Green Roof and Wall Policy Guide 2023

GREEN ROOF AND WALL
POLICY IN NORTH AMERICA

Green Roofs for Healthy Cities greenroofs.org
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors
The report was co-authored by:
Richard Hayden, GRP, Retired (Advisor), American Hydrotech, Inc.
Jeff Joslin, Director Emeritus, Current Planning, San Francisco
Planning Department
Peter Lowitt, FAICP, Retired, Devens Enterprise Commission
Rushil Malik, Marketing Manager, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities
Steven W. Peck, GRP, Honorary ASLA, Founder and President,
GRHC
Maya Stern, Program Co-ordinator, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities
(GRHC)
Contributors and reviewers of the document include:

Amy Chomowicz, Secretary, Green Roof Information Think-Tank
Rohan Lilauwala, GRP, Staff, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities
Elizabeth (Hart) Morris, CDT, GRP, President of Green Up Roofing
Shayna Stott, Senior Planner, City of Toronto
Dennis Yanez, National Marketing Manager, American Hydrotech
Shanice Burton, Intern, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities
Jonta Karmara, Intern, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities
Noor Qureshi, Intern, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities Powderhouse, Somerville, MA. Photo:
Recover Green Roofs
About the Report

This report is designed as a resource for policy makers that are interested in establishing or updating
green roof and wall policies and programs. It can also help Green Roofs for Healthy Cities’ corporate
members source supportive policies and programs for green roof and wall installation in markets across
North America. For more information about Green Roofs for Healthy Cities membership opportunities
for both public and private organizations and resources please visit our website.
On the Cover:
2023 Jeffrey L. Bruce Awards of Excellence Winning Project Photos
Top Row (left to right): 4131 South State - Omni Ecosystems, 5665 Woodlawn - Omni Ecosystems.
Second Row: Drexel University - Parker Interior Plantscape. Third Row (left to right): Javits Center
Farm - Brooklyn Grange, 4131 South State - Omni Ecosystems, Javits Center Farm - Brooklyn Grange.
Bottom Row: University of Hartford - Recover Green Roofs. Submit your project, policy or research
leader for a future award here.
Green Roof and Wall Policy in North America: Regulations, Incentives, and Approaches 2023 2
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Benefits and Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Benefits of Living Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Green Roof Policy Implementation - The Time is Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A Single Test Tool to Address Multiple Policy Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Public Policy and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Overcoming Perceived Barriers to Green Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities – Policy and Professional Development Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Green Infrastructure Foundation – Program and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Overcoming Green Roof Myths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Types of Green Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Types of Green Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Common Types of Green Roof and Wall Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Construction Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Stages of Green Roof Policy Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Principles for Establishing Effective Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Overview of Policies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Mandatory Green Roof Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Green Infrastructure Stormwater Management Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
Appendix A - Green Roof Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Appendix B - Devens Enterprise Commission Policy . . .greenroofs.org

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Introduction
In an era of climate change, marked by extreme heat, drought, flooding, fire and worsening air quality, policy
makers the world over are looking to the roofs, and more recently the walls, of the buildings in their cities
for relief. Over the past 20 years, local governments from across North America have been introducing
green roof policies in order to generate a market for these technologies and achieve multiple policy
objectives.
Green roofs go by many names, including eco-roofs, living roofs, vegetative roofs, and roof gardens to name
a few. Green roof policy is often a key component of a larger government policy effort to implement various
forms of green infrastructure, also known as ‘natural infrastructure’, in cities to address multiple challenges
simultaneously. Green infrastructure measures include bioswales, urban forests and wetlands. This report
focuses primarily on green roofs and green walls, which remain significantly underutilized by policy makers
across North America.
A decade ago, the City of Toronto was the first major city in North America to adopt a mandatory green
roof requirement for new buildings. As a result, it now boasts more than 1000 green roofs and over 10
million square feet of additional green space. Policy makers in Portland, Oregon and Chicago, Illinois were
also two of the early adopters of green roofs. They provided financial incentives, regulations and
procurement policies for green roofs. Each of these cities has seen millions of square feet of growth in the
green roof market, with the resulting increase in employment and many other benefits. Portland, Oregon
and Cambridge, Massachusetts have recently made green roofs mandatory on new buildings.
Green roofs are neither new nor exotic. In fact, they’ve been deployed elsewhere in the world for decades
on modern structures, and in some cases they’ve been common practice for generations. The concept is
simple and derived from “natural infrastructure”, such as wetlands, forests and prairies. They mimic such
environments in terms of aesthetics and habitat. They are functionally comparable in terms of providing
ecosystem services: filtering air and water, employing rainfall to support plant life, and absorbing and
detaining such rainwater that would otherwise need to be managed through engineered drainage, septic,
and/or treatment systems. They have the capacity to displace vast areas of negatively impacting roofs with
“green infrastructure”, with the cumulative potential to avoid costly expansions of municipal water
treatment systems and address challenges like the worsening urban heat island.
A decade ago, targeted green wall policies lagged behind the implementation of green roof policies, in part
because of the relative newness of the green wall industry in North America, and because there was less
performance data and a less-evolved universe of providers for these technologies. Since that earlier era, a
growing number of cities have developed more comprehensive green infrastructure policies that capture
the many benefits of green walls as well as green roofs, urban forests, bioswales and other forms of
engineered green infrastructure.
Green roof policies vary considerably: some have come to include regulations which require compliance,
and others offer voluntary incentive programs. Certain municipalities have adopted regulations and
incentives for installing green roofs, with different agencies operating programs with complementary goals
to foster deployment of these technologies.
The specific construction requirements of mandated and incentivized green roofs also vary, from simple
roof coverage and media depth requirements, to more complex construction standards which include items
such as leak detection and minimum maintenance standards. Over the past five years, Green Roofs for
Healthy Cities and the Green Infrastructure Foundation have worked to develop a comprehensive
performance rating system for green roofs and walls called the Living Architecture Performance Tool
(LAPT). The LAPT is intended as a readily implementable standard for municipalities to assert a consistent
set of design, construction, maintenance, and performance requirements. A number of different projects,
from simple sedum roofs to more complex intensive roof gardens have been certified under the LAPT.
In some jurisdictions, where such policies and regulations have been considered, initial costs for a green roof
have – unsurprisingly – proven to be a political challenge as development constituencies have reacted to
first costs rather than considering life cycle costs. However, in a variety of markets, geographies, and
bioclimates, the life cycle value and financial return of green roofs has been demonstrated to be
consistently robust, resulting directly in the increasing number of cities establishing mandatory
requirements typically focused on new buildings.
Plants growing naturally along the sidewalk, some leaning in. Photo: Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens
Regulations catalyze maturing markets. Requiring developers to implement green roofs provides a certain
green roof economy that allows the most rapid and successful emergence of local product and service
providers. Such deployment also consistently results in an early and dramatic reduction in installation costs,
thus furthering the cost-efficacy of these systems.
Cities that have recently established green roofs to address green building goals and/or stormwater
management objectives include: New York, Seattle, Toronto, San Francisco, Cambridge, Gatineau, and
Washington DC. This layered approach tends to produce greater results such as in Devens, Massachusetts.
Stormwater regulations, viewshed overlay requirements and greenhouse gas mitigation work in concert to
support green roof implementation.
These cities each have a combination of green roof regulations for new buildings and incentives for existing
buildings to substantially, directly, and effectively manifest new development that cost-efficiently
contributes positively and remedially to the built environment.
Benefits Overview and Policy Options

Each municipality and governing entity needs to determine the drivers for green roof policy appropriate to
its particular circumstances. There is something for everyone up on the rooftop. Green roofs have an
extraordinary ability to generate both public and private benefits. The composition of the benefits is largely
a function of the type of building, the type of green roof deployed, and the environment in which the green
roof is located, i.e., need for green space, air quality, and stormwater management. Here are some of the
many benefits of green roofs:
Biodiversity Focused Roofs

Green roofs can provide much needed habitat for invertebrates and
birds as well as rare and endangered plants, particularly if they are
designed and maintained for this purpose. Green walls can also
support insect and bird habitat when employed outside. Portland,
Oregon was one of the first municipalities in the United States to
install a green roof to enhance biodiversity. The European Union is
pushing a strategy to promote biodiversity through vegetated roofs.
The City of Toronto has developed biodiverse design guidelines to
encourage more biodiverse green roof development.
A proposal for legally binding EU nature restoration targets to restore
ecosystems and help to increase biodiversity, mitigate and adapt to
climate change, and prevent and reduce the impacts of natural
disasters. The European Commission proposed a Nature Restoration
Law and in that framework it proposed unprecedented legally binding
urban biodiversity targets. Such targets are intended to boost a
systematic integration of vegetation into urban planning, including in
public spaces, infrastructure, and in the design of buildings, in
particular of their roofs and facades, and their surroundings. England
adopted a new policy in 2022 requiring new development to provide
a net gain or improve biodiversity over existing conditions. Vegetated
roofs will play a starring role in this effort. Preying Mantis on Basel’s biggest green roof
on Stücki Shopping mall. Photo: Andreas
Carbon Sequestration Strategy Hofstetter
Plants and soils/engineered growing media, sequester carbon and produce oxygen. Green roofs can play an
outsized role in a communities’ climate action, mitigation and adaptation plans when deployed in the
aggregate. Green roof mandates begin to address the need to achieve wholesale deployment of this
important tool. The more types of vegetation and deeper growing media deployed, the greater the carbon
sequestration impact.
Climate Mitigation
Green roofs are able to provide additional thermal
insulation benefits for many roofs, thereby reducing
energy consumption associated with space heating and
cooling. Portland State University and Environment
Canada established an Energy Calculator which provides
base levels of energy savings in multiple climates across
North America. Many of the energy savings benefits to
buildings depend on their age, with older buildings often
lacking sufficient insulation the benefits are greater.
Photo: Brodie Kerst. The Old Chicago Post Office in downtown
Chicago
Reduce Urban Heat Island
Impervious surfaces and a lack of vegetation, often widespread in poorer neighborhoods, contributes to the
urban heat island, which is the term used to describe the higher temperatures experienced in urban areas
relatively to the surrounding countryside. The implementation of a significant amount of green roofs in a
given area, has the potential to lower the urban heat island effect, which contributes to improved air quality
and the reduction of energy consumption associated with air conditioning. While traditional roofs will heat
up the surrounding environment, green roofs act as outside air conditioning and cool their surroundings
through evapotranspiration. See here for detailed papers on energy, climate and green roofs.
Membrane Durability
Green roofs protect waterproofing membranes from the wear and tear associated with solar radiation
exposure, temperature fluctuations, and mechanical damage, thereby extending the life expectancy of most
membranes by two times or more. This results in significant savings associated with future membrane
replacement costs as well as reducing the need for removal, disposing and recycling of worn out
membranes.
Hail Protection and Reduced Insurance Rates

IThe proof is in the track record. Denver experienced a particularly punishing hail storm which damaged
numerous roofs across the city: green roofs were undamaged by the event. The anecdotal evidence was
translated into empirical data and the author concluded:
“Similar to current UL 2218-rated hail resistant roof materials, with the Class 4 rating, it is my
hope that green roofs will be approved as a roof choice qualifying for the same insurance
premium discounts. Roofs that use UL2218-rated materials enjoy up to 35 percent savings on
their insurance premiums.”¹
¹Leila Tolderlund, Living Architecture Monitor Winter 2019 19-20. “Green Roofs Stop Costly Hail Damage to Roof Membranes
Green Roofs, Walls and Jobs

Job creation is a factor in leveraging
political support for green roof and wall
policies. Assessing the local green roof
industry to illustrate the new jobs that
adopting a green roof policy would
generate, both in terms of installation,
growing plants and maintaining the
systems once installed provides a
powerful case to politicians. Linking job
training programs to the initiative can
broaden support.
Photo: Scott Shigley. The Old Chicago Post Office in downtown Chicago
Public Health and Equity

In communities where there is a correlation between asthma, ozone pollution and other particulate matter
respiratory issues, green roofs and green infrastructure can play an important role in crafting public policy to
protect the public health of the community. Vegetation fixes particulate matter and can therefore reduce
the impacts of air pollution. Policies such as directing Community Development Block Grant funding to the
installation of vegetated roofs, walls, urban street trees and other green infrastructure provide multiple
benefits to the community and its residents. Public health benefits include the reduction in urban heat
island, energy conservation, reduction in combined sewer overflows and better stormwater management. ,
see here for more details on the public and private benefits of green roofs.
Numerous studies have clearly illustrated the role vegetation can play to fix particulate matter (one of the
major factors in asthma). A recent study shows green wall plants can reduce indoor air pollution as well. A
team at the University of Washington has compiled over forty years of academic studies documenting the
benefits of green roofs and green infrastructure at the web site Green Cities: Good Health. Exposure to
nature in urban environments through Green Infrastructure has been shown to reduce stress levels, reduce
recovery times in hospitals where patients have a view of nature, and provide many other co-benefits. Learn
more about the benefits to nature specifically for children here. Green walls, in particular, have an
advantage over green roofs in that they contribute visually while conferring direct health benefits, including
adding moisture to - and removing pollutants from - indoor air.
Public Art/Aesthetics
The Devens Enterprise Commission in north central Massachusetts adopted a viewshed protection
ordinance to protect the view from the nearby Museum of the New England Landscape. Views from the
museum must be mitigated with green walls, roofs and the use of low reflectance materials. Green walls
have also been recognized as meeting regulatory requirements for the installation of public art in Oakland,
California. greenroofs.org
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities
Stormwater Management
Green roofs have the ability to retain stormwater through the plants, growing medium and additional layers
that capture and hold, or slow the progress of water off a roof. Many jurisdictions recognize green roof
assemblies for their stormwater retention benefits through stormwater regulations. In recent years,
manufacturers have begun introducing green roof systems that enhance the stormwater retention capacity
of green roofs, often through the use of cups in the drainage layer, fabrics or fleeces that expand to hold
more water. They are also incorporating systems that allow for the detention of stormwater (typically up to
6 inches in depth) for a period of time, often two to three days, before controlled release. The detention
capacity gives civil engineers a greater degree of certainty over stormwater management than retention
alone. Managing stormwater on roofs, can save developers costs associated with below grade or under-
building stormwater detention structures and the space and mechanisms they require.
Moderne, Saratoga Springs, NY. Photo: Bonacio Construction Stormwater retention testing. Photo: Green Roof Diagnostics
Support for Density

Public green roof parks, in cities such as Chicago which boasts the Millenium Roof Park, San Francisco
which recently completed the Transbay Terminal Roofpark, and New York City which established the linear
Highline Park, have all directly contributed to increased density with new developments nearby these
important amenities. Office and residential projects adjacent to such amenities have consistently resulted in
greater marketability, higher rents, and increased valuations. Increasing density while providing high quality
living spaces is key to sustainable community development because it helps to reduce sprawl.
Contribution to Food Justice/Security

The development of rooftop farms, which generate employment and often provide gathering and education
opportunities for communities in addition to providing fresh produce, is on the rise worldwide. More than
forty rooftop farms are now operating in Canada and the US, some as for-profit enterprises while others are
not-for-profit in nature. See here for a list of rooftop farms across North America. New York City and
Toronto both have incentive programs that support rooftop farm development.
Contribution to Rooftop Solar Energy

A number of technologies exist which combine the benefits of rooftop solar with green roofs, as there are
multiple synergies between the two technologies. These include higher rates of solar energy production (5
to 15%) due to the cooler rooftop temperatures provided by the green roofs underneath, and the ability of
the green roofs to provide ballast to the solar grid without the need for roof penetrations, which can be a
source of leaks. Each year, new technologies emerge in this field, the latest being vertical panels.
Summary of the Benefits of Living Architecture

Energy savings due to reduced demand for Potential to generate direct revenue for sale or
heating and cooling from evapotranspiration lease of roof spaces, and from new uses such as
and insulation urban agriculture production
Energy savings from shading and blocking the Biophilic related benefits resulting in reduced
wind absenteeism
Energy savings from pre-cooling air
conditioning unit intake air Urban Heat Island Mitigation Resulting
Energy savings from reducing the need to
In:
exchange indoor air
Energy savings in buildings and resulting
Carbon credits from associated energy savings
greenhouse gas emission reductions
Savings associated with longevity increases to
Less smog formation
waterproofing and building envelopes
Reduction of particulate matter in the air
Improved indoor air quality resulting in
More liable environment for citizens and less
improved occupant health and performance
heat related stress
Improved property values related to better
Water conservation
visual amenity accessible amenities and noise
Reduction in associated health care costs from
attenuation
improving air quality and reducing heat
Improved patient recovery in hospitals
Contribution to savings on power plants and
Improved academic performance in schools
transmission infrastructure
Marketing and promotional opportunities
Integration with site for better overall
stormwater management and reuse Improvements in Onsite Stormwater
Improved public relations/community relations Management Resulting In:
and potentially faster project approval times Reduction in the frequency of combined sewer
Improved rentability, saleability of properties overflow events
and units Increase in life expectancy of pipes and other
Contributes to reaching USGBC and CAGBC grey infrastructure
LEED credits Reduction in costs of erosion control
Contributes to meeting the Living Building Reduction in frequency of flooding
Challenge 2.0 and Sustainable Sites Improved water quality
Access to public incentives and/or enhanced
ability to meet regulations such as stormwater
management
Integration with other building systems, such as
mechanical systems and solar photovoltaics
panels for better energy efficiency and
generation
IGA rooftop farm, Quebec, Canada. Photo: La Ligne Verte
Aesthetic/Biophilic Improvements Employment From Manufacture, Design,

Resulting In: Installation, Maintenance and New Uses
Healthier and more productive citizens Resulting In:
Less crime and associated policing, judicial and Fewer social problems
incarceration related expenses Additional recreational opportunities
Improved economic activity
More community cohesion
Increase in walking, cycling, gardening and Noise Attenuation and Sound
running Improvement Resulting In:
Beautifying unattractive building features Less noise entering buildings which may result in
Opportunities for artistic expressions increased property values
Reduced patient care costs in health care Biologically satisfying noise - like wind rushing
facilities through grass
Urban Food Production Resulting In: Shading Resulting In:

Greater food security Fewer sun related health issues
Better food quality Cooler more enjoyable streets, parking lots,
Increased employment subway platforms
Reduction in transportation of food with
associated air pollution, greenhouse gasses, Improvements to Building Envelope
traffic, etc Longevity Resulting In:
Community self-reliance and improved
Reduction in landfill waste
cohesion Replacement cost savings on public buildings
Carbon Sequestration: Improved Biodiversity Resulting In:

Plants and growing media can sequester carbon
Educational/Urban nature experiences
generating carbon credits
Carbon sequestration by protecting migratory
Increase in property values with a corresponding birds which support boreal forest growth
return in property taxes to the city Pollination by insects, particularly bees
Beauty and improved recreation opportunities,
such as bird watching
Incorporation of Green Products and

Systems Resulting In:
Improved markets for recycled plastics
Improve markets for compost and recycled
aggregates
Lower energy in the overall systems
The mixed intensive-extensive green roof at Denver Botanic
Gardens. Photo: Michael Guidi Improved conservation of water resources
Green Roof Policy Implementation – The Time is Now

Green roof policy is a unique tool, advancing a range of public policy objectives simultaneously. Green roof
policies and programs can leverage the considerable private sector investment in the
development/redevelopment of buildings. They do so by taking advantage of otherwise underutilized roof
space which, depending on the jurisdiction, constitute as much as 30 per cent of the total land area in
densely developed cities.
Green roofs and walls provide social, economic and environmental benefits. Within a given city, thousands
of green roof projects covering tens of millions of square feet of land area have the ability to reduce the
growing threat of the urban heat island effect, and reduce flooding and water quality challenges and costs
by retaining and detaining stormwater. The addition of plants improves air quality, resulting in better human
health and well being. Some jurisdictions also utilize roof space to provide habitat for pollinators, and rare
and endangered species of flora and fauna.
As green roof benefits accrue at various scales, such policies constitute a natural public-private partnership.
The real value over time is quantifiable and scalable, and analysis in advance of policy initiatives
demonstrating these benefits is one of the single most valuable tools to promoting such policies, whether
addressing elected officials, the public, housing advocates, developers, designers, or owners.
At the building scale, green roofs provide private/building owner benefits, which are determined by the
type of building. For almost all buildings, green roofs increase the life expectancy of waterproofing
membranes and reduce energy costs - benefits that accrue to the building occupants and owners over the
long term. For some buildings, added real estate value benefits building owners, as well as affording the
opportunity to generate additional revenue through the rental of roof space, and higher prices for amenity
decks (whether for sale or rental). For other buildings, such as large warehouses that are not climate-
controlled, the benefits of green roofs may be substantially less for the owner.
At the public/community scale, the benefits also include: job creation, substantial energy savings, significant
tax base increases resulting from added real estate value, and health benefits resulting from enhanced
views, biophilic value and biodiversification. For some of these attributes, the monetary value is quantifiable.
For others, the supportive data is more intuitive or observational.
Whether public or private, clearly monetizable benefits result. Regardless of the form of ownership
independent life-cycle cost-benefit-analyses conducted by ARUP for the General Services Administration
(GSA) have demonstrated that extensive, lightweight green roofs typically offer as little as a five- or six-year
simple payback.³ For privately owned projects, this value accrues directly to owners. For rental projects,
ultimate savings can benefit the owner and renter. When applied to public buildings, the value returns to the
public directly. For projects serving economically challenged communities, the resulting benefits contribute
directly to meaningfully advancing social equity goals. The value-added and direct savings resulting from
green roofs are genuinely equal opportunity.
³ Federal High-Performance Green Buildings: Green Roofs. U.S. General Services Administration. (2021, June 4).
A Single, Tested Tool to Address Multiple Policy Objectives

Green roof policies allow governments to target a range of environmental and health issues, accelerate
economic development objectives, and advance environmental and social equity agendas with a single
regulatory action. Largely used as a tool to manage stormwater (retention and detention) and build
resilience to climate change, green roofs also reduce impervious surfaces, filter stormwater and sequester
carbon. Green roofs benefit human health by increasing access to green space and can also contribute to
local food production and security through rooftop farming. Green roofs contribute broadly to energy cost
savings at the city-scale through the reduction of the urban heat island effect, whether in heating or cooling
dominated climates. An ancillary benefit is a resultant increase in real estate valuation, which benefits
individual projects as well as tax rolls.
Voluntary implementation of green roofs continues to advance as developers and institutions embrace the
value and benefits of such facilities. However, only through the implementation of green roof policies and
regulations can sufficient momentum occur that results in the creation or expansion of providers,
substantial municipal benefits, a scale sufficient to achieve expeditious first-cost reductions, and a more
rapid and broad-scale response to emerging climatic and economic challenges.
Public Policy and Programs

The period of innovation and testing of feasibility of green roofs is in the
past. The systems are available, technical approaches are well defined,
and the economic efficacy has been determined over an array of
economic and bioclimatic geographies, from Alaska to southern Florida
and all parts in-between. Public policy programs and awareness
campaigns may be required to break through resistance to widespread
implementation and facilitate the use of green roofs. In cities already
with high rates of green roof installation, public policies have served to
Public Policy and Programs
stimulate the green roof market by educating developers and community Mordecai Children's Garden green roof.
members as well as providing financial incentives and/or regulations. Photo: Michael Guidi
Increased exposure to green roofs through municipal demonstration projects can also serve to dismantle
public misconceptions about the technology. Education targeting building owners, architects, landscape
architects, engineers and policy makers will likely have the greatest impact on bringing green roof
technology into the mainstream.
For many building owners and developers, the common private benefits may not be perceived as
sufficiently quantified or immediate enough to justify the additional upfront capital investment. This is
where financial and regulatory incentives become important. Examples include the City of Toronto’s Eco-
Roof Incentive Program which offers CDN$100 per square meter of green roof and Washington DC’s
US$15 per square foot incentive in targeted watersheds where combined sewer overflows are frequent.
Some of the policies described in this report are helping to develop the market and turn these public
benefits into private benefits through credit systems and development bonuses. There are also policies that
help promote education and awareness about green roofs and their benefits through increased access and
exposure to green roofs and resources.
The green roof job market for design, installation and maintenance is primarily a local one, and the past 20
years has clearly demonstrated that the industry has grown largely due to the increased demand stimulated
by education, financial incentives and green roof requirements.
Few, if any, public policies can accomplish so much with so little, as green roof requirements. They leverage
private investment for multiple public benefits, generate private benefits, do so on otherwise squandered
space, and are relatively easy and low cost to administer.
Overcoming Perceived Barriers to Green Roofs

With all the benefits that green roofs can provide, why are they not more common in cities across the
country? There are perceptual barriers to green roof implementation, one of which is the higher costs than
traditional roofing. The initial cost of a light weight, low maintenance extensive green roof is roughly twice
the price of a comparable traditional roof. This is more than offset by the longer lifespan of waterproofing
membrane systems under a green roof assembly. There is also the added perception that these systems may
leak or require costly maintenance.
These concerns have been consistently and entirely disproven. Green roof maintenance requirements are
modest and anticipatable, and the stability of such systems and their contribution to roof longevity and
durability is well documented. Professional training and the Green Roof Professional (GRP) accreditation
program have promoted best practices to ensure that high-quality and well-performing systems
predominate. Green Roof Installation and Maintenance Professional (GRIMP) certification provides hands-
on training and best practice information to industry professionals.
The following document summarizes green roofs

and wall policies across Canada and the United
States that encourage widespread adoption. The
policies are separated into two categories -
mandatory requirements and incentive programs.
There is also a section that lists other policies that
promote green infrastructure for stormwater
management. These case studies can be used in
conjunction with Green Roofs for Healthy Cities’
other resources to create well-developed and
effective policy. Green Roof Installation and Maintanence Professional (GRIMP) training in
progress. Photos: Rushil Malik
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities – Policy and Professional

Development Support
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities (GRHC) is an industry association that works on behalf of its members to
establish cost-effective green roof and wall policies to recognize their public and private benefits and result
in their widespread implementation. This is done by tracking a wide range of green roof and wall policies,
providing case studies, completing cost-benefit studies and supporting policy development and advocacy.
GRHC has a comprehensive training and certification program – the GRP – Green Roof Professional - which
is focused on best practices in the design, installation and maintenance of these systems. The GRP can be
required through policies, regulations, and/or standards to help ensure quality design and construction is
achieved.
To further support policy development efforts, GRHC has established a number of initiatives and resources:
The Green Roof Professional (GRP) training and accreditation program can provide you with
professionals to help understand best practices in the design, installation and maintenance of green roof
systems.
GRHC’s Technical Committee and Policy Committee are available as ongoing resources to provide
expertise as helpful.
GRHC has been directly involved in policy development in Toronto, San Francisco, Denver, New York
City, the State of Washington, Cambridge, Vancouver and Washington, DC, providing feedback,
analysis, and educational support.
Green Infrastructure Foundation – Program and Performance
The Green Infrastructure Foundation (GIF) is the charitable arm

of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. It has an independent board of
directors. It supports policy development through community
engagement, training and research.
The GIF offers a two day Green Infrastructure Design and

Valuation program. This program involves green infrastructure
training and monetary valuation techniques to develop monetary
values for various biophysical benefits of green infrastructure.
This provides the tools to make the economic case for green
infrastructure investment in your community. This is followed by
a day long design Charrette focused on and area in your
A Charrette program. Photo: Green Infrastructure
community.
Foundation (GIF)
GIF generates research reports to promote informed decision making, such as the cost-benefit analysis used
to advocate for the Denver Green Roof Ordinance. The study found that:
An extensive green roof would provide energy and stormwater savings, increased employee
productivity and improved real estate values, all of which would more than offset the installation and
maintenance cost of the green roof. Additionally, there would be significant community benefits.
By 2033, an estimated 57.5 million square feet of green roofs would be built, generating approximately
25,000 job-years, reducing the urban heat island and helping to manage stormwater. The Net Present
Value of these green roofs would be $50 million.
By 2058 the green roofs would have a Net Present Value of $1.85 billion, because there would only be
maintenance costs and the benefits would continue to accrue.
Over the past seven years, GIF has developed and implemented the Living Architecture Performance Tool
(LAPT), an independent review system to help policy makers establish incentive and regulatory programs.
The LAPT creates a minimum standard for green roof and wall performance and allows for four different
levels of certification - certified, silver, gold and platinum. Projects can earn up to 110 points and can be a
green roof or a combination of green roof and wall. The LAPT third party certification could be used by
policy makers by referencing it to incentive programs. There are important prerequisites required for LAPT
certification associated with design practice, adherence to local regulations and minimum five year
maintenance standards. The LAPT is designed to help policy makers adopt performance standards that
make sense in their particular climate, and so that these projects generate the desired performance
outcomes.
The Living Architecture Academy provides online training courses, including GRP training, GRIMP training,
the Green Infrastructure Introductory Course and a more detailed Green Infrastructure Economic Valuation
course. To sign up for online training and learn more visit our LAA website.
Overcoming Green Roof Myths

As with any regulatory proposition, opposition is
always a possibility. In locales where green roofs have
not yet proliferated or where there has been little
opportunity to educate affected constituencies, that
opposition may be greater.
The likely arguments against green roofs are generally

predictable and typically centered around cost and
technical issues. Stakeholders should be identified at
the beginning and early outreach should anticipate
such concerns, and be prepared to address them as
LAPT Platinum Certified green roof at the John Ball Zoo in
they arise, regardless of the form of public process. Michigan
As one example: Denver’s citizen-led green roof initiative was a particularly challenging scenario. An
aggressive initiative was put to a public vote without the benefit of City support. Most felt that an initiative
would not make it onto the ballot, let alone build necessary public support. Those likely to be immediately
impacted by such a requirement - developers, builders, and the roofing industry - quickly organized once the
initiative qualified to be on the ballot and public interest and support was evident.
The opposition was swift, assertive, well-resourced, and orchestrated a campaign based on false narratives,
rather than facts. Efforts to countermand the initiative included blitzing all media outlets, lobbying elected
officials, and widely distributing literature filled with unfounded claims.
The claims were all answerable, and the initiative passed with a substantial margin. But the fundamental
lesson remains: the best offense is a strong-and-ready (and fact-based) defense.
Cost vs. Benefit

As more and more municipalities have assessed the prospective benefits of green roofs, they've each found
the benefits to be unquestionably positive for individual projects as well as the municipality as a whole. This
is especially true of green roofs used in stormwater management plans. This has borne out across a range of
geographies and climates. These green roofs can often take the place of other costly at-grade features,
especially in urban areas where at-grade landscape areas are very limited. In areas where below-grade
stormwater options are very expensive, green roofs (and blue-green roofs which combine stormwater
retention and detention) can offer a very cost effective and multi-purpose solution.
Green Roofs are Too Expensive for Affordable Housing Projects and Public Buildings
Cities around the world are currently facing an affordable housing challenge. In the absence of analysis and
advocacy, policy makers and others will raise the issue of “unnecessary” first costs, claiming such costs
would put affordability further out of reach. In fact, more vulnerable projects will benefit most meaningfully:
full cost recovery within six years on average and the economic benefits then accruing to those projects and
occupants through energy savings and deferred maintenance for remaining decades to come. Affordable
projects will be all the more challenged in the future. Green roofs guarantee a more stable and accessible
future for such projects and their residents, thus directly addressing environmental equity imperatives.
The same is true for public buildings, where the long-term savings resulting from green roofs benefits the
public for the life of the building, which helps armour against the uncertainty of future tax-based economies
and public-building maintenance budgets.
Green Roofs Represent a Major Fire Hazard

The biomass on green roofs has never proved sufficient to catch a building on fire. Sedum-based green roof
plantings have already been proven to offer some fire resistance on roof tops. ANSI / SPRI VR-1 External
Fire Design Standards for Vegetative Roofs gives guidance to making green roofs less susceptible to fire.
Think about it: which is more flammable, an exposed roofing material or plants? Sedums retain water, and
when exposed to fire, they burst. They have been termed nature’s fire sprinklers.
Permitting Green Roofs is Difficult

Clearly defined requirements are readily achievable
and can spur and expand the development of higher
quality green roofs and lower costs as markets
mature. This is especially true in stormwater
management permitting where high-performance
green roof systems can outshine lower performance
green roof systems. This may require the testing of
various systems and components, to ensure their
performance meets code requirements. There are
several ASTM testing protocols specific to green roof
components that provide consistent, across-the-
board results. See appendix A for all green roof
Award of Excellence winning Coastal Cottage, South Shore,
standards.
Eastern Long Island. Photo: New York Green Roofs
Maintenance of Green Roofs is Challenging and Cost-Prohibitive

Green roofs are living landscapes on top of buildings and require maintenance, just like landscapes at-grade.
Extensive green roofs in particular have minimal maintenance costs once established. These maintenance
costs are more-than offset by the embedded value in roof longevity and lesser roof maintenance over time.
Green wall maintenance costs, particularly living walls as opposed to green facades, can be significant, and
should be factored in during the design of projects, particularly access to all areas of a green wall assembly.
Building maintenance into policy helps avoid long term maintenance issues. Requiring a 5-year maintenance
contract as part of the permitting process can help address this issue.
Wind Uplift Issues

There’s no evidence of wind uplift issues associated with properly installed green roofs. There are standards
such as CSA 123.24, which is a standard test method for green roof products to certify their wind uplift
capabilities. There are also certain considerations in green roof design to accommodate wind uplift forces.
ANSI / SPRI RP-14 Wind Design Standard for Vegetative Roofing Systems is available to assist designers in
the proper design of green roofs to address wind. A number of green roof installations have been
engineered to withstand forces in high velocity hurricane zones (HVHZ), such as Miami, Florida.
Structural Challenges
When included at the beginning of the design and engineering phase, the weight of a green roof can be
easily and affordably accommodated by the structural engineers for the project. Existing structures may
have some limitations, but green roofs may be installed with special considerations for lightweight
assemblies on buildings originally designed with stout structures (such as buildings designed to
accommodate rooftop parking) or can otherwise be addressed through additional structural reinforcement.
There are a number of ASTM standards that govern how green roofs and their growing media and
components are evaluated including ASTM E2399 which is used to measure saturated weight of the
growing media.
Green Roofs Leak

A properly designed and implemented green roof should be more free of leaks than a regular exposed
waterproof membrane. The most important part of any green roof project is the waterproofing on the roof
deck. Not all membranes are the same. Using a suitable, high quality, durable and long-lasting waterproofing
membrane designed to withstand constant moisture conditions for decades can help ensure that the green
roof will be in place for a very long time. Green roofs also can make waterproofing assemblies last longer by
protecting the membrane from damage by UV light, weather damage (hail, etc.) as well as mechanical
damage from maintenance traffic. It is important to include a root barrier, membrane protection and include
a leak detection quality assurance process during green roof installation.
Additional Costs = Job Loss

Green roof projects can reinforce and broaden the roofing and green roof industry employment ranks. The
multitude of industries associated with the green roof industry span a wide range of industries:
Designers: Architects, Landscape Architects, GRPs, Engineers, Horticulturalists, Roofing Consultants
Green Roof plants: Growers and nurseries
Green Roof Growing Media: Lightweight aggregate producers, sand and smaller aggregate quarries,
compost producers, growing media producers
Green Roof Accessories: Edging manufacturers, drainage manufacturers, irrigation manufacturers,
suppliers, installers, paver manufacturers for vegetation free zones
Green Roof Installers: Specialized installers of green roof components
Green Roof Maintenance: Specialized green roof maintenance staff
One Policy Size Fits All

Given the variety of buildings, both new and old, that exist, it is important to recognize that policy may need
to be fine tuned to meet the specific needs of different market segments. Financial analysis of the costs and
benefits of different policies for new and existing buildings, will help policy makers avoid potential conflict
with building owners. Existing buildings are rarely ‘required’ to install a green roof or wall after the fact, but
rather, are provided with incentives to do so.
The Urban Rooftop Farm on the Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU). Photo: TMU Urban Farm
Types of Green Roofs

Green roofs have undergone nearly continuous evolution over the past 25 years. Municipalities and
government agencies should recognize, embrace and encourage the ever growing list of uses for green
roofs and their technologies. There are essentially three types of green roofs: extensive, semi-intensive and
intensive.
Extensive Green Roofs

Typically the thinnest assembly (2 - 6 inches of
growing medium), these green roofs are some of
the most common green roofs constructed today.
In certain areas of the USA, these extensive green
roof systems are used for significant stormwater
Best Management Practices (BMP) facilities.
Variants in components can greatly increase the
water holding capacities of these extensive
assemblies. The extensive green roof at the Tri-City Water Resources Recovery
Facility - Oregon. Photo: American Hydrotech, Inc.
Intensive Green Roofs

As the growing media thickness gets deeper (8 –
48 inches), intensive green roofs successfully
support a very wide array of plant species and sizes
including full size trees. Very often intensive green
roofs are combined with other features such as
pedestrian and amenity features to increase the
usability of these rooftop environments.
An intensive green roof at the Phipps Center for Sustainable
Landscapes 2020. Photo: Phipps Conservatory & Botanical Gardens
Semi-Intensive
Green Roofs Semi-Intensive green roofs involve a combination of extensive and intensive green roof
assemblies on the same roof, often due to varying structural loading capacities.
Green roofs can have many different design objectives, as described below.
Lawn Green Roofs

While many green roofs are planted with sedums and other similar perennial plants, there is an important
category of green roofs that employ grasses as the primary plant material. These Lawn Green Roofs need to
be mowed and maintained like their at-grade cousins and can create very usable amenity spaces to
rooftops.
Meadow Green Roofs

Similar to the Lawn Green Roof, the Meadow
Green Roof typically employs grasses, native
plants and perennials to create a lower
maintenance green roof that does not require
the frequent mowing of a lawn. These green
roof types can employ flowering perennials to
encourage and expand habitat areas for
pollinators.
Photo: Garage Apartments 2019. Photo: Living Roofs, Inc.
Blue Roofs
Temporarily holding back stormwater is an old concept originating in the roofing world. This technique is
coming back as blue roofs detain large amounts of stormwater and slowly release it over a specified amount
of time. This water is considered “free water” as it is held by itself in a “container” and not within the
growing media. Blue roofs are often combined with overlying green roofs to create a combined retention
(green roof) and detention (blue roof). Often pavers are used in blue roof configurations to add an amenity
and maintenance feature.
Blue/Green Roofs
These green roof types retain and detain
stormwater within an enhanced green roof
section by augmenting the growing media with
synthetic materials that act like sponges in the
green roof. Unlike Blue Roofs, stormwater in a
Blue/Green Roof is held in the pore spaces in
the growing media and synthetic elements and
released via transpiration and evaporation from
the plants within the Blue/Green green roof Van Dusen Botanical Garden Visitor Centre 2017 by Connect
assembly. Landscape Architecture Inc. with Architek. Photo: Brett Ryan Studios.
Urban Agriculture
Roofs
Growing food on rooftops is
an increasingly widespread
application where urban
farmers grow food crops on
specially designed green
roofs. A wide variety of
crops, from vegetables to
vineyards, can be cultivated The Javits Center, New York City. The waterproofing is done by American Hydrotech, and the
on rooftops. urban agriculture assembly is managed by Brooklyn Grange. Photo: Brooklyn Grange.
Agri-Solar Green Roofs

The continued development of solar energy on rooftops is benefited by including green roofs underneath
the solar installation. The cooling effects of the green roof can lower the ambient temperatures of the solar
arrays which makes them more efficient in energy production. Agri-Solar roofs are an early stage application
which involves growing food under solar panels on a rooftop.
Amenity Deck Green Roofs

Developers of hotel, condominium and apartment properties increasingly include rooftop amenity spaces in
their projects in order to compete for tenants. These lushly developed amenity spaces often include
landscaping of varying types and scales, which provide shade and associated features for the enjoyment of
the tenants and visitors to these properties. These amenity spaces have been unequivocally demonstrated
to contribute directly to the competitiveness and real market value for both the projects on which they rest,
as well as nearby projects that enjoy views to these urban greenspaces.
Biodiverse Green Roofs

Biodiverse green infrastructure are natural infrastructure systems designed to incorporate both biotic and
abiotic features which can enhance or establish a broad array of ecosystem services and support local plant
and animal communities through access to resources, spaces of refuge, simulation of naturalized
environments, and more.
Types of Green Walls

There are many different green wall technologies on the market, with very different approaches to
sustaining plants. Two of the basic types are described below. a structured system of climbing plants from a
planter bed supported by a wall.
Green Facades Living Walls

Facades are a structured system of stainless steel Living walls are systems that use felts, or
cables or grids that support climbing plants growing containers that support plants with or without
in planters from a planter bed, supported by a wall growing media which attach to a secondary frame
or other structure element or directly in the attached to the building envelope. They employ a
ground. wider variety of plants than green facades.
The Shoppes at Kingsbury Square, 2014 A living wall in Drexel University, Pennsylvania. Photo: Parker
Interior Plantscape.
Common Types of Green Roofs and Wall Policies

Green roof and wall policies are the result of unique regulatory and political environments. As a result,
various approaches may be employed individually or in combination as fitting for a given community.
The following provides some simple definitions of the types of policies and programs from across North
America that can be used to increase the installation of green infrastructure – focused mainly on green
roofs and walls. Some require direct expenditures, while others only administrative costs. There are
significantly more green roof policies at present than green wall policies.
Density/Floor Area Ratio Bonus
By including green infrastructure in building design, developers are permitted to increase the density of
their building through the allowance of additional floor area than otherwise allowed. Additional height may
also be a bonus attribute if that’s otherwise a code limiter.
Funding (Grant)
Up-front funding to cover the installation costs of specific types of green roofs or green roofs that retain a
certain amount of water. Such funding support typically ranges from $7.50 to $15 per square foot and may
be capped at a certain amount per project. Below these amounts program uptake is typically minimal. Some
jurisdictions provide grants to offset the cost of initial structural loading assessments for existing buildings,
thereby removing a barrier to program uptake.
Funding (Rebate)
Projects may be reimbursed for the cost (up to a certain amount) of installing green roofs.
Funding (Subsidy)
Property owners make co-payments for part of the cost of the installation of the green roof.
Mandate (Laws and Regulations)

Green roofs are required under specific circumstances to meet specific standards, typically for stormwater
management and/or green space requirements.
Residential Stewardship Programs

Financial incentives and technical support to inspire property owners to volunteer to install and/or maintain
green infrastructure and stormwater management techniques.
Stormwater Fee Credit

Property owners receive a credit on their annual stormwater fee. Stormwater fee credits are typically
calculated based on the amount of impervious area targeted or based on how effective the green roof is in
reducing stormwater runoff and in some cases quality. The credits need to be sufficiently robust to shift
market behaviour.
Tax Credit/Abatement
Deductions from taxes (credit) or a reduction of taxes (abatement) for the construction of a green roof. The
amount is calculated as a percentage of the cost of construction, or as a dollar amount per square foot of
green roof constructed up to a certain limit.
Green Area Factor

The regulatory authority assigns different targets for green space across the city. When a major
development or retrofit occurs, the owner must meet the targeted green space requirement, using different
types of green infrastructure, each of which has a different benefit value assigned to it. This approach
provides flexibility and steadily increases the overall green space in the city. For example; if a building with a
5,000 square foot footprint is in an area with a green factor target of 8, then they must design the green
infrastructure on and around the building to achieve (0.8 x 5,000sf) 4,000 square feet of coverage. If a green
wall is constructed that is 1,000 square feet and its benefit value is 0.7, this results in 700 square feet (1000
x -0.7). With the addition of an intensive green roof that is 4,000 square feet with a benefit value of 0.9 this
would yield an additional 3,600 square feet (4,000 sf x 0.9). Together the green roof and wall total 4,300
square feet, which exceeds the green factor target for that area. In addition to green roofs and green walls,
trees, planters and porous pavement are also included as options to meet the green area factor targets.
Procurement
New and or existing government facilities, or the facilities of government funded agencies, boards and
commissions are required to install green roofs during new construction and/or when re-roofing occurs, if
structural support is sufficient.
Other
Additional, less common policies and programs to
inspire the construction and installation of green
roofs and walls, include:
Expediting project permits if green roofs are a
part of the project plan.
Low interest loans.
Using green roofs and walls to achieve points for
sustainable development plans.
Employing a stormwater credit trading system
that allows developers to purchase some of their
regulatory retention of stormwater requirements
on the open market, or sell excess capacity,
beyond the regulatory minimum. This ability helps
to finance capital and maintenance costs
associated with multiple forms of stormwater Photo: Habitat Horticulture Exterior Living Wall at 2177 3rd
management. St. in San Francisco, CA.
Construction Standards
Developing construction standards alongside incentives and regulations is critical to the success of your
policy initiative. Some jurisdictions have developed detailed construction standards which incorporate a
combination of prescriptive and performance based elements. These standards are essential for ensuring
that green roofs are properly designed, installed and maintained, as long standing public assets. Below is an
example of a construction standard implemented in 2012 by Deven’s Enterprise Commission for its green
roof regulations. See appendix B for an example of a comprehensive construction standard from Devens.
Stages of Green Roof Policy Deployment

Developing construction standards alongside incentives and regulations is critical to the success of your
policy initiative. Some jurisdictions have developed detailed construction standards which incorporate a
combination of prescriptive and performance based elements. These standards are essential for ensuring
that green roofs are properly designed, installed and maintained, as long standing public assets. Below is an
example of a construction standard implemented in 2012 by Deven’s Enterprise Commission for its green
roof regulations. Here is an example of a comprehensive construction standard from Devens, Mass.
Though there is no one-size-fits all template for green roof policy evolution, there are some typical stages
that have been identified over a number of initiatives that may be useful when considering such efforts.
They are as follows:
Discovery/Initiation
Establishing/identifying the policy potential, possibly to include a strategic window of opportunity, and
initiating accordingly. This opportunity can take various forms: a project champion (such as the right mayor,
elected official, or department head), a climate change initiative, or other related planning efforts (whether
at a neighborhood, district, or citywide scale). San Francisco’s green roof path began with a motivated
official, a willing elected sponsor, and an emerging climate change agenda. In Denver, the lack of interest or
willingness on the part of public officials catalyzed a citizen-led effort that prevailed - despite the lack of
official support - with the voting populace demanding effective action.
Environmental Enlightenment
Focusing on the environmental potential, and establishing how it correlates with existing or prospective
policies or strategic opportunities.
Geography-Specific Evolution (bioclimatic/political/economic)

Establishing the existing conditions, and building an environment and economic case based on those
conditions.
Initial Regulation - Development and Implementation

Crafting appropriate policy/regulations given the local regulatory/political context.
Professional Ripening
If regulatory mandates are established and markets are invigorated, trades and professionals will emerge to
meet new market opportunities and demands.
Economic Maturation
As markets evolve and the supportive environment tracks with that evolution, economies of scale
contribute to greater economic efficiency and value.
Innovation and Regulatory Advancement

As industries and public acceptance and appreciation augment, an environment evolves that allows for new
industries and innovation to emerge alongside additional supportive regulation.
Principles for Establishing Effective Policies

Every locale is a “special flower”, but not.
This resource document provides a comprehensive list of policies and regulations currently in place, and
resources and contacts to dive deeper when looking for best-comparables as new initiatives are considered
or getting underway. With the publication in 2019 of the preceding document, this earlier information was
well-exploited. It’s highly recommended that each next effort steal and borrow freely, adopting and
customizing these existing wheels rather than inventing new ones. Pre-existent models to advance the case
that green roof requirements are not exotic and uncertain, but are – in fact – fully vetted and effective at
the building, community, regional, and – ultimately – planetary scales.
Policy is fine, but must establish a clear path to actual implementation.

Policy advocacy and placement can contribute to awareness of green roofs as a climate-change strategy,
and promote education about green roofs. For entities just entering the climate change arena, identifying
green roofs as an essential and practical response may be a useful and necessary initial step. However,
policies without implementation goals and tools push the critical work farther into the future. Any policy
should establish defined and aggressive goals and timelines.
Likelihood of success is dramatically improved if defensible financial analysis is at the

forefront of the effort.
Understanding the added value and cost of any regulation is critical to both immediate and long- term
support and effectiveness. Making the business case for new green roof policy is essential, in a way that
incorporates local conditions and real costs based on local expertise, trades and real estate economics.
Any effort to establish a policy or regulation should include anticipatory financial analysis to address
concerns about the first-cost of green roof installation and maintenance. Economic concern is inevitable: it’s
the one aspect that all policy makers and the constituencies most affected will raise early. Demonstrated
benefits for different types of buildings and at various building scales, and at the community-wide scale
have proven to win over a wide variety of constituencies for the policies in cities like New York, Denver,
San Francisco and Toronto.
The financial analysis should be applied to an array of building typologies given the wide range of economic
factors at play. For example, multi-unit housing and big box retailers face very different cost and benefit
scenarios and have different opportunities for cost savings/revenue generation associated with green roofs.
Assumptions within such analyses need to be based on local bioclimatic conditions, zoning and the specific
development environment. The more ready and complete the analysis, the greater the likelihood of
advancement. Once an analysis is established for a particular geography, it is a modest effort to apply it to
various building typologies as appropriate for the locality. This information will address concerns of
stakeholders, and can also contribute to the crafting of a more effective policy.
The analytical tools exist and are accessible.
Executing a cost-benefit analysis that is transparent
and defensible is essential to best understand and
describe the implications and benefits of prospective
policy initiatives. San Francisco’s analysis was
procured and designed with the specific intent of
being non-proprietary, transferable, and readily
calibrated and applied to other climates and market
conditions. Since its origination, Green Roofs for
Healthy Cities has assisted in applying this essential
tool elsewhere.
For more information on conducting cost-benefit

analysis see San Francisco Cost-Benefit Study. Also
see the Living Architecture Monitor’s Volume 20,
Issue 4. Winter 2018 “Green Roof Mandates at The
City Scale: Good Practice is Good Economics, Good
Economics is Good Policy”, by Jeff Joslin, Director of
Current Planning Emeritus, San Francisco.
Identify stakeholders, both supporters and others, early in the process to to best-
define an effective regulatory approach and accompanying advocacy strategy.
It is recommended to seek input from other municipalities who have generated policies and regulations in
order to employ that intelligence to achieve early support from stakeholders.
Denver, Colorado
Denver s a good recent example where such early input was not achievable, with mixed results as a
consequence:
In 2017, Denver passed the Green Roof Ordinance, following a citizen-led effort in reaction to local
government’s climate change inaction. The stringent ordinance mandated green roofs on both new and
existing buildings. Following passage, a technical committee was convened to adjust the mandated
requirements. That process determined that green roofs were not feasible for most existing buildings. This
opened the initiative to a fundamental reworking, which was amended to mandate a less stringent and
impactful set of compliance options.
The Denver effort provides two principle lessons. First: in the absence of policy leadership and best public
participation practices, fundamental stakeholder issues may not be adequately vetted and incorporated, and
ultimate results may be compromised. Second, if efforts are not appropriately led by policymakers; citizens
can, and will, act.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Cambridge is another example of - when elected
officials and leaders do not adequately address
the imminence of the climate change threat,
citizens will step in. In that case, Mothers Out
Front orchestrated a sophisticated and
intentional multi step effort to manifest a clear
and assertive green roof requirement. Their
approach is fully documented and an excellent
template for citizen action.⁶
Photo: Mothers Out Front
San Francisco, California
Alternatively, San Francisco developed and applied its financial analyses early. Armed with that information,
it then proactively identified and educated elected officials, neighborhoods, housing advocates, and
designers. Once the city’s mandatory green roof and solar regulations were defined and went through public
processes, there was no opposition whatsoever.
⁶ Melissa Ludtke, Living Architecture Monitor Summer 2021. A Climate Solution: How Mothers Out Front Won A Green Roof
Requirement in Cambridge, Mass. https://livingarchitecturemonitor.com/articles/mothers-out-front-green-roof-requirement-in-
cambridge-massachusetts-su21
Mandatory approaches are ideal, but some flexibility is essential to address

competing roof technologies.
Mandatory policies provide the most immediate path to green roof deployment. However, flexibility is
necessary in terms of public support and performance.
In the case of San Francisco, the option to employ solar, living roofs, or a combination was key to its ready
path to approval and implementation. Financial analysis included balancing the cost benefit for these
respective approaches so as to offer a level playing field for projects considering one option or the other. As
the cost-effectiveness of these two approaches would likely change over time, consideration might be given
to revisiting the balancing of the options once or twice a decade for municipalities offering a menu of
choices.
As described above, Denver was able to achieve consensus once stakeholders arrived at a menu of
compliance options. However, Denver’s highly politicized process did not go through a process of assessing
the relative environmental and cost benefits for each option, and tailoring them accordingly. As a result,
many developers will pursue the lowest first cost solutions.
Similar to Denver, in New York City, recent policies in support of green roofs include an either or provision
for solar panels, which enjoy a high level of subsidies. As a result, many developers are opting for solar panel
only roofs, even though the two technologies are complementary in many ways, including increasing solar
panel efficiency by anywhere from 1 to 15 per cent. .
Establishing a level playing field between various competing roofing technologies is one approach, while
another is deciding to tilt the market to a technology which best suits local needs. For example, if the area in
question is lacking in accessible green space, then policy can be developed that provides enhanced support
for this application. This approach is exemplified by Green Area Factor policies, which provide a weighing of
different green infrastructure applications, based on the extent to which they provide public benefits.
If there are no clear policy priorities, then at a minimum,

consideration needs to be given to creating a level playing field:
each path or technology should be assessed in terms of cost-
recovery and environmental benefit, and calibrated accordingly.
Properly scaled incentives can facilitate policy acceptance, and

encourage emergent supportive providers to enter the marketplace.
Incentives have played a big role over the last decade in many cities,
particularly when the benefits of green roofs were unproven and/or
unknown. Incentives make sense now, only if it is the only politically PollinateTO grant recipients, Toronto. Photo:
viable path. Matt Forsythe
Incentives can encourage markets, but regulations establish markets, and provide predictable demand so
that private sector suppliers can ramp up their activities. Mandates are also simpler and more cost-effective
to implement and less likely to fall victim to future budgetary cycles.
Several jurisdictions, recognizing the need for flexibility, offer developers the opportunity to buy out of the
requirement for a green roof, typically at higher rates than compliance. In the case of Toronto, the money is
deployed into the Eco-Roof Fund which provides financial incentives to implement green roofs on existing
buildings. It is important to price the buy out properly, and design-in recalibration of the buy-out rate over
time, so that it is properly scaled and not the least expensive option. It is also important to employ funds to
achieve a similar effect.
Complementing compliance options for mandatory policies with incentive policies may make choosing a
green roof option more appealing. However, incentive policies with low tax abatements, minimal rebates, or
strict restrictive covenants will not be adequate to encourage markets to emerge. The benefits of incentive
programs must outweigh or at least meet the cost of installing a green roof for private property owners in
order to have a meaningful effect. If there are buy-out options for those having green roofs mandated, the
cost of the buy-out must be at least the same or higher than compliance with the mandate.
In an era where greenwashing is commonplace, language matters.
Be clear about what is meant by ‘green roof’ as it relates to other roof technologies, such as solar panels or
reflective roofing. San Francisco employed the term “living roof” because that ordinance was advanced
following a period of drought, and it was thought “green roof” could be optically problematic in a moment
where homeowners were being asked to minimize water use. Portland has long-used the term “ecoroof”, as
green was already in abundance and the terminology helped reinforce the environmental enhancement
qualities of green roofs.
Performance is the purpose.
Performance-based measures, such as minimum retention rates for

stormwater, coupled with prescribing systems and components, is
fundamental to establishing best practices. Performance
requirements allow for market flexibility, as well as maintaining
space for innovation.
Municipalities do not need to invent such a framework (unless they

really want to): The Living Architecture Performance Tool is
available to calibrate the performance of green roofs and walls. It
provides a scientifically based framework of performance measures
and minimum prerequisites for the design, installation, and
LAPT Silver: Harvard Business School’s McArthur
maintenance of these technologies. McCollum Building. Photo: Recover Green Roofs
Best practitioners provide a certain path to best practices.
Green Roof Professional (GRP) certification is designed to provide those who earn the accreditation with
knowledge of best practices in design, installation, and maintenance. Should concern be raised about the
availability of professional capacity or expertise, such certification can be referenced, and even incentivized
by providing expedited review for certified professionals.
As in so many things, the green roof policy perfection can be the enemy of the good.
Local appetite for new regulation is variable, particularly when considering “new” technologies in an
evolving market. There’s wisdom in manifesting politically expedient “starter” requirements if necessary,
allowing the market and the trades to mature, in anticipation of additional requirements down the road as
changing political landscapes and other policy efforts present new opportunities to expand or otherwise
augment approaches already in-place.
Implementation Should Incorporate Performance Assessment and Compliance

Flexibility
It is necessary to be specific about what is meant by a ‘green roof’ with a clear delineation of performance
requirements, and appropriate but minimal detail about specific assemblies. For example, four inches of
growing medium can retain a quarter inch of stormwater, or three inches of stormwater, depending upon its
composition. If stormwater retention is a primary policy driver, it is more appropriate and accurate to define
a requirement established based on inches of rainfall retained, rather than prescriptive language about
individual systems. This is particularly key, as technologies and practices will evolve over time. A resilient
regulation will be able to deliver results, while allowing for the evolution and innovation of technical
approaches.
The Living Architecture Performance Tool describes all of the potential green roof and wall benefits and
provides performance measures, minimum requirements, and examples of how they can be achieved. Many
building owners/developers will seek the least costly compliance path; clearly and convincingly defining the
relative costs and benefits of the technologies can help projects select approaches most suitable for their
performance and program.
For more information on conducting cost-benefit

analysis view the San Francisco Cost-Benefit Study.
Also see The Living Architecture Monitor’s Volume
20, Issue 4. Winter 2018 “Green Roof Mandates at
The City Scale: Good Practice is Good Economics,
Good Economics is Good Policy”, by Jeff Joslin,
Director of Current Planning Emeritus, San Francisco. East Building Addition, Adlai E. Stevenson High School, Linconshire, IL.
Photo: Wight and Company, Omni Ecosystems, and Nedlaw Living Walls
Lessons Learned
Policy is a great tool to address the lack of awareness of green roofs and promote education about green
roofs. But policies without implementation tools are not effective at increasing the installation of green
roofs or walls in cities. The time to implement meaningful tools is now. Any effort to establish a policy or
regulation should include anticipatory financial analysis to address inevitable concerns about the first- cost
of green roof installation and maintenance.
It is recommended to seek feedback from other municipalities who have generated policies and regulations,
as well as attempt to achieve early support from stakeholders. In 2017, Denver passed the Green Roof
Ordinance after a citizen-led effort advocated for green roof policy. The ordinance mandated green roofs on
both new and existing buildings. The requirements for green roofs on all existing buildings were particularly
concerning to some constituencies, and led to well-organized and funded opposition to the initiative.
Following passage, a technical committee was convened to adjust the requirements mandated by the
sweeping initiative. Over the course of that process, it was determined that green roofs are not a feasible
option for 95 percent of existing buildings because they would be unable to support the extra loading
requirements. This opened the initiative language to a fundamental reworking, and it was ultimately
amended to now mandate that buildings have a cool roof and one of a series of compliance options, of
which installing green roofs or walls are included. The complicated array of options in Denver comes with an
immediate cost: staffing to administer the ordinance is multiples greater than other cities with clear codified
mandates. This added cost also makes the program vulnerable to future budget processes in leaner times.
Multi-story green facades around an inner courtyard, Jakob Rope Systems, Vietnam. Photo: Oki Hiroyuki for G8A Architects, HCMC,
Vietnam
Complementing compliance options for mandatory policies with incentive policies may make choosing a
green roof option more appealing. However, incentive policies with low tax abatements, minimal rebates, or
strict restrictive covenants do not make installing green roofs accessible or appealing. The benefits of
incentive programs should outweigh or meet the cost of installing a green roof for private property owners.
Conducting a cost-benefit analysis that is transparent and defensible to best understand and describe the
implications and benefits of prospective policy initiatives is key. Once an analysis is established for a
particular geography, it is a modest effort to apply it to various building typologies as appropriate for the
locality. This information will help you not only to address concerns of stakeholders but can also contribute
to a more effective policy. Avoid either or options for regulatory compliance, particularly since green roofs,
blue roofs, solar roofs and reflective (white) roofs have very different cost and benefit profiles and are
therefore not equivalent to each other.
Consult with various stakeholders and you will likely find that there is a very large public constituency in
favor of policies that support green roofs and walls. Building owners and developers are already on board
with green roof and wall policies that can be hugely helpful in countering concerns.
Be clear about what is meant by ‘green roof’ as it relates to other roof technologies, such as solar panels or
reflective roofing. Language matters: San Francisco employed “living roof” terminology because that
ordinance advanced following a period of drought concern, and it was thought “green roof” could be
optically problematic in a moment where homeowners were being asked to minimize water use.
Use performance-based measures, such as minimum retention rates for stormwater, rather than prescribing
systems or their components. This allows the market flexibility as to how best to meet the performance
requirements. The Living Architecture Performance Tool is designed to improve the performance of green
roofs and walls by providing a scientifically based framework of performance measures and minimum
prerequisites for the design, installation and maintenance of these technologies. It can provide a framework
for meeting your policy objectives and performance goals.
Support professional training by acknowledging

the Green Roof Professional designation which
is designed to provide those who earn the
accreditation with knowledge of best practices
in design, installation and maintenance.
In this age of significant public resource

constraints, and growing challenges, green roofs
and walls provide proven approaches to meeting
multiple policy objectives at minimal cost, and
can contribute over time, to helping make our
communities more resilient.
Carroll Rooftop Farm, Chicago, IL. Photo Courtesy Omni Ecosystems
Conclusion
Despite the numerous recent advances in implementing green roof regulations, green roofs and walls
continue to be underutilized in many cities across North America. Cities each year are establishing
increasingly stringent beneficial requirements in order to address a number of policy goals. It is appropriate,
and necessary to continue to advocate for policy where there is none to incorporate green roofs and walls
in all major new developments. Appropriately conceived policy will ensure that green roofs and walls are
installed and maintained according to best practices. Such expansive deployment is already advancing the
real estate value and city-scale environmental benefits. Green Roofs for Healthy Cities continues to monitor
and provide feedback on legislation to evaluate individual policies and facilitate continuous improvement.
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities is committed to continuing to develop tools that municipalities can use as a
guide to create their own policy. In addition to green roof performance standards, it will continue to address
the applicability of appropriate programs in different geographies and bioclimates, elaborate on different
regulatory measures, and be available to support future such efforts.
Ultimately, success in increasing green roof policy and the widespread implementation of green roofs is a
direct result of green roof champions in government and industry collaborating to promote and sponsor
legislation. In partnership with third parties, such as Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, and passionate citizens
advocating for change, green roofs will continue to be assertively advocated for and implemented as an
essential and effective means to combat local and global environmental challenges.
River City 3 Condominiums, Toronto. Photo: Eric Durnford
Resources
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities

GRHC is an industry non-profit organization that promotes the development of green roof infrastructure
across North America. With a mission to enhance urban environments and promote sustainable building
practices, GRHC provides education, advocacy, and certification programs to advance the green roof
industry.
Some resources include:

Grey to Green Events
Virtual Symposiums
Green Roof Installation and Maintenance Professional (GRIMP) training and certification
The lobby of Hatch 41, Chicago, IL. Photo: Omni Ecosystems
Living Architecture Academy

This online learning platform is dedicated to bringing you the best, most up to date professional training
information on design, installation and maintenance practices. Register today to begin earning CEUs from
AIA, APLD, LA CES, GRP, with new courses being added regularly.
Some courses include: Advanced Green Roof Maintenance

Green Roof Professional (GRP) Policy Development Virtual Symposium 2022
Introduction to Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure Policy Virtual Symposium
Biophilic Design CitiesAlive 2018 Policy Track
Living Architecture Monitor

The Living Architecture Monitor (LAM) is a quarterly magazine that focuses on the green roofs, walls, and
living architecture industry. Featuring case studies, research, and best practices, the LAM provides a
platform for professionals to share their expertise and experiences in designing, constructing, and
maintaining living architecture systems. The LAM also has a search function, and archived articles can be
searched here.
The Living Architecture Monitor Summer 2023 Issue.
Sustainable Futures: Designing Green Communities and Buildings Podcast

Sustainable Futures is an all new biweekly podcast from Green Roofs for Healthy Cities featuring interviews
and discussions about the innovative approaches to green infrastructure, resilience planning, and
sustainable design with host and GRHC Founder/President Steven Peck. This podcast brings together
thought leaders from around the world, bringing the knowledge and insight to you, wherever and whenever
you are.
Overview of Policies and Programs

Mandate
Location or Incentives Policy Name
Regulation
Residential
Tax Funding (Grant, Stormwater Fee Density or Floor Area
Stewardship Other
Credit Rebate, or Subsidy) Credit Ration Bonus
Program
Austin, Texas X 2014 – Downtown Density Bonus Program
Bellingham,
X 2017 – Vegetated Roof Incentive
Washington
Fees in lieu of
Cambridge, greenspace on
2021 – Green Roof Ordinance
Massachusetts appropriate
buildings
2014 – Green Permit Program

Subsidy (of permit and Accelerated 2015 – Floor area Bonus
Chicago, Illinois X X
consultant code fees) permit process 2015 - Green Roofs Incentives
2017 - Sustainable Development Policy
Covington, Washington X 2022 – Green Building Incentives
Minimum roof
2017 - Green Building Ordinance
Denver, Colorado X pitch requirement
2023 – Green Roof Incentive
waived
2012 - Policy for Construction of Vegetated

Roofs
2012 - Industrial Performance Standards
and General
Devens, Massachusetts X Regulations: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
(974CMR 4.11 2.(c))
2013 - Viewshed Overlay District
Vegetated Rooftops and Vegetated Walls
Requirement (974CMR 3.04(8) (i)5)
Ellensburg,
X 2013 – Density Bonus Incentives
Washington
Fife, Washington X Green Factor? 2009 – Green Factor
Fees if
stormwater
2018 – Green Infrastructure Bonus
Hoboken, New Jersey X performance
Standards for Impervious Coverage
measures are not
met
Accelerated
Kirkland, Washington X?? 2013 – Priority Permit Review
permit process
Marion County, Indiana X 2016 – Stormwater Credit
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Grant 2019 – Green Infrastructure Partnership
Minneapolis,
X 2017 – Stormwater Utility Fee Credit
Minnesota
Nashville??? MISSING LINKS apparently
Mandate or
Location Incentives Policy Name
Regulation
Funding (Grant, Density or Floor Residential

Stormwater Fee
Tax Credit Rebate, or Area Ration Stewardship Other
Credit
Subsidy) Bonus Program
2008, revised 2013, 2019 - Green Roof Property Tax

New York (State) X
Abatement Program
2011 – Green Infrastructure Grant Program

2019 – Green Roofs for New Construction
??see green
New York City, 2019 – Green Roof Information
X X Grant roof
New York 2019 – Green Roofs on Smaller Buildings
information
2022 - The Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Jobs
Environmental Bond Act of 2022
Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer X Revised 2016 – Impervious Area Reduction Credit
District
Onondaga
Grant 2018 – Green Improvement Fund
County, New York
Palo Alto, 2017 - Stormwater Measures Rebate Program *GREEN

Rebate
California ROOF REBATES ON HOLD
2007, revised 2016 – Green Roof Tax Credit

Philadelphia,
X Grant !!! need year X 2018 – Stormwater Grants
Pennsylvania
2021 – Philadelphia Home Rule Charter ss.14-702(16)
Portland, Maine X 2015, latest update 2021 – Stormwater Credit Manual
Portland, Oregon X X 2018 – EcoRoof Requirement
Prince George
2013 – Rain Check Rebate Program
County, Maryland
Redmond, 2011 – Green Building and Green Infrastructure

X
Washington Incentive Program
Saint Laurent,
X 2016 - Règlement sur le zonage no RCA08-08-001
Quebec
2017 – Better Roofs Ordinance

San Francisco,
X Green Factor? 2019 – Central SOMA Plan Living Roof and Solar
California
Requirement
Seattle, Grant and 2007 – Green Factor

X ? X X GF?
Washington Rebate 2022 (as amended) - Land Use Code
Waiving of application
and pre-application
fees, reduced
Shoreline, Transportation impact
2022 – Deep Green Incentive Program
Washington fees, Departures from
Development Code
allowed, accelerated
permit process
2009, amended 2011 - Green Roof Bylaw

Toronto, Ontario X Grant
2016 – Eco-roof Incentive Program
2007, revised 2016 – Riversmart Green Roof Rebate

Program
Washington, DC X Rebate X
2013 - Stormwater Retention Credit Training Program
2017 - Green Area Ratio
Mandatory Green Roof Requirements

Chicago, Illinois
Policy Name: Sustainable Development Policy
Year: 2017
Policy Details: The Sustainable Development Policy requires that development projects earn a number of
points by implementing select sustainable strategies. It applies to new developments, TIF funded
developments receiving over $1 million, or multi-family housing projects over 5 units that receive specific
financial assistance. All new developments are required to reach 100 points. The two compliance pathways
are earning points from the strategies menu without building certifications or earning points from a building
certification and earning the reset of the points from the strategies menu. The menu includes strategies in
the following categories: health, energy, stormwater, landscapes, green roofs, water, transportation, solid
waste, work force and wildlife. The green roofs will earn a project 10 points if 50-100% of the building’s net
roof area is covered with vegetation, or 20 points if it covers 100% of the net roof area. The net roof area is
the gross roof area with the exception of the area for mechanicals, maintenance pathways, window washing
systems, swimming pools and skylights. More than 5 million square feet of green roofs have been
implemented in Chicago to date as a result of its policy initiatives in support of green roofs.
Link: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/sustainable_development/chicago-
sustainable-development-policy-handbook0.html
Denver, Colorado
Policy Name: Green Building Ordinance
Year: 2017
Policy Details: New buildings, new additions to buildings and existing buildings with a certificate of
occupancy that are 25,000 ft² must have a cool roof and comply with one other Green Buildings
requirements. The compliance options are: green roofs/green space, installing or purchasing solar or other
renewable energy, energy cost savings/using less energy than code, green building certifications, payment
to the Green Building Fund, and enrolling in the Energy Program. The compliance option for green space
can be achieved by installing a green roof. With this option, the green roof of new buildings must be
calculated by starting with the total roof area and deducting the following: private terraces equal to or
smaller than the gross floor area of the abutting unit at the roof level, outdoor amenity spaces, rooftop
mechanical and electrical equipment, skylights, glass covered atriums, window glazing, and areas covered by
renewable energy devices. Vegetation shall be designed to cover 80% of the vegetated roof within 3 years,
or be used for urban agriculture.
Link: https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-
Offices-Directory/Community-Planning-and-Development/Green-Buildings-Ordinance
Devens, Massachusetts
Policy Name: Policy for Construction of Vegetated Roofs
City: Devens Enterprise Zone, MA
Year: 2011, amended 2012
Policy Details: When building a green roof, a member of the construction team must be a Green Roof
Professional (GRP). The policy requires that the vegetation on the roof not be an invasive species, and that it
must be native plants with seeds appropriate to Devens’ USDA hardiness zone (5b). Green roofs shall have a
minimum of 4 inches of growing media that cover 40% of the roof area, with at least 80% coverage within
three years of the date they are planted.
Link: http://devensec.com/development/DEC_vegetated%20_Roof_policy_revised_January2012.pdf
Policy Name: Industrial Performance Standards and General Regulations: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
(974CMR 4.11 2.(c))
Year: 2012
Policy Details: Projects that require an air quality permit are required to have a vegetated roof that covers at
least 30% of the roof. The roof must be designed in compliance with the Policy for Construction of
Vegetated Roofs.
Link: http://www.devensec.com/rules-regs/decregs411.html
Policy Name: Viewshed Overlay District Vegetated Rooftops and Vegetated Walls Requirement (974CMR
3.04(8) (i)5)
Year: 2013
Policy Details: The design standards for buildings in the Viewshed Overlay District (projects visible from the
Museum of the New England Landscape) are required to the extent possible to install vegetated roofs and
vegetated walls.
Link: http://www.devensec.com/rules-regs/decregs304.html
Fife, Washington
Policy Name: Green Factor
Year: 2009
Policy Details: In order to receive a project permit, new developments, redevelopments and construction
sites must have a landscaping plan that achieves the green factor. Plans meet the green factor by
implementing green factor elements, each of which have a score. The total green factor score that must be
met is calculated by dividing “the green area factor by the lot area”. Each green factor element has a
correlated multiplier, which is used to calculate the green factor. The green factor elements include green
roofs.
Link: https://www.cityoffife.org/258/Fife-Green-Factor
New York City, New York

Policy Name: Local Law 94
Year: 2019
Policy Details: New buildings and existing buildings undergoing major renovations in specific occupancy
groups defined in the New York City Building Code are required to have a 100% of the available roof space
as a sustainable roofing zone. A sustainable roofing zone is covered in a green roofing system and/or solar
panels and/or wind turbines. Currently, only 1 in one thousand buildings have a green roof in New York
City.
Link: https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3557657&GUID=B4C3A822-2FBB-45FD-
8A74-C59DD95246C1&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=1032
Policy Name: Local Law 92

Year: 2019
Policy Details: The requirements for green roofs for new construction are adjusted for smaller buildings.
Additionally, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development must study the impact that the
installation of green roofs has on building affordability.
Link: https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3332071&GUID=A2326DB7-EBE2-4CF3-
AC1D-50834B9BDDC9
Policy Name: The Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Jobs Environmental Bond Act of 2022
Year: 2022
Policy Details: 4.2 billion dollars are being allocated towards mitigation projections such as flood risk
reduction, clean energy, and land conservation. The bond mandates that disadvantaged communities
receive 40 percent of overall benefits of state spending on clean energy. The bond act will support over 84
000 jobs and 8.7 billion dollars in project spending and the projects that receive funding must comply with
minimum wage requirements.
Link: https://www.nysac.org/files/NYSAC%20Whitepaper%20-
%20Clean%20Air,%20Clean%20Water,%20and%20Green%20Jobs%20Bond%20Act.pdf
Portland, Oregon
Policy Name: EcoRoof Requirement
Year: 2018
Policy Details: New buildings with a net building area of 20,000 square feet or more must have an ecoroof
that covers 100% of the building area (with exceptions). New buildings with a net building area of 20,000
square feet or more must have an ecoroof that covers 100% of the building roof area, except that up to
40% of the area may be covered with elements such as skylights, solar panels, mechanical equipment, etc.
The ecoroof must also meet the Portland Stormwater Management Manual's Ecoroof Facility Design
Criteria. The ecoroof requirement applies in the Central City 2035 Plan District. Previously, Portland
provided grants for green roof installations to help manage stormwater (33.510.243 Ecoroofs).
Link: https://lpdd.org/resources/portlands-ecoroof-requirements/
Saint Laurent, Quebec

Policy Name: Règlement sur le zonage no RCA08-08-001
Year: 2016
Policy Details: All flat and low-pitched roofs, and flat and low-pitched roof sections must be covered in
vegetation or covered in materials with a solar reflective index (SRI). A permit will be required for the
installation and replacement of any roof cladding for a flat or slow-pitched roof (under 2:12) or for a section
of a flat or slow-pitched roof. Only the following types of materials are authorized to cover a flat roof or a
low-pitched roof:
- Green roof (vegetated).
- Light roof covered with white gravel.
- Light roof covered with a material with a Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) of at least 78, as attested by the
manufacturer or a professional.
Link:http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/ARROND_SLA_EN/MEDIA/DOCUMENTS/2018%2
0TOITPLAT%20ANG.PDF
San Francisco, California

Policy Name: Better Roofs Ordinance
Year: 2017
Policy Details: New buildings are required to have 15% of the roof space as solar panels or 30% of the roof
space as a Living (green) Roof. The ordinance applies to buildings that are: non-residential buildings with a
gross floor area of 2000 square feet or residential buildings of any size, and the buildings have 10 or fewer
occupied floors. The growing media should be at least 4 inches deep. The vegetation must have a high
species diversity, include native species, and be low water use and use low maintenance plants.
Link: http://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/ZAB_11_Better%20Roofs_051517.pdf
Policy Name: Central SOMA Plan Living Roof and Solar Requirement
Year: 2019
Policy Details: New buildings are required to have 15% of the roof space as solar panels and 50% of the
roof space as a Living (green) Roof. The ordinance applies to buildings that are: on a lo 5000 square feet or
larger with a building height 160’ in height or less.
Seattle, Washington
Policy name: Green Factor
Year: 2007
Policy Details: Minimum Green Factor scores must be met for areas requiring landscaping. There are
different scores required depending on the zoning of the development. Under the Seattle Green Factor,
varying landscape elements are assigned a multiplier value (or a score). The Green Factor is calculated by
multiplying the square feet of a landscape element by its score. The landscape elements include green roofs
and walls along with other types of green infrastructure. Green roofs must have at least 2 inches of growing
medium, and have a higher score if they have over 4 inches of growing medium.
Link: https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?
nodeId=TIT23LAUSCO_SUBTITLE_IVAD_CH23.86ME_23.86.019GRFAME
Toronto, Ontario
Policy name: Green Roof Bylaw
Year: 2009, amended 2011
Policy Details: New commercial, institutional and residential developments with a minimum gross floor area
of 2000 meters squared are required to have green roofs. detailed construction standards. The plant
selection and design must cover at least 80% of the green roof within 3 years of planting. The growing
medium must be at least 4 inches to help ensure winter plant survival.
The coverage requirements for the green roof bylaw are graduated. Buildings with larger gross floor area
are required to cover more from 20% at the low end to 60% at the high end. Available Roof Space. The
bylaw allows for solar rooftops by defining Available Roof Space as excluding areas for renewable energy. A
if gross floor area is > 4,999m², 30% of available roof area if gross floor area is 5,000-9,999 m², 40% of
available roof area if gross floor area is 10,000-14,999m², 50% of the available roof space if gross floor area
is 15,000-19,999m² and 60% of the available roof space if gross floor area is 20,000m²+.
Developers can provide cash-in-lieu for reduced green roof area, or to avoid implementing a green roof at a
cost of $200/meter squared. To date, less than 10% of new buildings have requested any payment of cash-
in lieu. This money goes to fund the Ecoroof Grant Program, which provides grants to existing building
owners of up to $100/meter squared for green roof installations. To date, more than 6.5 million square feet
of green roofs have been implemented in Toronto through this policy over the past thirteen years.
To encourage more biodiverse, Toronto developed guidelines for biodiverse green roofs that describe best
practices to create habitat and promote biodiversity. In 2022, through the City’s green building
requirements for new development, the Toronto Green Standard Version 4, higher performance green
infrastructure became a requirement for all new development. This has driven the uptake of more intensive
and biodiverse green roof systems.
Link: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/green-
roofs/green-roof-overview/
Washington, DC
Policy Name: Green Area Ratio
Year: 2017
Policy Details: All new buildings that require a Certificate of Occupancy must meet the appropriate Green
Area Ratio (GAR) based on the zoning district. The Green Area Ratio is the ratio of the weighted value of
landscape elements to land area. The score of landscape elements is calculated by multiplying the area of
each element by its multiplier value and adding the scores together. Landscape elements include: soil and
amendments, bioretention, new and existing planting, trees, vegetated walls and roofs, and more. Vegetated
roofs must have a minimum of 5-7 species and no more than 20% of the total vegetated roof can be
individual native species. Plants should achieve minimum 80% coverage after 2 years. There must be a
minimum of 2 succulent plugs/square foot or 10 lbs of cuttings/100 square feet. Designs must include
supplemental water. Green walls must include 1 cubic foot of soil/10 square feet of green façade.
Link: https://doee.dc.gov/node/619622
Incentive Programs
Austin, Texas
Policy Name: Downtown Density Bonus Program
Year: 2014
Policy Details: Developments may achieve bonus area for buildings by providing green roofs. The green
roofs must be built to the Vegetated Roof Performance Standards. For 30-49% coverage of green roof
(which is calculated as a portion of total roof area excluding mechanical equipment), 2 bonus square feet are
granted; and for 50% or greater coverage of green roof, 3 square feet are granted. 2 additional bonus
square feet can be achieved if the roofs are publicly accessible and 2 additional bonus square feet can be
achieved if the roof meets the Downtown Public Plaza Standards. The green roofs must be 90% native
species or adapted species with no invasive species.
Link: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=206958
Bellingham, Washington
Policy Name: Vegetated Roof Incentive
Year: 2017
Policy Details: Use of a vegetated roof will help to meet criteria that could qualify a project for a 50%
reduction in the stormwater development charges.
Additionally, a vegetated roof can also be incorporated into a project to help avoid the triggering of the 0.1
cfs increase in flow for the 100-year storm threshold to require stormwater detention or to reduce the
required size of stormwater mitigation facilities by using allowed stormwater modeling credits. Credits can
be found in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington published in 2005 or the Low
Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound.
Link: https://cob.org/wp-content/uploads/amm303-vegetated-roof.pdf
Chicago, Illinois
Policy Name: Green Permit Program
Year: 2014
Policy Details: Projects that include green technologies, including green roofs, can receive an expedited
permit process (fewer than 30 days) and possibly a reduction of the permit fees. Projects which meet the
most stringent sustainability guidelines may qualify for a waiver of consultant code fees ($25,000).
Link: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/bldgs/provdrs/permits/svcs/green-permits.html
Policy Name: Floor Area Bonus

Year: 2015
Policy Details: The floor area ratio is the total square footage of the building divided by the lot area.
Developers can build on extra (bonus) floor area in downtown mixed-use districts if they have green roofs
that cover more than 50% of the net area of the roof.
Link: https://secondcityzoning.org/resources/Chicago-Zoning-Ordinance.pdf
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Policy Name: Green Roof Ordinance
Year: 2021
Policy Details: The Green Roofs initiative will require developers within the city to integrate vegetative or
biosolar roofs into their design plans going forward when constructing new buildings. This ordinance also
includes incentives which the previous initiative in 2009 did not have for developers to create vegetative
roofs. Developers who do not meet the city’s new green roof requirements will be obliged to make a
payment to the Cambridge Affordable Housing trust to fund green roofs on supportive housing projects.
Link:
https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/zoninganddevelopment/sustainabledevelopment/article22greenroofs
requirement#:~:text=Under%20the%20Green%20Roofs%20Requirement,in%20the%20Gross%20Floor%2
0Area.
Covington, Washington
Policy Name: Green Building Incentives
Year: 2022
Policy Details: Cottage owners can receive a bonus of one and one-half times base density if the cottage
and community building are built to LEED Gold, or Built Green 4 Star or 5 Star standards.
Affordability and green building incentives may be combined up to a maximum of two times base density.
Note that 4 and 5 Star Built Green levels require verification by a third party.
Link: https://covington.municipal.codes/CMC/18.37.040
Denver, Colorado
Policy Name: Green Roof Incentive
Year: 2023
Policy Details: If a green roof occupies more than 50% of the total area of any building’s primary roof
surface, the minimum requirement for pitched roof provision will be waived provided the building design
complies with the other major standard intentions
Link:
https://steamboatsprings.net/DocumentCenter/View/3854/Sec404BaseAreaDesignStandards9242019?
bidId=
Ellensburg, Washington
Policy Name: Density Bonus Incentives
Year: 2013
Policy Details: The purposes of the Density Bonus Initiatives are to promote a variety of housing types built
with green building practices, promote compact development patterns, promote the integration of trails,
promote the preservation of historic resources, promote the integration of affordable housing into new
developments, encourage the preservation of valuable resource lands outside of the city.
There are several bonus elements Developments may use a combination provided they comply with the
maximum density provisions set forth for the zone. An exception to the maximum density provisions is only
provided for projects complying with Net Zero Energy standards. See below the table of Density Bonuses
for the R-S and R-L zones
Kirkland, Washington
Policy Name: Priority Permit Review
Year: 2013
Policy Details: This is a way to get faster permit processing in Kirkland for new single-family home or duplex
projects that certify through programs such as Built Green or LEED. Not only will your permit get priority,
but the homes or homes you construct will have the added value of being certified through a widely
recognized green building program and will be better for the people who live in them and better for the
environment. Use of a vegetated roof will help to meet criteria that could qualify a project for a 50%
reduction in the stormwater development charges.
In order to qualify for Priority Permit Review under Kirkland’s Green Building Program, you must submit
with a completed building permit application the following items:
1. A completed and signed Green Building Program Priority Review for New Single-Family Residences
contract
2. A preliminary checklist that shows how the design is to achieve either:
a. Four star or better rating through Built Green or
b. Silver or better rating through LEED for Homes
3. A copy of a Third-Party Verifier contract who will verify your Built Green or LEED project.
Additionally, a vegetated roof can also be incorporated into a project to help avoid the triggering of the 0.1
cfs increase in flow for the 100-year storm threshold to require stormwater detention or to reduce the
required size of stormwater mitigation facilities by using allowed stormwater modeling credits. Credits can
be found in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington published in 2005 or the Low
Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound.
Link: https://www.kirklandwa.gov/Government/Departments/Development-Services-Center/Green-
Building
Marion County, Indianapolis

Policy Name: Stormwater Credit
Year: 2016
Policy Details: Individual residential properties can receive a credit up to 25% for implementing best
management practices. Multi-residence, industrial and private properties can receive credits up to 50% for
practices that reduce stormwater quantity and improve its quality. Approved best management practices
are rain gardens, on-site stormwater storage and vegetated filter strips. The rain garden must cover at least
50% of the roof, or an equivalent amount of impervious area must drain into the rain garden. Additionally,
non-residential properties can receive a credit for using Green Infiltrative Infrastructure, and educational
facilities can receive an education credit for educating students on stewardship of water resources.
Link: https://citybase-cms-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/515488394718481f85d7c98d231aa959.pdf
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Policy Name: Green Infrastructure Partnership
Year: 2019
Policy Details: The program offers incentive funding on a per-gallon captured, reimbursement basis for a
host of green infrastructure strategies designed to capture and clean water where it falls. The eligible
strategies include green roofs.
Link: https://www.mmsd.com/application/files/5615/4696/0544/18-
009_Funding_Natural_SolutionsWEB.PDF
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Policy Name: Stormwater Utility Fee Credit
Year: 2017
Policy Details: Property owners can receive credits against their stormwater utility fee for installing a green
roof. There are two categories of credits for constructed stormwater management practices: Category 1:
Stormwater quality credits: The amount of the quality credit (up to 50 percent of the stormwater utility fee)
is based on the percentage of the total impervious area on the parcel treated by BMPs. Category 2:
Stormwater quantity-reduction credits: Property owners who can demonstrate that all stormwater is
retained on site without discharge during the 10-year design storm (50% credit) or the 100-year design
storm (100% credit), may be eligible for a stormwater quantity reduction credit.
Link: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@publicworks/documents/webcontent/wcmsp-
205493.pdf
Montgomery County, Maryland

Policy Name: Rainscapes Rewards Rebate Program
Year: 2018
Policy Details: Residential properties can receive a rebate of $9/square foot up to a total of $7,500 for
installing a minimum 100 square foot green roof. Green roofs on institutional/commercial properties must
be a minimum 200 square feet and are eligible for up to $20,000 in rebates. The green roofs must have at
least 4 inches of growing media.
Link: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/water/rainscapes/rebates.html
New York State

Policy Name: Green Roof Property Tax Abatement Program
Year: 2008, revised 2013 and 2019
Policy Details: Property owners can receive a one-year tax abatement of $5.23/square foot for the
installation of a green roof, and in certain high need areas, as much as $15 per square foot. At least 50% of
the roof must be covered with a vegetation layer. The vegetation layer must be 80% sedum or an equally
hardy species. The application must be submitted by a registered architect or licensed engineer. In 2019,
New York City Council passed a resolution to call on the state legislature to pass and the governor to sign
legislation that would increase the real property tax abatement for the installation of green roofs to
$15/square foot. Details of this abatement are still being worked out at the time of publication.
Link: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/green_roof_tax_abatement_info.pdf
https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3331993&GUID=78C453B3-D03B-49C7-AE5E-
255E41404254&Options=&Search=
New York City, New York

Policy Name: Green Infrastructure Grant Program
Year: 2011
Policy Details: Private property owners can apply for a grant to fund the design and construction of a green
roof. The funding is determined based on the area of the green roof and the depth of the soil. Roofs must
be between 3500-20,000 square feet. At 1.5-1.99 inches of soil depth, projects receive $10/square foot; at
2-2.99 inches of soil depth projects receive $15/square foot; at 3-3.99 inches of soil depth, projects receive
$25/square foot; and at 4+ inches of soil depth, projects receive $30/square foot. There is a restrictive
covenant with the grant stating that projects cannot be destroyed, removed or altered without the city’s
consent and must be maintained for 20 years.
Link: https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/nyc_green_infrastructure_grant_program.shtml
Policy Name: Green Roof Information

Year: 2019
Policy Details: The office of Alternative Energy is required to post and maintain updated information about
green roofs and resources for installing green roofing systems.
Link: https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3557664&GUID=9AE78AF4-EEE1-40BE-
A1FB-14A3B00EA9C8&Options=&Search=
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District

Policy Name: Impervious Area Reduction Credit
Year: Revised 2016
Policy Details: If a green roof is properly designed and installed, the area of the previous area will be
reduced from the property’s impervious area calculation. Property owners must recertify yearly to confirm
that the green roof hasn’t been removed and that it is being maintained. The current impervious area
charges for residential properties are: $3.09 for less than 2,000 square feet; $5.15 for 2,000-3,999 square
feet; $9.27 for 4,000 square feet or more; and $2.07 for any size homestead. The current impervious area
charges for non-residential properties are $5.15 per ERU or 3,000 square feet.
Link: https://www.neorsd.org/I_Library.php?
SOURCE=library/CreditManual_ALL_12182012.pdf&a=download_file&LIBRARY_RECORD_ID=4699
Onondaga County, New York

Policy Name: Green Improvement Fund
Year: 2018
Policy Details: Facility property owners are eligible for grants for the installation of green infrastructure for
stormwater management, such as green roofs. Green roofs on high-priority sites can receive up to 30
cents/gallon captured, medium-priority sites can receive up to 20 cents/gallon, and captured low-priority
sites can receive up to 10 cents/gallon.
Link: http://savetherain.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018_GIFApplication_051618.pdf
Palo Alto, California

Policy Name: Stormwater Measures Rebate Program
Year: 2017
Policy Details: Property owners can receive a rebate of $1.50/square foot of a green roof installed. Rebates
are also available for the installation of rain barrels, permeable pavement, and cisterns. As of the publishing
of this document, green roof rebates are on hold until further notice.
Link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/stormwater/rebates/default.asp
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Policy Name: Green Roof Tax Credit
Year: 2007, revised 2016
Policy Details: Businesses can apply for a Green Roof Tax Credit for 50% of the cost to construct a green
roof, up to $100,000.
Link: http://www.greenroofsphilly.com/incentives.html
Policy Name: Density Bonus

Year: 2015
Policy Details: In specific zoning districts, applicants may receive an exemption to residential density rules
by installing a green roof that covers at least 60% of the rooftop. To be eligible for the bonus, there must be
at least 5,000 square feet of earth disturbance. The Water Department’s Design Standards require that the
vegetation thoroughly cover the growing medium when it is fully established. Invasive plants are not
permitted, and the plants must be healthy and able to withstand tough conditions.
Link: http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Pennsylvania/philadelphia_pa/title14zoningandplanning?
f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:philadelphia_pa
Policy Name: Stormwater Grants

Year: 2018
Policy Details: The goal of the grant program, in addition to stormwater management, is to “add new
landscaping, fix drainage problems, …improve the appearance of…property, and lower stormwater bills.”
Non-residential properties are eligible to receive a grant to fund the costs of the design and construction of
stormwater management projects.
The Philadelphia Water Department lists green roofs as a stormwater management method. The
Philadelphia Stormwater Management Guidance Manual includes green roof plan standards for the
development and construction of green roofs.
Link:
https://www.phila.gov/water/wu/Stormwater%20Grant%20Resources/StormwaterGrantsManual.pdf
Policy Name: Stormwater Credits Program and Incentives

Year:
Policy Details: Non-residential, condo and multi-family residential property owners can reduce their monthly
stormwater charge with a credit of up to 80% by installing green roofs to increase pervious surfaces. The
area of the green roof should be the largest feasible area. To receive a credit, the green roof must be an
extensive green roof, with half of the plants being sedums and at least four different species of sedums.
Link: https://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/SWRetroManual.pdf
Policy Name: Stormwater Credit

Year: 2015
Policy Details: The credit structure is focused on structural controls that reduce the impact of the
development on the stormwater drainage system. Residential properties can earn a credit of 0.5 SBU
(stormwater billing unit) for every whole increment of 600 square feet of impervious area treated, up to a
maximum of 0.5 SBU for properties with less than 1800 square feet of impervious area, and 1.0 SBU for
properties with 1800 or more square feet of impervious area. A total Basic Credit of up to 60% of the
stormwater service charge is available to non-residential properties.
Link: https://www.portlandmaine.gov/1102/Credit-Manual-and-Applications
Prince George County, Maryland

Policy Name: Rain Check Rebate Program
Year: 2013
Policy Details: The program reimburses property owners who install stormwater management practices.
Residential property owners can be reimbursed up to $4,000, and larger property owners can be reimbursed
up to $20,000. Stormwater management practices include green roofs with $10/square foot of green roof
reimbursed for at least ¼ of the roof being a green roof for residential properties; and at least $10/square
foot for at least 6 inches of planting material on ¼ of the roof for non-residential properties. Non-residential
properties can also receive $20/square foot for over 6 inches of planting material.
Link: https://cbtrust.org/grants/prince-georges-county-rain-check-rebate/
Redmond, Washington
Policy Name: Green Building and Green Infrastructure Incentive Program
Year: 2011
Policy Details: The incentive program details sustainable development techniques which may be used
when building green buildings and infrastructure. Points are rewarded for using such techniques, and can
be used toward certain incentives. See the link below for the full table and explanation of which techniques
are awarded points.
Note Stormwater Infrastructure requirements are based on impervious area. Use of techniques at left is
likely to reduce infrastructure costs - an additional incentive
Link: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Redmond/CDG/RCDG20C/RCDG20C3057.html
Seattle, Washington
Policy Name: Land Use Code
Year: Amended July 2022
Policy Details: There are height exceptions for elevator penthouses if the elevator provides access to a
high-rise rooftop that has a green roof.
Link: https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?
nodeId=TIT23LAUSCO_SUBTITLE_IIILAUSRE_CH23.75MAPLCO_PT3DEST_23.75.100STHE
Shoreline, Washington
Policy Name: Deep Green Incentive Program
Year: 2022
Policy Details: In order to request exemptions, waivers, or other incentives through the Deep Green
Incentive Program, the applicant or owner shall submit a summary demonstrating how their project will meet
each of the requirements of the relevant certification program, such as including an overall design concept,
proposed energy balance, proposed water balance, and descriptions of innovative systems.
An eligible project shall qualify for the DGIP upon determination by the Director that it has submitted a
complete application pursuant to SMC 20.30.297, Administrative Design Review (Type A), and has complied
with the application requirements of this subsection.
The project must be registered with the appropriate third-party certification entity such as the International
Living Future Institute, Built Green, US Green Building Council, Passive House Institute US, or Salmon Safe.
Projects requesting departures under the DGIP shall meet the current version of the appropriate certification
program, which will qualify them for one of the following tiered packages of incentives:
Tier 1 – Living Building Challenge or Living Community Challenge Certification: achieve all of the Imperatives
of the ILFI programs;
Tier 2 – Emerald Star or Petal Certification: satisfy requirements of Built Green program or three or more ILFI
Petals, including at least one of the following: water, energy, or materials;
Tier 3 – LEED Platinum, 5-Star, PHIUS + Source Zero plus Salmon Safe, or ZE plus Salmon Safe: satisfy
requirements of the respective USGBC, Built Green, PHIUS, ILFI, and/or Salmon Safe programs. The addition
of Salmon Safe certification to PHIUS+ Source Zero or ZE projects is not required for detached single-family
projects; or
Tier 4 – PHIUS+ or 4-Star: achieve all requirements of the PHIUS or Built Green programs.
Link: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Shoreline/#!/Shoreline20/Shoreline2050.html#20.50.630
Toronto, Ontario
Policy Name: Eco-Roof Incentive Program
Year: 2009
Policy Details: Existing buildings, new buildings with a gross floor area of less than 2000 metres squared, and
new construction projects by schools and nonprofits are eligible to receive a grant of $100/square metre of
green roof installed and up to $1000 for a structural assessment to determine if a green roof is feasible. The
roof must be built according to Toronto’s detailed Green Roof Construction Standards.
Link: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/water-environment/environmental-grants-incentives-
2/green-your-roof/
Washington, DC
Policy Name: Stormwater Retention Credit Training Program
Year: 2013
Policy Details: Property owners can install green infrastructure to reduce stormwater runoff and generate
Stormwater Retention Credits. One gallon of stormwater retained in one year is equal to one credit. Credits
can be sold to projects that are required to implement stormwater management practices; and credits can be
sold to the Department of Environment and Energy if they drain into the District Water Bodies. The purchase
price per credit is based on the infrastructure’s location in the Municipal Separate Sewer System, with non-
tidal credits at $1.95 and tidal credits at $1.70. To be eligible for credits, the infrastructure must pass
maintenance inspections.
Link: https://doee.dc.gov/src
Policy Name: Riversmart Rewards Program

Year: 2013
Policy Details: Residents, businesses and property owners can install green infrastructure, including green
roofs, to receive a stormwater fee credit. They can receive a discount of up to 55%, and the discount is based
on the volume of stormwater that is reduced.
Link: https://doee.dc.gov/riversmartrewards
Policy Name: Clean Rivers Impervious Area Charge Incentive Program

Policy Details: In conjunction with the Riversmart Rewards Program, property owners can receive up to a 4%
discount off their Clean Rivers Impervious Area Charge by installing best management practices, including
green roofs.
Link: https://www.dcwater.com/iac-incentive
Other
Policy Name: Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing

Year: 2018
Policy Details: This is a financing program provided by Counterpointe Sustainable Real Estate that provides
financing for energy efficiency, renewable projects and disaster resiliency improvements to buildings. These
projects include loans for green roof capital and maintenance costs. The loans can be repaid over 5-25
years. Property taxes are increased on the building at an agreed upon rate to finance the programs. The
program is available in 20 states and DC.
Link: https://counterpointesre.com/projects/
Green Infrastructure Stormwater Management Policies

Adams County, Colorado
Policy Name: Stormwater Utility Credit
Year: 2014
Policy Details: Adams County’s Stormwater Utility Credit encourages technical design and maintenance of
stormwater best management practices. These credits are granted to properties on two bases: 10 control of
water quantity and 2) control of water quality. Additional credit may be granted to properties for
stormwater infrastructure maintenance conducted on behalf of the County to ensure the proper function of
regional treatment on that property. Following are the maximum available credit percentages:
Water Quality Credit: 25%
Water Quantity Credit: 35%
Self-Maintenance Credit: 5% (of impervious area treated)
Basic criteria for eligibility is:
Credit will only be granted to non-single family properties
The amount of credit given for a BMP will be based on the amount of impervious area for which the
practice provides water quantity or quality treatment
Ongoing credit will be available only to properties that maintain their structural controls in fully
functional condition
Credit is not available for any property outside the utility service area. Maximum credit does not differ
from one property to the next based on proximity to water bodies
Maximum credit is not contingent upon lot size
In general, each of the three credit types can be granted at once. The maximum credit for water quality
and quantity credits is 60% credit.
Link: http://www.adcogov.org/sites/default/files/5708.pdf
Baltimore, Maryland
Policy Name: Stormwater Fee Credit
Year: 2013
Policy Details: This fee provides citizens with a credit for maintaining, operating, and improving the City of
Baltimore’s stormwater management system. Stormwater fees for single family homes are calculated based
on the amount of impervious area on the property with the highest monthly fee being $10 USD. Citizens
can receive credits/ a discounted rate on this monthly fee via public participation such as participating in
tree planting or stream clean ups. For every 4 hours of such participation, one can receive a credit of $10
USD for a maximum of $30/year. Citizens can also claim credit by utilizing Simple Residential Best
Management Practices such as installing rain gardens to claim up to $16/year, planting trees to claim up to
$5/year per tree, and rainwater harvesting systems to claim up to $25 per rain barrel.
Link:
https://publicworks.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/SFP%20Stormwater%20Guidance%20Document.
pdf
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Policy Name: Catching Rain Green Infrastructure Initiative
Year: 2018
Policy Details: This program helps citizens build and maintain a rain garden at home. A direct cash payment
is given to help with some of the costs of plants and seeds. This incentive is only available for residential
buildings in Fort Wayne.
Link: http://www.catchingrainfw.org/incentive-program
Kitchener, Ontario
Policy Name: Stormwater Credit Policy
Year: 2012
Policy Details: Kitchener’s Stormwater Credit Policy rewards residents and businesses for reducing the
runoff flowing into local drainage systems.
Link: https://www.kitchenerutilities.ca/en/services/stormwater_credit_policy.aspx
Seattle, Washington
Policy Name: Stormwater Facility Credit
Year: —
Policy Details: Provides a credit to privately-owned systems that reduce stormwater flow and/or provide
water quality treatment. Typically, single family homes do not have qualifying stormwater systems. Any parcel
property owner with a functioning, well maintained stormwater system in compliance with City Stormwater
Code standards qualifies for this program. These properties can still install green stormwater infrastructures
to receive this credit.
Link:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/ForBusinesses/DrainageSewerBusinesses/StormwaterFacilityCredit/index.htm
Policy Name: Rainwise Program

Year: 2009
Policy Details: Seattle’s Rainwise Program helps property managers manage stormwater by installing cisterns
and/or rain gardens on private property. To receive the rebate, you must live in an eligible combined sewer
overflow (CSO)basin. The Rainwise Program webpage features an interactive map so you can see if your
property is eligible for the program.
Link: https://www.700milliongallons.org/rainwise/
Vancouver, British Columbia

Policy Name: Green Rainwater infrastructure
Year: 2019
Policy Details: The City of Vancouver has embraced Green Rainwater infrastructure which incorporates
nature to help solve water related issues caused by rainfall. The infrastructure will increase water quality,
enhance biodiversity and create new ecological habitats all with the goal to clean 90% of average rainfall and
manage 40% of runoff by 2050.
Link: https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/green-infrastructure.aspx
Washington, DC
Policy Name: RiverSmart Landscaping Rebates
Year: 2018
Policy Details: RiverSmart Rebates are for residents who do not want to wait for a stormwater assessment
through RiverSmart Homes, want to hire a contractor, or do it themselves. You can front the cost for four
different options, install the feature, and then submit for partial reimbursement. For trees, you can receive
rebates up to $100 for individuals who plant trees on private residential or commercial property, you can
receive rebates of $2/gallon for rain barrels with a maximum rebate of $1000, you can receive rebates of
$3/square foot of area treated by a rain garden with a maximum rebate of $2200, and you can receive
rebates of $10 per square foot of impervious surface removed and replaced with permeable pavers and
$5/square foot of impervious surface removed and replaced with vegetation, with a maximum rebate of
$4000.
Link: https://doee.dc.gov/riversmartrebates
Appendix A - Green Roof Standards

Standards, Ratings, and Tools
There are a variety of mandatory and voluntary guidelines and standards that govern the green roof
industry. These concern the establishment of testing protocols that are used to determine the performance
of products—such as measuring the rate of water runoff through a drainage layer or the root repellency
capabilities of a waterproofing membrane. Guidelines and standards can be either performance-based, such
as “the green roof assembly must retain the first two inches of rainfall”; or prescriptive, such as “a particular
product or its equivalent must be used.” Performance- based standards differ from prescriptive ones
because they lay out measurable criteria that have to be fulfilled without determining how they are met.
With voluntary standards, like the US Green Building Council’s LEED® program or the Sustainable Sites
Initiative™ (SITES™), there may be certain minimum requirements that must be met, while others are
optional or performance-based.
Standards are typically developed by independent, non-profit standard setting bodies such as the
International Code Council (ICC), ASTM International, Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and later adopted by state or local governments.
In addition to standards developed by governments and traditional standard setting bodies, a number of
standards and guidelines have been published on the design and construction of green roof systems and
components, including those by FLL, a German standard-setting body and FM Global, which writes
guidelines for its insurance partners.
What follows is an overview of standard and guideline setting bodies and the work that is applicable to
green roof product testing, design and installation.
Green Roof Standards and Guidelines

These standard issuing bodies will be cited throughout the document and have been used to determine
some Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained herein.
Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschafts bau e.V, (FLL) (The German Landscape

Research, Development and Construction Society)
In Germany, green roofs must meet certain guidelines regarding the performance characteristics of their
material properties and their method of construction. The German landscaping industry's non- profit
research and standard setting body, Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschafts bau e.V
(FLL), first began developing a set of green roof standards known as the Guidelines for the Planning,
Execution and Upkeep of Green Roof Sites in 1975, with the initial publication appearing in 1982. Since
then, the guidelines have undergone numerous revisions, with English translations released in 1995, 2002,
and 2008.
The FLL Guidelines are prescriptive and specify elements like seam overlaps and vegetation- free zones.
Some North American companies use FLL as a mark of their products’ and systems’ excellence. However,
when drawing on the recommendations therein it is important to remember that these guidelines were
produced for the German market and as such cannot always be directly applied in the diverse North
American climate and weather context. Local building codes, ordinances, and other geographically specific
legislation, as well as climate extremes, should take precedence over imported standards.
At time of writing, the most current version of the FLL Guidelines in English was revised in 2008 and
contains the following, applicable to green roofs:
FLL Guideline for the Installation and Maintenance of Green Roofs (2008) Richtlinie für die Planung,
Ausführung und Pflege von Dachbegrünungen
Advice for the Maintenance of Green Roofs (2002) Hinweise zur Pflege und Wartung von begrünten
Dächern
Click here to read about the standard.
ASTM International (ASTM)

ASTM has published eight Green Roof Performance Standards at time of writing. For a brief outline of the
standards listed below and a more complete list of ASTM standards applicable to various components and
processes involved in roof systems, see Appendix V.
E2777-20 Standard Guide for for Vegetative (Green) Roof Systems
Click here to view the standard.
E2400/E2400M-19 Standard Guide for Selection, Installation, and Maintenance of Plants for Vegetative
(Green) Roof Systems
E2396-05 Saturated Water Permeability of Granular Drainage Media
E2397-05 Determination of Dead Loads and Live Loads Associated with Green Roof Systems
E2398-05 Water Capture and Media Retention Standards of Geocomposite Drain Layers for Green
Roof Systems
Click here to view standard.
E2399-05 Maximum Media Density for Dead Load Analysis of Green Roof Systems
Click here to view standard.
E2400-06 Standard Guide for Selection, Installation, and Maintenance of Plants for Green Roofs
E2788-11 Standard Specification for Use of Expanded Shale, Clay and Slate (ESCS) as a Mineral
Component in the Growing Media and the Drainage Layer for Green Roof Systems
ANSI Standards: Single Ply Roofing Industry (SPRI) and GRHC

Green Roofs for Healthy Cities works to develop a number of standards in support of the further
development of the industry. Working in close partnership, GRHC and the Single Ply Roofing Industry (SPRI)
developed design guidelines for Fire, Wind Uplift, and Root Repellency, which have been approved by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). ANSI approves the voluntary standards written and
maintained by a large number of standards developers, primarily in the US.
ANSI standards related to green or vegetated roofs include the following:
ANSI/SPRI VF-1 (2017) External Fire Design Standard for Vegetative Roofs
This design standard provides a method for designing external fire resistance for vegetative roofing
systems. It is intended to provide a minimum design and installation reference for those individuals
who design, specify, and install vegetative roofing systems. It shall be used in conjunction with the
installation specifications and requirements of the manufacturer of the specific products used in the
vegetative roofing systems (SPRI). This standard was developed by SPRI in 2007, approved as an
American National Standard in 2010, and reaffirmed in 2017.
ANSI/SPRI RP-14 (2022) Wind Design Standard for Vegetative Roof Systems
This standard provides a method of designing wind uplift resistance for vegetative roofing systems.
It is intended to provide a minimum design and installation reference to be used in conjunction with,
or enhanced by, the installation specifications and requirements of the manufacturer of the specific
products used. The standard provides guidance in areas including, but not limited to, maximum wind
speed for various parapet heights, as well as parts and components of vegetative roofing systems as
they relate to designing for wind (GRHC). This standard should be used in conjunction with
installation specifications and requirements of the manufacturer of the specific products.
Click here to read more about the standard.
ANSI/GRHC/SPRI VR-1(2011) Procedure for Investigating Resistance to Root Penetration on
Vegetative Roofs
This testing standard has been developed to evaluate the ability of a roofing material to resist
normal root or rhizome penetration through a root protection barrier, or waterproofing layer. The
test is based on the FLL Procedure for Investigating Resistance to Root Penetration at Green Roof
Sites, and has been approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
CSA A123.31 (2014) CSA Standard Wind Uplift Resistance of Membrane-Roofing System
This is a normalized test method which assess the dynamic wind uplift resistance of the membranes
of roofing systems. This test uses the Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) to test buildings with
the requirements of the CSA A123.31 standard. The standard has two options to determine
resistance factors. The first is using sustained pressure from three specimens that have the same
construction details. The second is through using 0.65 as the maximum value when the specimen is
sustained under pressure less than or equal to 11.5 kPa (240 psf). The Wind Uplift Resistance
Calculator is maintained by the National Research Council of Canada.
Living Architecture Performance Tool (LAPT)

Living Architecture is defined as the integration of living systems on or within a building envelope.
This includes green roofs, living walls, and green facades. LAPT is a rating system and resource that
is designed to certify that green roofs and walls are designed to achieve measurable and replicable
performance benefits. This ensures that green roofs can be funded, designed, installed, and
maintained with a high degree of confidence. The LAPT is a 110-point system with 30 credits in 8
areas of living architecture. These 8 areas include: process, water, habitat & biodiversity, innovation,
management & operations, health & well-being, post-construction, and energy.
FM Global
Though it is not a formal standard setting body, FM Global, a commercial and industrial property insurance
and risk management organization, exerts a large amount of influence over the construction industry. It
published Property Loss Prevention Data Sheet 1-35: Green Roofs in early 2006. This prescriptive
document is largely based on FLL Guidelines and draws on other FM Data Sheets to establish standards for
an FM Approved Green Roof Assembly.
FM 4477 Approval Standard for Vegetative Roof Systems, released in 2010, outlines FM approval
requirements for all vegetative roof systems that are installed over an FM Approved roof assembly (FM
4470). Vegetative roof systems are evaluated for performance related to fire from above and below the
structural deck, foot traffic, and water leakage.
In addition to standards that address green roofs specifically, like those described above, a number of
voluntary rating systems for green buildings and sites also acknowledge the environmental benefits of these
technologies.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®)

Green roofs can have a powerful positive impact on the environmental performance of buildings. This
impact is recognized within the LEED green building rating systems. Perhaps the most popular of the rating
systems used in North America, LEED is a third-party certification program developed by the US Green
Building Council (USGBC). The USGBC has separate LEED rating systems for different building types and a
LEED for Neighborhood Development rating system. A further distinction is made for school and healthcare
facilities, which must certify under their respective facility-specific rating systems. In Canada, the Canadian
Green Building Council (CaGBC) has adapted the USGBC LEED system and tailored it specifically for
Canadian climates, construction practices and regulations.
As a component of larger integrated design strategies, green roofs and walls can contribute to earning
LEED credits, usually in conjunction with other sustainable building elements. In other words, LEED is a
measure of total building sustainability, and does not propose to measure the sustainability of individual
building components, such as roofs.
For commercial buildings and neighborhoods to earn LEED certification, a project must satisfy all LEED
prerequisites and earn a minimum number of points on the LEED rating system scale as prescribed for
various project categories (USGBC, 2013). Green roofs can help achieve these points. By consequence, the
end goal of LEED certification is driving many building owners to incorporate green roofs into their designs.
The Sustainable Sites Initiative™ (SITES™)

Development of the Sustainable Sites initiative began in 2005 in Austin, Texas. It is the result of an initial
partnership between the American Society of Landscape Architects and the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower
Center at the University of Texas at Austin, later joined by the United States Botanic Garden in conjunction
with a diverse group of stakeholder organizations. The central message of the Sustainable Sites Initiative is
that any landscape—whether the site of a large subdivision, a shopping mall, a park, an abandoned rail yard,
or even one home—holds the potential both to improve and to regenerate the natural benefits and services
provided by ecosystems in their undeveloped state (Sustainable Sites Initiative, 2009). The result of this
partnership is the creation of the first national (American) voluntary guideline for sustainable landscapes or
“sites,” which includes green roofs and walls.
The 2013 Rating System and Reference Guide, released in the fall of 2013, is the culmination of a two-year
pilot program and extensive collaboration. It replaces the pilot document Guidelines and Performance
Benchmarks 2009. The credit system aims to fill in the gap left by US Green Building Council (USGBC) and
other organizations, which are primarily focused on the building's envelope and may not adequately address
all land in a designated site or space. By providing a holistic guideline and rating system for sustainable sites,
the social and economic benefits to both the immediate site and the surrounding region may be more
adequately credited. Prerequisites and credits are organized into nine sections that follow the logical flow of
site development (much the way this first course in the GRP curriculum is organized) beginning with Site
Selection and ending with Monitoring and Innovation (Sustainable Sites Initiative, 2009). Green roofs may
contribute to SITES credits in the areas of onsite stormwater management; minimizing building cooling
requirements; providing views of vegetation and quiet outdoor spaces for mental restoration; reducing the
UHI effect; and preserving or restoring appropriate plant biomass on site.
International Green Construction Code (IgCC)

In 2012, the IgCC was released by the International Code Council (ICC) in cooperation with ASTM and the
American Institute of Architects (AIA). The code acts as an overlay to the existing set of International Codes,
including provisions of the International Energy Conservation Code and ICC- 700, the National Green
Building Standard, and incorporates ASHRAE Standard 189.1 (see below) as an alternate path to compliance
(ICC, 2012). It is the first model code to include sustainability measures for the entire construction project
and site, addressing all stages of green building development from design through to construction,
certificate of occupancy and beyond (ICC, 2012). The IgCC is not a rating system but a code, designed for
mandatory adoption. Though intended as a mandatory measure, the IgCC allows jurisdictions the option of
adopting the code on a voluntary basis.
As a regulatory framework, the IgCC establishes minimum green requirements for new and existing
buildings. The code complements voluntary rating systems, which may extend beyond the baseline of the
IgCC. Jurisdictions may also choose to customize the IgCC to set higher minimum levels of performance.
The IgCC provides definitions for green roofs under three labels: vegetative roofs; extensive roof, and
intensive vegetative roofs.
Examples of sections related to green roofs include:

Section 404 - covers mitigation of the heat island effect
Section 406 - details site development requirements
Section 404.3 - requires that 75% of eligible roof area be vegetated or effectively white
ASHRAE Standard 189.1

ASHRAE was formed as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
ASHRAE Standard 189.1 Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings was developed in
partnership with IES and USGBC and serves as an alternative compliance option in the IgCC. The standard
addresses site sustainability, water use efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and the building’s impact on
the atmosphere, materials, and resources. Sections that relate to green roof implementation are:
Section 5.3.2 covers mitigation of the heat island effect
Section 5.3.2.2 related specifically to the shading of walls through the use of “shade-providing plants”
among other elements
Section 5.3.2.3 addresses roofs, requiring 75% of eligible roofs to be effectively white unless trumped
by another use—green roofs included (Sigmon, 2011)
ICC 700 National Green Building Standard

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the International Code Council (ICC) partnered in 2007
to establish a nationally recognizable standard definition of green building. The result of this partnership is
the ICC 700, the first residential green building rating system to undergo a full consensus process and
receive approval from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The IgCC requires compliance with
the ICC 700 if a jurisdiction chooses to regulate buildings four stories or less in height. Chapters related to
green roofs include:
Chapter 5 Lot Design, Preparation, and Development: 3 pts. for stormwater management
Chapter 6 Resource Efficiency: 3 pts. for green roof system.
Living Building Challenge

The Living Building Challenge (LBC), developed by the International Living Building Institute, is an
international program with active projects in the US, Canada, Ireland and Australia at time of writing. The
LBC aims to define the most advanced measure of sustainability in the built environment possible by
incorporating into its standards the most progressive thinking from the worlds of architecture, engineering,
planning, landscape design and policy (ILFI, 2012).
It is simultaneously a certification program, advocacy tool, and philosophy, taking an ambitious and holistic
approach to green infrastructure and human accountability to nature. The LBC provides a framework for
design, construction and the “symbiotic relationship between people and all aspects of the built
environment” (ILFI, 2012).
The Living Building Challenge sites two primary rules:

All Imperatives assigned to a Typology (project type) are mandatory.
Certification is based on actual performance, rather than modeled on anticipated outcomes; therefore,
projects must be operational for a minimum of twelve consecutive months prior to evaluation.
The LBC framework is comprised of seven performance areas (Site, Water, Energy, Health, Materials, Equity
and Beauty), which are subdivided into a total of twenty Imperatives, each of which focuses on one of the
performance areas or “spheres of influence” (ILFI, 2012). Examples of Imperatives include zero net energy,
net zero water, biophilia (see Section 4.0), and democracy and social justice. The Imperatives can then be
applied to nearly any project type, referred to as a Typology within the LBC framework, be it a new
construction or renovation, infrastructure, landscape or community development. The LBC also uses the
New Urbanism Transect model created by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company to account for a development’s
rural to urban categorization, of interest to planners and developers.
Green roofs fall under the Building Typology whether for a new or existing project. Many, if not all, of the
imperatives for the Building Typology can provide guidance in the myriad decisions made in the design,
installation, and maintenance of green roofs and green walls.
Appendix B - Devens Enterprise Commission Policy

Green Roof and Wall Policy Guide 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Roof and Wall Policy Guide 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Roof and Wall Policy Guide 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GREEN ROOF AND WALL

POLICY IN NORTH AMERICA

Contributors and reviewers of the document include:

About the Report

Benefits and Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Benefits of Living Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Green Roof Policy Implementation - The Time is Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

A Single Test Tool to Address Multiple Policy Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Public Policy and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Overcoming Perceived Barriers to Green Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Green Infrastructure Foundatio﻿n – Program and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Overcoming Green Roof Myths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Types of Green Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Types of Green Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Common Types of Green Roof and Wall Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Stages of Green Roof Policy Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Principles for Establishing Effective Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Overview of Policies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Mandatory Green Roof Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Green Infrastructure Stormwater Managem﻿ent Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Appendix A - Green Roof Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Appendix B - Devens Enterprise Commission Policy . . .greenroofs.org

Benefits Overview and Policy Options

Biodiversity Focused Roofs

Hail Protection and Reduced Insurance Rates

Green Roofs, Walls and Jobs

Public Health and Equity

Support for Density

Contribution to Food Justice/Security

Contribution to Rooftop Solar Energy

Summary of the Benefits of Living Architecture

Aesthetic/Biophilic Improvements Employment From Manufacture, Design,

Urban Food Production Resulting In: Shading Resulting In:

Carbon Sequestration: Improved Biodiversity Resulting In:

Incorporation of Green Products and

Green Roof Policy Implementation – The Time is Now

A Single, Tested Tool to Address Multiple Policy Objectives

Public Policy and Programs

Overcoming Perceived Barriers to Green Roofs

The following document summarizes green roofs

Green Roofs for Healthy Cities – Policy and Professional

Green Infrastructure Foundation – Program and Performance

The Green Infrastructure Foundation (GIF) is the charitable arm

The GIF offers a two day Green Infrastructure Design and

Overcoming Green Roof Myths

The likely arguments against green roofs are generally

Cost vs. Benefit

Green Roofs Represent a Major Fire Hazard

Permitting Green Roofs is Difficult

Maintenance of Green Roofs is Challenging and Cost-Prohibitive

Wind Uplift Issues

Green Roofs Leak

Additional Costs = Job Loss

One Policy Size Fits All

Types of Green Roofs

Extensive Green Roofs

Intensive Green Roofs

Lawn Green Roofs

Green Infrastructure Foundation – Program and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Green Infrastructure Stormwater Management Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56