newfoundland); (c) Sedum species on a typical extensive green roof. Photographs: (a) Erica Oberndorfer; (b) Jeremy Lund-
holm; (c) Karen Liu.

826 BioScience • November 2007 / Vol. 57 No. 10 www.biosciencemag.org

 Articles

species growing in 10 cm of sub-

strate persisted after three years. In
comparison, all 9 nonnative species
of Sedum used in the study thrived
(Monterusso et al. 2005).
In theory, almost any plant taxon
could be used for green-roof appli-
cations, assuming it is suited to the
climatic region, grown in appro-
priate substrate at an adequate
depth, and given adequate irriga-
tion. Wind stress resulting from
building height and form may affect
the selection of plants, and visibil-
ity and accessibility are other selec-
tion criteria. Although Sedum
remains the most commonly used
genus for green roofs, the scope for
green-roof vegetation is wide, and
many possibilities have yet to be
realized.

Ecosystem services provided

by green roofs Figure 3. Types of conventional extensive green-roofing technology. (a) Complete sys-
The green-roof benefits investigated tems: each component, including the roof membrane, is installed as an integral part of
to date fall into three main cate- the roof. (b) Modular systems: vegetation trays cultivated ex situ are installed above the
gories: storm-water management, existing roofing system. (c) Precultivated vegetation blankets: growing medium, plants,
energy conservation, and urban drainage mats, and root barriers are rolled onto the existing roofing. Inverted systems
habitat provision. These ecosystem (not shown), which are increasingly popular, feature waterproofing membranes below
services derive from three main the insulation layer. Many proprietary systems with variations on these strategies are
components of the living roof sys- available throughout North America and Europe. Graphics: Jeremy Lundholm.
tem: vegetation, substrate (grow-
ing medium), and membranes (figure 3). Plants shade the roof atmosphere through evapotranspiration (figure 4; Mentens
surface and transpire water, cooling and transporting water et al. 2005, Moran et al. 2005). The depth of substrate, the slope
back into the atmosphere. The growing medium is essential of the roof, the type of plant community, and rainfall patterns
for plant growth but also contributes to the retention of affect the rate of runoff (Dunnett and Kingsbury 2004,
storm water. The membranes are responsible for water- Mentens et al. 2005, VanWoert et al. 2005b). Studies in Port-
proofing the roof and preventing roof penetration by roots.

Storm-water management. Urban areas are dominated by

hard, nonporous surfaces that contribute to heavy runoff,
which can overburden existing storm-water management
facilities and cause combined sewage overflow into lakes and
rivers. In addition to exacerbating flooding, erosion, and sed-
imentation, urban runoff is also high in pollutants such as pes-
ticides and petroleum residues, which harm wildlife habitats
and contaminate drinking supplies (Moran et al. 2005).
Conventional storm-water management techniques in-
clude storage reservoirs and ponds, constructed wetlands,
and sand filters; however, these surface-area intensive tech-
nologies may be difficult to implement in dense urban Figure 4. Storm-water runoff retention in a green-roof
centers (Mentens et al. 2005). Green roofs are ideal for urban test plot in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, in 2002. Values
storm-water management because they make use of existing are sums of total runoff retained. The green roof had 15
roof space and prevent runoff before it leaves the lot. Green centimeters of growing medium and was planted with
roofs store water during rainfall events, delaying runoff lawn grasses (Liu and Baskaran 2003); it was compared
until after peak rainfall and returning precipitation to the with an adjacent conventional roof of the same size.

www.biosciencemag.org November 2007 / Vol. 57 No. 10 • BioScience 827

Articles

land, Oregon, and East Lansing, Michigan, showed that

rainfall retention from specific green roofs was 66% to 69% a
for roofs with more than 10 cm of substrate (Moran et al.
2005). Rainfall retention varied from 25% to 100% for shal-
lower substrates in other studies (Beattie and Berghage 2004).
Green roofs can reduce annual total building runoff by as
much as 60% to 79% (Köhler et al. 2002), and estimates
based on 10% green-roof coverage suggest that they can
reduce overall regional runoff by about 2.7% (Mentens et al.
2005). In general, total runoff is greater with shallower
substrate and steeper slopes (Mentens et al. 2005, Villarreal
and Bengtsson 2005). Although green roofs can reduce runoff,
they do not solve the problem of reduced recharge of ground-
water in urban areas.

Improving roof membrane longevity. Waterproofing mem- b

branes on conventional dark roofs deteriorate rapidly in
ultraviolet (UV) light, which causes the membranes to become
brittle. Such membranes are consequently more easily dam-
aged by the expansion and contraction caused by widely
fluctuating roof temperatures. By physically protecting against
UV light and reducing temperature fluctuations, green roofs
extend the life span of the roof’s waterproofing membrane
and improve building energy conservation. Temperature sta-
bilization of the waterproofing membranes by green-roof cov-
erage may extend their useful life by more than 20 years
(USEPA 2000); some green roofs in Berlin have lasted 90 years
without needing major repairs (Porsche and Köhler 2003).
In Ottawa, Canada, Liu (2004) found that an unvegetated c
reference roof reached temperatures higher than 70
degrees Celsius (°C) in summer, while the surface tem-
perature of the green roof only reached 30°C. The mem-
brane on the reference roof reached 30°C on 342 of the
660 days of the study, whereas the membrane underneath
the green roof only reached that temperature on 18 days
(figure 5).

Summer cooling. During warm weather, green roofs re-

duce the amount of heat transferred through the roof,
thereby lowering the energy demands of the building’s
cooling system (Del Barrio 1998, Theodosiou 2003).
Wong and colleagues (2003) found that the heat trans- Figure 5. Heat flux across roof membranes for different roofing
fer through a green roof in Singapore over a typical day systems in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on (a) a summer day (26 June
was less than 10% of that of a reference roof. Research in 2003) and (b) a typical winter day with light snow coverage (23 Janu-
Japan (Onmura et al. 2001) found reductions in heat flux ary 2003), indicating that the green roof reduces the temperature fluc-
on the order of 50% per year, and work in Ottawa (Liu tuations within the roofing system. Positive heat flux values indicate
2004) found a 95% reduction in annual heat gain. A that net heat flux is from the outside into the building; negative values
study in Madrid showed that a green roof reduced the indicate that the net flux is from the inside to the outside. The green
cooling load on an eight-story residential building by 6% roof had 10 centimeters (cm) of light-colored growing medium.
during the summer (Saiz et al. 2006). In a peak demand (c) Comparison of the average daily heat flow through the green roofs
simulation, the cooling load was reduced by 10% for and reference (conventional) roof over two years. Green roofs were
the entire building and by 25%, 9%, 2%, and 1% for the installed in late July 2002. Green roof A has 10 cm of light-colored
four floors immediately below the green roof. For a typ- growing medium; green roof B has 7.5 cm of dark-colored growing
ical residential house in Toronto, the cooling load for the medium. Both were installed in Toronto. Abbreviations: AI, after
month of July was reduced by 25% for the building and installation; BI, before installation; kWh, kilowatt-hour; W, watt.
by 60% for the floor below the green roof (Saiz et al. Graphs are redrawn from Liu and Minor (2005).

828 BioScience • November 2007 / Vol. 57 No. 10 www.biosciencemag.org

 Articles

2006). Green roofs will have the greatest effect on energy Table 2. Typical Bowen ratios reported for a range of
consumption for buildings with relatively high roof-to-wall natural and agricultural vegetated land surfaces.
area ratios.
In the summer, green roofs reduce heat flux through the Land system Bowen ratio
roof by promoting evapotranspiration, physically shading Desert 10.00
Urban areas 5.00
the roof, and increasing the insulation and thermal mass. Mopane woodland in South Africa (dry season) 4.00–5.00
Gaffin and colleagues (2005, 2006) applied energy-balance Irrigated field (winter) 2.90–3.60
Pine forest (July) 2.00
models to determine how effectively green roofs evaporate and Forest floor (July) 1.20–4.50
transpire water vapor compared with other vegetated surfaces Mopane woodland in South Africa (wet season) 1.00
Pine forest in Siberia (July) 1.00
(table 2). During the summer of 2002, experimental green Douglas fir stand 0.66
roofs at Pennsylvania State University performed equiva- Wheat field (summer) 0.60
Forest in Indiana (annual average) 0.59
lently to irrigated or wet habitats, indicating that evapotran- Above forest canopy (summer) 0.50–3.00
spiration may be the most important contributor toward Soybean field (summer) 0.30
Irrigated field (April) 0.28–0.30
reducing summer building energy consumption under green Irrigated field (August) 0.20–0.25
roofs. Of course, green roofs are not the only technology Rainforest in Amazonia (wet season) 0.17
Huaihe River Basin (ruderal) 0.14
that can provide summer cooling: enhanced insulation may Tropical ocean 0.10
be able to provide equivalent energy savings and can be com- Huaihe River Basin (paddy) 0.06
bined with green roofs to further advantage. Evaporative
roofs are another example of such a technology; water is Note: The Bowen ratio, a ratio of sensible heat flux to latent heat
flux, allows for comparisons between different processes of surface
sprayed on the roof surface to induce evaporative cooling cooling. Sensible heat flux occurs with cooling by convection and is
(Clements and Sherif 1998). Rigorous comparisons of mul- dominant in arid climates; latent heat flux occurs through evapo-
tiple roofing systems are necessary to evaluate prospects for transpiration and is greatest in vegetated or aquatic environments.
optimal building energy savings. The roofs consisted of Sedum spurium growing in 10 centimeters
of growth medium.
Urban heat island. In urban environments, vegetation has
largely been replaced by dark and impervious surfaces (e.g.,
asphalt roads and roofs). These conditions contribute to an more, these results have encouraged discussion of green-
urban heat island (Oke 1987), wherein urban regions are roof design strategies to maximize biodiversity (Brenneisen
significantly warmer than surrounding suburban and rural 2006).
areas, especially at night. This effect can be reduced by in- Living roofs also provide aesthetic and psychological ben-
creasing albedo (the reflection of incoming radiation away efits for people in urban areas. Even when green roofs are only
from a surface) or by increasing vegetation cover with suffi- accessible as visual relief, the benefits may include relaxation
cient soil moisture for evapotranspiration. A regional simu- and restoration (Hartig et al. 1991), which can improve
lation model using 50% green-roof coverage distributed human health. Other uses for green roofs include urban
evenly throughout Toronto showed temperature reductions agriculture: food production can provide economic and
as great as 2°C in some areas (Bass et al. 2002). educational benefits to urban dwellers. Living roofs also re-
duce sound pollution by absorbing sound waves outside
Urban habitat values buildings and preventing inward transmission (Dunnett and
Green-roof habitats show promise for contributing to local Kingsbury 2004).
habitat conservation. Studies have documented invertebrate
and avian communities on a variety of living-roof types in sev- Community and landscape properties
eral countries (Coffman and Davis 2005, Brenneisen 2006, How important is the living portion of green roofs to their
Kadas 2006). Green roofs are commonly inhabited by vari- functioning? Although plants are an important component
ous insects, including beetles, ants, bugs, flies, bees, spiders, of green roofs, recent work shows that the growing medium
and leafhoppers (Coffman and Davis 2005). Rare and un- alone can greatly reduce runoff from a green roof (VanWoert
common species of beetles and spiders have also been recorded et al. 2005b). The medium alone reduced runoff by approx-
on green roofs (Brenneisen 2006, Grant 2006). Species rich- imately 50% in comparison with a conventional gravel roof;
ness in spider and beetle populations on green roofs is pos- adding vegetation to the medium resulted in negligible fur-
itively correlated with plant species richness and topographic ther reductions. Other research shows that the depth of the
variability (Gedge and Kadas 2004). Green roofs have also growing medium is the main determinant of runoff retention
been used by nesting birds and native avian communities (Mentens et al. 2005). However, water availability and season
(Baumann 2006). Rare plants and lichens often establish affect the ability of the growing medium to retain water.
spontaneously on older roofs as well (Brenneisen 2006, When water is readily available, evapotranspiration rates are
Köhler 2006). These findings have mobilized local and national much greater on vegetated roofs than on roofs with growing
conservation organizations to promote green-roof habitat, medium alone, especially in the summer (Farzaneh 2005).
particularly in Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Further- Complicating our understanding of green-roof functions is

www.biosciencemag.org November 2007 / Vol. 57 No. 10 • BioScience 829

Articles

the shading of the roof surface by vegetation, which may from approximately 1 to 40,000 m2 for an individual roof,
reduce evaporation from the soil surface. and the habitat occupation rates of different taxa. At least two
With respect to thermal benefits, simulation models show questions still need to be addressed: What are the relationships
that taller vegetation leads to greater thermal benefits in trop- between other green-roof ecosystem services and roof area,
ical environments, but these models do not separate the ad- and how do regional benefits relate to the landscape config-
ditive effects of soil and vegetation (Wong et al. 2003). uration of green-roof patches in urban areas? In summary,
Experiments on green roofs suggest that most of the summer green-roof benefits are partially derived from the living
cooling benefits from green roofs are attributable to evapo- components of the system, but more research is needed in
transpiration (Gaffin et al. 2005, 2006), but the relative con- determining the relationships between biotic community
tributions of vegetation and substrates cannot be separated parameters and ecosystem functioning, with a view toward
out by these analyses. A study using small-scale constructed selecting biotic components that can improve green-roof
models showed that reductions to heat flux through the roof performance.
at peak daily temperatures were greater in vegetated soil roofs
than in soil roofs alone, with 70% of the maximum reduction Future research directions
attributable to the soil and the remainder to the vegetation Much green-roof plant selection depends on lists from
(Takakura et al. 2000). Therefore, transpiration from living German research. Further research is needed to identify suit-
plants is most likely responsible for a substantial proportion able plant species for living roofs in many other climatic re-
of the cooling benefits of green roofs, and that proportion gions. Furthermore, most green-roof plant combinations are
could be boosted further by selecting species with high leaf selected for full sun exposure, using species that originate in
conductivity or large surface areas. permanently open (nonforested) habitats such as rock out-
Two properties of plant communities can influence green- crops (e.g., most Sedum), cliffs, dunes, and heathland (Lund-
roof performance: the ability to resist and recover from en- holm 2006). New selections are being investigated to identify
vironmental fluctuations or disturbances, and the rate at plants suitable for shaded roof conditions. Researchers are
which resources can be consumed. Using vegetation types that also investigating plants that provide other services, such as
recover more rapidly from disturbance should increase the removing contaminants from storm water and providing
duration of functions made possible by living plants, such as resources (e.g., pollen) for native insects and other animals.
transpiration. Greater resource use in green roofs should
reduce runoff of water and nutrients. High species diversity Water quality. The role of green roofs in storm-water reten-
is expected to encourage more complete resource use (Tilman tion is well understood, but some research demonstrates that
et al. 1997) and greater biomass constancy within the grow- green-roof runoff includes increased levels of nitrogen and
ing season (Cottingham et al. 2001). phosphorus due to leaching from the substrate (Dunnett
Very simple communities of low species diversity may be and Kingsbury 2004, Moran et al. 2005). Organic matter,
vulnerable to environmental fluctuations, but the notion nutrients, and contaminants in the growing medium or roof
that more species are inevitably better is not always tenable. membranes can cause discharged water to be a new source of
Most of the functions of vegetation are dictated by the per- surface-water pollution. Research on more inert substrates,
formance of dominant plant species, and these are likely to and on integrated gray-water reuse systems, may lead to mit-
be relatively few in number (Grime 1998). Although the pro- igation of these effects. Reducing the fertilization of green-roof
motion of native species and communities may be important vegetation should also improve runoff water quality but may
for conservation, experimental evidence indicates that the reduce plant growth or survival. Selecting plants that optimize
functional, structural, and phenological properties of vege- the uptake of nutrients and contaminants may help to reduce
tation are more important than “nativeness” in promoting pollutants in runoff while promoting plant survival.
invertebrate biodiversity (Smith et al. 2006) and other com-
munity attributes in level-ground urban gardens. In an ex- Air quality. Although extensive green roofs, being low in bio-
periment involving vegetation similar to that of extensive mass, have little potential to offset carbon emissions from cities,
green roofs, there was no relationship between species diversity intensive roof gardens that support woody vegetation could
and water retention (Dunnett et al. 2005), but a diversity make significant contributions as an urban carbon sink.
of functional types (e.g., rosette formers and grasses, as Urban vegetation is known to trap airborne particulates and
opposed to monocultures of either) was crucial to maximiz- to take up other contaminants such as nitrogen oxides. The
ing performance. Work by Kolb and Schwarz (1993) indicates potential benefits of roof greening for air quality have yet to
that vegetation including diverse functional types has a greater be documented, except for indirect assessments of the impact
positive influence on the thermal properties of green roofs than of energy savings on emissions (Bass and Baskaran 2003).
monocultural types of vegetation.
The limited size of green roofs as habitats has implications Ecosystem services and community properties. The role of bio-
for the biodiversity and landscape properties of areas in diversity in living-roof performance has been little investigated.
which green roofs are installed (Köhler 2006). Little is known Fundamental questions about the role of increased species
about the relationships between roof area, which may range diversity, native versus exotic diversity, and taxonomic versus

830 BioScience • November 2007 / Vol. 57 No. 10 www.biosciencemag.org

 Articles

functional diversity can be addressed using the living-roof solution to storm-water management issues or create urban
ecosystem. With green roofs, the system of interest is com- wildlife habitat. Another little-investigated avenue is the com-
pletely artificial, and thus experiments can be done on the sys- bination of green roofs with other green building technolo-
tem itself rather than on the simplified facsimiles that are gies, including solar thermal and photovoltaic applications.
typically used in diversity studies. While covariables such as One of the key goals of industrial ecology is to move toward
building height, aspect, and shading may affect vegetation and integrated ecological-industrial systems that eliminate waste
overall green-roof performance, the potential for replicated products and maximize energy capture over the entire life
experiments with proper quantification or control of these cycle of the materials (Korhonen 2005). Green roofs can
variables across multiple rooftops is great (Felson and Pick- assist in meeting this goal by providing a sink for gray water,
ett 2005). Although vascular plants are the most studied among other integrated benefits, but research has thus far em-
components of green roofs, other groups may also contribute phasized the benefits of individual green building technolo-
to green-roof benefits. Bryophytes and algae warrant inves- gies rather than the synergistic effects of integrating them.
tigation both as integral components of green-roof systems Finally, the cost-benefit analyses of any green building
and as potential facilitators or competitors for vascular plants. technology could be improved by more carefully considering
Belowground components of the living-roof community benefits that are difficult to quantify. Even simple visual con-
may also influence ecosystem services directly or through tact with vegetation has been shown to improve health, reduce
their contribution to plant performance (e.g., mycorrhizae). postoperative recovery times, increase employee satisfaction,
Both vegetation and belowground biota probably play a role and reduce stress (Cooper-Marcus and Barnes 1999). The
in the stability and retention of the growing medium, but no marketing value of green roofs is also seldom considered, but
research has yet addressed the effects of green-roof commu- the value of a “green building” brand is potentially tremen-
nity composition on substrate properties. dous to private enterprise, universities, and cities in attract-
An advantage of biodiversity or ecosystem function stud- ing clients, students, faculty, and tourists. Other less
ies on green roofs is that the ecological functions translate quantifiable benefits of green roofs, including increased
more or less directly into economic savings for people. Green community space and improved “livability” of cities, are
roofs are likely to become an important component of urban factors that would extend the evaluation of new technologies
sustainability in the future, provided that favorable public pol- beyond bottom-line efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
icy measures encourage and enable their construction. Al-
though legislation and government incentives promoting Green roofs as ecosystems. Green roofs represent a class of
(and requiring) green-roof technologies are common in parts technology that can be considered bioengineering or bio-
of Europe, such measures are lacking in other regions, in- mimicry: the ecosystem created by a green roof’s interacting
cluding North America. Further research efforts, public ed- components mimics several key properties of ground-level
ucation, and communication of green-roof benefits to vegetation that are absent from a conventional roof. Green
policymakers will help remove institutional barriers to this roofs, like other constructed ecosystems (e.g., sewage-
technology. treatment wetlands, bioswales for storm-water management,
or living walls), mimic natural ecosystems to provide ecosys-
Cost-benefit models. Robust cost-benefit models are neces- tem services. In particular, extensive green roofs represent the
sary for evaluating whether green roofs are in fact the most potential for the establishment of shallow soil habitats and
effective technology for mitigating common urban environ- their accompanying biodiversity: in temperate ecosystems,
mental problems. Alternate approaches to reducing building some of the highest rates of plant species diversity and en-
heat flux involve improving insulation and using living walls demism occur in relatively unproductive habitats such as
(vertical gardens) to enhance shading (Bass and Baskaran rock pavements, scree slopes, and cliff faces (Larson et al. 2000).
2003). Inverted roofing systems in which insulation layers Plant selection is not limited to any particular habitat, how-
shield the waterproofing membranes from UV radiation can ever, and the potential diversity of green-roof habitats—as well
increase roof longevity in the absence of vegetation. The use as their potential for supplying goods and services, such as
of high-albedo, high-reflectance roofing materials can also herbs and vegetables or other crops—awaits further research.
contribute to reducing urban heat-island effects (Prado and The beneficial functions of green roofs, and their eco-
Ferreira 2005). Similarly, storm-water problems can be man- nomic and environmental costs, require more investigation.
aged using rainwater reclamation cisterns and gray-water Their functioning as biological systems, and the interaction
recycling (Dixon et al. 1999). of the organisms that inhabit them, represents a frontier in
Although comparative testing of these technologies is applied ecology and an opportunity to put interdisciplinary
crucial to the development and refinement of green tech- research into practice at the interface between constructed
nologies and the consequent amelioration of urban envi- ecosystems and the greater urban environment.
ronments, it is equally important to consider the aggregate
benefits of these technologies. High-reflectance roof Acknowledgments
membranes, for example, may more effectively reduce urban We would like to thank Green Roofs for Healthy Cities for
heat-island effects than green roofs, but they do not offer a supporting this initiative, and also two anonymous review-

www.biosciencemag.org November 2007 / Vol. 57 No. 10 • BioScience 831

Articles
Gaffin SR, Rosenzweig C, Parshall L, Beattie D, Berghage R, O’Keeffe G,
ers for comments that improved the manuscript. Financial
Braman D. 2005. Energy balance modeling applied to a comparison of
support was provided by the Natural Science and Engineer- green and white roof cooling efficiency. Paper presented at the Third
ing Research Council of Canada. Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference,
Awards and Trade Show; 4–6 May 2005, Washington, DC.
References cited Gaffin S, Rosenzweig C, Parshall L, Hillel D, Eichenbaum-Pikser J, Greenbaum
Bass B, Baskaran B. 2003. Evaluating Rooftop and Vertical Gardens as an Adap- A, Blake R, Beattie R, Berghage R. 2006. Quantifying evaporative
tation Strategy for Urban Areas. Ottawa (Canada): National Research cooling from green roofs and comparison to other land surfaces. Paper
Council Canada, Institute for Research in Construction. Report no. presented at the Fourth Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
NRCC-46737. Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show; 11–12 May 2006,
Bass B, Krayenhoff ES, Martilli A, Stull RB, Auld H. 2003. The impact of green Boston.
roofs on Toronto’s urban heat island. Pages 292–304 in Proceedings of Gedge D, Kadas G. 2004. Bugs, bees, and spiders: Green roof design for rare
the First North American Green Roof Conference: Greening Rooftops invertebrates. Paper presented at the Second Annual Greening Rooftops
for Sustainable Communities; 20–30 May, Chicago. Toronto (Canada): for Sustainable Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show; 2–4
Cardinal Group. June 2004, Portland, Oregon.
Baumann N. 2006. Ground-nesting birds on green roofs in Switzerland: Getter KL, Rowe DB. 2006. The role of green roofs in sustainable develop-
Preliminary observations. Urban Habitats 4: 37–50. ment. HortScience 41: 1276–1286.
Beattie D, Berghage R. 2004. Green roof media characteristics: The basics. Grant G. 2006. Extensive green roofs in London. Urban Habitats 4: 51–65.
Paper presented at the Second Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustain- Grime JP. 1998. Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: Immediate, filter
able Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show; 2–4 June 2004, and founder effects. Journal of Ecology 86: 902–910.
Portland, Oregon. ———. 2001. Plant Strategies,Vegetation Processes and Ecosystem Properties.
Boivin M-A, Lamry M-P, Gosselin A, Dansereau B. 2001. Effect of artificial Chichester (United Kingdom): Wiley.
substrate depth on freezing injury of six herbaceous perennials grown Haemmerle F. 2002. Der Markt für grüne Dächer wächst immer weiter.
in a green roof system. HortTechnology 11: 409–412. Jahrbuch Dachbegrünung 2002: 11–13.
Brenneisen S. 2006. Space for urban wildlife: Designing green roofs as Hartig T, Mang M, Evans GW. 1991. Restorative effects of natural environ-
habitats in Switzerland. Urban Habitats 4: 27–36. (14 August; www. ment experience. Environment and Behavior 23: 3–26.
urbanhabitats.org/v04n01/index.html) Heinze W. 1985. Results of an experiment on extensive growth of vegetation
Clements JA, Sherif SA. 1998. Thermal analysis of roof spray cooling. on roofs. Rasen Grünflachen Begrünungen 16 (3): 80–88.
International Journal of Energy Research 22: 1337–1350. Kadas G. 2006. Rare invertebrates colonizing green roofs in London. Urban
Coffman RR, Davis G. 2005. Insect and avian fauna presence on the Ford Habitats 4: 66–86.
assembly plant ecoroof. Paper presented at the Third Annual Greening Köhler M. 2003. Plant survival research and biodiversity: Lessons from
Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Europe. Paper presented at the First Annual Greening Rooftops for
Show; 4–6 May 2005, Washington, DC. Sustainable Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show; 20–30
Cooper-Marcus C, Barnes M. 1999. Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits May 2003, Chicago.
and Design Recommendations. New York: Wiley. ———. 2006. Long-term vegetation research on two extensive green roofs
Cottingham KL, Brown BL, Lennon JT. 2001. Biodiversity may regulate the in Berlin. Urban Habitats 4: 3–26.
temporal variability of ecological systems. Ecology Letters 4: 72–85. Köhler M, Keeley M. 2005. The green roof tradition in Germany: The example
Del Barrio EP. 1998. Analysis of the green roofs cooling potential in of Berlin. Pages 108–112 in Hoffman L, McDonough W, eds. Green
buildings. Energy and Buildings 27: 179–193. Roofs: Ecological Design and Construction. New York: Schiffer.
Dixon A, Butler D, Fewkes A. 1999. Water saving potential of domestic Köhler M, Schmidt M, Grimme FW, Laar M, de Assunção Paiva VL, Tavares
water reuse systems using greywater and rainwater in combination. S. 2002. Green roofs in temperate climates and in the hot-humid
Water Science and Technology 39 (5): 25–32. tropics—far beyond the aesthetics. Environment and Health 13: 382–391.
Dunnett NP, Kingsbury N. 2004. Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls. Kolb W, Schwarz T. 1993. Zum Klimatisierungseffekt von Pflanzenbestän-
Portland (OR): Timber Press. den auf Dächern. Veitshöchheimer Berichte 4: 28–36.
Dunnett NP, Nolan A. 2004. The effect of substrate depth and supplemen- Korhonen J. 2005. Theory of industrial ecology: The case of the concept of
tary watering on the growth of nine herbaceous perennials in a semi- diversity. Progress in Industrial Ecology, an International Journal 2:
extensive green roof. Acta Horticulturae 643: 305–309. 35–72.
Dunnett NP, Nagase A, Booth R, Grime JP. 2005. Vegetation composition Larson DW, Matthes U, Kelly PE. 2000. Cliff Ecology. Cambridge (United
of green roofs and its influence on runoff and biodiversity. Paper Kingdom): Cambridge University Press.
presented at the Third Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Lee KS, Kim J. 1994. Changes in crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) of
Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show; 4–6 May 2005, Sedum plants with special reference to soil moisture conditions. Journal
Washington, DC. of Plant Biology 37: 9–15.
Durhman A, Rowe DB, Ebert-May D, Rugh CL. 2004. Evaluation of Liu K. 2004. Engineering performance on rooftop gardens through field
crassulacean species on extensive green roofs. Paper presented at the evaluation. Journal of Roof Consultants Institute 22 (2): 4–12.
Second Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Liu K, Baskaran B. 2003. Thermal Performance of Green roofs through
Conference, Awards and Trade Show; 2–4 June 2004, Portland, Oregon. Field Evaluation—Ottawa. Ottawa (Canada): National Research
Farzaneh R. 2005. Evapotranspiration rates from extensive green roof plant Council Canada, Institute for Research in Construction. Report no.
species. Master’s thesis. Pennsylvania State University. NRCC-46412.
Felson AJ, Pickett STA. 2005. Designed experiments: New approaches to Liu K, Minor J. 2005. Performance evaluation of an extensive green roof.
studying urban ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Paper presented at the Third Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
3: 549–556. Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show; 4–6 May 2005,
[FLL] Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau Washington, DC.
(Landscape, Research, Development and Construction Society). 2002. Lundholm JT. 2006. Green roofs and facades: A habitat template approach.
Guideline for the Planning, Execution, and Upkeep of Green-roof Sites. Urban Habitats 4: 87–101.
(14 August 2007; www.f-l-l.de/english.html) Mentens J, Raes D, Hermy M. 2005. Green roofs as a tool for solving the
Frazer L. 2005. Paving paradise. Environmental Health Perspectives 113: rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landscape
457–462. and Urban Planning 77: 21–226.

832 BioScience • November 2007 / Vol. 57 No. 10 www.biosciencemag.org

 Articles
Monterusso MA, Rowe DB, Rugh CL. 2005. Establishment and persistence flora, and implications for native biodiversity. Biological Conservation
of Sedum spp. and native taxa for green roof applications. HortScience 129: 312–322.
40: 391–396. Takakura T, Kitade S, Goto E. 2000. Cooling effect of greenery cover over a
Moran A, Hunt B, Smith J. 2005. Hydrologic and water quality performance building. Energy and Buildings 31: 1–6.
from greenroofs in Goldsboro and Raleigh, North Carolina. Paper Theodosiou TG. 2003. Summer period analysis of the performance of a
presented at the Third Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable planted roof as a passive cooling technique. Energy and Buildings 35:
Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show; 4–6 May 2005, 909–917.
Washington, DC. Tilman D, Lehman CL, Thomson KT. 1997. Plant diversity and ecosystem
Oke TR. 1987. Boundary Layer Climates. 2nd ed. New York: Methuen. productivity: Theoretical considerations. Proceedings of the National
Onmura S, Matsumoto M, Hokoi S. 2001. Study on evaporative cooling Academy of Sciences 94: 1857–1861.
effect of roof lawn gardens. Energy and Buildings 33: 653–666. [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Vegetated Roof Cover:
Porsche U, Köhler M. 2003. Life cycle costs of green roofs: A comparison of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Washington (DC): USEPA. Report no. EPA
Germany, USA, and Brazil. Proceedings of the World Climate and 841-B-00-005D.
Energy Event; 1–5 December 2003, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (22 October VanWoert ND, Rowe DB, Andresen JA, Rugh CL, Xiao L. 2005a. Watering
2007; www.gruendach-mv.de/en/ri03_461_u_porsche.pdf) regime and green roof substrate design impact Sedum plant growth.
Prado RTA, Ferreira FL. 2005. Measurement of albedo and analysis of its HortScience 40: 659–664.
influence on the surface temperature of building roof materials. Energy ———. 2005b. Green roof stormwater retention: Effects of roof surface, slope,
and Buildings 37: 295–300. and media depth. Journal of Environmental Quality 34: 1036–1044.
Rowe DB, Monterusso MA, Rugh CL. 2006. Assessment of heat-expanded Villarreal EL, Bengtsson L. 2005. Response of a Sedum green-roof to
slate and fertility requirements in green roof substrates. HortTechnol- individual rain events. Ecological Engineering 25: 1–7.
ogy 16: 471–477.
Wong NH, Chen Y, Ong CL, Sia A. 2003. Investigation of thermal benefits
Saiz S, Kennedy C, Bass B, Pressnail K. 2006. Comparative life cycle
of rooftop garden in the tropical environment. Building and Environ-
assessment of standard and green roofs. Environmental Science and
ment 38: 261–270.
Technology 40: 4312–4316.
Smith RM, Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Warren PH, Gaston KJ. 2006. Urban doi:10.1641/B571005
domestic gardens (IX): Composition and richness of the vascular plant Include this information when citing this material.

www.biosciencemag.org November 2007 / Vol. 57 No. 10 • BioScience 833

 The world is
your mollusk.

AIBS Diversity Programs remove barriers by

expanding professional development and career
and service opportunities. Learn more at

www.aibs.org/diversity