The Johns Hopkins University

Watershed Management

The study case of Berlin and Portland in the use

of green roofs towards sustainability

June 22, 2015

Fabiola Mercado
Abstract

The green roof technology was initiated in Berlin, Germany over 3 decades ago, since then many

studies have been developed to understand better the use and benefits of Green roofs. The

results of these studies showed that many benefits for stormwater management practices,

carbon sequestration, cooling systems and species habitat, that the trend was expanded to

other cities in Germany and eventually to other countries and other regions.

Green roofs added the green component to the concept of urban infrastructure. Germany’s

strategy of greening existing or new built areas set the example for a new trend in land planning.

The German policy model applied to the development of this technology was a key factor in the

successfully implementation of green roofs. The use of subsidizes for owners to adopt this

technology made the green roofs to be accepted widely. Even today that those subsidizes have

transformed into economical incentives such as taxes, the green roof technology is popular and

traditional practice in Berlin and in other cities of Germany.

On the other hand, the United States joined the green roofs trend later with their own

distinctive policy and economical tools, but in the same manner trying to incorporate the green

roof technology as part of its environmental development. Cities like Chicago, New York,

Washington, D.C. and other have been putting into practice the green roofs as part of their

urban development activities. Furthermore, the city of Portland –considered the city leader in

using this type of technology—has demonstrated that with the use of programs and policies that

encourage the construction and maintenance of green roofs, any city can become a Green and

sustainable city.
Background

Green roofs technology has been present in the world since ancient times. The first example

dates back to around 500 B.C. to the Hanging Garden of Babylon; where they used layers of

waterproofed materials to plant trees and other types of plants. In modern times this type of

technology continued to be used in roofs for insulation purposes (Kaluvakolanu, 2006). In the

early 1960s the green roof technology was researched and developed in Germany and

Switzerland (Magill et al., 2011 ). This phenomenon was expanded very quickly to other countries

and by 19070s there was a substantial amount of technical research of the components of this

technology.

Since the beginning Germany was the country leader in the green roofing technology. By the

1980s the green roof market expanded to an average annual growth of 15% to 20%. By 1989

Germany had installed over 1 million of square meter of green roofs. This significant growth

continued, by 1996 Germany had around 11 million square meters of green roofs. The success of

this technology was mainly because of the support of the state and municipal governments

Switzerland (Magill et al., 2011). Currently this green practice has expanded over Europe and

also to other continents as Oceania, North and South America.

In the United States the adoption of the green roof technology occurred recently; however, over

the last three decades it has gained a lot of popularity and it has been developed in many cities

as New York, Chicago, Portland and Washington, D.C. (Stutz B., 2010). The design and

implementation of green roofs in the U.S. has been done under the FLL Guidelines

(Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau), also known in English as the

German Landscape Research, Development and Construction Society. Nonetheless, the US is c urrently

developing their own guidelines that address specifically all the technical requirements that the

North American roofs need to successfully implement and maintain this technology (Magill et

al., 2011).

Green roofs have become an effective mechanism for various environmental issues such as

stormwater management, solar energy and biodiversity conservation. Moreover, many scientific

studies have been able to prove that public green roofs also contribute to social benefits

including health improvements, and social inclusion.

The objective of this paper is to analyze and compare two leading cities in different regions in

the design, development, implementation and maintenance of green roofs for stormwater

management. The cities that have been selected for these purposes are the Sister City of Berlin

in Germany and Portland, Oregon in the United States. In order to do so, this paper assesses the

technical and policy characteristics of the green roof technology and regulation implemented in

both cities. It also analyzes potential implementing improvement opportunities between Berlin

and Portland.

Green roofs specifics

Green roof are system of manufactured thin layers installed on top conventional flat or sloping

roofs to support the growth of living vegetation (Kok et al., 2014). They protect roof

waterproofing systems and add ecological and esthetic benefits. They consist of a vegetation

layer, a substrate layer in which vegetation is anchored, a filtration and drainage layer to

evacuate the excess water, root barrier, membrane protection layer, waterproof membrane and
a insulation layer (Magill et al., 2007 and Mentens et al., 2005). Based on the depth of the layers

and vegetation used in green roofs, usually 2 types are distinguished: extensive and intensive

green roofs (Mohamed et al., 2012)

The extensive green roofs are the ones that have a thin layer of substrate –around 3 to 6 inches.

These are lightweight approximately 15-50 lbs/sq ft and only have 10-20% of organic matter in

the substrate; however, they are designed for the vegetation to fully cover the roof. The type of

vegetation used in this type of green roof is limited to sedums, small grasses, herbs and

flowering herbaceous plants. These roofs are low maintenance, low growing, drought tolerant,

with low nutritive requirements, and with temporary irrigation system (Green technology,

2015). This type of green roof is best for stormwater management and they have low

maintenance costs. They can be installed on sloped surfaces of 45 degrees maximum, and in

buildings with integrated PV/Solar systems (Mentens et al., 2006 and Getter and Rowe, 2006)

On the other hand, intensive green roofs have a substrate layer greater than 5 inches. They are

characterized for supporting complex vegetation such as groundcovers, shrubs and small trees

(Mentens et al., 2006). These types of roofs can support a heavier weight load of up to 150

lbs/sq. ft. and requires a professional maintenance and advanced green roof irrigation systems

(Green roof technology, 2015). They can be installed in roofs with a slope no greater than 10

degrees. Generally these roofs have the purpose to serve as gardens and small farms. And

depending on the design and selection of the vegetation, intensive green roofs offer a great

potential for biodiversity diversity and recreation. All of these characteristics make green roofs

to be more costly (Oberndorfer et al., 2007).

Services provided by green roofs

Since green roofs became popular in Germany, many studies were developed to analyze and

determine their benefits. The first time that water retaining capacity was mentioned as a

product of this technology dates back to a study prepared by Ernst and Weigerding in 1985

(Mentens et al., 2006). Since then more studies have been made to determine the relationship

between precipitation, runoff, energy conservation, urban habitat provision and roof properties

(Oberndorfer et al., 2007).

The ecosystem services that green roofs provide derive from vegetation, substrate and

membranes utilized in their design and installation. Vegetation is used for providing shade to the

roof and to deliver water to the atmosphere by transpiration and cooling processes. The

substrates are used for storm water retention. The membranes are used for waterproofs

purposes as well as preventing building damages because of the roots (Oberndorfer et al., 2007).

Stormwater management

The nonporous surfaces of urban areas are the contributors to heavy runoff which can represent

a danger of overflowing stormwater facilities, lakes and rivers. It can also contribute to excessive

flooding, erosion and sedimentation. Furthermore, urban runoff can contaminate drinking water

supplies and harm wildlife habitats because of the high pollutants as pesticides and petroleum

residues it carries (Moran et al. 20005).

Green roofs are perfect for stormwater management because they use the roof area to retain

and prevent runoff before this leaves the infrastructure. It stores water during rainfall events,
delays runoff after the rainfall peak and contributes the water cycle as it returns precipitation to

atmosphere through evapotranspiration (Moran et al. 20005). The specific features of green

roofs as the depth of the substrate, vegetation, and slope of the roof determines the rate of

runoff. Different studies in Portland, OR and in East Lansing, MI showed that rainfall retention

from green roofs of more of 10 cm of substrate is around 66% to 69%, and that it can reduce

overall regional runoff by 2.7%. From studies like this, it was concluded that runoff is greater

when the substrate is thinner and the slopes are steeper (Mentens et al., 2006).

Energy conservation

Green roofs can provide shade and insulation to the roof membrane used in buildings, this in

turn results in energy savings and mitigation of the urban heat island – which is a metropolitan

area that is warmer than its surrounding rural areas due to human activities (Getter and Rowe,

2006). During summer season, they can also help reduce the amount of heat transferred

through the roof, lowering the energy demands of the cooling system of the building. Some

studies have showed that using this technology, there can be an indoor temperature reduction

between 3 to 4 degrees Celsius, when outdoor temperatures are between 25 to 30 degrees

Celsius (Getter and Rowe, 2006 and Theodosiou, 2003). Moreover, some studies have shown

that a reduction of 0.5 degrees Celsius may reduce electricity use for air conditioning of up to 8%

(Dunnett and Kingsbury, 2004). The combination of Substrate, shade produced by vegetation

and transpiration can reduce solar energy gain by 90% compared to buildings without green

roofs.
Air temperatures above a building with green roof technology have been shown to be lower

than compared to conventional roofs, this result in up to 15% annual energy consumptions

savings (Getter and Rowe, 2006). Since buildings consume 36% of total energy use and 65%

total electricity consumption, green roof technology on a wide scale can increase energy savings

of a city.

Urban heat island can be reduced by increasing albedo –the fraction of solar energy reflected

from the Earth back into space—or by increasing vegetation through evaporation (Oberndorfer,

2007). An study made for the city of Toronto in Canada showed that the coverage of 50% of the

city with green roof would cause the reduction of 2 degree Celsius in some areas (Bass et al.

2003).

Urban habitat values

Studies have showed that green roofs can contribute to local habitat conservations. In countries

like Germany, Switzerland and the United States, communities of invertebrate and avian

communities have been documented living in these types of roofs (Oberndorfer et al., 2007).

The use of extensive green roofs can provide inaccessibility to the public characteristic that in

turn, can create an undisturbed habitat for species. In a West Berlin study of 50 year old

buildings, Darius and Drepper in 1984 found birds, grasshoppers, white grubs, beetles and an

extensive number of mites. In another study in Switezerland, Brenneisen (2004) found nine

orchid species and many other endangered species in a 90 year old building. However, relatively

new green roofs can also provide habitat. This is the example of one of the largest green roofs in

Dearborn, Michigan the extensive green roof of Ford Motor Company assembly plant. This
42,900 m2 of green roof within 2 years have documented approximately 31 species of

invertebrates and 2 species of birds (Getter et al., 2006).

Researchers are evaluating roofs as a potential way to restore native plant species to an area. In

2004, Dewey et al, evaluated around 35 native grasses and wildflowers of an intensive green

roof and found that 21 species were suitable for a meadow mixture of 1 metro substrate depth.

Others researchers are studying the effect of native species in extensive green roofs. The

primary results showed that the biodiversity created in the rooftop depends on the area and the

conditions encountered in this area. Some species whether are native or not will resist better to

the environmental stress in the rooftop, and that should be the criteria selection for the

vegetation.

Mitigation of air pollution

It is known that vegetation can filter particulate matter and gaseous pollutants in the air.

Rainwater washes particles into the soil and some pollutants are absorbed by plants into their

tissues. Studies demonstrated that green roof vegetation can reduce diesel engine air pollution.

Liesecke and Borgwardt in 1997 found that in areas directly above green roofs around 37% and

21 % reduction of sulfur dioxide and nitrous acid occurred. Peck and Kuhn in 2001 estimated

that green roofs can remove dust particles around 0.2 kg of particles per year per square meter

of grass roof.

An air quality model for greening all rooftops in Chicago showed a reduction of 417,309.46 kg of

nitrogen oxide and 517,100.61 of sulfur oxide emissions per year (Laberge, 2003). And at the
University of Michigan, a reduction of 800,000 kg per year of nitrogen oxide if 20% of all

industrial and commercial roof surfaces in Detroit, Michigan were extensive green roofs.

Green roofs in Berlin

Germany is the world leader in the research and implementation of green roofs, advancing

technology and developing policy. The widespread use of green roofs is the result of 2

movements in the 1970s; the outbreak of technical research to determine green roofs benefits

and the citizen movement that raised as a result of environmental and political dissatisfaction.

In the late 70s researches started evaluating the benefits of green roofs inspired by the

accidental installment of plant life on “rental barracks” in Berlin. These rental barracks were

working class apartment blocks built with tar, sand and gravel roofs as a fire prevention

measure. With the pass of time, vegetation started to grow on these roofs which led to further

research of ecological values of roofs (Köhler et al., 2003)

With the establishment of the FLL in 1975 and the construction methods for green roofs began,

the FLL established a set of guidelines to standardize green roof construction with high quality

levels (Köhler, M and Keeley, M, 2005). Occurring at the same time, citizen initiatives caught

attention to environmental issues in urban areas. The growth of urbanization, the lack of green

space and the sense of weak government interests were the main drivers for citizen to begin

with the initiative to bring back nature to the city. This movement grew considerably and gave

birth to the political party, the Greens in the 1980s (De Haan, G. de and Kuckartz, U. ,1996).
By 1980s there was a rise of a big number of municipal and state incentive programs that had

the goal to incorporate green spaces to urban areas. These programs included the green roofs

initiative by subsidizing 50% to 100% of the costs. By 1983s around 24 German cities offered

some type of urban greening subsidy. These financial incentives offset the higher costs of green

technology, but as green roofs were widely implemented technology costs fell (Lawlor et al.,

2006).

In the mid 1980s Germany amended it Federal Builidng Code ( Baugesetzbuch) and Federal Nature

Protection Law (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz) in order to include the Ecological Compensation and

Replacement Measure. This measure requires that for any environmental disturbances first they need to

be avoided, then minimized and as a last resource mitigated. It provides to the municipalities the

authority to determine how compensation has to be and enforce it through legally binding local

development plans. Under this context, green roofs are a highly used mitigation measure that

allows developers to meet their green space requirements (Dürr. A, 1994).

In 1984 a Federal court ruling required transparency in water fees. Prior to this ruling, water

usage was the base for water supply and disposal. Several municipalities split their waste water

fees, charging property owners for stormwater directed to sewers from their property. To

encourage stormwater source control, municipalities offered a discount for measures as de-

paving, stormwater ponds and green roofs. Usually the discounts for green roofs were between

30-50%. The “polluter pays” principle is highly accepted in Germany, an estimates half of

German cities with population of 100,000 split waste water fees. At present, municipalities are

downsizing and eliminating subsidies for urban greening projects; furthermore, they are

replacing them with regulations or with a combination of taxes and fees (City of Berlin, 2006).
The success of Berlin in implementing green roofs was done by the use of the Biotope Area

Factor (BAF) initiative and the indirect tax or duty regulations. The local tax on drainage from

impermeable surfaces into the main system provided the incentive to install green roofs.

Currently, this indirect financial incentive in the form of a Municipal Wastewater Charge System

is calculated as 1.70 euro per square meter of impervious surface, with a 50% discount applied

for rooftops with green roof technology (Greater Manchester Green Roof Guidance, 2009).

The FLL (Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau) Guidelines

The FLL guidelines were a key player in the development of the green roof movement in

Germany. In 1975, 8 professional organizations established these guidelines in order to research

on vegetation and their benefits into environmental improvement. At the present, the FLL is a

non-profit membership organization with more than 200,000 members that coordinates

research for urban planning. The FLL guidelines are worldwide known because of its technical

background for the design, construction and maintenance of green roofs. They set quality

standards for green roof systems in Germany. (Lawlor et al., 2006)

An important part of Germany’s green roof policy is to ensure that green roof achieves

performance goals and ecological functions. In order to do this, the FLL developed a

performance rating system to facilitate the regulatory measures to ensure compliance. The

point-based system developed assesses the components and functions of the green roof. The

system sets performance criteria based in 4 categories: i) water retention capacity of the

drainage layer; ii) water retention capacity of the growing medium; iii) the number of plant

species on an extensive green roof ; and iv) the amount of green volume (m2 /m3 ) for intensive
green roofs. Each category must meet certain criteria, if it is not meet then points are

subtracted from the base value, and it has to be compensated in one of the other categories.

Municipalities use this tool to ensure that green roofs meet the desired functions and that are in

compliance with regulations, while allowing flexibility in the design. These guidelines allow policy

makers to define the desired green roof characteristics in policy documents, preventing

ambiguous criteria (Krupka, B., 1994).

Land Use Plans, the Landscape Program and the Biotope Area Factor

The reunification of West and East Berlin provided an opportunity to develop large scale green

infrastructure projects. The combination of Land Use Plans and the Landscape Program made

Berlin the leading city in developing green roofs technology in a successful manner confronting

challenges associated to population growth of 300,000 in the city to 1.5 million in the region and

to land use of more of 550 hectares for private and public use. Moreover, the policies that me

possible the green infrastructure technology to develop and become a large scale activity in

Berlin were the Landscape Program and the Biotope Area Factor. Both policies were in born

around the same time and were aligned with the same objective, increasing the vegetation in

built areas (Lawlor et al., 2006).

In the 1980s—before the reunification –the western sector of Berlin had established an initiative

called the Biotope Area Factor (BAF). This initiative resembled an urban planning instrument

aimed to improve the presence of vegetation in the built environment, and to also standardize

environmental goals such as: safeguarding and improving microclimate and atmospheric

hygiene, safeguarding and developing soil function and water balance, creating and enhancing
the quality of flora and fauna of species, and improving residential environment (Lawlor et al.,

2006).

The BAF strategy is to retain high densities of development is retain high densities of

development, focusing in the city green infrastructure. This way the impact on the environment

that open spaces produced could be compensated. This initiative was guided by the Landscape

Program and in 1994 was introduced as a binding document. This way Berlin was able to manage

and control the ecologically effective surface area (area covered in vegetation) of the total area

covered by development (Kazmierczak, A. and and Carter, J., 2010).

The Landscape Program for West Berlin was introduced in 1984. By that time almost all of the

political parties had a priority in nature conservation, this caused the Program to be highly

supported and accepted. The technical background and the recruitment of administrative staff

shaped and strengthen the Program to what it is today. Thorough the Landscape Program, Berlin

was able to focus on resolving use land conflicts from new infrastructure developments and

plans for building land for private and public use (Kazmierczak, A. and and Carter, J., 2010).

This Program is implemented through Landscape Plans. The binding nature as statutory

instrument, in turn causes the Landscape Plans to be a strong political, administrative and public

mandate. For this reason, Berlin currently has over 16% of their urban area under the framework

of Landscape Plans (Cloos, I. ,2009).

Green roofs in Portland

Portland is considered the leading city in the United States in the green roof technology. For

over the last 2 decades Portland has been known for its smart growth policies. The development

in Portland is held within the Urban Growth Boundary. The biggest concern regarding green

roofs in Portland is the stormwater management, especially in the reduction of combined

sewage overflow (Lawlor et al., 2006).

Since the 1990s, Portland’s Bureau of Environment Services has created a successful program

that achieves regulatory compliance, education, outreach and community greening. In the early

1990s Portland’s stormwater began as a response to the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES), Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharge Permit

issued by the state to address water quality regulations. This way, Portland developed the

stormwater management plan. This Plan outlined how stormwater will be addressed by the City

to ensure the best practice possible and reducing pollutants. The City in 1994 created a

Stormwater Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC), which was a multidisciplinary group of

stakeholders that aimed to provide input to the City stormwater matters. This Committee

developed policy and code statements which were developed into the city’s stormwater

management manual (Lawlor et al., 2006 and Environmental Services, the City of Portland,

2011).

In the same year, a state mandate required that Portland would comply with the Clean Water

Act and clean up one its most important rivers—the Willamette River—as part of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program to clean up hazardous waste sites (Lawlor et

al., 2006).

As a result Portland built a pipeline on the west side of the Willamette River and a large pump

station to deal with sewer overflow. However, the City knew that this strategy need to be

complemented with additional inflow management strategies and techniques including green

roofs, or as in Portland are called: eco roofs (Lawlor et al., 2006 and Environmental Services, the

City of Portland, 2011).

The successful outcome of the research for ecoroofs done in Portland and the support of the

public opinion, made the City to establish ecoroofs as a stormwater management tool. In 1999,

the eco roof technology was officially recognized as a best management practice in the City

stormwater manual. This trend grew fast and by 2004, Portland was recognized internationally

for its efforts in the Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference.

Ecoroof Program

Portland developed this program to expand strategically its green infrastructure, and to

integrate stormwater management facilities as green streets, rain gardens, and ecoroofs. This

Program is part of a national initiative and by 2013; the goal for Portland was to have around 43

acres of ecoroofs (Lawlor et al., 2006).

The City of Portland promotes the use of ecoroofs on public and private property to manage

stormwater on-site. The City uses an incentive of up to $5 US dollars per square foot for an

approved ecoroof project (Portland). All new city owned facilities are required to be designed
and built with an ecoroof that covers up to 70 % of the area of the roof (Environmental Services,

the City of Portland, 2011).

On public projects managers are required to consult the city’s inter-bureau Green Building

Advisory Team for guidance to meet the Green Building Policy objectives. The Green Building

Policy includes as part of its framework Ecoroof technologies and LEED Gold certification. For

private projects there are no additional requirements, as the City wants to promote ecoroofs

under the existing framework of the Ecoroofs manual. In addition, the city offers the floor are

ratio (FAR) bonuses as an incentive to develop practices that meet the City’s objectives of

stormwater management and green infrastructure (Lawlor et al., 2006).

Portland’s Ecoroof Program has educational and outreach components. Through this Program

Portland has raised awareness of the benefits of the green roof technology. Furthermore the

City provides technical assistance to building owners and to the private sector that are

considering using this technology. It also provides grants for ecoroofs projects and monitors the

existing ones (Environmental Services, the City of Portland, 2011).

Technology and policy transferability from Berlin to Portland

Portland’s approach towards green infrastructure has been similar to the German Model. Both

cities started with initiatives to improve their urban conditions through the use of green roof

technology. Portland in the same manner as Berlin has used research activities to strengthen

public investment in projects using this technology. And furthermore, it has also focused in

policies that can support the development of green roofs.

Portland –as Berlin did at the beginning—has used subsidies and incentives to encourage private

owners to invest in green roofs projects. This has clearly demonstrated good results and

Portland has been able to rapidly increase their number of green roofs installed throughout the

city.

The use of public engagement and research had also a similar approach as in Germany. Portland

encouraged the public opinion in the development of their policy and civic consciousness as an

integral part of the success of green roofs. The same happened for the education and research

area. Portland has developed a vast growing opportunity for studies to evaluate and develop

more ways of best management practices including green roofs.

The successful development and implementation of green roof technology in Portland is directly

related to its current programs and policies. The use of incentives and subsides have conditioned

the number of green roofs installed; however, as we have seen with Berlin this may not be the

best approach as policy, especially in the long run.

The use of an incentive economical tool such as the stormwater tax in Berlin can alleviate the

costs of Stormwater Management, and incentive private owners to invest in this technology,

having a fair share of storm water runoff and properly managing stormwater. If Portland would

be able to transform their green roofs incentives into a type of tax, whether is a stormwater tax

or a green roof tax abatement, the money that currently is being allocated for incentives and

subsidizes under the Ecoroof Program and the Floor Area Ratio Bonus, can finance other green

development projects in the City and furthermore, they can be invested for research activities

for newer and better technologies towards green infrastructure.

Conclusion

Green roofs have demonstrated to be a potential method to offset the destruction of natural

habitats as cities continue growing through urbanization (Getter, K., and Rowe, B., 2006). There

are many benefits that green roofs provide whether they are installed in an intensively or

extensively manner. Moreover, the different characteristics that green roofs allow provide

flexibility for developers and policy makers to shape the rooftops to meet their needs. This is a

key feature that permits the city or the region implementing this technology to improve the

areas or activities where there are environmental conditions are worse.

The use of green roofs whether is in Germany or in the U.S. has provided an unique opportunity

to transform and redefine the concept of land planning into an environmentally practice that

aims not only to vegetate a built area, but also to incorporate sustainable practices to become a

sustainable city.

Berlin has been the leader in researching, developing and installing green roofs across its urban

areas. The technological and policy model that Berlin developed through the years has been

used as model for other cities –nationally and internationally –interested in implementing green

roofs because of its demonstrated benefits. This is the case of the city of Portland that with a

similar approach as Berlin has become a recognized green infrastructure city due to its

environmental and urban planning achievements.

The experience with green roofs in Portland and Berlin has showed us the ability of these two

cities to overcome barriers of design, implementation and acceptance. Furthermore, the

successful story of both cities should be set as an example for other cities that are trying to

implement the green roof technology as a technical tool for urban planning.

References

Anwar, M., Rasul, M., Khan, M. K. 2012. Green roofs for storm water management: a review <

http://qks.cqu.edu.cn/cqdxywen/ch/reader/create_pdf.aspx?

file_no=201201003&flag=1&journal_id=cqdxywen&year_id=2012>

Brenneisen, S. 2003. The benefits of biodiversity from green roofs: Key design consequences, p.

323-329. In Proc. Of 1st North American Green Roof Conference: Greening rooftops for

sustainable communities.

City of Berlin. 2006. Handbuch der Berliner Landschaftspläne. Available at:

http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/landschaftsplanung/handbuch/index.shtml

Darius, F. and Drepper, J., 1984. Rasendacher in West-Berlin. Das Gartenamt 33:309-315

Bass B., Krayenhoff E.S., Martilli A, Stull R.B., and Auld, H. 2003. The impact of green roofs on

Toronto’s urban heat island. Pages 292–304 in Proceedings of the First North American Green

Roof Conference: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities; 20–30 May, Chicago.

Toronto (Canada): Cardinal Group.

De Haan, Gerhard, and Udo Kuckartz. 1996. Umweltbewusstsein. Denken und Handeln in

Umweltkrisen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Dewey, D., Jhonson, P., and Kjelgren, R. 2004. Species composition changes in rooftop grass and

wildflower meadow. Native Plants.

Dunnet, N., and Kingsbury N., 2004. Planting green roofs and living walls. Timber Press, Inc.

Portland, Oregon

Dürr, A. (1994). Dachbegrünung: ein ökologischer Ausgleich. Wiesbaden: Bauverlag GmbH.

Köhler, M. & Keeley, M. (2005). The Green Roof Tradition in Germany

Cloos, I. 2009. A project celebrates its 25th birthday. The Landscape Program including Nature

Conservation for the City of Berlin.

Getter, K., and Rowe, B., 2006.The Role of Extensive Green Roofs in Sustainable Development.

Evaluation of Green Roof as Green Technology for Urban Stormwater Quantity and Quality

Controls

Greater Manchester Green Roof Guidance. 2009.

<http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/green_roofs_guidance_final_draft_04_08_092.p

df?static=1>

Kaluvakolanu, P. 2006.Greenroof Technology.

<http://www.ltu.edu/water/greenroofs_history.asp

Kazmierczak, A. and Carter, J. 2010. Adaptation to climate change using green and blue

infrastructure. A database of case studies.

Köhler, M. and Schmidt,.M. 2003. Study of extensive “Green Roofs” in Berlin.

< http://www.roofmeadow.com/wp-content/uploads/Study-of-extensive-green-roof-in-

Berlin_rev2.pdf>
Kok , K.H., Sidek, L.M., Zainalabidin, M. 2014. Evaluation of Green Roof as Green Technology for

Urban Stormwater Quantity and Quality Controls. <

https://www.academia.edu/12089615/Evaluation_of_Green_Roof_as_Green_Technology_f

or_Urban_Stormwater_Quantity_and_Quality_Controls>

Krupka, B. (1994). “Ein Bewer tungssystem für Dachbegrünung nach Punkten,” Das Gartenamt,

43(7), 448–450.

Laberge, K.M. 2003. Urban oasis: Chicaho’s City Hall green roof,p. 194-203. In First North

American Green Roof Conference: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities; 20–30

May, Chicago.

Lawlor, G., Currie, B. Doshi, H., Wieditz, I., 2006. Green Roofs a Resource Manual for

Municipal Policy Makers.

Liesecke, H.J. and Borgwardt, H. 1997. Degradation of air pollutants by extensive green roofs.

Stadt un Grun 46;245-251

Mentens, J. Raes, D., Hermy, M. 2006. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff

problem in the urbanized 21st century? <

http://www.biw.kuleuven.be/lbh/lbnl/ecology/pdf-files/pdf-art/jeroen/LUP-77_2006.pdf>

Magill, J., Midden, K., Groninger, J., Therrel, M. 2011. History and Definition Of Green Roof

Technology With Recommendations For Future Research. <

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp/91>

Moran, A.C., Hunt, W.F., and Smith, J.T. 2005. Hydrological and water quality performance from

greenroofs in Goldsboro and Raleigh, North Carolina [M].

Theodosiou, T.G. 2003. Summer period analysis of the performance of a planted roof as a

passive cooling technique. Energy and Buildings 35: 909–917.

Stutz, B. 2010. Green Roofs are Starting to Sprout in American Cities.

<http://e360.yale.edu/feature/green_roofs_are_starting_to_sprout_in_american_cities/234

6/>

Oberndorfer, E., Lundholm, J., Bass, B., Coffman, R., Doshi, H., Dunnett, N., Stuart, G., Köhler, M.,

Liu. K, And Rowep, A. 2007. Green Roofs as Urban Ecosystems: Ecological Structures,

Functions, and Services.