Sustainable Urban Drainage: Retrofitting For Improved Ood Mitigation in City Centres

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/272397217
Sustainable urban drainage: Retroﬁtting for improved ﬂood mitigation in city

centres.
Technical Report · October 2014
CITATIONS READS
9 980
4 authors:
Jessica Elizabeth Lamond Sara J. Wilkinson

University of the West of England, Bristol University of Technology Sydney
128 PUBLICATIONS 2,680 CITATIONS 183 PUBLICATIONS 1,938 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
David Proverbs Carly B. Rose

University of Wolverhampton University of the West of England, Bristol
262 PUBLICATIONS 4,002 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 104 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Review of the 14 NERC-funded Green Infrastructure Innovation Projects View project
The Algae Prototype Panel (APP) Project View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sara J. Wilkinson on 04 August 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research
October 2014
Sustainable Urban Drainage
– Retrofitting for Improved
Flood Mitigation in City Centres
rics.org/research
Sustainable Urban Drainage – Retrofitting for Improved Flood Mitigation in City Centres
Sustainable Urban Drainage – Retrofitting for

Improved Flood Mitigation in City Centres
2 © RICS Research 2014

rics.org/research
Report for Royal Institution

of Chartered Surveyors
Report written by:

Jessica E. Lamond, BSc, MSc, PhD1
jessica.lamond@uwe.ac.uk
Collaborators and co-authors:

Sara J. Wilkinson, BSc, MA, MPhil, PhD2
Carly B. Rose, BSc1
David G. Proverbs, BSc, MSc, PhD1
1
University of the West of England, Faculty of Environment and Technology
2
School of the Built Environment, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
RICS Research team

Dr. Clare Eriksson FRICS
Director of Global Research & Policy
ceriksson@rics.org
Amanprit Johal
RICS Global Research and Policy Project Manager
ajohal@rics.org
Anthony Walters
RICS Global Research and Policy Project Manager
awalters@rics.org
Pratichi Chatterjee
Funded by:
Global Research & Policy Assistant
pchatterjee@rics.org
Published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

RICS, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD
www.rics.org
The views expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of RICS nor any body
connected with RICS. Neither the authors, nor RICS accept any liability arising from
the use of this publication.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
The RICS Research Trust, a registered form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any
charity established by RICS in 1955 information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
to support research and education
in the field of surveying. Copyright RICS 2014
© RICS Research 2014 3

Contents
Glossary and abbreviations................................................................................ 6
Executive Summary................................................................................................ 7
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................10
1.1 Flooding in Central Business Districts...........................................10
1.2 Rationale...............................................................................................10
1.3 Aims and objectives...........................................................................11
2.0. Methods and Data......................................................................................12
2.1 Literature review................................................................................12
2.2 Database design and population.....................................................12
2.3 Analysis of retrofit potential............................................................12
2.4 Methods for calculating run off reduction and
damage estimation............................................................................13
2.5 Development of a conceptual model for the CBD........................13
3.0 Results..............................................................................................................14
3.1 Literature Review................................................................................14
3.1.1 Types of SUDS suitable for retrofit in CBD ...................................14
3.1.2 Construction technologies and technical
features for Green Roofs .................................................................19
3.1.3 Construction technologies and technical
features for Permeable Paving ......................................................22
3.1.4 Cost benefit ........................................................................................23
3.1.5 Other benefits ....................................................................................24
3.2 Retrofit potential Databases...........................................................26
3.2.1 Melbourne CBD Database ................................................................27
3.2.2 Newcastle upon Tyne UK CBD database .......................................31
3.2.3 Comparison..........................................................................................34
3.3 Run off modelling and exploration of damage reduction...........35
3.4 Development of the conceptual model..........................................38
4.0 Discussion and Implications/Guidance.........................................41
4.1 Implications for surveyors................................................................41
4.2 Areas for further research................................................................42
4.3 Signposting of guidance....................................................................42
5.0 Conclusion......................................................................................................45
6.0 References.....................................................................................................47
7.0 Appendix..........................................................................................................50
Checklist for Building Surveyors to appraise roofs for suitability
for green roof retrofit.......................................................................................50
8.0 Acknowledgements...................................................................................54

rics.org/research
List of Figures
Figure 1 Amy Joslin memorial Eco-Roof, Multnomah county headquarters
building, Portland, USA.............................................................................15
Figure 2 Permeable paving in the Dings, Bristol, UK...........................................16
Figure 3 Example of a Rain Stormwater planter in central Portland, USA......17
Figure 4 Epler Hall stormwater planters are a combined stormwater
management and rainwater harvesting system, Portland, USA.......18
Figure 5 Typical green roof section........................................................................19
Figure 6 Cross Section of an Enhanced Permeable Pavement Design
with an Underdrain.....................................................................................22
Figure 7 Overviews of the building styles in Newcastle upon Tyne’s
CBD (left) and Melbourne (right).............................................................26
Figure 8 Number of Storeys in Melbourne CBD Buildings...................................28
Figure 9 Building Location........................................................................................28
Figure 10 Building Orientation in Melbourne CBD..................................................29
Figure 11 Histogram of building heights in storeys for Newcastle study area...31
Figure 12 Comparison of proportion of flat and pitched of rooftops
varying levels of plant coverage. rooftops............................................34
Figure 13 Clarence Woodhouse, Melbourne in 1838 from the Yarra River,
c. 1888. Courtesy of the State Library of Victoria...............................37
Figure 14 Culverting evolution in Newcastle (courtesy of M Toraldo)................37
Figure 15 Conceptual model of distributed benefits of green roof
technology from the perspective of owners and occupiers
of commercial buildings (after Abbott et al., 2013)............................40
List of Tables
Table 1 Attributes of extensive and intensive green roofs..............................20
Table 2 Technical Features for Green Roofs........................................................21
Table 3 Technical Features for Permeable Paving.............................................23
Table 4 Other benefits of retrofitting green roofs.............................................25
Table 5 Rank Order of Year of Construction for Buildings in Melbourne........27
Table 6 Green Roof Option......................................................................................30
Table 7 Overshadowing of Roofs...........................................................................30
Table 8 Cross tabulation of conservation area, construction type
and historic listing.....................................................................................32
Table 9 Cross tabulation of pitch and construction type for
Newcastle study area................................................................................32
Table 10 Cross tabulation of pitch, historic listing and construction
type for Newcastle study area.................................................................33
Table 11 Table of roofs judged suitable to retrofit based on pitch, historic
listing and percent coverage by plant in the Newcastle study area....33
Table 12 Roofs potentially suitable for intensive green roof retrofit
in the Newcastle study area.....................................................................33
Table 13 Melbourne and Newcastle Stock compared for green roof retrofit...34
Table 14 Run off calculations for Melbourne and Newcastle showing
estimate percentage of total rainfall falling on the CBD
managed by potential retrofit under three scenarios.........................35
Table 15 Matrix of benefits and beneficiaries from investment in
green roof technology...............................................................................39
Table 16 Guidance Sources by country of origin, method, and approach........43

Glossary and abbreviations

Sustainable Drainage Systems are a sequence of SUDS Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (original
water management practices and facilities designed to definition)
drain surface water in a manner that will provide a more
SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems (urban or rural)
sustainable approach than the conventional practice of
now more usually rendered ‘SUDS’
routing run-off through a pipe to a watercourse.
WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design
Water Sensitive Urban Design is an Australasian
term encompassing SUDS principles, but extending to CBD Central Business District (city centres)
other water-related management practices (groundwater/
RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
wastewater management/water supply) with a focus on
minimising environmental degradation and improving SWMMs Surface Water Management Measures
aesthetic/recreational aspects.
GIS Geographic Information System
Central Business District is the preferred Australian and
NLA Net Lettable Area
US term for the commercial area within an urban centre,
comprising predominantly retail and office buildings. EPSRC Engineering and Physical Sciences
The UK term ‘city centre’ is less specific, as it implies a Research Council
geographically central location (which may or may not
reflect such commercial usage).
SPSS statistical analysis software
Greywater is waste water from wash hand basins,
showers, baths, washing machines, dishwashers and
kitchen sinks. This is distinct from ‘blackwater’, or sewage,
from toilets/urinals that contain human waste.

rics.org/research
Executive Summary
Flood damage was estimated to cost A$20bn (£12.5bn)
in Australia in 2011. In the UK approximately 185,000
commercial properties are at risk of flooding (Harman et
al., 2002) and the 2007 flood event was estimated to cost
businesses in England £0.75bn in damage and disruption
(Chatterton et al., 2010). Surface water flash flooding of
businesses has been driven by higher incidence of intense
pluvial events; the lack of permeability in high density areas;
and the inadequacy of drainage systems in city centres
constructed to cope with different weather patterns and
buildings. In the light of future uncertainties, it is becoming
increasingly clear that the continuing reliance on piped
drainage systems is creating unsustainable demands
for ever-greater capacity, or the creation of underground
storage facilities. As an alternative to expanding the existing
‘grey’ infrastructure systems, Sustainable Urban Drainage
(SUDS) in the UK, and its equivalents elsewhere, are now
being advocated and legislated for on a much wider scale.
Aim
The aim of this research was to examine the potential
for mitigation of predominantly pluvial flooding in CBDs
through retrofitting of such systems. The research used
two case study areas to explore the challenges and
opportunities for retrofit of SUDS in different cities with
varying climate zones, urban design and governmental
regimes. The research sought to:
a) Evaluate the potential to physically retrofit existing
buildings and adjacent paved areas
b) E xplore the potential for run of reduction and therefore
mitigation of associated flood damage
c) E xamine the costs and benefits of retrofitting SUDS
and identify social and environmental benefits of
sustainable drainage for commercial property and
the business district.
In order to provide information and guidance for surveyors
in the emerging area of retrofit of SUDS and provide material
to build capacity of surveyors to contribute to improved
drainage and flood mitigation for commercial property.

Methodology Results and implications

The research commenced with a systematic literature The most appropriate and well understood SUDS for
review to identify the available information on the use retrofit in city centre locations are green roofs, permeable
and retrofit of SUDS to reduce flood risk. International paving and rain gardens. Combination of these features
databases of both academic and industry sources were into a ‘management train’ or ‘treatment train’ (a linked
accessed thereby creating a global picture of examples, series of drainage techniques) can increase the
together with available tools and guidance likely to be of attenuation potential of individual features.
benefit to the surveying community.
The evidence base for estimating the direct benefits of
Using information drawn from the literature, criteria were SUDS retrofit is rapidly developing. Both academic studies
developed to determine the technical requirements that and city-wide assessments have been undertaken. For
determine suitability of roofs and paving areas for retrofit green roofs, benefits accrue to individual property owners
including the position, orientation and location of the building, in terms of reduced energy bills owing to the insulating
the roof pitch, weight limitations and ground conditions. properties of such roofs.
Two detailed building databases were then developed for The broader stakeholder community also derives benefits
Melbourne, Australia and Newcastle, UK. The databases from green SUDS installation such as roofs and rain
were compiled drawing on a wide range of sources, gardens, some of which are less easily monetised.
including existing commercial and publicly available They include: biodiversity/wildlife habitat; improvements
databases, Google maps and visual inspections. The final in water and air quality; and attenuation of the urban
building databases contained 526 commercial buildings in heat island effect. Green roofs also have a carbon
Melbourne and 507 commercial buildings in Newcastle. sequestration function.
The technical criteria were used to identify those buildings The range of benefits of permeable paving are more limited
which had the potential to be retrofitted and to estimate and relate to stormwater management and water quality.
the potential for retrofit of permeable paving. A simple However permeable paving may have a lifecycle cost
estimation method was applied to the data derived from advantage over other paving systems thereby representing
the property databases and available land use data a no regret option for renewal of urban paving.
to assess the potential run-off reduction under three
The consideration of the full range of benefits and their
scenarios. For the Melbourne dataset a further run-off
applicability from the perspective of actors engaged in
analysis was carried out on the behalf of the research by
the installation of measures is a recent development in the
the University of Newcastle using a state of the art rainfall
literature and has not yet been explored for commercial
inundation model.
property owners and investors.
The database analysis of buildings within two city centres
revealed that the proportion with potential for retrofit of
green roofs is fairly low (under conservative assumptions).
Estimation of other surfaces potentially suitable for
permeable retrofit in busy business districts also reveals
that a large proportion of urban hard surface may be
unsuitable for standard permeable paving systems.
Estimation of the run off reduction potential for these
two cases study areas can be seen to be realistically
around 10-20%, however this can still make a significant
contribution to stormwater reduction and peak attenuation.
For both of the case study sites however it was seen
to be necessary to consider the wider catchment area
due to the presence of historic watercourses and
topographical features.

rics.org/research
Recommendations
Output from this research includes a summary of existing
best practice guidance for chartered surveyors to use
across all RICS regions. There has, however, been
a great deal of work around this topic that has been
done during the 18 months since this project was
first conceived: for example, in the UK, guidance
documents are being produced at the present time by
the Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, for example (CIRIA, 2013).
Guidance notes and checklists specifically for scoping
potential integrated retrofit projects for commercial
property surveyors are recommended and could be
developed in the light of recent and ongoing research
over the next twelve months.
The new conceptual model for owners and occupiers
suggests that consideration of feedback from distributed
benefits of green roof technology and permeable paving
through property value and reputational gains could be
highly influential. Further research is recommended in
the measurement and attribution of costs and benefits of
green roofs, specifically in the valuation of multiple benefits
and the operationalisation of the conceptual model.
Further research is also needed on the performance of
sustainable drainage systems under a variety of locational,
climate and antecedent conditions both in terms of storm-
water management and other benefits.
Detailed retrofit audits of the wider catchment for
Melbourne and Newcastle are recommended.

1.0 Introduction
The motivation behind this research is to enhance the The real cost to the local economies may be long lasting
knowledge regarding minimisation of flood damage and and difficult to measure, as many businesses fail to
disruption within the commercial property sector using recover after suffering flooding (Cumbria Intelligence
retrofit of sustainable drainage. Much flood research in Observatory, 2010; Ingirige and Wedawatta, 2011;
the past has focussed on the residential sector with some Wedawatta et al., 2011).
damage estimation and business continuity advice for
individual businesses in central business districts (CBDs).
However, business districts have unique characteristics
1.2 Rationale
and are comprised of a variety of property types linked The growing damage impacts of increased pluvial flooding
by common, publically accessible, spaces that may be are not attributable to changing weather patterns alone: this
seen as essential to the functioning of the businesses is exacerbated by increased development pressures and
choosing to locate in the district. Equally the viability of urbanisation (Jha et al., 2011). In the UK, for example, there
a business district has impacts on all those that work have been effects arising from the policy of redeveloping
there, patronise the businesses and own or invest in brown-field sites, together with the popularity of paving
the property. Therefore the consideration of flood green spaces to provide car parking; likewise, in Australia,
mitigation within business districts must be considered urban planning has increased the density of development
at a variety of spatial scales and from the perspective and amount of impermeable surfaces. Stormwater runs
of multiple stakeholders. swiftly off these surfaces, rather than slowly infiltrating into
the ground, as it would have done on open or agricultural
1.1 Flooding in Central Business land. Furthermore, in many business districts, piped
drainage systems were installed at a time when lower
Districts density development existed and their design has not been
updated to accommodate the increased runoff (French
Weather patterns are changing in ways consistent with
et al., 2011). Retrofitting such below-ground drainage
a warming global climate (Solomon and Qin, 2007;
systems (both greywater and combined systems) is not only
Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Research, 2007).
expensive, but time consuming and consequently highly
Although specific extreme events cannot be attributed
disruptive to the businesses affected.
to climate change, the consensus is that the frequency
of intense rainfall events is rising over most land masses An alternative approach is to make use of measures
(including those where average rainfall is decreasing) designed to restore, or mimic, natural infiltration patterns;
and this is likely to continue in some seasons (Solomon by decreasing runoff volumes and attenuating peak flows,
and Qin, 2007). Such intense rainfall events can cause the risk of urban flooding is reduced. Within business
flash floods, particularly in dense urban areas with low districts, this approach could involve the wide spread
permeability, leading to serious impacts on the affected retrofit of green roofs, permeable paving and other
owners and occupiers. surface or near-surface drainage options (Charlesworth
and Warwick, 2011). Infiltration and storage devices,
In Australia, the more usual prolonged droughts have
such as permeable paving, can be employed around
been replaced by increased rainfall: the estimated cost of
commercial premises to reduce runoff, whilst green roofs
building remediation following the 2010/11 floods in the
and rainwater gardens can absorb rainwater, thereby
states of Queensland and Victoria vary from A$9 billion to
attenuating peak flows. Urban renewal or refurbishment
A$20 billion (Companies and Markets, 2011). The densely
provides an opportunity for such retrofitting initiatives: in
populated East Coast area has also been subject to severe
the US this approach has been adopted in both New York
floods in two consecutive years, including an event in
(NYC Environmental Protection, 2011; NYC Environmental
which 29 mm of rain fell in a period of 30 minutes at Perth
Protection, 2012) and Portland, Oregon. In the latter
Airport (Bureau of Meteorology, 2012), whilst the Bureau
case, in order to increase the uptake of green roofs and
of Meteorology issued Severe Weather Warnings for heavy
disconnection of downspouts, financial incentives were
rain and flash flooding over much of northern and eastern
offered (Environmental Services – City of Portland, 2006;
Queensland in March 2012.
Environmental Services – City of Portland, 2011). Doubts
In the UK, the cost of flash flooding has also risen in recent have, however, been raised as to whether widespread
decades; 3.8 million properties in England are estimated to retrofit is a viable option structurally or functionally
be at risk from surface water flooding alone (Environment (Wilkinson and Reed, 2009); furthermore, the contribution
Agency, 2013). Extreme rainfall events in 2007 and 2012 to cost effective reduction of flood risk from property
caused localised flash flooding in city centres including level adaptation is yet to be fully explored (Lamond and
Glasgow, Hull, Newcastle and York, with substantial Proverbs, 2009; Joseph et al., 2012).
damage and disruption to the central business districts.

rics.org/research
1.3 Aims and objectives

The aim of this research was to examine the potential for
mitigation of pluvial flooding in CBDs through retrofitting
of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). The study
focuses on the commercial office sector in Melbourne,
Australia and Newcastle, UK. Through extensive literature
and document review, and through constructing and
analysing a detailed property database, the research
incorporated the following objectives:
1. To evaluate the potential proportion of buildings
which could be physically retrofitted with green roof
technology, and the potential for adjoining CBD spaces
to be retrofitted with permeable paving;
2. To explores the potential reduction in rainwater run-off
from green roof retrofit in Newcastle and Melbourne;
3. To analyse the costs and benefits of SUDS retrofit
for flood risk reduction, identifies additional social
and environmental benefits of green roof retrofit and
develops a conceptual model for green roof retrofit
to commercial buildings;
4. To identify and summarise available guidance for
retrofitting SUDS on commercial buildings for the
benefit of surveyors.
This study was, therefore, designed to critically synthesise
existing evidence from diverse strands of literature and
identify future research needs in the area of retrofitting
sustainable drainage in central business districts.

2.0 Methods and Data

The research adopted a case study approach to explore
the challenges and opportunities of retrofitting SUDS in
2.2 Database design
two cities in different hemispheres. This was appropriate and population
in order to broaden the consideration of climate, built
environment, cultural and governmental factors that can The research method comprised the compilation of two
influence the potential to retrofit SUDS in CBDs. The cities detailed building databases; one for Melbourne, Australia
were selected based on a variety of factors including and one for Newcastle in the UK. The databases contained
pragmatic considerations such as ease of access to data. information related to the existing building stock in the
However, as discussed below they were also identified city centre or CBD for Melbourne. The databases were
as having similarities in flood characteristics that are compiled using multiple sources such as existing commercial
useful for comparative purposes and an identified need to databases. For example Cityscope in Australia contains
consider alternative drainage systems. Typical problematic information about buildings such as year of construction,
features of business districts with surface water issues form of construction, building size, owners and tenants.
were identified in these cities and the lessons drawn from Other building data was collated from the Property Council
studying these case studies can therefore inform the factors of Australia (PCA). Publicly available databases such as
considered when embarking on detailed evaluations of PRISM, which is assembled by the Victorian Government,
retrofit potential for other cities across the globe. and the Heritage database were also used to compile
detailed building data. In the UK information was taken
from the Valuation Office Agency, CoStar database and
2.1 Literature review Ordnance Survey’s Mastermap. Building data was sourced
by researchers in the UK and Australia from Google Earth
A systematic literature review protocol was designed to
and Google Streetview. Finally, the researchers made
identify the available information on the use of sustainable
visual inspections and photographed city centre / CBD
drainage systems in urban areas to reduce flood risk
buildings. Following a comprehensive validation phase the
(and associated flood damages) either by reducing runoff
final building database contains 526 commercial buildings in
volumes or attenuating peak flows. The terminology used
the Melbourne CBD and 507 commercial buildings in three
varies considerably, not only between different countries,
postcode sectors in Newcastle city centre.
but also over time: for example, in the UK the acronym
‘SUDS’, although originally specific to urban drainage, has
now come to mean sustainable drainage in any setting. The 2.3 Analysis of retrofit potential
term ‘Green infrastructure’ is used in a number of countries;
another UK term is ‘Surface water management measures’ Based on a comprehensive literature review with regards to
(SWMMs); in the USA relevant terminology includes green roof design and retrofit issues, a number of factors
‘Stormwater control measures (SCMs), ‘Best management were identified to be taken into account when deciding
practices’ (BMPs) and ‘Low Impact Development’ (LIDs); in if a roof was suitable for a green roof retrofit. Given the
Australasia ‘Water Sensitive Urban Design’ (WSUDs) is the parameters for the design of green roofs noted in the
favoured descriptor. (In the interests of simplicity, the term literature the factors were evaluated on the basis of whether
SUDS, which is most commonly used in the UK, will be the existing roof could meet the design requirements of
used throughout this report). Similarly, green roofs can also those factors for which data was available. This exploratory
be termed ‘living roofs’, ‘vegetated roofs’ or ‘ecoroofs’, and study aimed to determine the extent of the potential for green
the adjectives ‘permeable’ and ‘pervious’ are both used in roof adaptations within the Melbourne CBD and Newcastle
connection with paving methods. Multiple definitions were, city centre and therefore details on the structural strength
therefore, included in the review in order to ensure relevant of the buildings was not collated due to time constraints
material from all English language sources were captured. and considering the significant number of buildings in the
Standardised parameters, encompassing a wide range of analysis. Given the research team’s professional Chartered
subject terms, intervention types and outcome descriptors, Building Surveying background and expertise a visual
were specified within the project protocol; these were inspection was deemed sufficient at this stage to evaluate
used to search databases of both academic and industry the general likely load bearing capacity of the buildings.
sources. The results were then filtered to identify those A research objective was to determine whether a green
elements most appropriate for retrofitting application in roof on a particular building was;
CBDs, thereby creating an international picture of examples,
together with available tools and considerations likely to be a) a viable option,
of benefit to the surveying community. b) not a viable option or
c) possibly a viable option.

rics.org/research
Using the Google Map search engine it was possible

to view the roof from close quarters; this permitted
2.5 Development of a conceptual
determination of whether the roof was steeply pitched model for the CBD
or otherwise, whether there was plant and services
equipment on the roof which might have a detrimental The evidence base for estimating the direct benefits of
effect on planting, or if the building was overshadowed green roofs is a rapidly developing field. Both academic
partially i.e. completely or not at all. The compilation studies and city-wide assessments of retrofitting plans
of these detailed databases of building characteristics have been undertaken, evaluating some of benefits and
enabled the evaluation of the potential for green roof relating them to installation costs. Benefits accrue to
retrofit to existing CBD buildings. The Australian database individual property owners in terms of reduced energy bills
was compiled and verified using Microsoft Excel with owing to the insulating properties of such roofs (Bamfield,
the analysis undertaken in SPSS version 17, whereas the 2005; Bastien et al., 2011). For example, over the expected
Newcastle database was compiled in SPSS version 19. 40 year life of a green roof, it has been estimated that
the benefit to an individual property owner was $43,500
(in respect of heating in winter and cooling in summer)
2.4 Methods for calculating (Bureau of Environmental Services – City of Portland,
run off reduction and damage 2008). The broader stakeholder community also derives
benefits from green roofs, but these aspects are less
estimation easily monetised. They include: biodiversity/wildlife habitat
(Livingroofs.org, 2005; Vila et al., 2012); improvements in
Suitable methods and tools for calculating run off air quality (Stovin et al., 2012); and attenuation of the urban
reduction and flood damage reduction were determined heat island effect (Vila et al., 2012; Stovin et al., 2012).
from the literature. In the examination of potential methods Green roofs also have a carbon sequestration function,
consideration was given to the purpose and spatial scale with an average of 375 g C m2 being reported (Getter
of calculation methods and tools. The review focussed on and Rowe, 2009); this aspect offers a potentially valuable
methods suitable for evaluation of run-off from green roof contribution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.
and permeable paving installation and metrics available Although some detailed guidance aimed at working out
to convert run-off estimates to flood damage reduction. the various direct costs and benefits of green roofs in
Much of the existing literature on these matters derives commercial building does exist (for example, Groundwork
from the United States but greatest weight was given to Sheffield, 2011) this is limited to the developers’ viewpoint.
literature from the UK and Australia. The consideration of the full range of benefits and their
A simple estimation method was applied to the data applicability from the perspective of actors engaged in
derived from the property databases and raw GIS data the installation of measures is a recent development in
from Melbourne and Newcastle in order to assess the the literature (Abbott et al., 2013) and has not yet been
potential run-off reduction under three scenarios: explored for commercial property owners and investors.
• All roof, pavement and road surfaces retrofit Another aspect typically omitted from the Water Sensitive
Urban Design (WSUD) literature is the potential for indirect
• Suitable roof, pavement and road surfaces retrofit
benefits accruing to commercial property owners and
• Half of suitable roof, pavement and road surfaces investors: these arise as a consequence of benefitting the
retrofit wider community, both in terms of flood risk mitigation and
the creation of more sustainable commercial buildings.
For the Melbourne dataset a further run-off analysis was
Whilst the greening of business districts may also imply
carried out on the behalf of the research team by the
the creation of improved amenity and neighbourhood
University of Newcastle, using a state of the art inundation
effects, the evidence for such impacts is sparse and
model that has been developed by Glenis et al. (2013) This
contradictory (CABE Space, 2006; Sinnett et al., 2011).
further analysis was undertaken in order to more precisely
Empirical evidence from the real estate literature for the
estimate the impact of green roof retrofit on suitable rooftops
economic value of ‘greening’ buildings to owners and
in the Melbourne CBD. Three model runs were undertaken:
occupiers is also somewhat mixed (Sayce et al., 2010) but
• Business as usual, no retrofit there are theoretical models of the impact of sustainability
• All rooftops retrofit claims for commercial buildings which are predicated
on lower utility costs, reputational effects, the form of
• Suitable rooftops retrofit commercial leases, the demand for green property, health
The differences in run off patterns were then and wellbeing of the buildings occupants, and the views of
examined spatially. the investment market (Rapson et al., 2007). Therefore, an
innovative conceptual model was required as a necessary
first step in advising commercial owners and occupiers in
the development of the business case for retrofit of green
roof technology.

3.0 Results
The first two subsections of the results present the
findings from the literature review and database analysis
as they emerged from the two phases of research.
The final two subsections draw together these results
to present:
1. an overview of the physical retrofit potential to mitigate
flood damage via reduction of run-off in the two study
areas under three scenarios;
2. a new conceptual model that provides a framework
for evaluating the distributed costs and benefits of
green roof retrofit within central business districts
from the perspective of the commercial property
owner or occupier.
These two sections are designed to reflect the interests of,
respectively, surveyors and planners within city authorities
considering the potential to pursue retrofit programmes;
and surveyors advising commercial property clients on
the potential to benefit from installing green roofs on their
particular property.
3.1 Literature Review

3.1.1 Types of SUDS suitable for retrofit
in CBD
SUDS techniques can be designed to restore groundwater
infiltration routes, or to provide storage methods that can
mitigate the impacts on either watercourses or traditional
storm water conveyance systems (Jumadar et al., 2008).
In the context of retrofitting drainage solutions in high
density urban areas, the availability and cost of allocating
land to such features can pose a major barrier to
adoption. This has lead to a preference for dual purpose
installations, such as green roofs and permeable paving
options. By controlling stormwater runoff at its source,
such devices can (at least in part) mimic a location’s
pre-development flow regime, in terms of reduced runoff
volumes and attenuated peak flows (Damodaram et al.,
2010). When used in conjunction with piped drainage
systems, the resulting augmentation of total capacity
can delay, or obviate the need for, costly and disruptive
upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure.
The evidence demonstrates that SUDS techniques most
appropriate for retrofitting purposes are as follows:
Image source: Silken Photography / Shutterstock.com

rics.org/research
Figure 1 Amy Joslin memorial Eco-Roof, Multnomah county headquarters building, Portland
Case study – Green roof

16,000 square feet of retrofit green roof in the centre of Portland provides an amenity space with adjacent benches
and is open to the public. Monitoring over an eighteen month period showed a peak flow reduction of 86% and 25%
run off reduction for the building shortly after installation, with performance expected to increase over time. Other
benefits of the roof include a 5-10% reduction in air conditioning load (Kurtz, 2010).
Green Roofs/vegetated roofs/ecoroofs

According to Voyde et al. (2010) green roofs are highly with examples being ‘crumb rubber’ from recycled tyres,
suitable stormwater controls for retrofitting in dense (Ristvey et al., 2010; Vila et al., 2012) and specially treated
urban areas. As roofing can account for up to 50% of waste expanded polystyrene foam (Compton, 2006).
the impermeable surfaces in an urban area, a major Other considerations for suitability include avoidance of
opportunity to decrease runoff is thus presented (Stovin, overshadowing likely to inhibit vegetation growth and the
2010). Water can be stored both within the growing degree of pitch of the roof (Wilkinson and Reed, 2009),
medium and in the plants themselves; it is then released together with the choice of plant species, with those
via evapo-transpiration after a time-delay, dependent suited to maritime climates (MacIvor and Lundholm, 2011)
upon conditions such as the antecedent moisture differing from those required in, say, a sub-tropical zone.
content (Stovin, 2010). This can relieve pressure on other The installation of green roofs on existing buildings is,
stormwater devices, though in more extreme storm events self-evidently, reliant upon the support of the owners and
capacity will be exceeded and the design must take this occupiers of relevant properties, unlike municipally-led
into account (Balmforth et al., 2006). drainage programmes. Incentive schemes to aid the uptake
of green roofing have successfully been employed in both
Green roofs can safely be retrofitted only where the
New York City (Bloomberg and Strickland, 2012b) and
strength of the building structure permits the increased
Portland (Environmental Services – City of Portland, 2011).
loading (for example, as discussed in Nophadrain, 2012);
the substitution of suitable lightweight materials in the
substrate may reduce the ‘dead load’ involved, however,

Figure 2 Permeable paving in the Dings, Bristol, UK.
Case study – Permeable paving

SUDS were included as part of a Home Zone scheme designed to improve the neighbourhood and increase the use of
sustainable transport options such as walking and cycling. Permeable paving was fitted to 3 streets in which there
are 120 houses. Local drainage systems were operating at capacity and the local water company would not allow
any further connections to the drainage system to relieve the local ponding problems but the infiltration capacity of
the soil allowed for installation of permeable surfaces. The Home Zone scheme was therefore seen to have multiple
benefits in terms of surface water management and liveability. Residents were involved in the design of the scheme
and 82% approved it (Centre for Transport and Society – UWE, 2005; Digman et al., 2012).
Permeable surfacing methods

There are three main types: porous pavements (such as It has been estimated that it is possible to retrofit at least
porous asphalt and pervious concrete) that infiltrate water half of the off-road impermeable surfaces in the UK with
across the entire surface; permeable pavers (such as such equivalents and, as traditional surfaces such as
block pavers or plastic grids) in which water drains through bitumen and concrete require periodic resurfacing, there
the spaces or joints between impermeable elements; is a naturally occurring opportunity to replace these with
and reinforced soil, in which a system of modular cells (of more sustainable alternatives at the end of their useful
concrete or plastic) is added to increase the load-bearing life (Gordon-Walker et al., 2007). Permeable surfaces
capacity and prevent compaction of the turf, grass or typically have a lower overall lifecycle cost, as their
gravel surface material (Barr Engineering Company, 2011). reduced maintenance costs outweigh initial capital costs:
In contrast with green roofs, permeable pavements can although extra excavations are required to lay them, future
perform extremely well in severe rainfall conditions: in one replacement of worn out paving blocks is not as expensive
study, it was demonstrated that the average infiltration rate as the extensive digging required to renew worn out tarmac
achieved was 162 mm/h after an hour of wetting, far in or concrete surfaces (Gordon-Walker et al., 2007).
excess of the 50 mm/h rainfall intensity typically used for
highway drainage design (Stevens and Ogunyoye, 2012b).

rics.org/research
Figure 3 Example of a Rain Stormwater planter in central Portland, USA.
Case study – Rain gardens

A program of stormwater management in Portland includes widespread use of vegetated infiltration devices such as
stormwater planters and raingardens. Regular testing and monitoring is carried out to ensure the continued capacity
of the devices to reduce run off. However the amenity benefits of the devices have also been assessed. Low capacity
of the water treatment plants in Portland was a driving influence behind the green infrastructure programme and
the installations are expected to contribute to energy (and, therefore, greenhouse gas reductions) due to their role in
stormwater management. Another expected benefit of the raingardens is increases in residential property prices of
3.4-5% (ENTRIX, 2010).
Rain gardens/stormwater planters

Other installations suitable for retrofitting in some (Environmental Services – City of Portland, undated) but,
circumstances can include ‘rain gardens’ (or porous in order to achieve the water quality benefits, additional
landscape detention areas) and stormwater planters. (potentially disruptive) engineering works may be required
Where reduction in runoff volume alone is required, to install underground tanks in which the treatment
these can be constructed to allow water to seep into process occurs.
the surrounding soils (Cahill et al., 2011). A variation
on this method incorporates a process to treat the
pollutants found in stormwater runoff, in which case
the term ‘bioretention’ may be used to describe them.
This approach may be useful where, for example,
groundwater might be at risk from pollutants in the runoff
(Barr Engineering Company, 2011). Rain gardens can
be incorporated into an existing site, for example by
disconnecting downspouts from piped drainage systems

Epler Hall stormwater planters are a combined stormwater management and rainwater
Figure 4 harvesting system.
Case study – Treatment train

The planters collect roof run off via concrete splash boxes and plaza run off via cobbles divert it first to some planters.
Excess water is collected in a storage tank where a sand filter and ultraviolet treatment render it suitable for use for
irrigation and public toilets in Epler Hall. Thus the system enhances the plaza aesthetically and saves the hall money
on utility bills (Cahill et al., 2011).
Image source: authors own
Combined SUDS methods/treatment trains

It should be noted that SUDS elements are often used in In the following sections further discussion will be
combination in order to yield the maximum benefit over focussed on green roof and permeable paving technology
a given catchment area. For dense urban environments, only. This is due to the fact that rain gardens, although
the two methods discussed above could, therefore, form a viable option, have more stringent requirements than
components of an optimal strategy for flood mitigation. permeable paving to treat similar spaces and treatment
trains are a combination of the other approaches.

rics.org/research
3.1.2 Construction technologies and Green roofs may be either intensive or extensive. Intensive
technical features for Green Roofs green roofs are better known as ‘roof gardens’ and typically
provide space for people. The depth of soil or substrate
What is a ‘green roof’? It can defined as a roof that uses layer provided is usually greater than 150 mm and requires
plants which range from but do not exclusively include artificial irrigation. Extensive roofs require a planting medium
grass, moss, lichen, sedum, trees, shrubs, flowers and of less than 150 mm and are usually designed to require
bushes. Green roofs are referred to by a number of minimal maintenance and to obviate the need for irrigation.
different labels, such as eco-roofs, nature roofs or roof The attributes of the two types are shown in Table 1.
greening systems. In summary green roofs are a living There is a third type, a semi intensive green roof which is
vegetated roofing alternative to traditional impervious a hybrid of the intensive and extensive roofs. It is vital to
roofing materials. A green roof is comprised of the keep the plants alive in the long-term and this is a challenge
following components: a roof structure; a waterproof because it requires an active and ongoing commitment to
membrane or vapour control layer; insulation (i.e. if the a maintenance and irrigation or watering regime (Skyring
building is heated or cooled); a root barrier to protect 2007; Munby, 2005). Standard soils are not used because
the membrane (i.e. made of gravel, impervious concrete, they are too heavy for roof structures and a calculated ratio
polyvinylchloride (PVC), thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO), of aggregate (e.g. shale, vermiculite), organic materials, air
high-density polyethylene (HDPE or copper); a drainage and water is used. The correct growing medium is critical
system; a filter cloth (non-biodegradable fabric); a growing and may be challenging in some Australian cities due to
medium (soil) consisting of inorganic matter, organic climatic conditions particularly excessive seasonal rainfall
material (straw, peat, wood, grass, sawdust) and air; and (e.g. as in the Northern Territory or Australia) or minimal
plants. See figure 5 for a typical green roof cross-section. rainfall (e.g. as in Victoria).
Figure 5 Typical green roof section
Plants – Grasses, herbs
Mulch or material to prevent

surface wind and rain erosion
Soil – 50mm-150mm
Drainage layer
Waterproof membrane
Roof structure
Section not to scale
Source: www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research

Table 1 Attributes of extensive and intensive green roofs
Extensive green roof Intensive green roof

Shallow growing medium (<150mm) Deeper growing medium (>150mm)
Lightweight structure to support roof Heavier roof structure required to support roof
Cover large expanses of rooftop Small trees and shrubs feature
Requires minimum maintenance More maintenance required
Lower capital cost More expensive
Not usually recreational More common in tropical climates
Accessible or inaccessible Accessible or inaccessible
Does not usually require irrigation Requires irrigation
Minimum structural implications for existing buildings
Source: Wilkinson and Reed, 2009
The literature shows that the suitability of an existing biodiversity roofs tend not to have artificial watering, which
building for a green roof retrofit is dependent on a number may be an option if there is no water supply. However
of factors such as the roof type, size and slope. Clearly biodiversity green roofs can become very dry and brown
the construction of the roof structure and roof covering during summer periods and they may not appeal to
influence the type of green roof that may be retrofitted, some owners on aesthetic considerations. If stormwater
for example the load-bearing capacity of the structural attenuation is the design objective of the green roof, the
form. Roofs on mid-sized and large commercial buildings stormwater retention qualities of green roofs depend upon
in both the UK and Australia tend to have concrete slab the depth of the substrate and other variables, including:
construction. However many commercial buildings in exposure; prevailing wind conditions; the absorbency of
Australia have a timber roof structure covered with profiled the substrate and its water retention qualities; and the
metal sheeting which is less able to bear heavy loads and amount of evaporation (which varies according to external
this roof structure is not considered suitable for green temperatures and humidity) (Blanc et al., 2012).
retrofit within this study. Furthermore depending on the
Longevity of the structure, drainage and waterproofing
intended use of the roof the size of the roof is an issue, for
system is essential because replacement costs are
example; is either public or building user access possible
high. Green roofs can be designed to last over 50 years
or desirable for a recreational green roof? The roof may
(Porsche and Köhler, 2003) which is approximately twice
be too small to warrant the cost of the work to retrofit.
the life cycle of a roof covering such as bitumen (Claus
It is also possible other remedial works, such as upgrading
and Rousseau, 2010) and on this basis may present
access is required, and this renders the project prohibitively
a good economic argument for installation. Where an
expensive compared to the final overall benefit gained.
existing roof covering is approaching the end of its useful
Extensive and intensive green roofs require a minimum life, it may be opportune to retrofit. Overall the following
slope of 2% and green roofs with less than 2% slope criteria are taken into account when determining whether
require additional drainage measures to avoid water logging a roof is suitable for retrofitting: position of the building,
(University of Florida, 2008). Additional requirements location, orientation of the roof, height above ground,
include good drainage and waterproofing. Depending on pitch, weight limitations of the building, preferred planting,
the structural load bearing capacity of the existing roof, a sustainability of components and levels of maintenance.
lightweight growth media and additional structural support The first six criteria are physical attributes of buildings and
may be required. In Australia the capacity for rainwater the last three are related to building owner and/or client
harvesting and the use of drought or heat tolerant plants is desires and the ability to maintain the green roof.
desirable to cope with fluctuations in climate. Furthermore
some roofs have a water supply whereas others do not,
and this is an issue where watering and irrigation of plants
is required as it can add to the costs. On the other hand

rics.org/research
Other decision considerations Technical Features for

Table 2 Green Roofs
In addition, other factors influence the potential to retrofit a
green roof. For example, climate affects the type of green
1. Position of the building
roof it is possible to provide and Australia, which has eight
climate zones within its national boundary, is one of the 2. Location of the building
most climatically diverse nations. A green roof solution for
Adelaide will be very different from a green roof design in 3. Orientation of the roof
Darwin. The UK has less diverse weather conditions but the 4. Amount of overshadowing (if any)
location of Britain on the edges of two continental climate
systems makes for very unpredictable weather patterns. 5. Roof type
Owners and/or property / facility managers need 6. Roof size
to consider maintenance requirements. Long-term
maintenance is essential and a minimum five year 7. Roof pitch / slope (2%+)
maintenance contract is recommended to ensure the 8. Load-bearing capacity
correct processes are undertaken and that planting is
properly established. Maintenance requirements will 9. Drainage and waterproofing system
vary depending on the type of roof provided, such as
10. Condition of the existing membrane
biodiversity, stormwater, aesthetic or food producing.
All green roof types will have variable water retention 11. Access to the roof for construction and user
characteristics which will also vary depending on their (if accessible to users)
location, orientation and exposure. Roofs designed
12. Weight of substrate and planting
for stormwater retention should have enhanced water
absorption qualities. Finally there is the budget to consider, 13. Water supply
which includes how much is the building owner willing to
pay for a green roof. A whole life cycle costing approach 14. Preferred planting
may be useful to determine the overall costs and may 15. Levels of maintenance desired
offset a higher initial construction and installation costs.
Another influencing factor is the local weather conditions Source: Wilkinson and Reed, 2009
with regards to water availability. In Australia rainfall is
very variable, for example, during the 2000s in Melbourne
and throughout many regions in Australia there was an
ongoing drought for a decade, when extremely low levels
of precipitation would ensure that growing vegetation on
green roofs would be challenging. It could be argued that
more water would be drawn out of the main system to
maintain planting, thereby further diminishing already low
stocks. If buildings were simultaneously fitted with grey-
water recycling systems then previously lost water could be
diverted to rooftop roofing systems and green roofs might
be viable. However this option may place a further cost
burden on owners. Conversely in the early 2010s there have
been a number of flash floods in the CBD, notably in March
and December 2010, February 2011 and June 2012, where
stormwater systems were overwhelmed.
Research conducted by Povell and Eley (cited in Markus,
1979) and Isaac (cited in Baird et al., 1996) noted that
the number of site boundaries (i.e. whether a building
is adjoined to another or others) determines the ease of
green roof retrofit. Buildings which are not attached to
others tended to be easier to adapt because of access
and the lack of disturbance caused to neighbours
(Kincaid, 2003). Table 2 summarises the technical
features to be considered.

3.1.3 Construction technologies and Load bearing capacity of different pervious paving will differ
technical features for Permeable Paving but most are not recommended on road areas bearing
heavy traffic loads (Woods-Ballard et al., 2007; Government
Proper design of permeable paving will require the of South Australia, 2010). In frost-prone areas deterioration
guidance of structural and geotechnical experts. can be avoided by ensuring the design storm does not
For initial identification of potential sites, it is useful to result in water standing in the asphalt layer.
have some broad filtering guidelines that indicate whether
a site may be suitable for permeable paving. Technical The consideration of sloping sites is complex. It is
design considerations that limit the installation of advantageous in infiltrating systems to have the base of
permeable pavements include the consideration of the paving as flat as possible to encourage even infiltration.
whether the sub-surface water flows will cause problems If the upper surface is too sloped this can result in water
for surrounding assets or soil or slope stability. Authors from higher reaches being discharged further down the
have suggested setback of 3m downhill from buildings slope. Therefore it is important to have slopes as small as
and 30m uphill if no liner is used (District of Columbia, possible or to step systems. In both the UK and Australia,
2013). The use of a liner and permeable under-drain can the recommended maximum slope is 1 in 20 (5%) (Interpave,
be helpful in reducing the impact on adjacent foundations 2010; HydroCon Australasia Pty Ltd, undated); the reason
but reduces the in situ infiltration capacity. The type of soil being that for slopes greater than this, water from heavy
and its permeability is a determinant of whether infiltration rain events travels rapidly over the surface of the pavement,
will be sufficient to empty the pavement reservoir or instead of infiltrating as intended. Gradients of as little as
whether an under-drain or pumping will be needed. 3% have, however, been said to be problematic (District of
Columbia, 2013). Surrounding topography also needs to
Water quality considerations are important in the choice be considered as the infiltration of run-on surface water will
of systems designed to infiltrate and therefore permeable affect the capacity of the reservoir to contain design storms.
pavement is not recommended in highly polluted areas. In order not to overload the system in sloped areas it is not
Adelaide’s WSUD guidance suggests avoiding areas recommended to drain water into permeable paving section
where sediment loads would have the potential to clog from an impermeable area any more than 5 times its size
the system (Government of South Australia – Greater (District of Columbia, 2013).
Adelaide Region, 2010). In areas with high water tables it
is recommended to allow 1m below the sub base before Design variants for permeable surfacing include: porous
the water table is reached (Woods-Ballard et al., 2007) asphalt (PA); pervious concrete (PC); permeable interlocking
in order to avoid ponding and groundwater problems; concrete pavers (PICP); concrete grid pavers (CGP); plastic
drained and pumped systems may, however, require grid pavers. These systems are not typically designed to
smaller clearance. It is also important to avoid disturbing provide stormwater detention of larger storms (e.g. 2-yr,
services and this may be problematic within dense 15-yr), although they may be in some circumstances.
urban areas. The standard design typically has no infiltration sump or
water quality filter, though enhanced designs may include
underdrains that contain both of these. A cross section
through the latter type is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Cross Section of an Enhanced Permeable Pavement Design with an Underdrain
Permeable pavement
surface material
Bedding layer (as directed

by manufacturer)
Reservoir layer
Perforated underdrain
Infiltration sump
Filter Layer
2” – 4” Choker Stone
Source: District of Columbia, 2013

rics.org/research
Table 3 summarises the technical features to be considered. 3.1.4 Cost benefit

Costs and benefits of sustainable drainage for new
Technical Features for development have been widely proposed to be greater
Table 3 Permeable Paving than for traditional drainage systems (for example,
CIRIA, 2009; Jha et al., 2012). In meeting requirements
1. Type of paved area, including traffic load to limit runoff in the UK, installation of SUDS in new
development are becoming more commonplace due to
2. Site slope <5%; terraced design more suited the requirements of the Flood and Water Management
to slopes >3% Act (2010) whilst in Australia, government policy on
3. Setback requirements water sensitive cities explicitly incorporates these design
features (Department of Infrastructure and Transport
4. Contributing impermeable drainage area not – Australia, 2011) and this has led to further initiatives
to exceed 500% permeable area (maximum at state-level, for example in Victoria (The World Bank,
200% is recommended) 2010).Therefore it is becoming accepted that the most
5. Water quality in locality cost-effective opportunities for SUDS installation arise
during new construction and development (for example,
6. Low sediment loading (high debris loads will Bloomberg and Strickland, 2012a). At present, neither the
clog interstices) expertise nor software for designing SUDS is as widely
7. Minimum depth to water table available as that for conventional systems, giving rise to
higher design costs in the short term, as noted by Jha et
8. Permeability of soil (dictates underdrain al. (2012). The maintenance costs for well-designed and
requirements) maintained SUDS can, however, be lower (Duffy et al.,
9. Detention storage required (design storm) 2008; MacMullan and Reich, 2007).
When it comes to retrofit the available evidence for
10. Proximity to utilities
costs and benefits is lower (Stevens and Ogunyoye,
11. Maintenance considerations (to prevent 2012a). The availability of data on previous projects,
clogging – eg sand must not be used on and the complexity of differential expenditure and costs
permeable to increase traction in icy periods) of retrofitting in busy city centres, ensures that each
opportunity for retrofit will need to be considered on a
case by case basis. Both permeable paving and green
roof technology have the potential to be cost beneficial in
the retrofit context: on a purely cost based basis Gordon-
Walker et al. (2007) found that permeable block paving
Checklists for site inspections are available in Australia cost less on a lifecycle basis than regular paving due to
and are being developed in the UK (Government of South the reduction in replacement and maintenance costs. As
Australia, 2010; Abbott et al., 2013). non-road hard surfaces require replacement on a rolling-
Therefore the factors considered were: programme basis, an opportunity will therefore naturally
arise for replacement with permeable alternatives: if half
• Type of paved area – in the city centre most roads such surfaces in the UK were retrofitted in this manner,
were considered to be unsuitable due to heavy the discounted economic benefits could be around
traffic loads. An estimate of 40% of road area being £1.7 billion. (Gordon-Walker et al., 2007).Therefore if
pedestrianised or under trams will be used. permeable paving is used to replace traditional paving as
• Car parks; pavements and roadside; and pedestrian part of planned replacement and maintenance a saving
areas and paths were considered suitable. should accrue to municipalities, owners and occupiers.
• Slope of paved area should be less than 5% but Similarly, the lifecycle costs of some types of vegetated
slope information was not available so not taken roofs have been calculated to be far lower than traditional
into consideration. alternatives such as bitumen and gravel (Porsche and
Köhler, 2003); green roofs have been found to aid
• Setback requirement were ignored because the protection of waterproofing materials from solar damage
permeable pavement will be assumed to be lined (Vila et al., 2012; Livingroofs.org, undated).
and under-drained.
However by including the benefits of SUDS the potential
• Surrounding drainage area considerations were for green roofs and permeable paving to outperform
ignored as slope information was not available. traditional systems is enhanced. In considering
• Sediment loads were ignored as it was assumed the function of flood risk reduction or stormwater
that road sweeping and maintenance is carried out management, against traditional paving and roofing
in CBD areas. material, there is ample evidence that in some situations

the financial case can be compelling. It has been 3.1.5 Other benefits
calculated, for example, that widespread adoption of
SUDS installation can benefit not only the property owners,
green roofs in Portland, Oregon (USA) could potentially
but also the wider community and the environment itself.
save $60 million of public expenditure otherwise needed
For example, a regeneration project in Malmo (Sweden)
to upgrade the extant stormwater system (Bureau of
was initially driven by flood risk management concerns
Environmental Services – City of Portland, 2008).
(Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010), but it was subsequently
In the United States a national tool has been developed found that the creation of green infrastructure not only
that assesses the cost and benefits of SUDS measures improved the neighbourhood aesthetically but also
(Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), undated) benefitted its overall reputation. Flood mitigation may extend
which calculates the monetary value of twenty different beyond the property adopting these measures, whilst
benefits of SUDS. These include flood risk reduction, amenity benefits accrue to local businesses, residents and
pollutant removal, environmental and amenity benefits; visitors to the urban area. The apportionment of costs and
for flood protection, for example, the reduced flow from benefits for green infrastructure is an area that warrants
a site during a 100 year storm event is valued at $1,000 increased research attention, in order to support improved
per acre-foot (1,230m3) (or $0.81/m3) based upon flood implementation procedures.
damage data from US case studies. In the UK there is
The additional benefits associated with green roofs
an ongoing project, coordinated by CIRIA to develop a
include thermal buffering of buildings; this can lead to
similar tool. The need to formulate an industry view was
reduced need for heating in winter and cooling in summer,
demonstrated by previous estimates of the net benefits of
and therefore lower energy costs for the inhabitants (for
sustainable drainage to new developments over a 50 year
example, Fioretti et al., 2010; Bastien et al., 2011). Yang
period would be between £56 million and £5,608 million
(2008) found that green roofs improved air quality in the
(Stevens and Ogunyoye, 2012a). This estimate assumed
urban canyon. Retrofitting with green roofs on a large
damage per property due to surface water flooding
scale could reduce the urban heat island effect whereby
between £23,290 and £29,430, 2% of homes were
temperatures are typically up to five degrees higher
estimated to be at risk of flooding from surface water,
than the surrounding suburbs (Williams et al., 2010). By
and the number of homes susceptible to flooding was
protecting waterproofing materials from solar damage,
taken to be between 2.8 million and 3.8 million.
a reduction in maintenance costs can be demonstrated
Design aspects can be important in changing the cost (Livingroofs.org, undated). Getter and Rowe (2009)
benefit equation, extensive green roof installation is the calculated that, if the city of Detroit (USA) greened 15,000
lowest cost option in many cases but may not be the hectares of rooftop, over 55,000 tonnes of carbon could
optimum choice for stormwater management: for example, be sequestered. Other examples are the mitigation of
the Beijing Olympic Village (China) had some green roofs urban heat island effect and improved air quality (Bureau of
included at constructions, but Jia et al. (2012) calculated Environmental Services – City of Portland, 2008); improved
that improvements could be achieved if the substrate biodiversity (for example, Livingroofs.org, 2005); and the
depths were doubled from 0.3 to 0.6m. This modification reduced risk of pollution and stream degradation (Carter
optimised predicted outcomes in terms of maximising the and Rasmussen, 2006). Similarly, where drainage authorities
flood control benefit whilst minimising cost. Different types charge for runoff entering piped systems, property owners
of permeable paving incur variable costs of installation and who retrofit permeable surfacing may benefit from reduced
maintenance and may be chosen for aesthetic as well as fees; the benefits for the environment are chiefly in terms of
practical reasons. the reduced pollutant load entering watercourses.
SUDS methods can, however, provide a range of There are very strong environmental sustainability benefits
environmental and amenity benefits that are lacking in of retrofit (Douglas, 2006). Particularly the retention of existing
conventional systems and these are typically uncosted, carbon, as well as cost benefits derived through lower
as discussed by MacMullan and Reich (2007) and are operational costs achieved through energy savings (Bullen,
discussed below. 2007). Building demolition is a waste of resources that
typically end up in landfill (Wilkinson 2011). Storm-water run-
A further complicating factor for the assessment of costs
off may be reduced through green roof retrofit and rainwater
and benefits in urban areas relate to the disparity between
harvesting may be employed to reduce potable water
who pays for the measures and who benefits from them
consumption for toilet flushing, clothes washing and garden
(Abbott et al., 2013). This is relevant within the storm-water
watering. The economic benefits are that retrofit is cheaper
and flooding aspects of SUDS costs and benefits, as the
than new build if the construction form is straightforward
owner of a green roofed building or permeable paved
(Bullen, 2007) and that costs of finance tend to be lower
area provides reduced runoff to neighbouring properties.
as the building may remain occupied during retrofit
However, when the multiple additional benefits of SUDS are
(Highfield, 2000). However where the build quality
considered, the number of direct and indirect beneficiaries
is poor, costs may be more expensive (Bullen, 2007).
increases. This is further discussed in section 3.4.

rics.org/research
Economically property values are enhanced with retrofit Other benefits of

projects (Chau, 2003) and a further advantage of green Table 4 retrofitting green roofs
roof retrofit, is that maintenance costs are reduced
and new employment opportunities created. Table 4 1. Reputational enhancement for suburbs /
summarises these other benefits. areas /projects
Social sustainability is important, though challenging to 2. Aesthetic improvements
measure and compare to economic and environmental
benefits. The social sustainability benefits of retrofit include 3. Flood mitigation
the retention of existing structures familiar to the local 4. Thermal buffering of buildings
community (Bromley et al., 2005). Often retrofit exists
as part of urban regeneration and allows development 5. Reduced maintenance costs
of the new alongside the old (Bullen, 2007). However
6. Carbon sequestration
retrofit is not always possible or desirable especially
where it is not possible to achieve the standards required 7. Reduction in urban heat island
in contemporary legislation. Another social benefit from
a retrofitted green roof is the perception of a closer 8. Improved air quality
relationship to the natural world, known as the ‘biophilia 9. Improved bio-diversity and nature
phenomenon’ (Kellert and Wilson, 1993). In commercial conservation
buildings there are studies which examine user satisfaction
and worker productivity and which aspects of office 10. Reduced risk of pollution and stream
degradation
building design are valued by the users (Wilkinson et al.,
2011). Some studies have concluded that proximity to 11. Reduced fees for property owners where
nature plays an important part in satisfaction with the there is a charge for runoff into streams
environment generally. Other studies on sustainable
buildings and POE have concluded that productivity 12. Increased energy efficiency of buildings
and lower carbon GHG emissions
is increased on the basis that less work days are lost
through absenteeism (Keeling et al., 2012). Finally the 13. Retention of familiar landmarks and
aesthetics of the roof may be enhanced through green buildings
roof retrofit.
14. Closer relationship and access to nature
for urban populations (biophilia effect)
15. Enhanced user satisfaction and worker

productivity for commercial stock
16. Retrofit is cheaper than new build
17. Rain-water harvesting opportunity can

reduce use of potable water
18. Cost of finance for retrofit is often

cheaper as building remains occupied
19. Property values enhanced
20. Possibility of growing food crops where

intensive roof type suitable – particularly
vegetables and fruit
21. New employment opportunities created

Figure 7 Overviews of the building styles in Newcastle upon Tyne’s CBD (left) and Melbourne (right)
Source: J. Lamond
3.2 Retrofit potential Databases emanated from the main rivers (fluvial flooding) but has been
predominantly caused by overland flows or ‘flash floods’.
The CBDs of the cities of Melbourne (Australia) and In 2012 Newcastle upon Tyne experienced a severe
Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) were found to provide broadly rainfall event in which the whole of the expected total for
similar locations for the study. Both were originally laid out June (50 mm) fell within a two hour period (Environment
in the 1830s; the ‘Hoddle Grid’ in Melbourne and ‘Grainger Agency – Yorkshire & North East Region Hydrology, 2012)
Town’ in Newcastle both incorporate a mix of historically and was estimated as having a 1:131 year return period,
important architecture interspersed with more modern also called Average Recurrence Interval (ARI). This is a
buildings (see Figure 5) and both cities lie on the sloping statistical estimate of the average period in years between
land on the banks of major navigable watercourses. Both the occurrences of a flood of a given size or larger; for
cities have also undergone extensive expansion over time, example, floods with a discharge as large as the 100 year
with once-permeable agricultural land on the outskirts being ARI flood event will occur on average once every 100 years.
replaced by suburbs featuring largely impermeable surfaces; The ARI of an event gives no indication of when a flood
in each case, the CBD includes streets constructed over of that size will occur next. Around 40% of non-residential
culverted watercourses (notably Elizabeth Street, Melbourne properties affected by the flooding were temporarily forced
and Grey Street/Dean Street in Newcastle). Culverts are to close, including Newcastle Central railway station which is
not only prone to collapse and blockages but, even when located in the CBD (Total Research and Technical Services
functioning correctly, in extreme rainfall events the volume of Newcastle City Council, 2013).
water can rapidly exceed the carrying capacity, giving rise
to localised flooding. These events typically take residents Similarly, in early March 2010, the Melbourne area
and business-owners by surprise, as the existence of experienced a severe storm during which over 46 mm of
these subterranean watercourses has been lost from local rain fell in a single 24 hour period (Bureau of Meteorology
memory (for example, Wilson et al., 2004). Both cities have (Australia), undated); the average total for that month is
been affected by pluvial flooding in recent years: this has not around 50 mm. This lead to a number of roads in the CBD

rics.org/research
Rank Order of Year of 3.2.1 Melbourne CBD Database

Table 5 Construction for Buildings
This section of the analysis examined 526 CBD buildings
in Melbourne
in the Melbourne CBD database. The age profile analysis
revealed an average age of 61 years, with the oldest
Number of building constructed in 1853 and the most recent building
buildings erected in 2005. Although some new buildings have
Rank order Year constructed been completed since 2005 they were not included
in the database which covered the time period from
1 1945 38 1850 - 2005. The top ten years for the construction of
new buildings are shown in Table 5 and with only two
2 1990 19 pre-war entries; this reflects the considerable post-war
construction in the Melbourne CBD. Between 1940 and
3 1972 15 2005 there were 302 (or 60.4%) new commercial buildings
built in the city centre.
4 1991 14 Minor adaptations were undertaken typically within a 5-7

year period after initial construction, with major works
4 1930 14 being carried out between 20-25 years probably when the
building services required updating and replacement (Jones
Lang LaSalle, 2005; Arup Pty Ltd, 2008). Given the high
4 1920 14
number of Melbourne CBD buildings constructed from
the 1960s onwards (237 buildings), there is a large amount
7 1973 12 of stock which would be due for updating and adaptation
and retrofitting green roofs could be considered.
8 1987 10
When looking at building height, which is an important
issue in green roof technology, the average number
8 1969 10 of storeys is three and most buildings are low rise and
partially or totally overshadowed in many instances.
8 1960 10 Overall 405 buildings are four storeys high or less and
68.1% of the stock is 10 storeys high or less. The data
Source: Authors confirmed that 4.4% of the buildings were between 21
and 30 storeys in height and 2% are 31 to 40 storeys
high, 0.8% is 41-50 storeys high and 0.2% was up to 66
being rendered impassable for several hours; numerous storeys high. Figure 6 shows the number of storeys in all
vehicles were inundated; Flinders Street railway station was buildings and reveals most were in the low to medium
flooded; and tram services in the area were suspended rise category. A definition of what is a high rise building
(Defra, 2009). Further flooding was experienced on the 4th is relatively general and refers to metres in height rather
February 2011 when a deluge broke the daily rainfall record than number of storeys. In Australia, the Property Council
with 17 mm falling in the CBD in just 20 minutes (News. of Australia uses an office building quality matrix which
com, 2011). classes buildings from premium (the highest grade)
through to A, B, C and D grades (the lowest grade). Part of
In the context of anticipated climate change, both Australia the grading criteria is Net Lettable Area (NLA) and not the
and the UK are predicted to experience more intense number of storeys (Property Council of Australia Limited,
storm events: sudden, large volumes of runoff water are, 2006). According to some definitions, buildings over
therefore, likely to cause more frequent overland flow approximately 7 storeys (or 23 metres high) are in high rise
responses (Gill, 2008; Donald and Seeger, 2010). Where and those over 80 metres or approximately 20 storeys are
redevelopment is planned in an area where drainage deemed skyscrapers. Figure 8 shows that a minority of all
infrastructure cannot be upgraded, one of the strategies building have high or sky-rise heights which cast shadows
recommended by Melbourne Water is the adoption over adjoining lower buildings as the sun moves across
of water sensitive urban design (Melbourne Water the sky during the day. Such an arrangement of buildings
Corporation, 2007). This would, inevitably, further increase could mean that existing buildings which have adequate
both the disruption and financial damage arising in the structural strength to accommodate retrofitting with green
CBDs of the cities under consideration here. roofs may be unsuitable because of overshadowing which
adversely affects planting.

Figure 8 Number of storeys in Melbourne CBD Buildings

15
10
Percentage (%)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 39 41 43 47 52 53 55 57 66
Number of Storeys
In the analysis, consideration was given to the site and the thus 29.8% of all properties were located in the higher grade
location of the building (Kincaid, 2002). Within the Melbourne location zones. The highest proportion (43.2%) was is in the
CBD, locations are categorised as ‘prime’ (the best location), low secondary area and nearly a quarter (24.7%) was located
‘low prime’, ‘high secondary’, ‘secondary’ and the lowest in the fringe area at the periphery of the CBD grid. Figure 9
grade ‘fringe. 7.6% were located in the prime zone, 15.2% illustrates the distribution of the database properties within
in the low prime area, and 7% in the high secondary area – the five CBD location zones.
Figure 9 Distribution of the database properties

250
227
200
Number of roofs
150
130
100
80
50
40 37
0
Prime Low Prime High Secondary Low Secondary Fringe
Location Area

rics.org/research
Building orientation determines how much exposure to Overall most properties in the sample were not affected
sunlight the roof gets. In a sample of 72 buildings in the adversely by attachment to other buildings or restricted
database, an examination of site orientation revealed access for construction works, and are therefore suited
that most faced east (41.17%) followed by west-facing for retrofitting.
(30.88%), south-facing (16.17%) and finally north-facing
As discussed the structural capacity of the building affects
buildings which comprised 11.76% of the sample (see
the degree to which, and also the ease of retrofit. Overall
Figure 10). In the southern hemisphere north-facing
60.6% of commercial buildings in the Melbourne CBD have
properties will be exposed the most to the direct sun.
framed structures. Concrete framing is preferred over steel
Therefore it appears that a large number will only have
frame construction in Melbourne and most buildings are
partial exposure to sunlight, even before overshadowing
built using concrete. The remaining 39% of the buildings
is considered and that this will affect the type of plants
comprised traditional load-bearing brickwork and/or stone
specified and/or whether green roof retrofit is viable.
construction. It is apparent that the buildings with concrete
Ease of access for construction is a further consideration frames are more likely to be suitable for retrofitting with
in the decision to retrofit a green roof. In the Melbourne extensive green roof systems and this analysis confirmed
CBD sample, the properties were predominantly bounded there was good potential for minimal structural changes to
on two sides (47.4%), with 21.9% bounded on one side be undertaken to most CBD buildings. It should be noted
only and 18% bounded on three sides. Only 12.1% were that a full structural appraisal would be required on an
bounded on no sides by any properties or free-standing. individual building basis to determine structural suitability
for retrofit and this is a limitation of this research approach.
Figure 10 Building Orientation in Melbourne CBD
North facing buildings
11.76%
West facing buildings
East facing buildings
30.88% 41.17%
16.17%
South facing buildings

The next stage of the research involved a visual inspection deemed unsuitable. The results in Table 6 show that 15%
of the roof using the Google Earth and Google Map of the buildings were judged suitable for retrofit with green
software (Google Earth 6.0, 2008) An evaluation of the roof technology. A relatively low 4.8% of buildings were
potential of each roof for retrofitting with green roof not classed with yes or no, and a significant percentage of
technology was undertaken, where the evaluations 80.2% were not considered suitable for retrofit based on
called for identification as one of three classifications, the criteria above.
namely (a) ‘yes’, (b) ‘no’ or (c) ‘don’t know’ with regards
The final stage involved an analysis of overshadowing of the
to retrofitting. The evaluation was based on roof pitch
stock (see Table 7) where orientation and the proximity of
i.e. those pitched above 30 degrees and below 2%
other taller buildings were taken into account. The analysis
were deemed unsuitable. The amount of rooftop plant
identified that 39.3% of the buildings were overshadowed
especially equipment which vents air from the building
and 36.3% were partially overshadowed. Only 24.4% were
and the provision of rooftop window cleaning equipment,
not overshadowed at all. Therefore approximately 75% of
safety handrails and photovoltaic units was taken into
the existing Melbourne stock was considered unsuitable
account, where coverage exceeded 40% of roof area the
for green roof retrofit on the basis that insufficient sunlight
roof was deemed unsuitable for retrofit. Another criterion
reaches the rooftop for planting to flourish.
was roof construction, and lightweight construction was
Table 6 Green Roof Option
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid
Yes 78 14.8 15.0 15.0
No 418 79.5 80.2 95.2
Don’t know 25 4.8 4.8 100.0
Total 521 99.0 100.0
Missing
System 5 1.0
Total 526 100.0
Table 7 Overshadowing of Roofs
Cumulative
Valid
Yes 205 39.0 39.3 39.3

No 127 24.1 24.4 63.7
Don’t know 189 35.9 36.3 100.0
Total 521 99.0 100.0
Missing
System 5 1.0
Total 526 100.0

rics.org/research
3.2.2 Newcastle upon Tyne UK CBD When looking at building height the average number of
database storeys is 4 and the majority of buildings are low rise.
However there is a limited potential for overshadowing as
The first section provides an analysis of the 507 buildings there are very few tall buildings in the CBD area studied.
in three Postcodes in the Newcastle CBD. The age of Only 2% of buildings were identified as 10 storeys or above
buildings was not available for the Newcastle database and the tallest building has 18 storeys. In the chart below
but the characteristic of the area includes many historic (Figure 11) buildings over 10 storeys are grouped together.
buildings that are listed, with 30 grade 1 and 189
grade 2 listings, and in multiple conservation areas 386 The properties in the Newcastle CBD were predominantly
buildings. Clearly the potential to retrofit listed buildings bounded on two sides or more. There were 37.7%
may be limited but it will be important to establish the bounded on two sides with 30.8% bounded on three
feasibility of retrofitting on non-listed buildings within the sides and 14% bounded on four. Therefore a significant
conservation area, as there is also a great deal of more percentage of Newcastle buildings may have site access
modern development in these areas some constructed issues in retrofitting. Nearly half of the buildings (47.3%)
as recently as 2012. have street access only which while it may not make
retrofit impossible is likely to add greatly to the cost and
inconvenience of building works.
Figure 11 Histogram of building heights in storeys for Newcastle study area

250
217
200
150
Frequency
100
102
50 58
47
8 20 10 10
4 1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
max_storey
Image source: Markus Gebauer / Shutterstock.com

Table 8 Cross tabulation of conservation area, construction type and historic listing
Historic Listing status

Grade 1 Grade 2 Non listed Total
Inside conservation area
Load bearing brick or stone 26 176 136 338
Steel or concrete frame 0 6 20 26
Unknown/other 4 4 14 22
Total 30 186 170 386
Outside conservation area

Load bearing brick or stone 3 68 71
Steel or concrete frame 0 42 42
Unknown/other 0 5 5
Total 3 115 118
TOTAL
Load bearing brick or stone 26 179 204 409

Steel or concrete frame 0 6 62 68
Unknown/other 4 4 19 27
Total 30 189 285 504
Table 9 Cross tabulation of pitch and construction type for Newcastle study area
Constructions type
Load bearing Steel or concrete Unknown
brick or stone frame /other Total
Roof is of suitable pitch
Yes 62 48 8 118
No 346 19 5 370
Unknown 1 1 17 19
Total 409 68 30 507
The vast majority of buildings in the study area are From visual inspection of roof pitch it appears that 118
load bearing brick or stone (80.7%) with 13.4% steel buildings have the slight pitch most suitable for green roof
or concrete frame construction, the rest indeterminate. retrofit (see Table 9). Among those with slight pitch about
There was also a strong correlation between construction half are steel or concrete with the other half load bearing
type, listing and conservation area (see Table 8). This brick or stone.
means that the majority of the steel or concrete framed
Table 10 shows that including historic listing has little
buildings are outside the conservation area and not listed.
impact on the number of potentially suitable rooftops.

rics.org/research
Table 10 Cross tabulation of pitch, historic listing and construction type for Newcastle study area
Constructions type
Load bearing Steel or concrete Unknown Total
brick or stone frame /other
Pitch of roof OK and building not listed
Yes 49 45 5 99
No 359 22 8 389
Unknown 1 1 17 19
Total 409 68 30 507
Table of roofs judged suitable to retrofit based on pitch, historic listing and percent
Table 11 coverage by plant in the Newcastle study area.
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
Suitable 76 15.0 15.0
Not suitable 410 80.9 95.9
Unknown 21 4.1 100.0
Total 507 100.0 100.0
Table 12 Roofs potentially suitable for intensive green roof retrofit in the Newcastle study area
Cumulative
Valid
Yes 20 3.9 3.9 3.9
No 479 94.5 94.5 98.4
Unknown 8 1.6 1.6 100.0

TOTAL 507 100.0 100.0
Examining the coverage of the roof by plant or car parking If construction type is also considered there are 30
spaces further reduces the potential space available for potential retrofit rooftops that could take extra heavy
green roof retrofit as shown in Table 11. loading and including access and site boundaries brings
the number judged suitable down to only 20 as shown in
Plant was naturally more common on rooftops with
Table 12. Therefore if intensive roofs were considered the
low pitch (see Figure 12) and using a cut off point
potential for retrofit would be less than 4%.
of 40% plant reduces the number of suitable rooftops
to 76 representing 15% of the CBD buildings.

Figure 12 Comparison of proportion of flat and pitched rooftops of varying levels of plant coverage
0% plant coverage
10% plant coverage
Pitched 20% plant coverage
30% plant coverage
40% plant coverage
50% plant coverage
Flat 60% plant coverage
80% plant coverage
90% plant coverage
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
3.2.3 Comparison Melbourne stock was more likely to be concrete famed

whereas load bearing brick and stone construction
526 office buildings were examined in the Melbourne
predominated in the Newcastle stock. The degree of
CBD for their potential for green roof retrofit compared to
attachment of other buildings affects the ease of retrofit
507 buildings in Newcastle. The Melbourne stock ranged
and access for contractors. In Melbourne the buildings
in age from 9 years to 161 years, with an average age
were less likely to be attached to others compared to
of 61 years, whereas no age data was available for the
Newcastle where most buildings were attached to others.
Newcastle stock. 76.13% was located in conservation
areas, with 43.19% listed which suggests the Newcastle Where roof pitched and suitability for retrofit is concerned
stock is older than the Melbourne stock. Melbourne is a in both Newcastle and Melbourne 15% of the roofs were
new city compared to Newcastle and the CBD was laid deemed suitable.
out in a grid formation by the military surveyor Robert
In summary Melbourne buildings are more likely to be
Hoddle in 1837. Table 13 summarises the main similarities
overshadowed but structurally more suited to green
and differences for the two databases.
roof retrofit. The Newcastle stock is likely to have good
In terms of height most buildings were low rise; three exposure to sunlight but less structurally suited to retrofit
storeys in Melbourne and four storeys in Newcastle. especially with the heavier types of green roof designs.
Melbourne experienced more overshadowing from high Despite these differences both cities had 15% of the stock
rise stock than Newcastle. The highest Newcastle building which were found suitable for green roof retrofit.
was 18 storeys high compared to 66 storeys in Melbourne.
Table 13 Melbourne and Newcastle Stock compared for green roof retrofit
Green Roof Criteria Melbourne stock Newcastle stock

Age Newer More listed and older stock
Height Low rise Low rise
Overshadowing Higher levels Lower levels
Construction type More suited – more flat Less suited – more pitched
concrete roofs roof construction
Adjoining buildings and Fewer attached to Most attached to

accessibility for retrofit other buildings other buildings
Percentage of roofs suited 15 15

rics.org/research
3.3 Run off modelling and transpiration, mediated by the foliage) (Mentens et al.,
2006). Rose and Lamond’s meta-analysis (2013) notes
exploration of damage reduction that reported performance ranged from 42-90% of annual
rainfall, whilst average retention during storm events varied
Estimation of reduced run-off (that is: the reduction in the from 30-100%. Design features including the soil matrix
quantity of surface water that flows off a surface) which and choice of vegetation can be varied and can affect
results from the retrofitting of SUDS features, is useful for interception rates by 50-60% on an individual variable.
a number of different purposes and at different scales. Fixed characteristics such as the geographical location
For example, on an individual building basis the reduction of green roofs have an impact owing to regional climatic
in run-off from a green roof could result in savings in variation: vegetated roofs in a sub-tropical Mediterranean
wastewater disposal or it could be used determine the climate (for example, Fioretti et al., 2010) will perform
appropriate size for ground level SUDS (Ma et al., 2012). differently from those in a temperate maritime climate
At a city wide level it could be used to determine the such as the UK (MacIvor and Lundholm, 2011). In a retrofit
reduction in flood hazard and the resultant decrease in scenario, roof characteristics such as overshadowing
expected flood damage (Gordon-Walker et al., 2007). (which can inhibit vegetation growth) and the degree of
Roof and paved space can represent a high proportion of pitch of the roof (Wilkinson and Reed, 2009b) may also
impermeable surface in urban areas, for example Stovin be fixed characteristics of the urban environment that can
(2010) links the potential of green roofs to the estimated impact on run-off reduction.
40-50% of the impermeable surfaces in urban locations
which roofs represent. Thereby these surfaces offer It follows that for an individual new development
mitigation potential without the need for land-take however installation, where design features, climate and rainfall
the area and location of suitable roofs will have a large patterns are known or easy to estimate, fairly specific and
influence on the quantity and pattern or attenuation and precise calculations of run-off are possible. Commercial
therefore hazard reduction. software is available to aid in the design of SUDS
including ‘WinDes’ (XP Solutions, 2011) and ‘Infoworks
For green roofs, however there are also many other SD’ (Wallingford Software) but these do not explicitly
variables that affect the average interception rates allow for green roof installation. ‘SWMM’ software does
both in terms of absorption factors (water is absorbed have a green roof modelling feature (US EPA), as does
by the growing medium, thereby delaying the onset of ‘xpdrainage’(XP Solutions).
runoff and attenuating peak flows) and release factors
(water is released by a combination of evaporation and
Run off calculations for Melbourne and Newcastle showing estimate percentage of total
Table 14 rainfall falling on the CBD managed by potential retrofit under three scenarios
Assume suitable Assume half of suitable

Assume all roof retrofit roof retrofit roof and paving retrofit
Melbourne Newcastle Melbourne Newcastle Melbourne Newcastle
Total Study Area (1000m2) 2150.0 853.0 2150.0 853.0 2150.0 853.0
Area of roof (1000m2) 1150.0 388.0 172.5 (15%) 58.2(15%) 86.3 (7.5%) 29.1 (7.5%)
Area of road (1000m2 ) 2

500.0 226.0 200.0 (40%) 90.4 (40%) 100.0 (20%) 45.2 (20%)
Area of pavement (1000m2) 170.0 131.0 170.0 131.0 85.0 65.5
Run off reduction roof % of 32.1 27.3 4.8 4.1 2.4 2.0
total rainfall 1
Run off reduction road % of 23.3 26.5 9.3 4.2 4.7 2.1
total rainfall 2
Run off reduction pavement 7.9 15.4 7.9 15.4 4.0 7.7
% of total rainfall 2
Total run off reduction % 63.3 69.1 22.0 23.7 11.0 11.8
1 Assume 60% run off reduction over the area of green roof
2 A ssume 100% run off reduction over the area of permeable paving but no drainage from adjacent areas

On a larger spatial scale, and in assessing retrofit potential, To explore run-off reduction in this study therefore the
there will need to be generalised assumptions made researchers have taken two approaches.
about the type and design of green roofs to be retrofitted.
1. To calculate the total potential percentage permeable
Of the two main types of green roof the extensive roof
surface and applied average run-off performance
(incorporating shallow rooted species in a relatively thin
(reported here). Assumptions are that 15% of rooftops,
substrate) is regarded as more suitable for retrofit due to
40% of road areas and 100% of pavements will be
the fact that there will be a lower load-bearing requirement
suitable for retrofit. The run off retention during peak
for existing structures. Therefore it is assumed in this
storm events is assumed to be 60% for green roof and
study that extensive roof will be the preferred option in
100% for permeable paving.
modelling run-off. The green roof developers guide for the
UK (Groundwork Sheffield, 2011) gives various estimates 2. Use of a state of the art inundation model, as reported
of retention rate and retention benefits for a green roof. in Wilkinson et al. (2014).
Specifically they place run off percentage in summer as The results of analysis 1 are shown in Table 14 and
between 50-70% therefore 60% retention is a suitable demonstrate that a run-off reduction of 10-20% may be
average figure for estimating run off. achievable if high levels of potential retrofits are achieved.
For permeable paving the factors affecting performance Using research from the UK that suggests 10% reduction
are different and relate to the type of paving system in run-off to the sewer system has the potential to prevent
installed, the speed of infiltration into the surrounding soil 90% of flood incidents (Gordon-Walker et al., 2007) this
or pumping rate and the design specification of the sub- table indicates that retrofit could be a significant mitigation
surface storage. In the UK the major studies examining factor for both Newcastle and Melbourne if high levels of
retrofit potential have made large scale generalisations retrofit could be achieved. These findings imply that further
regarding run-off. For example, Gordon-Walker et al. detailed feasibility studies and modelling are warranted.
(2007) used a figure of 0.8m3 run off reduction for every
m2 of permeable paving. However in this study due to the Detailed inundation modelling for Melbourne (Wilkinson
need to retrofit in dense urban areas with limited infiltration et al., 2014) and Newcastle (Kilsby and Glenis, 2014) has
capacity due to soil types it has been assumed that a fully been carried out by the University of Newcastle upon
drained system will be used. Therefore 100% retention will Tyne. This modelling indicates that due to topographical
be assumed for the permeable paving areas. factors, during extreme events, the surface water flows
from outside the CBD study area also need to be taken
Alternatively modelling software and ready reckone rs into account and focussing on the CBD itself may
exist that can assist with specified urban areas. In the overestimate the potential to mitigate flooding due to
US the green values stormwater toolbox is available to rainfall run-off. This is clearly illustrated from the presence
examine differences in permeable and impermeable of historic culverted watercourses in both Melbourne
specifications and incorporates soil conditions, typical US (Figure 13) clearly showing the presence of the Elizabeth
rainfall patterns and assumes compliance with US sizing Street drain; and Newcastle (Figure 14) showing multiple
regulations for new development. No such tools exist for river catchments under the wider Newcastle city centre.
the UK or Australia as yet. Therefore it is recommended that a larger study area is
used for future detailed audit of retrofit potential for both
Melbourne and Newcastle.
Image source: ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com

rics.org/research
Figure 13 Clarence Woodhouse, Melbourne in 1838 from the Yarra River, c. 1888
Image source: Courtesy of the State Library of Victoria
Figure 14 Culverting evolution in Newcastle
Image source: M Toraldo

3.4 Development of the The cost of the installing a green roof is, however,
likely to be incurred by the owner or occupier of the
conceptual model building (unless specific incentive schemes exist); the
understanding of the distribution of the benefits across
The literature review generated two key outputs: a list stakeholder groups is, therefore, of key importance
of the perceived benefits of installing green roof as regards the motivation of owners and occupiers of
technology (as described in the previous section); and commercial buildings when considering the retrofit of
a list of stakeholder groups who could potentially be the green roofs. Table 15 illustrates how the main stakeholder
beneficiaries. The latter includes flood related benefits: groups identified from the literature may potentially
• owners, investors and occupiers of the building to gain from the installation of a green roof by the owners/
be retrofitted occupiers of a given building within the CBD. The two
central actors are the building owner/investor and building
• customers of the businesses occupying the building
occupier, as they have a direct interest in the building
to be retrofitted
being considered for retrofit; their decision (to install or not
• owners, occupiers, investors and customers of the to install a green roof) then affects the other stakeholders
other buildings in the vicinity that are at risk from as shown.
surface water runoff
The list of benefits is also derived from the literature,
Non-flood benefits also accrue to some groups, including: where evidence has been found that such benefits
exist and extends to property stakeholders. Evidence
• other local residents, businesses (including
from published sources, however, does not readily
employees and customers) – benefit from local
lend itself to apportionment of shares of the benefits
environmental impacts
accruing; furthermore, the majority of these are based
• water companies, their customers and/or municipalities on measureable physical aspects of the environment.
and their ratepayers – benefit from reduced drainage Benefits can, however, take direct and indirect forms:
and water processing a direct benefit, for example, would be the reduction
• local and national taxpayers, and their representatives of run-off leading to reduced flood risk, both for building
– benefit from reduced damage costs occupiers and occupiers of surrounding buildings.
An example of an indirect benefit would be the potential
• wider society – benefits from mitigation and broader
for the improved aspect of a commercial property (through
environmental enhancements.
the amenity of a green roof) leading to a potential uplift in
value (rental or capital).
As the aim of this research is to examine the benefits of
retrofitting from the perspective of commercial property
owners and occupiers, Table 15 focuses on the indirect
benefit flows from their perspectives.

rics.org/research
Table 15 Matrix of benefits and beneficiaries from investment in green roof technology
Those locally at risk
climate mitigation
Water companies
Building occupier
Local population
Building owner/
Global benefit/
Local/national
from flooding
customers
taxpayers
and their
investor
Peak flow retention n n n n n
Runoff water quality improvement n n n n n
Carbon and nitrogen sequestration n
Insulation – reduced heating

n n n
and cooling
Aesthetic improvement n n n n
Reduce Urban Heat Island n n n n n
Acoustic damping n
Extended life of roof membrane n n
Biodiversity enhancement n n n n
Lower maintenance costs n n
Amenity Benefit n n n n
Reduced cost of drainage n n n n n n
Air quality n n n n
Reduced stream degradation n n n n n n
Reduced land take for runoff reduction n

vs other methods If runoff
reduction
required
Beneficiary
Potential beneficiary depending on remit of stakeholder
Indirect beneficiary if able to charge higher rents due to neighbourhood improvements
There are, however, additional reputational and operational of the roof. The high visibility of a green roof also confers
factors that affect the value of a commercial site to owners its own advantage, in that immediate neighbours witness
and occupiers, as discussed above. The perceived wider pro-environmental behaviour has been undertaken: this
benefits (accruing to all stakeholders) therefore feed back is rather more conspicuous than, say, the display of an
into the value of a building (affecting the owners/investors) improved EPC. These considerations have resulted in
in ways that are hard to measure and even harder to the development of a conceptual model encompassing
predict. This is because the value judgements made by both the value of green roof installation to owners and
the other stakeholders often pertain to perceived, rather occupiers of a commercial building, and the feedback
than tangible, benefits; the feedback value may, therefore, effects into the company operational profit and building
be unrelated to the scale of measurable impacts, or value: this conceptual model is shown in Figure 15. The
their distribution among stakeholders. The installation evidence base necessary to make impact estimates is not
of a green roof may, for example, be seen as socially yet sufficiently well developed, however, to assign precise
responsible, as it reduces the urban heat island effect; the quantities to the range of benefits enjoyed by every
benefit of this corporate social responsibility accrues to stakeholder in the conceptual model.
the owner/occupier, regardless of the actual performance

Whilst, in some instances, measureable direct benefits as well as recognising feedback from wider societal
(such as reduced heating and cooling costs) can offset and ecological beneficiaries. Despite the existence
the cost of green roof installation over time, the additional of conceptual and theoretical arguments, the current
value of energy efficiency may not provide sufficient lack of quantitative studies linking property values, and
incentive for retrofitting. Other energy efficiency measures company profitability, directly to pro-environmental
may exist that would be just as effective and less costly. behaviour and company reputation stands as a barrier to
It is equally unlikely that the reduction in flood risk to the such recognition. By identifying approaches that foster
individual property on which it is installed would justify understanding of the indirect benefits of retrofitting green
the cost of a green roof. This research suggests that roofs, it will be possible to evaluate whether they can drive
the business case for retrofit of green roofs must be appropriate adaptation or not.
predicated on the consideration of multiple direct benefits,
Conceptual model of distributed benefits of green roof technology from the perspective
Figure 15 of owners and occupiers of commercial buildings (after Abbott et al., 2013)
Wider society/
Reduced erosion/ ecosystem Carbon/nitrogen
steam degradation sequestration
Neighbourhood/societal
Biodiversity beneficiaries Water quality
Reduced need for drainage

infrastructure
Aesthetic improvement
Occupiers
Amenity Air quality
(customers of occupier)
Reduced UHI Acoustic damping
Reduced
Thermal buffering maintenance costs
Owners/
investors
Image of Increased
corporate property
social Peakflow/ Extended value
responsibility flood control
Easier planning
roof life
consent

rics.org/research
4.0 Discussion and Implications/Guidance
Image source: paintings / Shutterstock.com
This work is relevant to all urban centres striving to

build resilience to flood events in a cost effective and
4.1 Implications for surveyors
environmentally sustainable manner. The research Building surveyors are typically those who are involved
compares and contrasts cities in the northern and with the retrofit of existing buildings and they will need
southern hemispheres, here Newcastle and Melbourne, to consider technologies that they are less familiar with,
and therefore assists other urban centres as they plan and such as green roof retrofit, as they endeavour to deliver
implement strategies to mitigate pluvial flood risk. This sustainability to mitigate predicted climate change and to
research complements a great deal of recently completed adapt to those changes. As such they will need to develop
and ongoing work including RICS work on ‘Towards a methods of appraising whether roofs are suitable for
Low Carbon Built Environment: A Roadmap for Action’ consideration of green roofs and thereafter which type of
(RICS, 2009), ‘Redefining Zero’(Sturgis Associates, 2010), green roof design is most appropriate for the location and
and ‘Vision for Cities’(RICS, 2010) as well as work other design considerations such as aesthetics, thermal
undertaken in the UK’s ESPRC funded ‘RETROFIT 2050’ performance and costs for example. (See section 3.03
programme (Britnell and Dixon, 2011), ‘Delivering and above.) An initial green roof retrofit evaluation checklist for
evaluating multiple flood risk benefits in blue green cities’ Building Surveyors is included in Appendix 1 of this report.
(BlueGreenCities), and CIRIA projects on developing The intention is to enable Building Surveyors to consider
technical guidance for installation of SUDS and WSUD. the relevant factors in an initial appraisal of suitability of a
The results of this research enable stakeholders such roof and building.
as the Newcastle and City of Melbourne to evaluate the Valuation surveyors will also come across buildings which
desirability of developing and pursuing incentives to roll out have green roofs and will need to consider the feature in
a programme for green roofs and permeable paving in the their appraisal of value. They will need to be aware of the
city for the mitigation of storm-water run-off. The results purpose of the roof. For example is it for storm-water, bio-
allow other municipal authorities to reflect on the potential diversity or social recreational space or a combination of
of their stock to accommodate a retrofit programme as part these factors? Is it fulfilling its function? What are the annual
of a strategy to manage risks associated with storm-water maintenance costs and requirements for upkeep? If one
flooding. In the process of conducting the analysis there exists, does it affect the buildings environmental rating?
were limited resources to undertake detailed structural In terms of costs, the green roof will extend the life of the
appraisals of individual buildings. The remaining building waterproof membrane below the green roof by 100%,
criteria of preferred planting, sustainability of components so a major repair cost is deferred (Mentens et al, 2006).
and levels of maintenance were not considered in depth Valuation surveyors are recommended to refer to other
in this research and therefore represent some of the RICS guidance on the valuation of sustainable buildings.
limitations of this approach. However the implementation of
any retrofit programme would require further extensive and
detailed evaluation, site inspection and technical analysis on
a building by building basis.

4.2 Areas for further research benefit from higher yields from a more attractive
commercial environment. Furthermore, the aspect of
This study has highlighted the need for further empirical socially responsible investment could be considered as
research into green roof retrofit. a reputational gain for these stakeholders. The research
suggests that this is not dependant on actual delivery of
The proposal of a conceptual model for the benefits the technology against perceived benefits, but is based
of retrofitting green roof technology for owners and on awareness of green roofs as an ecological good.
occupiers of commercial buildings in CBDs is a novel Therefore this benefit is both locally specific (dependant on
departure from current literature that focuses on the cultural norms in the customer base) and neighbourhood
wider societal perspective of reducing flood risk for a and market specific (dependant on the pool of property
district. This research addresses a crucial gap in the investors and owners with a vested stake in the business
implementation strategy of water sensitive urban design, district). The goals and priorities of these stakeholders will
in recognising that the stakeholders most central in have an impact on the willingness to retrofit green roofs.
enhancing the take up of green roofs may be commercial
enterprises or investors that remain to be convinced of This insight, together with the lack of monetised benefit
the business case for green roofs. data for many of the wider benefits of green roof retrofit,
suggests that the complete operationalisation of the
Furthermore, it is critical in this evaluation to consider proposed conceptual model through robust cost benefit
the full range of benefits accruing from green roof analysis is some way off. Therefore, in discussion of
installation, not limited to the flood or water quality issues the business case for green roofs in the short term, it
normally paramount in the cost benefit analysis for local may be helpful to consider methodology that allows for
government or environmental agencies. the statement and balance of multiple goals, not all of
This research has scoped the associated literature very them quantifiable or monetised. Further research is also
widely and identified a broad list of actual and perceived warranted in order to strengthen the evidence base relating
benefits from green roofs. The systematic review also to the actual performance of green roofs in delivering the
identified key stakeholders and beneficiaries of green perceived benefits across the stakeholder groups and their
roof benefits and their proximity to the central actors. feedback in terms of enhanced property value.
Green roofs are seen to have a small potential positive
contribution to climate mitigation, but most of the benefits
of green roof technology are more direct and relate to
4.3 Signposting of guidance
quality enhancements in the local environment with the Best practice guidance regarding the retrofitting of both
potential to lead to neighbourhood improvement. However, green roofs and permeable paving has been produced
the quantification of the scale and scope of these benefits by many organisations in recent years, much of which
in CBDs is argued to be in its infancy, therefore further is available for free downloading. Table 16 lists a broad
research is needed to fully operationalise the conceptual range of the guidance issued to date in the UK, Australia
model with respect to direct benefits of green roofs. and elsewhere, but should not be seen as exhaustive;
In the context of commercial property it is also where appropriate the approximate cost of publications
important to examine potential indirect benefits of is noted. The table categorises the guidance according
green roofs. Increased operational efficiency within an to the country of origin, the method(s) covered and the
improved building may boost the utility of the premises focus of the approach, in terms of technical advice, design
for commercial tenants, whilst occupiers of “green” orientation or a combination of the two. Hyperlinks to the
commercial buildings may also benefit from reputational appropriate web sources are provided in the final column.
enhancement. Owners and investors could therefore

rics.org/research
Guidance Sources by country of origin, method, and approach

Table 16 (with hotlinks to source materials)
Permeable paving
Green roof
Technical
Australia
Design
Other
Both
Originating
UK
Title Availability Hotlinks
body/year
Source control using constructed

CIRIA 2002 pervious surfaces. Hydraulic, structural £110.00* n n n CLICK
and water quality performance issues
Sustainable drainage systems –

CIRIA 2004 hydraulic, structural and water £156.00* n n n n CLICK
quality advice
Designing for exceedance in urban

CIRIA 2006 Online n n n CLICK
drainage – good practice
CIRIA 2007 The SUDS Manual £210.00* n n n n CLICK
Site handbook for the construction

CIRIA 2007 Online n n n n CLICK
of SUDS
Building greener – guidance on the

CIRIA 2007 use of green roofs, green walls and Online n n n CLICK
complementary features on buildings
CIRIA 2009 Overview of SuDS performance Online n n n n CLICK
CIRIA 2010 Planning for SuDS – making it happen £108.00* n n n n CLICK
CIRIA 2012 Retrofitting to Manage Surface Water £180.00* n n n n CLICK
Creating water sensitive places – scoping

CIRIA 2013 the potential for water sensitive urban Online n n n n CLICK
design in the UK
City of Portland
Stormwater Management Manual Online n n n n CLICK
2014
Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

City of Gold Coast
Guidelines – section 13.11 Porous and Online n n n CLICK
2007
Permeable Paving
City of San San Francisco Stormwater Design

Online n n n CLICK
Francisco 2010 Guidelines – BMP Factsheets
Sustainable urban drainage systems

CREW Scotland
(SUDS) and flood management in Online n n n n n CLICK
2012
urban areas
Department for
Communities and
Guidance on the permeable surfacing of
Local Government Online n n n CLICK
front gardens
and Environment
Agency 2008
Stormwater Management Guidebook

District of
– Section 3.4. Permeable Pavement Online n n n CLICK
Columbia 2013
Systems
Environmental
Protection Porous Pavement – Phase 1 – design and
Online n n n CLICK
Agency (USA) operational criteria
1980
Environmental Managing Wet Weather with Green

Protection Agency Infrastructure – Municipal Handbook – Online n n n CLICK
(USA) 2008 Green Streets
continued

continued
Permeable paving
Green roof
Technical
Australia
Design
Other
Both
Originating
UK
Title Availability Hotlinks
body/year
Environmental Green long-term control plan-EZ template:

Protection Agency a planning tool for Combined Sewer Online n n n CLICK
(USA) 2011 Overflow control in small communities
Government of
Water Sensitive Urban Design – Technical
South Australia Online n n n CLICK
Manual – Chapter 7 Pervious Pavements
2010
Groundwork
Green Roof Developer's Guide Online n n n CLICK
Sheffield 2011
Groundwork
Sheffield/ GRO Green Roof Code of Best Practice
Online n n n CLICK
Environment for the UK
Agency 2011
Institution
of Engineers, ARR Guideline 51e Online n n n CLICK
Australia 2013
Landscape Management and maintenance of

Online n n n n CLICK
Institute 2014 Sustainable Drainage Systems
Melbourne Water
Green roofs fact sheet Online n n n CLICK
2012
Melbourne Water Building a planter box raingarden

Online n n n CLICK
2013 (7th edition)
Minnesota Best Management Practices Construction

Pollution Control Costs, Maintenance Costs, and Land Online n n n CLICK
Agency 2011 Requirements
New York City

Guidelines for the Design and
Department of
Construction of Stormwater Management Online n n n n CLICK
Environmental
Systems
Protection 2012
Nophadrain/Dutch
Extensive green roofs – Design and
Green Building Online n n n CLICK
installation manual
Council 2012
Green roof plants: a resource and

Snodgrass 2006 £20.00** n n n CLICK
planting guide
Growing Green Guide: A guide to green

State of Victoria
roofs, walls and facades in Melbourne Online n n n CLICK
2014
and Victoria, Australia
University of
Permeable Pavement Fact Sheet Online n n n CLICK
Maryland 2011
Victoria BID, Green Infrastructure Audit – Best

Online n n n CLICK
London 2013 Practice Guide
Cities and Flooding – Chapter 3

World Bank 2012 Integrated Flood Risk Management: Online n n n n CLICK
Structural Measures
* P rices quoted from the following source, as at 1 April 2014:– any documents described as ‘online’ are free following registration:
http://www.ciria.org/CIRIA/Bookshop/Bookshop/Books/Bookshop.aspx?hkey=5d0b1bf4-bcee-4410-ade0-2dfb2a319cc2
** Price quoted from the following source, as at 1 April 2014: http://www.timberpress.co.uk/books/?search=9780881927870

rics.org/research
5.0 Conclusion
Research into the retrofit of sustainable urban drainage The most appropriate SUDS features for retrofit within
in the central business districts is needed because the dense CBD areas are seen to be green roofs, permeable
pressure of increasing urban density and changing paving, rainwater gardens and small treatment trains.
weather patterns has led to overwhelming of traditional Within the city of Melbourne, green roofs are especially
urban drainage systems, flash flooding and damage and attractive in respect of the urban canyon effect and flood
disruption in cities. mitigation impacts may be of lesser concern. However it
is also observed that the evaluation of multiple benefits
The research reported here has considered the potential for
can assist in making an economic case for green roof and
retrofit of SUDS features with central business districts to
other vegetated SUDS. Conversely permeable paving is
contribute to flood mitigation. Through the extensive review
seen primarily as a stormwater control mechanism with
of literature and the detailed analysis of two case study areas
fewer associated advantages.
it has become apparent that the complexity of evaluation of
potential benefits requires a holistic assessment to be made The literature also reveals requirements for the feasibility
of the multiple features of the urban environment and the and performance of green roofs and permeable paving
specific building under consideration. that need to be considered at the stage of option design in
order to avoid over estimating the potential to retrofit SUDS
Literature reveals that there are examples of SUDS
features. There are some minimum technical requirements
retrofit across many countries that have been pursued
to be met for the lightest and simplest extensive green
for purposes including storm-water or flood management
roofs but other types of roof may be preferred and have
but also to benefit from associated advantages such
more stringent requirements. It is important to design each
as reduced wastewater processing charges, improved
green roof to meet clearly defined goals and these will
insulation, lower maintenance costs and reduction of the
differ depending on the climate, location and height of the
urban heat island.
building among other things.

Depending on various assumptions the database analysis

of buildings within two CBDs one in Australia and the
other in the UK revealed that the proportion of CBD
buildings with potential for retrofit is fairly low. Estimation of
other surfaces potentially suitable for permeable retrofit in
busy business districts also reveals that a large proportion
of urban hard surface may be unsuitable for standard
permeable paving systems due to heavy traffic loads.
Estimation of the run-off reduction potential under these
assumptions for these two cases study areas can be seen
to be realistically around 10-20%, however this can still
make a significant contribution to storm-water reduction
and peak attenuation. For both of the case study sites
however it was seen to be necessary to consider the
wider catchment area due to the presence of historic
culverted watercourses and topographical features.
On an individual building basis the decision process to
invest or not to invest in green roof technology may be
influenced by the perceived costs and benefits accruing
to owners and occupiers of commercial buildings. A novel
conceptual model has been developed that suggests
the consideration of feedback from distributed benefits
of green roof technology and permeable paving through
property value and reputational gains may be highly
influential in the decision to invest.
Finally the research has revealed that multiple initiatives
and research projects are ongoing in this rapidly
developing field. This is partly driven by the UK Flood and
Water Management Act 2010 and upcoming regulation
in the sector for run-off control in new developments.
New tools are being developed, guidance documents
published and installations of green roofs and permeable
paving are increasing. Therefore these recent documents
are summarised in the report for the convenience of
professionals who may want to explore the topic further.
Further research is recommended in the measurement
and attribution of costs and benefits of green roofs,
specifically in the valuation of multiple benefits and the
operationalisation of the conceptual model. Further
research is also needed on the performance of
sustainable drainage systems under a variety of locational,
climate and antecedent conditions both in terms of storm-
water management and other benefits.
Guidance notes and checklists specifically for scoping
potential integrated retrofit projects for commercial
property surveyors are recommended and could be
developed in the light of recent and ongoing research.

rics.org/research
6.0 References
Flood and Water Management Act. 2010 c29 London: H M Government. Carter, T.L. and Rasmussen, T.C. (2006) Hydrologic behavior of vegetated roofs.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42(5), pp.1261-1274.
Abbott, J., Davies, P., Simkins, P., Morgan, C., Levin, D. and Robinson, P.
(2013) Creating water sensitive places – scoping the potential for water Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) (undated) Green Values
sensitive urban design in the UK C724. London: CIRIA. Stormwater Toolbox – homepage. Available at: http://greenvalues.cnt.org/
Arup Pty Ltd (2008) Zero Net Emissions by 2020 – update 2008 Centre for Transport and Society – UWE (2005) Vivaldi – research briefing
(Consultation Draft) City of Melbourne. sheet 010. Bristol: University of the West of England.
Baird, G., Gray, J., Isaacs, N., Kernohan, D. and Mcindoe, G. (eds.) (1996) Charlesworth, S. and Warwick, F. (2011) Adapting to and mitigating floods
Building Evaluation Techniques. Wellington, NZ: McGraw Hill. using sustainable urban drainage systems. in Lamond, J. E., Proverbs, D.
G., Booth, C. A. and Hammond, F. N. (eds.) Flood hazards, impacts and
Balmforth, D., Digman, C., Kellagher, R. and Butler, D. (2006) Designing for responses for the built environment. New York: Taylor CRC press.
exceedance in urban drainage – good practice CIRIA C635 CIRIA.
Chatterton, J., Viavattene, C., Morris, J., Penning-Rowsell, E. and Tapsell, S.
Bamfield, B. (2005) Whole Life Costs & Living Roofs – The Springboard (2010) The costs of the summer 2007 floods in England (Project Summary
Centre, Bridgewater, January 2005. Cheshunt: The Solution Organisation. SC070039/S1). Bristol: Environment Agency.
Barr Engineering Company (2011) Best Management Practices Construction Chau, K.W., Leung, A. Y. T., Yui, C. Y., and Wong, S. K. (2003) Estimating
Costs, Maintenance Costs, and Land Requirements, June 2011. the value enhancement effects of refurbishment. Facilities 21(1), pp.13-19.
Minneapolis: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
CIRIA (2009) Overview of SuDS performance – Information provided to
Bastien, N.R.P., Arthur, S., Wallis, S.G. and Scholz, M. (2011) Runoff Defra and the EA. London: CIRIA.
infiltration, a desktop case study. Water Science and Technology; 2011,
63(ref), pp.10, 2300-2308. CIRIA (2013) Demonstrating the multiple benefits of SuDS – a business case
– Phase 2 – Developing a detailed methodology and presenting evidence
Blanc, J., Arthur, S. and Wright, G. (2012) Natural flood management (NFM) (proposal 2904), January 2013. London: CIRIA.
knowledge system: Part 1 – Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS)
and flood management in urban areas – Final Report CREW – Scotland’s Claus, K. and Rousseau, S. (2010) Public versus Private Incentives to Invest
Centre of Expertise for Waters. in Green Roofs: A Cost Benefit Analysis for Flanders (Hub research paper
2010/30 Oktober 2010). Hub Research Paper – Economics and
Bloomberg, M.R. and Strickland, C.H. (2012a) Guidelines for the Design and Management.
Construction of Stormwater Management Systems July 2012. New York:
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, in consultation with Companies and Markets (2011) Australian Flood Damage Reconstruction
the New York City Department of Buildings. Likely to Cost Billions. [Accessed Accessed 12th July 2012]. Available at:
http://www.companiesandmarkets.com/News/Construction/Australian-
Bloomberg, M.R. and Strickland, C.H. (2012b) NYC Green Infrastructure – Flood-Damage-Reconstruction-Likely-to-Cost-Billions/NI1713
2012 Annual Report. New York City: New York City – Envirionmental
Protection. Compton, J. (2006) Rethinking the green roof. BioCycle, 47(9), pp.38+40-41.
BlueGreenCities Delivering and Evaluating Multiple Flood Risk Benefits Cumbria Intelligence Observatory (2010) Cumbria Floods November 2009:
in Blue-Green Cities – home page. Available at: http://www.bluegreencities. An Impact Assessment. Carlisle: Cumbria County Council.
ac.uk/bluegreencities/index.aspx
Damodaram, C., Giacomoni, M.H. and Zechman, E.M. (2010) Using the
Britnell, J. and Dixon, T. (2011) Retrofitting in the private residential and hydrologic footprint residence to evaluate low impact development in urban
commercial property sectors – survey findings – Retrofit 2050 Working areas. San Francisco, CA, United states: American Society of Civil
Paper WP2011/1. Oxford, UK: Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development. Engineers, pp. 1721-1729.
Bromley, R.D.F., Tallon, A.R. and Thomas, C.J. (2005) City centre Defra (2009) Flood and Water Management Bill. Impact Assessment – Local
regeneration through residential development: Contributing to sustainability. Flood Risk Management and the increased use of Sustainable Drainage
Urban Studies, 42(13), pp.2407-2429. systems. London: Defra.
Bullen, P.A. (2007) Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings. Department of Infrastructure and Transport – Australia (2011) Our cities, our
Facilities, 25, pp.20-31. future: A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable
future. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Australia.
Bureau of Environmental Services – City of Portland (2008) Cost Benefit
Evaluation of Ecoroofs 2008. Portland, Oregon USA: City of Portland, Oregon. Digman, C., Ashley, R., Balmforth, D., Stovin, V. and Glerum, J. (2012)
Retrofitting to Manage Surface Water C713. London: CIRIA.
Bureau of Meteorology (2012) Heavy rain and Flooding. [Accessed 9th July
2012]. Available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/wa/sevwx/perth/floods.shtml District of Columbia (2013) Stormwater Management Guidebook – Section
3.4. Permeable Pavement Systems District Department of the Environment,
Bureau of Meteorology (Australia) (undated) Melbourne Metropolitan Area Watershed Protection Division, District of Columbia, USA.
and Environs in March 2010. Available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/
current/month/vic/archive/201003.melbourne.shtml#records Donald, A. and Seeger, C. (2010) Cities Taking Action – Melbourne: responding
RainTtlRecenthigh to a changing climate. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 01(3).
CABE Space (2006) Does Money Grow On Trees. London: Commission for Douglas, J. (2006) Building Adaptation Oxford (UK) and Burlington (USA):
Architecture and the Built Environment. Butterworth Heinemann.
Cahill, M., Godwin, D.C. and Sowles, M. (2011) Stormwater Planters. Duffy, A., Jefferies, C., Waddell, G., Shanks, G., Blackwood, D. and Watkins,
Portland, USA: Oregon State University. A. (2008) A cost comparison of traditional drainage and SUDS in Scotland.
Water Science and Technology, 57(9), pp.1451-1459.

ENTRIX (2010) Portland’s Green Infrastructure: Quantifying the Health, Jha, A., Lamond, J., Bloch, R., Bhattacharya, N., Lopez, A.,
Energy, and Community Livability Benefits. Portland, USA: City of Portland, Papachristodoulou, N., Bird, A., Proverbs, D., Davies, J. and Barker, R.
Bureau of Environmental Services. (2011) Five Feet High and Rising – Cities and Flooding in the 21st Century.
Washington: The World Bank.
Environment Agency – Yorkshire & North East Region Hydrology (2012)
Hydrology of the Tyneside June 2012 Flood Environment Agency. Jha, A.K., Bloch, R. and Lamond, J. (2012) Chapter 3. Integrated Flood Risk
Management: Structural Measures. in Jha, A. K., Bloch, R. and Lamond, J.
Environment Agency (2013) Flooding in England – a national assessment (eds.) Cities and Flooding – A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood Risk
of flood risk. Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/ Management for the 21st Century. Washington DC: World Bank, p.637.
library/publications/108660.aspx
Jia, H., Lu, Y., Yu, S.L. and Chen, Y. (2012) Planning of LID–BMPs for urban
Environmental Services – City of Portland (2006) Downspout disconnection. runoff control: The case of Beijing Olympic Village. Separation and
2013 Portland, Oregon USA: City of Portland. Purification Technology, 84(0), pp.112-119.
Environmental Services – City of Portland (2011) Portland’s Ecoroof Jones Lang LaSalle (2005) Building Refurbishment – Repositioning your
Program. Available at: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/261074 asset for success. Melbourne, Australia: Jones Lang LaSalle.
Environmental Services – City of Portland (undated) Downspout Joseph, R., Proverbs, D.G., Lamond, J. and Wassell, P. (2012) Towards the
disconnection program. [Accessed 21/06/13]. Available at: http://www. development of a comprehensive systematic quantification of the costs and
portlandoregon.gov/bes/54651 benefits of property level flood risk adaptation. in Proverbs, D. G.,
Fioretti, R., Palla, A., Lanza, L.G. and Principi, P. (2010) Green roof energy Mambretti, S., Brebbia, C. A. and De Wrachien, D. (eds.) Flood Recovery
and water related performance in the Mediterranean climate. Building and Innovation and Response III. Southampton: WIT Press, pp.193-205.
Environment, 45(8), pp.1890-1904. Kazmierczak, A. and Carter, J. (2010) Adaptation to climate change using
French, L., Samwinga, V. and Proverbs, D. (2011) The UK sewer network: green and blue infrastructure – A database of case studies. Manchester UK:
perceptions of its condition and role in flood risk. in Lamond, J. E., Proverbs, University of Manchester:Green and Blue Space Adaptation for urban areas
D. G., Booth, C. A. And Hammond, F. N. (ed.) Flood hazards, impacts and and eco-towns (GRaBS); Interreg IVC.
responses for the built environment. New York: Taylor CRC press. Keeling, T., Clements-Croome, D., Luck, R. and Pointer, P. (2012) How the
Getter, K.L. and Rowe, D.B. (2009) Carbon sequestration potential of sensory experience of buildings can contribute to wellbeing and productivity.
extensive green roofs. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities 7th Windsor Conference: The changing context of comfort in an unpredictable
Conference (Session 3.1: Unravelling the Energy/Water/Carbon world Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK 12-15 April 2012NCEUB.
Sequestration Equation). Atlanta, GA, USA. Kellert, S.R. and Wilson, E.O. (1993) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington
Gill, E. (2008) Making space for water – Urban flood risk & integrated D.C., U.S.A: Island Press.
drainage (HA2) IUD pilot summary report. London: Defra. Kilsby, C.G. and Glenis, V. (2014) Mapping and managing flood risk in
Glenis, V., McGough, A.S., Kutija, V., C.G., K. and S., W. (2013) Flood Newcastle with CityCAT. Blue-Green Vision for Newcastle: Newcastle
modelling for cities using Cloud computing. Journal of Cloud Computing: Learning and Action Alliance start up workshop. University of Newcastle
Advances, Systems and Applications, 2(7). 14th February.
Google Earth 6.0 (2008) Google Earth Australia. Available at: Kincaid, D. (2002) Adapting buildings for changing uses – guidelines for
http://www.google.com.au/maps change of use refurbishment. London: Spon Press.
Gordon-Walker, S., Harle, T. and Naismith, I. (2007) Cost-benefit of SUDS Kincaid, D. (2003) A starting point for measuring physical performance
retrofit in urban areas – Science Report – SC060024, Nov 2007. Bristol: Facilities 21(11), pp.265-268.
Environment Agency. Lamond, J. and Proverbs, D. (2009) Resilience to flooding : learning the
Government of South Australia – Greater Adelaide Region (2010) Water lessons from an international comparison of the barriers to implementation.
Sensitive Urban Design – Technical Manual – Chapter 7 Pervious Urban Design and Planning, 162(2), pp.63-70.
Pavements Government of South Australia. Livingroofs.org (2005) Green Roof Case Study – Barclays HQ (London).
Government of South Australia (2010) Chapter 7 pervious pavements. in Available at: http://livingroofs.org/20100801224/exemplar-green-roof-case-
Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Manual Greater Adelaide Region. studies/case-study-barclays-bank.html
Groundwork Sheffield (2011) Green Roof Developer’s Guide. Sheffield: Livingroofs.org (undated) Homepage. Available at: http://livingroofs.
Groundwork. org/2010030671/green-roof-benefits/waterrunoff.html
Harman, J., Bramley, M.E. and Funnell, M. (2002) Sustainable flood defence in Ma, L., Qin, B. and Zuo, C. (2012) Performance of urban rainwater retention
England and Wales. Proceedings of the ICE – Civil Engineering, 150(5), pp.3-9. by green roof: A case study of Jinan. 178-181 Yantai, China: Trans Tech
Publications, pp. 295-299.
Highfield, D. (2000) Refurbishment and upgrading of buildings. London:
E & FN Spon. MacIvor, J.S. and Lundholm, J. (2011) Performance evaluation of native
plants suited to extensive green roof conditions in a maritime climate.
HydroCon Australasia Pty Ltd (undated) HydroSTON permeable paving. Ecological Engineering, 37(3), pp.407-417.
Available at: http://hydroston.com.au/design/
MacMullan, E. and Reich, S. (2007) The Economics of Low-Impact
Ingirige, B. and Wedawatta, G. (2011) Impacts of flood hazard on small and Development: A Literature Review, November2007. Eugene, OR:
medium sized companies strategies for property level protection and ECONorthwest.
business continuity. in Lamond, J. E., Proverbs, D. G., Booth, C. A. and
Hammond, F. N. (eds.) Flood hazards, impacts and responses for the built Markus, T.A. (1979) Building conversion and rehabilitation – designing for
environment. New York: Taylor CRC press. change in building use. London: Butterworth Group.
Interpave (2010) Guide to the design, construction and maintenance of Melbourne Water Corporation (2007) Flood Management and Drainage
concrete block permeable pavements. London: The Precast Concrete Strategy Melbourne Water Corporation.
Paving & Kerb Association.

rics.org/research
Mentens, J., Raes, D. and Hermy, M. (2006) Green roofs as a tool for solving Stovin, V. (2010) The potential of green roofs to manage Urban Stormwater.
the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landscape and Water and Environment Journal, 24(3), pp.192-199.
Urban Planning, 77(3), pp.217-226.
Stovin, V., Vesuviano, G. and Kasmin, H. (2012) The hydrological performance
Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Research (2007) Climate Research at of a green roof test bed under UK climatic conditions. Journal of Hydrology,
the Met Office Hadley Centre – Informing Government Policy into the Future. 414-415, pp.148-161.
Available at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/
brochures/clim_res_had_fut_pol.pdf Sturgis Associates (2010) Redefining zero: carbon profiling as a solution to
whole life carbon emission measurement in buildings. London: Royal
News.com (2011) Severe storms, flash floods hit Melbourne and parts of Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Victoria. News.com.ua. [Accessed 2014]. Available at: http://www.news.
com.au/national/storm-to-move-south-and-soak-victoria/story- The World Bank (2010) Deep Wells and Prudence: Towards Pragmatic
e6frfkvr-1226000442820 Action for Addressing Groundwater Overexploitation in India. Washington:
The World Bank.
Nophadrain (2012) Extensive green roofs – Design and installation manual.
Kerkrade, The Netherlands: Nophadrain. Total Research and Technical Services Newcastle City Council (2013)
Summer 2012 Flooding in Newcastle upon Tyne – a report on the
NYC Environmental Protection (2011) NYC Green Infrastructure Plan, 2011 experiences of residents and non-residential property managers. Newcastle
Update. New York: New York City Department of Environmental Protection / upon Tyne: Newcastle City Council.
New York City Department of Buildings.
University of Florida (2008) Green roofs/ecoroofs. Gainesville, FL: University
NYC Environmental Protection (2012) Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Florida.
of Stormwater Management Systems. New York: New York City Department of
Environmental Protection / New York City Department of Buildings. Munby, B. (2005) Feasibility study for the retrofitting of green roofs,.
Sheffield: Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield.
Porsche, U. and Köhler, M. (2003) Life cycle costs of green roofs –
A Comparison of Germany, USA, and Brazil. RIO 3 – World Climate & US EPA Storm Water Management Model Version 5.1.002. Available at:
Energy Event. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1-5 December 2003. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/wq/models/swmm/
Property Council of Australia Limited (2006) A guide to office building quality. Vila, A., Pérez, G., Solé, C., Fernández, A.I. and Cabeza, L.F. (2012) Use of
Sydney: Property Council of Australia Limited. rubber crumbs as drainage layer in experimental green roofs. Building and
Environment, 48(0), pp.101-106.
Rapson, D., Shiers, D., Roberts, C. and Keeping, M. (2007) Socially
responsible property investment (SRPI). Journal of Property Investment & Voyde, E., Fassman, E. and Simcock, R. (2010) Hydrology of an extensive
Finance, 25(4), pp.342-358. living roof under sub-tropical climate conditions in Auckland, New Zealand.
Journal of Hydrology, 394(3–4), pp.384-395.
RICS (2009) Towards a low carbon built environment: a roadmap for action.
London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Wallingford Software Infoworks SD. Available at: http://www.
wallingfordsoftware.com/products/infoworks_sd/InfoWorks_SD_Technical_
RICS (2010) Vision for Cities. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Review.pdf
Ristvey, A.G., Solano, L., Wharton, K., Cohan, S.M. and Lea-Cox, J.D. Wedawatta, G., Ingirige, B., Jones, K. and Proverbs, D. (2011) Extreme
(2010) Effects of crumb rubber amendments on the porosity, water holding weather events and construction SMEs: vulnerability, impacts and
capacity and bulk density of three green roof substrates. San Francisco, CA, responses. Structural Survey, 29(2), pp.106-119.
United states: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 889-896.
Wilkinson, S., J. and Reed, R. (2009) Green roof retrofit potential in the
Rose, C.B. and Lamond, J. (2013) Performance of sustainable drainage for central business district. Property Management, 27(5), pp.284-301.
urban flood control, lessons from Europe and Asia. International Conference
on Flood Resilience – Experiences in Asia and Europe. Exeter, United Wilkinson, S., Rose, C., Glenis, V. and Lamond, J. (2014) Modelling green
Kingdom 5-7 September 2013. roof retrofit in the Melbourne Central Business District. Flood Recovery
Innovation and Response IV. Poznan, Poland 18-20 June 2014.
Sayce, S., Sundberg, A. and Clements, B. (2010) Is sustainability reflected in
commercial property prices: An analysis of the evidence base. London: RICS. Wilkinson, S.J., Reed, R. and Jailani, J. (2011) Tenant Satisfaction in
Sustainable Buildings. Pacific Rim Real Estate Conference. Gold Coast,
Sinnett, D., Williams, K., Chatterjee, K. and Cavill, N. (2011) Making the case Australia Jan 16-19 2011.
for investment in the walking environment: A review of the evidence.
London: Living Streets. Williams, N.S., Raynor, J.P. and Raynor, K.J. (2010) Green roofs for a wide
brown land: Opportunities and barriers for rooftop greening in Australia.
Skyring, S. (2007) Green Roofs for Australia. Australia Green Development Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9(245-251).
Forum. Brisbane 22nd - 23rd February 2007.
Wilson, S., Bray, R. and Cooper, P. (2004) Sustainable drainage systems –
Solomon, S. and Qin, D. (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science hydraulic, structural and water quality advice. London: CIRIA.
Basis. Contribution of working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New Woods-Ballard, B., Kellagher, R., Martin, P., Jefferies, C., Bray, R. and
York, USA: Cambridge University Press. Shaffer, P. (2007) The SuDS Manual C697. CIRIA, p. 600.
Stevens, R. and Ogunyoye, F. (2012a) Costs and Benefits of Sustainable XP Solutions xpdrainage. Available at: http://xpsolutions.com/Software/
Drainage Systems – Final report – 9X1055 – Royal Haskoning, July 2012 XPDRAINAGE/
Committee on Climate Change. XP Solutions (2011) WinDes. Available at: http://www.microdrainage.co.uk/
Stevens, R. and Ogunyoye, F. (2012b) Lamb Drove Sustainable Drainage suds.asp
Systems (SuDS) Monitoring Project – Final Report. Cambridge:
Cambridgeshire County Council.

7.0 Appendix
Checklist for Building Surveyors to appraise roofs for
suitability for green roof retrofit
Green roof retrofit checklist

This checklist is designed for building surveyors to use in an initial appraisal of an existing building for green
roof retrofit:
Please review the following aspects and take into account in your decision making.
1. Position of the building

What is the position of the building within the settlement? Is it overshadowed by other adjoining
buildings which may affect access to sunlight and the growth of plants?
n Not overshadowed (good)
n Partly overshadowed (maybe OK)
n Overshadowed (may not be OK)

What is the quality of the building? For example those with a high quality may experience an increase in
capital value and yield as a result of having sustainability features such as a green roof.
n High quality (in Australia PCA Grade Premium and A) – more likely to enhance value
n Medium quality – may enhance value
n Low quality – unlikely to enhance value
2. Location of the building

What is the prevailing climatic condition? For example, is the building in a hot arid climate zone or a
maritime zone? Each has different characteristics which favour different types of green roof solution.
For example, those locations which experience heavy rainfall may favour a stormwater solution aimed to
reduce as much runoff as possible.
The prevailing climate is
The building and roof location is exposed to

n High winds
n Medium winds
n Low winds
The building and roof location is exposed to

n High rainfall
n Medium rainfall
n Low rainfall
n Wide seasonal variation in rainfall

rics.org/research
Does the location favour; (tick all which apply and rank in order of preference)
n Stormwater design
n Improving water quality entering sewer system
n Thermal design
n Reducing urban heat island
n Reducing noise pollution
n Bio diversity design
n Aesthetic and social space design
3. Orientation of the roof

North facing is good in the southern hemisphere, whereas south facing is better in the northern hemisphere.
What is the orientation of the roof?
n Good
n OK
n Poor
4. Height above ground

ow high is the building? In some locations high buildings are subject to high winds, and or fierce heat which can
H
make growing plants challenging.
n How high is the roof? floors
5. Roof pitch
What is the roof pitch?
n Up to 21 degrees is suited to green roof retrofit
n exceeding 22 degrees are too steep and not suited
n minimum roof pitch less than 3 degrees
6. Existing roof construction

What is the existing structural form of the roof?
n Timber (size and spacing of beams)
n Concrete slab (depth in mm)
n Structural steel (size and spacing of beams)
n Other (describe)
7. Load limitations of the building

What is the dead load bearing capacity of the existing roof?
What is the live load capacity of the existing roof?

8. Preferred planting options

What is the budget?
n High
n Medium
n Low
How much maintenance is available for the green roof plants?
n High
n Medium
n Low
Is there a water supply on the roof?
n Yes
n No
Is there a power supply to the roof?
n Yes
n No
Are there any potential environmental hazards?
n Yes
n No
9. Presence of plant and other equipment on the roof.

The presence of plant such as air conditioning or HVAC may affect plant growth by creating micro-climates on the
roof top through the discharge of fumes and warm air.
There is HVAC equipment on the roof
n Yes (please indicate approximate area covered in M2)
n No
There is window cleaning tracks on the roof
n Yes
n No
n Partly
Is there a safety guardrail around the roof? (please indicate)
n Yes
n No
n Partly
Are there any PV Panels mounted on the roof? (please indicate)
n Yes (please indicate approximate area covered in M2)
n No

There is other equipment on the roof which affect the area which could be retrofitted (please indicate)
n Yes (please indicate type of equipment and approx. area covered in M2)
n No

rics.org/research
10. Access for construction and installation of the roof

Materials and equipment will have to be taken up to the roof during construction and installation. The presence of
scaffolding for other external works may provide a good means of moving materials to the roof.
What is the access like for construction and installation?
n Access is very good (i.e. lift directly to roof level)
n Access is OK (wide stairs to roof say one floor below roof)
n Access is poor (narrow / winding stair access only).
11. Levels of maintenance.

What is the access like for maintenance to the plants? To the roof?
n Access is very good (i.e. lift directly to roof level)
n Access is OK (wide stairs to roof say one floor below roof)
n Access is poor (narrow / winding stair access only).
12. Costs
How much is the owner prepared to pay for a green roof?
n High
n Medium
n Low
Can the costs be partially offset by the improvement in thermal performance and energy savings?
Other notes
In this section please note down any other factors which affect the installation of a retrofit green roof.
Final evaluation
Based on the review of the factors above the roof, what is the potential for green roof retrofit?

8.0 Acknowledgements
This research was partially funded by the RICS
research trust (Project no 464) Retrofit of Sustainable
Urban Drainage (SUDS) in CBD for improved flood
mitigation; and the University of the West of England’s
Early Career Researchers’ Scheme.
Thanks are due to the following for data supplied
to the project:
Modelling input
Vasilis Glenis
The Centre for Earth Systems Engineering Research
School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences
Newcastle University
Newcastle upon Tyne
United Kingdom
Contour and shapefile data

David Hassett
GIS Team Leader
Property Services
GPO Box 1603
Melbourne
Victoria 3001
Australia
Bureau of Meteorology data

Dr Blair Trewin
National Climate Centre
GPO Box 1289
Melbourne
Victoria 3001
Australia
Image source: Markus Gebauer / Shutterstock.com

rics.org/research

Confidence through professional standards
RICS promotes and enforces the highest professional We believe that standards underpin effective markets. With
qualifications and standards in the development and up to seventy per cent of the world’s wealth bound up in land
management of land, real estate, construction and and real estate, our sector is vital to economic development,
infrastructure. Our name promises the consistent helping to support stable, sustainable investment and growth
delivery of standards – bringing confidence to the around the globe.
markets we serve. With offices covering the major political and financial centres
We accredit 118,000 professionals and any individual or firm of the world, our market presence means we are ideally placed
registered with RICS is subject to our quality assurance. Their to influence policy and embed professional standards. We
expertise covers property, asset valuation and real estate work at a cross-governmental level, delivering international
management; the costing and leadership of construction standards that will support a safe and vibrant marketplace
projects; the development of infrastructure; and the in land, real estate, construction and infrastructure, for the
management of natural resources, such as mining, farms and benefit of all.
woodland. From environmental assessments and building We are proud of our reputation and we guard it fiercely, so
controls to negotiating land rights in an emerging economy; clients who work with an RICS professional can have confidence
if our members are involved the same professional standards in the quality and ethics of the services they receive.
and ethics apply.
United Kingdom RICS HQ Ireland Europe Middle East

Parliament Square, London 38 Merrion Square, Dublin 2, (excluding UK and Ireland) Office G14, Block 3,
SW1P 3AD United Kingdom Ireland Rue Ducale 67, Knowledge Village,
t +44 (0)24 7686 8555 t +353 1 644 5500 1000 Brussels, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
f +44 (0)20 7334 3811 f +353 1 661 1797 Belgium t +971 4 446 2808
contactrics@rics.org ricsireland@rics.org t +32 2 733 10 19 f +971 4 427 2498
Media enquiries f +32 2 742 97 48 ricsmenea@rics.org
pressoffice@rics.org ricseurope@rics.org
Africa Americas South America Oceania

PO Box 3400, One Grand Central Place, Rua Maranhão, 584 – cj 104, Suite 1, Level 9,
Witkoppen 2068, 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2810, São Paulo – SP, Brasil 1 Castlereagh Street,
South Africa New York 10165 – 2811, USA t +55 11 2925 0068 Sydney NSW 2000. Australia
t +27 11 467 2857 t +1 212 847 7400 ricsbrasil@rics.org t +61 2 9216 2333
f +27 86 514 0655 f +1 212 847 7401 f +61 2 9232 5591
ricsafrica@rics.org ricsamericas@rics.org info@rics.org
North Asia ASEAN Japan South Asia

3707 Hopewell Centre, Suite 10, 25th Floor, Level 14 Hibiya Central Building, 48 & 49 Centrum Plaza,
183 Queen’s Road East Samsung Hub, 3 Church Street, 1-2-9 Nishi Shimbashi Minato-Ku, Sector Road, Sector 53,
Wanchai, Hong Kong Singapore 049483 Tokyo 105-0003, Japan Gurgaon – 122002, India
t +852 2537 7117 t +65 6692 9169 t +81 3 5532 8813 t +91 124 459 5400
f +852 2537 2756 f +65 6692 9293 f +81 3 5532 8814 f +91 124 459 5402
ricsasia@rics.org ricssingapore@rics.org ricsjapan@rics.org ricsindia@rics.org
GLOBALBOILERPLATE/SEPTEMBER 2014/DML/19804/RESEARCH rics.org

View publication stats

Sustainable Urban Drainage: Retrofitting For Improved Ood Mitigation in City Centres

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainable Urban Drainage: Retrofitting For Improved Ood Mitigation in City Centres

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sustainable Urban Drainage: Retrofitting For Improved Ood Mitigation in City Centres

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Sustainable urban drainage: Retroﬁtting for improved ﬂood mitigation in city

Technical Report · October 2014

Jessica Elizabeth Lamond Sara J. Wilkinson

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

David Proverbs Carly B. Rose

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Review of the 14 NERC-funded Green Infrastructure Innovation Projects View project

The Algae Prototype Panel (APP) Project View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sustainable Urban Drainage – Retrofitting for

2 © RICS Research 2014

Report for Royal Institution

Report written by:

Collaborators and co-authors:

RICS Research team

Published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

© RICS Research 2014 3

4 © RICS Research 2014

© RICS Research 2014 5

Glossary and abbreviations

6 © RICS Research 2014

© RICS Research 2014 7

Methodology Results and implications

8 © RICS Research 2014

© RICS Research 2014 9

10 © RICS Research 2014

1.3 Aims and objectives

© RICS Research 2014 11

2.0 Methods and Data

12 © RICS Research 2014

Using the Google Map search engine it was possible

© RICS Research 2014 13

3.1 Literature Review

Image source: Silken Photography / Shutterstock.com

14 © RICS Research 2014

Case study – Green roof

Green Roofs/vegetated roofs/ecoroofs

© RICS Research 2014 15

Figure 2 Permeable paving in the Dings, Bristol, UK.

Case study – Permeable paving

Permeable surfacing methods

16 © RICS Research 2014

Figure 3 Example of a Rain Stormwater planter in central Portland, USA.

Case study – Rain gardens

Rain gardens/stormwater planters

© RICS Research 2014 17

Case study – Treatment train

Image source: authors own

Combined SUDS methods/treatment trains

18 © RICS Research 2014

Figure 5 Typical green roof section

Plants – Grasses, herbs

Mulch or material to prevent

Section not to scale

© RICS Research 2014 19

Table 1 Attributes of extensive and intensive green roofs

Extensive green roof Intensive green roof

Cover large expanses of rooftop Small trees and shrubs feature