4.5 Article

Effectiveness of Different Urban Heat Island Mitigation Methods and Their Regional Impacts

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROMETEOROLOGY
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 2991-3012

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JHM-D-17-0049.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chinese National Key Research and Development Program [2016YFA0600303, 2016YFC0200501]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41375014, 41675016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cool roofs and green roofs are two popular methods to mitigate the urban heat island and improve urban climates. The effectiveness of different urban heat island mitigation strategies in the summer of 2013 in the Yangtze River delta, China, is investigated using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model coupled with a physically based single-layer urban canopy model. The modifications to the roof surface changed the urban surface radiation balance and then modified the local surface energy budget. Both cool roofs and green roofs led to a lower surface skin temperature and near-surface air temperature. Increasing the roof albedo to 0.5 caused a similar effectiveness as covering 25% of urban roofs with vegetation; increasing the roof albedo to 0.7 caused a similar near-surface air temperature decrease as 50% green roof coverage. The near-surface relative humidity increased in both cool roof and green roof experiments because of the combination of the impacts of increases in specific humidity and decreases in air temperature. The regional impacts of cool roofs and green roofs were evaluated using a regional effect index. Aregional impact was found for near-surface air temperature and specific/relative humidity when the percentage of roofs covered with high-albedo materials or green roofs reached a higher fraction (greater than 50%). The changes in the vertical profiles of temperature cause a more stable atmospheric boundary layer over the urban area; at the same time, the crossover phenomena occurred above the boundary layer due to the decrease in vertical wind speed.

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

4.5
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