4.7 Article

An urban green planning approach utilizing the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) modeling system. A case study of Athens, Greece

期刊

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
卷 105, 期 1-2, 页码 174-183

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.014

关键词

Atmospheric mesoscale model; Urban canopy model; Urban park; Park cool island

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ameliorating thermal effect induced by green areas inside the warm urban microclimate of densely populated cities can improve the thermal comfort, as well as the overall health and living conditions of their inhabitants. In this modeling study, an effort is made to predict the impact of urban green solutions inside the high density and diverse urban landscape of the coastal city of Athens, Greece. The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, coupled to a single layer urban canopy model, is utilized to carry out high resolution (0.5 km) land use scenarios, focusing on proposed urban parks (sized 8 and 4 km(2)), which substitute a mainly industrial/commercial area (Eleonas) near the city's center. Results during nighttime of a typical warm-period day, depict a large cooling (on average greater than 5 degrees C) over the park's vegetated surface compared to current conditions, and a park cool island effect of 9.5 degrees C when comparing park and surrounding urban fabric air temperatures. Additionally, a significant cooling of the neighboring built-up areas is indicated at a radius proportional to the park's dimensions, related to the nocturnal advection of cool air beyond its borders (park breeze). During daytime, although no significant temperature changes over the park are simulated, a cooling (up to 1 degrees C) downwind its northern borders and over the inner city is predicted. This finding is related to the smaller frictional elements of the altered land cover located upon the axis of the seabreeze flow, which enhances the local sea-breeze circulation and its inland extent. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据