A Comparative Approach to Artificial and Natural Green Walls According to Ecological Sustainability

Abstract

Abstract:Together with the rapid industrialization of the world, urbanization is also uncontrollably increasing. Such an increase in urbanization exerts the greatest pressure on natural resources, obligating people to live in intense structural spaces and increasing the need for green spaces in cities. Because of the expensive costs of horizontal surfaces being "green", urban places are faced with serious green-infrastructure problems. In recent years, alternatives have been searched for to eliminate such deficiencies. These alternatives, such as rain gardens, green walls (GWs), ecological designs, and green roofs, are commonly included in urban landscape designs. Besides rocky or steep-slope natural green walls (NGWs), natural green covers over buildings, walls, and so forth, structural members are also encountered in urban or rural places. On the other hand, artificial green walls (AGWs) have recently been used as a significant component of urban design. Although the AGWs are able to address various functional needs, they have not yet gained the desired popularity because of construction costs, static loads, constructional damages, and maintenance costs. In addition, such sites are largely left to exotic species with limited ecological requirements; these species are far from meeting ecological functions and resistance to extreme conditions. This study was conducted for a benchmarking assessment of artificial and natural green walls (A&NGWs) with a high potential in urban landscape design not only for esthetics, but also for ecological and economical purposes. Plant species, initial establishment, maintenance costs, and some other parameters of selected GWs were assessed. The study was considered as pioneering research for low-cost minimum-maintenance AGWs to be included in urban landscape designs. It was concluded, on the basis of the present findings, that the GW systems established with natural plant species, rock, and other materials already existing in natural landscapes could be constructed at fairly low costs, and such wall systems could have great ecological contributions.

Green Facades and Living Walls—A Review Establishing the Classification of Construction Types and Mapping the Benefits

“…"A cost-benefit analysis of the green wall case indicates that this measure is economically promising when valuing the noise attenuation in the quieter area and adding the amenity/aesthetic value of the green wall" [90] (p. 3770). Cost analysis by Meral et al [82] confirms that living walls are the most expensive type of man-made VGS. "Considering the costs of two wall systems, it was observed that a green facade could be established with about 12.01 of the cost of living walls" [82] (p. 14).…”

“…Cost analysis by Meral et al [82] confirms that living walls are the most expensive type of man-made VGS. "Considering the costs of two wall systems, it was observed that a green facade could be established with about 12.01 of the cost of living walls" [82] (p. 14). A cost-benefit analysis of the living walls showed that "they have a longer payback period of 17 years considering the local unsubsidized electricity rates in UAE" [91] (p. 8).…”

“…The number of empirical studies evaluating the visual effect of VGS is growing. One empirical study by Meral et al [82] reveals how positively people evaluate living walls in a relation to their visual perception of parameters, such as diversity, aesthetic, colorfulness, complexity, applicability, worth seeing, naturalness, plant diversity, light, number of species, size, and design colorfulness. White and Gatersleben [83] showed that houses with integrated vegetation in some form are "more preferred, beautiful, restorative, and had a more positive affective quality than those without" (p. 1).…”

“…White and Gatersleben [83] showed that houses with integrated vegetation in some form are "more preferred, beautiful, restorative, and had a more positive affective quality than those without" (p. 1). Table 8 lists empirical studies [68,[82][83][84] based on surveys, all involving passers-by. A recent study [984] with a sample size of 400 participants showed that 118 participants strongly agreed, and 185 agreed that vertical gardens were aesthetic.…”

Field Study of Air Quality Improvement by a “Green Roof” in Kyiv

“…In solving this problem, "green construction" can be considered as promising technologies for reducing ecological footprint due to CO 2 sequestration by additional biomass (trunk, branches, bark, leaves, roots) and a substrate. One of the effective low carbon technologies are the "green structures" (Alperen Meral et al, 2018), (Chen et al, 2018), (Qin et al, 2018), (Jian-feng et al, 2010), (Kristin et al, 2009), (Kuronuma et al, 2018), (Margareth et al, 2018), (Mayrand and Clergeau, 2018), (Sanderman and Amundson, 2009), (Tuttolomondo et al, 2018), (Yanling et al, 2014). They can improve the quality of air in cities as well as reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.…”