Geography SL IA

To what extent do different surface properties modify urban heating in the

city of Innsbruck, Austria?

Candidate code: kbg405

Session: May 2023

2491 Words

1
Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 6
Equipment: Ecobot ........................................................................................................................... 8
3. Data analysis ................................................................................................................................. 9
Hypothesis 1: Albedo ........................................................................................................................ 9
Hypothesis 2: Permeability ............................................................................................................. 12
Hypothesis 3: Thermal diffusivity .................................................................................................... 14
4. Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 16
5. Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 17
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 18
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 19
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 20

2
 1. Introduction
Fieldwork question
To what extent do different surface properties modify urban heating in the city of Innsbruck,
Austria?

Background Information
Compared to pre-industrial levels and considering only anthropogenic emissions, global
temperatures have increased by 1°C in 2017 [8]. This warmer weather is especially noticeable in
urban areas, where temperatures can be 2°C-4°C higher on average than in surrounding rural areas,
leading to “urban heat islands” near the city centres [7]. Urban areas are characterised by little
vegetation cover and expansive areas of artificial surface materials, which contribute to urban
heating. While this amplifies the impacts of heat waves and endangers the lives of city dwellers,
urban heating also incurs higher energy demand as buildings need to be cooled more extensively [9].
The magnitude of this effect is both influenced by the quality of the air as well as the nature of
material surfaces in cities [7]. This investigation will focus on the latter.

A link can be made to Option G: Urban environments of the IB Geography syllabus (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Syllabus Link

Geographical Context
Innsbruck, located in the Inn Valley, is the largest city in the province of Tyrol and has become
known for its “urbanised high-mountain environment” [1] with new developments encroaching on
green spaces due to the lack of available space on the valley floor (Figure 2, Figure 3). With summer
temperatures increasing steadily [2] and a significant number of hot days in the city centre annually
(Figure 4), materials that reduce urban heating must therefore be an important aspect of future
development in Innsbruck. Data collection was conducted near the city centre and around the
campus of the University of Innsbruck (Figure 5). The aim of the investigation is to explore how
different surface properties, including albedo, permeability and thermal diffusivity affect surface
temperature and influence urban heating. The following hypotheses are explored:

H1: The higher the albedo of a surface, the lower the average surface temperature during the day
H2: Permeable surfaces have lower average surface temperatures
H3: Materials with higher thermal diffusivities experience lower maximum surface temperatures

(323 Words)

3
Figure 2: Map of Tyrol. Adapted from [17]

4
Figure 4: Map of the district of Innsbruck. Adapted from [19]
Figure 3: No. of hot days near Innsbruck. Adapted from [18]

Figure 5: Map of Innsbruck. Adapted from [19]

5
 2. Methodology

The data was collected at 8 different locations near the University of Innsbruck campus and around
the Inn River (Figure 6). Systematic sampling was used. Data was collected at each point at a 1-hour
interval from 07:00 to 16:44. The measurement sites were chosen depending on their surface
properties (Figure 7, Table 1) and were largely the same walking distance away from each other. This
facilitated group work with the mobile data logging device. An infrared camera recorded images of
an urban area on the measurement route from 07:13 to 16:52, which could be compared to the data
collected by the data logger to ensure reliability.

The data was collected on May 27th, 2022. The weather was sunny and mostly clear, which was
essential since shortwave radiation can reach the sensors unobstructed and the heat island effect is
observed most clearly during high-pressure weather systems [7].

Figure 6: Map showing measurement sites. Adapted from [19]

6
 Figure 7: Diagram showing site surfaces

Table 1: Site surface descriptions

Site No. Location Surface Notes

1 GEIWI Campus Vorplatz Concrete Surrounded by tall
buildings
2 Unibrücke Asphalt, darker Over Inn, noticeably
cooler air
3 Slacklinepark Grass Surrounding trees
4 Kirche Mariahilf Granite, cobblestone, light Surrounded by tall
building, trees
5 Metropol Asphalt, lighter Buildings facing sun
6 Waltherpark Gravel Park
7 Marktplatz Asphalt, lighter Large open area
8 Alte Universität Granite, cobblestone, natural Next to trees

7
Equipment: Ecobot

Figure 8: Annotated photograph of the Ecobot

Procedure (Figure 8)
1. Fully extend sensor
2. Position sensor 0,5m above the
measurement point
3. Turn on fan on control panel
4. Click and hold button on control
panel until beeping stops

Data collected (Figure 9)

- Incoming and outgoing shortwave
radiation (pyranometer)
- Incoming and outgoing longwave Figure 9: SN-500 radiometer. Adapted from [20]
radiation (pyrgeometer)

Control factors
- The distance of the sensor from the ground was kept at 0.5m and held horizontally to ensure
that the sensors collected data in the same view angle.
- Measurements were always taken facing the sun to ensure the shadow of the device
operator and the sensor were outside the measurement area.
- The measurement sites were marked with a very small cross, so every group measured the
correct location.

Justification
The sensors are reliable as they limit the impact of other factors which may block radiation, such as
dew, and have a high measurement accuracy. They are also lightweight and portable, allowing for
efficient data collection. The data collected is used to determine the albedo of a surface and the
surface temperatures using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Further, the regular time interval enables a
general overview of surface temperature throughout the whole day without the need for
interpolation and ensures comparability between surfaces.

(362 Words)

8
 3. Data analysis

Hypothesis 1: Albedo

H1: The higher the albedo of a surface, the lower the average surface temperature during the day

Albedo is a measure of surface reflectivity ranging from 0 to 1 (Table 2).

Table 2: Albedo definition

Albedo Description
0 Black body which absorbs all incident shortwave radiation
1 White body which reflects all incident shortwave radiation

In cities, darker surfaces absorb energy from the sun during the day and heat up, which warms the
surroundings even past sunset as heat is released [3]. Therefore, surfaces with higher albedos must
have lower average surface temperatures as they reflect incident radiation and hence heat up less.
Average surface temperature was considered since albedo affects surface temperature throughout
the whole day. The albedo (α) is the ratio between outgoing and incoming shortwave radiation:

𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑔𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝛼=
𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

The values were calculated in Excel from the Ecobot radiometer data. Since albedo is an inherent
surface property, the average was calculated to compensate for slight variations in the measured
shortwave radiation.
Table 3: Albedos for surfaces

Site No. Surface Average albedo

1 Concrete 0,30
2 Asphalt, darker 0,18
3 Grass 0,22
4 Granite 0,22
5 Asphalt, lighter 0,17
6 Gravel 0,16
7 Asphalt, lighter 0,14
8 Granite, darker, slate-like 0,17

Surface temperature can be derived from the longwave radiation data using the Stefan-Boltzmann
Law (Figure 10), where the equation is rearranged for 𝑇:

Figure 10: Stephan Boltzmann Law

9
Emissivity determines how effectively a material radiates thermal energy from its surface compared
to a “perfect” emitter at the same temperature. A value of 0 indicates a perfect reflector, where a
value of 1 is a perfect emitter [15]. The values for emissivity were looked up online (Table 4).

Table 4: Emissivity values for surfaces

Site Material ε- Source Notes

coefficient
1 Concrete, 0,940 [5] Concrete has a range of emissivity values. It was
rough assumed that asphalt had to have a higher surface
(0,85-0,94) temperature given its colour, therefore 0,94 was
used for concrete.
2 Asphalt 0,930 [5]
3 Grass, Soil 0,964 [10] The surface at site 3 was a combination of soil and
grass. The average was taken from both soil and
grass ranges as both were not overly dry or wet. It
was assumed that the surface was 30% soil and
70% grass.
4 Granite, 0,920 [6]
rougher
5 Asphalt 0,930 [5]
6 Gravel 0,950 Estimated The emissivity value for gravel is 0,28. This would
mean that the surface temperature of the gravel
would reach 155°C. An expert at the University of
Innsbruck was consulted and recommended a
value of 0,95 due to its impurity.
7 Asphalt 0,930 [5]
8 Granite, 0,950 [6]
natural

Table 5: Average surface temperature and albedo

Site No. Average surface temperature (⁰C) Average albedo

1 35,68 0,30
2 37,25 0,18
3 32,17 0,22
4 36,79 0,22
5 41,14 0,17
6 35,47 0,16
7 40,12 0,14
8 35,96 0,17

10
Average temperature was taken and plotted against the average albedo of each surface (Figure 11).

Average surface temperature and albedo

45,00
Average surface temperature (°C)

40,00

35,00

30,00

25,00

20,00

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00
0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35
Average albedo

Figure 11: Graph of average surface temperature against albedo

An anomaly can be seen at the point corresponding the site 1 (boxed on Figure 11). This is likely
because site 1 was in a plaza in the middle of a group of tall buildings. Shortwave radiation that hit
the buildings may have been reflected onto the ground below, increasing incident energy on the
surface and hence raising the temperature despite the high albedo. The relatively low thermal
conductivity of concrete may have also led to accumulation of heat. It was excluded.

A slight negative linear trend can be seen. Since a correlation is assumed and the
data is largely normally distributed for both variables, Pearson’s correlation test
was performed.

r-value -0,58

A weak correlation exists but it is not statistically significant (Figure 12). The
hypothesis is not fully supported. It can be said that albedo modifies urban heating
in Innsbruck to some extent. Focusing on other material properties may therefore
be more effective in reducing urban heating in the city. These properties may
include specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity, which determine how well
a material transfers the absorbed heat.
Figure 12: Statistical
significance table for
Pearson's r [21]

(488 Words)

11
Hypothesis 2: Permeability

H2: Permeable surfaces have lower average surface temperatures

Table 6 shows the average surface temperatures of each measurement site and whether the surface
was permeable or not.
Table 6: Permeability and average temperature

Site Category Average surface temperature (⁰C)

1 Impermeable 35,68
2 Impermeable 37,25
3 Permeable 32,17
4 Impermeable 36,79
5 Impermeable 41,14
6 Permeable 35,47
7 Impermeable 40,12
8 Impermeable 35,96

Average surface temperature and permeability at

each site
45,00 41,14 40,12
Average surface temperature (⁰C)

40,00 37,25 36,79

35,68 35,96 35,47
35,00 32,17
30,00
25,00
20,00
15,00
10,00
5,00
0,00
Impermeable

Impermeable

Impermeable

Impermeable

Impermeable

Impermeable

Permeable

Permeable

Category

Site 1 2 4 5 7 8 - 3 6
Figure 13: Bar chart for average surface temperature and permeability

The temperatures of permeable surfaces were always lower than those of impermeable ones (Figure
13). Site 1 had relatively low temperatures for being impermeable. This can be explained by the fact
that it has a high albedo. Other factors such as a high specific heat capacity, meaning more energy is
needed to change its temperature, are more plausible since the site is anomalous in H1. Site 8 was
located near trees, possibly also lowering temperatures.

12
To get a general overview, the average surface temperature was taken for each category (Table 7).

Table 7: Average temperature for permeability category

Category Average surface temperature Standard deviation (⁰C)

(⁰C)
Impermeable 37,82 2,07
Permeable 33,82 1,65

Average surface temperature and permeability

45,00
Average surface temperature (⁰C)

40,00
35,00
30,00
25,00
20,00
15,00
10,00
5,00
0,00
Impermeable Permeable

Figure 14: Bar chart of average surface temperature and permeability

Since the error bars overlap in Figure 14, it is difficult to say whether the difference supports the
hypothesis or is due to randomness. A t-test is performed using all surface temperature values.

p-value 0,02

Since the p-value is below the 0,05 threshold, it can be said that hypothesis 2 is supported by the
data. It is important to note however that the t-test may not be fully suitable, even though the data
values are normally distributed, since the number of data points in each category varies
significantly1. Additionally, Site 6 (gravel) is not fully permeable as the subgrade material has been
compacted by heavy pedestrian traffic and snowfall, meaning that water largely runs off.
Considering this site not permeable decreases the p-value significantly to 0,01. This however further
exasperates the difference in the number of data points for each category.

The fact that water can pass through the material to lower levels in permeable surfaces lowers its
temperature in two significant ways. Firstly, moister surfaces have a higher heat capacity. Secondly,
the water also evaporates as the temperature of the upper layer increases, decreasing surface
temperatures through evaporative cooling.

Since the permeability of a surface modifies urban heating to a reasonable extent, cities may limit
the urban heat island effect by opting for permeable asphalt or pavements, ensuring the subgrade
material of such materials limits water run-off, and adding green spaces.
(345 Words)

1
The permeable category only has 20 data points.

13
Hypothesis 3: Thermal diffusivity

H3: Materials with higher thermal diffusivities experience lower maximum surface temperatures

Thermal diffusivity (α𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓 ) describes how effectively heat can travel through a material. It is the ratio
of thermal conductivity (𝑘 in W/(m K) to the product between density (ρ in kg/m3) and specific heat
capacity (𝑐𝑝 in J/(kg K)) [14]:

𝑘
αdiff =
𝜌 ⋅ 𝑐𝑝

Materials with higher thermal diffusivities can transfer heat from the surface to lower levels at a
higher rate. Therefore, they must have lower maximum surface temperatures than materials with
lower diffusivities.

The 𝑐𝑝 , 𝑘 and 𝜌 values were looked up online (Table 8). It is important to note that these values are
only estimates of the actual properties of the materials measured, since collecting this data would
not have been possible in the given context.

Table 8: cp, k and ρ values

Site Material Specific heat Thermal Density ρ Source

capacity cp conductivity k (kg/m3)
(J/kg K) (W/m K)
1 Concrete, PCC 950 1,1 2100 [14]
2 Asphalt 921 1,2 2238 [14]
3 Soil 750 1,0 1250 [16], [13], [4]
4 Granite 790 1,7 2,7 [11], [13], [12]
5 Asphalt 921 1,2 2238 [14]
6 Gravel - - - -
7 Asphalt 921 1,2 2238 [14]
8 Granite 790 1,7 2,7 [11], [13], [12]

Some data values were adjusted as most surfaces measured were degraded or polluted in some
way, altering their actual values.

Values for Site 6 could not reliably be found. The gravel was a combination of different rocks, the
exact make-up of which was unknown. This means that both the specific heat capacity and thermal
conductivities could not be accurately determined. The accuracy of the thermal conductivities and
specific heat capacities also depends on the size of individual rocks, where the gaps between them
have a significant affect on both values. Furthermore, the gravel was also heavily polluted by organic
matter. As such, gravel was not included in the calculations.

14
 Table 9: Thermal diffusivities and average maximum surface temperatures

Site No. Thermal diffusivity (m2/s) Average maximum surface temperature (⁰C)
1 5,51E-07 42,53
2 5,82E-07 43,28
3 1,07E-06 38,56
4 7,97E-07 46,19
5 5,82E-07 46,45
7 5,82E-07 45,52
8 7,97E-07 43,61

For some data points, such as at Sites 8, 7, 4, 2 and 1, the maximum values were the last recorded
data points. These maximum temperatures will nonetheless be used as it is assumed that the surface
temperature of most object would not change drastically after 17:00. This is also supported by the
fact that the maximum temperature is generally reached 2 hours after the sun is at its zenith,
whereafter the insolation decreases. This was around 15:00 on the measurement day.

Maximum surface temperature and thermal

48,00
diffusivity
Maximum surface temperature (⁰C)

46,00
44,00
42,00
40,00
38,00
36,00
34,00
32,00
30,00
0,0000005 0,0000006 0,0000007 0,0000008 0,0000009 0,000001 0,0000011
Thermal diffusivity (m2/s)
Figure 15: Graph of maximum surface temperature and thermal diffusivity

Since the hypothesis pertains a correlation and negative linear trend is visible
in Figure 15, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated.

r-value -0,63

There is a statistically significant correlation between the two variables. However, given
the fact that thermal diffusivity components were largely estimated from secondary
sources, the actual correlation may differ.

Hypothesis 3 is therefore supported by the data gathered. Thermal diffusivity Figure 12: Statistical
modifies urban heating to a reasonable extent. Cities could therefore use materials significance table for
with lower thermal diffusivities as opposed to solely lower albedo to reduce urban Pearson's r [21]
heating more effectively if permeable surfaces are not desired. However, such
materials increase the thermal mass of the ground as heat is transferred more effectively to lower
levels. This is released during the night, leading to higher minimum temperatures during the night
but lower maximum temperatures during the day [14].

(437 Words)

15
 4. Conclusion

H1 was not fully supported, which does not corroborate precedent research done in the field and
indicates that changing the albedo of materials in Innsbruck alone not the most effective way of
reducing urban heating in Innsbruck.

H2 is supported by the gathered data, showing that the permeability of a surface has a significant
impact on the surface temperatures of a material and hence urban heating. This demonstrates that
surfaces that limit water runoff, such as green spaces, reduce the urban heat island effect through
evaporative cooling and in altering the thermodynamic properties of materials.

H3 is supported by the data gathered, indicating that the thermal diffusivity of a surface has a
statistically significant impact on surface temperatures. This outcome also shows that urban heating
can be reduced by using surfaces with a favourable densities and specific heat capacities in addition
to higher thermal conductivities to transfer the incident energy to lower ground layers.

Ultimately, it can be said that adding more permeable surfaces to a city can reduce urban heating to
a reasonable extent. However, when considering materials where permeability to water is not
desired or possible, a range of material properties must be considered. A favourable combination of
specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity, density as well as albedo can limit the adverse effects of
the urban heat island effect.

(221 Words)

16
 5. Evaluation

The data collected by the Ecobot’s radiometers had a high level of accuracy when measuring
incident and reflected radiation. An additional infrared camera was set up on the roof of the
university and recorded the surface temperature of Site 2. The camera recorded an average
temperature only 0,5°C lower than measured with the Ecobot and a maximum temperature of
43,3°C, which was identical to the Ecobot measurement. The fact that two independent devices
record similar values indicates that the rest of the Ecobot data is reasonable.

However, a significant amount of error can be attributed to values obtained from secondary
resources, including emissivity, specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity. These values could
only be estimated since the actual value for the measured sites is likely different due to degradation.
Small changes in these thermal properties have a large influence on the result. The Stefan-
Boltzmann law played an integral part in determining the surface temperatures. The accuracy of the
surface temperatures may therefore have been hampered by emissivity values, which were
occasionally estimated from the available data. Additional consultation with an expert may have
improved the estimates.

The interconnectedness of different surface properties in influencing the surface temperatures also
affected the accuracy of the investigation. It was difficult to control the thermal properties to ensure
that only the relationship between the independent and dependent variables was observed. This
was partly addressed by combining multiple thermal properties into one variable (such as thermal
diffusivity).

Lastly, more measurements sites and data points would improve the validity of statistical tests. This
could have been achieved through smaller group sizes and additional mobile data loggers at two
separate measurement routes.

An extension of this investigation could involve recording surface temperatures during night-time to
see how surfaces cool down after sunset. This is another central part of urban heating as surfaces
release the stored heat during the night, impacting minimum temperatures [14].

(315 Words)

17
Bibliography
[1] A. Haller and O. Bender, “City profile: Innsbruck,” Cities, vol 97, Feb. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.cities.2019.102497.

[2] A. Stütz, “Die Entwicklung der Innsbrucker Temperaturreihe seit 1777,” University of Innsbruck, Feb.
2006.

[3] “Albedo.” CSHub.mit.edu. https://cshub.mit.edu/pavements/albedo (Accessed 7-Jun-2022).

[4] “Dirt and Mud – Densities.” Engineeringtoolbox.com. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-

densities-d_1727.html (Accessed 10-Jun-2022)

[5] “Emissivity Coefficients common Products.” Engineeringtoolbox.com.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html (Accessed 7-Jun-2022)

[6] “Emissivity Table.” Vanderbilt,eu.

http://www.vanderbilt.eu/docs/Trebla_Services_Emissie_Tabel.pdf (Accessed 10-Jun-2022)

[7] G. Nagle and B. Cooke, “Urban environmental and social stresses” in IB Diploma Programme:
Geography Course Companion, 2nd Edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2017,
pp.360-362.

[8] “Global Warming of 1.5°C.” IPCC,ch. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (Accessed: 7-Jun-2022).

[9] M. Cuculić and D. Aleksandra and S. Babić, “urban pavement surfaces heating – influencing
parameters,” presented at the 3rd Intern. Conf. on Road and Rail Infrastructure (CETRA), Split, Croatia,
Apr. 2014.

[10] “Radiation Emissivity Coefficients.” Engineeringtoolbox.com.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-emissivity-d_432.html (Accessed 7-Jun-2022)

[11] “Specific Heat of common Substances.” Engineeringtoolbox.com.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html (Accessed 9-Jun-2022)

[12] “Solids – Densities.” Engineeringtoolbox.com. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-solids-

d_1265.html (Accessed 9-Jun-2022)

[13] “Solids, Liquids and Gases – Thermal Conductivities.” Engineeringtoolbox.com.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html (Accessed 9-Jun-2022)

[14] T. Pourshams-Manzouri, “Pavement Temperature Effects on Overall Urban Heat Islands,” Arizona
State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, 2013. [Online]. Available:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/79566566.pdf

[15] “What is emissivity and why is it important?” npl.co.uk. https://www.npl.co.uk/resources/q-a/why-is-

emissivity-important (Accessed 7-Jun-2022)

[16] Y. Wang and Y. Lu and R. Horton and T. Ren, “Specific Heat Capacity of Soil Solids: Influences of
Clay Content, Organic Matter, and Tightly Bound Water.” SSSAJ, Vol 83, Aug. 2019, doi:
10.2136/sssaj2018.11.0434

18
Maps

[17] S. Legner, “Tyrolean Map,” Tyrolean Map. [Online]. Available: https://tyrolean-

map.legner.me/#11/47.1624/11.1992/gdi_base_summer (Accessed 3-Jul-2022)

[18] S. Oswald, “Stadtklimamodellierung für Innsbruck,” ZAMG, Jun. 2, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://oeroko.innsbruck.gv.at/data.cfm?vpath=subsites/oeroko12/dokumente43/studien_konzepte/2020
0602_modellierung_bericht_final

[19] “tirisMaps,” TIRIS. [Online]. Available:

https://maps.tirol.gv.at/synserver?user=guest&project=tmap_master (Accessed 3-Jul-2022)

Images

[20] “Apogee SN-500 Owner’s Manual,” Apogee Instruments, Inc., 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1944831/Apogee-Sn-500.html#manual (Accessed 3-Jul-2022)

[21] K. Schauer, “IB Statistics Handbook,” Karl Schauer, 2022.

Other images by author

List of Figures
Figure 1: Syllabus Link ........................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Map of Tyrol. Adapted from [17] ........................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Map of the district of Innsbruck. Adapted from [19] ............................................................. 5
Figure 4: No. of hot days near Innsbruck. Adapted from [18] ............................................................... 5
Figure 5: Map of Innsbruck. Adapted from [19] .................................................................................... 5
Figure 6: Map showing measurement sites. Adapted from [19] ........................................................... 6
Figure 7: Diagram showing site surfaces ............................................................................................... 7
Figure 8: Annotated photograph of the Ecobot .................................................................................... 8
Figure 9: SN-500 radiometer. Adapted from [20] ................................................................................. 8
Figure 10: Stephan Boltzmann Law ....................................................................................................... 9
Figure 11: Graph of average surface temperature against albedo...................................................... 11
Figure 12: Statistical significance table for Pearson's r [21] ................................................................ 11
Figure 13: Bar chart for average surface temperature and permeability............................................ 12
Figure 14: Bar chart of average surface temperature and permeability ............................................. 13
Figure 15: Graph of maximum surface temperature and thermal diffusivity ..................................... 15

List of Tables
Table 1: Site surface descriptions ......................................................................................................... 7
Table 2: Albedo definition ..................................................................................................................... 9
Table 3: Albedos for surfaces ................................................................................................................ 9
Table 4: Emissivity values for surfaces ................................................................................................ 10
Table 5: Average surface temperature and albedo ............................................................................. 10
Table 6: Permeability and average temperature ................................................................................ 12
Table 7: Average temperature for permeability category .................................................................. 13
Table 8: cp, k and ρ values ................................................................................................................... 14
Table 9: Thermal diffusivities and average maximum surface temperatures ..................................... 15

19
Appendix
Site 1: GEIWI Campus Vorplatz
SWup SWlo LWup LWlo Surface Albedo
TIMESTAMP (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) Temp. (⁰C)
07:00:41 221,42 71,63 340,95 408,35 22,71 0,32
08:00:25 372,8 115,27 331,68 424,16 25,53 0,31
09:00:03 535,83 166,16 329,82 443,61 28,90 0,31
10:00:02 710,81 215,9 339,88 468,62 33,07 0,30
11:00:11 820,42 249,12 350,35 496,19 37,47 0,30
11:59:34 930,37 272,63 361,01 523,33 41,64 0,29
12:58:51 938,75 276,39 365,36 517,4 40,74 0,29
13:58:52 949,05 274,57 380,51 527,6 42,28 0,29
14:58:00 924,63 276,55 393,72 525,44 41,95 0,30
16:01:06 847,69 263,63 394,6 529,32 42,53 0,31

Site 2: Unibrücke
SWup SWlo LWup LWlo Surface Albedo
TIMESTAMP (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) Temp. (⁰C)
07:06:33 222,78 49,47 321,51 404,7 22,83 0,22
08:06:55 356,29 81,7 308,25 427,81 26,97 0,23
09:06:09 525,5 111,89 316,99 455,14 31,65 0,21
10:05:59 713,05 134,18 325,31 488,43 37,08 0,19
11:06:00 843,16 150,97 323,4 510,98 40,60 0,18
12:05:16 932,5 166,08 335,64 527,09 43,04 0,18
13:07:38 978,57 161,73 363,95 516,92 41,51 0,17
14:05:31 970,72 140,69 358,17 523,55 42,51 0,14
15:04:56 875,79 134 370,46 526,9 43,02 0,15
16:08:52 859,57 141,23 366,86 528,64 43,28 0,16

Site 3: Slacklinepark
SWup SWlo LWup LWlo Surface Albedo
TIMESTAMP (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) Temp. (⁰C)
07:12:48 265,89 68,87 367,72 410,27 21,20 0,26
08:13:27 409,51 110,74 384,53 431,75 24,98 0,27
09:12:17 566,42 124,16 380,37 463,95 30,39 0,22
10:12:03 770,19 160,53 382,45 482,34 33,36 0,21
11:13:45 893,39 170,83 394,18 509,5 37,58 0,19
12:11:46 951,85 185,98 402,04 515,92 38,56 0,20
13:13:56 960,16 185,17 421,96 475,65 32,29 0,19
14:11:29 900,73 189,77 420,18 501,28 36,32 0,21
15:11:32 856,57 173,03 448,85 486,17 33,96 0,20
16:15:38 717,57 160,25 442,33 480,52 33,07 0,22

20
 Site 4: Kirche Mariahilf
SWup SWlo LWup LWlo Surface Albedo
TIMESTAMP (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) Temp. (⁰C)
07:15:54 54,45 12,05 352,09 405,87 23,85 0,22
08:16:05 61,48 13,14 345,38 407,42 24,13 0,21
09:15:09 600,42 146,62 359,41 433,2 28,73 0,24
10:15:02 760,67 169,3 367,67 466,85 34,43 0,22
11:16:02 903,32 188,3 379,47 505,07 40,54 0,21
12:15:26 993,75 229,95 385 510,97 41,45 0,23
13:17:10 960,36 212,62 377,13 496,54 39,20 0,22
14:13:27 948,21 210,54 406,47 533,08 44,80 0,22
15:13:41 809,1 185,96 406,6 531,76 44,60 0,23
16:17:37 757,22 112,83 416,6 542,47 46,19 0,15

Site 5: Metropol Kino

SWup SWlo LWup LWlo Surface Albedo
TIMESTAMP (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) Temp. (⁰C)
07:20:16 287,87 51,59 367,31 428,32 27,06 0,18
08:21:17 479,76 91,15 373,01 458,33 32,19 0,19
09:20:08 623,56 119,46 379,08 486,43 36,76 0,19
10:20:04 795,78 148,78 390,36 524 42,58 0,19
11:20:11 946,34 168,82 392,56 548,21 46,17 0,18
12:20:16 985,39 173,97 403,39 535,61 44,31 0,18
13:21:32 957,36 174,08 411,45 544,47 45,62 0,18
14:19:44 925,23 168,44 414,24 550,14 46,45 0,18
15:18:28 800,26 132,24 401,86 537,37 44,58 0,17
16:23:32 771,77 90,69 381,69 544,88 45,68 0,12

Site 6: Waltherpark
SWup SWlo LWup LWlo Surface Albedo
TIMESTAMP (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) Temp. (⁰C)
07:23:30 296,75 42,84 356,25 410,63 22,34 0,14
08:23:56 444 75,58 343,02 449,39 29,07 0,17
09:23:08 611,92 117,75 344,08 458,22 30,55 0,19
10:23:03 752,15 144,56 346,65 465,46 31,74 0,19
11:23:55 902,83 138,4 370,86 509,69 38,74 0,15
12:23:05 945,93 147,49 373,05 528,53 41,58 0,16
13:24:28 952,04 152,49 368,96 510,62 38,88 0,16
14:22:11 957,72 112,97 391,79 528,81 41,62 0,12
15:20:27 659,29 106,98 385,59 534,51 42,47 0,16
16:25:26 780,78 134,75 393,3 503,06 37,72 0,17

21
 Site 7: Marktplatz
SWup SWlo LWup LWlo Surface Albedo
TIMESTAMP (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) Temp. (⁰C)
07:33:31 306,31 50,45 319,89 429,09 27,20 0,16
08:33:21 458,41 70,23 313,35 453,49 31,38 0,15
09:33:12 611,14 87,16 311,86 483,77 36,34 0,14
10:33:01 771,7 111,93 316,58 518,71 41,78 0,15
11:30:45 862,17 120,7 332,1 514,39 41,12 0,14
12:31:24 947,53 128,69 337,21 527,52 43,11 0,14
13:30:05 966,91 130,57 338,75 539,86 44,94 0,14
14:31:22 949,52 134,14 366,45 536,4 44,43 0,14
15:29:55 961,64 113,96 365,35 542,87 45,39 0,12
16:32:35 813 120,42 367,42 543,8 45,52 0,15

Site 8: Alte Universität

SWup SWlo LWup LWlo Surface Albedo
TIMESTAMP (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) Temp. (⁰C)
07:43:51 305,66 39,26 341,88 412,04 22,59 0,13
08:44:01 508,54 58,34 347,43 441,49 27,74 0,11
09:46:05 700,8 58,07 351,09 461,7 31,12 0,08
10:43:46 822,84 88,42 369,47 488,93 35,51 0,11
11:43:26 910,03 97,01 376,31 493,88 36,29 0,11
12:42:46 959,05 107,01 378,28 512,88 39,23 0,11
13:40:41 957,43 277,83 371,88 521,41 40,52 0,29
14:43:05 926,22 245,21 383,29 527,94 41,49 0,26
15:46:25 923,5 284,04 401,08 527,7 41,46 0,31
16:44:17 787,03 156,44 396,55 542,31 43,61 0,20

Abbreviations:
SWup: incident shortwave radiation
SWlo: reflected shortwave radiation
LWup: incident longwave radiation
LWlo: reemitted longwave radiation

22