4.3 Article

Quantifying urban heat island effects and human comfort for cities of variable size and urban morphology in the Netherlands

Journal

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2011JD015988

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Climate Changes Spatial Planning
  2. Knowledge for Climate research programs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper reports on the canopy layer urban heat island (UHI) and human comfort in a range of small to large cities and villages in the Netherlands. To date, this subject has not been substantially studied in the Netherlands, since it has a relatively mild oceanic (Cfb) climate and impact was assumed to be minor. To fill this knowledge gap, this paper reports on observations of a selected network of reliable hobby meteorologists, including several in The Hague and Rotterdam. A number of alternative measures were also used to quantify UHI, i.e., the generalized extreme value distribution and return periods of UHI and adverse human comfort; its uncertainties were estimated by the statistical method of bootstrapping. It appeared essential to distinguish observations made at roof level from those made within the urban canyon, since the latter related more closely to exposure at pedestrian level and to urban canyon properties in their close neighborhood. The results show that most Dutch cities experience a substantial UHI, i.e., a mean daily maximum UHI of 2.3 K and a 95 percentile of 5.3 K, and that all cities experience a shadow effect in the morning when cities remain cooler than the rural surroundings. Also, an evident relation between the median of the daily maximum UHI and its 95 percentile was discovered. Furthermore, the 95 percentile of the UHI appears well correlated with population density. In addition, we find a significant decrease of UHI and the percentage of surface area covered by green vegetation, but the relation with open water remains unclear.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available