Green walls and roofs: A mandatory or voluntary approach for Australia? Literature

Wilkinson, S; Ghosh, S; Pelleri, N

Green walls and roofs: A mandatory or voluntary approach for Australia? Literature

Wilkinson, S

Ghosh, S

Pelleri, N

Permalink

Publisher:: Horticulture Innovation Australia
Publication Type:: Report
Citation:: Green walls and roofs: A mandatory or voluntary approach for Australia? Literature Review, 2017, pp. 1 - 54
Issue Date:: 2017-06-06

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (11.73 MB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Wilkinson, S https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9266-1858	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Ghosh, S https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6488-9329	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Pelleri, N	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017-06-06	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Green walls and roofs: A mandatory or voluntary approach for Australia? Literature Review, 2017, pp. 1 - 54	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/119485
dc.description.abstract	A review of literature on mandatory and voluntary approaches to the delivery of green roofs and walls (GRGW) globally. The key findings and patterns emerging around; Drivers for living architecture (LA) GRGW. As cities grow, increases in GHG emissions, air pollution, impervious surfaces urban temperatures, loss of tree canopy cover and land for food production. LA can mitigate the negative aspects. GRGW have social, economic, health and environmental benefits. Barriers are social, economic, technological and environmental. Costs are a significant barrier and lack of construction industry experience. Industry and BE professional capacity is in developing phase and not fully ready to implement on a larger scale. Training and skill development needed. There is significant potential to retrofit existing buildings, feasibility determined partly by structural capacity to sustain additional loads and; this needs to be more fully understood by stakeholders. Lack of policy and regulations to integrate LA practices in new build and retrofit. No consistent policy approach found in Australia. No states have GRGW policy (COS & COM councils have policies for LGAs. NSW, Vic, SA & WA have guidelines and policies referring to GRGW. Overall a lack of policy to promote LA. US Cost Benefit Analysis found a viable case for large-scale retrofit of GR. Increases in residential property value with green infrastructure between 6 to 15%, (AECOM, 2017). Wide-scale adoption of GR in Toronto could attenuate the UHI by 0.5 to 5o C - as heatwave is a resilience issue for Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, wide-scale adoption could be beneficial.	en_US
dc.publisher	Horticulture Innovation Australia	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Green walls and roofs: A mandatory or voluntary approach for Australia? Literature Review	en_US
dc.title	Green walls and roofs: A mandatory or voluntary approach for Australia? Literature	en_US
dc.type	Report
utslib.location	Sydney Australia	en_US
utslib.for	1205 Urban and Regional Planning	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/e-Press
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Built Environment
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CCDP - Contemporary Design Practice
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.commissioning-body	Horticulture Innovation Australia	en_US
pubs.confidential	false	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	Sydney Australia	en_US
pubs.rights-statement	Research background As cities grow, there are increases in GHG emissions, air pollution, impervious surfaces and urban temperatures. Furthermore the loss of tree canopy cover and land for food production means we need to consider how to mitigate and reduce these impacts.. Living Architecture can mitigate the negative aspects. GRGW have social, economic, health and environmental benefits.With 87% of the buildings we will have by 2050 already built, this research explores whether mandatory or voluntary approaches are best suited to deliver GRGW in Australia Research contribution An international comparison of existing approaches in different countries and review of approaches adopted in Australia to date. Research significance This project was funded by Horticulture Innovation Australia.	en_US

Abstract:

A review of literature on mandatory and voluntary approaches to the delivery of green roofs and walls (GRGW) globally. The key findings and patterns emerging around; Drivers for living architecture (LA) GRGW. As cities grow, increases in GHG emissions, air pollution, impervious surfaces urban temperatures, loss of tree canopy cover and land for food production. LA can mitigate the negative aspects. GRGW have social, economic, health and environmental benefits. Barriers are social, economic, technological and environmental. Costs are a significant barrier and lack of construction industry experience. Industry and BE professional capacity is in developing phase and not fully ready to implement on a larger scale. Training and skill development needed. There is significant potential to retrofit existing buildings, feasibility determined partly by structural capacity to sustain additional loads and; this needs to be more fully understood by stakeholders. Lack of policy and regulations to integrate LA practices in new build and retrofit. No consistent policy approach found in Australia. No states have GRGW policy (COS & COM councils have policies for LGAs. NSW, Vic, SA & WA have guidelines and policies referring to GRGW. Overall a lack of policy to promote LA. US Cost Benefit Analysis found a viable case for large-scale retrofit of GR. Increases in residential property value with green infrastructure between 6 to 15%, (AECOM, 2017). Wide-scale adoption of GR in Toronto could attenuate the UHI by 0.5 to 5o C - as heatwave is a resilience issue for Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, wide-scale adoption could be beneficial.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/119485