Skip to main content
. 2012 Oct 24;9(11):3770–3788. doi: 10.3390/ijerph9113770

Table 1.

Value estimates, per household per year, green roof/wall .

Study Year Data Country Data Curr-ency Property Price Annu-ity Gree-nery % Value Gree-nery Value EUR/ Curr-ency CPI EUR-2010 Gree-nery Value Gree-nery Size (m2) Unit Value (per m2)
Peck et al. (1999) [34] 1999 Canada, Toronto CAD 230,000 12,599 10.50% 1 323 0.6313 1.25 1,044 50 20.88
Hunt (2008) [40] 1999 Canada, Toronto CAD 230,000 12,599 9% 1 134 0.6313 1.25 895 50 17.9
Gao & Asami (2007) [42] 1999 Japan, Tokyo JPY 602,400 32,998 1.40% 8 400 0.0082 1.25 87 25 3.46
2003 Japan, Kitakyushu JPY 73,200 4,010 2.70% 1 980 0.0076 1.15 17 25 0.69
Ichihara et al. (2010) [43] 2000 US, New York USD 73,024 4,000 16.20% 648 1.0827 1.22 859 50 17.18
Des Rosiers et al. (2002) [41] 1999 Canada, Québec CAD 112,000 6,135 3.90% 239 0.6313 1.25 189 50 3.78
Tomalty & Komorowski (2010) [44] 2010 Canada, Toronto CAD 395,460 21,662 20% 4 332 0.7325 1 3,174 50 63.47
2010 Canada, Toronto CAD 395,460 21,662 7% 1 516 0.7325 1 1,111 50 22.22

Values in currency of a study are converted to Euro in the year of the study, and these Euro values are adjusted to Euro 2010 values applying the consumer price index (CPI) for the Euro zone. A discount rate of 5% and a 50 year lifetime to calculate annuity values from the property values have been applied. If the study reports annual rental values, these are put under the annuity column. The “value” is the total green roof/wall annual value for the household. Since Hunt [40] reported only a percent interval of value effects, in this paper the same Toronto property values as for Peck et al. [34] has been applied. Thus, the EUR-2010 value equals the annuity times the greenery percentage value, times EUR/currency, times CPI; and the unit value equals the EUR-2010 value divided by the greenery size (in the valuation study).