Green roofs are now commonly included in the design of new
public and private infrastructure, bolstered by energy savings, environmental
recognition and certification, bylaw compliance, and in some cases tax or other
direct monetary incentives (e.g.,
here).
While green roofs clearly provide local environmental benefits, such as
reduced albedo (sunlight reflectance), storm water retention, CO
2
sequestration, etc., green roof proponents also frequently cite biodiversity
and conservation enhancement as a benefit. This last claim has not been broadly
tested, but existing data was assessed by
Nicholas Williams and colleagues in a recent
article published in the
Journal of Applied Ecology.
Williams and colleagues compiled all available literature on
biodiversity and conservation value of green roofs and they explicitly tested
six hypotheses: 1) Green roofs support higher diversity and abundance compared
to traditional roofs; 2) Green roofs support comparable diversity and composition
to ground habitat; 3) Green roofs using native species support greater
diversity than traditional green roofs; 4) Green roofs aid in rare species
conservation; 5) Green roofs replicate natural communities; and 6) Green roofs facilitate
organism movement through urban areas.
Photo by: Marc Cadotte
What is surprising is that given the abundance of papers on
green roofs in ecology and environmental journals, very few quantitatively
assessed some of these hypotheses. What is clear is that green roofs support
greater diversity and abundance compared to non-green roofs, but we know very
little about how green roofs compare to other remnant urban habitats in terms
of species diversity, ecological processes, or rare species. Further, while
some regions are starting to require that green roofs try to maximize native
biodiversity, there are relatively few comparisons, but those that exist reveal
substantial benefits for biodiverse green roofs.
How well green roofs replicate ground or natural communities
is an important question, with insufficient evidence. It is important because,
according to the authors, there is some movement to use green roofs to offset
lost habitat elsewhere. This could represent an important policy shift, and one
that may ultimately lead to lost habitats being replaced with lower quality
ones. This is a policy direction that simply requires more science.
There is some evidence that green roofs, if designed
correctly, could aid in rare species conservation. However, green roofs, which
by definition are small patches in an inhospitable environment, may assist rare
species management in only a few cases. The authors caution that enthusiasm for
using green roofs to assist with rare species management needs to be tempered
by designs that are biologically and ecologically meaningful to target species.
They cite an example where green roofs in San Francisco were designed with a
plant that is an important food source for an endangered butterfly, Bay
Checkerspot, which currently persists in a few fragmented populations. The
problem was that the maximum dispersal distance of the butterfly is about 5 km,
and there are no populations within 15 km of the city. These green roofs have
the potential to aid in rare species conservation, but it needs to be coupled
with additional management activities, such as physically introducing the
butterfly to the green roofs.
Overall, green do provide
important environmental and ecological benefits in urban settings. Currently,
very few studies document the ways in which green roofs provide ecological
processes and services, enhance biodiversity, replicate other ground level
habitats, or aid in biodiversity conservation. As the prevalence of green roofs
increases, we will need scientifically valid ecological understanding of green
roof benefits to better engage with municipal managers and affect policy.
Williams, N., Lundholm, J., & MacIvor, J. (2014). Do green roofs help urban biodiversity conservation? Journal of Applied Ecology DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12333