Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug

Effects of vegetation, urban density, building height, and atmospheric

conditions on local temperatures and thermal comfort
Katia Perini ∗ , Adriano Magliocco
University of Genoa, Department of Architectural Sciences, Stradone S. Agostino, 37, 16123 Genoa, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This paper shows the effects of several variables, which co-cause the Urban Heat Island effect on temper-
ENVI-met ature distribution and outdoor thermal comfort (by using the Predicted Mean Vote, PMV) on dense urban
Green roof environments. The study was conducted by means of a three-dimensional microclimate model, ENVI-met
Temperature
3.1, which forecasts the microclimatic changes within urban environments. The effects of building density
Thermal comfort
(% of built area) and canyon effect (building height) on potential temperature, mean radiant temperature,
Urban heat island
Vegetation and Predicted Mean Vote distribution are quantified. The influence of several types of green areas (vegeta-
tion on the ground and on roofs) on temperature mitigation and on comfort improvements is investigated
for different atmospheric conditions and latitudes in a Mediterranean climate. The research quantifies
the effects of the variables investigated on temperature distributions and in determining outdoor com-
fort conditions. Vegetation on the ground and on roofs mitigates summer temperatures, decreases the
indoor cooling load demand, and improves outdoor comfort. The results of the study demonstrate that
density and height of buildings in a city area influence potential temperature, mean radiant temperature,
and Predicted Mean Vote distribution; for most of the cases examined higher density causes higher tem-
peratures and with taller buildings vegetation has higher cooling effects. Considering the cooling effect
of vegetation, a difference can be noticed depending on the amount of green areas and vegetation type.
The results of this study show also that vegetation is more effective with higher temperatures and lower
relative humidity values in mitigating potential temperatures, mean radiant temperatures, and PMV and
in decreasing the cooling load demand.
© 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Introduction side-effects of human activities, and the excess of asphalted areas

European cities tend to be densely built and have become to
be highly polluted; this is an environmental topic which is impor-
tant to address (Legambiente, 2011). Four out of five European
citizens live in urban areas, and their quality of life is directly
influenced by the state of urban environment; the environmental
problems within cities have significant consequences on human
health, citizens’ quality of life as also urban economic performance
(COM/2005/0718). David Owen (2009) states that people living in
cities consume less energy compared to people living in suburbs
or rural areas, therefore reducing the negative effects of envi-
ronmental issues for human health and quality of life to pursue
sustainable development is mandatory. High levels of pollution
in the atmosphere along with “cementification” of urban areas,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 3282144076.
E-mail addresses: kperini@arch.unige.it, katia.perini7@gmail.com (K. Perini),
magliocc@arch.unige.it (A. Magliocco).
(low albedo) in comparison to green areas cause the urban heat
island phenomenon: temperature difference between cities and
suburban or rural areas is determined by this phenomenon (2–5 ◦ C;
Taha, 1997). Several studies show that this phenomenon has been
increasing in these past years with the rise of temperatures in cities
(Böhm, 1998; Hasanean, 2001; Rozbicki and Golaszewski, 2003),
and causes damage to human health especially during summer
periods, when air temperatures remain high also during the night
(Taha, 1997; Tereshchenko and Filonov, 2001). High urban tem-
peratures have caused in Europe a drastic increase in using cooling
systems (which cause the emission of pollutants coming from the
use of fossil sources). Studies ordered by the European Union, such
as “Energy Efficiency and Certification of Central Air Condition-
ers” (EECCAC) and “Energy Efficiency of Room Air Conditioners”
(EERAC), forecast for 15 European member states an increase up
to four times of the energy consumption for air conditioning. The
use of air conditioning related to higher temperatures increases,
itself, the Urban Heat Island phenomenon (UHI, Landsberg, 1981;
Santamouris et al., 2001; Nakamatsu et al., 2003; Petralli et al.,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.03.003
1618-8667/© 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
496 K. Perini, A. Magliocco / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506
2006). This is an important field to investigate for the creation of
a more sustainable environment since buildings consume about
40% of the energy used (IEA-ECBCS, International Energy Agency –
Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems, Annual
report 2012).
Huge quantities of solar radiations are mainly stored and re-
radiated in urban areas due to massive construction material and
canyon effect, which is more relevant with taller buildings (Arnfield
et al., 1999; Santamouris et al., 2001). A study conducted in the
city of Florence (Italy) shows the impact of green areas on air
temperatures inside the city. The conclusion was that the tem-
perature distribution is connected to the distance from the city
centre, the mean number of buildings per square metre, and their
height. Higher air temperatures were found in the city centre.
Within green areas located in the city centre (parks or gardens)
lower temperatures were recorded compared to the ones recorded
in the street (1.5–2 ◦ C, Petralli et al., 2006). This happens because
greened surfaces have different albedo values compared to arti-
ficial hard surfaces (20–30% for vegetation and 5% for asphalt,
Mariani and Sovrano Sangallo, 2005) and high concentration of
water (Taha, 1997). Within urban areas, the impact of evapotranspi-
ration and shading of plants can significantly reduce the amount of
heat that would be re-radiated by façades and other hard surfaces
(Scudo and Ochoa De La Torre, 2003; Shashua-Bar and Hoffman,
2000).
In addition to green areas on the ground, also green roofs can
have an important role, as they can represent up to 32% of the hor-
izontal surface of built-up areas (Frazer, 2005). Rosenzweig et al.
(2006) suggested that if New York City covers 50% of roof tops with
green roofs, the temperature difference between the city and its
surroundings may decrease by 0.8 ◦ C.
The effects of vegetation on microclimate depend also on atmo-
spheric conditions (local climate), as demonstrated by Alexandri
and Jones (2008); the authors simulated a temperature decrease in
an urban canyon with green façades and green roofs for a reduction
of air temperature higher than 6 ◦ C for a Mediterranean climate and
up to 4 ◦ C for a temperate climate.
The effects of vegetation on microclimate and comfort can be
evaluated by using environmental modelling. This was conceived
with the aim to understand many of the current environmental
problems; it allows to quantify the effects due to zone changes (land
coverage) on meteorological parameter and on quality of life con-
sequences, through microclimate models as Envi-met (Nardino and
Georgiadis, 2011).
Envi-met models have been used in several studies to evalu-
ate the effects of the characteristics of cities on their microclimate.
Krüger et al. (2011) observed and estimated relations between
urban morphology and changes to microclimate and air quality
within a city centre; Fahmy et al. (2010) studied the leaf area index
(LAI) using ENVI-met plants database as platform for a foliage mod-
elling parameter, the leaf area density (LAD). Ali-Toudert and Mayer
(2007) analyse the relation between outdoor thermal comfort and
the design of an urban street by using the three-dimensional
microclimate model ENVI-met; they found that vertical profiles
and different orientations of street have a moderate impact on
the air temperature and a strong effect on the heat gained by a
human body: the larger the openness to the sky of the canyon,
the higher the heat stress. For canyons with a smaller sky view,
the orientation is also decisive: E–W canyons are the most stress-
ful and deviating from this orientation ameliorates their thermal
conditions. Yang et al. (2013) compared field measurements of the
thermal behaviour of different types of ground surface and the data
obtained with an ENVI-met model. The results show that the ENVI-
met model is capable of reasonably modelling the diurnal thermal
behaviour of different ground surfaces and their effects on local air
temperature and humidity.
The aim of the study presented is to quantitatively investigate
the influence of several variables, which co-cause the Urban Heat
Island effect, on temperature distribution (potential temperature
and mean radiant temperature) and on outdoor thermal comfort
(PMV) in a typical city area. The role played by vegetation on the
ground – green areas with grass, trees, shrubs – and green roofs in
mitigating summer temperatures (and consequently in reducing
the energy demand for air conditioning) and in improving com-
fort will be quantified. A simulation tool, ENVI-met Version 3.1
BETA V, is used to forecast the microclimatic changes within urban
environment.
The quantitative research is focused on building density (% of
built area) and “cementification”, canyon effect (building height),
and atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, wind speed,
and wind direction). To investigate the effects of building density,
different configurations are simulated, as well as different build-
ing heights to evaluate the role of canyon effect. Three different
locations (latitudes), Milan, Genoa, and Rome (Italy), and for each a
typical summer day and the hottest summer day, are analysed with
the aim to quantify the effects of different atmospheric conditions
in Mediterranean climate.
Methodology
With the aim to forecast the microclimatic changes within urban
environment, a simulation tool, ENVI-met Version 3.1 BETA V,
was used. Envi-met is a three-dimensional microclimate model
designed to simulate the surface–plant–air interactions in urban
environment with a typical resolution of 0.5–10 m in space and
10 s in time; Envi-met can be used to evaluate several aspects of
urban canyons and the effects of vegetation on outdoor comfort
and urban heat island mitigation (Bruse and Fleer, 1998).
Several configurations were simulated. These vary depending
on location, climatic conditions, building density and height, veg-
etation type and quantity. With respect to the locations, latitudes
corresponding to Milan (Lat. 45.29, Long. 9.11), Genoa (Lat. 44.24,
Long. 8.55), and Rome (Lat. 41.54, Long. 12.30) are considered
(Fig. 1). For each city enumerated climatic data recorded within the
city centre during the months of June, July, and August at 10:00 A.M.
in the last three years have been collected (available to the public on
the regions’ web sites at http://www.cartografiarl.regione.liguria.
it/; http://ita.arpalombardia.it/; http://www.arpalazio.net/main/
aria/sci/basedati/meteo.php). According to ENVI-met 3.1 Manual
(Bruse, 2009) a numerical model needs initialisation time, which
cannot be at noon, since the model would not be able to “guess”
the right start conditions. The time 10:00 A.M. was chosen for this
study so that calculations can follow the atmospheric processes,
avoiding overlong simulations (time needed for each simulation).
For each variable related to the atmospheric conditions – tem-
perature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction – about
16,000 data have been used. The “Average summer day” repre-
sents a typical summer day, according to a statistical analysis
which has been used to evaluate the significance of the data. Since
the average values do not represent extreme conditions, these
are separately analysed (“hottest summer day”). For all the cases
analysed, climatic data of temperature and relative humidity are
normally distributed. In confirmation of this, for both tempera-
ture and relative humidity the percentage of data which fall inside
the interval (average ± standard deviation) varies between 65% and
72% (expected normal value 68.3%) and between 94% and 95.6% in
the interval (average ±2 times standard deviation) with expected
normal value 95.5%. The correlation between the collected data
for relative humidity and temperature is negative with a Pearson
Coefficient (degree of linear dependence between two variables) of
−0.75 for Milan and Rome and −0.40 for Genoa, which shows that
 K. Perini, A. Magliocco / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506
Fig. 1. Locations considered in this study: Milan, Genoa, Rome (Italy).
there is a linear correlation between these two variables. For wind
speed and wind direction data reflecting the frequency have been
used.
The “Hottest summer day” is the day with the highest Thom
discomfort index (Table 1). This index (Thom and Bosen, 1959) is
used to combine the several parameters to evaluate which is the
hottest day in terms of effective temperature; values from 24 to
27 indicate that more than 50% of people feel discomfort, values
from 27 to 29 reveal that most of people feel discomfort and their
psychophysical conditions are deteriorating.
Typical city areas are simulated; these are designed according to
the characteristics of a certain number of neighbourhoods built in
the last century in Milan, Genoa, Rome (Italy), and European cities
(instead of analysing real case studies with the aim to consider more
variables with respect to building density and height). The dimen-
sion of the built surface area is 400 m × 400 m (160,000 m2 ). The
main long axis of the buildings runs South-North. This orientation
was chosen as the mostly used during the second post-war building
boom (immediately after World War II a great number of build-
ings were constructed, according to population growth, migratory
flow in direction to metropolis, and to the post-war reconstruction;
Novi, 1999).
To investigate the effect of building density on microclimate,
different configurations have been simulated (Table 2). “Density
1” is made of an area in which buildings cover 30% of the total
surface (48,000 m2 ) with 32 buildings 30 m × 20 m and 32 buildings
30 m × 30 m. For the case “density 2” buildings cover 50% of the total
surface (80,000 m2 ) with 55 buildings 30 m × 20 m and 53 buildings
30 m × 30 m.
The influence of the canyon effect in determining microclimate
conditions is evaluated considering two different heights of build-
ings: “height A” is 14 m (4 floors buildings), “height B” is 24 m
(7 floors buildings). These are both very common in the building
heritage of last century’s construction trends.
497
To evaluate the effect of vegetation in mitigating the urban
heat island phenomenon and in enhancing outdoor thermal com-
fort, three different cases are simulated: “no green”, “green A”,
“green B”. “Green A” and “green B” vary depending on the den-
sity (1 or 2). For “density 1”, “green A” is made of 16 green roofs
(12,000 m2 ) and 11 green areas on the ground (30,000 m2 ), while
for “density 2” 32 green roofs (24,000 m2 ) and 2 green areas on
the ground (8000 m2 ) are considered. With respect to “green B”,
“density 1” includes 56 green roofs (42,000 m2 ) and 23 green areas
on the ground (37,900 m2 ), whereas “density 2” 96 green roofs
(72,000 m2 ) and 2 green areas on the ground (8000 m2 ; Table 2).
Vegetation on the ground is made of a mix of trees with dif-
ferent heights (10–15–20 m), density (very dense, average dense,
light dense), 2 m height hedges, and grass. Green roofs are mostly
planted with grass. Just in the case of “density 2” – “green B” green
roofs are planted also with hedges to simulate an intensive green
roof (Fig. 2). The ground surface, if not greened, is paved.
Coming from the variables described (location, climate, density,
height, green), 72 different configurations are simulated with ENVI-
met 3.1.
As shown in Fig. 2 vegetation and all the other components of the
model (e.g. buildings) are included in the model domain by allocat-
ing various natural soils or artificial materials for each grid cell. Each
vegetation grid cell has its own characteristics. The grid resolution
used for the simulated area measures 5 m horizontally and 2 m ver-
tically (52 m × 52 m × 2 m). A mesh of 80 × 80 grids was allocated
onto the entire model area (4002 m × 4002 m), with a resolution of
5 m. All the simulations carried out start at 10:00 A.M. and run for
4 h; the model saves the data every 60 min.
For each of the 72 simulations the output regards the poten-
tial temperature, the mean radiant temperature, the Predicted
Mean Vote at 1:00 P.M. The graphical interface Leonardo is used
for displaying and analysing the numerical data coming from all
the simulations. To quantify the effects of the several variables
described above on air temperatures, the potential temperature
at 1.6 m height is used. Potential temperature is the temperature
at a standard pressure p0 (1000 mbar). Data of potential tempera-
ture mitigation are used to calculate the potential energy savings
thanks to a simplified steady state analysis. In fact the presence of
vegetation can decrease the cooling load demands inside buildings
due to microclimatic modifications (Alexandri and Jones, 2008). The
radiative cooling effects are quantified considering the mean radi-
ant temperatures simulated at the ground level. Finally, with the
aim to evaluate the thermal comfort at street level, Predicted Mean
Vote data are taken at 1.6 m height from the ground level. The Pre-
dicted Mean Vote (PMV) is a comfort index defined by Fanger (1970)
and mentioned in the ISO 7730:2006 (“Ergonomics of the ther-
mal environment – Analytical determination and interpretation of
thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and
local thermal comfort criteria”). PMV takes into account several
parameters (e.g. air temperature, mean radiant temperature, wind
speed); positive values indicate hot-warm, while negative values
cold. According to the ISO 7730:2006 PMV values between +0.5
and −0.5 correspond to a well-being thermal comfort condition.
Results and discussion
Cooling effects – potential temperature
The output of the simulations in the case of “no green” shows
that density and height of buildings influence the potential tem-
perature distribution (Fig. 3). Looking at the highest outdoor
potential temperatures reached, it can be noticed that higher den-
sity causes higher potential temperatures, since the case “density
1” reaches 34.51 ◦ C and the case “density 2” 35.46 ◦ C with the same
498 K. Perini, A. Magliocco / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506

Table 1
Average atmospheric data of typical summer days and atmospheric data of the hottest summer days recorded at 10:00 A.M. in the city centre of Milan, Genoa, and Rome
(Italy), considering June, July and August of the last 3 years.

Temperature (◦ C) Rel. humidity (%) Wind speed (m/s) Wind direction Thom DI

Milan
Average summer day 23.78 56.09 2.09 South
Hottest summer day 31.00 52.00 1.70 South 26.5
Genoa
Average summer day 26.27 67.47 3.19 South
Hottest summer day 30.60 79.00 2.50 South 27.6
Rome
Average summer day 26.75 59.67 2.43 North
Hottest summer day 32.22 63.00 1.54 S–W 28

building height. Also the height of buildings plays an important
role: with “density 1” and building “height B” the potential tem-
peratures reach 33.63 ◦ C (with almost 1 ◦ C difference compared to
“height A”). In the case of “density 2” the difference between “height
A” and “height B” is more evident: with “height B” the potential
temperature is the lowest (31.78 ◦ C), with a difference of 3.68 ◦ C.
Therefore it can be noticed that with taller buildings temperatures
are lower; this can be due to the shading effect of taller build-
ings at street level at 1:00 P.M. The same trend was found for all
the other locations and atmospheric conditions analysed in this
study.
Considering the effects of vegetation in mitigating potential
temperatures, a difference can be noticed depending on the amount
of green areas, vegetation type (green roofs, green areas with trees,
shrubs, and grass), atmospheric conditions, locations, building den-
sity, and height.
Fig. 4shows the potential temperature reduction – considering
the highest temperatures reached in a single point in the area
analysed – due to vegetation for the average summer day and the
hottest summer day in Milan. The data reported reveal that with
more vegetation potential temperatures are lower. The positive
effect in temperature reduction can be noticed for all the cases

Fig. 2. Part of an ENVi-met 3.1 Model Domain. Vegetation type: “xx” grass, “h” hedge (dense, 2 m height), “MO” Tree 20 m height – average dense, “SM” Tree 20 m height –
very dense; “SK” Tree 15 m height-very dense, “DS” Tree 10 m height-dense, “l2” Tree 15 m height-light. “14” indicates the building height.
 K. Perini, A. Magliocco / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506 499

Table 2
Configurations simulated with ENVI-met 3.1.

Built area surface: 400 m × 400 m (160,000 m2 ).

Orientation of buildings: east-western axis (north top).

No green Green A Green B

Density 1

Height A Buildings cover 30% of the total surface
(48,000 m2 ). 32 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 32
buildings 30 m × 30 m.4 floors buildings, 14 m
height
Buildings cover 30% of the total surface
(48,000 m2 ). 32 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 32
buildings 30 m × 30 m. 4 floors buildings, 14 m
height
16 green roofs (12,000 m2 ). 11 green areas on
the ground (30,000 m2 )
Buildings cover 30% of the total surface
(48,000 m2 ). 32 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 32
buildings 30 m × 30 m. 4 floors buildings, 14 m
height
56 green roofs (42,000 m2 ). 23 green areas on
the ground (37,900 m2 )

Density 2

Height A Buildings cover 50% of the total surface
(80,000 m2 ). 55 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 53
buildings 30 m × 30 m. 4 floors buildings, 14 m
height
Buildings cover 50% of the total surface
(80,000 m2 ). 55 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 53
buildings 30 m × 30 m. 4 floors buildings, 14 m
height
32 green roofs (24,000 m2 ). 2 green areas on
the ground (8000 m2 )
Buildings cover 50% of the total surface
(80,000 m2 ). 55 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 53
buildings 30 m × 30 m. 4 floors buildings, 14 m
height
96 green roofs (72,000 m2 ). 2 green areas on
the ground (8000 m2 )

Density 1

Height B Buildings cover 30% of the total surface
(48,000 m2 ). 32 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 32
buildings 30 m × 30 m. 7 floors buildings, 24 m
height
Buildings cover 30% of the total surface
(48,000 m2 ). 32 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 32
buildings 30 m × 30 m. 7 floors buildings, 24 m
height
16 green roofs (12,000 m2 ). 11 green areas on
the ground (30,000 m2 )
Buildings cover 30% of the total surface
(48,000 m2 ). 32 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 32
buildings 30 m × 30 m. 7 floors buildings, 24 m
height
56 green roofs (42,000 m2 ). 23 green areas on
the ground (37,900 m2 )

Density 2

Height B Buildings cover 50% of the total surface
(80,000 m2 ). 55 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 53
buildings 30 m × 30 m. 7 floors buildings, 24 m
height
Buildings cover 50% of the total surface
(80,000 m2 ). 55 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 53
buildings 30 m × 30 m. 7 floors buildings, 24 m
height
32 green roofs (24,000 m2 ). 2 green areas on
the ground (8000 m2 )
Buildings cover 50% of the total surface
(80,000 m2 ). 55 buildings 30 m × 20 m; 53
buildings 30 m × 30 m. 7 floors buildings, 24 m
height
96 green roofs (72,000 m2 ). 2 green areas on
the ground (8000 m2 )

analysed and especially for building “density 1” and “height B”, “density 2” and “height A” with a potential temperature difference
by up to 1.52 ◦ C difference between “no green” and “green B” of 0.2–0.29 ◦ C for “green B” and 0.1–0.13 ◦ C for “green A”. This
and 0.62 ◦ C difference between “no green” and “green A” for happens because the vegetation type assumed for the simulations
the average summer day. Vegetation is less effective in case of is different between building “density 1” and “density 2” (green
500 K. Perini, A. Magliocco / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506
Fig. 3. Milan (Italy), 1:00 P.M. average summer day – highest outdoor potential
temperatures reached at 1.6 m from the ground for the “no green” situation with
different building densities and heights.
roofs are not very effective at 1.6 m high from the ground). In
general it can be noticed that vegetation is more effective with
higher temperatures (“hottest summer day”); this happens also
because the air temperature difference between the average day
and the hottest day is high (7.22 ◦ C; relative humidity and wind
speed do not vary much, Table 1).
Fig. 5 shows the potential temperature reduction due to vege-
tation for the average summer day and the hottest summer day in
Fig. 4. Potential temperature reduction (◦ C) due to vegetation (“green A” and “green B” cases) at 1.6 m for building “density 1” and “height A”, building “density 1” and “height
B”, building “density 2” and “height A”, building “density 2” and “height B”, Milan average summer day and hottest summer day at 1:00 P.M.
Genoa. A positive effect in temperature reduction can be noticed
for all the cases analysed: vegetation on the ground is again more
effective at street level and especially for building “density 1” and
“height B”, with a difference up to 1.54 ◦ C and 0.63 ◦ C respectively
between “no green” – “green B and “no green” – “green A” for the
average summer day, while for the hottest summer day these values
are 1.59 ◦ C and 0.64 ◦ C.
Also for this location it can be noticed that with more vegeta-
tion (“green B”) potential temperatures are lower. An exception
is the case of “density 2” – “height A”, for which a little difference
between “green A” and “green B” can be noticed (0.06–0.19 ◦ C). Rel-
evant temperature difference can be found in the case of building
“density 2” – “height B” with a potential temperature difference of
1.44–1.17 ◦ C for “green B” and 0.4–0.66 for “green A”. Not a relevant
difference can be noticed between the hottest summer day and the
average summer day; in the case of Genoa the air temperature dif-
ference is lower (4.33 ◦ C) and relative humidity is pretty high for the
hottest summer day (79%; Table 1). As found also by Alexandri and
Jones (2008) the hotter and drier a climate is, the more important
the effect of vegetation in mitigating urban temperatures is.
Compared to Milan and Genoa also Rome reveals a similar trend
for the highest potential temperatures reached in the whole city
area analysed (Fig. 6). For all the cases analysed a positive effect
of vegetation in reducing summer temperatures can be noticed,
especially when more vegetation is assumed. The highest potential
temperatures reached are lower when building density is lower
(“density 1”) thanks to the wide green areas on the ground which
mitigate summer temperatures at 1.6 m high; when buildings are
14 m high (“height A”) the potential temperature reduction goes
from 0.47 to 0.49 ◦ C for “green A” and from 1.28 to 1.56 ◦ C for
“green B”. In the case of “height B” the potential temperature dif-
ference, compared with a “no green” situation, is 0.84–0.78 ◦ C for
“green A” and 1.65–1.61 for “green B”. When the building den-
sity is higher the effect of vegetation on potential temperature is
lower: between 0.17 and 0.29 ◦ C for “green A” and between 0.68
and 0.39 for “green B” case. In general it can be noticed that veg-
etation is more effective with higher temperatures; this happens
also because the air temperature difference between the “average
 K. Perini, A. Magliocco / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506 501

Fig. 5. Potential temperature reduction (◦ C) due to vegetation (“green A” and “green B” cases) at 1.6 m for building “density 1” and “height A”, building “density 1” and “height
B”, building “density 2” and “height A”, building “density 2” and “height B”, Genoa average summer day and hottest summer day at 1:00 P.M.

summer day” and the “hottest summer day” is, as well as for Milan,
high (5.47 ◦ C), while relative humidity and wind speed do not vary
much (Table 1).
The results through all the cases analysed reveal lower temper-
atures for “green A” and “green B” compared to “no green”, and thus
resulting in cooling effect. Finally it can be mentioned that inside
the green areas potential temperatures are much lower compared
to the highest temperatures recorded in the whole city area ana-
lysed (the temperatures shown in Figs. 4–6 and in Table 3). The
potential temperature difference between a green area with grass
and trees and a “no green” area with the same conditions is around
3.5 ◦ C.
Radiative cooling effects – mean radiant temperature
Green areas have a radiative cooling effect as vegetation miti-
gates mean radiant temperatures behind the foliage and also in the
surrounding (streets next to green areas), as shown in Figs. 4–6.
Considering the effects of vegetation on the mean radiant tem-
peratures a difference can be noticed depending on the amount

Fig. 6. Potential temperature reduction (◦ C) due to vegetation (“green A” and “green B” cases) at 1.6 m for building “density 1” and “height A”, building “density 1” and “height
B”, building “density 2” and “height A”, building “density 2” and “height B”, Rome average summer day and hottest summer day at 1:00 P.M.
502 K. Perini, A. Magliocco / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506

D2 – HB
green B

30.68
66.46
3.81
34.46

5.12

31.22
65.19
3.87
33.93

33.42
66.83

66.45
5.78
67.02

36.07
68.4

4.9

4.7
D2 – Ha
green A

31.44

34.98
68.85
5.31

32.49
66.73
4.28
34.44
67.61

33.81

4.83
37.97
68.39
6.29
67.05
4.07

5.07

67.08
nogreen

6.3635
D2 – Hb

31.78

4.14
35.44
68.96
5.42

32.89
66.58
4.41

67.47

67.37

38.14
68.27
66.8

35.1

5.2

34.1

4.9
D2 – Ha
green B

35.17
67.65

38.47
69.68

38.75
67.98
5.82
39.58
68.66
6.18

37.67

5.62
38.65
68.88
6.45
5.09

6.07

68.01
D2 – Ha
green A

35.33

38.57
69.87
6.17

38.56
68.26
5.82
39.52
68.98
6.23

37.77
68.41
5.81
38.87

6.48
69.03
67.9
5.2

Fig. 7. Mean radiant temperature reduction (◦ C) due to vegetation (“green A” and

“green B” cases) for building “density 1” and “height A”, building “density 1” and
“height B”, building “density 2” and “height A”, building “density 2” and “height B”,
Milan average summer day and hottest summer day at 1:00 P.M.
nogreen
D2 – Ha

35.46

5.26
38.67

6.24

68.48
5.91
39.78
68.48
5.91

68.66
5.91
39.11
69.23
6.54
68.09

70.09

38.06
38.9
Highest values reached in the whole city area analysed at 1:00 P.M. Pot. temperature and PMV at 1.6 m high and mean radiant temperature.

of green areas (“green A”, “green B”), vegetation type (green roofs,
green areas with trees, shrubs, and grass), atmospheric conditions,
locations, building density, and height.
D1 – Hb
green B

32.11

4.44

67.96
5.59

33.84
67.34
4.78
35.87
67.83
5.49

33.96

36.79
68.15
67.04

36.09

5.04

6.05

As shown in Fig. 7 the highest mean radiant temperatures

67.5

reached in a single point of the whole city area analysed thanks to

the presence of vegetation are lower compared to a “no green” case
(see Table 3), except for the case of “density 2” – “height B” – “green
D1 – Hb
green A

A” for which a small negative impact can be noticed (−0.25 ◦ C).

67.61
4.72
36.94
69.47
5.94

34.85
67.71

36.82
68.37
5.77

34.77
67.95
5.32
37.62
68.68
6.25
33.01

5.04

The results of the simulations reveal that with more vegetation

mean radiant temperatures are lower. When building density is
higher vegetation is less effective resulting in a small reduction
(from −0.25 to 0.22 ◦ C for “green A” and from 0.34 to 0.56 ◦ C for
nogreen
D1 – Hb

33.63

4.91
37.73
69.92
6.11

35.38

5.23
37.46
68.87
5.95

35.61

5.48

69.23
6.45
68.03

68.03

“green B”). As noticed also for the potential temperature distribu-

38.4
68

tion this is due to the different vegetation type assumed for building
“density 1” and “density 2”. The highest temperature reduction due
to vegetation has been found in “density 1” – “height B” – “green
D1 – Ha
green B

B” with a temperature difference by 1.96 ◦ C in the “hottest summer

33.32
66.98
4.88
36.94
69.14
5.94

35.93
67.17
5.52
37.39

5.82

35.64
67.63
5.22
37.18
68.23
6.22
68.04

day”. In general it can be noticed that between the “average summer

day” and the “hottest summer day” not a relevant difference on the
effects of vegetation has been found. This shows that mean radiant
D1 – Ha

temperatures are not so influenced by the atmospheric conditions

green A

67.47

37.72
69.71
6.14

67.87

38.26
68.72

36.45
68.16
5.52
37.95
68.79
6.41
34.06

5.09

6.06

(in this case air temperature) whereas potential temperatures are.

36.8

5.5

Fig. 8 shows the mean radiant temperature reduction due to

vegetation for the “average summer day” and the “hottest summer
day” in Genoa. Vegetation has a radiative cooling effect in most of
nogreen
D1 – Ha

the cases analysed. For “density 1” mean radiant temperatures are

34.51
68.19
5.22

70.15
6.26

37.27
68.11
5.63
38.76

6.19

36.92

5.66
38.74

6.59
38.2

69.1

68.5

69.4

lower with more vegetation (“green B” from 0.69 to 1.06; “green

A” from 0.24 to 0.5 ◦ C). The effect of vegetation can also be very
small or negative, as it happens for the case “green A” – “density
Tmrad(C◦ )

Tmrad(C◦ )

Tmrad(C◦ )

Tmrad(C◦ )

Tmrad(C◦ )

Tmrad(C◦ )
Tpot (C◦ )

Tpot (C◦ )

Tpot (C◦ )

Tpot (C◦ )

Tpot (C◦ )

Tpot (C◦ )

2” – “height A”. The atmospheric conditions affect “density 1” and

PMV

PMV

PMV

PMV

PMV

PMV

“density 2” cases in a different way; with respect to this aspect

it can be mentioned that for the “hottest summer day” tempera-
tures and relative humidity (79%) are higher and this may influence
Average summer day

Average summer day

Average summer day

vegetation performances when building density is higher.

Hottest summer day

Hottest summer day

Hottest summer day

Considering the simulations carried out for Rome (Fig. 9) a

reduction of the mean radiant temperatures can be noticed thanks
to vegetation in the whole city area analysed, with exception of the
case “density 2” – “height B” – “green A” which reveals a small nega-
Genoa
Milan

Rome
Table 3

tive effect of −0.1 ◦ C. The effects are again more evident when more
vegetation is assumed and for the simulations carried out with a
 K. Perini, A. Magliocco / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506
Fig. 8. Mean radiant temperature reduction (◦ C) due to vegetation (“green A” and
“green B” cases) for building “density 1” and “height A”, building “density 1” and
“height B”, building “density 2” and “height A”, building “density 2” and “height B”,
Genoa average summer day and hottest summer day at 1:00 P.M.
lower building density. For these configurations the atmospheric
conditions influence the performances of vegetation: for the “aver-
age summer day” the mean radiant temperature reduction is in a
range of 0.05–0.87 ◦ C, while for the “hottest summer day” values
are in a range of 0.55–1.17 ◦ C. The trend is different for the cases
of building “density 2”: for the “hottest summer day” the values of
the mean radiant temperature reduction go from −0.1 to 0.35; for
the “average summer day” these are in a range of 0.25–0.65 ◦ C.
In general it can be noticed that the influence of vegetation on
surrounding areas with respect to the mean radiant temperature
reduction is very low. While it can be mentioned that (as pre-
dictable) behind the foliage (inside the green areas) mean radiant
temperatures are much lower compared to the highest tempera-
tures recorded in the whole city area analysed (see temperatures
shown in Figs. 5–7, and Table 3). The mean radiant temperature dif-
ference between a green area on the ground and a “no green” area
Fig. 9. Mean radiant temperature reduction (◦ C) due to vegetation (“green A” and
“green B” cases) for building “density 1” and “height A”, building “density 1” and
“height B”, building “density 2” and “height A”, building “density 2” and “height B”,
Rome average summer day and hottest summer day at 1:00 P.M.
503
Fig. 10. Predicted Mean Vote with “no green” for building “density 1” and “height
A”, building “density 1” and “height B”, building “density 2” and “height A”, building
“density 2” and “height B”, Milan average summer day.
with same conditions is around 20 ◦ C (with temperature difference
between 33 ◦ C and 5 ◦ C). Thus vegetation has relevant radiative
cooling effects behind the foliage.
Thermal comfort improvement – Predicted Mean Vote
The simulation output at 1:00 P.M. for the “no green” case shows
the Predicted Mean Vote at street level revealing discomfort con-
ditions (hot-warm) with the highest values in a range of 4.4–5.26.
As shown in Fig. 10 density and height of buildings influence the
thermal comfort conditions. With taller buildings (“height B”) the
highest PMV reached are lower compared to “height A”: for the
building “density 1” 4.91 and for “density 2” 4.14. In the case of
“density 2” the difference between “height A” and “height B” is
more evident. Therefore it can be noticed that with taller build-
ings thermal comfort conditions improve; this can be due to the
shading effect of buildings at street level at 1:00 P.M.
Even if not so relevant, an improvement of thermal comfort due
to green areas can be noticed; as well as for potential temperatures
and mean radiant temperatures with more vegetation (“green B”) a
major improvement can be noticed. Different performances depend
also on building density and height, as shown in Fig. 11 (PMV reduc-
tion due to vegetation for Milan). A positive effect can be noticed
for all the cases analysed and especially for building “density 1” and
“height B”, with a difference of 0.52 between the case of “no green”
and “green B” and 0.19 between “no green” and “green A”. Vegeta-
tion is less effective in the case building “density 2” – “height A” with
a PMV difference of 0.06–0.07 for “green B” and 0.17 for “green A”.
As for potential temperature this happens because the vegetation
type assumed for the simulations is different for building “density
1” and “density 2”. In general it can be noticed that there is not a rel-
evant difference between the two different atmospheric conditions
analysed.
Also in the simulations carried out for the city of Genoa a posi-
tive effect of vegetation can be noticed especially for all the “green
504 K. Perini, A. Magliocco / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506
Fig. 11. Predicted Mean Vote reduction due to vegetation (“green A” and “green
B” cases) for building “density 1” and “height A”, building “density 1” and “height
B”, building “density 2” and “height A”, building “density 2” and “height B”, Milan
average summer day and hottest summer day, 1.6 m high at 1:00 P.M.
B” cases, with the exception of “density 2” case for which a negative
effect of −0.32 and −0.27 was found (Fig. 12). This can be due to
the atmospheric conditions considered in this study for the Genoa
“hottest summer day”, which are characterised by very high level
of relative humidity, and the influence of green roofs and green
areas on humidity level and air flow. With a PMV difference of
0.46 in the case “green B” – “density 1” – “height B” vegetation
is more effective, while all the other (positive) values are in a range
of 0.09–0.45.
The output of the simulations conducted for Rome (Fig. 13)
shows that more vegetation is more effective in the improvement
of thermal comfort. The positive effect of vegetation is again higher
for “density 1” (in a range of 0.14–0.44), which means that vege-
tation on the ground is more effective than green roofs. Also for
Fig. 12. Predicted Mean Vote reduction due to vegetation (“green A” and “green
B” cases) for building “density 1” and “height A”, building “density 1” and “height
B”, building “density 2” and “height A”, building “density 2” and “height B”, Genoa
average summer day and hottest summer day, 1.6 m high at 1:00 P.M.
Fig. 13. Predicted Mean Vote reduction due to vegetation (“green A” and “green
B” cases) for building “density 1” and “height A”, building “density 1” and “height
B”, building “density 2” and “height A”, building “density 2” and “height B”, Rome
average summer day and hottest summer day, 1.6 m high at 1:00 P.M.
this location it can be noticed that there is not a relevant difference
between the two atmospheric conditions analysed.
The reduction of PMV is up to 0.54 with respect to the highest
values reached in a single point of the whole city area analysed.
The PMV inside the green areas are around 2–3.5, which means
that vegetation improves thermal comfort conditions.
Energy saving – cooling load decrease
Vegetation can decrease indoor cooling load demand thanks
to the temperature variations discussed above, thus resulting in
energy savings for air conditioning. In a simplified steady-state
analysis, without taking into consideration internal thermal gains,
heat gains/losses (qE ) from the building’s fabric with an average
thermal transmittance value U, an indoor temperature Tin and an
outdoor temperature Tout are given by the relationship (Alexandri
and Jones, 2008):
qE = U(Tout − Tin ).
The decrease in cooling load with vegetation (“green A” or
“green B”) is given by:
qEgreen = (Tno gr − Tgr ) × (Tno gr − Tin )−1
For Tno green =
/ Tin , Tno green > Tin and Tgreen > Tin .
Considering an indoor limit temperature for cooling of 26 ◦ C
(according to UNI/TS 11300-1:2008), the average cooling load
decrease due to the “green A” and the “green B” cases at 1:00 P.M.
are shown in Fig. 14. For this calculation the output for x–z axis
(vertical section) have been considered with the aim to give aver-
age values for all the building floors (temperatures are lower for
the last floors).
For all the cases and the locations considered, a positive effect
can be noticed. A major cooling load decrease for all the “green
B” cases analysed was found. The largest cooling load decreases
occur for Rome, where the “average summer day” temperature is
the highest (Table 1): in the case of “density 2” the average cooling
load decrease reaches 37% for “green B” and 34% for “green A”. Since
also for Milan and Genoa in the case of “density 2” – “height B” the
 K. Perini, A. Magliocco / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506
Fig. 14. Average cooling load decrease (%) for all the cities analysed due to vegetation
(“green A” and “green B” cases) for building “density 1” and “height A”, building
“density 1” and “height B”, building “density 2” and “height A”, building “density 2”
and “height B”, average summer day at 1:00 P.M.
cooling load decrease is pretty large it can be noticed that green
roofs are effective in reducing air temperatures at a certain height
from the ground. It is possible to state this because the vegetation
type assumed for the simulations is different for building “density
1” and “density 2”: due to a lack of space for building “density 2”
only two areas on the ground are greened compared to the 23 green
areas on the ground in “density 1” for the “green B” case, but almost
all the roofs are green.
Compared to Milan the climatic data considered for the city
of Genoa are characterised by higher temperatures; however for
this location, probably due to high relative humidity levels and
higher wind speed, the average cooling load decrease is generally
not higher. Finally it can be noticed that when buildings are taller
vegetation is generally more effective in reducing the average cool-
ing load, with differences up to 21% between “height A” and “height
B”.
Considering all the locations analysed the average cooling load
decrease for “density 1” is in a range of 3–15% for “green A” and
9–20% for “green B”, while for the cases of “density 2” the values
are in a range of 6–34% for “green A” and 8–37% for “green B”.
Conclusions
In this study a simulation tool, ENVI-met Version 3.1 BETA V,
has been used to forecast the microclimatic changes within urban
environment. Since the aim of this study was to quantitatively
investigate the influence of several variables which co-cause the
Urban Heat Island effect on temperature distribution (potential
temperature and mean radiant temperature) and on outdoor ther-
mal comfort in a typical city area, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
• Density and height of buildings in a city area influence poten-
tial temperature, mean radiant temperature, and Predicted Mean
Vote distribution. It can be noticed that for the cases examined
higher density causes higher potential temperatures (“density 1”
compared to “density 2” with the same building height of 14 m).
The height of buildings plays an important role in determining
potential temperatures at 1.6 m from the ground level: with taller
buildings temperatures are lower due to their shading effect. The
505
same trend can be noticed for PMV: with taller buildings thermal
comfort conditions improve. For most of the cases analysed with
taller buildings (“height B”) vegetation has higher cooling effects;
as well as for the cooling load decreases for which – thanks to the
integration of vegetation – higher values occur when buildings
are taller.
• Considering the cooling effects of vegetation, a difference can
be noticed depending on the amount of green areas (“green A”,
“green B”) and vegetation type (green roofs, green areas with
trees, shrubs, and grass). The data reported demonstrate that with
more vegetation (“green B”) potential temperatures, mean radi-
ant temperatures, and PMV are lower, as well as the cooling load
decreases are larger. Green areas on the ground (grass, shrubs,
trees) are more effective compared to green roofs in reducing
summer potential temperatures, mean radiant temperatures, and
PMV at street level (1.6 m high); nevertheless green roofs are
more effective in decreasing the cooling load of buildings; this is
an important aspect since in very dense urban areas (e.g. “density
2”) due to a lack of space it may be not possible to add more veg-
etation on the ground, even if green areas have a higher positive
effect on outdoor summer temperatures and comfort.
• Different atmospheric conditions and locations influence the
effect of vegetation in mitigating summer temperatures and out-
door comfort although with irrelevant differences in most of
the cases analysed. Vegetation is more effective with higher
temperatures and lower relative humidity values in mitigating
potential temperatures, mean radiant temperatures, and PMV
and in decreasing the cooling load demand.
• Within the green areas on the ground and behind the foliage
potential temperatures, mean radiant temperatures, and PMV are
much lower compared to the highest temperatures recorded in
the whole city area analysed (Tpot around 3.5 ◦ C; Trad around
20 ◦ C; PMV around 2); however vegetation can reduce summer
temperatures and improve outdoor comfort in the surroundings
(streets next to green areas), which means that vegetation can
reduce the Urban Heat Island Phenomenon in a whole city area.
This study demonstrated how the variables investigated play a
role in temperature distributions and in determining outdoor com-
fort conditions. Vegetation on the ground and green roofs mitigate
summer temperatures and improve outdoor comfort in Mediter-
ranean climate. Furthermore vegetation (green areas on the ground
and green roofs) can decrease the indoor cooling load demand
thanks to temperature variations, thus resulting in energy savings
for air conditioning.
Acknowledgements
This research has been funded as a “Ricerca di Ateneo 2012” by
the University of Genoa and has been developed thanks to a post-
doctoral research financed by the University of Genoa. The Authors
thank Professor Saverio Giulini (University of Genoa) for helping
with the statistical analysis.
References
Alexandri, E., Jones, P., 2008. Temperature decrease in a urban canyon due to green
walls and green roofs in diverse climates. Build. Environ. 43, 480–493.
Ali-Toudert, F., Mayer, H., 2007. Effects of asymmetry, galleries, overhanging facades
and vegetation on thermal comfort in urban street canyons. Solar Energy 81,
742–754.
Arnfield, A.J., Herbert, J.M., Johnson, G.T., 1999. Urban Canyon Heat Source and Sink
Strength Variations: a simulation-based sensitivity study. In: Atti del Congress
of Biometeorology and International Conference on Urban Climate – WMO, Syd-
ney, 8–12 November.
Böhm, R., 1998. Urban bias in temperature time series – a case study for the city of
Vienna, Austria. Clim. Change 38, 113–128.
Bruse, M., 2009. ENVI-met 3.1 Manual, Retrieved on January 20th, 2014 from
http://www.envi-met.com/htmlhelp/helpindex.htm
506 K. Perini, A. Magliocco / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 495–506
Bruse, M., Fleer, H., 1998. Simulating surface–plant–air interactions inside urban
environments with a three dimensional numerical model. Environ. Softw. Mod-
ell. 13, 373–384.
COM/2005/0718. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament on Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment SEC
(2006). Retrieved on January 1st, 2014 from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2005:0718:FIN:EN:HTML
EECCAC, 2003. Energy Efficiency and Certification of Central Air Conditioners
(EECCAC), Final Report – April 2003, Retrieved on January 23rd, 2014 from
http://www.cenerg.ensmp.fr/english/themes/mde/pdf/EECCACfinalvol2.pdf
EERAC, 1999. Energy Efficiency of Room Air-Conditioners, Final Report–May
1999, Retrieved on January 23rd, 2014 from http://www.coolregion.fr/doc/
CLIM RA/doc ref/5 Ecole Mines Paris EERACGB.pdf
Fahmy, M., Sharples, S., Yahiya, M., 2010. LAI based trees selection for mid latitude
urban developments: a microclimatic study in Cairo, Egypt. Build. Environ. 45,
345–357.
Fanger, P.O., 1970. Thermal Comfort. McGraw Hill, New York.
Frazer, L., 2005. Paving paradise. Environ. Health Perspect. 113, 457–462.
Hasanean, H.M., 2001. Fluctuation of surface air temperature in the Eastern Mediter-
ranean. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 68, 75–87.
IEA-ECBCS, 2012. Annual Report. IEA-ECBCS. AECOM Ltd, Hertfordshire, United King-
dom.
Krüger, E.L., Minella, F.O., Rasia, F., 2011. Impact of urban geometry on outdoor ther-
mal comfort and air quality from field measurements in Curitiba, Brazil. Build.
Environ. 46, 621–634.
Landsberg, H.E., 1981. The Urban Climate. Academic Press, New York.
Legambiente (Zampetti, G., Valentini, V., Sciarra, D., Le Donne, K.), 2011. Mal’aria
di città. Retrieved on July 13th, 2011 from http://www.omniauto.it/download/
articoli/14883/Dossier Mal aria citta 2011.pdf
Mariani, L., Sovrano Sangallo, G., 2005. Approccio quantitativo all’analisi degli effetti
urbani sul clima. Riv. Ital. Agrometeorol. 31–36 (2).
Nakamatsu, R., Tsutsumi, J.G., Arakawa, R., 2003. Relations of energy consumption
and local climate in a subtropical region. In: Atti del Fifth International Confer-
ence on Urban Climate, IAUC and WMO, Lodz, Poland, 1–5 September.
Nardino, M., Georgiadis, T., 2011. Catena Modellistica per studi micrometorologici,
microclimatologi e biomereorologici in ambiente urbano. IBIMET CNR Bologna.
Istituto di Biometeorologia (in Italian).
Novi, F., 1999. La riqualificazione sostenibile. Alinea Editrice, Firenze (in Italian).
Owen, D., 2009. Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer and Driving
Less are the Keys to Sustainability. Penguin Books, New York, USA.
Petralli, M., Prokopp, A., Morabito, M., Bartolini, G., Torrigiani, T., Orlandini, S., 2006.
Ruolo delle aree verdi nella mitigazione dell’isola di calore urbana: uno studio
nella città di Firenze. Riv. Ital. Agrometeorol. 51–58 (1) (in Italian).
Rosenzweig, C., Stuart, G., Lily, P., 2006. Green roofs in the New York Metropolitan
Region Report to Columbia University Center for climate systems research. NASA
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York.
Rozbicki, T., Golaszewski, D., 2003. Analysis of local climate changes in Ursynów in
the period 1960–1991 as a result of housing estate development. In: Preprints
Fifth International Conference on Urban Climate, IAUC and WMO, Lodz, Poland,
1–5 September.
Santamouris, M., Papanikolaou, N., Livada, I., Koronakis, I., Georgakis, C., Argiriou,
A., Assimakopoulos, D.N., 2001. On the impact of urban climate on the energy
consumption of buildings. Solar Energy 70, 201–216.
Scudo, G., Ochoa De La Torre, J.M., 2003. Spazi verdi urbani. Se, Napoli (in Italian).
Shashua-Bar, L., Hoffman, M.E., 2000. Vegetation as climatic component in the design
of an urban street—an empirical model for predicting the cooling effect of urban
green areas with trees. Energy Build. 31, 221–235.
Taha, H., 1997. Urban climates and heat islands: albedo, evapotranspiration, and
anthropogenic heat. Energy Build. 25, 99–103.
Tereshchenko, I.E., Filonov, A.E., 2001. Air temperature fluctuations in Guadalajara,
Mexico, from 1926 to 1994 in relation to urban growth. Int. J. Climatol. 21,
483–494.
Thom, E.C., Bosen, J.F., 1959. The discomfort index. Weatherwise 12, 57–60.
UNI EN ISO 7730:2006. Ergonomics of the thermal environment – Analytical deter-
mination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV
and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria. UNI/TS 11300-1:2008.
Yang, X., Zhao, L., Bruse, M., Meng, Q., 2013. Evaluation of a microclimate model for
predicting the thermal behavior of different ground surfaces. Build. Environ. 60,
93–104.