DC Greenworks 2010 Survey of Green Roof Incentive Policies PDF

Green Roof Incentives | A 2010 Resource Guide
Written By | Nora Shepard, GRP

02/01/2010
Green Roof Incentives | 2010 A Resource Guide
DC Greenworks, a 501 c3 non-profit, is the national capital region's preeminent green roof advocate and educator, as
well as a one stop shop for green roof consultation, design, and installation. DC Greenworks sees a vital connection
between economy and ecology, employment potential and environmental sustainability. We actively seek to discover,
promote, and deliver cutting edge solutions that are cost effective, eco-friendly, and socially beneficial. Our mission is to
promote urban social revitalization through environmental restoration. http://www.dcgreenworks.org/
Contact us today to learn more: P 202.518.6195 | info@greenworks.org
This research was generously funded by a Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grant from the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit that preserves and restores our nations native wildlife species and habitats. Created
by Congress in 1984, NFWF directs public conservation dollars to the most pressing environmental needs and matches
those investments with private funds. The Foundations method is simple and effective: we work with a full complement
of individuals, foundations, government agencies, nonprofits, and corporations to identify and fund the nations most
intractable conservation challenges. http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home
DC Greenworks and Nora Shepard would like to thank the following: Melissa Elander and Mike Moser, DC Greenworks
interns, for their diligent research of international and national green roof incentives; Rebeca Stack, LID Specialist,
District Department of Environment for her help with the Pilot Green Roof Subsidy in Washington, DC; the City of
Portland Ecoroof department; Kyle Diesner, City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability; Robin Henderson,
Program Manager, Cincinnati Green Roof Loan Program; Michael Berkshire, Chicago Green Projects Administrator
Sustainable Development Division; Bonnie Gerard, New York City Project Manager NYC 2010 Electrical Code & Special
Projects, Strategic Planning & Implementation; Elizabeth Burton, Anne Arundel County Engineer Manager, Office of
Planning and Zoning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urbanization, the conversion of forest and agricultural land into urban and suburban area, has caused the degradation
of the natural environment through development and increased impervious surface area including roads, parking lots
and building roof tops. As the deleterious effects of urban development have compounded with increased water
pollution from stormwater runoff, decreased air quality and increased temperatures in the urban core, concern for
urban environmental remediation has become focused on innovative building technologies that reduce buildings
negative environmental impacts. Vegetated green roofs combine development of the built environment with natural
design to mimic the natural ecosystem functions found in nature. They have the potential to remediate deteriorating
urban environments across the United States and improve cities sustainability. This study provides an overview of
green roofs, the public and private benefits they embody and evaluates existing national and international green roof
incentives to make recommendations for green roof incentive implementation and policy formation.
The incentives are categorized into direct financial, indirect financial and intangible incentives as well as emerging
regulation. The direct financial incentives discussed are grants, loans, tax credits and abatements. The indirect financial
incentives are feebates and fee reductions. And the intangible incentives are density bonuses, fast-track permitting,
awards and utility rebates. The green roof and green building incentives covered in this study, compiled from February
to September 2009, affect 38,240,000 Americans, 12.4% of the current population. Over 14,000 square miles of the
United States is encompassed by green roof and green building incentives, 0.5% of the total US land area.
Based on the compilation of incentives from across the country, literature review and individual interviews with program
administrators, DC Greenworks makes the following recommendations: (1) examine existing codes and building
regulations to ensure barriers for green roof implementation are eliminated; (2) support green roof program
administration through the creation of a dedicated green roof advisory position; (3) collect performance and prescriptive
data on projects to substantiate the benefits provided; (4) increase public education and outreach through improved
resources and outlets; (5) cultivate a culture of urban environmental awareness linking green roofs to public health
issues; (6) include green roof systems in the Energy Star Program as a qualified roofing material eligible for federal tax
credits.
Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide
2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . 1
Green roof elements . 2
Benefits of green roofs 3
Private benefits . 3
Extended life of conventional roofs .. 3
Increased building energy efficiency 3
Improved function of photovoltaics . 3
Reduced size of HVAC equipment .. 4
Additional urban green space and increase property values .. 4
Noise reduction 4
Food production . 4
Public benefits 5
Reduced urban heat island effect .. 5
Reduced strain on urban infrastructure . 5
Improved air quality . 5
Improved water quality . 5
Reduced urban stormwater runoff quantity .. 6
Increased Urban Habitat .. 6
Carbon Sequestration . 7
Challenges for widespread green roof implementation 7
Initial capital cost 7
Lack of standards and performance data . 7
Stakeholder lack of green roof knowledge .. 8
Structural loading capacity of roofs .. 8
Development of green roof standards 9
FLL . 9
ASTM .. 9
GRP .. 9
Need for green roofs and incentives .. 10
Green roof incentive and policy implementation . 11
Green roof incentive options 12
2010
Direct . 12
Indirect . 12
Intangible 12
Regulation .. 12
Green Building Ratings as Incentives 12
International examples of green roof incentives .. 13
Germany . 13
Switzerland 14
Austria .. 14
China .. 14
Singapore 14
England 14
Canada .. 15
Analysis of green roof incentives in the United States . 16
Examples of green roof incentives in the United States .. 19
Direct Incentives . 19
Tax incentives . 19
Grant programs . 21
Loans . 24
Indirect Incentives . 25
Fee reduction | feebates and fee credits 25
Intangible Incentives 27
Fast track or priority permitting 27
Density/ zoning bonus . 28
Utility Rebates 29
Recognition and Awards 30
Regulation 30
Recommendations for green roof incentive implementation . 31
Remove barriers to green roof incentives .. 31
Create a variety of incentive packages in conjunction with regulation .. 32
Increase education and outreach . 32
Create a baseline of green roof interest and understanding . 33
Conduct research and compile performance data 33
2010
Implement demonstration projects to form case studies 34

Formalize green roof incentive administration . 34
Provide technical assistance and create a green roof specialist position 35
Cultivate a culture of urban environmental awareness .. 35
Additional recommendations . 35
Energy star ratings for green roofs . 35
Eco-districts . 36
Green roof ready construction .. 36
Conclusion . 37
Endnotes . 39
2009
INTRODUCTION
If one accepts the simple proposition that nature is the arena of life and that a modicum of knowledge of her processes is
indispensible for survival and rather more for existence, health and delight, it is amazing how many apparently difficult
problems present ready resolution.
Ian McHarg, Design with Nature
In the United States, the US Census Bureau states population growth is 0.9 percent per year which sparks increased
urbanization - the conversion of forest and agricultural land into suburban and urban area - to accommodate the
burgeoning population.1 The urban and suburban areas continue to develop and redevelop to meet the needs of the
escalating population. Between 1992 and 1997, on average, over 2 million acres of rural land was developed annually,
over 11 million total acres over the 5 year period.2 Based on the population growth during the five year period, over 1
acre of land was developed for every person born. Between 1950 and 1990 the population more than doubled, yet the
urbanized area in the United States had more than quintupled.3 The rampant, unchecked development which exceeds
the needs of the current population puts our valuable natural resources in jeopardy and threatens the quality of life for
future generations.
With an estimated 400 billion square feet of building stock predicted to be online within the next 30 years, the trend of
unchecked urbanization does not appear to be slowing as natural areas are reduced and ecosystems are irreversibly
altered.4 These natural areas comprised of vegetation and soil help to regulate temperatures, absorb and filter
stormwater for ground water recharge, provide wildlife habitat to maintain biodiversity and provide respite for urban
populations from the hardscape of parking lots, buildings and roads. Rarely, if ever are urbanized areas returned to their
natural state. As development continues, it is imperative to discover innovative building techniques that mimic natural
processes and reverse the negative impact of urbanization on the natural environment.
The existing building stock presents an additional challenge. A Brookings Institute study in 2004 estimated that by
2030, 42 percent of land currently considered urban in the United States will be redeveloped.5 Over the next 20 years
when redevelopment opportunities arise, utilizing innovative building technologies that offer ecological services is
imperative to reduce the environmental impact of the built environment and bring natural processes back into the
urban fold. In urban areas where space is priced at a premium, developers and regulators alike must be creative to find
ways to incorporate nature through vegetated spaces as an aspect of the built form. The expense of land dictates
developing all available land to its highest possible use to maintain bottom lines and profit margins. Vegetated green
roofs, an innovative building technology, combine urban development with natural design to lessen the negative
environmental impact. They mimic the natural ecosystem functions found in nature. They have the potential to
remediate the deteriorating urban environments across the United States and improve cities overall sustainability.
Vegetated green roofs must become the rule, not the exception in order for municipalities to realize the public benefits
of widespread implementation. Incentive programs encourage increased utilization of green roofs. The different
programs can decrease the upfront additional capital needed to install green roofs, provide technical assistance to
facilitate projects and create positive publicity for developers by showcasing the projects that incorporate the desirable,
environmentally friendly technique. The following study outlines green roof basics which include the benefits and
challenges for implementation and analyzes the green roof incentives that have been implemented across the United
States to date. Finally, based on the data compiled from February to September 2009, recommendations are made on
how to ensure the success of green roof incentives once in place.
1|P a g e
2009
GREEN ROOF ELEMENTS

A vegetated green roof is an engineered roof technology that incorporates vegetation into the roof structure of
buildings from single family homes and garages to commercial and industrial buildings that create acres of impervious
surface area. Ecoroofs, live or living roofs and roof gardens are different names for vegetated green roofs based on
German designs from the 1970s.6 They are generally comprised of a root barrier, protection fabric, a drainage layer,
filter fabric, growing medium and vegetation ranging from low profile, self-sowing plants such as sedum to full size
deciduous trees, layered on top of the waterproof membrane of a conventional roof.
Figure 1| Vegetated green

roof cross section of a typical
green
roof
system.
Depending on the system
components and materials
used for the waterproof
membrane, the root barrier
may be combined with the
waterproof membrane or
incorporated into the filter
fabric.
There are three widely

accepted classifications of vegetated green roofs: extensive, semi intensive, and intensive. The depth of growing
medium and subsequently the variety of plant life they support are the major differentiating factors, as well as weight of
the system, cost and maintenance over time.7
Extensive | An extensive green roof is generally defined as having a depth of 1 6 inches of growing medium and
weighing between 10-35 pounds per square foot (up to 50 pounds per square foot fully saturated).
Semi-intensive | A semi-intensive green roof is generally defined as having a depth of 6 10 inches of growing medium
and weighing between 35 50 pounds per square foot (up to 90 pounds per square foot fully saturated).
Intensive | An intensive green roof is generally defined as having a depth of more than 10 inches of growing medium
and weighing more than 50 pounds per square foot (over 100 pounds per square foot fully saturated).
Figure 2 | From left to right Loose laid green roof system

vs. Modular system.
Photo: left Nora Shepard;
right Liveroof of Haworth
green roof install in 2007
2|P a g e
2009
Vegetated green roofs are composed of loose-laid/ built-up or modular systems, selected for the different needs of
individual projects. With loose-laid or built-up systems each consecutive layer of the system is placed on top of the next
in-situ on the roof. Modular systems or pre-vegetated trays contain the various layers of the green roof system in plastic
trays that are placed directly on the waterproof membrane or insulation. Loose-laid systems provide greater flexibility in
design and allow for the substitution of different green roof components to meet the needs of each individual roof.
Modular systems provide easy access to the membrane for maintenance and immediate vegetated coverage,
eliminating the plant establishment period.
BENEFITS OF GREEN ROOFS

Green roofs provide a multitude of both private and public benefits which entice private development through
economic savings over time and attract interest from regulators for the sustainable urban environmental remediation
capacity. In the past, green roof benefits have been difficult to quantify. Dedicated green roof research is continually
conducted around the world and increasingly provides the concrete data needed to support the claims. The public and
private green roof benefits are as follows:
PRIVATE BENEFITS
Extended life of conventional roofs |The multiple layers of a green roof protect the waterproof membrane from
the ultra-violet (UV) rays of the sun. An exposed membrane experiences expansion and contraction from the
extreme heat fluctuation found on a roof. Over time cracks and tears will form that compromise the integrity of
the membrane and its ability to repel water. A green roof extends the life of a conventional roof 2-3 times,
from around 15-20 years to 40- 60 years or more which saves money and reduces the need to reroof as
frequently. The amount of construction waste sent to landfills is subsequently reduced and the hefty disposal
fees are eliminated. For example, the green roof on Rockefeller Plaza in New York City was installed in 1936 and
has not needed replacement to this day. In Portland, Oregon, the Edith Green/ Wendell Wyatt Federal Building
constructed an intensive green roof over a below grade parking garage in 1975. The roof is now 34 years old
and has not encountered a leak or any repairs. According to the General Services Administration (GSA), there is
no anticipation for roof replacement in the near future.8
Increased energy efficiency | Green roofs increase roof insulation and reduce the need for heating and cooling
which reduces energy consumption. The cooling of buildings in the US consumes at least a sixth of the energy
used per year, a cost of approximately $40 billion dollars.9 An extensive green roof will typically add around R2
to the existing roof insulation which increases as temperatures rise and regular irrigation is applied to maintain
soil moisture. Therefore under the right conditions the R-value could increase by R6 or 30 percent above code
with R19 required for roof insulation.10 This significantly decreases the energy needed to heat and cool the
building.
Improved function of photovoltaic panels | Vegetated green roofs can improve the function of photovoltaic
panels through the evaporation of moisture from the soil through the plants which cools the surrounding air and
reduces the ambient air temperature. For example, the green roof on Chicago City Hall in the heat of a 90
degree Fahrenheit day in August 2001 reached 119 degrees Fahrenheit, 50 degrees cooler than the black tar
roof of the Cook County building also located in Chicago. 11 And in a recent study published in the European
Journal of Scientific Research, solar panels operated between 77 82% efficiency with ambient air temperatures
around 90 109 degrees Fahrenheit.12 The moderate temperatures found on green roofs mean more efficient
solar panels, and therefore more electricity produced which reduces the payback period of the panels and
further reduces the dependence on conventional energy sources.
3|P a g e
2009
Reduced size of HVAC equipment and use |The greater roof insulation and subsequent energy efficiency,
necessitate smaller HVAC systems to heat and cool the same size buildings to save money. Additionally, the
significant reduction of the ambient air temperature improves the efficiency of the HVAC systems once installed.
Every ton of air conditioning takes 84 kilowatt hours to produce.13 Every time the system does not run money is
saved. Furthermore, the reduced usage prolongs the life of the system and therefore reduces the need for
replacement.
Additional urban green space and increased property values | Added green space is an amenity on developed
sites. It increases the value of the property and draws higher rental rates. Green roofs provide variation to
urban rooftops and reduce the sea of grey impervious surfaces that form urban areas, improving the aesthetics
of individual buildings and the urban form as a whole. Our biophilic instincts attract us to landscapes that are
reminiscent of savannahs, bond us to natural systems and subconsciously draw us to the aesthetics of open
green space such as green roofs. A recent study of residential properties sold between January 2001 to March of
2006 in Hennepin County, Minnesota by Embrace Open Space, found that over 81% of the single-family
residences increased in value due to the presence of open space (homes with one or more acres of open space
is within 200 feet or within a half mile of a large open space exceeding 50 acres). 14 According to the study the
overall impact county-wide was just over $3.5 billion.15 In Philadelphia, a 2005 study of community green
investments including vacant lot stabilization mowed grass, ringed with trees and tree planting- found that
vacant land improvements result in surrounding housing values increasing up to 30 percent.16 Especially in urban
areas as densely developed as New York City, open green space creates a premium for property values. A report
by New Yorkers for Parks and Ernst and Young found that the per-square-foot sale prices for single-family homes
located within one to two blocks of Prospect Park were 32-153% higher than homes 3 to 4 blocks away.
Additionally the average market value per lot square foot in 2007 for the entire Central Park Area was $979.00,
47 percent above the average for all of Manhattan with higher average per lot square foot values for blocks
closest to the park.17
Furthermore, green roofs are generally one component of a more comprehensive green building design or
retrofit which make the buildings more usable and desirable for the occupants. A CoStar Study of LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) buildings, found the price per square foot was increased
$171.00, the space rented for a premium of $11.24 per square foot, and the occupancy rates increased by 3.8
percent over conventional commercial buildings leasable space.18 Additionally, the General Service
Administration found 27 percent higher occupant satisfaction in their green building stock, leading to longer
tenant retention.19 Although these studies are not green roof specific, they illustrate the power of green
buildings in the marketplace and the potential for green roofs to improve building revenue.
Noise reduction | Depending on the thickness of the system and the depth of the growing medium, a green roof
can reduce outside noise pollution by as much as 40 decibels. This equates to reduced noise levels from busy
city traffic (70 db) to a quite private office (30 db).20 21 Along busy traffic corridors this becomes a building
amenity and could translate into higher property values.
Food production | The National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service states that fresh produce can travel
between 1300 2000 miles from farm to table, increasing the cost of fresh food through energy consumption
and transportation costs.22 Utilizing green roofs for growing produce reduces food miles traveled, reduces
waste from fresh foods spoiling on grocery shelves and expands the fresh food options for some urban dwellers.
Food security for urban populations is improved with better access, lower costs and healthier options. For
example, the 6000 square foot Greenpoint green roof in Brooklyn is growing cabbage and kale, peas and
lettuces, peppers and mixed greens and the organic content in the soil is coming from composted food scraps
from local restaurants. The restaurants Marlow and Sons and Anella are currently buying the produce with
other local restaurants interested.23 The Fairmont Hotel in Vancouver has a green roof with a 2,100 square
4|P a g e
2009
foot herb garden which produces between $25,000 30,000 annually and helps reduce the payback time for
the green roof while fresh herbs supply the hotels restaurant. 24
PUBLIC BENEFITS
Reduce the urban heat island effect | Research has found that cities can be up to 10 degrees F warmer than the
surrounding areas.25 During the day, the black asphalt of roads, parking lots, and rooftops that has replaced
much of the natural vegetation absorb the suns heat and release it back into the atmosphere at night, which
prevents the cooling of the urban core. A typical dark colored roof can reach temperatures of over 130 degrees
F in the summer, while green roofs remain around 100 degrees F.26 Through evapotranspiration in conjunction
with the reduction the impervious surface area of conventional roofs, the ambient air temperature is reduced.
An Environment Canada study, led by Brad Bass, found that if 6% (70 million square feet) of the available roof
space was greened in Toronto, the summer air temperature could be reduced by 1.8 degrees F.27 Furthermore,
for every 1.8 degree F reduction in summer temperatures, the peak energy demand would drop by 4%,
conserving electricity and saving money.28
Reduce the strain on infrastructure | As a result of the capacity of green roofs to retain stormwater runoff, they
reduce the strain on the conventional stormwater infrastructure.
For example, a cost benefit analysis
conducted on the Portland Building Ecoroof and its stormwater runoff retention capacity, found approximately
$60,000.00 in immediate savings through reduction of stormwater infrastructure and the need to replace or add
additional stormwater pipes as the city grows.29 Similarly the ability of green roofs to extend the life of
conventional roofs by more than 40 years saves on construction materials needed for reroofing as well as the
associated handling, transporting and tipping fees for construction and debris removal. Furthermore, the
diminished amount of construction waste conveyed to landfills reduces the need for expansion and the costly
process of new landfill approval and development.
Improved air quality | As temperatures rise urban air quality diminishes30 , evidenced through increased asthma
and respiratory problems for urban dwellers. In 2007 the National Institutes of Health estimated the total cost
of asthma in the United States to be $14.7 billion.31 Additionally asthma disproportionately effects low income
populations, minorities, and children living in inner cities.32 While research to what extent different green roof
vegetation effects air quality is limited, common urban vegetation such as street trees have been proven to
remove pollutants and improve air quality. Based on the Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model, in 1994 an
estimated 1821 metric tons of air pollutants at an estimated $9.5 million value to society were removed by New
York City trees through the leaf cover.33
Improve water quality | Rain water is retained and detained by the vegetation and the growth medium of the
green roof, the system reduces the pollutant loading into local waterways. The vegetation found on green roofs
filters particulate matter from the air to improve the quality. Green roofs can reduce the amount of nitrogen
oxides, from both industrial point sources and vehicular nonpoint sources, found in stormwater runoff by 47%.34
However, a recent EPA green roof report found that concentrations of pollutants such as nitrate in runoff from
green roofs could be elevated because of lechate from the growth medium, but because of the 50% runoff
reduction, the loading of the nutrients was decreased to improve the overall water quality. Additionally, as the
green roofs age and the amount of compost found in the growing medium diminish, lower concentrations of
harmful nutrients are found in the runoff. The EPA research indicates that green roofs improve water quality
through the significant reduction in the quantity of water that leaves the roof as runoff. If green roofs are
implemented as a BMP for water quality, it should be part of a treatment train, where the runoff from the roof
is diverted into another bio-retention area. 35
5|P a g e
2009
Reduce urban stormwater runoff quantity | Urban stormwater runoff, rainwater flowing across impervious
surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, rooftops is conveyed off-site into local waterways or water treatment plant
by storm drainage systems. Urban development increases the impervious surface area. Every time building
occurs the natural hydrologic cycle, where water is released to the earth through rain events, infiltrates into the
ground for use by vegetation or is evaporated back into the atmosphere where it eventually falls back to earth
as rain, is altered. As stormwater runs across the various impervious surfaces it picks up pollutants which are
deposited into water ways. Additionally, the water increases in velocity as it travels across the developed area
and through pipes. The peak flow of stormwater can be 2 to 5 times higher post development than before land
is disturbed,36 ultimately causing stream bank erosion and increased sedimentation of waterways.
The impact of stormwater runoff from wet weather events in urban areas is compounded by combined sewers
and subsequent combined sewer overflows (CSOs). A combined sewer as defined by EPA is a wastewater
collection system owned by a state of municipality (as defined by Section 502(4) Of the Clean Water Act) that
conveys domestic, commercial and industrial wastewaters and stormwater runoff through a single pipe system
to publicly-owned treatment works (POTW).37 And a CSO is defined as the discharge from a CSS (combined
sewer system) at a point prior to the POTW treatment plant.38
The discharge is conveyed to combined sewer outfalls which flow directly into local waterways. During storm
events of as little as 0.10 inches of rain the outfalls dump untreated sewage into the surrounding waters carrying
pathogens, solids, debris and toxic substances and creating a public health risk as well as degrading the aquatic
habitat through impaired water quality.39 These systems are extremely outdated and complex and costly to
update.
Therefore, the need for innovative solutions to help retain stormwater on site and return to
predevelopment hydrologic functions grows with each new development and added stress on the system.
Approximately 40 million people are living in 32 states (including DC) and 746 cities with combined
sewer
systems comprised of 9,348 outfalls which dump an estimated 850 billions of gallons of untreated sanitary
sewage into our waterways every year.40 Although this is a relatively small percent of the total wastewater
treated each year (11,425 billion gallons in 2000) the environmental impact and public health threat it creates is
significant. Beach closures, shellfish bed closures and contaminated drinking water resources can all be
attributed to CSOs.41 Furthermore, according to the EPAs Clean Watersheds Needs Survey in 2000, the cost to
reduce the nations CSO volume by 85% to approximately 127.5 billion gallons annually would cost over $50
billion dollars or approximately $62.3 billion dollars in 2009.42 43
Green roofs retain between 40 90% of stormwater runoff from the roof depending on the climate44 45 and are
a Best Management Practice (BMP) or more precisely, a Stormwater Control Measure (SCM) that reduce and
eliminate CSOs.46 The vegetation and growing medium act like sponges to absorb and hold the water on the
roof where it then evaporates or is used by the plants. Additionally stormwater runoff that exceeds the roofs
retention capacity is filtered through the system to improve the runoff quality, slow it down, reduce the peak
flow and cool it to preserve the temperature of the surrounding waters and help maintain a stable aquatic
environment.
Increased Urban Habitat |The conversion of natural land into urban land use fragments and reduces wildlife
habitat threatening biodiversity. Green roofs provide necessary resting spots for birds and insects for migration
across urban areas. A sample of 11 green roofs in Basel Switzerland found 172 species of beetles.47 10% of the
beetles are listed on the Swiss Red Data Book that contains threatened and endangered species. 48 The older
roofs with the greatest variation in form and growth medium depth supported the highest density of beetles.49
In a study undertaken by Gyongyver Kadas on the potential of green roofs to support urban biodiversity, older
green roofs were found to support diverse communities of invertebrates, including spiders, beetles and wasps,
ants and bees. The data gathered from four green roofs and six biodiverse roof sites over a three year study
6|P a g e
2009
period included almost 10% of the whole UK national and almost 20% of the Greater London spider fauna50 to
prove the importance of green roofs for urban habitat creation and biodiversity maintenance.
Carbon Sequestration |Green roof vegetation and growing medium reduce green house gases in urban areas.
The plants use the carbon dioxide in the air, convert it to starch and eventually, through respiration, re-release it
as oxygen, which reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. In a study conducted at Michigan State
University, an extensive green roof was found to sequester 375 grams of Carbon per square meter of vegetated
green roof space. Additionally Getter found, if an urban area the size of Detroit, approximately 140 square
miles, with a population of one-million was retrofitted with green roofs, the amount of carbon dioxide annually
emitted by 10,000 mid-sized SUVs and trucks could be sequestered in the green roof vegetation to remove it
from the air.51
CHALLENEGES FOR WIDESPREAD GREEN ROOF IMPLEMENTATION

Based on the numerous benefits previously stated, green roofs have the ability to address different urban
environmental problems and reverse the negative environmental impact of urban development. Although green
roofing has been around for centuries, dating back to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and widely used in Europe since
the 1970s52, in the United States the technique has only begun to attract widespread interest over the last 10 years. As
the green roof industry continues to expand in the United States, so have the number of green roof systems, products
and companies to meet the increased demand. Based on the green roof industry association Green Roofs for Healthy
Cities (GRHC), the industry grew 35 percent in 2008.53 The stated growth rate is based on projects developed by selfreporting GRHC members and underestimates total industry expansion. Regardless of the annual growth, the industry
is faced with the following challenges for universal green roof implementation:
Initial up front capital cost | Green roofs cost more than conventional roofs. Prices per square foot vary depending on
type, size and whether it is a new or retrofit project. Extensive green roofs may cost $5.00 $20.00 per square foot
above the cost of a conventional roof. Intensive green roofs are more expensive and may cost $20.00 or more. The
additional cost must be justified in terms of the economic benefits associated with green roofs for widespread
implementation. When using life cycle costs, green roofs save money through energy savings, stormwater impact fee
credits, and the extended life of the roof which saves money on reroofing. The public sector creation of incentives
encourages increased implementation and further reduces the barrier of the additional up-front green roof cost.
Lack of standards and performance data | As an emerging industry in the United States, standard green roof design,
installation and maintenance practices are still being developed. Additionally, many green roofs that have been installed
are not monitored for performance and proper function.
Standards | Establishment of specific American green roof standards is necessary to eliminate the perceived
risks associated with the infant green roof industry. Beginning with FLL in Germany, ASTM, the American Society
of Testing and Materials continues to develop standards for materials and performance specific to the United
States. (See Green Roof Standards for specific information). The standards will help to regulate expectations
and further reduce the perceived risks and uncertainties which impede widespread green roof implementation.
Performance data | The lack of performance data compiled from monitored green roofs and continued testing
of materials and designs increases the uncertainty with green roof technology. Although there are numerous
real benefits of green roofs, much of the performance data is from other countries or is anecdotal and building
results vary as greatly as building types do. It is difficult to transfer benefits such as stormwater retention and
energy savings across climates and various green roof systems and designs. Since economic viability is the key
7|P a g e
2009
ingredient for all development, the lack of consistent, proven data makes the case for the extra cost of a green
roof much more difficult. The more performance data that is gathered and publicly disseminated, the more
evident the cost savings will become to provide justification for the added cost.
Stakeholder lack of green roof knowledge | The green roof industry in the United States is faced with a lack of
awareness from all interested parties. The following stakeholders must have a clear understanding of the benefits green
roofs provide as well as access to standard project implementation and roof maintenance procedures to successfully
design and implement green roofs.
Development stakeholders | Development involves a variety of interested parties: architects, builders,

planners, contractors, consultants, tenants and customers, attorneys, bankers and investors, city officials,
inspectors, citizen advocacy groups, homeowner associations, and community organizers .54 All players in
building development must understand the benefits of green roofs and the value added to the project. The lack
of knowledge about the technology creates uncertainty and doubt and may lead to a potential green roof being
value engineered out of a project based on the perceived unjustifiable cost.
Associated industries | All professions that work with buildings must also understand green roofs. Insurance
companies, for example, assume that green roofs are a fire hazard and are uncertain on how to evaluate the
associated risk. As the industry has grown, studies have been conducted to illustrate how a properly designed,
installed and maintained green roof can reduce the risk of fire and presents no additional risk for property
insurance. In Germany, green roofs have garnered a better fire rating than conventional roofs because of the
use of succulents such as sedum and standard designs that incorporate gravel boarders and growth medium
high in mineral content that is fire retardant. 55 Some companies, determined to be innovators and leaders in
the insurance field, such as Firemans have created green building specific property insurance that covers green
roofs. Companies, such as FM (Factory Mutual) created green roof tests and associated fire risk.56 However,
there is still skepticism among insurance companies about green roofs ability to retard fire and an overall
deficiency of public information which creates continued obstacles to appropriately value and insure green
roofs.
Experienced green roofers | Among green roof industry professionals, there is a lack of established information
to ensure proper design, installation and function. In 2009 Green Roofs for Healthy Cities issued its first Green
Roof Professional exam and ultimately certified over 100 people in North America as Green Roof Professionals
(GRP)57. While the test covers green roof systems and conventional roofing systems benefits, cost, installation
and maintenance best practices, it does not require experience with actual green roof installation or design. The
GRP accreditation is a step towards the institutionalization of processes and design guidelines, but it cannot be
substituted for experience which is cultivated over time with every green roof installation.
Structural loading capacity of roofs for green roof retrofits | It is estimated that new construction only represents
about 2% of the commercial building stock in the US.58 A 2009 Center for American Progress report states that over half
of the buildings that will form our urban landscape in 30 years have already been built.59 The process to retrofit existing
buildings with green roofs is a more challenging and expensive process than green roofs incorporated into new
construction projects. The added weight of even the lightest extensive green roof systems may necessitate an increase
in the structural capacity of the roof. A structural engineer must determine the load bearing capacity of the current
structure and design plans for increased structural loading capacity where necessary. Older structures will likely present
additional obstacles along the way which adds to the time and the cost of the project. Regardless of the challenge of
green roof retrofits, the benefits of realizing a project such as this only once in the lifetime of the building are significant.
Urban green space is a commodity. The creation of usable vegetated open space for residents and tenants is a desired
amenity that will bring attention to the building, attract people, higher rental rates and sale prices to ensure the upfront
investment is economically as well as environmentally sound.
8|P a g e
2009
DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN ROOF STANDARDS

Design and installation procedures for green roofs have become more formalized across the industry through the
establishment of different regulatory standards, such as the FLL and ASTM standards. The process is more efficient
which helps reduce the cost through time savings and avoided installation problems. While individual municipalities are
beginning to design their own green roof design standards to meet local and regional goals, the following is an overview
of the current green roof industry standards.
FLL | Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau (FLL), was founded in 1975 and created
Guideline for the Planning, Execution and Upkeep of Green-Roof Sites.60 Until recently, the publication has been
the standard for green roof construction and maintenance around the world. The most recent addition of the
guide, released in 2002, was translated into English in 2004. The English version increased the accessibility for
North American use and helped kick-start the development of standards in the US. The guidelines are based on
the construction practices and climate in Germany and therefore are not a substitute for specific American
green roof standards but provide basic design and installation procedures.
ASTM | American Society of Testing and Materials organized a Green Roof Task Group in 2000, composed of 25
architects, scientists, roofing contractors, manufacturers and academicians to develop green roof standards as
the industry began to explode across North America.61 The FLL Guidelines were initially used as an outline and
guide.62 Today, standards continue to be developed and the following have been published: 63
E2396-05 | Standard Test Method for Saturated Water permeability of Granular Drainage Media
(Falling- Head Method) for Green Roof Systems
E2397-05 | Standard Practice for Determination of Dead Loads and Life Loads Associated with Green
Roof Systems
E2398-05 | Standard Test Method for Water Capture and Media Retention of Geocomposite Drain
Layers for Green Roof Systems
E2399-05 | Standard Test Method for Maximum Media Density of Dead Load Analysis of Green Roof
Systems
E2400-06 | Standard Guide for Selection, Installation, and Maintenance of Plants for Green Roof
Systems
WK25385 | New Guide for Green Roof Systems
WK25761 |New Standard Guide for Use of Expanded Shale, Clay or Slate (ESCS) as a Mineral Component
in Growing Media for Green Roof Systems
GRP | The Green Roof Professional Accreditation was established by Green Roofs
for Healthy Cities in 2009 to standardize the green roof processes of design,
project management and installation. Based on the idea that standard practice
will help ensure proper performance and formalize the industry, GRHC teaches
four comprehensive classes in both the vegetated green roof and conventional
roofing arts to provide interested parties with a baseline for proper green roof design, installation and
maintenance processes for project staff.64
Although the modern global green roof industry has grown immensely since the introduction of the FLL in 1975,
continued research and development of nationally and regionally accepted standards is imperative to regulate the
industry and to guarantee the expected benefits. Both industry and standards development will enable municipalities to
continue to replace traditional grey infrastructure with green infrastructure such as green roofs and have confidence
that the collective public benefits of the roofs are performing correctly to mitigate urban problems such as stormwater
runoff and the urban heat island effect.
9|P a g e
2009
Figure 3| left - Quorum Center

green roof, Raleigh, NC; right
1425 K Street, Washington, DC
Photos: Nora Shepard
NEED FOR GREEN ROOFS AND INCENTIVES

Using the commons as a cesspool does not harm the general public under frontier conditions, because there is
no public; the same behavior in a metropolis is unbearable.
James Hardin, Tragedy of the Commons, 1968
The tragedy of the commons is a result of rational individuals independent operations that only acknowledges their
own self interest and consequently degrades and destroys common publicly shared natural resources.65 In other words,
short term self interest out-weighs long term common-good and ultimately diminishes the shared resources. Therefore
on a micro-scale a single development in the urban landscape has minimal environmental impact. On a macro-scale in
highly urbanized, metropolitan areas the small negative environmental impacts are compounded, repeated over and
over, from building to building which results in pollution of waterways, reduced air quality, biodiversity loss and an
increase in urban temperatures.
Federal policies such as the Clean Air Act passed in 1970 and the Clean Water Act passed in 1972 address complex urban
environmental problems created by human activity and development. The regulatory controls of these acts bind all
levels of government to maintain certain environmental standards to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the public.
However the funding and specific regulatory actions are widely left to the local authorities. Based on research compiled
by the New York Times, the Clean Water Act has been violated more than 506,000 times since 2004.66 These violations
were enacted by more than 23,000 companies and other facilities, and the number increased by more than 16% from
2004 to 2007.67 Fewer than 3% of the Clean Water Act violations resulted in penalties imposed by state officials.68
Furthermore, the violations are associated with point source pollution pollution stemming from specific actions or
violations. The violations that have occurred since 2004, which total over half a million in number, do not encompass
the non-source point pollution from agricultural and stormwater runoff. The complex stormwater permitting process is
largely ineffective as urban areas expand and increase their impervious surface area. Traditional pipe and gutter
infrastructure is unable to handle the flow of runoff from rooftops, parking lots and roadways. Local governments
ensure compliance but consistently must stretch scarce resources to fund programs which are ultimately ineffectual due
to lack of enforcement. The situation has become an emergency as rivers and waterways remain unfishable and unswimmable. Waste water utilities are sued by organizations to push for change and increased public awareness but lack
of effective regulatory tools and resources mean attention is focused on the symptoms of the problem not on viable
solutions.
Innovation is imperative to a successful solution that reduces the cost burden, maintains growth and shrinks the
negative impact of urban environmental issues created by land conversion and development. To this end, green building
and low impact development are increasingly utilized to maintain and even restore the urban environment, to meet and
10 | P a g e
2009
often exceed the imposed environmental regulations and the needs of the growing population. Vegetated green roofs
are part of the green building movement and through public education and different incentive structures they are
accepted as an economical way to remediate urban environmental problems such as stormwater runoff, the urban heat
island effect and the lack of green space within urban cores. The intersection of public programs in conjunction with
private investment is crucial for the incorporation of vegetated green roofs into standard building design.
GREEN ROOF INCENTIVE AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

The decision to implement a green building or green roof incentive program is the first step. Based on municipalities in
North America that are leading the way in green roof implementation such as Portland, Oregon, Chicago, Illinois and
Toronto, Canada, a commitment to the creation of a culture around green roofs and their benefits to institutionalize the
building technique into development codes is vital for success.
As green building and green roofs continue to garner interest from private developers to municipal governments a
process for widespread implementation and policy development has evolved. In 2006 the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation compiled case studies to aid in continued policy implementation in Canada stating the 6 Phases of
Green Roof Policy Implementation.69 In 2009 the Green Infrastructure Foundation stated a similar process for ensuring
sustainable green infrastructure program and policy implementation.70 The basic framework is as follows:
1. Raise awareness through demonstration projects | A high profile demonstration project such as 1425 K Street
and the ASLA building in Washington, DC or Chicagos City Hall green roof garners publicity for the green roof
movement to generate interest and increase understanding. In conjunction to installing a demonstration
project for promotion, data collection on the performance is essential to clearly illustrate the realized benefits.
Without sufficient monitoring the green roof is an amenity that adds to the buildings interest and may attract
higher rental rates and better retention but the environmental impact remains anecdotal and does not aid in
progress towards substantial support and policy.
2. Community engagement through promotion and public education | Green roofs are a new technology in the
United States and therefore stakeholders in building development, public officials and the general public need
education about the form and function. A round table series, a task force, or stakeholder advisory board such as
the Toronto Environmental Roundtable should be formed in conjunction with a public outreach campaign to
create a culture around green roofs and their benefits.
3. Action plan development including incentives | Establish an action plan that contains concrete goals with
timeframes to track progress and utilizes a suite of direct and indirect incentives to aid in widespread
implementation. By offering a direct financial incentive such as a grant or tax credit as well as a density bonus
and a stormwater utility fee credit, the added cost of green roof installation is significantly reduced or
eliminated and developers are encouraged to incorporate green roofs into their projects to help obtain the
stated goals.
4. Technical research | Technical research is an individual step in the process but it should be incorporated into
the demonstration projects and public education. The performance of green roofs is contingent on design and
proper installation as well as the surrounding environment. Data needs to be compiled for green roofs built in
all geographical regions to help private developers and municipalities better understand the realized benefits in
different climates, varied architectural types and urban densities.
11 | P a g e
2009
5. Program and policy development to institutionalize green roofing | As people become familiar with green roof
installation and the benefits are clearly defined through multiple years of performance data collection,
regulation and policy may be implemented moving from a suite of incentives to encourage behavior to an
institutionalized green roof policy that incorporates regulation.
6. Continuous improvement | Track the efficacy of the program including: amount of interest, number of projects,
number of total green roof square feet and other quantifiable aspects to adapt the program for increased green
roof implementation and further incorporation into standard building practice.
The steps do not have to be accomplished in order; rather, they should continuously evolve with innovation. Each one
must be addressed to ensure support for green roofing strengthens and interest grows, ultimately making green roofs
more accessible for building owners and developers. Implementing regulation without stakeholder support and
understanding created through outreach and sufficient performance data may be detrimental to reach the stated goals
and ensuring widespread adoption.
GREEN ROOF INCENTIVE OPTIONS

Green roofs need to be a part of comprehensive sustainability initiatives formed by all municipalities. Their ability to
address multiple urban environmental problems at once elevates the importance and urgency of integration into the
urban form. Based on the added cost compared to other green building technologies, however, green roofs need
added incentive to attract private investment and reduce the perceived risks. The current available green roof
incentives in the United States have been categorized using the following framework:
Direct financial incentives | direct monetary inducements to encourage a certain behavior or action such as:
grants, tax credit and abatement and loans
Indirect financial incentives |indirect monetary inducements to encourage certain behaviors or actions such as:
fee reductions through feebates and fee credits such as stormwater utility fee credits
Intangible incentives | alternatives to monetary inducements to encourage certain behaviors or action such as:
density bonus, fast-track permitting, awards and expedited utility hook-up
Regulation | rules and guidelines created to direct certain human behavior and in this context direct building
development
Many of the incentive programs are relatively new, enacted in 2008 and 2009 and therefore the success of one
compared to another is undetermined at this point. Budget constraints, political will and public interest all influence
what will be effective in different localities making it tricky to tout the overall success of one program over another.
Regardless, knowing what incentives are currently utilized facilitates the implementation in other areas based on similar
regional climates, demographics or land area of a municipality. Policy makers work from current information and can
execute effective incentives.
Green Building Ratings as Incentives
Cities and counties of all sizes and across the five geographic regions, states and the federal government have realized
the importance of green building for the sustainability of our urban areas and urban environmental remediation. The
framework outlined above includes broader green building incentives and programs that inherently encompass green
roof development. Green Globes, Living Buildings and the US Green Building Councils LEED (Leadership in Energy and
12 | P a g e
2009
Environmental Design) programs all strive to promote, educate and advance sustainable green building practices. They
do not focus on a specific sustainable building technology but work to encourage comprehensive green design to reduce
the buildings impact on the urban environment and conserve natural resources. Green roofs are an environmentally
sensitive, sustainable building technology and are an intrinsic part of green building programs. Green building programs
constructed around LEED or other green building certification programs must be included in the assessment of green
roof incentives and evaluated continuously for the inclusion of green roofs.
For example, vegetated green roofs potentially help earn up to 19 LEED points: 1-3 points towards water efficiency
through stormwater management; 1 to 15 points for energy and atmosphere through reduced energy demand and
reduced HVAC system size; 1 point for urban heat island reduction; and 1 point for the innovation and design process.71
Recently, the USGBC adapted the point system to focus on regional environmental issues such as stormwater
management in the Southeast, which potentially provides additional incentive for green roof implementation in
geographic regions that experience the deleterious effects of stormwater runoff. Therefore, if a tax credit is awarded
for a certain level of LEED certification, it is providing direct financial reward for LEED, therefore providing financial
incentive for green roofs if incorporated into the project.
INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES OF GREEN ROOF INCENTIVES

Europe has been a pioneer in the green roof industry since the 1960s.72 As municipalities around the world strive to
increase the square footage of green roof space in the urban areas to enhance future sustainability, they look towards
the lessons and examples of successful green roof implementation in other localities. Municipalities in the United States
must incorporate the experience of previous green roof projects and incentive programs from around the world and
adapt them to reach their individual needs. The following are examples of green roof specific incentive programs from
countries around the world.
Germany | Green Roof Grant Program
Germany has promoted vegetated green roofs through incentives such as grant programs. Today the widely quoted
statistic is at least 14% of all flat roof space is greened.73 The Federal Nature Conservation Act in Germany regulates the
conversion of natural areas to urban development and mandates that the natural ecosystem is impacted as little as
possible. Vegetated green roofs mitigate the change in natural function of the site. The incorporation of the building
into the natural landscape, maintenance of habitat for biodiversity and reduced impervious area diminish the negative
environmental impacts of the building. The Federal Act in conjunction with various incentive programs and unrelenting
green roof advocates combined to make Germany a world leader in green roof implementation.
In 2004 a survey of the 1, 488 German municipalities with populations over 10,000 was completed by the FBB,
(Fachvereinigung Bauwerksbegrnung e.V) the main green roof association in Germany. Of the 398 (27%) respondents,
the results showed that 70 (18%) offer direct financial incentives, 201 (51%) offer stormwater fee credits, and 145 (36%)
incorporate green roof requirements into development. 74 It should be noted that those numbers omit some cities that
have green roof policies which reduces the overall percentages.75 In Berlin, the green roof subsidy, which ended for lack
of funding in 1997, reimbursed residents approximately 50% of green roof construction costs. Other green roof subsidies
to note in Germany are the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen which subsidizes 15.00 Euro per square meter or $2.05 USD
per square foot;76 Esslingen, near Stuttgart, pays 50% of the cost of the green roof and Darmstadt covers all the
associated green roof costs, up to 5000 Euro or $7375.50 USD.77 78
It should be noted that the lengthier establishment of the green roof industry in Germany (almost 40 years) in
conjunction with wide scale regulation and incentive plans has reduced the cost of green roof installation today. In
Germany, it is 2.5 times less expensive to install an extensive green roof with 4 of growing medium than it currently is
13 | P a g e
2009
in the United States.79 Therefore the lower per square foot grant incentives for green roofs provide a larger portion of
the overall green roof expense to provide more financial support for green roof implementation.
Switzerland | Green Roof Grant Program
At the end of 2005, Basel, one of Switzerlands 26 cantons had greened roughly 20% of the flat roofs in the city.80
Interested in the promotion of vegetated green roofs for energy savings and biodiversity protection, Basels Department
of Environment and Energy, through electricity fees, funded a two-year incentive in the mid-1990s to stimulate interest
and awareness. Basel invested 1 million Swiss Francs, roughly $983,000 USD81 in the incentive to provide grants of
approximately $1.65 per square foot. The city received 135 applications for the green roof subsidy, which led to 915,000
square feet of city roofscape being greened.82 A contest for the best looking green roof was held in order to help
promote the incentive to the public. The program was successful and funds were then allocated for a study to
document the benefits green roofs offered for biodiversity. Both the incentive program and the biodiversity research
have lead to the inclusion of green roofs in development regulations.83
Austria | Green Roof Grant Program
In Linz, the capital of Upper Austria, located on the Danube River, green roofs were introduced and promoted in 1985 to
address the citys lack of green space, first highlighted in the Green Space Plan of 1984. The higher installation costs of
green roofs caused skepticism amongst developers and in 1989 an incentive program was implemented - the first green
roof incentive in Austria. The program reimbursed up to 30% of the eligible costs (construction costs for the roof deck
and green roof materials, and if necessary the costs for the structural loading capacity upgrade of the roof).
Additionally, the subsidy was offered regardless of whether inclusion of a green roof was voluntary or mandated
through regulation to help mitigate the added expense. From 1989 to the end of 2001, 237 projects received green roof
subsidies totaling about $5,543,500.00 USD and incentivized approximately 2,884,730 square feet of green roofs in the
city.84 An additional $965,000 USD was invested in 2001 2002 adding another 505,720 square feet of green roof space.
Today the developers resistance to green roofs is almost nonexistent as many submitted building plans contain green
roofs from inception.85
China | Green Roof Gross Floor Area Incentive
In Hong Kong, green roofs may be exempted from gross floor area (GFA) and site coverage (SA) calculations if they meet
specific conditions in the building ordinance.86 With the exemption, additional GFA may be constructed to create more
leasable or sellable space which ultimately increases the profit of the development. The city enacted the incentive to
promote green roofs as an innovative building technology that improves environmental performance throughout the life
cycle of the building.87
Singapore | Green Roof Gross Floor Area Incentive
In Singapore, greened area, which includes green roofs, is not included in the buildings gross floor area (GFA) and
therefore the GFA of the building maybe increased up to 10%.88 The incentive began in 1993 as an effort of the Urban
Redevelopment Authority to illustrate public sector support to maintain Singapore as a Garden City with the reduction
of the urban heat island (UHI) and a reduction in energy use for cooling the built environment.89
England | Endangered Species Protection
An endangered species of Thrush, the Black Redstart, has been the impetus for green roof implementation in England.
Based on Londons success with the implementation of green or rubble roofs to maintain the habitat of the bird,
Manchester developed a Greater Manchester Biodiversity Plan in 2008 which proposes to replace lost Black Redstart
habitat with green roofs on redeveloped sites. Development proposals must be accompanied by an assessment of Black
Redstarts and where the birds are found. Based on the inventory, mitigation measures such as green roofs must be
proposed in order to receive development approval. Manchesters goal is 50 green roofs in the next five years.90
14 | P a g e
2009
Canada |Green Roof and Cool Roof Grant Programs

Toronto, with the help of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, an international nonprofit trade organization committed to
expanding the green roof industry, is one of the world leaders in green roof implementation. In 2006, the Toronto
Water and the Toronto Environment office implemented the Green Roof Pilot Incentive Program and funded 16 green
roof projects.91 The program was revised in 2007 and provided additional square footage funds of $20.00 CAD per
square meter or $1.78 USD per square foot up to $9,250.00 USD (residential) and $78,700.00 USD (all other building
types) per project for the installation of green roofs.92 93 The pilot was enacted to improve Torontos building stock as
well as help reduce the urban heat island effect, manage stormwater runoff and increase the energy efficiency of the
buildings as well as to enhance biodiversity and improve the air quality. The pilot began after a 2005 cost-benefit
analysis was completed by Reyerson University to illustrate the numerous public and private benefits realized with large
scale green roof implementation. The pilot program funded 46 green roof projects and paved the way for the current
Eco-roof Incentive Program which also includes cool roofs. The new grant incentive is intended to complement the
Toronto Green Roof Bylaw which was passed in May 2009. To date the Eco-roof Incentive program has received 26
applications, of which 22 of the projects were funded, 14 (almost 64%) are green roof projects. These projects have
added an additional 87,188 square feet of green roofs to the Toronto skyline.94 95
Quebec has also implemented green roof grant subsidies in the past funded through Gaz Metros Energy Efficiency Fund.
The grant started in 2003 to promote green roofs for energy efficiency and funded $4.62 per square foot. It was the first
green roof grant incentive in Canada but ended in 2007 after only 10 applications over the course of the 4 years were
received.96 Although green roofs have proven to increase the energy efficiency of buildings, the ability to quantify the
exact amount is still being developed.
Figure 4 | left Pullen

Baptist Church green roof,
Raleigh, NC; middle FED EX
Global Exchange green roof,
UNC, Chapel Hill, NC; right
green roof bird house,
Raleigh, NC.
Photos: Nora Shepard
15 | P a g e
2009
ANALYSIS OF GREEN ROOF INCENTIVES IN THE UNITED STATES
Figure 5 | Green roof incentives in the United States

(map includes both green roof specific and green
building incentives).
The AIA study, Local Leaders in

Sustainability, found that 92 of the 661
American cities with populations greater than 50,000 have green building programs. An additional 36 cities indicated
that they were in the advanced stages of development for future programs.97 The programs include both green roof
specific and green building incentives. As of September 2009, from the USGBC Public Policy Database, the LEED
initiatives including legislation, executive orders, resolutions, ordinances, policies, and incentives are found in 45 states,
including 195 localities (131 cities, 36 counties, and 28 towns), 34 state governments, 13 federal agencies or
departments, 17 public school jurisdictions and 39 institutions of higher education across the United States.98 Based on
the research conducted between February and September 2009, figure 5 exhibits the location of the green roof
incentives, both green roof specific and broader green building incentives found across the United States.
Figure 6 | Using 2008 estimated populations,

municipalities of 1,300 to over 8 million people
have implemented green roof incentives of some
type.
16 | P a g e
2009
Figure 7 | Based on the green roof incentives

represented in the graph, municipalities with land
areas ranging from 2.2 to 2126 square miles have
implemented green roof incentives. The total land
area effected by direct, indirect and intangible green
roof incentives in the United States is 14,834 square
miles (not including the state incentives).
42,374,499 Americans live in cities that

support green building99 and 38,240,000
Americans live in cities that have
implemented incentives to further expand
the utilization of green roofs and green
building technologies, which do not include
the state incentive programs. The cities with active incentive programs affect a total land area in the United States of
14,834 square miles. Figures 6, 7 and 8 illustrate the diverse populations, land areas and population densities of
municipalities that have implemented green roof and green building incentives. The figures indisputably portray the
ability for all municipalities to offer some form of green roof or broader green building incentive and encourage
innovative development.
Figure 8| Muncipalities with population densities

ranging from 31 people per square mile to 31,739
people per square mile have implemented different
green roof incentives. (In 2000, the median
population density in the United States was 2,590
people per square mile).
Implementation of green building incentives has occurred in every geographic region of the United States. As illustrated
in Figure 9, the West and the Northeast lead the way in green roof incentive implementation. The Southwest currently
has the least incentives implemented and does not have a single green roof specific incentive. Similarly, the Southeast
has a comparable amount of green building incentives to the Northeast and the West but no green roof specific
incentives are found.
17 | P a g e
2009
Figure 9 | The West and the Northeast lead the way in

green roof incentive implementation. The Southwest
currently has implemented the least number of green
roof incentives and does not have a single green roof
specific incentive.
Similarly, the Southeast has a
comparable amount of green roof incentives to the
Northeast and the West but does not have any green
roof specific incentives.
Today there are around 90 direct, indirect

and intangible green roof incentives across
the county with more implemented each
year as shown in Figure 10. There are 35
direct, 11 indirect and 34 intangible incentives represented in the figure. Of the programs represented in the figures,
11% are green roof specific incentives and 89% are broader green building incentives, incorporated due to the significant
role green roofs play as part of a comprehensive green building design.
Figure 10 | Total number of direct (35) , indirect (15)

and intangible (34) green roof incentives
represented is 84. This is based on data compiled
from February to September 2009. (Not every
program is represented in the chart because some
implementation dates were not found).
Finally, the break down of the different

direct , indirect and intangible incentives by
type in figure 11, it is evident that tax credits and abatements and grant programs are the most utilized direct
incentives, while fasttrack permitting and density bonuses are the most utilized intangible incentives generally being
incorporated into conventional building programs. Technical assistance for green building and green roofs might be
available in a municipality but not well publicized as an incentive and therefore not captured in the analysis.
Additionally, the indirect financial incentives are characterized by different types of fee reduction from feebates to
permit fee reductions and stormwater utility fee credits. It should be noted that there is not sufficient data on the
number of stormwater utilities across the country. Therefore, it is difficult to address all the stromwater fee credits in
the country at this time that incorporate green roofs as a potential credit and likely that the indirect incentives are
underrepresented in this body of data.
18 | P a g e
2009
Figure 10 | 90 direct, indirect and intangible green

roof incentives are represented based on data
compiled between February and September 2009.
EXAMPLES OF GREEN ROOF INCENTIVES IN THE UNITED STATES

The United States green roof incentives have been broken down into direct financial, indirect financial and intangible
incentives and are discussed in order from the most utilized form of incentive in each category to the least in accordance
with the programs represented in the analysis. The green roof specific programs found in Portland, Oregon; New York
City and the Bronx, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC along
with some innovative examples of green building incentives are discussed in the following sections.
DIRECT FINANCIAL GREEN ROOF INCENTIVES

Direct financial incentives for green roofs are monetary inducements to encourage a certain behavior or action such as
tax credits and abatement, grants, and loans.
Tax Incentives | There are 15 green building and 2 green roof specific tax credit or abatement incentive programs. The
chart below lists several examples.
State
city/ county
name
Specifics
Start date
urban
problem
addressed
Maryland
Anne
Arundel
County
Bill 85-07: Anne

Arundel County
Stormwater
Management Tax
Credit
Property owners apply for a credit to their property taxes

if they implement stormwater management techniques
that reduce the overall runoff of stormwater on their
property. Available to residential and commercial
property owners in the County; tax credit up to 10% of the
cost of the material and installation of an approved
stormwater management practice, limited to $10,000.00
extended over a 5 year period; if you are required by law
to do something, no credit is available; must remove 20%
of existing impervious surface
2004
Stormwater
19 | P a g e
2009
State
city/ county
name
Specifics
Start date
urban
problem
addressed
New York
New York
New York City

Green Roof Tax
Credit
State bill (A.11226) - Building owners in New York State

who install green roofs on at least 50% of available rooftop
space can apply for a one-year property tax abatement of
up to $100,000; the credit would be equal to $4.50 per
square-foot of roof area that is planted with vegetation, or
approximately 25% of the typical costs associated with the
materials, labor, installation and design of the green roof.
Expires 2013 unless it is extended.
2009
Stormwater
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
City of Philadelphia
Green Roof Tax
Credit
Bill No. 070072 - applicant may claim a credit against the

Business Privilege Tax of 25% of all costs actually incurred
to construct the Green Roof, provided that the total credit
shall not exceed $100,000; The green roof must cover 50%
of the building's rooftop or 75% of 'Eligible Roof Top
Space', defined as the total space available to support a
Green Roof, as certified by a structural engineer; must
have maintenance plan for 5 years after its completion
(this applies even if the property is sold, so it's advisable to
include a provision and/or additional fee for maintenance
in the sales contract).
2007
Stormwater,
urban heat
island
In March 2009, Senate bill 320, endorsed by Maria Cantwell of Washington State, was introduced which in part
proposed a 30 percent property tax credit for qualified green roofs. The bill was not passed but signifies the interest in
direct financial incentives for green roofs to address certain problems such as stormwater runoff and the increased
temperatures of the urban core associated with urbanization. Although the federal bill did not pass, municipalities have
incentivized green roofs through reduction of the tax liability, by the temporary elimination of increased assessment
value due to capital improvements with tax abatements or dollar for dollar with tax credits. Both function to bring
additional capital into the market for green roofs and green building. Tax abatement reduces a certain tax for a set
period of time, and generally applies to property tax. Since green buildings tend to draw higher property assessment
values, the tax abatement is intended to offset the subsequent additional liability. Because the abatement is for a set
amount and time period, it does not reduce the anticipated tax revenue of a municipality. Additionally the abatement
may be incorporated into a municipalitys established program to induce development and redevelopment in certain
areas, adding little additional administrative costs to implement.100
For example, in 2008, New York City passed bill S7553, a one- year tax abatement for green roofs that cover at least 50%
of the available roof space and solar panel installation. In terms of green roofs, the abatement is for approximately
$4.50 per square foot of vegetated roof space, limited to the lesser of $100,000 or the tax liability of the building for the
year.101 The abatement is a pilot program and will be available for applicants that meet the requirements until March
15, 2013. The tax abatement may be combined with the New York State Green Building Tax credit, which includes green
roofs, provided that the project meets the requirements of both programs.102 To date, New York City has received 5
applications for the tax abatement but none have been for green roof projects.103
A tax credit, on the other hand, reduces the overall tax liability by a certain percent or stated amount and may be
applied against property tax or other taxes such as corporate business taxes. Additionally it may be claimed over several
years for a specified period of time, making it difficult for municipalities to estimate the potential tax revenue.104 In
2007, to encourage the implementation of green roofs as a stormwater control measure, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
passed Bill No. 070072 creating a green roof tax credit for the lesser of 25% of the green roof costs or $100,000 against
20 | P a g e
2009
the Business Privilege Tax. The credit is therefore only available to commercial properties. The program had one
applicant as of February 2009.105
Anne Arundel County, Maryland passed Bill 85-07 in 2008 to authorize a stormwater management tax credit. The
property tax credit is available for commercial and residential property owners to implement stormwater management
techniques, such as green roofs, on their properties to reduce the total amount of runoff entering the countys
stormwater infrastructure. The credit is available up to 10% of the cost of the material and installation of an approved
practice removing at least 20% of the existing impervious surface area. The credit is limited to $10,000 over a 5 year
period. The county has received 39 applicants for the tax credit but none have been for green roof projects.
A drawback to tax credit and abatement incentive programs is the timeline in conjunction with development timelines.
It may be problematic for developers or building owners to reach project completion and be eligible for the tax incentive
before sunset of the programs. To date, the green roof specific tax credit and abatement programs have had few
applicants. The perceived lack of interest in green roofs increases the risk of future elimination of the incentive. The
need for adequate program promotion and marketing is imperative for the success and continuation of such programs.
Grant Programs | There are approximately 17 total grant incentive programs, three of which specifically target green
roofs. The chart below lists several examples.
State
City/
County
Name
Specifics
date started
urban
problem
addressed
Illinois
Chicago
Green Roof Grants

Program
Residential and Small Commercial Building Owners can

qualify for $5,000 for Green Roof Project. A written
commitment will be required to maintain the green roof
project for at least 5 years. Small commercial buildings
must be less than 10,000 square feet. The city is not
currently accepting applications.
2005 - 2008
urban heat
island
Oregon
Portland
EcoRoof Grants Grey to Green

Initiative
funds $5 per SQ FT of an ecoroof project; to be eligible the

project must be within Portland city limits, construction
starts within 2 year of being approved for the grant, the
project will be evaluated on the following: cost of ecoroof,
total sq footage of ecoroof, ratio of ecoroof area to total
roof area, sustainability, innovation, ecoroof components
(soil specifications, membrane, plants, structural integrity
of the building), committee reviews applications 2x's a year
2009
stormwater
Oregon
Portland
Watershed
Stewardship Grants
Staff members assist individual property owners with revegetation and onsite stormwater management projects.
Students assist property owners in developing site designs,
identifying and applying for appropriate local, state and
federal permits, and identifying volunteers or other
resources to implement the project. up to $10,000 to
schools, churches, businesses and other community
organizations
1995
stormwater
District of
Columbia
Washington
DDOE Green Roof

Pilot Subsidy
$5.00 SF up to $20,000.00 per project, green roof must

cover 50% of the available roof space, at least 3 inches in
depth of growth medium, incentivizes up to 4000 SQ FT of
green roof space (the subsidy began as $3.00 a SF up to
$12,000.00 per project for any building in the CSO area of
the city)
July 2007,
rereleased in
June 2009
stormwater
21 | P a g e
City/
County
State
District of
Columbia
Washington
Name
green roofs for
environmental and
economic NE
revitalization
(greeNEr)
2009
Specifics
Funded by the Deputy Mayors Office for Planning and
Economic Developments Neighborhood Investment Fund
Target Area Grant Program, greeNEr will subsidize the
installation of 11 green roofs in the H Street NE business
corridor providing up to $9,000 per project for applicable
green roof expenses. The program will leverage
community volunteers, train green collar apprentices and
provide H Street NE business owners with comprehensive
project management and installation services.
date started
April 2009
urban
problem
addressed
stormwater
Grant programs for green roof installation reduce the additional upfront capital investment through the provision of
direct financial subsidy for a project. While programs strive for the same goal of increased green roof implementation,
they are structured in various ways to meet the administrative needs of different municipalities and stretch the funding
as far as possible. Generally the different structures are as follows:
A lump sum per project | Chicagos Green Roof Grant Program | The program was implemented in 2005 and
utilized funds received from a settlement agreement with Commonwealth Edison, the Citys electric utility
provider. It was created to increase the publics awareness of green roofs as a tool to help address the rising
temperatures in Chicagos urban core and stormwater management challenges. The $5,000 grant per project
was available for residential and small commercial buildings under 10,000 square feet. Over the four funding
cycles of the program, Chicagos Department of the Environment received 209 applications and received the
highest numbers in the first year. According to Larry Merritt, Chicago Department of Environment, people
interested in the grant program began to understand its complexities after the initial year and did not feel the
grant was sufficient for the program requirements imposed.106 A total of 69 green roof projects were funded
and 18,000 square feet of vegetated roofs have been installed through the program to date.
An amount per square foot with or without a project limit | Washington, DCs Pilot Green Roof Subsidy | In
2007 DC Greenworks, a nonprofit green roof installer and advocate, created the green roof subsidy, funded
through the District Department of the Environment (DDOE). The program originally funded $3.00 per square
foot up to $12,000.00 per project for any green roof project within the combined sewer area (CSO) of the
District. Driven by the added expense of green roof retrofit projects, the subsidy was increased to $5.00 a
square foot, up to $20,000 per project for any green roof project in the District provided that the prescriptive
requirements are met. The funding is awarded on a first-come, first-serve basis upon completion of program
registration, application and receipt of supporting documentation. The continual dispersal of grant funds adds
flexibility in the funding schedule to accommodate the various construction timelines. The subsidy has funded
15 green roof projects to date totaling over 66,500 green roof square feet.107
Portland, Oregons Ecoroof Grant Program | Similar to the Washington, DC subsidy program, Portlands Ecoroof
Grant Program, implemented at the end of 2008, provides $5.00 per square foot grants for ecoroof projects in
Portlands city limits with no limit per project. The grant only funds low profile ecoroofs comprised of less than
6 inches of growing medium. It is part of the Grey to Green Initiative to implement green infrastructure, such as
green roofs, instead of conventional pipe and channel grey infrastructure to manage urban stormwater runoff.
The Ecoroof program has a budget of $5 million per year for 5 years for all expenses, which includes
administrative and other indirect costs to manage the program. While it is a small portion of the $50,000,000
budget for the entire Grey to Green Initiative, it dwarfs the resources of other green roof programs around the
country. Portlands commitment to support widespread green roof implementation illustrates their confidence
in the public benefits of green roofs for the health of the urban environment and ultimately the quality of life of
22 | P a g e
2009
the residents. It should be noted that Portland has been engaged in active support of ecoroof implementation
through public education seminars, research and an individual champions, such as Tom Liptan and the former
nonprofit Ecoroofs Everywhere. For the past 10 years the public outreach and advocacy has created a culture
around ecoroofs and their benefits and aided in the success of the grant program to date. In the first two
funding cycles, 56 applications were received and 54 were funded. The projects were roughly split between new
and retrofit projects. Ecoroofs must meet a list of prescriptive requirements and may not be completed on or
before the specific application deadline, but may be in progress. The incentive may be combined with other
incentives in the city such as the green roof FAR (floor area ratio) bonus. Currently, Portland has 9.41 acres of
green roofs and hopes to add another 43 acres within the next 5 years. 108
A percentage of the green roof costs with or without a project limit | Linz, Austrias Green Roof Grant Program
Although there are no examples of green roof grant subsidies in the United States that fund a percentage of the
project costs, the program structure with an international example is included as a viable option for a green roof
grant incentive program. Linz, Austria funded a green roof grant of 30% of the associated green roof costs
which included the roof deck, green roof materials and costs associated with the structural reinforcement
needed to ensure the roof could support the additional weight of the green roof. Additionally, the grant was
awarded regardless of whether green roofing was required by the municipality or not. The subsidy ran from
1989 to 2001 and was intended to encourage green roofs, especially in industrial areas, to increase the urban
green space where land use did not typically promote open space. Over the course of the program, 237 projects
were provided funding and over 3 million square feet of vegetated roofs were installed. 109
As an element of a larger grant program | Portland, Oregons Community Watershed Stewardship Grants | In
Portland, urban stormwater management and watershed health is an environmental issue that drives ecoroof
implementation. Portland, like many older urban areas has a combined sewer system (CSS). When the system
is overwhelmed with stormwater runoff from the impervious surface area found in the urban area, it dumps
millions of gallons of untreated sewage into surrounding waterways. The Community Watershed Stewardship
Grant program provides grants up to $10,000 to schools, churches, businesses and other community
organizations for reduced the impervious surface area of their lots through low impact development techniques
such as ecoroofs, rain gardens and rooftop runoff disconnection. Since the program began in 1995, over 183
projects have received grant funds, however only 14 of these projects were ecoroofs. 110 The program includes
local students that gain valuable experience with site design, permits, and education of property owners about
the negative effects development has on natural hydrologic function and urban environmental health.
Washington, DCs Green Roofs for Environmental and Economic NE Revitalization (greeNEr) | With a grant of
$150,000 from the Deputy Mayors Office for Planning and Economic Developments Neighborhood Investment
Fund (NIF) Target Area Grant Program, DC Greenworks is providing up to $9,000 in subsidy for applicable green
roof expenses for 11 green roof projects along the H Street NE commercial corridor. The groundbreaking
program is a first step towards DC Greenworks vision of redeveloping H Street NE in Washington, DC into one of
the greenest main streets in the country beginning with wide scale green roof implementation.111 According to
Sara Loveland, the Interim Executive Director of DC Greenworks, the greeNEr model expanded to a $3 million
program investment for H Street NE could provide enough funding for installing green roofs across the entire
22,000 square foot commercial corridor footprint, generate $1.5 million in private investment, provide
opportunity to train 40 green collar apprentices and engage 1,500 volunteers.112
The structure of grant programs may either be based on prescriptive green roof design guidelines (depth of growing
medium) or based on performance (average amount of stormwater retained based on a 10 year storm event). While
the performance method may be desirable in terms of the quantified benefits of green roofs, it is difficult to ensure
compliance which makes program administration problematic. Programs may decide to award funding to projects on a
competitive basis to promote innovation and high profile green roof projects through competition. Some may fund
23 | P a g e
2009
green roofs that meet the basic requirements of the incentive. Additionally, grant incentive programs may be structured
to award funds on a first-come, first-serve basis or have funding rounds set at specific intervals of time. As with the tax
credit and abatement programs, the specified timeline associated with grant programs may be extremely problematic
for developers and owners interested in the funds. Larger development projects may take years to move from the
planning process into actual build-out. Even after the project is fully permitted, delays in construction can mean delays
in the green roof installation, possibly making a project ineligible to receive the grant funding, which jeopardizes the
inclusion of the green roof. Regardless of the basic structure of the grant incentive, it is imperative that the programs
be straight forward - simple to pursue and easy for the general public to understand.
Loans | There are currently seven low interest loan programs which generally strive for increased energy efficiency.
Additionally there are two programs that are green roof specific. The chart below lists several examples.
State
city/ county
Name
Specifics
New
York
Bronx
Bronx
Environmental
Revolving Loan
Fund
to implement energy efficiency technologies,

including green roofs, that improve the air quality
of the borough, minimum $10,000, maximum
$100,000, up to 10 years, 1-3% interest, $250.00
application fee
Ohio
Cincinnati
City of Cincinnati
Low Interest Loan
Program
An estimated $5 million per year from EPA's Clean

Water Revolving Loan Fund will be available at
approximately 3% below market rates to cover the
incremental cost of adding a green roof to a new
or existing building.
date started
urban
problem
addressing
energy,
stormwater
available Q4
2009
energy,
stormwater
Below market rate or zero interest loan programs are being implemented to incentivize green building and green roofs.
The Bronx Environmental Revolving Loan Fund has offered low interest loans since 2006 funded through the New York
Power Authority to implement energy efficient technologies, such as green roofs, that will improve air and water quality
as well as save energy. The maximum loan amount is $100,000 with a 10 year term and 1-3% interest rate. The loans
have provided a source of funds for 13 green roofs totaling approximately 40,000 square feet of vegetated roof space in
the Bronx.113 Additionally, Cincinnati, Ohio is in the final stages of implementing the City of Cincinnati Low Interest Loan
Program, the first low interest loan program in the country to concentrate only on green roofs. With an estimated $5
million in funding from the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, low interest loans will be available up to 5%
below market rates to cover the upfront capital expense of green roof installation on new and retrofit projects.114
The major benefit of loan programs is that they provide a renewable source of funds to continue to fund projects. Loans
are paid back over time through savings on energy costs and other fees such as stormwater utility fee credits. The
current programs are largely state revolving loan programs for energy efficiency that will only accept green roofs as an
energy efficient building technology. To date few if any green roofs have been financed with energy efficiency loan
funds. While green roofs can be modeled for energy efficiency, numerous assumptions that stem from the expanse of
untested materials used in different roof designs, cause enough uncertainty that the numbers become too subjective to
be qualified. As the ASTM standards for green roofs as well as other standards are further developed and become
institutionalized the energy models for the energy savings of green roofs will carry more authority. The amount of
energy green roofs save will become widely accepted rather than considered anecdotal and qualify them for energy
efficiency program incentives.
24 | P a g e
2009
INDIRECT GREEN ROOF INCENTIVES

Indirect incentives for green roofs are indirect monetary inducements that encourage a certain behavior or action such
as feebates and fee reductions.
Fee Reduction: Feebates and Fee Credits| There are 12 fee reduction programs represented in the analysis and
none pertain only to green roofs as there are not green roof specific fees. Additionally, it should be noted, that while
there is a discussion of stormwater utility fee credits, based on the number of stormwater utility fees across the country,
without more extensive research it is unknown to what extent the credit systems which encompass green roofs have
been implemented. The chart below lists several examples.
date
started
urban problem
addressing
As required by the Green Building Act of 2006, permit fees for

green building are reduced; new green construction is $0.002 per
sq ft of construction (conventional development is $0.03 per cu ft
of construction); Additions, alterations, and repairs for green
building are 0.065 - 0.13% of the construction value (conventional
construction is 1-2% of the construction value plus an additional
fee)
2006
environment,
energy,
stormwater
Minneapolis
Stormwater
Utility Fee
Authority under Minnesota Statute section 444.075 and

Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, chapter 510, The stormwater
utility fee is based on impervious area and is charged on a per
unit basis. Property owners can apply for a credit of up to 50% of
their stormwater utility fee if they are using stormwater quality
management tools/practices (often referred to as best
management practices or BMPs) and can apply for a 50-100%
credit for BMP quantity measures which include green roofs.
2005
stormwater
Green Building
Incentive
commercial project site plan applications are required to include

a LEED scorecard and have a LEED Accredited Professional on the
project team regardless of project intent to seek LEED
certification, all projects must contribute to a green building fund
for county-wide education and outreach activities - the rate is
calculated at $0.045 per sq ft and the contribution is refunded if
the project earns LEED certification
2003
environment,
energy
City/ County
Name
District of
Columbia
Washington
Permit Fee
Reduction
Minnesota
Minneapolis
Virginia
Arlington
County
State
Specifics
Designed as a cost recovery mechanism for municipalities, fees are associated with permits, utility hook-ups,
environmental impact and technical assistance among others. In terms of green building programs, such as LEED,
developers face an additional fee to certify the structure performs in accordance to the design, which becomes a
significant added cost on top of the potential more expensive green technologies integrated into the project. In a 2003
study conducted by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, for The American Chemistry Council, the
soft costs, the costs directly associated with obtaining LEED certification or LEED overhead costs, on a national
average were found to add 1.5 3.1% to the total project cost.115 Reduction in this amount over the past 6 years has
inevitably occurred but fee credits to further reduce or eliminate the soft costs associated with green building is
essential to ensure increased projects in municipalities across the county. Two different program structures for fee
reductions are feebates and fee credits.
Feebates encourage desired behavior through the penalty of undesired behavior. All developers initially pay into a fund
that is used for public education and/ or other incentives. If a building is certified (LEED) or if a building incorporates a
25 | P a g e
2009
green roof into their project and meets the design criteria set out by the municipality the fee will be returned. Likewise,
if the building does not achieve the expected and desired performance or green design criteria, the fee is maintained by
the municipality in the green building fund to support other programs associated with the increased implementation
and understanding of green building and its benefits.116 Arlington County, Virginia implemented a Green Building Fund
in 2003 which incorporates a feebate system to incentivize green building projects that achieve LEED certification. Every
development contributes $0.045 per square foot to the green building fund. The contribution is refunded if and when a
project receives LEED certification. The money that is not refunded is invested in public education and outreach
activities to increase the public knowledge of the benefits of environmentally sensitive, energy efficient development.
Fee credits ultimately reduce certain associated development fees to encourage specific design and building practices.
In terms of green building, municipalities have implemented fee credit programs that reduce building permit fees or give
a credit towards the fees associated with green building certification from a third party such as LEED. As part of the
Green Building Act of 2006, Washington, DC created fee credits for green building in terms of reduced permit fees (see
appendix A). The fees vary in terms of size of project for new development and value of construction for additions,
alterations and repairs but provide a significant difference to reduce the permit costs and encourage green technologies
such as green roofs. While a reduced permit fee will not provide enough financial incentive to offset the additional cost,
it is part of a comprehensive incentive package.
Another fee credit is based on stormwater utility fees and credit structures that encourage the implementation of best
management practices (BMPs) or stormwater control measures (SCMs) on properties that reduce the impervious
surface area and retain stormwater on site. EPA encourages such approaches to enhance other federal regulatory
measures such as the Clean Water Act.117 In 1999 NRDC estimated that there were approximately 500 municipalities
with stormwater impact fees, with populations ranging from 5,000 to 3.5 million.118 In another report from Nashville
Davidson County, Tennessee, it is estimated that currently there are over 800 communities with stormwater impact fees
which indicates the rapid expansion of the polluter pays structure to fund urban stormwater programs.119 In
municipalities with stormwater utilities, the fees continue to rise to collect enough revenue to fund capital stormwater
infrastructure improvements and maintain the current systems. From a 2007 survey of 71 utilities in 22 states, 54%
indicated that rates had been increased in the past 12 months from 1 300%.120 Furthermore, as the cost of
maintenance steadily increases, municipalities encourage on-site stormwater runoff management that utilizes low
impact development techniques, such as green roofs, to return sites to predevelopment hydrologic function. To
encourage site by site implementation by private property owners, credit programs are formed. The credit systems
usually offer a percent reduction in the stormwater impact fee based on the amount of stormwater retained to reduce
quantity or based on the improved quality of the stormwater once it leaves the site; the second option being much
harder to quantify.
Portland, Oregon implemented a stormwater utility fee in 1977 and in March 2006 successfully implemented the Clean
River Rewards: Contain the Rain stormwater discount program.121 Property owners are charged $8.25 a month per 1000
square feet of impervious surface area. The fee is divided 35% on-site and 65% off-site stormwater management charge
and rate payers may receive a discount up to 100% of the on-site portion for stormwater management on their
property. Therefore, through ecoroof installation to retain the stormwater on the property, a home owner with a 2000
square foot house can save $69.30 a year.122 For commercial and industrial properties that may contain acres of
impervious surface area, the credit becomes more significant and therefore more of an incentive.
Minneapolis, Minnesota opted to eliminate the stormwater impact fee for property owners who install green roofs.
They accepted the loss in revenue and incomplete understanding of the performance results to jumpstart the utilization
of the credit and create demonstration projects to further educate the public and promote the technology. The utility
fee was listed as a separate item on the water bill in 2005 and is roughly $10.77 a month per 1530 square feet but varies
with different property types and size. Ratepayers may receive a 100% credit for runoff management on site through
26 | P a g e
2009
the installation of a green roof. For a 2000 square foot residential property with a green roof, the ratepayer could save
$161.52 a year, 100% of the original fee. 123
To date, the credit systems have not singularly incentivized the implementation of green roofs, as property owners have
opted to install lower cost SCMs such as rain gardens or rain barrels.124 Similar to Germany, the stormwater utility fee
credits may best incentivize green roofs as part of a package of incentives.125 As a separate line item on bills, they raise
awareness of the harmful effects of urban stormwater runoff on water sources and provide encouragement for the
implementation of individual SCMs at the site level. As the fees escalate, the values of the credits also increase and
vegetated green roofs will inevitably become one of a number of options for impervious surface cover reduction to
attenuate the runoff from the site.
INTANGIBLE INCENTIVES
Intangible green roof incentives are alternatives to direct monetary inducements to encourage certain behaviors or
actions. The most common are: fast track permitting and technical assistance, density bonuses, expedited utility hookup and utility rebates and awards.
Fast track or priority permitting | There are approximately 20 fast track or priority permitting programs implemented
across the United States. None of the programs focus specifically on green roofs.
examples.
State
City/ County
Name
The chart below lists several
Specifics
date started
urban
problem
addressing
Illinois
Chicago
Green
Permit
Program
expedited permit process for projects that incorporate

innovative green building strategies; projects accepted can
receive permits in less than 30 business days or in as little
as 15 business days -the more green building elements the
shorter the timeline to receive the permit; green roofs are
one of the menu items for LEED projects and Chicago
Green Home; some of the expedited permitting
requirements exceed the Green Matrix
introduced Summer
2005, submitted to
City Council in 2006,
advocating that the
policy become law
urban heat
island
Washington
Seattle
Priority
Green
Permit
Program
provides a single DPD (Department of Planning and

Development) point of contact for applicants; code and
process assistance by an interdisciplinary DPD review
team; sets high performance building expectations and
goals; adopts integrated design approach; maximizes
financial incentives available from other City departments
and agencies
July 2008 (as a pilot)
environment
By the time a development plan is submitted for permits it has already undergone months if not years of design and site
plan review. Fast track or priority permitting is an indirect incentive utilized by municipalities for projects that meet
predetermined goals, such as green building and therefore green roofs if they are included in the design. The programs
consist of an expedited time frame for green projects to receive building permits. Time is money in development.
Instead of timelines months long to receive applicable permits, municipalities create shortened timelines for projects
that utilize innovative, sustainable building technologies to make green building more attractive to developers.
As the first of its kind in the United States, Chicago, Illinois has offered a 15 to 45 day turn around for building permits
that implement green building practices such as green roofs through the Chicago Department of Construction and
Permits, Green Permit Program. The more green features incorporated into the project, reduction of half the wait time
27 | P a g e
2009
is typical which translates into significant financial savings. In conjunction with the reduced timeline, the permit fees are
reduced. Additionally, some of the expedited permit requirements exceed the Green Building Matrix (appendix B)
requirements for green roofs, to further incentivize added green roof square footage throughout the city. In 2007,
Chicago was online to issue over 100 Green Permit building permits for green building projects.126
Seattle, Washington through the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) has also implemented an innovative
priority permitting program, the Priority Green Permit Program which began in July 2008 as a pilot program. The
program provides an expedited timeline for project review and permits along with individual technical assistance
through a single DPD point of contact to help with integration of green technologies and the maximization of available
financial incentives. A Priority Green Building Matrix was created with elements in each of the categories representing
the City of Seattles environmental priorities of climate protection, Green Seattle Initiative, restoration of water ways
and healthy communities. The projects must comply with the 2030 Challenge to reduce energy and fossil fuel use by
60% in 2010 and create carbon neutral buildings, as well as achieve a minimum of 10 points and include at least 3
elements in the 4 environmental priority categories. Green roofs are a specific point within the Green Seattle Initiative.
Specifically, the projects must demonstrate energy and fossil fuel use reduction by 60% or exceed the Seattle Energy
Code by 20% for commercial buildings and 30% for residential projects. As of spring 2009 the Priority Green Permit
Program had received fewer than 10 projects with 7 confirmed. 127
Generally, fast track permitting programs for green building do not extend the same expedited timeline for green roof
retrofits and other energy efficient renovations. They are contingent on the capacity in development agencies and
permit departments for successful execution and do not always live up to the promised timeline due to unforeseeable
complications. The permit process involves different departments that set their own requirements and guidelines and
is complicated for even the most straight forward projects. The offer of specialized attention and a quicker turnaround
time saves time and money - two crucial elements to ensure the economic viability of a project. At least one permit
reviewer in the department has must have sufficient knowledge of green building and green roofs to successfully
facilitate the process. This person should act as a steward to each individual project to provide communication with
relevant reviewers in all departments and encourage flexibility in development ordinances to facilitate innovative
building technologies. Green roofing is not yet a standardized process. Many players involved with green roof projects
from designers to builders and developers are pioneers and take risks that will provide both economic and
environmental benefits if successful but could add time and cost if approached incorrectly.
Density/ zoning bonus | There are currently 13 density bonuses for green building and 2 green roof specific programs
in the United States. The chart below lists several specific examples.
State
City/ County
Name
Specifics
date started
urban problem
addressing
Oregon
Portland
EcoRoof FAR
Zoning Code 33.510 - Portland's Central City Plan District,

builders can increase their floor area ratio (FAR) when they
include a green roof 1-3 feet depending on the % coverage of
green roof; the maximum zoning height cannot be achieved
without a zoning bonus such as the Ecoroof bonus
2001
stormwater,
urban heat
island, habitat
Virginia
Arlington
County
Green Building
Density
Incentive Policy
for Site Plan
Projects
Section 36.H.5. of the Zoning Ordinance: based on LEED

rating system; includes all types of development; all buildings
seeking any kind of LEED are eligible; bonus density from
0.15 FAR up to 0.35 FAR depending on the level of
certification; combination of green building and Affordable
housing incentives can be considered and utilized in a single
site plan proposal
2000 and
updated in
2003
environment,
energy
28 | P a g e
2009
More permitted space means more money for developers. Added space means additional units or floors which may be
sold or rented for additional money. The allowance of more square feet or greater height for the inclusion of green
building techniques or amenities incentivizes developers to incorporate the innovative sustainable building elements
into the plans in exchange for additional permitted buildable space. Zoning and land use codes place limits on land use,
building height and density. Programs are implemented that promote green projects, such as green roofs through
additional square feet or floors added above the zoning regulations. These programs are relatively simple to administer
as they are rolled into the standard municipal review process but harder to ensure compliance as the incentive must be
rewarded before the project is complete.
In Portland, Oregon there are a number of added building amenities that may receive a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) bonus if
incorporated into development projects. The eco-roof option is the second most highly used option because it is one of
the most affordable public amenities to provide from the list of options. It is capable to earn a bonus of 3 additional
square feet of area for every 1 square foot of vegetated green roof space incorporated into a project in certain areas of
the city. Additionally, unlike the locker room, day care, or other such bonuses, the Eco-Roof Bonus does not require the
dedication of leasable space to a certain use. As of November 2008, 260,000 square feet of ecoroofs have earned the
FAR bonus which led to an additional 600,000 square feet of developable space.128
In 2000 Arlington County, Virginia created an incentive of increased floor area ratio for buildings achieving LEED
certification. In 2003 this was updated to increase the bonus density dependant on the level of certification. Section
36.H.5 of the Zoning Ordinance permits all buildings seeking any kind of LEED certification a density bonus of 0.15 FAR
up to 0.35 FAR dependent on the level of certification. Additionally, the County Board may consider the provision of
LEED certified green building components as justification for bonus density as special exceptions on site plan proposals
for office development. No buildings have defaulted. As of March 2009, 240,263 square feet of green building space
potentially will be added in Arlington County as a result of the density bonus.129 Although, the density bonus does not
specifically pertain to vegetated green roofs, through the incorporation of green roofs in LEED projects to earn points,
they are incidentally promoted.
Utility rebates |There is currently one incentive program that encourages energy conservation through increased
energy efficiency that incorporates green roofs.
State
City/ County
Name
Specifics
California
Los Angeles
LADWP - nonresidential custom

performance program
must exceed Title 24 or minimum industry standards.

Incentives, in the form of rebates are based on
estimation software that determines the energy
savings for each project with equipment installed
after January 1, 2007; before project start,
customers should submit an application along with
the applicable CPP efficiency measure input form.
LADWP will calculate the energy savings based on the
energy efficiency measures listed in the application.
After final inspection, LADWP will process the
incentive payment.
date
started
2007
urban problem
addressing
Energy efficiency
While increased energy efficiency and subsequent savings in energy costs is touted as one of the numerous benefits a
vegetated green roof may offer, much research and data is needed before widespread implementation for energy
savings occurs. Advances in energy modeling and data collected from various green roof projects now illustrate the
energy savings from vegetated green roofs. The information is still accepted on a case by case basis and the receipt of
offered incentives based on energy efficiency from green roofs is difficult.
29 | P a g e
2009
For example, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) offers a utility rebate for projects that utilize
energy efficiency measures. The Non-residential Custom Performance Program offers reduced rates for green roof
installation based on reduced energy consumption. To apply a comparative analysis that utilizes computerized energy
performance simulation to calculate energy savings using eQuest, EnergyPro or other CALIFORNIA energy commission
certified computer programs which use the existing building as the baseline must be submitted. To date, LADWP has
not received any applications for green roofs.130 The number of utility rebate programs across the United States
continues to expand. The DSIRE database (http://www.dsireusa.org/) compiled by the NC Solar Institute updates the
number of programs being offered by states, municipalities and public utilities across the country. As the list grows and
programs are modified, green roofs are incorporated into these energy efficiency incentive programs but few projects if
any have taken advantage of them due to the complexity of validation of the specific energy savings provided by green
roofs.
Recognition and Award Programs | There is currently one formalized award program to recognize innovative green
building offered by a municipality. Although awards are inherent in the incentive framework, specific stand alone
programs for green building are less common.
State
Illinois
City/ County
Chicago
Name
Specifics
Mayors GreenWorks
Awards
Awards available to businesses, nonprofits,

schools and government agencies are
awarded in three categories: Green
Buildings, Green Practices and Green
Products, special consideration is given to
projects with educational and outreach
value.
date started
2007
urban problem
addressing
Energy, environment,
urban heat island
The faster a development is sold or fully leased the more money the developer ultimately saves. Currently green roofs
are still a unique building feature. They provide improved aesthetics of the roof for people that overlook the rooftop
and the opportunity of added usable green space as an additional amenity for the building tenants. The added amenity
has been proven to attract higher rates and retention which appeals to building owners. Award programs offered
through municipalities provide added incentive to incorporate green roofs into projects. As green roofs become
standard practice, awards will encourage innovation to ensure that the building continues to standout and attract
positive publicity to ultimately attract the highest rents possible.
In addition to the formal awards, businesses want to be recognized as environmentally conscious. Corporate social
responsibility and reduced ecological footprints are increasingly important to discerning patrons, clients and tenants.
Awards encourage people and businesses to continue to innovate and improve their bottom line and the triple bottom
line of sustainability, accounting for social, environmental and economic health of the community. Chicago, Illinois is a
good example of a municipal green building award program. Through the GreenWorks Awards program, the City gives
out bi-annual awards to recognize outstanding green buildings. The awards are given in three categories for residential
projects, commercial projects and student proposals from college and university students and provide free positive
publicity to encourage other projects to follow their lead.131
REGULATION
In May, 2009 Toronto became the first North American city to require green roof coverage on public and private new
development. The Green Roof By-law requires green roofs on new development above 2000 square meters gross floor
area with a range of 20-60% of the available roof space for the green roof, dependant on the size of the building with
larger buildings required to incorporate more square footage. 132 The City of Chicago, leads the way in terms of square
30 | P a g e
2009
footage of green roofs installed in the United States. Along with the various green roof and green building incentives,
they developed a Sustainable Development Policy which requires green roofs and other green building features for new
public buildings, planned developments, and privately funded structures that are subsidized by the city. The city has
other green roof incentives and has had a green roof grant program in the past but has had the most success with green
roof implementation through the Green Matrix and the Sustainable Development Policy.133 Additionally, based on the
USGBC Public Policy Database there are around 170 different municipalities and states, as well as the federal
government that mandate green development for either public or publicly funded projects based on USGBCs Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. 134
In Germany, Switzerland and Tokyo green roofs are required on various types of development. This has made green
roofs a common practice and developers have begun to incorporate them into projects regardless of incentives or
requirements. In certain areas of London a developer must explain why it is infeasible to incorporate a green roof into a
project in order to use traditional roofing practices. It must be noted that there is a danger associated with the
requirement of green roofs. The condition of obligatory green roof implementation may lead to lack of maintenance
over time as well as careless design and planning in order to simply fulfill the requirement for initial development
approval. Municipalities do not have the personnel, the time or the resources to ensure compliance which can lead to a
negative perception of green roofs if they begin to fail or are not maintained to produce the desired aesthetic.
Figure 11 | Left to right One Judiciary Square,

Washington, DC; Lofts 11,
Washington, DC; FDIC,
Arlington, Virginia
Photos: DC Greenworks
RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCENTIVIZE IMPLEMENTATION

Incentives for green building and green roof implementation can be found in all regions, from state wide initiatives to
individual boroughs. Over 38 million people and approximately 14,834 square miles have access to some form of green
roof incentive. The programs that are in place should be continually assessed and adapted to meet the needs all
stakeholders involved to ensure they are effective and attain the desired goal of widespread green roof implementation.
The recommendations that follow should aid in the implementation of pilot green roof incentive programs or increase
the impact of current programs. They do not follow a specific order and each should be considered based on the current
status of green roof education, implementation and support in the municipality.
Remove barriers to green roof incentives
Earlier this year the Commonwealth of Virginia passed two very similar bills, HB 1828 and SB 1058 to give municipalities
the authority to create and implement green roof incentives, stimulate the green collar job economy and remove state
level barriers. Virginia is one of five Dillon Rule states that provide no rights of home rule for individual municipalities. It
is a good example of possible legal challenges municipalities might face to implement progressive green building and
green roof incentives.135 Conduct a preliminary review of current building codes, stormwater ordinances and BMP
31 | P a g e
2009
manuals to ensure that any challenges or inadvertent restrictions to green roof implementation are removed and
instead facilitated through incorporation into guiding documents.
Create a variety of incentive packages in conjunction with regulation
Different incentives motivate different stakeholders. Developers, owners and operators have different interests and
motivations for green roof or green building projects. Through a package of different incentives for green roofs,
financial savings may be combined to strengthen the incentive and attract different players. Portland, Oregon and
Chicago, Illinois, have been extremely successful with green roof implementation through a suite of incentives from
grants to fast track permitting and density bonuses for both green roofs and green buildings. Direct incentives are
attractive for reduction of the incremental additional cost of a green roof while the additional density will lead to more
developed space and ultimately increase the developments profit after construction. Additionally, stormwater fee
credits might not incentivize green roofs as a standalone, but in conjunction with low interest loans or grants the
combination provides more encouragement. Furthermore, combined incentives will have more success across entities
such as Department of natural resources, Department of environment, as well as Planning, Permitting and Economic
Development Departments.
Increase education and outreach of the green roof technology and sustainable green building
Continual education of the general public to inform them of the benefits provided by green roofs will garner both
interest and support. The utilization of universities and schools as testing grounds for innovation, education and
research will increase the general perception of green roofs and further the body of research and knowledge. Green
roofs have been evolving over thousands of years and will continue into the future.
The continued education of landscape architects, architects, engineers, planners, builders and developers on best
practices for design and installation to reach desired performance goals is a necessity. Modern green roofs are highly
engineered systems that change and improve constantly. Research is an ongoing challenge and will only be useful for
the growth of the green roof industry and its incorporation into policy if it is openly disseminated to the public.
Currently, the body of green roof knowledge and resources are provided to the public and building professionals
through the following sources.
Toolkits | DC Greenworks, through their experience in green roof design and installation and the administration
of the Pilot Green Roof Subsidy created a Green Roof Toolkit, published on the District Department of the
Environments website.136 The toolkit covers the basics types of green roofs, plants, waterproofing,
retrofitting, permitting and local green roof providers from materials to installers. Another example is Portlands
Ecoroof Handbook accompanied by presentations delivered by the ecoroof staff to interested parties in Portland
to learn about Ecoroofs, their benefits and the incentives offered for ecoroof implementation.
Websites | There are several websites, such as www. Greenroofs.com, that are dedicated specifically to the
green roof industry as well as the green roof material and systems providers that post research and product
performance on their sites.
Conferences | The Green Roofs for Sustainable Cities conference has been held for the past seven years.
Additional conferences have been created such as the International Green Roof Conference and Cities Alive.
These conferences are held all over the world and help disseminate the most recent research and innovative
ideas about green roofs. They can be costly to attend and should not be a substitute for the creation of
publically accessible, low cost or free resources.
Green Roof Professional accreditation and associated classes | Green Roofs for Healthy Cities has created the
GRP accreditation to institutionalize the green roof process and create accepted standards for design,
installation and maintenance. They offer four classes that extensively cover all elements of the green roof
32 | P a g e
2009
process. Each class manual was vetted by experienced professionals in the green roof business and act as
expert resource guides for green roof project design, management and maintenance.
Green Tech Centers | The Chicago Center for Green Technology, operated through the Chicago Department of
the Environment, was created to help professionals and homeowners understand green building practices
such as green roofs. The building itself is an example of comprehensive green building with system integration
and sustainable design, constructed with the highest standards of green technology available at the time.
Additionally, the Center holds seminars and presentations 2-3 times a week and maintains a resource library
with green building supply samples and literature for the general public and building professionals to expand
their green building knowledge.137
Similarly, the Augstenborg Botanical Roof Garden in Sweden
functions as a demonstration roof as well as a place for research and stakeholder education. Membership to
the roof garden is open to everyone from individuals to universities and interested companies. The revenue
from the associated membership funds scientific research, public education on green roofs as well as the
dissemination of green roof related information.138
Green roof research centers | Both Penn State and Michigan State have green roof specific research centers and
incorporate education and research of green roofs into the college curriculum. North Carolina State University,
Oregon State University and Reyerson University in Canada also incorporate green roof research into different
university curriculums which produce invaluable research as well as increased education and knowledge about
the systems.
Based on the current resources available to all stakeholders, information is easy to access but green roofs are still a
relatively unknown building technology. The added up front expense of green roof installation combined with the infant
industry creates uncertainty and decreases implementation. As research advances and green roofs are installed in all
regions of the United States, more mainstream information will educate the public about green roofs and available
incentive programs.
Create a baseline of green roof interest and understanding
As the process to implement green roof policy begins, an accurate inventory of green roof construction identifies where
a municipality stands and which direction to follow. A thorough inventory should provide a municipality with the total
number and area of green roof square feet already on-line, building type and geographical location. For example, a
green roof inventory was undertaken in Vancouver and helped identify the regional concerns, interests and
misconceptions about green roofs. The information was used to create the Greater Vancouver Green Roofs Working
Group to discuss policy options for increased green roof implementation in Vancouver.139
Additionally a working group presents the opportunity to bring the stakeholders together to create effective programs
to increase the implementation of green roofs. These groups incorporate different perspectives to ensure the necessary
steps towards policy formation and institutional knowledge are enacted. In Toronto, the municipality the most
advanced towards codifying green roofs, the policy process included a consultant study to quantify the measurable
benefits for the City, stakeholder workshops, a discussion paper of possible policy options and public meetings to
increase the general understanding of green roofs and garner support.140 Incorporate public opinion and education into
the policy formation process to earn and sustain support for incentive program implementation.
Conduct research and compile performance data
Green roofs are living systems and therefore affected by environmental factors that are regionally and locally specific.
The variability necessitates continued research on performance under different conditions from climate to architectural
style. Clear standards backed by performance data will help minimize developers risk, remove uncertainty in the actual
benefits, and ensure proper function over time. For example, Seattle has undertaken a Green Roof Performance Study
(GRPS) to monitor green roofs effectiveness for stormwater management and specifically attenuating peak flow to
33 | P a g e
2009
reduce CSO events. The in-depth, multi-year study hopes to discover the true benefits of green roofs for the Seattle
area in terms of urban stormwater runoff mitigation and ultimately inform policy development. Furthermore, the ability
of a green roof to address certain problems is contingent on its design. To design and be able set certain performance
goals for policy development; the expected benefits must be clearly defined and quantified. Conduct and gather
research on green roof performance to successfully incorporate green roofs into standard roofing practice. 141
Implement demonstration projects to form case studies and increase awareness
Public demonstration projects have been used over the years as a method of change. They demonstrate the feasibility
and increase the publics awareness while the perceived risks are reduced. In Austin, Texas between 2005 2007 four
different green roofs with various designs came online. Austins climate varies from hot, dry summers to cool, wet
winters which heightens the challenge to install green roofs that meet performance expectations. The four projects Austin City Hall, Ronald McDonald House, the Dell Childrens Hospital and the Cheyenne Medical Center have soil depths
ranging from 3 inches to 18 inches deep and provide examples of different green roof designs and present an
opportunity to gather a large amount of data that pertains to different green roof systems and how they function in the
varied climate of the Southwest.142 The case studies can be utilized by developers and municipal governments as
evidence of the efficacy of green roofs as a cost effective building practice that reduces the environmental impact of
development.
The green roof installed on 1425 K Street NW in Washington, DC in 2004 was the first green roof installed on a high rise
building in the District. Blake Realty, property managers of the building understood the publicity and added amenity
space a vegetated roof terrace would garner. They save money through increased energy efficiency, reduced
stormwater impact fees and the extension of the life of the conventional roof, while the rooftop is enhanced by the
vegetation and attracts attention to the building. Additionally, over the course of the five years, Kelly Ann Whitley, the
property manager for the building, has monitored the temperature on the roof through a Weather Bug and kept a log of
over 5,400 people that have toured the green roof. Implement a demonstration project to move green roofs from
concept to reality for people that are unfamiliar with the technology and provides concrete examples to increase public
understanding and ultimately support.
Formalize green roof incentive administration
One of the major challenges to successful incentive implementation is the need for dedicated administration. The
administration of a new incentive program will be a full time position for a knowledgeable green roof professional. The
following tasks are necessary for success and the time commitment of each one should be assessed or estimated before
the program is released:
Development of the application and supporting documents which contain the perimeters of the program;
Promotion and marketing to the general public to increase awareness of green roofs, their benefits and the
incentive program to gain interest and ensure the utilization of the program;
Documentation of the time spent on program administration through database creation that includes the
following information from applicants and projects that receive the incentive: design of green roof and materials
used, size, building type and cost of installation. The information is imperative to garner future support for
green roofs and the continuation of modification of incentive programs. The concrete data and metrics
produced by the database helps discover inefficiencies that should be altered to meet the programs desired
goals;143
Compliance monitoring to ensure that the green roofs were installed to the specifications on the original
application. Additionally, incentives should be back-loaded where possible. Projects should reach completion
and/or achieve certification through the designated green building program before the incentive is realized.
34 | P a g e
2009
Provide technical assistance and create a green roof specialist position

Through consultation on and facilitation of green roof projects, municipalities can demystify the green building process,
decrease the planning time for developers and advance green roof implementation.
In addition to diligent
administration of incentive programs, a designated green roof specialist position must be created to help walk the
project through the process, ensure there is cross-departmental education of city personnel in green roofs and the
incentives offered and facilitate green roof project implementation through the provision of pertinent information to
the public and other city officials. The position should be filled by someone who understands different green roof
systems, the structural constraints and challenges frequently observed in retrofit projects, the public and private
benefits and the installation process to provide comprehensive information and be able to assess proper installation to
meet performance goals through proper function.
Cultivate a culture of urban environmental awareness around green roofs
Within the Federal Nature Conservation Act in Germany, the Intervention Rule limits and regulates construction on
undeveloped land to reduce and if possible eliminate the negative environmental impacts of conventional
development.144 It creates a culture of urban environmental awareness that helps ensure that private gain does not
come at a cost to the greater public good. In the United States environmental regulations and restrictions are still a
challenge to implement due to political will and a strong sense of private property rights. However, through targeted
public education, marketing and outreach improvement in major public health issues have been seen. Over the years
the AIDS epidemic, cancer research and smoking have all garnered widespread support and now face little objection to
the dedication of public resources to address these ominous health threats. The change in perception to a larger public
health threat rather than an individual choice or struggle increases support and focus is shifted towards solutions to the
problem not mitigation of the negative effects.
Climate change, stormwater runoff pollution and diminished natural resources are all complex urban environmental
issues that must be addressed with the same devoted energy and attention as other public health threats. These issues
affect everyone and therefore everyone must participate in the solutions. Green roofs and green building and their
public benefits should be promoted with the same vigor and determination as solutions to other urban problems. STOP
smoking and AIDS awareness campaigns inform the public and change behavior. The same framework should be
implemented for green roofs to shift the attitude from skepticism to acceptance to make them the norm rather than the
exception.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the recommendations made based on the analysis of the current green roof incentives offered across the
country and internationally, several ideas have begun to emerge that will help expand green roof implementation and
enable the creation of additional incentives.
Energy Star rating for green roofs
Roofing products were incorporated into the Energy Star program, a joint venture between the US Environmental
Protection Agency and the US Department of Energy, to promote energy efficiency over ten years ago. The roof
products were evaluated on solar reflectance, the ability to keep heat away from the building to mitigate the urban heat
island effect. White reflective roofs, generally Energy Star qualified, typically average an albedo the overall surface
reflectivity - of 0.8 but without regular washing the albedo has been reported to decline by an average of 0.15 over the
course of a year, which significantly impacts their benefits for urban heat island reduction and energy savings.145 In an
experiment conducted by the Center for Climate Systems Research and the Penn State Center for Green Roof Research,
green roofs have an equivalent albedo of 0.7-0.85 using green roof surface temperatures and the ability to cool through
latent heat reduction to cool more efficiently than many of the white reflexive products. Additionally, the temperature
35 | P a g e
2009
underneath the green roof, above the conventional roof was found to be even lower than the surface temperature due
to the additional insulation of the green roof materials to further regulate the heat flow into the building below and
further increases the capacity of green roofs to cool and reduces the energy used for cooling costs.146
Green roofs have a reflexivity value comparable to white reflexive metal roofs and coatings as well as insulation value
and need to be recognized as an Energy Star qualified product and eligible for the federal tax credit. Products that are
qualified by the Energy Star program are eligible to receive a 30% federal tax credit for the cost of the materials up to
$1500.00, to further incentivize widespread green roof implementation.147
Eco-districts
By spatially defined boundaries for incentive programs around areas that would realize the most benefits from
implementation, smaller programs can achieve more impact. Municipalities currently target specific areas for
redevelopment through offers of density bonuses or tax credits in business districts or other geographically designated
areas within the city. With the concentration of green roof implementation in certain areas, the combined benefits are
realized and can be documented for further support and expansion into other areas of municipalities or replicated in
other cities.
Currently Kansas City, Missouri has implemented a Green Impact Zone, a 150 block area that is targeted for intensive
home weatherization as well as other sustainable development practices and even light rail.148 Portland, Oregon is also
working towards the implementation of Eco-Districts to drill down past the municipal level and address urban
environmental problems in areas of the city in which the most benefits would be realized.149 The greeNEr project, green
roofs for environmental and economic NE revitalization, funded by the Neighborhood Investment Fund through the
Department of Planning in Washington, DC drills down even further to focus on the redevelopment of the commercial
corridor closest to the Nations Capitol and funds green roofs specifically for urban environmental remediation, job
creation and economic development, while leveraging participation by business owners and volunteerism from
neighborhood residents.150
Green roof ready construction
In Colorado, building codes incorporate solar ready construction. As new development occurs, the structure must be
wired for the implementation of solar panels. 151 The same opportunity should be presented for green roofs. Green roof
ready construction would incorporate increased the structural capacity of the roof to allow for an intensive green roof
retrofit in the future incorporate usable space into the roof. The future owners of the building would have greater
flexibility to incorporate a green roof without the challenges to increase the structural capacity of the roof at the same
time. Cost is always a driving factor and the combination of roof reinforcement with the cost of the green roof deters
developers and building owners interested in a retrofit project with a green roof. The additional up -front cost of
building green roof ready construction would reduce the cost to retrofit in the future which would increase the
accessibility of green roofs and encourage widespread implementation.
36 | P a g e
2009
CONCLUSION
Implementation of vegetated green roofs is imperative to address our complex urban environmental problems and the
future sustainability of our cities. An innovative sustainable building technology, green roofs provide the following
public and private benefits:
Extended life of conventional roofs to reduce the frequency and cost of roof replacement
Increased building energy efficiency to save money on energy costs
Improved function of photovoltaics
Reduced size of HVAC equipment and usage to save money on equipment and energy costs
Create additional urban green space and increase property values
Noise reduction
Food production
Reduced urban heat island effect
Reduced strain on urban infrastructure
Improved air quality
Improved water quality
Reduced urban stormwater runoff quantity
Create habitat
Sequester Carbon.
Developers take the numerous proven benefits of green roofs into account but because of the lack of information,
perceived risk and additional cost associated with the technology have not implemented them on a wide spread basis.
Urban development has become a maze filled with complex regulations and requirements which creates further
disincentive for developers to implement innovative building technologies such as green roofs into projects. In order to
entice developers and building owners to utilize certain green roofs or other green building practices, incentive
structures are implemented. There are financial incentives to reduce the additional upfront cost for implementation of
a green roof as well as intangible incentives that provide other inducement, such as increased density or technical
assistance for a green project. To date, various incentive structures have been implemented in municipalities with
different characteristics across every region of the United States. It is evident that green roof incentives and support for
sustainable green building techniques can be achieved in all municipalities. Successful incentivization of green roof
implementation relies on a combination of the following:
Removal of barriers to green roof incentives

Creation of a variety of incentive packages in conjunction with regulation
Increased education and outreach of the green roof technology and sustainable green
Creation of a baseline of green roof interest and understanding
Research and compiled performance data
Implementation of demonstration projects to form case studies and increase awareness
Formalize green roof incentive administration
Provide technical assistance and create a green roof specialist position
Cultivate a culture of urban environmental awareness through prescriptive culture campaigns.
Additionally, the creation of green impact zones, the incorporation of green roofs into the Energy Star program and the
modification of building codes to contain green roof ready construction will provide regulation and greater incentive for
green roofs across the country.
37 | P a g e
2009
The groundwork must be laid by the municipal government through public education and outreach to create a culture
around urban environmental awareness which focuses on sustainable building practices such as green roofs that protect
our common assets and our natural resources. The urbanization of land will continue to escalate as the population
continues to grow. Regardless of economic climate or political will, development and the conversion of land are
inevitable. Ian McHarg, in 1969, wrote Design With Nature to provide a road map for the creation of a healthier
relationship between the built and natural environment. Forty years later the book is still relevant and acts as a siren for
the necessity of the incorporation of natural functions into our built world. Vegetated green roofs provide just such an
opportunity for urban rooftops which shelter people from the elements and house equipment but are largely
underutilized. Every roof retrofit or new construction project is an opportunity to improve our urban environment and
return it to a predevelopment state through green roof implementation and comprehensive sustainable building
practices. Green roofs are a leap forward in development of the built environment that enable urban centers to
function in harmony with nature rather than destroying it.
38 | P a g e
2009
Urban Stormwater Management in the United States. National Research Council report. October 15, 2008. PDF. Page
11. September 2009. < http://epa.gov/npdes/pubs/nrc_stormwaterreport.pdf>.
2
National Resources Inventory: National Statistics Sheet. Farmland Information Center. Sponsored by American Farmland
Trust and NRCS. 2006. Web. September 2009. <http://www.farmlandinfo.org/agricultural_statistics/?RequestTimeout=999>.
3
Mitchell, John G. Urban Sprawl. National Geographic.com. July 2001. Web. September 2009.
<http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/07/01/html/fulltext3.html>.
4
Building Sector Emissions. Playbook for Green Buildings + Neighborhoods. n.d. Web. September 2009.
<http://www.greenplaybook.org/building/learn/ghg_reductions/articles123>.
5
Urban Stormwater Management in the United States. National Research Council report. October 15, 2008. Page 11.
Scholz-Barth, Katrin. From Grey to Green. Green Roofs: Ecological Design and Construction. Earth Pledge. Atglen,
Pennsylvania: Schiffler Publishing LTD, 2005. 16-21.
7
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. Green Roof classification.
Sustainability Matters. US General Services Administration. gsa.gov. 2008. PDF. Page 111. September 2009.
<http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/Sustainability_Matters_508.pdf>.
9
Loftness, Vivian. Improving Building Energy Efficiency in the U.S: Technologies and Policies for 2010 to 2050. Pew Center
on Global Climate Change and the National Commission on Energy Policy. Workshop Proceedings. PDF. Page 2. December 2009.
<http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/10-50_Loftness.pdf>.
10
Bell, Harriet and Graig Spolek. Measured Energy Performance of Greenroofs. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities Conference Proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: June, 2009.
11
Monitoring the Rooftop Gardens Benefits. Department of the Environment. CityofChicago.org. Web. September 2009.
<http://egov.cityofchicago.org>.
12
Omubo-Pepple, VB et al. Effects of Temperature, Solar Flux and Relative Humidity on the Efficient Conversion of Solar
Energy to Electricity. European Journal of Scientific Research. ISSN 1451-216X Vol. 35 No. 2 (2009) Web. October 2009.
<http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr_35_2_02.pdf>.
13
Man Mankiewicz, Paul S. et al. Green roofs and Local Temperature: How green roofs Partition Water, Energy and Costs
in Urban Energy-Air Conditioning Budgets. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference Proceedings. Atlanta,
Georgia: June, 2009.
14
Fletcher, Jenna. Hennepin County Economic Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Report commissioned by Embrace Open
Space. June 2009. PDF. September 2009. <http://www.embraceopenspace.org/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC={DD6A39C2-79EA4F7E-BBEB-01788B620928}>.
15
Fletcher, Jenna. Hennepin County Economic Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Report commissioned by Embrace Open
Space. June 2009. PDF. September 2009. <http://www.embraceopenspace.org/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC={DD6A39C2-79EA4F7E-BBEB-01788B620928}>.
16
Wachter, Susan. The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformations in Philadelphia Identification and Analysis: The
New Kensington Pilot Study. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. 2005. PDF. September 2009.
<http://gislab.wharton.upenn.edu/silus/Papers/GreeningStudy.pdf>.
39 | P a g e
2009
17
ONeill, Hugh et al. Valuing Central Parks Contributions to New York Citys Economy. Appleseed Consultants for the
Central Park Conservancy. May 2009. PDF. September 2009. <http://www.appleseedinc.com/reports/centralpark-may2009.pdf>.
18
Burr, Andrew C. CoStar Study Finds Energy Star, LEED Bldgs. Outperform Peers. CoStar Realty Information Inc. March
2008. Web. September 2009. <http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=D968F1E0DCF73712B03A099E0E99C679>.
19
Sustainability Matters, 2008. GSA. page 19.
20
Sabine, Paul E. The Problem of Industrial Noise. Presented before the Industrial Hygiene Section of the American Public
Health Association at the 72nd Annual Meeting in New York, New York: October, 1943. PDF. October 2009.
<http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/34/3/265.pdf>.
21
Noise Induced Hearing Loss. American Hearing Research Foundation. 2008. Web. September 2009.
<http://www.american-hearing.org/disorders/hearing/noise_induced.html>.
22
Reducing Food Miles. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. NCAT 1997-2009. Web. September 2009.
<http://attra.ncat.org/farm_energy/food_miles.html>.
23
Goodman, Wendy. This is a Roof. New York Magazine. June 21, 2009. Web. October 2009.
<http://nymag.com/guides/summer/2009/57477/>.
24
September, Aysa N. and Steven Peck. Green Roof Herb Garden Case Study. The Cardinal Group Inc. PDF. September
2009. <http://www.institutocidadejardim.com.br/TelhadosVerdes/Telhados%20Verdes%20%20Agricultura%20Urbana_files/Fairmont%20Waterfront%20Hotel%20green%20roof.pdf>.
25
Brooke, James. Heat Island Tokyo Is in Global Warmings Vanguard. New York Times. August 13, 2002. Web
September 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/13/world/heat-island-tokyo-is-in-global-warming-s-vanguard.html>.
26
Liu, K.K.Y. Energy Efficiency and Environmental Benefits of Rooftop Gardens. National Research Council Canada. March
2002. PDF. October 2009. <http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/lansdowne_partnership/rooftop_gardens.pdf>.
27
28
Peck , Steven. Forward. Green Roofs: In Sustainable Landscape Design. By Steven L. Cantor. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc, 2008. 8-9.
29
Edwards, Daniel and Alan Proffitt. The environmental and economic benefits of Ecoroofs. Greening Rooftops for
Sustainable Communities conference proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: June, 2009.
30
31
Morbidity & Mortality: 2007 Chart Book on Cardiovascular, Lung, and Blood Disease. National Institutes of Health. June
2007. PDF. October 2009. < http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/07-chtbk.pdf>.
32
Morbidity & Mortality. National Institutes of Health. June 2007.
40 | P a g e
2009
33
Nowak, David J. The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.
Syracuse, New York. PDF. October 2009.
<www.coloradotrees.org/.../Effects%20of%20Urban%20Trees%20on%20Air%20Quality.pdf>.
34
Clark, Corrie et al. Multimedia Modeling of Air Pollutants in Green Roof Systems. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities conference proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: June, 2009.
35
Green Roofs for Stormwater Runoff Control. United States Environmental Protection Agency. February 2009. PDF.
September 2009. <www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r09026/600r09026.pdf>.
36
Protecting our Waters: Stormwater. Milwaukee River Basin Partnership. 2003. Web. September 2009. <http://cleanwater.uwex.edu/plan/stormwater.htm>.
37
Executive Summary: Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs. US Environmental Protection
Agency. August 2004. PDF. September 2009. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy_report2004.cfm>.
38
Executive Summary: Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs. US EPA. 2004.
39
Report to Congress on Impacts and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows: Fact Sheet.
US Environmental Protection Agency. August 2004. PDF. September 2009.
<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy_report2004.cfm>.
40
Report to Congress on Impacts and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows: Fact Sheet. US
EPA. 2004.
41
Report to Congress on Impacts and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows: Fact Sheet.
US EPA. 2004.
42
Clean Watershed Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress: Executive Summary. US Environmental Protection Agency.
2000. PDF. September 2009. < http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/2000rtc/toc.htm>.
43
U.S. Inflation Calculator. 2009. WEB. December 2009. < http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/>
44
Edwards, Chad Wayne. Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati Funds American Red Cross Green Roof.
Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities conference proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: June, 2009.
45
Kohler, Manfred. How green should a green roof be? Extensive Green Roofs without Irrigation. Greening Rooftops for
Sustainable Communities conference proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: June, 2009.
46
Cantor, Steven L. Green Roofs: In Sustainable Landscape Design. By Steven L. Cantor. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc, 2008. 30.
47
Frith, Mathew and James Farrell. Green Roofs and the Urban Renaissance in Britian. Green Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities conference proceedings. Chicago, Illinois: 2003.
48
49
41 | P a g e
2009
50
Kadas, Dr. G. and D. Gedge. Can Green Roofs Provide Habitat For Invertebrates In An Urban Environment? PDF.
September 2009. <http://www.livingroofs.org/NewFiles/laymansguide2.pdf>.
51
Getter, Kristin L. and D. Bradley Rowe. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Extensive Green Roofs. Greening Rooftops
for Sustainable Communities conference proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: June, 2009.
52
Wark, Christopher G. and Wendy W. Wark. Green Roof Specifications and Standards: Establishing an emerging
technology. The Construction Specifier. August 2003. PDF. September 2009. < http://www.greenroofs.com/pdfs/newslinks803_construction_specifier.pdf>.
53
2008 Green Roof Industry Survey Results. Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. PDF. December 2009.
<http://www.greenroofs.org/resources/GRHC_Industry_Survey_Report_2008.pdf>
54
Peiser, Richard B. , with Anne B. Frej. Professional Real Estate Development: The ULI Guide to the Business. Second
Edition. Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2003. page 3.
55
FAQs.. Roofscapes inc. 2000 2009. WEB. September 2009. < http://www.roofmeadow.com/faqs/faqs.php>.
56
Industry support: Switzerland. Greenroofs.com. 2007. Web. September 2009.

<http://www.greenroofs.com/Greenroofs101/industry_support.htm#Switzerland >
57
Green Roof Professional (GRP) Accreditation. Green Roofs for Health Cities. Web. September 2009.
<http://www.greenroofs.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170&Itemid=86>.
58
Gordon V.R. Holness Improving Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings. ASHRAE Journal. FindArticles.com. 23 Sep, 2009.
Web. September 2009. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5PRB/is_1_50/ai_n25376330/>.
59
Hendricks, Bracken et al. Rebuilding America: A National Policy Framework for Investment in Energy Efficiency Retrofits.
Center for American Progress. August 2009. PDF. September 2009.
<http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/pdf/rebuilding_america.pdf>.
60
Hannover, Losken, G., et al., eds. Guideline for the Planning, Execution and Upkeep of Green-Roof Sites. Bonn:
Florschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau e. V. FLL, 2002.
61
Gibbons, Michael F. ASTM Internationals Green Roof Activities. US EPA teleconference presentation. October 31, 2006.
PDF. September 2009. <http://epa.gov/heatisland/resources/pdf/ASTM_GRTG_Update_31_Oct_06.pdf>.
62
Gibbons, Michael F. ASTM Internationals Green Roof Activities. US EPA teleconference presentation. October 31, 2006.
PDF. September 2009. <http://epa.gov/heatisland/resources/pdf/ASTM_GRTG_Update_31_Oct_06.pdf>.
63
ASTM International: Standards Worldwide. 1996-2009. Web. September 2009. <www.astm.org>.
64
Green Roof Professional (GRP) Accreditation. Green Roofs for Health Cities. Web. September 2009.
<http://www.greenroofs.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170&Itemid=86>.
65
Hardin, Garrett. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science. Vol. 162, No. 3859. December 13, 1968. Pp. 1243-1248. Web.
September 2009. < http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html>.
42 | P a g e
2009
66
Duhigg, Charles. Toxic Waters: Clean Water Laws are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering. New York Times. September
13, 2009. Web. October 2009.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1254513784Hc8DxBYIO7FbiJz5JebcSA>.
67
13, 2009. Web. October 2009.
68
13, 2009. Web. October 2009.
69
Lawlor, Gail et al. Green Roofs: A Resource Manual for Municipal Policy Makers. Canada Housing and Mortgage
Corporation. 2006. page 10.
70
Green Infrastructure: Projects, Performance and Policies. Green Infrastructure Foundation, 2009. page 96.
71
Green Buildings Online LLC. 2008. Web. September 2009. <http://www.green-buildings.com/content/78392-leedcertification-credits-green-roofs>.

72
Peck, Steven W. et al. Greenbacks From Green Roofs: Forging a New Industry in Canada. March 1999. PDF. September
2009. < http://ohio.sierraclub.org/miami/images/files/Greenbacks.pdf>. p. 12.
73
Keeley, Melissa. Incentivizing Green Roofs Through Parcel Based Stormwater Fees. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities conference proceedings. Minneapolis, Minnesota: April, 2007.
74
Ngan, Goya. Green Roof Policies: Tools for Encouraging Sustainable Design. December 2004. PDF. September 2009.
<http://www.gnla.ca/assets/Policy%20report.pdf>. page 10.
75
<http://www.gnla.ca/assets/Policy%20report.pdf>. page 10.
76
Based on September 2009 conversion rates.
77
Hermann, Robert. Green Roofs In Germany: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Green Rooftops for Sustainable
78
Based on September 2009 conversion rate.
79
Philippi, Peter M. How to Get Cost Reduction in Green Roof Construction. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities conference proceedings. Boston, Massachusetts: May, 2006.
80
Industry Support. Greenroofs.com. 2007. Web. September 2009.

<http://www.greenroofs.com/Greenroofs101/industry_support.htm>
81
Based on December 2009 conversion rates.
43 | P a g e
2009
82
83
84
<http://www.gnla.ca/assets/Policy%20report.pdf>. page 40-42.
85
86
Green and Innovative Buildings. Government of Hong Kong Buildings Department, Joint Practice Note No. 1, 2004.
PDF. May 2009. <http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/joint/JPN01.pdf>.
87
Green and Innovative Buildings. Government of Hong Kong Buildings Department, Joint Practice Note No. 1, 2004.
PDF. May 2009. <http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/joint/JPN01.pdf>.
88
Corporation. 2006. page 66-68.
89
Corporation. 2006. page 66-68.
90
Make Room for Black Redstarts: A species action plan for Greater Manchester. 2008. PDF. December 2009.
<http://www.gmbp.org.uk/site/images/stories/pdf/Black%20Redstart%20BAP.pdf>.
91
Implementing the Green Roof Incentive Pilot Program 2006-2007. Toronto Staff Report. February 23, 2006. PDF.
September 2009. < http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/wks/wks060307/it022.pdf>.
92
Based on September 2009 conversion rates.
93
Green Roof Incentive Pilot Program. Staff Report: City of Toronto. April 18, 2007. PDF. September 2009. <
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-3302.pdf>.
94
Live green Toronto. City of Toronto, 1998-2009. Web. September 2009. <http://www.toronto.ca/livegreen/bus_ecoroof.html>.
95
Mulqueen, Mike (mmulqu@toronto.ca). Eco-roof incentive program. Email to Nora Shepard (norashepard@gmail.com).
July 29, 2009.
96
97
Rainwater, Brooks and Cooper Martin. Local Leaders in Sustainability. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities
conference proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: June, 2009.
98
LEED Public Policies. U.S. Green Building Council. 2009. WEB. September 2009.
<http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1852>.
44 | P a g e
2009
99
Rainwater, Brooks and Cooper Martin. Local Leaders in Sustainability. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities
conference proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: June, 2009.
100
Pippin, Anne Marie. Survey of Local Government Green Building Incentive Programs for Private Development.
University of Georgia: School of Law and College of Environment and Design. Edited by Jamie Baker Roskie. Spring 2009. PFD.
September 2009. < http://www.law.uga.edu/landuseclinic/research/leed_pippin.pdf>.
101
New York State Senate Introducers Memorandum In Support, submitted in accordance with Senate Rule VI. Sec 1.
Bill Number: S7553 An Act to amend the real property tax law and the education law, in relation to a green roof tax abatement for
certain properties in a city of one million or more persons. September 3, 2008.
102
Posluszny, Marna (maposlus@gw.dec.state.ny.us). green building tax credit and vegetated green roofs. Email to Nora
Shepard (norashepard@gmail.com). August 31, 2009.
103
Gerard, Bonnie (bgerard@buildings.nyc.gov). NYC green roof tax credit. Email to Nora Shepard
(norashepard@gmail.com). July 24, 2009.
104
105
Phillys Green Roof Tax Credit. Building Green on Montrose. February 8, 2009. WEB. September 2009.
<http://montrosegreen.blogspot.com/2009/01/phillys-green-roof-tax-credit.html>.
106
Merritt, Larry (larry.merritt@cityofchicago.org). Cool Roof Grant Program Questions. Email to Nora Shepard
(norashepard@gmail.com). August 18, 2009.
107
Hanna, Ashley (Ashley@dcgreenworks.org). current numbers of Green Roof Subsidy applications/ projects awarded.
Email to Nora Shepard (norashepard@gmail.com). September 2, 2009.
108
Ecoroof Department within the Bureau of the Environment, City of Portland, Oregon. Telephone interview. July 28, 2009.
109
110
Carone, Kate (Kate.Carone@bes.ci.portland.or.us). City of Portland TrackIT Submission:BES Online Forms Item 348638.
Email to Nora Shepard (norashepard@gmail.com). September 23, 2009.
111
Our Latest Initiatives: greeNEr. WEB. October 2009.

<http://www.dcgreenworks.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=41>
112
Our Latest Initiatives: greeNEr. WEB. October 2009.

<http://www.dcgreenworks.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=41>
113
Ficicchia, Christina. Tackling Global Warming (In the Bronx). Regional Latino Leadership Briefing on Global Warming.
July 31, 2008. PDF. September 2009. < http://latinocoalitiononclimatechange.org/PRESENTATION%20Bronx%20Initiative%20for%20Energy%20and%20the%20Environment.pdf>
114
Henderson, Robin. Telephone Interview. August 20, 2009.
45 | P a g e
2009
115
Analyzing the Cost of Obtaining LEED Certification. The American Chemistry Council. Prepared by Northbridge
Environmental Management Consultants. April 16, 2003. PDF. September 2009. < http://www.cleanaircoolplanet.org/for_communities/LEED_links/AnalyzingtheCostofLEED.pdf>.
116
117
Molloy, Jenny et al. Federal Regulatory Drivers of Green Infrastructure Approaches to Wet Weather Management.
Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities conference proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: June, 2009.
118
Stormwater Strategies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollution. Natural Resource Defense Council . May 1999.
Web. September 2009. < http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/chap4.asp>.
119
Clean Water Infrastructure Program. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson. 1999 2009. Web.
September 2009. < http://www.nashville.gov/water/cwip/faqs.asp>.
120
2007 Stormwater Utility Survey. Black & Veatch. 2007. PDF. September 2009.
<http://www.bv.com/Downloads/Resources/Brochures/rsrc_EMS_2007StormwaterUtilitySurvey.pdf>.
121
Clean River Rewards: Contain the Rain. Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. 2009. Web. September 2009.
<http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=41976>.
122
Your Sewer Dollars at Work. Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. 2009. Web. September 2009.
<http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=47683&a=199690>.
123
Ostrow. Resolution of the City of Minneapolis. 2008. PDF. September 2009.

<http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/stormwater/fee/SewerStormwaterRateResolution.pdf>.
124
Chellsen, Paul and Kristina Robertson. The Stick and the Carrot, an Effective Approach to Green Roof Policy. Greening
Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference Proceedings. Boston, Massachusetts: May, 2006.
125
Keeley, Melissa. Incentivizing Green Roofs Through Parcel Based Stormwater Fees. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities conference proceedings. Minneapolis, Minnesota: April, 2007.
126
Olsen, Erik L. The City of Chicago Green Permit Program. Building Safety Journal. August 2007. PDF. September 2009.
<http://www.iccsafe.org/news/green/pdf/0807BSJ24.pdf>.
127
Harris, Jess. Telephone interview.
128
Evaluation of Entitlement Bonus and Transfer Programs Portlands Central City: Report on Findings. Johnson Gardner.
prepared for The City of Portland, Oregon Bureau of Planning, November 2007. PDF. September 2009.
<http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=177368>.
129
County Board Agenda Item Meeting of March 14, 2009: Green Building Density Incentive Policy for Site Plan Projects.
Arlington County, Virginia. February 27, 2009. PDF. September 2009.
<http://www.co.arlington.va.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/epo/PDFfiles/file69951.pdf>.
130
46 | P a g e
custom@ladwp.com. Energy Efficiency Incentives and Green Roofs. Email to Nora Shepard (nora@dcgreenworks.org).
2009
131
Mayor Daleys GreenWorks Awards 2007. City of Chicago: Department of Environment. WEB. September
2009.<http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@0992770966.1263322559
@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccfadejgfdljdecefecelldffhdffm.0&contentOID=536973578&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChann
elName=Dept&blockName=Environment/Mayor+Daley's+GreenWorks+Awards/Content&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0
&entityName=Environment&deptMainCategoryOID=-536887204>.
132
Green Roof Bylaw. Toronto. Web. September 2009. <http://www.toronto.ca/greenroofs/overview.htm>.
133
Berkshire, Michael. Telephone interview. August 18, 2009.
134
LEED Public Policies. U.S. Green Building Council. 2009. WEB. September 2009.
<http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1852>.
135
Understanding the Dillon Rule. Blue Commonwealth. May 16, 2009. Web. September 2009.
<http://www.bluecommonwealth.com/diary/336/understanding-the-dillon-rule>.
136
Green Roof Toolkit District Department of the Environment. PDF. September 2009.
<ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/lib/ddoe/2009.05.04_Green_Roof_Toolkit.pdf>.
137
Chicago Center for Green Technology. City of Chicago. Web. Septemeber 2009.
<http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalEntityHomeAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1417531951.1254675921@@@
@&BV_EngineID=cccdadeihjiehmhcefecelldffhdfif.0&entityName=Chicago+Center+for+Green+Technology&entityNameEnumValue=
161>.
138
Lindhqvist, Violetta. Swedish Green Roof Initiative: The Green Roof Society, the International Green Roof Institute and
Augustenborgs Botanical Roof Garden Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities conference proceedings. Chicago, Illinois:
2003.
139
Davis, Kim and Marian Kim. Vancouvers Green Roof Inventory and Next Steps. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
140
Pantalone, Joe and Liora Zion Burton. Making Green Roofs Happen in Toronto. Proceedings from t he Greening
Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Boston May 11-12, 2006.
141
<http://www.gnla.ca/assets/Policy%20report.pdf>.
142
McKinney, Eleanor H. Green Roofs in Texas: Four Case Studies. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities
conference proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: June, 2009
143
Molloy, Jenny et al. Federal Regulatory Drivers of Green Infrastructure Approaches to Wet Weather Management.
Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities conference proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: June, 2009
144
<http://www.gnla.ca/assets/Policy%20report.pdf>.
145
Gaffin, Stuart et al. Energy Balance Modeling Applied to a Comparison of White and Green Roof Cooling Efficiency.
Center for Climate Systems Research and Penn State Center for Green Roof Research. 2005. PDF. October 2009.
<http://www.roofmeadow.com/technical/publications/GaffinetalPaperDC-0009.pdf>.
47 | P a g e
2009
146
Gaffin, Stuart, et al. Energy Balance Modeling Applied to a Comparison of White and Green Roof Cooling Efficiency.
Center for Climate Research and Penn State Center for Green Roof Research. PDF. September 2009.
<http://www.roofmeadow.com/technical/publications/GaffinetalPaperDC-0009.pdf>.
147
Federal Tax Credits for Consumer Energy Efficiency. Energy Star. WEB. September 2009.
<http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index>
148
Muro, Mark, and Sarah Rahman. Design Snapshot Kansas Citys Green Impact Zone: Targeting ARRA for Neighborhood
Uplift. July 23, 2009. WEB. September 2009. < http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0723_arra_kansas_city.aspx>.
149
Bennett, Rob. EcoDISTRICTS Framework Concept for Metro Portland. Portland + Oregon Sustainability Institute. May
19, 2009. PDF. September 2009. < http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=246720>.
150
D.C. planners topping off H Street rehab with green. Washington Business Journal. April 17, 2009. WEB. September
2009. < http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/04/20/story4.html>.
151
Gov. Ritter Signs Solar Ready Homes Bill. Office of Governor Bill Ritter, JR. May 4, 2009. Press Release. WEB.
September 2009. < http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/GovRitter/GOVR/1241443584034>.
48 | P a g e

DC Greenworks 2010 Survey of Green Roof Incentive Policies PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DC Greenworks 2010 Survey of Green Roof Incentive Policies PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Green Roof Incentives | A 2010 Resource Guide

Written By | Nora Shepard, GRP

Green Roof Incentives | 2010 A Resource Guide

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Implement demonstration projects to form case studies 34

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

GREEN ROOF ELEMENTS

Figure 1| Vegetated green

There are three widely

Figure 2 | From left to right Loose laid green roof system

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

BENEFITS OF GREEN ROOFS

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

CHALLENEGES FOR WIDESPREAD GREEN ROOF IMPLEMENTATION

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Development stakeholders | Development involves a variety of interested parties: architects, builders,

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN ROOF STANDARDS

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Figure 3| left - Quorum Center

NEED FOR GREEN ROOFS AND INCENTIVES

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

GREEN ROOF INCENTIVE AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

GREEN ROOF INCENTIVE OPTIONS

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES OF GREEN ROOF INCENTIVES

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Canada |Green Roof and Cool Roof Grant Programs

Figure 4 | left Pullen

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

ANALYSIS OF GREEN ROOF INCENTIVES IN THE UNITED STATES

Figure 5 | Green roof incentives in the United States

The AIA study, Local Leaders in

Figure 6 | Using 2008 estimated populations,

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Figure 7 | Based on the green roof incentives

42,374,499 Americans live in cities that

Figure 8| Muncipalities with population densities

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Figure 9 | The West and the Northeast lead the way in

Today there are around 90 direct, indirect

Figure 10 | Total number of direct (35) , indirect (15)

Finally, the break down of the different

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

Figure 10 | 90 direct, indirect and intangible green

EXAMPLES OF GREEN ROOF INCENTIVES IN THE UNITED STATES

DIRECT FINANCIAL GREEN ROOF INCENTIVES

Bill 85-07: Anne

Property owners apply for a credit to their property taxes

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide

New York City

State bill (A.11226) - Building owners in New York State

Bill No. 070072 - applicant may claim a credit against the

Green Roof Incentives | A Resource Guide