University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Green facades: development of a taxonomy tool to assist design

(USC Thesis Other)

Green facades: development of a taxonomy tool to assist design

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content GREEN FACADES:

Development of a Taxonomy Tool to Assist Design

By

Edna Catumbela

Thesis

Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In partial fulfillment of the
Requirements of degree
MASTER OF BUILDING SCIENCE

AUGUST 2016

2
Committee Members:

Douglas Noble, FAIA, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
USC School of Architecture
dnoble@usc.edu
213 740-2723

Travis Longcore, Ph.D. GISP
Assistant Professor
USC School of Architecture
longcore@dornsife.usc.edu
(213) 821-1310

Karen Kensek, LEED AP BD+C, Assoc. AIA
Associate Professor
USC School of Architecture
Kensek@usc.edu
(213) 740-2723

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project came together thanks to the collaboration of many; the following people have guided both,
academically and personally, throughout the duration of this thesis work.
To my thesis committee members thank you for the constructive criticism, through your guidance, this
thesis work came together for the better.
To the building science thesis instructor, Professor Marc Schiler, thank you for constantly motivating me
to finish, keeping me on track and on schedule, you have done so much more than required, for that I am
forever grateful.
To Israel Flores, software developer, thank you for understanding my vision and working hard to make it
the best possible product.
To my friends Nathalie Kip, Youngeun Joung Peters, Dassia Mejia, Perla Durandis, Pebbly Erazo, and Andi
Caban, for your thoughts and prayers, I am forever thankful.
To my MBS family, thank you for the constant support in both academic life and personal life; I could not
have made it without each and every single one of you.
To my siblings, thank you for continuously motivating me and inspiring me through your own personal
accomplishments. I look up to every single one of you.
Finally, to my parents, I would like to dedicate this thesis work to both of you who go above and beyond
to make sure each of your children receives the best possible education. You have sacrificed so much for
my education, thank you for your constant and unfailing faith in me.
4
ABSTRACT
Green facades are any exterior or interior wall hidden by vertical vegetation purposely designed for their
particular location or application. Green façades are continously being modified and their applications have
surpassed being merely aesthetics to being adapted to sustainable design practices.
An investigation of green facade systems tested in previous research, detailing their system composition,
advantages, disadvantages and affecting parameters has been established to create a tool, a mobile
application, to assist design based on user input. User inputs are plant life expectations, irrigation and
drainage, price/cost, maintenance, systems durability, energy saving possibilities, system weight, direct
greening, and indirect greening.
The mobile application went through a series of user interface design concepts to establish a user-friendly
experience and to determine how information should be displayed. User inputs were determined after an
online card sort testing done in Optimal Workshop, an online survey for user experience (UX) research.
There were 14 participants, located in 10 different locations, with educational background in 6 different
subjects. The programs used to accomplish the prototype were Sketch, initial user interface concepts,
Proto.io, interactive visualization and Android Studio, integrated development environment (IDE) by
Google, for coding. In Android Studio, the parameters were reduced to simple boolean values (true or false),
which allowed the tool to search the database for relational values, giving an output of recommended green
façade systems based on user input.
Additional information implemented into the tool are the USDA plant hardiness map zones, relevant case
studies, and the ability for users to add their personal case studies or documentation.
Results showed that through user input of green façade design parameters, applicable systems can be
determined to match their preferences.
The unified information has the potential to educate designers about green façades and their many
possibilities, can be used as a communication device for green façade designers of all stages to find, explore,
and share their design ideas.
The tool prototype and information is not meant to be comprehensive because a wide variety of green façade
systems are in the market today. The associated information may be used to expand user knowledge of the
various modifications of green façade systems, while allowing users to remain creative in their designs and
be environmentally conscious of their choices.
HYPOTHESIS
Unifying information and facts of green facades research conclusions within an organizational system can
be implemented as a design assist tool for designers.

5
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Modern artist rendition of “The Hanging Gardens of Babylon.” (Rehzakhani, Khodadad. "Iranologie.com."
Iranologiecom. November 12, 2014. Accessed April 01, 2016. http://iranologie.com/podcast/). ...............................13
Figure 2. Green facade project “Paul-Lincke Ufer”, Berlin, began in 1984 as the restoration of a 100-year-old
apartment building (Köhler 2008). ...............................................................................................................................14
Figure 3. Musee du Quai Branly, Paris, France – 650-foot-long vertical garden designed by Patrick Blanc (Ana 2012).
.......................................................................................................................................................................................15
Figure 4. Pont Max Juvenal, Aix en Provence, France – Bridge before (left) and after (right) (Artwork and Photography
by Patrick Blanc @ murvegetalpatrickblanc.com). ......................................................................................................15
Figure 5. Le Nouvel, Kuala Lumpur - project rendering with façade greening ("Vertical Garden Patrick Blanc." Le
Nouvel, Kuala Lumpur. Accessed April 01, 2016). .....................................................................................................16
Figure 6. Green façade systems and their hybrid/modified variations based on literature (Köhler 1993; Hermy et al.
2005; Ottelé 2011; Krusche et al. 1982). ......................................................................................................................18
Figure 7. Green wall systems: natural vegetation (a), soil planted directly to the wall (b), soil planted indirectly to the
wall (c) and planter boxes (d) (Ottele 2011). ................................................................................................................19
Figure 8. Green wall systems variations (Perini et al. 2013). .......................................................................................20
Figure 9. Living wall variations of prefabricated or pre-vegetated systems. LWS on planter boxes (left), LWS on foam
substrate (middle), and LWS felt layers (right) (Perini et al. 2013). ............................................................................21
Figure 10. In Situ living wall system, plants inserted in outer felt layer with irrigation concealed (Geus 2007). .......22
Figure 11. Six types of hydroponic systems (TheGrowCo. 2015). ..............................................................................23
Figure 12. Example of modular panel systems (hydroponic and substrate) and felt covered panels (with irrigation
concealed) components (Growing Green Guide 2014). ...............................................................................................24
Figure 13. Bio-Wall system composition (HVAC Systems Variety 2012). .................................................................25
Figure 14. Air circulation through streets with green facade compared to trees (Ottelé 2011). ...................................27
Figure 15. Examples of possible damages due to lack of maintenance, direct greening and design mistakes (Perini et
al. 2013). .......................................................................................................................................................................29
Figure 16. Characteristic review classifications based on construction characteristics (re-worked from Manso and
Gomes 2014). ................................................................................................................................................................33
Figure 17. Process tree taxonomy of greening vertical surfaces based on research begun in the 1970's (Perini et al.
2013). ............................................................................................................................................................................35
Figure 18. Sample of decision tree suggestions based on user responses (re-made from Mir 2011). ..........................37
Figure 19. United States Plant Hardiness Zone Map (Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Oregon State
University (OSU)). ........................................................................................................................................................38
Figure 20. Information synthesis- hypothesis reinforcements, challenges, and response. ...........................................40
Figure 21. Morphological analysis methodology edit field - display field, link and synthesize – cross-consistency
assessment, display field – prototype model. ................................................................................................................41
Figure 22. Computer-Aided Morphological Analysis methodology and strategies for a successful model (made from
information derived from Ritchey 2010) ......................................................................................................................42
Figure 23. Tool development programs- design images made in sketch, prototypes done on proto.io, and tool script
developed in android studio. .........................................................................................................................................42
Figure 24. Methodological strategies process, the morphological analysis is displayed in Appendix: A. ...................44
Figure 25. User card sort testing welcome message and study description. .................................................................51
Figure 26. Card sort testing identification of professional background. .......................................................................51
Figure 27. Card sort testing instructions given to users before starting. .......................................................................52
Figure 28. Card sort testing parameters - users select from the left column to put their important parameters in order,
on the right column. ......................................................................................................................................................52
Figure 29. Participants chosen parameters according to preference of importance. ....................................................64
Figure 30. User card sort testing results - parameters modifications for better understanding. ...................................65
Figure 31. Sketch - program used for initial user interface concepts; initial concepts were made before the unification
of information and card sort testing. These concepts were made to investigate how the mobile application can be made
user friendly. .................................................................................................................................................................68
Figure 32. Initial design concept: 'Discover' gives a description of the tool. 'Location' attempts to determine the users’
location from the plant hardiness map. .........................................................................................................................69
6
Figure 33. Initial design concept: 'Maintenance' displays general service scheduling for green facades. 'Cost' displays
user friendly selections that can still allow the tool to properly match user preferences to the best applicable systems.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................70
Figure 34. Initial design concept: 'Sustainability' displays advantages of green facades with a description below for
user understanding. 'Design Recommendations' is an explanation to the user of how recommendations would be
displayed. ......................................................................................................................................................................71
Figure 35. Proto.io interface image used for interactive visualization. ........................................................................72
Figure 36. Proto.io design implementation: 'Discover' initial opening image (left) and tool description (right). ........73
Figure 37. Proto.io design implementation: Location displaying U.S. states for user selection (left); 'Southern
California' shown due to user selection of the previous 'location' screen. User may then select their location in the
hardiness zone map. ......................................................................................................................................................74
Figure 38. Proto.io design implementation: 'Maintenance' and ‘cost’ selections in accordance to the data collection.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................75
Figure 39. Proto.io design implementation: 'Sustainability' added as a parameter with the major advantages of green
facades in display. .........................................................................................................................................................76
Figure 40. Proto.io design implementation: Recommendations made through plant selection. User would get specific
plants species that match their preferences along with the suggested system best for the plant application. ..............77
Figure 41. Application menu and settings. ...................................................................................................................78
Figure 42. Android studio user interface. .....................................................................................................................80
Figure 43. Tool database parameter Boolean values (true or false). ............................................................................81
Figure 44. Tool database parameter Boolean values (true or false). ............................................................................82
Figure 45. App query seeks for relational values to match user parameter selections (full script in Appendix C). ....83
Figure 46. User interface 5-step guidelines. .................................................................................................................85
Figure 47. User interface, input and output details. ......................................................................................................86
Figure 48. Tool additional information user interface navigation. ...............................................................................87
Figure 49. App icon image after installation. ...............................................................................................................88
Figure 50. Opening image shown after opening application, giving information on what the application is and what it
seeks to demonstrate. The next steps is to identify the users location, using the USDA plant hardiness zone map. ...88
Figure 51. Parameters for user input, user may select between 3 to 5 parameters for a tool output. Depending on the
selections, more than 5 parameters may be chosen at a time and the tool would still be able to provide assistance in
system recommendations. .............................................................................................................................................89
Figure 52. System recommendation screen with the option to see suggested plants available in the user location zone,
which may aid to the suggested system. .......................................................................................................................90
Figure 53. System design details for Living Wall - In Situ, suggested plants option is displayed through the tool output
screen for expansion of user knowledge. ......................................................................................................................91
Figure 54. System design details for Living Wall - In Situ, reasons for this suggestion provides description of attention
to detail and summarizes the recommended system advantages and disadvantages. ...................................................92
Figure 55. System design details for Living Wall – Mineral Wool Based, suggested plants option is displayed through
the tool output screen for expansion of user knowledge. ..............................................................................................93
Figure 56. System design details for Living Wall – Mineral Wool Based, reasons for this suggestion provides
description on attention to detail, and summarizes the recommended system advantages/ disadvantages. .................94
Figure 57. Example of plant selection suggestion based on user zone location. Southern California serves as the
example of user interface and information architecture for future developments. .......................................................95
Figure 58. Tool menu, consisting of design assist, favorites, case studies, and settings. .............................................96
Figure 59. Relevant case studies installed in the tool for user knowledge of challenges and solutions professionals deal
with in green facade design (all case studies are provided in Appendix B). ................................................................96
Figure 60. Add your own case study - template given for users to follow. ..................................................................97
Figure 61. Tool settings consist of terms and conditions, research and documentation, as well as, the disclaimer. ....98
Figure 62. Research and documentation (left) and tool disclaimer (right). ..................................................................99
Figure 63. 8-parameter green facades variables and values cross consistency assessment. .......................................106
Figure 64. Green wall system showing no solutions. .................................................................................................107
Figure 65. Bio-wall system showing no solutions. .....................................................................................................107
Figure 66. Modular soil based panels showing no solutions. .....................................................................................108
Figure 67. Vertical garden solution space. ..................................................................................................................108
Figure 68. Pre-vegetated fabric panels solution space. ...............................................................................................109
Figure 69. Living wall outcome solution space. .........................................................................................................109
7
Figure 70. Vertical farming outcome showing a solution space. ................................................................................110

8
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Pros and cons of green facades; interview perspectives from A*: people living in greened houses (n=1,556);
B*: people living in non-greened houses (n=536). Answers are in percentages, 51 means 51% had marked that answer.
Study published in 2003 (Köhler 2008). .......................................................................................................................26
Table 2. Research papers on green façade characteristic reviews, process trees, decision trees, and design guidelines.
Study objectives, methods and conclusions are detailed for each organizational system. ...........................................32
Table 3. Summary of green wall systems composition (remade from Manso and Gomes 2014). ...............................34
Table 4. Study selection, inclusion, and exclusion criteria’s. .......................................................................................45
Table 5. Unified information studies methods, objectives, and outcomes. Table continuation on the next three pages.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................45
Table 6. Information source mapping, a display of topics and source origin for the information collected. ...............50
Table 7. Green wall systems unified information, data collection of affecting parameters. ........................................54
Table 8. Living wall systems unified information, data collection of affecting parameters. .......................................55
Table 9. Living wall systems unified information, data collection of affecting parameters. .......................................55
Table 10. Vertical garden systems unified information, data collection of affecting parameters. ...............................56
Table 11. Bio-wall system unified information, data collection of affecting parameters. ............................................57
Table 12. Advantages comparison assessment keys and descriptions. .........................................................................58
Table 13. Green wall systems advantages comparison, displaying a varying benefits according to the sub-system used.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................58
Table 14. Living wall systems advantages comparison, displaying similarities benefits between sub-systems, some
advantages are more applicable in one than the other. .................................................................................................59
Table 15. Vertical garden systems advantages comparison, displaying very similar benefits amongst sub-systems. .60
Table 16. Bio-wall system advantages displaying the benefits achievable through the HVAC integration. ...............60
Table 17. Potential LEED credits achievable through green facade applications. .......................................................61
Table 18. Green facade sustainability possibilities. ......................................................................................................62
Table 19. User input table; parameters determined by card sort testing results used as user input categories. Selections
available for each parameter were made to reflect the unified information data collection. ........................................65
Table 20. Tool output, recommendations of suggested system, system sub-types, and design details of each sub-types.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................66
Table 21. In-tool features of relevant case studies and 'add your own case study. Additional information consists of
suggested plants and their characteristics. ....................................................................................................................67
Table 22. 8-parameter green facades variables and values exercise template. ...........................................................105

9
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................3
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................4
HYPOTHESIS .............................................................................................................................................4
LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................5
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................8
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................9
Chapter 1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 12
1.1 Hypothesis Explanation ..................................................................................................................12
1.1.1 Taxonomy Tool Development .................................................................................................12
1.2 General Information .......................................................................................................................12
1.3 Historical Overview .......................................................................................................................12
1.4 Green Facades Definitions and Typologies ...................................................................................16
1.4.1 Defined Terms .........................................................................................................................16
1.4.2 Typologies ...............................................................................................................................17
1.4.2.1 Green Wall Systems ..........................................................................................................19
1.4.2.2 Living Wall Systems ..........................................................................................................20
1.4.2.3 Vertical Garden Systems ..................................................................................................22
1.4.2.4 Bio-Wall Systems ..............................................................................................................24
1.5 General Advantages and Disadvantages of Green Facades ...........................................................25
1.5.1 Advantages of Green Facades .................................................................................................26
1.5.1.1 Improved Air Quality ........................................................................................................26
1.5.1.2 Increased Property Value .................................................................................................27
1.5.1.3 Health and Wellness .........................................................................................................27
1.5.1.4 Improved Thermal Performance ......................................................................................27
1.5.1.5 Acoustics (Noise Barriers) ................................................................................................27
1.5.1.6 Reduced Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect ........................................................................27
1.5.1.7 Biodiversity .......................................................................................................................28
1.5.1.8 LEED Credits ...................................................................................................................28
1.5.2 Disadvantages of Green Facades .............................................................................................28
1.5.2.1 Direct Greening Damage .................................................................................................28
1.5.2.2 Maintenance Service .........................................................................................................28
1.5.2.3 Cost/Budget ......................................................................................................................29
1.5.2.3 Irrigation Complications ..................................................................................................29
1.6 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................29
1.7 Research Objectives .......................................................................................................................30
1.7.1 Research Methodologies .........................................................................................................30
1.7.2 Research Questions .................................................................................................................30
1.7.3 Research Applications .............................................................................................................30
1.8 In The Next Chapters .....................................................................................................................31
Chapter 2 Background ......................................................................................... 32
2.1 Precedent ........................................................................................................................................32
2.2 Comparative Assessment of Green Façade Taxonomies ...............................................................32
2.2.1 Characteristic Review Taxonomy ...........................................................................................33
2.2.2 Process Tree Taxonomy ..........................................................................................................34
2.2.3 Decision Tree Taxonomy ........................................................................................................36
2.2.4 Design Guidelines Taxonomy .................................................................................................37
10
2.2.4.1 Site Analysis ......................................................................................................................37
2.2.4.2 Plant Selection ..................................................................................................................37
2.2.4.3 Substrate/Soil ....................................................................................................................38
2.2.4.4 Irrigation ..........................................................................................................................38
2.2.4.5 Vertical Attachments and Loads .......................................................................................39
2.2.4.6 Maintenance .....................................................................................................................39
2.3 Parameters Affecting Green Facades .............................................................................................39
2.4 Information Synthesis ....................................................................................................................40
2.5 Methodological Strategies & Tool Development Software’s ........................................................41
2.6 Computer-Aided Morphological Analysis .....................................................................................41
2.7 Card Sort Testing ...........................................................................................................................42
2.8 Prototype Development ..................................................................................................................42
2.8.1 Sketch ......................................................................................................................................43
2.8.2 Proto.io ....................................................................................................................................43
2.8.3 Android Studio ........................................................................................................................43
2.9 Chapter Summary ...........................................................................................................................43
Chapter 3 Methods and Investigation .................................................................. 44
3.1 Unification of Information .............................................................................................................44
3.2 Literature Review ...........................................................................................................................45
3.2.1 Study Criteria ..........................................................................................................................45
3.2.2 Unified Information Origins ....................................................................................................45
3.2.3 Information Source Mapping ..................................................................................................50
3.3 User Card Sort Testing ...................................................................................................................50
3.4 Chapter Summary ...........................................................................................................................53
Chapter 4 Data & Results .................................................................................... 54
4.1 Unification of Information Data .....................................................................................................54
4.1.1 Additional Information ............................................................................................................58
4.2 User Card Sort Testing Results ......................................................................................................63
4.3 Data & Results Unification ............................................................................................................64
4.4 Chapter Summary ...........................................................................................................................67
Chapter 5 Prototype Development ....................................................................... 68
5.1 Sketch .............................................................................................................................................68
5.1.1 Sketch Design Concepts ..........................................................................................................68
5.2 Proto.io ...........................................................................................................................................71
5.2.1 Proto.io Design Implementations ............................................................................................72
5.2.1 Tool Development Design Decisions ......................................................................................78
5.3 Android Studio ...............................................................................................................................79
5.3.1 Copyrighted Content ...............................................................................................................80
5.3.2 Tool Algorithm ........................................................................................................................81
5.4 Chapter Summary ...........................................................................................................................84
Chapter 6 User Interface and Prototype Results .................................................. 85
6.1 Interface Summary .........................................................................................................................85
6.2 Prototype Results ............................................................................................................................88
6.3 Chapter Summary ...........................................................................................................................99
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Future Developments ............................................. 100
7.1 Hypothesis ....................................................................................................................................100
7.2 Green Facades Systems ................................................................................................................100
7.3 Future Developments ...................................................................................................................100
7.4 Chapter Summary .........................................................................................................................100
11
References .......................................................................................................... 101
Appendix A: Morphological Analysis ............................................................... 105
A.1 Experimental Strategy: Computer – Aided Morphological Analysis .........................................105
A.1.1 GMA Test Cases ...................................................................................................................105
A.1.1.1 Test Case 1 – Morphological Box ..................................................................................105
A.1.1.2 Test Case 1 - Cross Consistency Assessment .................................................................105
A.1.1.3 Test Case - Prototype Model ..........................................................................................106
A.2 Morphological Analysis and Green Facades Determination .......................................................110
Appendix B: Case Studies ................................................................................. 111
B.1 Educational and Institutional .......................................................................................................112
B.2 Commercial and Mixed-Use ........................................................................................................113
B.3 Transportation/Transit .................................................................................................................114
B.4 Restaurant/Dining ........................................................................................................................115
B.5 Event Space/Multi-Purpose .........................................................................................................116
Appendix C: Tool Script .................................................................................... 117

12
Chapter 1 Introduction
As the world develops, the realization of just how essential the preservation and restoration of the
environment have been to human development becomes more evident (Tilley et al. 2014). Nature has
contributed to more than just itself; it has been primary to human growth, fundamental for health, and
crucial to the built environment. Sustainable lifestyles have been promoted in every part of the environment:
economy, ecology, and equity. To live sustainably means to live environmentally conscious, residing in a
manner that preserves, restores and adds to the environment (Kibert et al. 2007).
Green facades are another addition to the sustainable lifestyle (Martin and Pitman 2013). They added color
and life to the masonry, brick, glass and metal structures that surrounded communities. They played an
essential role, especially in the urban environment, which often lacked biodiversity, by being the
bridge/connection between humans and nature (Vining et al. 2013).
1.1 Hypothesis Explanation
The role of green facades in the environment has grown from simply increasing aesthetics or property value
to contributing to biodiversity conservation and ecological restoration (Mir 2011). Green façades have
become a popular subject along with the movement of creating a sustainable environment (Sheweka and
Mohamed 2012; Mir 2011). Over the years, the generalization effect, the assumption that all green facades
are composed of the same structure, has made it harder to distinguish between types. As the façades
industry continues to develop, so do green façade systems, applications, and characteristics. Much research
has already gone into learning about green façade applications, integrations, and variations. Various studies
constructed green façade characteristical reviews, process trees, and design guidelines to aid in user
decision making. This study seeks to unify the research findings made by previous studies to construct a
more accessible information processing and management through a tool, a mobile application, which can
guide the user to the best system match or matches according to their preferences.
1.1.1 Taxonomy Tool Development
Taxonomy is the process or system of describing the way in which different things are related by putting
them in groups (Merriam-Webster). A green facades taxonomy has not been implemented into a tool yet,
leaving a unification of past and current research the most probable way to achieve such a task. A review
of the systematic classifications of green facades was done to determine what previous studies concluded
as important in regards to green façade design. The tool envisioned is one that has parameters distinguished
by users, system design recommendations and suggestions, additional information for green façade design
knowledge, and lastly, sets up the development for future integrations.
1.2 General Information
Over the years’, the definition of green façade has become generalized, with many of the terms used for
any vegetation on a wall, without truly knowing what their components are and what affecting parameters
to consider. This study has constructed an organizational system to distinguish best green façade system
matches based on user input and therefore making them easier to understand and process. With the
knowledge and unification of previous classification systems, taxonomies, it was possible to create an
information based tool for assistance in design.
General information of green façade historical overview, definitions, typologies, advantages and
disadvantages established throughout the years have been collected for a better understanding of their
importance to both humans and environment.
1.3 Historical Overview
The earliest evidence of green facades in history was the Hanging Gardens of Babylon (Figure 1). In the
Mediterranean region, approximately 2,000 years ago, vines were added hanging down from building
facades as a form of shading and cooling (Kohler 2008).
13

Figure 1. Modern artist rendition of “The Hanging Gardens of Babylon.” (Rehzakhani, Khodadad. "Iranologie.com."
Iranologiecom. November 12, 2014. Accessed April 01, 2016. http://iranologie.com/podcast/).
Though in an environment of arduous climatic and weather conditions, the Incas, located in modern-day
Peru, were able to adapt to their surroundings by creating a “vertical economy” (Alconni 2005). The Incas
manipulated their mountaneous surroundings to be able to plant a variety of vegetation like potatoes,
peanuts, beans, squash, and sweet potatoes (Alconni 2005). Today, natural vegetation is still evident in the
ruins of the Inca empire.
In the 1920s, British and North America integrated home and nature through self-climbing plants on the
walls, trellis, and pergolas (Green Roofs for Healthy Cities 2008).
The discovery of green facades slowly progressed through time from manipulating nature to inventing
different ways to grow them naturally. Along with creating ways to make plants grow naturally on facades,
there were many movements throughout history, promoting the essentiality of the integration of nature and
architecture. One of the most influential movements was created by Sir Ebenezer Howard, the Englishman,
who founded The Garden City Movement (Howard and Osborn 1965). The movement, initiated in 1898,
promoted having self-contained communities made up of three essential parts that act as metaphorical
magnets for a city’s proper growth. These contained communities were the town, the country and the town-
country. The Garden City Movement emphasized the need for nature in the cities. It embodied the private
and social benefits of being surrounding by nature, though it may not have done exactly as what are now
know as green facades, those same private and social benefits are now adapted in green facades today.
In the late 1970s, a re-development project with the objective to reconstruct German cities began
implementing green facades as one of their creative ideas (Kohler 2008). In Berlin, Germany, as the
14
popularity of green facades grew, it became recognized as a prominent sustainable and environmentally
friendly feature that may be added to walls surrounding the city. The green facades ideation was first started
by painters and artists, people of non-architecture or planning background. Artists like Friedensreich
Hundertwasser paved the way for the expansion of the green façade ideas (Kohler and Schmidt 1997). As
its inner city was in need of much reconstruction, green facades were encouraged as the prominent elements
of urban design. Berlin’s vision of nature in cities evolved between 1983 and 1997, by the end of the re-
development a 245,584 m
2
green façade was installed (Kohler and Schmidt 1997). Green facades were also
implemented in residential areas, being installed in inner courtyards and other surrounding areas (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Green facade project “Paul-Lincke Ufer”, Berlin, began in 1984 as the restoration of a 100-year-old
apartment building (Köhler 2008).
French botanist Patrick Blanc introduced to the world the integration of green facades and hydroponics,
creating the vertical garden (Blanc and Veronique 2008). Blanc’s works have been spread all over the
world; he has designed around 300 vertical gardens, most of his well-known works are in Paris (Figure 3),
Madrid, Singapore, Taipei, and Hong Kong, among many other countries (Young and Leon 2012). Besides
its already beneficial elements of energy efficiency, Patrick Blanc sees vertical gardens as not only a design
solution for a bare wall but also as a valuable shelter for biodiversity (Figure 4). Blanc also states that the
high demand for vertical gardens today is a response to urbanization, climate change, and deforestation.

15

Figure 3. Musee du Quai Branly, Paris, France – 650-foot-long vertical garden designed by Patrick Blanc (Ana 2012).

Figure 4. Pont Max Juvenal, Aix en Provence, France – Bridge before (left) and after (right) (Artwork and Photography
by Patrick Blanc @ murvegetalpatrickblanc.com).
Green facades have been used for many reasons, from energy efficiency to aesthetically pleasing values,
but none can deny their importance to both human development and the built environment (Abdullahi and
Alibaba 2016). Current developments of green facades have been pushing design standards and limits. An
excellent example of such a design is a project under construction, Le Nouvel, located in Kuala Lumpur
(Figure 5). The project was named after Pritzker Prize winner, French architect, Jean Nouvel. Patrick Blanc
was also brought into the project team to design a green façade system that can spread across the building
surface. Blanc has estimated using about 200 hundred climbing plant species for the project. Le Nouvel, is
16
to be a service apartment, consisting of two towers, one 43 stories and the other 49 stories, with built up
sizes from 1,800 sf. - 4,700 sf.

Figure 5. Le Nouvel, Kuala Lumpur - project rendering with façade greening ("Vertical Garden Patrick Blanc." Le
Nouvel, Kuala Lumpur. Accessed April 01, 2016).
1.4 Green Facades Definitions and Typologies
Green facades have adapted throughout history, being made up of different compositions according to user,
professional designers, and environmental preferences. It was not that they have so many different types of
systems, but that they have many different system variations and modifications.
1.4.1 Defined Terms
There are four general systems that have been constantly modified, green walls, living walls, vertical
gardens, and bio-walls. The general term for each is described, along with their general compositions.
17
Green façade, which for this study is the general term used for all systems, consists of any exterior or
interior wall hidden by vertical vegetation purposely designed for their specific location or application
(Perini et al. 2013).
Green walls are the most passive and natural of the façade systems. It consists of climbing plants or vines
whose substrate/soil starts at ground level or horizontal to the façade. Its primary components are 2 or 3-
dimensional grids (trellis, wire-rope, or net systems), and vegetation (Sable 2008).
Living walls may be either passive or active façade system, with its components being more defined than
that of a green wall (Green Screen 2012). Composed of the following: a frame/support structure, drip
irrigation (for water conservations as well as efficient water delivery to the root of the plant), module frame
which hold the “living” system, panels, waterproof membrane, substrate/soil, a mesh screen (preferably
stainless steel), and the vegetation.
Vertical gardens systems differ from green walls and living walls because they have been primarily
consisting of hydroponic systems, but have been adapted for substrate/soil panels. Instead of drip irrigation,
the vertical garden requires a drip tray, felt-covered panels (with irrigation concealed), waterproof
membrane, and a frame/support structure.
Bio-walls are the most complex of the green façade systems. Its primary function is to clean the air,
specifically indoor spaces naturally. The bio-wall is essentially a large plenum through which the air is
sucked in from an interior space and returned to an air handling unit. The air in the building can be cleaned
and renewed without having to intake as much outside air ("BioWall." HVAC Systems Variety 2012). The
bio-wall differs from green wall, living walls, and vertical gardens through both its systems components
and application. Its components consist of a water pump, fan, water collection basin or equivalent, wall
structure, and plants, all linked with the buildings HVAC system.
1.4.2 Typologies
Though they have been continuously modified throughout the years, there are four types of green facades
which differentiate themselves from the rest and have been subject to user modifications (Figure 6). The
four types were established in previous studies, along with sub-types and their various combinations. The
following are the research based green façade systems which are further studied to be implemented into the
tool as potential system matches according user preferences.
Additional information is gathered in the literature review, further detailed in the methodology and results
chapter.
18

Figure 6. Green façade systems and their hybrid/modified variations based on literature (Köhler 1993; Hermy et al.
2005; Ottelé 2011; Krusche et al. 1982).
Green
Facades
Systems
Green Wall
Natural Vegetation
Growing without any
human interaction
Soil Planted
Directly to the wall
Indirectly to the wall
(supporting structure)
Planter Boxes
Hanging systems
(rooftops)
Placed at the bottom of
the walls
Indirect combined with
planter boxes
Indirect with
supporting system fixed
on the facade
indirectw/ planter
boxes fixed on the
facade
indirect with
supporting system fixed
in front of the facade
indirectw/ planter
boxes fixed in front of
the facade
Living Wall
Prefabricated
In Situ
Organic
Inorganic
Vertical Garden
Modular Panel
(Hydroponic)
Modular Panel
(Substrate)
Felt Covered Panel
(with irrigation
concealed)
Bio-Wall HVAC Integration
19
The materials described for each system are building blocks and not entirely the only ones that these systems
can consist of, as green facades may be modified as needed and desired. The variations are only some of
the many that have been studied; researchers simply change material composition to test the different
applications and outcomes possible. The components displayed give an overall idea of how it's possible to
differentiate between systems or how a user may be able to adopt a certain system according to their
preferences. The list also demonstrates how users may feel overwhelmed in choosing specific systems
applicable to their needs.
1.4.2.1 Green Wall Systems
Green walls are a passive system which requires no external aid to function. Green wall suitable plants are
described as climbing or vines which simply need a manmade structure or rock for support. They may be
used for both direct or indirect greening depending on the support structure. Green wall systems may consist
of three categories, which may be modified according to user preferences (Figure 7).
System Categories:
a) Natural Vegetation
b) Soil Planted (directly or indirectly to the wall)
c) Planter Boxes

Figure 7. Green wall systems: natural vegetation (a), soil planted directly to the wall (b), soil planted indirectly to the
wall (c) and planter boxes (d) (Ottele 2011).
a) Natural Vegetation
Examples of such vegetation can be found in old city walls, historical towns, castle fortifications and so on.
Vegetation growth depends on the disintegration level of the mortar, concrete and another type of integrated
materials (Mir 2011).
b) Soil Planted
20
Plants which have their roots planted on the soil and growing against the façade. By growing against the
façade the plants require no external support. This type of greening, depending on the size of the wall and
amount of plant species) may takes years to cover the entire wall surface. They require no irrigation system
due to water intake from natural sources like rainwater and groundwater. Soil planted green walls are split
into two categories, direct greening (directly on the wall; self-climbing plants) and indirect greening (apart
from the wall; requires structural support) (Mir 2011).
c) Planter Boxes
Planter boxes are those which are grown in boxes with soil in them. These systems require a continuous
irrigation due to the plant roots not being directly on the ground. Plant boxed based green walls, like soil
planted systems, may take years to cover the entire wall surface. They also have limited growing
capabilities, due to its roots contained in a box. In order for wall surface to be covered, they are suggested
to be placed both directly and indirectly to the wall.
There have been a variety of green wall system variations for all three system categories (Perini et al. 2013;
Figure 8). Being continuously modified has allowed researchers to test different building and environmental
outcomes that come from these system variations.

Figure 8. Green wall systems variations (Perini et al. 2013).
Green walls are low cost, consist of lightweight support, low water consumption, have little to no negative
environmental impact, are easily assembled/dissembled, and require minimal materials. These benefits may
change depending on the materials used, and whether direct or indirect greening. Some of the disadvantages
are due to lack of maintenance and design mistakes. The disadvantages included spontaneous vegetation
growth, limited plant selection, climate adaptability, scattered or slow surface coverage and plant
detachment/surface deterioration (Mir 2011; Ottele 2011).
1.4.2.2 Living Wall Systems
Living walls are flexible and malleable due to being able to become either passive (no external aid required)
or active (support system needed) (Figure 9). They may also be installed for either indirect or direct
greening, depending on how external supports are given, and may require an irrigation to be built into the
system. For living wall systems, it is advised to, if using rainwater, to filter it, eliminating polluting
substances which may affect plant growth. Water consumption is a major factor of living walls, and may
cause for more maintenance requirements if the water intake and irrigation system are not properly
inspected (Mir 2011; Ottele 2011).
System Categories:
a) Prefabricated or Pre-vegetated
b) In Situ
c) Substrates: Organic & Inorganic
21

Figure 9. Living wall variations of prefabricated or pre-vegetated systems. LWS on planter boxes (left), LWS on foam
substrate (middle), and LWS felt layers (right) (Perini et al. 2013).
a) Prefabricated
Also called pre-vegetated fabric panels or vegetated mat walls, are structural panels consisted with already
grown vegetation that are installed on a structural frame. Water travels to each module through drip
irrigation which must be installed early, through a drip pipe, to ensure efficient water draining methods.
Prefabricated living walls get their nutrients through the irrigation system; it must be monitored to make
sure the system is working properly and the plants are getting enough nutrients for proper growth (Mir
2011).
b) In Situ – “On Site”
Living walls which can installed on the site are called in situ. These systems consist of an outer felt layer
pockets, which half grown plants are put inside of, damp open foil, irrigation pipes, inner felt layer, and a
waterproof surface (Figure 10). The plants are continuously watered through the irrigation inside the pocket.
The plants are already halfway grown, are installed into the felt layer pockets, directly to the façade and
continue developing. The in situ felt layer based system may be modified according to the different plant
species installed. Still, the limited root space, due to felt layer pockets, makes plant growth habits a major
concern for installation (Mir 2011)
c) Substrates: Organic & Inorganic
Organic substrate uses no synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, allowing for less environmental burden and
more of a plant life expectation due to its soil type. Inorganic substrate is made with manufactured chemical
fertilizers, which may lower plant life expectation a faster plant realization time due to the chemical
fertilizers. Both of these are strictly based on the type of substrate/soil used.
Living walls have a greater plant variety than those of green walls, are adaptable to sloped surfaces, consist
of controlled irrigation and drainage, uniform water and nutrient distribution, with a flexible and scalable
system. The disadvantages include high installation cost, limited space for root development, heavier
solutions due to growing media, limited to building maximum load, and may require frequent maintenance
depending on plants and components used (Ottele 2011; Mir 2011).

22

Figure 10. In Situ living wall system, plants inserted in outer felt layer with irrigation concealed (Geus 2007).
1.4.2.3 Vertical Garden Systems
Vertical gardens are active systems (require external aid to function) which may consist of either
substrate/soil or hydroponic (soil-less) components and may also be installed through felt cover panels. The
name of this system describes what they are, a garden but installed vertically. Just like a garden can grow
herbs and food plants, this system can do the same. They have a wider plant variety than those of the green
wall and living wall systems. With vertical gardens a variety of design potentials is possible. They not only
have the best aesthetical potentials but also, provide greater benefits in regards to human health/wellness,
as well as, building sustainability (Timur et al. 2013). Vertical garden disadvantages included water
drainage difficulty, possible water leakage may damage the structure, may require high maintenance
depending on components and plants chosen, there is limited space for root development, and plants may
dry out quickly due to direct sunlight (Timur et al. 2013).
System Categories:
a) Modular Panel (Hydroponic)
b) Modular Panel (Substrate)
c) Felt Covered Panels (with irrigation concealed)
a) Modular Panel (Hydroponic)
23
Modular panels integrated with hydroponic systems help with water conservation. Hydroponics consist of
six types, drip system, ebb & flow, nutrient film technique, water culture, aeroponic and wick system
(Figure 11) Hydroponics essentially water the plant roots rather than soil (TheGrowCo. 2015). These six
systems are simply different in the way they deliver the water, nutrients, and oxygen to the plants roots.

Figure 11. Six types of hydroponic systems (TheGrowCo. 2015).
b) Modular Panel (Substrate)
Substrate modular panels use the same components as hydroponic modular panels, except that they consist
of soil, requiring a different irrigation method which waters the soil rather than specifically plant roots.
c) Felt Covered Panels (with irrigation concealed)
This systems is similar to living walls – in situ composition, but are modified instead in panels rather than
felt layers (Perini et al. 2013). They consist of a single panel, waterproof membrane, a drip tray,
frame/support structure, with water and nutrients provided to roots from the concealed irrigation. They have
been used for vertical garden installations and are continuing to be modified.
Essentially all system variations have the same, if not similar, material composition but apply different
hydroponic and irrigation methods to ensure plant growth (Figure 12).
24

Figure 12. Example of modular panel systems (hydroponic and substrate) and felt covered panels (with irrigation
concealed) components (Growing Green Guide 2014).
Vertical gardens have a wider plant variety than those of the green wall and living wall systems. Its
hydroponic system aids to water conservation, the wider plant variety allows for a creation of habitat and
also shows potential for preservation of ecological biodiversity (Tilley et. Al 2014). The system adds to the
reduction of heat island effect, improved acoustics (sound/noise absorption), improved thermal
performance in buildings, better air quality and increased property value. Vertical garden disadvantages
include water drainage difficulty, possible water leakage may damage the structure, can require high
maintenance depending on components and plants chosen, limited space for root development depending
on installation type, and plants may dry out quickly due to direct sunlight (Ottele 2011; Mir 2011).
1.4.2.4 Bio-Wall Systems
The most complex of the green façade systems are bio-walls, which are integrated with a building’s HVAC
system in order to function. Though complex integration, its components are simple.
System Categories:
a) HVAC Integration
Consisting of plants, wall structure, HVAC system, fan, water pump, and water collection basin or
equivalent (Figure 13). Bio-walls are an ecosystem in itself, comprised of tropical plants, soilless media,
and a waterproof backing (HVAC Systems Variety 2012). Though thrive in indoor locations due to
controlled climates, they also being studied for outdoor applications.
25

Figure 13. Bio-Wall system composition (HVAC Systems Variety 2012).
Bio-wall advantages include health and wellness benefits, aesthetic potentials maximized, generates virtual
outside air, low water consumption and environmental burden, sound abatement, regulation of humidity
and temperature, soil-free system, cleans air naturally, the removal efficiency of VOC, and minimal
materials involved (HVAC Systems Variety 2012). The disadvantage consists of system installation,
maintenance, and labor costs.
1.5 General Advantages and Disadvantages of Green Facades
There have been many discussions of pros and cons of green facades, it is important to understand the
overall arguments people have regarding the advantages and disadvantages (Table 1). Germany has been
the leading figure in green facades research, with over 600 publications on the subject and continuous
research of its technology and potential applications in other parts of the world (Kohler 2008).
Certain attributes may be more prominent in one particular system composition than another, research based
advantages and disadvantages are described for full comprehension of why green facades are seen as
sustainable solutions to be added to the environment.
26
Table 1. Pros and cons of green facades; interview perspectives from A*: people living in greened houses (n=1,556);
B*: people living in non-greened houses (n=536). Answers are in percentages, 51 means 51% had marked that answer.
Study published in 2003 (Köhler 2008).

1.5.1 Advantages of Green Facades
There may be many more benefits associated with green facades, these are those which have been proven
through research studies.
1.5.1.1 Improved Air Quality
Green façade systems can improve air quality both indoors and outdoors, depending on where the system
is installed. The improved air quality is all due to the vegetation, many research studies done on plants have
proven that certain plant species can absorb pollutants in the air. NASA scientists have researched this and
made a guide of air-filtering houseplants which have shown to reduce toxins in the air (Wolverton et al.
1989). Air pollution is defined as contamination of air by smoke and harmful gasses, mainly oxides of
carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen (The American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary).
The study guide of air-filtering plants also showed what specific toxins the certain plant species can reduce
or absorb. Pollution comes from mobile, stationary, area, and natural sources (Wolverton et al. 1989).
Mobile sources such as transportation which include, cars, buses, trains, and trucks. Stationary sources are
power plants, factories, and industrial facilities. Area sources of air pollution come from agricultural areas
and cities. Natural sources are such as windblown dust and wildfires.
Air pollution harms the ecology by affecting its water quality, soil, animals, and plants. Green facades are
able to not only improve air quality in regards to pollutants, but also in air circulation compared to trees
(Figure 14).
27

Figure 14. Air circulation through streets with green facade compared to trees (Ottelé 2011).
1.5.1.2 Increased Property Value
Incorporating green facades to any structure would not only add to the property value, but studies have
shown that it also adds to higher occupancy rates in hotels or shopping mall structures (Ely and Pitman
2013). Green facades can add to the aesthetics of the property, as well as, prevent the usual graffiti blank
walls are prone to.
1.5.1.3 Health and Wellness
Plants are able to filter the air, absorbing pollutants harmful to humans (Timur et al. 2013). Different studies
have been done in which plants aided in decreasing stress, improving productivity, and overall health
condition in humans exposed to greenery.
1.5.1.4 Improved Thermal Performance
The integration of green facades and architecture aids to the building envelope performance. Plants add to
the insulation properties of a building, influencing the temperature both indoors and outdoors (Sheweka
and Mohamed 2012). Green facades systems such as living walls and vertical gardens protect a building
from the harms of direct sunlight, provide shading, and help protect from freezing weather (Perez et al.
2011).
1.5.1.5 Acoustics (Noise Barriers)
Though not all green façade systems are able to provide a significant noise reduction, they do provide
enough that are noticeable by human perspective. Active green facades systems provide a better noise
reduction factor than passive systems. Adding green facades to a populated area, especially by highways,
prone to the noise of cars and traffic, help reduce noise levels up to 10db, depending on surface area and
system installed (Mir 2011).
1.5.1.6 Reduced Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect
Urban heat island, an effect of urbanization, are due to man-made construction in cities which often replace
a vegetation area with concrete surfaces which absorb heat during the day and release at night
(http://www.urbanheatislands.com/). The action of absorption and release of heat, causes an imbalance in
temperature as there are no vegetation areas left to absorb the heat released. Green facades aid to the
reduction of UHI through shading and evaporation (Dunnett and Kingsbury 2004). Concerns for dense
urban areas are that there are no space or little space for vegetation/nature; green facades, being vertical
installations, may be the answer to adding nature to the city without having to compromise building growth.
28
1.5.1.7 Biodiversity
Just as urbanization aided in urban heat island effect, it also added to biodiversity conservation.
Biodiversity, critical to the earths ecosystem, as cities grow, a challenge many faced was that of how to go
about its conservation. Though green facades have been proven to aid in biodiversity and ecological
restoration, in order to achieve such an advantage, it is important to be knowledgeable of the plant species
which can aid in such a task (Tilley et al. 2014).
1.5.1.8 LEED Credits
LEED stands for Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED; USGBC). It is currently the
leading sustainable evaluation method used in architecture and engineering construction. Certification is
acquired by earning points through the credits and prerequisites designed for each rating system. Adding
green facades to a LEED project may help add up to an additional 30 points. Green facades are able to add
primarily to building design and construction adding to 6 of its 8 categories (Greensulate 2016; Green Roofs
for Healthy Cities 2008; Greenscreen 2012).
Depending on the system, in LEED credits, green facades may apply to the following:
• Qualifies for LEED credit in storm water quality control (1 point)
• Heat island reduction: non-roof (1 point)
• Positively effects LEED qualification in site development (1 point)
• Water efficient landscaping (1–5 points)
• Optimize energy efficiency performance (1–18 points)
• Reduces particulates in air distribution (1 point)
• Occupant comfort (1 point)
• Innovation in operations (1–4 points)
• Landscape control and management plan (1 point)
• Light pollution reduction (1 point)
• Sustainable purchasing (1 point)
• Green cleaning (1 point)
1.5.2 Disadvantages of Green Facades
Disadvantages may depend upon location, material components, and plant species. These are common
disadvantages which have been associated with green facades in past research.
1.5.2.1 Direct Greening Damage
Primarily due to plants and soil being directly connected to the façade, direct greening damage occurs when
proper maintenance of plants is not well maintained. Certain plant growth habits like self-climbing plants
and adhesive suckers, such as ivy plants, may penetrate through façade foundation and pipes. When taking
off the plants from the wall, some layers from the façade may be removed as well, causing tension in the
wall, which is the main damage of direct greening (Figure 15) (Ottele 2011; Perini et al. 2013).
1.5.2.2 Maintenance Service
Though some may require more frequently than others, all green façade systems require maintenance
service. The following requirements are suggestions and observations which have aided in the up keeping
of green façade systems.
29
- Maintenance requirements depend on the plant species as each has different nutrient requirements
and water intake.
- Plant species which require high nutrients are most likely to also require high maintenance in order
to properly grow (Yu-Peng 2009).
- Regular pruning is recommended for all systems, the maintenance schedule specific to each system
depend on the components used.
- As plants may die or damage, the right selection species for their replacement is crucial. Certain
systems, like felt layers, it is recommended to change the panel once it becomes torn or damaged
(Ottele 2011).

Figure 15. Examples of possible damages due to lack of maintenance, direct greening and design mistakes (Perini et
al. 2013).
1.5.2.3 Cost/Budget
Green façade costs may be split into two categories, construction, and maintenance. Green façade systems
cost vary across types and vary upon square footage. Construction costs may vary depending on the project,
and maintenance costs depend on the damage condition. Systems costs are calculated per square footage,
though they may be averaged, different manufacturers and designers may require different prices.
Green walls may be of low expense, but if damaging to the façade, maintenance costs may be high. Living
walls, vertical garden, and bio-wall systems are expensive due to requiring an irrigation system, particular
material compositions, variety of plant species, and many other factors (Mir, 2011). Having such
components requirements for construction then applies to the demands of maintenance each element
specifically needs. Maintenance costs would then apply to irrigation systems, plant species, replacement of
plants, human labor, collection and disposal of fallen leaves (Mir 2011).
1.5.2.3 Irrigation Complications
Irrigation complications may arise when determining how much water and nutrient each plant requires for
proper growth. If watered too much, the plant dies, if watered to little, the plant dies. Levels of watering
and nutrients must be determined, for not only plant survival, but also energy conservation methods, as
irrigation systems are energy consuming and based on a self automated system (Ottele 2011).
1.6 Scope of Work
The unification of information focused on green façade organizational systems that have been made in
previous research. It consisted of understanding the information of previous study conclusions to determine
important parameters affecting green facades. Study inclusion and exclusion criterias were made to keep
the information up to date and related to recent years.
The mobile application prototype development includes interface design testing and user experience
research. The software development was accomplished by a third party through the guidance of the study
30
objectives. User interface was established through two software programs, Sketch and Proto.io. Software
development was done in Android Studio by Israel Flores, software developer.
1.7 Research Objectives
The goal of the study was to evaluate green façade system varieties, their designs, benefits, and overall
building and environmental parameters to expand user knowledge. The information and research already
exist, the task was unifying the information and making an easier process on users, through a mobile
application, to find their information more effectively and efficiently.
The research objective consisted of the following:
1. Investigation of green façade systems, sub-types, and applications made in previous studies.
2. Determine parameters affecting green facades design, systems, and sub-types.
3. Conduct a card sort testing to determine users perspectives of what they view as important
parameters.
4. Develop a tool, mobile application, to match users with the applicable system based on their
parameter preferences.
1.7.1 Research Methodologies
Specific methods were followed for each research objective.
• Computer-Aided Morphological Analysis: aided in understanding existing green façades, and
distinguishing between their sub-types and variations. Study found in Appendix A.
• Unification of information (gather, explore, & map): literature review investigation and correlation
of information according to each system and sub-types.
• Card sort testing: conducted online testing to distinguish users perspectives of what they want to
know and what is important to them regarding green façade design parameters.
• Sketch and Proto.io: programs used for tool development, accomplishing a user friendly interface.
• Android Studio: software development, accomplished by software developer - input/output
algorithm and tool script.
• Prototype testing: user input and tool output testing based on accuracy of tool design
recommendations to the data collected.
1.7.2 Research Questions
The questions derived from the objectives were those which proceeded to answer the configurations of
green façade systems, environmental attributes, design principles and effects they have on the facades they
cover.
- How have green facades been implemented into organizational systems in the previous studiest?
- What important parameters or characteristics were concluded?
- How can the affecting parameters established in previous research relate to user preferences?
- Can the unification of information be implemented in a tool, a mobile device, to assist designers
of all stages to the best system match/matches based on their preferences?
1.7.3 Research Applications
Creating a green facades tool based on user preferences can aid in achieving the following:
1. The tool may be used for sustainable design incentives, strategies and methods.
31
2. May serve as a sustainable education device for elementary, high school or college level students and
educators.
3. Potentially, this information can help uncover new green façade system integrations for different
applications through suggested recommendations.
4. Possibly provide a sharing of design ideas and communication between green façade designers of all
stages.
1.8 In The Next Chapters
The next chapters fall into five categories: background, literature investigation, tool development, software
development and prototype results.
The second chapter was divided into two sections: Section I details previous studies that also developed
different methods to aid users in selecting suitable systems for their projects. Section II gives an overview
of the methodology and software programs used for the prototype creation.
Chapter three consists of the literature review investigation and steps used for the user card sort testing.
The investigation consisted of source information mapping and synthesis of the data collected as part of the
unified information for the mobile application.
An experimental strategy done was the General Morphological Analysis which had proved unsuccessful
during its trial period. The full study and steps taken towards green façade system decomposition are
detailed in Appendix A.
Chapter four presents the data collected from the unified sources, user card sort testing results, and the
unification of both data and results.
Chapter five details the tool development, implementation of the user testing results and collected data,
showing the initial mobile application interface in Sketch and Proto.io. The tool script was accomplished
by the software developer through the guidance of the collected data, interface designs, and information
structure for the design recommendations.
Chapter six displays step by step descriptions of the user interface and final prototype of the thesis product,
a mobile application.
Chapter seven contains study conclusions, achievements, and recommendations for future developments.
32
Chapter 2 Background
This chapter is split into two sections. Section I describes a series of previous studies, detailing their
research summaries and what they have concluded to be important parameters. Section II further details the
background information, consisting of the unification of information processing with study
inclusion/exclusion criterias, and information origins.
2.1 Precedent
The following studies support the hypothesis in the creation of an organizational system which can aid users
to selecting suitable systems. These precedents took different methods and strategies that differ from the
proposed research hypothesis. The proposed hypothesis seeks to implement particular user preferences to
guide the system selection; these precedents did not consider user preferences but instead based their
parameter selections on primarily architectural characteristics, and some did not investigate further the
environmental and affecting parameters which dictate green façade design. An information synthesis is
provided in the chapter summary.
2.2 Comparative Assessment of Green Façade Taxonomies
Taxonomies/organizational systems of green facades created in the past have been assembled through
characteristic reviews, process trees, decision trees, and design guidelines (Table 2). In previous studies they
established the constant modifications of systems, how each modification may cause a different advantage
or disadvantage, parameters affecting green facades, and design guidelines to follow for a well built green
façade system.
It is important to note that all of these research papers have given different names for what this study is
calling, in general terms, green façade systems.
Table 2. Research papers on green façade characteristic reviews, process trees, decision trees, and design guidelines.
Study objectives, methods and conclusions are detailed for each organizational system.

33
2.2.1 Characteristic Review Taxonomy
Objectives: A characteristic review taxonomy was made to identify their key features and technologies of
greening systems (Manso and Gomes 2014). Green walls are used as the general term, splitting them into
two systems, green facades and living walls. The classification of each system was made according to their
construction characteristics (Figure 16).
Methods: A review of green wall systems in terms of their configuration, composition and materials to
determine if different system characteristics had different pros and cons. It first classified the types, and
then determined the requirements of each green wall system based on their components, installation and
maintenance process (Manso and Gomes 2014).

Figure 16. Characteristic review classifications based on construction characteristics (re-worked from Manso and
Gomes 2014).
To evaluate the outcome of the different characteristics a comparison of supporting elements, growing
media, vegetation, drainage, and irrigation was made (Table 3); expressing the need to carefully select
materials as each one may affect irrigation, maintenance, and the total environment positively or negatively.
Green facades - direct green systems were concluded as both sustainable and economic solutions, due to
being low maintenance and having little to no environmental burden – because they require simple to no
materials.
Green Walls
Green
Facades
Direct
Traditional
green facades
Indirect
Continuous
guides
Modular
trellis
Living Walls
(LWS)
Continuous
Lightweight
screens
Modular
Trays
Vessels
Planter tiles
Flexible bags
System
Sub-Systems
Installation
Type
Material
Composition
34

Table 3. Summary of green wall systems composition (remade from Manso and Gomes 2014).

Conclusions: The realization was that depending on the system composition, the advantages and
disadvantages varied. Greening systems are in constant development and being applicable to more than just
buildings, which is possible due to their variety of material composition (Manso and Gomes 2014). In
regards to green façade characteristics the primary concerns were finding new and better methods for
system performance, durability, water retention strategies, easy assembly, and maintenance service. Study
conclusions established the significant need for hybrid systems.
2.2.2 Process Tree Taxonomy
Objectives: Process trees have proven to be effective at aiding in decision making. The process tree
taxonomy of green facades was developed based on past and current research begun in the 1970’s (Bellomo
2003). Because green facades were still not seen as sustainable choices for architectural implementation,
the study proceeded to develop a process in which different characteristics, environmental characteristics,
and building characteristics were compared between the modifications for living wall systems and green
facades (Figure 17).
System requirements Green facades Continuous LWS Modular LWS
Support Growing media Cables, ropes, nets,
trellis in stainless
steel, galvanized
steel, wood, plastic,
glass fiber.
Geotextile felts Galvanized steel, stainless
steel, lightweight and/or
flexible polymers, ceramics
Growing Media Ground soil or vessels
filled with substrate
and vegetation
– Substrate mixture including
organic and/or inorganic
compounds
Vegetation Climbing plants
(evergreen or
deciduous)
Shrubs, grasses
and perennials
Shrubs, grasses, perennials
and succulent plants
Drainage Vessels with inferior
holes
– Lateral and inferior holes
Irrigation Drip line inside
vessels
Drip line on the
top of the wall
Drip line on top of each
module
35

Figure 17. Process tree taxonomy of greening vertical surfaces based on research begun in the 1970's (Perini et al.
2013).
36
Methods: Through research already provided, the study determined vertical greening systems, definitions,
characteristics, and what potential environmental impact greening systems can have. The process tree
proved useful in decision making for avoidance of maintenance problems, made comparisons between
technologies, materials, durability, dimensions, and plant species of each system (Perini et al. 2013).
The critical parameters the study establish were architectural, structural and material characteristics,
microclimatic benefits achievable, supporting systems, system types, plant species and functional
characteristics, and ecological needs. Though it acknowledged plant species characteristics; growing speed,
minimum temperatures, lighting, orientation, and climate; it did not go into further research on how they
potentially affect overall design of green façades.
Conclusions: Though the process tree provided a variety of greening systems and their environmental
benefits, as a conclusion it was suggested that many more studies should be undertaken to test and determine
the benefits of greening systems, especially at a macro-scale (Perini et al. 2013). Environmental burden
may be lower or higher depending on the selection of materials, though the systems studied had very little
energy saving impacts. Parameters to take into account for a successful greening system application were
established as façade integration with vegetation, choices of material composition, the effects on the
environment, and the synthesis of growing medium and vegetation.
2.2.3 Decision Tree Taxonomy
Objectives: A decision tree helps determine what actions to take, depending on parameters, usually a ‘yes’
or ‘no’condition. The study aimed to understand which vertical greening systems are advisable to use on
existing or new structures (Mir 2011).
Methods: An experimental “hotbox” was made to test vertical greening systems to establish their moisture
transport through building structures – establishing what systems would cause the least damage to the
façade. In order to create such a decision tree, investigation of system applications, configurations and
overall sustainability impact was determined. From the overview of vertical greening systems and
characteristics, a decision tree was made with suggestions being made according to the users answers of
“yes” or “no” regarding their new or existing structures (Figure 18).
Conclusions: Vertical greening systems had little to no negative effect regarding condensation and moisture
transport through a wall compared with a bare wall (Mir 2011). The choice of materials are critical to
greening systems functioning and should be further studied or detailed to integrate with the varied
characteristics and applications of greening systems today.
Recommendations for future developments were to implement the decision tree into an automated computer
program to be implemented in architectural design (Mir 2011).

37

Figure 18. Sample of decision tree suggestions based on user responses (re-made from Mir 2011).
2.2.4 Design Guidelines Taxonomy
Objectives: Green facades design guideline taxonomies describe the best approaches towards green façade
construction, detailing parameters that must be researched to achieve a successful system.
Methods: These guidelines are taken from a variety of sources and have been arranged based on researchers’
and facades industry manufacturers have concluded to be green façade design principles (The Cities of
Melbourne et al. 2013; Hopkins et al. 2011; Green Screen 2005; Agricultural Research Services (ARS) and
Oregon State University (OSU); Tilley et al. 2014; Green Screen 2012; Francis and Lorimer 2011).
2.2.4.1 Site Analysis
Site characteristics should be investigated and understood before designing any green façade system (The
Cities of Melbourne et al. 2013). Climatic factors vary according to geographic locations and surrounding
environment. Climatic factors to consider are wind, rainfall, irrigation, solar radiation, and air temperature.
2.2.4.2 Plant Selection
The selection criteria for green facade plant species depend entirely on the desired systems characteristics
and project location (Hopkins et al. 2011). Systems characteristics would be direct greening (wall mounted),
indirect greening (freestanding), or both. As different plants need specific temperature in order to properly
grow, determining the project location then determines the local plants that may be used and their specific
characteristics. Plant selection characteristics include climate zone, sun exposure, soil volume, area of
coverage, irrigation needs, fertilization, adjacency to other plants and desired visual effects (Green Screen
38
2012). Each plant species has a particular growing habit, the best way to determine where a species may
grow is through the plant hardiness zone map established by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and
Oregon State University (OSU). Green façade designers use the map as a template for plant species
selection, as it displays the extremes low and high temperatures a particular plant may be exposed to (Figure
19).

Figure 19. United States Plant Hardiness Zone Map (Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Oregon State
University (OSU)).
2.2.4.3 Substrate/Soil
Plants for vertical installation are specifically selected to fit the growing substrate. The substrate depth
determines the plant size, the amount of water supply, and plant growth patterns. In present times, the way
of growing plants has changed due to the creation of hydroponics. There are many different engineered
soils unique to different plants used for green façade designs; even plant species which previously required
soil may be engineered to fit a hydroponic system (Green Screen 2012).
2.2.4.4 Irrigation
Just as the plant selection differs between indirect and direct greening, so do the water supply methods. For
direct greening (wall mounted), no additional materials involved but a climbing vegetation, its water supply
would be the same as that of a garden. If it is indirect greening (freestanding), elevated from the ground or
separate from the wall, a drip or subsoil irrigation system would have to be used to ensure water supply. A
more secured and popular water supply method has been hydroponic systems.
Hydroponics, a technology for growing plants in nutrient solutions (water containing fertilizers) with or
without the use of an artificial medium (sand, gravel, vermiculite, Rockwool, perlite, peat moss. coir, or
sawdust) to provide mechanical support (Giacomelli 2011). Water sensors can be placed within the green
façade system to monitor the moisture level and automatically turn on or off the irrigation system as
39
required (Giacomelli 2011). Irrigation water that may also be used are rainfall, stormwater, recycled waste
water, and greywater.
2.2.4.5 Vertical Attachments and Loads
The specific location of fasteners and cable attachments in the building envelope should be noted as the
building might require specific attachments. Another factor that may affect façade design are building
materials and construction. The system connections should be adaptable to the building construction type.
Dead and live loads for green facade applications should be determined by a professional (Green Screen
2012). Due to loads and forces acting on the building façade, elevation and height changes may need to be
adjusted for system functions. Certain building codes requirements should also be considered as it may
determine where and how a green façade system may be for that particular region/area.
2.2.4.6 Maintenance
Green facades are a living system, which means they require regular care to properly grow and function
(Hopkins et al. 2011). The maintenance and operation of plants/vegetation need to be monitored
continuously, depending on whether an active green façade (external aid needed to function) or passive
green façade (no external aid needed; functioning without technology), the maintenance scheduling may
differ between weeks, months, and years.
Conclusions: Design guidelines express the importance of plant selection and how they affect overall green
façade design both positively and negatively. Implementing design guidelines for a tool development can
help expand this knowledge to a wider audience of more than just professional designers.
2.3 Parameters Affecting Green Facades
From the studies described in sections 2.1.1 – 2.1.4, parameters affecting green facades consist of building,
system, and environmental characteristics. These parameters are those which affect the overall system
typology, creating hybrid or modified variations of a system, have an impact on the building envelope, and
consider environmental characteristics which may dictate system advantages and disadvantages.
Parameters affecting green facades :
• Building materials
• Building types
• Dimensional characteristics
• Irrigation and drainage
• Energy saving possibilities
• Environmental burden
• Maintenance
• System Materials
• Plant life expectation
• Plant species/vegetation
• Price/cost
• Size/surface area coverage
• Installation type (direct or indirect greening)
• Sustainability possibilities
40
• Substrate/soil
• System support/attachments
• Weight
2.4 Information Synthesis
The synthesis consisted of integrating new information concluded in the background with the current
knowledge from the introduction, to further detail and develop each affecting parameter (Figure 20). A
literature review investigation is done in the next chapter, detailing the thesis views taken into account new
information from all sources.

Figure 20. Information synthesis- hypothesis reinforcements, challenges, and response.
The parameters described in each study consisted of building, systems, and environmental attributes. The
system and building aspects had detailed descriptions as these were tested for the specific system; the
environmental attributes were simply stated and provided only some examples, not furthered researched.
A better processing that can be implemented into all of these studies is the integration of the information
implemented in a more accessible framework, a mobile application, which can take into account all the
affecting parameters while comprehending user preferences and recommending a matching system. The
parameters affecting green facades were further developed for each green façade sub-system and were
examined in a online card sort testing to determine users top 10 parameters to use in the creation of the tool.
41
2.5 Methodological Strategies & Tool Development Software’s
An experimental strategy, Computer-Aided Morphological Analysis, was undertaken and tested. The
analysis has its own methods which must be followed when implementing the strategy to any subject. The
strategies and software’s applied are described for better understanding of how each aided to the mobile
application creation.
2.6 Computer-Aided Morphological Analysis
Morphology is described as the study of form or structure of anything (Dictionary.com). A morphological
analysis consists of an edit field, cross-consistency assessment – link and synthesize, and display field –
input/output prototype model. of parameters and variables of the subject being studied. It has a specific
methodology to follow and test for a successful analysis (Figure 21).

Figure 21. Morphological analysis methodology edit field - display field, link and synthesize – cross-consistency
assessment, display field – prototype model.
The cross-consistency assessment is made up of analytical thinking, quick judgments, discussions, and
usually performed by a group of experts. If the analytical perspective is not perceptive of the methodology,
the morphological outcomes would be lacking and ultimately unsuccessful. The computer aided
methodology consists of assessment keys to use for for the cross-consistency matrix (Figure 22).
Morphological analysis has been used for scientific purposes, strategizing, risk assessment, model
development, organizational evaluation, complex relationships and many other fields (Ritchey 2009).
Edit Field
Defined variables
and variable
conditions.
Link
Find the connections
between parameters and
variables.
Synthesize
Determine the
outcome of
connections.
Display
Field
Input/output (if-
then) modeling.
42

Figure 22. Computer-Aided Morphological Analysis methodology and strategies for a successful model (made from
information derived from Ritchey 2010)
2.7 Card Sort Testing
Card sort testing is a user research method that helps understand user percpectives on subject content. With
this testing method the users or audience designates what they view as important and what they value in
regards to a specific subject. Card sort testing may be done in two ways, either in person, with the user
creating their own content based on the subject, or online through a card sorting tool which is designed and
moderated specifically for the subject.
2.8 Prototype Development
The programs used for tool development were Sketch for flat designs of user interface, Proto.io for
prototyping and Android Studio, an integrated development environment by Google, for coding (Figure 23).

Figure 23. Tool development programs- design images made in sketch, prototypes done on proto.io, and tool script
developed in android studio.
STAGE I STAGE II STAGE III
Develop the
Morphological Field
Determine important variables
& variable conditions
Begin
Cross-Consistency
Assessment
Are the
parameters &
variables
corresponding?
Assessment
Keys
"X" - Not
possible
Prototype
Model
Created
Yes
No
MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS FLOW CHART Edna Catumbela | June 1, 2016
"K" - Possible Maybe
"-" - Good Fit
Test Model
Desired
outcomes
unable to be
achieved.
Unsuccessful.
Select
Single &
Multiple
Drivers
Are the desired
outcomes
achieved in the
solution space?
Try Again!
Success!
No
Maybe
Yes
43
2.8.1 Sketch
“Sketch is a professional digital design for Mac made by Bohemian Coding (www.sketchapp.com).” It is a
flexible, fast, easy to use design package for rapid prototyping of product, mobile, and web design.
2.8.2 Proto.io
Proto.io is an interactive visualization of flat design brought to life. It uses hot spots to create fully-
interactive product prototypes, giving designers the ability to see their product in action before fully coding
it or launching it. “The program allows for quick prototyping and building of interfaces which makes it
easier to communicate ideas (www.proto.io).”
2.8.3 Android Studio
Android Studio, an integrated development environment (IDE) by google, used to make android
applications. “It uses Java, Extensible Markup Language (XML), and Gradle. Java is an easier to learn
programming language used to complete applications (http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/Java).”
"XML is a flexible way to create information format and share structured data through
(http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/XML)”.
Gradle is a toolkit which automates and manages the build process, while allowing the user to make custom
build configurations. It primarily aids the user in determinening the order of tasks. It is purposely built to
help developers building apps for every android device.
“Custom features which are offered for android developers are code editing, debugging, tentins and
profiling tools (https://developer.android.com/studio/index.html).”
2.9 Chapter Summary
There are a variety of background research and conclusions already made regarding green façade
applications. In past studies, green facades have been implemented into organizational systems like
characteristics reviews, process trees, decision trees, and design guidelines. These are all valuable methods
of processing information.
In describing the different studies done, the variation of names given to green facades was evident in each
study; displaying how users may feel confused in regards to selecting a green façade system. Each study
has established how green facades are essentially hybrid systems, continuously modifed to fit user,
professionals, and environmental preferences.
The methodological descriptions consists of what was implemented into the study. The computer aided
morphological analysis was an experimental strategy for the study, though it has been tested and proven
successful in other fields, it had never been tested on green facades. User card sort testing is done as part
of user experience research for designers to understand the people for whom they are designing. The
prototype development tools were those which follow the process of rapid prototyping – creating design
concepts, prototyping – realistic design interactions made without coding, and prototype model – fully
coded and tested product.
In the next chapter further details of the investigation done on literature review for the unification of
information.

44
Chapter 3 Methods and Investigation
This chapter consists of the investigation and methodologies taken to complete the study (Figure 24).
The morphological analysis strategy proved unsuccessful in its trial period. The experimental strategy was
done to determine new green façade integrations and explore the relationships between components.
Though unsuccessful the strategy still proved to be useful in understanding how green facades and their
design attributes are affected by each other. The study can be found in Appendix A.
The investigation applied to unify the information of previous studies is described and detailed.
The process of online card sort testing done on users is shown step by step. Tool development is described,
Sketch program used for initial user interface design concepts and Proto.io used for user interface visual
interaction is displayed. Android Studio is briefly described and further detail in the next chapters.

Figure 24. Methodological strategies process, the morphological analysis is displayed in Appendix: A.
3.1 Unification of Information
To better understand green facades systems, an analysis of previous studies was done to compare
information. The information was then mapped out in an excel file consisiting of the affecting parameters
of green façade design. Unification of information consisted of, gathering of sources, exploration of their
content to determine their supporting research in regards to green façade design. The data collected was
then mapped in an excel sheet for each green façade sub-system. The bracket numbers on the figure are
also displayed on the data results to reference information sources.
1. Gather: academic papers, journals, and relevant studies were collected from educational sources-
science direct, google scholar, and academia.
45
2. Explore: Each source gathered were studied to determine their contribution to green facades
research. Each had particular information on green façade design which was used for the mapping
of data collected.
3. Map: The results or collection of data gathered for each source explored. Data mapping includes
references for each subject found and supporting documents.
The unification of information methodological approach was also to investigate the literature review and
create a study criteria as the foundation for the collected data. The data collection was established by the
parameters affecting green facades found in section 2.2. The data collected was recorded in an excel sheet
and implemented in the software development to be given as design recommendations.
3.2 Literature Review
The studies were accessed through academic search engines, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Research
Gate. Study criterias were made to ensure the manuscripts were related to recent years and to ensure the
data collected was up to date.
Other considerations which were able to be derived from each source were advantages comparisons and
potential applicable LEED credits.
3.2.1 Study Criteria
The selection criteria consisted of five categories, time period, language, place of study, the typology of the
study, and design (Table 4).
Study sources were derived from different academic journals, papers, and articles. To ensure that design
practices implemented into the tool were also correlating to the facades industry standards, green façade
manufacturers design guidelines were also added to the study.
Many of the research papers found were a integration of data collection from a variety of sources and years.
Because the data was already included in research papers and to keep the data collection related to recent
years, studies collected were from 2005 to 2014 with the inclusion of data collection dating back to the
1970’s.
Table 4. Study selection, inclusion, and exclusion criteria’s.
Selection Criteria Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria
1. Time period 2005 – present Literature before 2005
2. Language English Non-English
3. Place of study All regions None
4. Type of articles/study Published manuscripts (abstracts, thesis,
dissertations), peer-reviewed academic
journals, papers, conference
publications.
Unpublished manuscripts
(abstracts, thesis, dissertations),
non-peer reviewed documents.
5. Study Design Performance, characteristics, cost-
benefit analysis, botany, industry
insight, façade greening methods, health
and wellness effects.
Construction methods, use of
technology, and architectural
design.
3.2.2 Unified Information Origins
A total of 16 peer-reviewed papers were investigated. They consisted of 11 journals, 3 design guidelines, 1
article, 1 Ph.D. dissertation and 1 master thesis. Study information of methods, objectives and outcomes
are detailed (
Table 5).
Table 5. Unified information studies methods, objectives, and outcomes. Table continuation on the next three pages.
46

Study Author/Year Location Publishing Methods Objectives Outcomes
Guidelines for Green Façade Plant
Selection
Green Screen
2005
North America -
USDA Plant
Hardiness Zone
Map
Green façade
manufacturer
guidelines
Systematic review of
plant species used
over the past 20
years.
Green façade plant
selection
considerations of
climate zone, sun
exposure, soil type,
soil, volume, area of
coverage, irrigation
needs, fertilization,
and desired visual
effects.
A record of 150 plants that
have demonstrated great
adaptability for façade
coverage, survivability,
maintenace, and species
characteristics.
Green Facades—A View Back and
Some Visions
Kohler 2008 Neubrandenburg,
Germany
Article in
Urban
Ecosystems
Review of vegetated
façade research
since 1980's,
focusing on elements
like the number of
published articles
and their origins.
Create a compiliation
of research illustrating
the history of
vegetated facades
and their benefits as a
component of current
urban design.
Analyzed the number of articles
published since the 1980's,
organizing it into botany,
ecology, and planning;
establishing the number of
publications and their origins.
Introduction to Green Walls Technology,
Benefits & Design
Green Roofs
for Healthy
Cities and
GreenScreen
2008
North America Journal:
Green Roofs
for Healthy
Cities
Working directly with
industry
professionals and
collected research
findings.
Encourage green
façade use by
creating design
guidelines and
incentives for cities.
Green façade and living walls
public and private benefits,
design specific benefits, factors
for successful systems,
maintenance, potential LEED
credits applicable, and budgets.
The Integration of Vegetation in
Architecture, Vertical and Horizontal
Greened Surfaces.
Perini and
Magliocco
2011
Genoa, Italy Journal:
International
Journal of
Biology
Analysis of current
approaches of green
façade applications
dating from 2000 to
2010.
Determining
environmental
benefits achievable
with facade greening,
understanding the
characterisics of
green envelope
elements and
typologies connected
to their functionality.
to the contribution on
the building envelope
performances and to
environmental and
economical aspects.
Façade greening contributions
to the building envelope
performance has surpassed
being simply for aesthetical
value. Vegetation allows
improvement of building
performance by reducing urban
heat island and environmental
attributes by better air quality,
and increased biodiversity.
Economical aspects vary
depending on greening
application (direct or indirect)
and systems variations (green
wall, living wall, vertical
garden).
Green Façades and Building Structures Mir 2011 Delft, Netherlands Master
Thesis - Delft
University of
Technology
Project linked to PhD
research (Ottele,
2011 - The Green
Building Envelope).
Overview of different
green façade
systems, with
modified material
compositions and
their behavior in
respects to the
environment.
Systematic review of
different green façade
systems and
comparison of their
characteristics to
create a decision tree
as guidelines for
system selection
based on existing or
new building
structures.
Decision tree focusing on
greening systems that best
match a building structure.
System selection is based on
building structure (new or
existing) and material choice.
The Green Building Envelope Ottele 2011 Delft, Netherlands Journal:
Department
of Materials
and
Environment
& Ph.D.
Dissertation
Conducted a
literature
investigation of
façade greening
sustainability,
building and
environmental
effects.
Determining how to
classify green
facades, their
contributions to both
buildings structures
and the environment,
and establishing
system life cycle
analysis.
Recommendations for green
façade systems
implementations to urban cities
and future research studies.
Investigation of green façade
materials and installation type
(direct or indirect greening) is
recommended to ensure proper
design considerations are done
for the best applicable system.
Quantitative research focusing
on different impacts of green
facade systems is
recommended for future
studies.
Comparative Life Cycle Analysis for
Green Facades and Living Wall
Systems
Ottele et al.
2011
Delft, Netherlands Journal:
Energy and
Buildings
Comparative life
cycle analysis for a
conventional built up
European brick
façade, a façade
greened directly, a
façade greened
indirectly, a façade
with a living wall
system based on
planter boxes and a
façade covered with
living wall system
Establishing the
sustainability of
vertical greening
systems, focusing on
material composition,
maintenance
requirements, and
irrigation methods.
Material composition and plant
species were the primary
affecting criteria of vertical
greening systems. The
materials used had a direct
correlation to the system
environmental output, the plant
species had a direct correlation
to the building energy demand
and construction
multifunctionality.
Considerations for Advanced Green
Façade Design
GreenScreen
2012
North America Green façade
manufacturer
guidelines
In-depth discussion
dealing with the
required
considerations for
successful green
façade installations
and projects based
on 20 years of
collected knowledge,
observation,
implementation, and
experimentation of
successful strategies
done in the green
Incentive for green
façades applications
to be used as
standard building
components in the
facades industry.
Detailed design
guidelines for user
understanding and
knowledge of green
façade possibilities.
Established the differences
between green facades and
living walls, list and discussed
considerations that should be
comprehensively addressed
during design, installation and
post installation stages of green
façade systems, specified plant
materials, soil, planting details
and maintenance programming
to fulfill design intent.
Vertical Gardens Timur et al.
2013
North America &
Europe
Journal:
Advances in
Landscape
Architecture
Systematic review of
green facades
applications across
North America and
Europe.
Defining vertical
greening, their
applications, systems,
benefits, and affecting
parameters.
Settled the differences and
similarities between vertical
greening types and system
supports. Established benefits
of vertical greening, plant
species adaptable to vertical
surfaces, and relevant case
studies across North America
and Europe.
Vertical Greening Systems: A Process
Tree for Green Facades and Living
Walls
Perini et al.
2013
Genoa, Italy &
Delft, Netherlands
Journal:
Urban
Ecosystems
Analysis of vertical
greening systems
following a series of
field studies and
research begun in
the 1970's.
Development of a
process tree to be
used as a case study
for vertical greening
systems.
Process tree focusing on
vertical greening system
ecological and environmental
attributes. Main parameters
analyzed are micro-climatic
benefits achievable, system
types and installation
variations, and plant species
characteristics.
An Experimental Evaluation of the
Living Wall System in Hot and Humid
Climate
Chen et al.
2013
Wuhan, China Journal:
Energy and
Buildings
Designed a thermal
lab and conducted 3
series of experiments
of living wall systems
at different distances
from the building
façade.
Identify the
microclimate of the
living wall system in a
hot and humid climate
and examine how
ventilation and
different wall-
vegetation distances
affect the thermal
performance of the
Results showed cooling effect
to the wall surface and the
indoor space. The smaller the
distance, the better the cooling
effect but higher relative
humidity in the air layer.
Victoria's Guide to Green Roofs, Walls
& Facades
The Cities of
Melbourne et
al. 2013
Melbourne,
Australia
Growing Green Guide Showing evidence
provided by industry
experts, scientific
research, technical
guidelines, and
proven case studies.
City incentives for
implementation of
green roofs, walls,
and facades.
Created a guideline to
encourage the developments of
more effective green roofs,
walls, and facades.
Cost Benefit Analysis of Green Facades
and Living Wall Systems
Perini and
Rosasco 2013
Genoa, Italy Journal:
Building and
Environment
Determining vertical
greening systems
economical
sustainability and
cost benefit analysis.
Cost benefit analysis
through vertical
greening systems
installation,
maintenance and
disposal costs in
comparison to both
private and social
benefits (property
value, energy
savings, etc.)
Establishing vertical
greening systems
through three
indicators: Net
Present Value (NPV),
Internal Rate of
Return (IRR), and
Pay Back Period
(PBP).
"Vertical greening systems
provide both personal and
social benefits, installation and
maintenance service costs are
crucial on the economic
sustainability, for particular
systems the benefits can not
pay back the costs, most
relevant benefits are connected
with the real estate and energy
savings for air conditioning,
social benefits have a small
influence on the cost benefit
analysis, and economic
incentives could reduce
personal initial costs." (Perini
and Rosasco 2013)
Green Facades: Ecologically Designed
Vertical Vegetation Helps Create a
Cleaner Environment
Tilley et al.
2014
Maryland,
Washington D.C.,
USA
Journal:
University of
Maryland
Extension
Publications
Record analysis of
experimental green
façade based in
Maryland.
Establishing how
green facades are
potential solutions for
economic and
ecological problems.
Experimental research results
showed green façades cooling
properties during summer
months, reduction of heat
transfer, less use of air
conditioning, reduction in
energy consumption and
increase in energy savings.
A Review of Energy Characteristics of
Vertical Greenery Systems
Safikhani et
al. 2014
Johor, Malaysia Journal:
Renewable &
Sustainable
Energy
Reviews
Vertical greening
systems review of
different research
experiments with a
focus on energy
related topics.
Vertical greening
systems and how
they may serve as a
sustainable remedy
for environmental
protection and
negative
environmental effects
Established a list of researched
studies and experiments that
provide vertical greening
systems positive and negative
aspects with a focus on their
enegy characteristics.
Green Wall Systems: A review of their
characteristics
Manso and
Gomes 2014
Covilha, Portugal Journal:
Renewable &
Sustainable
Energy
Reviews
A review of green
façade system types
made through the
past years and
identification of their
main characteristics
and technologies.
Evaluation of the
contribution of green
façade systems to
building perfomance,
environmental impact,
system applications,
and construction
methods.
Applicable systems for a project
should depend on construction,
climate zone, environmental
impact, and associated costs,
during its entire system life
cycle.
47

Study Author/Year Location Publishing Methods Objectives Outcomes
Guidelines for Green Façade Plant
Selection
Green Screen
2005
North America -
USDA Plant
Hardiness Zone
Map
Green façade
manufacturer
guidelines
Systematic review of
plant species used
over the past 20
years.
Green façade plant
selection
considerations of
climate zone, sun
exposure, soil type,
soil, volume, area of
coverage, irrigation
needs, fertilization,
and desired visual
effects.
A record of 150 plants that
have demonstrated great
adaptability for façade
coverage, survivability,
maintenace, and species
characteristics.
Green Facades—A View Back and
Some Visions
Kohler 2008 Neubrandenburg,
Germany
Article in
Urban
Ecosystems
Review of vegetated
façade research
since 1980's,
focusing on elements
like the number of
published articles
and their origins.
Create a compiliation
of research illustrating
the history of
vegetated facades
and their benefits as a
component of current
urban design.
Analyzed the number of articles
published since the 1980's,
organizing it into botany,
ecology, and planning;
establishing the number of
publications and their origins.
Introduction to Green Walls Technology,
Benefits & Design
Green Roofs
for Healthy
Cities and
GreenScreen
2008
North America Journal:
Green Roofs
for Healthy
Cities
Working directly with
industry
professionals and
collected research
findings.
Encourage green
façade use by
creating design
guidelines and
incentives for cities.
Green façade and living walls
public and private benefits,
design specific benefits, factors
for successful systems,
maintenance, potential LEED
credits applicable, and budgets.
The Integration of Vegetation in
Architecture, Vertical and Horizontal
Greened Surfaces.
Perini and
Magliocco
2011
Genoa, Italy Journal:
International
Journal of
Biology
Analysis of current
approaches of green
façade applications
dating from 2000 to
2010.
Determining
environmental
benefits achievable
with facade greening,
understanding the
characterisics of
green envelope
elements and
typologies connected
to their functionality.
to the contribution on
the building envelope
performances and to
environmental and
economical aspects.
Façade greening contributions
to the building envelope
performance has surpassed
being simply for aesthetical
value. Vegetation allows
improvement of building
performance by reducing urban
heat island and environmental
attributes by better air quality,
and increased biodiversity.
Economical aspects vary
depending on greening
application (direct or indirect)
and systems variations (green
wall, living wall, vertical
garden).
Green Façades and Building Structures Mir 2011 Delft, Netherlands Master
Thesis - Delft
University of
Technology
Project linked to PhD
research (Ottele,
2011 - The Green
Building Envelope).
Overview of different
green façade
systems, with
modified material
compositions and
their behavior in
respects to the
environment.
Systematic review of
different green façade
systems and
comparison of their
characteristics to
create a decision tree
as guidelines for
system selection
based on existing or
new building
structures.
Decision tree focusing on
greening systems that best
match a building structure.
System selection is based on
building structure (new or
existing) and material choice.
The Green Building Envelope Ottele 2011 Delft, Netherlands Journal:
Department
of Materials
and
Environment
& Ph.D.
Dissertation
Conducted a
literature
investigation of
façade greening
sustainability,
building and
environmental
effects.
Determining how to
classify green
facades, their
contributions to both
buildings structures
and the environment,
and establishing
system life cycle
analysis.
Recommendations for green
façade systems
implementations to urban cities
and future research studies.
Investigation of green façade
materials and installation type
(direct or indirect greening) is
recommended to ensure proper
design considerations are done
for the best applicable system.
Quantitative research focusing
on different impacts of green
facade systems is
recommended for future
studies.
Comparative Life Cycle Analysis for
Green Facades and Living Wall
Systems
Ottele et al.
2011
Delft, Netherlands Journal:
Energy and
Buildings
Comparative life
cycle analysis for a
conventional built up
European brick
façade, a façade
greened directly, a
façade greened
indirectly, a façade
with a living wall
system based on
planter boxes and a
façade covered with
living wall system
Establishing the
sustainability of
vertical greening
systems, focusing on
material composition,
maintenance
requirements, and
irrigation methods.
Material composition and plant
species were the primary
affecting criteria of vertical
greening systems. The
materials used had a direct
correlation to the system
environmental output, the plant
species had a direct correlation
to the building energy demand
and construction
multifunctionality.
Considerations for Advanced Green
Façade Design
GreenScreen
2012
North America Green façade
manufacturer
guidelines
In-depth discussion
dealing with the
required
considerations for
successful green
façade installations
and projects based
on 20 years of
collected knowledge,
observation,
implementation, and
experimentation of
successful strategies
done in the green
Incentive for green
façades applications
to be used as
standard building
components in the
facades industry.
Detailed design
guidelines for user
understanding and
knowledge of green
façade possibilities.
Established the differences
between green facades and
living walls, list and discussed
considerations that should be
comprehensively addressed
during design, installation and
post installation stages of green
façade systems, specified plant
materials, soil, planting details
and maintenance programming
to fulfill design intent.
Vertical Gardens Timur et al.
2013
North America &
Europe
Journal:
Advances in
Landscape
Architecture
Systematic review of
green facades
applications across
North America and
Europe.
Defining vertical
greening, their
applications, systems,
benefits, and affecting
parameters.
Settled the differences and
similarities between vertical
greening types and system
supports. Established benefits
of vertical greening, plant
species adaptable to vertical
surfaces, and relevant case
studies across North America
and Europe.
Vertical Greening Systems: A Process
Tree for Green Facades and Living
Walls
Perini et al.
2013
Genoa, Italy &
Delft, Netherlands
Journal:
Urban
Ecosystems
Analysis of vertical
greening systems
following a series of
field studies and
research begun in
the 1970's.
Development of a
process tree to be
used as a case study
for vertical greening
systems.
Process tree focusing on
vertical greening system
ecological and environmental
attributes. Main parameters
analyzed are micro-climatic
benefits achievable, system
types and installation
variations, and plant species
characteristics.
An Experimental Evaluation of the
Living Wall System in Hot and Humid
Climate
Chen et al.
2013
Wuhan, China Journal:
Energy and
Buildings
Designed a thermal
lab and conducted 3
series of experiments
of living wall systems
at different distances
from the building
façade.
Identify the
microclimate of the
living wall system in a
hot and humid climate
and examine how
ventilation and
different wall-
vegetation distances
affect the thermal
performance of the
Results showed cooling effect
to the wall surface and the
indoor space. The smaller the
distance, the better the cooling
effect but higher relative
humidity in the air layer.
Victoria's Guide to Green Roofs, Walls
& Facades
The Cities of
Melbourne et
al. 2013
Melbourne,
Australia
Growing Green Guide Showing evidence
provided by industry
experts, scientific
research, technical
guidelines, and
proven case studies.
City incentives for
implementation of
green roofs, walls,
and facades.
Created a guideline to
encourage the developments of
more effective green roofs,
walls, and facades.
Cost Benefit Analysis of Green Facades
and Living Wall Systems
Perini and
Rosasco 2013
Genoa, Italy Journal:
Building and
Environment
Determining vertical
greening systems
economical
sustainability and
cost benefit analysis.
Cost benefit analysis
through vertical
greening systems
installation,
maintenance and
disposal costs in
comparison to both
private and social
benefits (property
value, energy
savings, etc.)
Establishing vertical
greening systems
through three
indicators: Net
Present Value (NPV),
Internal Rate of
Return (IRR), and
Pay Back Period
(PBP).
"Vertical greening systems
provide both personal and
social benefits, installation and
maintenance service costs are
crucial on the economic
sustainability, for particular
systems the benefits can not
pay back the costs, most
relevant benefits are connected
with the real estate and energy
savings for air conditioning,
social benefits have a small
influence on the cost benefit
analysis, and economic
incentives could reduce
personal initial costs." (Perini
and Rosasco 2013)
Green Facades: Ecologically Designed
Vertical Vegetation Helps Create a
Cleaner Environment
Tilley et al.
2014
Maryland,
Washington D.C.,
USA
Journal:
University of
Maryland
Extension
Publications
Record analysis of
experimental green
façade based in
Maryland.
Establishing how
green facades are
potential solutions for
economic and
ecological problems.
Experimental research results
showed green façades cooling
properties during summer
months, reduction of heat
transfer, less use of air
conditioning, reduction in
energy consumption and
increase in energy savings.
A Review of Energy Characteristics of
Vertical Greenery Systems
Safikhani et
al. 2014
Johor, Malaysia Journal:
Renewable &
Sustainable
Energy
Reviews
Vertical greening
systems review of
different research
experiments with a
focus on energy
related topics.
Vertical greening
systems and how
they may serve as a
sustainable remedy
for environmental
protection and
negative
environmental effects
Established a list of researched
studies and experiments that
provide vertical greening
systems positive and negative
aspects with a focus on their
enegy characteristics.
Green Wall Systems: A review of their
characteristics
Manso and
Gomes 2014
Covilha, Portugal Journal:
Renewable &
Sustainable
Energy
Reviews
A review of green
façade system types
made through the
past years and
identification of their
main characteristics
and technologies.
Evaluation of the
contribution of green
façade systems to
building perfomance,
environmental impact,
system applications,
and construction
methods.
Applicable systems for a project
should depend on construction,
climate zone, environmental
impact, and associated costs,
during its entire system life
cycle.
48

Study Author/Year Location Publishing Methods Objectives Outcomes
Guidelines for Green Façade Plant
Selection
Green Screen
2005
North America -
USDA Plant
Hardiness Zone
Map
Green façade
manufacturer
guidelines
Systematic review of
plant species used
over the past 20
years.
Green façade plant
selection
considerations of
climate zone, sun
exposure, soil type,
soil, volume, area of
coverage, irrigation
needs, fertilization,
and desired visual
effects.
A record of 150 plants that
have demonstrated great
adaptability for façade
coverage, survivability,
maintenace, and species
characteristics.
Green Facades—A View Back and
Some Visions
Kohler 2008 Neubrandenburg,
Germany
Article in
Urban
Ecosystems
Review of vegetated
façade research
since 1980's,
focusing on elements
like the number of
published articles
and their origins.
Create a compiliation
of research illustrating
the history of
vegetated facades
and their benefits as a
component of current
urban design.
Analyzed the number of articles
published since the 1980's,
organizing it into botany,
ecology, and planning;
establishing the number of
publications and their origins.
Introduction to Green Walls Technology,
Benefits & Design
Green Roofs
for Healthy
Cities and
GreenScreen
2008
North America Journal:
Green Roofs
for Healthy
Cities
Working directly with
industry
professionals and
collected research
findings.
Encourage green
façade use by
creating design
guidelines and
incentives for cities.
Green façade and living walls
public and private benefits,
design specific benefits, factors
for successful systems,
maintenance, potential LEED
credits applicable, and budgets.
The Integration of Vegetation in
Architecture, Vertical and Horizontal
Greened Surfaces.
Perini and
Magliocco
2011
Genoa, Italy Journal:
International
Journal of
Biology
Analysis of current
approaches of green
façade applications
dating from 2000 to
2010.
Determining
environmental
benefits achievable
with facade greening,
understanding the
characterisics of
green envelope
elements and
typologies connected
to their functionality.
to the contribution on
the building envelope
performances and to
environmental and
economical aspects.
Façade greening contributions
to the building envelope
performance has surpassed
being simply for aesthetical
value. Vegetation allows
improvement of building
performance by reducing urban
heat island and environmental
attributes by better air quality,
and increased biodiversity.
Economical aspects vary
depending on greening
application (direct or indirect)
and systems variations (green
wall, living wall, vertical
garden).
Green Façades and Building Structures Mir 2011 Delft, Netherlands Master
Thesis - Delft
University of
Technology
Project linked to PhD
research (Ottele,
2011 - The Green
Building Envelope).
Overview of different
green façade
systems, with
modified material
compositions and
their behavior in
respects to the
environment.
Systematic review of
different green façade
systems and
comparison of their
characteristics to
create a decision tree
as guidelines for
system selection
based on existing or
new building
structures.
Decision tree focusing on
greening systems that best
match a building structure.
System selection is based on
building structure (new or
existing) and material choice.
The Green Building Envelope Ottele 2011 Delft, Netherlands Journal:
Department
of Materials
and
Environment
& Ph.D.
Dissertation
Conducted a
literature
investigation of
façade greening
sustainability,
building and
environmental
effects.
Determining how to
classify green
facades, their
contributions to both
buildings structures
and the environment,
and establishing
system life cycle
analysis.
Recommendations for green
façade systems
implementations to urban cities
and future research studies.
Investigation of green façade
materials and installation type
(direct or indirect greening) is
recommended to ensure proper
design considerations are done
for the best applicable system.
Quantitative research focusing
on different impacts of green
facade systems is
recommended for future
studies.
Comparative Life Cycle Analysis for
Green Facades and Living Wall
Systems
Ottele et al.
2011
Delft, Netherlands Journal:
Energy and
Buildings
Comparative life
cycle analysis for a
conventional built up
European brick
façade, a façade
greened directly, a
façade greened
indirectly, a façade
with a living wall
system based on
planter boxes and a
façade covered with
living wall system
Establishing the
sustainability of
vertical greening
systems, focusing on
material composition,
maintenance
requirements, and
irrigation methods.
Material composition and plant
species were the primary
affecting criteria of vertical
greening systems. The
materials used had a direct
correlation to the system
environmental output, the plant
species had a direct correlation
to the building energy demand
and construction
multifunctionality.
Considerations for Advanced Green
Façade Design
GreenScreen
2012
North America Green façade
manufacturer
guidelines
In-depth discussion
dealing with the
required
considerations for
successful green
façade installations
and projects based
on 20 years of
collected knowledge,
observation,
implementation, and
experimentation of
successful strategies
done in the green
Incentive for green
façades applications
to be used as
standard building
components in the
facades industry.
Detailed design
guidelines for user
understanding and
knowledge of green
façade possibilities.
Established the differences
between green facades and
living walls, list and discussed
considerations that should be
comprehensively addressed
during design, installation and
post installation stages of green
façade systems, specified plant
materials, soil, planting details
and maintenance programming
to fulfill design intent.
Vertical Gardens Timur et al.
2013
North America &
Europe
Journal:
Advances in
Landscape
Architecture
Systematic review of
green facades
applications across
North America and
Europe.
Defining vertical
greening, their
applications, systems,
benefits, and affecting
parameters.
Settled the differences and
similarities between vertical
greening types and system
supports. Established benefits
of vertical greening, plant
species adaptable to vertical
surfaces, and relevant case
studies across North America
and Europe.
Vertical Greening Systems: A Process
Tree for Green Facades and Living
Walls
Perini et al.
2013
Genoa, Italy &
Delft, Netherlands
Journal:
Urban
Ecosystems
Analysis of vertical
greening systems
following a series of
field studies and
research begun in
the 1970's.
Development of a
process tree to be
used as a case study
for vertical greening
systems.
Process tree focusing on
vertical greening system
ecological and environmental
attributes. Main parameters
analyzed are micro-climatic
benefits achievable, system
types and installation
variations, and plant species
characteristics.
An Experimental Evaluation of the
Living Wall System in Hot and Humid
Climate
Chen et al.
2013
Wuhan, China Journal:
Energy and
Buildings
Designed a thermal
lab and conducted 3
series of experiments
of living wall systems
at different distances
from the building
façade.
Identify the
microclimate of the
living wall system in a
hot and humid climate
and examine how
ventilation and
different wall-
vegetation distances
affect the thermal
performance of the
Results showed cooling effect
to the wall surface and the
indoor space. The smaller the
distance, the better the cooling
effect but higher relative
humidity in the air layer.
Victoria's Guide to Green Roofs, Walls
& Facades
The Cities of
Melbourne et
al. 2013
Melbourne,
Australia
Growing Green Guide Showing evidence
provided by industry
experts, scientific
research, technical
guidelines, and
proven case studies.
City incentives for
implementation of
green roofs, walls,
and facades.
Created a guideline to
encourage the developments of
more effective green roofs,
walls, and facades.
Cost Benefit Analysis of Green Facades
and Living Wall Systems
Perini and
Rosasco 2013
Genoa, Italy Journal:
Building and
Environment
Determining vertical
greening systems
economical
sustainability and
cost benefit analysis.
Cost benefit analysis
through vertical
greening systems
installation,
maintenance and
disposal costs in
comparison to both
private and social
benefits (property
value, energy
savings, etc.)
Establishing vertical
greening systems
through three
indicators: Net
Present Value (NPV),
Internal Rate of
Return (IRR), and
Pay Back Period
(PBP).
"Vertical greening systems
provide both personal and
social benefits, installation and
maintenance service costs are
crucial on the economic
sustainability, for particular
systems the benefits can not
pay back the costs, most
relevant benefits are connected
with the real estate and energy
savings for air conditioning,
social benefits have a small
influence on the cost benefit
analysis, and economic
incentives could reduce
personal initial costs." (Perini
and Rosasco 2013)
Green Facades: Ecologically Designed
Vertical Vegetation Helps Create a
Cleaner Environment
Tilley et al.
2014
Maryland,
Washington D.C.,
USA
Journal:
University of
Maryland
Extension
Publications
Record analysis of
experimental green
façade based in
Maryland.
Establishing how
green facades are
potential solutions for
economic and
ecological problems.
Experimental research results
showed green façades cooling
properties during summer
months, reduction of heat
transfer, less use of air
conditioning, reduction in
energy consumption and
increase in energy savings.
A Review of Energy Characteristics of
Vertical Greenery Systems
Safikhani et
al. 2014
Johor, Malaysia Journal:
Renewable &
Sustainable
Energy
Reviews
Vertical greening
systems review of
different research
experiments with a
focus on energy
related topics.
Vertical greening
systems and how
they may serve as a
sustainable remedy
for environmental
protection and
negative
environmental effects
Established a list of researched
studies and experiments that
provide vertical greening
systems positive and negative
aspects with a focus on their
enegy characteristics.
Green Wall Systems: A review of their
characteristics
Manso and
Gomes 2014
Covilha, Portugal Journal:
Renewable &
Sustainable
Energy
Reviews
A review of green
façade system types
made through the
past years and
identification of their
main characteristics
and technologies.
Evaluation of the
contribution of green
façade systems to
building perfomance,
environmental impact,
system applications,
and construction
methods.
Applicable systems for a project
should depend on construction,
climate zone, environmental
impact, and associated costs,
during its entire system life
cycle.
49

Study Author/Year Location Publishing Methods Objectives Outcomes
Guidelines for Green Façade Plant
Selection
Green Screen
2005
North America -
USDA Plant
Hardiness Zone
Map
Green façade
manufacturer
guidelines
Systematic review of
plant species used
over the past 20
years.
Green façade plant
selection
considerations of
climate zone, sun
exposure, soil type,
soil, volume, area of
coverage, irrigation
needs, fertilization,
and desired visual
effects.
A record of 150 plants that
have demonstrated great
adaptability for façade
coverage, survivability,
maintenace, and species
characteristics.
Green Facades—A View Back and
Some Visions
Kohler 2008 Neubrandenburg,
Germany
Article in
Urban
Ecosystems
Review of vegetated
façade research
since 1980's,
focusing on elements
like the number of
published articles
and their origins.
Create a compiliation
of research illustrating
the history of
vegetated facades
and their benefits as a
component of current
urban design.
Analyzed the number of articles
published since the 1980's,
organizing it into botany,
ecology, and planning;
establishing the number of
publications and their origins.
Introduction to Green Walls Technology,
Benefits & Design
Green Roofs
for Healthy
Cities and
GreenScreen
2008
North America Journal:
Green Roofs
for Healthy
Cities
Working directly with
industry
professionals and
collected research
findings.
Encourage green
façade use by
creating design
guidelines and
incentives for cities.
Green façade and living walls
public and private benefits,
design specific benefits, factors
for successful systems,
maintenance, potential LEED
credits applicable, and budgets.
The Integration of Vegetation in
Architecture, Vertical and Horizontal
Greened Surfaces.
Perini and
Magliocco
2011
Genoa, Italy Journal:
International
Journal of
Biology
Analysis of current
approaches of green
façade applications
dating from 2000 to
2010.
Determining
environmental
benefits achievable
with facade greening,
understanding the
characterisics of
green envelope
elements and
typologies connected
to their functionality.
to the contribution on
the building envelope
performances and to
environmental and
economical aspects.
Façade greening contributions
to the building envelope
performance has surpassed
being simply for aesthetical
value. Vegetation allows
improvement of building
performance by reducing urban
heat island and environmental
attributes by better air quality,
and increased biodiversity.
Economical aspects vary
depending on greening
application (direct or indirect)
and systems variations (green
wall, living wall, vertical
garden).
Green Façades and Building Structures Mir 2011 Delft, Netherlands Master
Thesis - Delft
University of
Technology
Project linked to PhD
research (Ottele,
2011 - The Green
Building Envelope).
Overview of different
green façade
systems, with
modified material
compositions and
their behavior in
respects to the
environment.
Systematic review of
different green façade
systems and
comparison of their
characteristics to
create a decision tree
as guidelines for
system selection
based on existing or
new building
structures.
Decision tree focusing on
greening systems that best
match a building structure.
System selection is based on
building structure (new or
existing) and material choice.
The Green Building Envelope Ottele 2011 Delft, Netherlands Journal:
Department
of Materials
and
Environment
& Ph.D.
Dissertation
Conducted a
literature
investigation of
façade greening
sustainability,
building and
environmental
effects.
Determining how to
classify green
facades, their
contributions to both
buildings structures
and the environment,
and establishing
system life cycle
analysis.
Recommendations for green
façade systems
implementations to urban cities
and future research studies.
Investigation of green façade
materials and installation type
(direct or indirect greening) is
recommended to ensure proper
design considerations are done
for the best applicable system.
Quantitative research focusing
on different impacts of green
facade systems is
recommended for future
studies.
Comparative Life Cycle Analysis for
Green Facades and Living Wall
Systems
Ottele et al.
2011
Delft, Netherlands Journal:
Energy and
Buildings
Comparative life
cycle analysis for a
conventional built up
European brick
façade, a façade
greened directly, a
façade greened
indirectly, a façade
with a living wall
system based on
planter boxes and a
façade covered with
living wall system
Establishing the
sustainability of
vertical greening
systems, focusing on
material composition,
maintenance
requirements, and
irrigation methods.
Material composition and plant
species were the primary
affecting criteria of vertical
greening systems. The
materials used had a direct
correlation to the system
environmental output, the plant
species had a direct correlation
to the building energy demand
and construction
multifunctionality.
Considerations for Advanced Green
Façade Design
GreenScreen
2012
North America Green façade
manufacturer
guidelines
In-depth discussion
dealing with the
required
considerations for
successful green
façade installations
and projects based
on 20 years of
collected knowledge,
observation,
implementation, and
experimentation of
successful strategies
done in the green
Incentive for green
façades applications
to be used as
standard building
components in the
facades industry.
Detailed design
guidelines for user
understanding and
knowledge of green
façade possibilities.
Established the differences
between green facades and
living walls, list and discussed
considerations that should be
comprehensively addressed
during design, installation and
post installation stages of green
façade systems, specified plant
materials, soil, planting details
and maintenance programming
to fulfill design intent.
Vertical Gardens Timur et al.
2013
North America &
Europe
Journal:
Advances in
Landscape
Architecture
Systematic review of
green facades
applications across
North America and
Europe.
Defining vertical
greening, their
applications, systems,
benefits, and affecting
parameters.
Settled the differences and
similarities between vertical
greening types and system
supports. Established benefits
of vertical greening, plant
species adaptable to vertical
surfaces, and relevant case
studies across North America
and Europe.
Vertical Greening Systems: A Process
Tree for Green Facades and Living
Walls
Perini et al.
2013
Genoa, Italy &
Delft, Netherlands
Journal:
Urban
Ecosystems
Analysis of vertical
greening systems
following a series of
field studies and
research begun in
the 1970's.
Development of a
process tree to be
used as a case study
for vertical greening
systems.
Process tree focusing on
vertical greening system
ecological and environmental
attributes. Main parameters
analyzed are micro-climatic
benefits achievable, system
types and installation
variations, and plant species
characteristics.
An Experimental Evaluation of the
Living Wall System in Hot and Humid
Climate
Chen et al.
2013
Wuhan, China Journal:
Energy and
Buildings
Designed a thermal
lab and conducted 3
series of experiments
of living wall systems
at different distances
from the building
façade.
Identify the
microclimate of the
living wall system in a
hot and humid climate
and examine how
ventilation and
different wall-
vegetation distances
affect the thermal
performance of the
Results showed cooling effect
to the wall surface and the
indoor space. The smaller the
distance, the better the cooling
effect but higher relative
humidity in the air layer.
Victoria's Guide to Green Roofs, Walls
& Facades
The Cities of
Melbourne et
al. 2013
Melbourne,
Australia
Growing Green Guide Showing evidence
provided by industry
experts, scientific
research, technical
guidelines, and
proven case studies.
City incentives for
implementation of
green roofs, walls,
and facades.
Created a guideline to
encourage the developments of
more effective green roofs,
walls, and facades.
Cost Benefit Analysis of Green Facades
and Living Wall Systems
Perini and
Rosasco 2013
Genoa, Italy Journal:
Building and
Environment
Determining vertical
greening systems
economical
sustainability and
cost benefit analysis.
Cost benefit analysis
through vertical
greening systems
installation,
maintenance and
disposal costs in
comparison to both
private and social
benefits (property
value, energy
savings, etc.)
Establishing vertical
greening systems
through three
indicators: Net
Present Value (NPV),
Internal Rate of
Return (IRR), and
Pay Back Period
(PBP).
"Vertical greening systems
provide both personal and
social benefits, installation and
maintenance service costs are
crucial on the economic
sustainability, for particular
systems the benefits can not
pay back the costs, most
relevant benefits are connected
with the real estate and energy
savings for air conditioning,
social benefits have a small
influence on the cost benefit
analysis, and economic
incentives could reduce
personal initial costs." (Perini
and Rosasco 2013)
Green Facades: Ecologically Designed
Vertical Vegetation Helps Create a
Cleaner Environment
Tilley et al.
2014
Maryland,
Washington D.C.,
USA
Journal:
University of
Maryland
Extension
Publications
Record analysis of
experimental green
façade based in
Maryland.
Establishing how
green facades are
potential solutions for
economic and
ecological problems.
Experimental research results
showed green façades cooling
properties during summer
months, reduction of heat
transfer, less use of air
conditioning, reduction in
energy consumption and
increase in energy savings.
A Review of Energy Characteristics of
Vertical Greenery Systems
Safikhani et
al. 2014
Johor, Malaysia Journal:
Renewable &
Sustainable
Energy
Reviews
Vertical greening
systems review of
different research
experiments with a
focus on energy
related topics.
Vertical greening
systems and how
they may serve as a
sustainable remedy
for environmental
protection and
negative
environmental effects
Established a list of researched
studies and experiments that
provide vertical greening
systems positive and negative
aspects with a focus on their
enegy characteristics.
Green Wall Systems: A review of their
characteristics
Manso and
Gomes 2014
Covilha, Portugal Journal:
Renewable &
Sustainable
Energy
Reviews
A review of green
façade system types
made through the
past years and
identification of their
main characteristics
and technologies.
Evaluation of the
contribution of green
façade systems to
building perfomance,
environmental impact,
system applications,
and construction
methods.
Applicable systems for a project
should depend on construction,
climate zone, environmental
impact, and associated costs,
during its entire system life
cycle.
50
3.2.3 Information Source Mapping
Each study provided information for parameters affecting green façade design. Parameters were mapped
according to the source (Table 6).
Table 6. Information source mapping, a display of topics and source origin for the information collected.

Additional information found through the sources were, advantages comparison of systems and their sub-
types, potential LEED credits, and sustainability possibilities. For the advantages comparison an assessment
key was made for better user interpretation, a number of 0 through 3 was given for each system sub-type,
with a description made for better understanding of how the rating system came to be.
3.3 User Card Sort Testing
An online card sort testing was conducted help understand users perspectives and determine what they
conclude as important from the parameters affecting green facades.
Using Optimal Workshop, a website for designing user experience surveys, a card sort testing was created
with the parameters affecting green facades determined in the background research. Participants were sent
a link to the testing, and given a welcome message with a description of the study (Figure 25).
51

Figure 25. User card sort testing welcome message and study description.
After the welcome message and instructions, participants were also asked what their professional
background was, and if student, to provide their major or field of interest (Figure 26).

Figure 26. Card sort testing identification of professional background.
Upon providing their professional background users were then taken to a screen providing the test
instructions (Figure 27). After, users are shown the parameters, for them to sort out what they viewed as an
important parameters based on their preferences (Figure 28).
52

Figure 27. Card sort testing instructions given to users before starting.

Figure 28. Card sort testing parameters - users select from the left column to put their important parameters in order,
on the right column.
53
3.4 Chapter Summary
The experimental strategy, General Morphological Analysis (GMA), was tested and proved unsuccessful
for the desired deliverables due to lack of user knowledge (See study in Appendix A).
The unification of information was made through gathering, exploring, and mapping of previous studies
with reinforced sources which support research conclusions discovered.
The next chapters consit of the data collected from the unified sources, results of the user card sort testing,
tool development, software development, prototype results and conclusions.

54
Chapter 4 Data & Results
The unified data is detailed for each parameter and the results of the card sort testing is displayed.
4.1 Unification of Information Data
The unified information was accomplished for all the affecting parameters established in section 2.2,
information was derieved from the sources investigated in section 3.1 (Table 7; Table 8; Table 9; Table 10;
Table 11). Additional information derived from sources are advantages comparison between systems,
potential LEED credits that may be gathered by adding green façades to a project, and detailed sustainability
possibilities.
Table 7. Green wall systems unified information, data collection of affecting parameters.
System Types Green Wall
Passive system which requires no external aid in order to function
Description
System Sub-Types Natural Vegetation Soil Planted Planter Boxes
Description Grows without any human
interaction.
Plant roots planted on
the soil and grow
against the façade.
Grown in boxes with soil
in them.
Façade Structural Material Masonry, timber, steel Masonry, timber, steel Masonry, timber, steel
Installation Type (direct or
indirect)
Direct Direct or indirect Direct or indirect
Vertical Attachments 2D wire net rope may be
used but not necessary
Cable and wire rope
net system
Modular trellis panel or
cable and wire rope net
system
Supporting Systems No support necessary 2D or 3D framing
system for plant
support
Planter boxes
Material Composition No materials involved
(support & growing
media)
No materials
involved, growing
media and support
structure needed for
indirect greening
Growing media in
planter boxes
Irrigation System Natural rainwater Natural rainwater or
drip irrigation system
Natural rainwater or drip
irrigation system
Maintenance Plants pruning ; 2-4 Weeks Plants pruning &
replacement ; 2-4
Weeks
Plants pruning &
replacement; 1 - 3
Months
Dimensional
Characteristics
Vegetation: 4 – 8 in. thick
Height max. 32 – 65 ft.
Total System Thickness:
8in. - 12in.
Vegetation: 4 – 8 in.
thick
Height max. 32 – 65
ft.
Total system
thickness: 8-12in.
Vegetation: 4 – 8 in.
thick
Height max. 32 – 65 ft.
Planter boxes: 40x16x14
inches
Total System Thickness:
18 to 20 in.
System Weight lbs/ft2 >2 >2 >30
Plant Life Expectation (Y)
(Approx.)
100 50 10
Systems Durability (Y) Depends on maintenance >50 >50
Realization Time Approx.30 Approx. 30 <1
Cost Estimates - $/sq.ft. 0 to 10 5 to 10 45 to 65
Energy Saving Low low low - medium
Environmental Burden None Very Low Medium - High
Biodegradable yes yes Only plants
55

Table 8. Living wall systems unified information, data collection of affecting parameters.
System Types Living Wall
Either passive (no external aid required) or active (support system needed). Description
System Sub-Types Prefabricated In Situ Organic Substrate
Description already grown vegetation
or pre-vegetated panels
that may be installed to a
structural frame.
“on-site” installed on
site.
Without synthetic
fertilizers and
pesticides.
Façade Structural Material Masonry, timber, steel Masonry, timber, steel Masonry, timber,
steel
Installation Type (direct or
indirect)
Direct or indirect Direct or indirect Indirect
Vertical Attachments Modular trellis panel Modular trellis panel or
cable and wire rope net
system
Modular panel or
cable and wire rope
net system
Supporting Systems Support structure needed
for modules
Support structure
needed for plants
Support structure
needed for modules
Material Composition Pre-vegetated panels,
irrigation system, drip tray,
& waterproofing.
Outer felt layer, damp
open foil, irrigation
pipes, inner felt layer, &
waterproof surface.
High density
polyethylene
(HDPE)
Irrigation System Drip irrigation; can use
hydroponic system
Drip or pipe irrigation Drip irrigation; can
use hydroponic
system
Maintenance Plants pruning &
replacement; 3 - 6 Months
Plants pruning &
replacement;
3 - 6 Months
Plants pruning &
replacement;
1 - 3 Months
Dimensional Characteristics Vegetation: 2-4 in.
Panels: 120x60x1in.
Total System Thickness:
18 to 20in.
Vegetation: 25 plants/
10ft.sq.
Modules: 24x20x8
in.
Vegetation: 2-4 in.
System Weight lbs/ft2 20-25 20 20
Plant Life Expectation (Y)
(Approx.)
3.5 3.5 50
Systems Durability (Y) Approx. 10 Approx. 10 >50
Realization Time <1 Approx. 1-3 Approx. 30
Cost Estimates - $/sq.ft. 80 to 140 40 to 80 45 to 65
Energy Saving medium low - depends on
installation
low - medium
Environmental Burden Low - Medium Low None
Biodegradable Only plants Only plants yes

Table 9. Living wall systems unified information, data collection of affecting parameters.
System Types Living Wall
Either passive (no external aid required) or active (support system
needed).
Description
System Sub-Types Inorganic
Substrate
Foam Based Mineral Wool
Based
Description Made with
manufactured
Neutralized growing
media in foam substrate
Mineral wool
substrate
56
chemical
fertilizers.
Façade Structural Material Masonry, timber,
steel
Masonry, timber, steel Masonry, timber,
steel
Installation Type (direct or indirect) Indirect Indirect Indirect
Vertical Attachments Modular panel or
cable and wire
rope net system
Modular panel Modular panel
Supporting Systems Support structure
needed for
modules
Support structure needed
for modules
Not necessary but
support structure
can be used for
module.
Material Composition Felt layers
supported by PVC
sheet
Foam substrate module,
steel mesh, built in
irrigation
Rock wool
substrate, modular
panel or cable and
wire rope net
system, built in
irrigation
Irrigation System Drip irrigation; can
use hydroponic
system
Built in irrigation. Drip,
pipe or hydroponic
Built in irrigation.
Drip, pipe or
hydroponic
Maintenance Plants pruning &
replacement;
1 - 3 Months
Plants pruning &
replacement;
3 - 6 Months
Plants pruning &
replacement;
3 - 6 Months
Dimensional Characteristics Modules:
120x60x2 in.
Vegetation: 2-4 in.
Vegetation: 22-25/10ft.sq.
System Total Thickness:
20in.
System Total
Thickness: 15in.
System Weight lbs/ft2 40 20-25 8 to 12
Plant Life Expectation (Y) (Approx.) 3.5 3.5 3.5
Systems Durability (Y) Approx.10 Approx. 10 Approx. 10
Realization Time <1 <1 <1
Cost Estimates - $/sq.ft. 40 to 80 80 to 140 55 to 85
Energy Saving low - medium low - medium low - medium
Environmental Burden Low - Medium Low - Medium Low to Medium
Biodegradable only plants Only foam and plants Only plants

Table 10. Vertical garden systems unified information, data collection of affecting parameters.
System Types Vertical Garden
Active systems (require external aid in order to function). Description
System Sub-Types Modular Panel
(Hydroponic)
Modular Panel
(Substrate)
Felt Covered Panels
Description Vegetation integrated in
panels with hydroponic
systems to water plant
roots.
Vegetation integrated
in panels with manual
irrigation to water
substrate/soil
Vegetation grown in a single
panel system with built in
irrigation
Façade Structural
Material
Masonry, timber, steel Masonry, timber,
steel
Masonry, timber, steel
Installation Type (direct
or indirect)
Indirect Indirect Indirect
Vertical Attachments Modular Panel Modular Panel Single panel
Supporting Systems Support structure needed
for modules
Support structure
needed for modules
Support structure needed for
panel
57
Material Composition Modular panel,
hydroponic irrigation
built in, waterproofing,
support structure.
Modular panel,
substrate/soil,
irrigation,
waterproofing,
support structure, drip
tray
single panel, waterproof
membrane, a drip tray,
frame/support structure,
concealed irrigation.
Irrigation System Hydroponic system;
drip system, ebb & flow,
nutrient film technique,
water culture, aeroponic
and wick system
Natural rainwater or
drip irrigation system
Concealed irrigation
Maintenance Pruning & replacement
if needed; check
hydroponic systems; 6 -
12 Months
Plants pruning &
replacement; 3 - 6
Months
Plants pruning & replacement;
6 - 12 Months
Dimensional
Characteristics
Pruning & replacement
if needed; check
hydroponic systems;
medium - high
Plants pruning &
replacement; low to
medium
Plants pruning & replacement;
low to medium
System Weight lbs/ft2 25 – 30 20 – 25 >30
Plant Life Expectation
(Y) (Approx.)
4 4 4
Systems Durability (Y) >50 >50 >50
Realization Time <1 <1 <1
Cost Estimates - $/sq.ft. 95 to 165 45 to 65 80 to 140
Energy Saving Medium Medium Low - medium
Environmental Burden low low low
Biodegradable Only plants Only plants Only plants

Table 11. Bio-wall system unified information, data collection of affecting parameters.
System Types Bio-Wall
Description Uses plants as a passive filter system to remove air
pollutants from the air
System Sub-Types HVAC Integration
Description Integrated with a building’s HVAC system in order to
function
Façade Structural Material Masonry, timber, steel
Installation Type (direct or indirect) Direct
Vertical Attachments Modular or single panel
Supporting Systems Support may be needed for plants
Material Composition wall structure, HVAC system, fan, water pump, and
water collection basin or equivalent
Irrigation System Water pump required for irrigation system; may use
hydroponics
Maintenance Plants pruning, plant replacements when needed,
HVAC system check required monthly; 6 - 12 Months
Dimensional Characteristics Plants pruning, plant replacements when needed,
HVAC system check required monthly; Medium to
high
System Weight lbs/ft2 20 - 25
Plant Life Expectation (Y) (Approx.) 4
Systems Durability (Y) Approx.10
58
Realization Time <1
Cost Estimates - $/sq.ft. 70 - 140
Energy Saving High
Environmental Burden low
Biodegradable Only plants

4.1.1 Additional Information
Additional information was mapped with the same sources used in the overall unification found in section
3.3. The comparisons were made to demonstrate how the different modifications and compositions of each
system has a low to high effect on the achievable benefits. An assessment key was made for better
understanding and visualization of how each system is different or similar depending on the particular
advantages desired (Table 12). The assessment key does not aim to quantify the systems, but is based on the
literature review sources which had investigations made on each system and determined their weaknesses
and strengths.
Table 12. Advantages comparison assessment keys and descriptions.
Assessment Key Description
0 - Not Applicable System not be applicable due to not being tested for that
particular benefit.
1 - Poor System demonstrated little to low effects for the particular
benefit.
2- Good System demonstrated fair to moderate effect for the
particular benefit.
3- Better: System demonstrated high effect for the particular benefit.
The advantages comparison displayed varying benefits for two systems, green wall and living wall (Table
13; Table 14). The comparison for vertical garden systems displayed very similar benefits due to being made
up of similar material compositions (Table 15). Bio-wall had no sub-system to compare to, therefore
advantages were only made to display how the HVAC system integration has benefited in projects (Table
16).
Table 13. Green wall systems advantages comparison, displaying a varying benefits according to the sub-system used.
System Types Green Wall
Passive system which requires no external aid in order to
function.
Description
System Sub-Types Natural Vegetation Soil Planted Planter Boxes
Description Grows without any
human interaction.
Plant roots
planted on the
soil and grow
against the
façade.
Grown in boxes
with soil in
them.
Advantages Comparison
Reduction of Heat Island Effect (UHI) 1 2 3
Energy Savings 1 1 1
Biodiversity Habitat Creation 1 2 2
Noise Reduction/Noise Barrier 1 1 2
Maximized Property Value 0 2 3
Full Surface Coverage 0 1 3
Indoor Application 0 1 2
Outdoor Application 3 3 3
Moderates Buildings internal Temperature 1 2 3
59
Creates a micro climate 1 2 3
Improved Insulation Property 0 1 2
Carbon Reduction 1 2 3
Air Quality Improvement 1 2 3
Potential LEED Credits 1 1 2
Conserves water 2 2 1
Prevents Dust & Harmful Microorganisms 1 2 3
Decrease Stress 1 2 2
Design Creativity 1 1 2

Table 14. Living wall systems advantages comparison, displaying similarities benefits between sub-systems, some
advantages are more applicable in one than the other.
System Types Living Wall
Either passive (no external aid required) or active (support system needed). Description
System Sub-Types Prefabricated In Situ Organic
Substrate
Inorganic
Substrate
Foam
Based
Mineral
Wool
Based
Description Already
grown
vegetation or
pre-vegetated
panels that
may be
installed to a
structural
frame.

“on-site”
installed
on site.

Without
synthetic
fertilizers
and
pesticides.

Made with
manufactu-
red
chemical
fertilizers.

Neutraliz
-ed
growing
media in
foam
substrate.

Mineral
wool
substrate

Advantages Comparison
Reduction of Heat Island
Effect (UHI)
3 2 3 2 3 3
Energy Savings 2 1 2 2 2 2
Biodiversity Habitat
Creation
2 2 3 2 2 2
Noise Reduction/Noise
Barrier
3 3 3 3 3 3
Maximized Property
Value
3 3 3 3 3 3
Full Surface Coverage 3 3 3 3 3 3
Indoor Application 2 2 2 2 2 2
Outdoor Application 3 3 3 3 3 3
Moderates Buildings
internal Temperature
3 3 3 3 3 3
Creates a micro climate 3 3 3 3 3 3
Improved Insulation
Property
2 2 2 2 2 2
Carbon Reduction 3 3 3 3 3 3
Air Quality Improvement 3 3 3 3 3 3
Potential LEED Credits 2 2 2 2 2 2
Conserves water 2 2 2 2 2 2
Prevents Dust & Harmful
Microorganisms
3 3 3 3 3 3
Decrease Stress 2 2 2 2 2 2
Design Creativity 3 3 2 2 3 3
60

Table 15. Vertical garden systems advantages comparison, displaying very similar benefits amongst sub-systems.
System Types Vertical Garden
Active systems (require external aid in order to function). Description
System Sub-Types Modular Panel
(Hydroponic)
Modular Panel
(Substrate)
Felt Covered
Panels
Description Vegetation
integrated in
panels with
hydroponic
systems to water
plant roots.

Vegetation
integrated in
panels with
manual irrigation
to water
substrate/soil

Vegetation
grown in a
single panel
system with
built in
irrigation

Advantages Comparison
Reduction of Heat Island Effect (UHI) 3 3 3
Energy Savings 3 3 3
Biodiversity Habitat Creation 3 3 2
Noise Reduction/Noise Barrier 3 3 3
Maximized Property Value 3 2 3
Full Surface Coverage 3 3 3
Indoor Application 2 2 2
Outdoor Application 3 3 3
Moderates Buildings internal Temperature 3 3 3
Creates a micro climate 3 2 2
Improved Insulation Property 2 2 2
Carbon Reduction 3 3 3
Air Quality Improvement 3 3 3
Potential LEED Credits 3 2 2
Conserves water 3 2 3
Prevents Dust & Harmful Microorganisms 3 3 3
Decrease Stress 3 3 3
Design Creativity 3 3 3

Table 16. Bio-wall system advantages displaying the benefits achievable through the HVAC integration.
System Types Bio-Wall
Description Uses plants as a passive filter system to remove air
pollutants from the air
System Sub-Types HVAC Integration
Description Integrated with a building’s HVAC system in order to
function.

Advantages Comparison
Reduction of Heat Island Effect (UHI) 0
Energy Savings 3
Biodiversity Habitat Creation 3
Noise Reduction/Noise Barrier 2
Maximized Property Value 3
Full Surface Coverage 3
Indoor Application 3
Outdoor Application 1
Moderates Buildings internal Temperature 3
Creates a micro climate 3
Improved Insulation Property 3
61
Carbon Reduction 3
Air Quality Improvement 3
Potential LEED Credits 3
Conserves water 3
Prevents Dust & Harmful Microorganisms 3
Decrease Stress 3
Design Creativity 3

Many studies had information regarding LEED credits and displayed are potential credits achievable
through green façade systems (Table 17). Sustanibility information was gathered and mapped for green
façade systems, displaying the applicable systems for a particular sustainable method (Table 18).
Table 17. Potential LEED credits achievable through green facade applications.
Potential LEED Credits: Based on LEEDv4 NC
Categories Credits Design Implementations
Sustainable Sites Rain water Management (1-3 points) Rain water can be collected and used
for irrigation of green facades.
Heat Island Reduction (1-2 points)

Green facades reduce solar
reflectance, aiding to moderation of
city temperatures.
Replacing constructed surfaces with
vegetated such as the variety of green
façade systems helps reduce the heat
absorption.
Water Efficiency Outdoor Water Use Reduction (1-2 points)
Indoor Water Use Reduction (1-6 points)
Green façade systems with timed
irrigation and incorporation of
hydroponic systems help reduce
overall water usage indoors (re-usage
of rain water for toilets) and
outdoors (through recirculation of
hydroponics on systems).
Energy and
Atmosphere
Optimize Energy Performance (1-18 points) Green facades are additional
insulators and cooling elements to a
building, they reduce the need for
mechanical systems in summer and
winter months.
Indoor
Environmental
Quality
Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies (1-2
points)
Green façade systems aid in
improvement of indoor air quality
through plants extracting pollutants
in the air. Though all systems may be
adapted to such a strategy, bio-wall is
the most efficient.
Acoustic Performance (1 point) Depending on the system, acoustic
performance may be improved
through the installation of green
façade systems. They also aid to
noise reduction.
Innovation Innovation (1-5 points) Green façade systems can be
sustainable solutions to architectural
and environmental challenges.
Additional credits can be earned
through inventing such a system.
62

Table 18. Green facade sustainability possibilities.
Sustanability Possibilities
Categories Description Applicable Systems
Energy Efficiency

By regulating external temperatures,
green facades improve thermal
insulation capacity. The efficiency and
savings depend on a variety of factors
such as, climate, installation type,
building structural material, and plant
coverage.
Green facades are able to:
- Limit heat movement through
vegetation mass.
- Trap air layers inside plant mass.
- Reduce temperatures due to shading
and plant evapotranspiration.
- Become a wind buffer during winter
months.
Green Wall
- Soil Planted
- Planter Boxes
Living Wall
- Prefabricated
- In-Situ
- Foam Based
- Mineral Wool Based
Vertical Garden
- Modular panel (hydroponic)
- Modular Panel (substrate)
- Felt Covered Panels
Bio-Wall
- HVAC Integration

Façade Protection

Climate and weather elements may
harm building materials over time.
Green facades are able to:
- Protect building from harmful UV
radiation, elements, and temperature
fluctuations which in turn may harm
building materials.
- Decrease the effect of wind pressure
on doors, windows, and cladding.
Green Wall
- Soil Planted
- Planter Boxes
Living Wall
- Prefabricated
- In-Situ
- Foam Based
- Mineral Wool Based
Vertical Garden
- Modular panel (hydroponic
- Modular Panel (substrate)
- Felt Covered Panels

Air Quality

Green facades, due to plants, are able to
filter pollutants which are regularly
flushed out of buildings.
Green facades are able to:
- Captures dust, pollen, and other
airborne pollutants.
- Filters noxious gases and VOC from
building elements.
All green façade systems are
applicable.

Air quality and pollutants extracted
may vary depending on the plant
species chosen for the façade system.

Acoustics Depending on the depth of the growing
substrate, materials, and surface
coverage, green facades are able to aid
as noise barriers or noise reduction.
All green façade systems are
applicable.

Noise reduction level is dependable
on system components and type of
growing substrate/soil.
Health & Wellness Plants have aided in decreasing stress,
improving productivity, and overall
health condition in humans exposed to
greenery.
All green façade systems are
applicable.
63
Urban Heat Island Through shading and evaporation, green
facades aid to the reduction of urban
heat island effect.
Green façade systems which are
installed on the exterior of the
building are applicable, their
efficiency would depend on material
composition and plant species.
Property Value With private benefits of improved air
quality, noise reduction, health and
wellness, green facades have aided in
increase of inhabitable places. Adding a
green façade to your project can only
benefit the project and add more
valuable places for inhabitants to enjoy.
All green façade systems are
applicable.

4.2 User Card Sort Testing Results
The parameters affecting green facades concluded in the background research were then used in the card
sort testing for users to determine what matters to them specifically. An online card sorting testing was
done with 14 participants, asking them to select parameters based on their perspectives and understanding
of green facades (Figure 29).
The 14 participants were from different backgrounds and amongst them resided in 10 different cities.
Participants backgrounds were in building science, landscape design, architecture, biology, business, and
community and regional city planning. Participants locations were Rome, Italy; Toronto, Canada; Los
Angeles, California; Woodland Hills, California; North Hollywood, California; South Bend, Indiana;
Indianapolis, Indiana; Austin, Texas; Conroe, Texas; and Boston, Massachussetts.
For the users, it was important for them to be able to identify with each of the parameter selections. Their
knowledge of green facades ranged from beginner to intermediate and their parameters of importance were
those which they had questions on how to go about the selection for design.
64

Figure 29. Participants chosen parameters according to preference of importance.
4.3 Data & Results Unification
From the collected data and the user card sort testing results, user input and tool output were determined.
Two modifications were made to the existing parameters ; plant species/vegetation and installation types
(Figure 30).
Green façade design has its own specific vocabulary that is used to describe certain application installations,
because not everyone is familiar with these terms, installation types were modified into, direct greening and
indirect greening. A definition was implemented in the tool, describing each term for better understanding.
Because users chose plant species/vegetation as an important parameter, understanding plant characteristics
was done as a separate entity of the tool.

65

Figure 30. User card sort testing results - parameters modifications for better understanding.
According to the card sort testing results, parameters were modified with simplified selections matching
the mapped data. The outputs would be the suggested system, sub-system, and design details focusing on
green façade construction (Table 19; Table 20). Additional information the tool was able to include, were
relevant case studies, and the potential plant selections (Table 21).
Table 19. User input table; parameters determined by card sort testing results used as user input categories. Selections
available for each parameter were made to reflect the unified information data collection.
User Input
Parameters Selections
Plant life expectation

1-4 years
10+ years
Irrigation & Drainage

Rainwater
Drip
Pipe
Hydroponics
Price/Cost

$5 - $50
$60 - $90
$110 - $130
Maintenance

2 - 4 weeks
1 - 3 months
3 - 6 months
66
6 - 12 months
System Durability

10 years
40+ years
Energy Savings

Low
Medium
High
System Weight

Light
Fair
Heavy
Direct Greening (Wall Mounted) - A system application placed
directly on the façade (building) structural
material.
Indirect Greening (Freestanding) - A system application placed
away or apart from the façade (building)
structural material.

Table 20. Tool output, recommendations of suggested system, system sub-types, and design details of each sub-types.
Tool Output: Design Recommendations
Systems System Sub-Types Design Details
Green Wall

Natural Vegetation Plant life expectation
Soil Planted Irrigation systems
Planter Boxes Price/cost
Living Wall

Prefabricated Maintenance schedule/service
In Situ System durability
Organic Substrate Energy savings
Inorganic Substrate system weight
Foam Based Façade structural material
Mineral Wool Based Installation type (direct or indirect)
Vertical Garden

Modular Panel (Hydroponic) Vertical attachments
Modular Panel (Substrate) Supporting systems
Felt Covered Panels Material composition
Bio-Wall HVAC Integration Dimensional characteristics
67

Table 21. In-tool features of relevant case studies and add your own case study. Additional information consists of
suggested plants and their characteristics.
In-Tool Features Additional Information
Case Studies Plant Selection
Project summary Botanical name
Objectives Common name
Challenges Usage (direct or indirect)
Solutions Growth habit
Examples/Resources Mature height
Conclusions Lighting requirements
Add your own case study - template
given for user to follow
Fruit and flowering production

4.4 Chapter Summary
The data gathered was accomplished for all the affecting parameters. The advantages comparison
assessment key was made to reflect the research conclusions made in previous studies for better
comprehension of how the systems and sub-types differ from one another. LEED credit potentials was
collected and recorded to display the potential green façade systems may have on a green building project.
Sustanability methods are displayed as additional information to demonstrate the possibilities available
with the implementation of green facades to any general project.
The user card sort testing was conducted online and had 14 participants, from 10 different locations and 6
different professional backgrounds. The card sort test results were used as the tool parameters for user input.
Tool output were created from the collected data and unified information.
In the next chapter the prototype development is detailed, displaying the initial tool development concepts
made in Sketch, rapid prototyping – interactive visualization made through Proto.io, and the integration of
the study in Android Studio accomplished by the software developer.

68
Chapter 5 Prototype Development
The programs used for the creation of the tool were Sketch for flat designs of user interface, Proto.io for
rapid prototyping (without coding) and Android Studio for tool script (coding).
5.1 Sketch
The initial tool interface designs were created in Sketch (Figure 31).

Figure 31. Sketch - program used for initial user interface concepts; initial concepts were made before the unification
of information and card sort testing. These concepts were made to investigate how the mobile application can be made
user friendly.
5.1.1 Sketch Design Concepts
The initial design concepts were made to determine how the mobile application can be made user friendly.
The first design concepts had instead adapted to determine the best system match or matches, through user
input of pre-determined categories: location, maintenance schedule, cost, and sustainability (Figure 32;
Figure 33; Figure 34). These were first created to experiment with user interface ideas and establishing how
users can get accurate recommendations through simple, quick steps.

69

Figure 32. Initial design concept: 'Discover' gives a description of the tool. 'Location' attempts to determine the users’
location from the plant hardiness map.
The initial concept for the location was to have the user choose from the plant hardiness map zone by
providing a link which would take the user to the map website.

For the next steps, maintenance and cost, user friendly options were established in accordance to general
green façade construction knowledge. Because a user would not necessarily understand the cost per square
footage, a simple selection of low, medium, high, and no preference was initially established.
70

Figure 33. Initial design concept: 'Maintenance' displays general service scheduling for green facades. 'Cost' displays
user friendly selections that can still allow the tool to properly match user preferences to the best applicable systems.
Green facades have many sustainable advantages, in determining user friendly options to display in regards
to sustainability, the initial concept was to have one of the advantages and a description of it for user
understanding.
71

Figure 34. Initial design concept: 'Sustainability' displays advantages of green facades with a description below for
user understanding. 'Design Recommendations' is an explanation to the user of how recommendations would be
displayed.
As more interface design ideas began to develop from Sketch, an interactive visualization was made using
Proto.io to help visualize user interactions with the tool. In Proto.io design modifications were made to be
coded in Android Studio.
5.2 Proto.io
The tool used to visualize a more complex relationship between parameters and more intricate user interface
was proto.io (Figure 35). Proto.io was used for tool development and visualization of how the tool interface
would display and connect to users.
The light blue coloring in all of the images demonstrates the hotspots, where the user would click or select
an option to move on to the next screen.

72

Figure 35. Proto.io interface image used for interactive visualization.
5.2.1 Proto.io Design Implementations
Design implementations further developed in proto.io were the integration of the USDA plant hardiness
zone map into the tool. The program was able to provide a clearer vision of how the mobile application
could structure the information processing (Figure 36).
The visualized approach was the user selecting their location from the U.S. states (Figure 37). Once selected
the next screen shown would be one of the plant hardiness map zone for that state – alowing the user to be
able to pick their location based on the map zoning areas.
73

Figure 36. Proto.io design implementation: 'Discover' initial opening image (left) and tool description (right).
74

Figure 37. Proto.io design implementation: Location displaying U.S. states for user selection (left); 'Southern
California' shown due to user selection of the previous 'location' screen. User may then select their location in the
hardiness zone map.
From determining the USDA zone for the location, the user would then move to the questions to answer
regarding the parameter. These schemes were made as an example of what could be done for the mobile
user interface, further design developments were tested and modified in android studio.
Initial design implementations were to have the user identify their preference in every parameter, selecting
from a list of options (Figure 38).
75

Figure 38. Proto.io design implementation: 'Maintenance' and ‘cost’ selections in accordance to the data collection.
As green facades offer many sustainable advantages, sustainability was put as a possible parameter for users
to select (Figure 39).

76

Figure 39. Proto.io design implementation: 'Sustainability' added as a parameter with the major advantages of green
facades in display.
In the background research, plant selection for a specific green façade system was established as just as
critical as the system itself. The first desgn concepts were to first display suggested plants species, their
characteristics, and then the suggested systems to use (Figure 40).
Further developments showed how the process might be confusing to users and how making plants a
primary recommendation takes away from the purposes of this study – green façade system
recommendations. Plant suggestion was instead added as additional information for the recommended
system.
77
Applications menu and settings were distinguished as the areas for research and documentation, terms and
conditions, an about section.

Figure 40. Proto.io design implementation: Recommendations made through plant selection. User would get specific
plants species that match their preferences along with the suggested system best for the plant application.
78

Figure 41. Application menu and settings.
5.2.1 Tool Development Design Decisions
Design decisions were made to implement a faster and more accessible mobile application. Decisions were
made for each step.
Discover : the discover page was made to inform the user of the tool objectives and outcomes. Before using
the mobile application, the user must have a basic understanding of what the mobile application was
designed to do. The discover page remained the same throughout the tool development.
Location: a design modification which was implemented to determine plant species which thrive in the
users location, according to the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map. Initial concepts were to have a link
which would take the user to where they can access the zone map for their state. In order to make the user
experience less troublesome, rather than having a link to an external website, the plant hardiness zone maps
for each U.S. state were implemented into the tool.
Maintenance: the initial concepts of maintenance remained the same, giving users the choice of general
maintenance schedules and services applicable to green facades.
79
Cost : as users may not be familiar with the costs of green façade applications, the user friendly option was
determined to be low, medium, or high. This initial concept was later changed during the software
development for better tool systems output.
Sustainability: the first sustainable methods suggested were simply those which were associated with green
facades. This initial concept was taken out of the user input selections and instead given as part of the design
recommendations as additional information for the system suggested.
Parameters: after the user establishing their important parameters, information structure and content
organization was changed accordingly in Android Studio.
Design Recommendation: Information architecture was determined through the guidance of the unified
information data collection.
Proto.io was continuously used to test design idea interactions, after determining how to implement the
USDA plant hardiness zone maps into the study, each state map was found and inserted into the tool through
Android Studio. The linking of the data from the unification of information with the results of the user card
sort testing was also established through the software development.
5.3 Android Studio
Android studio was specifically made to build apps for android devices, therefore the mobile application
built is one downloadable to only android phones. After going through design modifications in Sketch and
Proto.io, software development was accomplished in Android Studio by Israel Flores, software developer
(Figure 42). The tool development was implementing the unification of information into an effectively
organized user interface and to ensure that user input and tool output was accurately given.
80

Figure 42. Android studio user interface.
The database was simplified into Boolean values (true or false) to make it easier and faster for the tool to
search through all the systems. The tool script was developed with the aid of a programming minor who
offered his expertise on what methods were best to evaluate parameters in the time frame given for the tool
creation.
Parameter input output algorithm was determined through the software and tested to assure the correct
recommendations were given. The parameter was reduced to simple boolean values (true or false), which
allows the tool to search the database for relational values in the collected data. Further details of android
studio contributions to the study is displayed on the tool development and results chapter.
As design interactive visualization were made in Proto.io, further developments of the tool were
accomplished in Android Studio. The following detail the developments, functions and the final protoype.
5.3.1 Copyrighted Content
The USDA plant hardiness zone map uses a public domain license, meaning they are free from copyrights
and may be used or modified freely, which allowed for the integration of the maps with the mobile
application. . All U.S. states were installed in the tool, to demonstrate the potential the tool can have with
the additional knowledge of plant characteristics, an example was achieved simply for Southern California.
81
The plant sources were derived from an outside source which due to copyrighted information, was not able
to be fully integrated into the tool; permission may be needed if the mobile application was to be launched
or sold.
5.3.2 Tool Algorithm
The database display how the tool functions as a true or false framework, depending on the users input
(Figure 43; Figure 44). Other tan four of the columns, everything is basically true or false values. The idea is
that if the user selects the first parameter, Plant Life Expectation, and they select 1 - 4 years, the app creates
what is called a "query". The query then says, get all the values in the column of "Expectancy" that are less
than or equal to 4 (Figure 45).
Another example is that of the direct and indirect greening parameter. Both parameters simply have checked
boxes with a question mark beside them for the user to select to get the definition of each. If the user selects
the "Direct" checkbox, the app sends a query that says, look under the "Direct" column and retrieve all the
values that are true. The same thing happens for indirect.

Figure 43. Tool database parameter Boolean values (true or false).
82

Figure 44. Tool database parameter Boolean values (true or false).
83

Figure 45. App query seeks for relational values to match user parameter selections (full script in Appendix C).
84
5.4 Chapter Summary
The tool development established the outcome of the software development. In the software development
the integration of outside sources, USDA plant hardiness zone map and plant selection characteristics, was
made. The copyrighted content was distinguished and determined how it affected the prototype results.The
database was simplified into Boolean values (true or false). The tool ouput is based on the user input,
sending out a “query” seeking for relational values according to input selections. The tool testing consisted
of correlating design recommendations based on both parameter input and unified information data
collection of each system.
In the next chapter user interface guide is displayed and final prototype results are detailed.

85
Chapter 6 User Interface and Prototype Results
The taxonomy tool, a mobile application, was designed to serve people with little to high knowledge of
green facades and to be used as a potential sustainable education source of green façade applications. The
green façade systems studied demonstrated these sustainable strategies possible through the knowledge of
research done in the past. The tool was designed to act as a learning device for user creativity while being
knowledgeable of the sustainable design possibilities.
6.1 Interface Summary
The user interface for design assistance consists of 5 simple steps (Figure 46). The tool user guide goes into
more detail of how the user navigates through the mobile application (Figure 47; Figure 48).

Figure 46. User interface 5-step guidelines.
STEP 1. START STEP 1. START STEP 2. SELECT STATE STEP 2. SELECT STATE
STEP 4. SELECT PARAMETERS STEP 4. SELECT PARAMETERS
STEP 3. DETERMINE USDA ZONE STEP 3. DETERMINE USDA ZONE
STEP 5. GET RECOMMENDATIONS STEP 5. GET RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDED SYSTEMS
DESIGN DETAILS
RECOMMENDED SYSTEMS
DESIGN DETAILS
86

Figure 47. User interface, input and output details.
Open GFDA
Select 'Begin'
Displays location
selector
Select 'State'
Select 'Location Zone'
Select 'Parameters'
Recommended
Systems
May select up to 5
Plant Life Expectations
Irrigation and Drainage
Price/Cost
Maintenance
Systems Durability
Energy Saving
Possibilities
System Weight
Direct Greening
Indirect Greening
Select 'System'
Facade Structural
Material
Installation Type
Vertical Attachments
Supporting Systems
Material Composition
Irrigation System
Maintenace
Schedule/Service
Dimensional
Characteristics
System Weight
System Materials
System Durability
Plant Life Expectation
Reasons for this
Suggestion
Tool Output User Input
See Suggested Plants
87

Figure 48. Tool additional information user interface navigation.
Select 'Menu'
Select 'Case Studies'
Select 'Our Case
Studies'
Select 'Add Case
Study'
Technical Information
Given
Project Summary
Objectives
Challenges
Solutions
Examples/Resources
Conclusions
Sources
Technical Information
Project Summary
Objectives
Challenges
Solutions
Examples/Resources
Conclusions
Sources
Input information
Template given for
user to follow.
Additional Information
88
6.2 Prototype Results
Upon downloading the mobile application, the user then installs the app in their phones (Figure 49). Once
the app is opened, the first image shown is the ‘discover’ page describing the application objectives; once
the user selects to begin they are asked to identify their location (Figure 50).

Figure 49. App icon image after installation.

Figure 50. Opening image shown after opening application, giving information on what the application is and what it
seeks to demonstrate. The next steps is to identify the users location, using the USDA plant hardiness zone map.

Once the user selects ‘design assist’ the tool then guides the user to determine their state which then leads
the user to the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map for their specific state.
Upon determining their zone, the user is lead to the ‘parameters’ section to select what specific subjects
they would like a system recommendation on (Figure 51). For this example, three parameters were chosen,
but more may be selected as desired. Though 3 to 5 is advisable, the tool provides recommendations
according to the user selections. If no selections are available then it will ask the user to retry and select
different parameters.
89

Figure 51. Parameters for user input, user may select between 3 to 5 parameters for a tool output. Depending on the
selections, more than 5 parameters may be chosen at a time and the tool would still be able to provide assistance in
system recommendations.
Each parameter has its own specific selections for the user to establish. For the example given, three
parameters were selected, these selections demonstrate a user that is looking for a temporary system with a
moderate price and low – medium maintenance. The system output for this precise selection is the tool
output(Figure 52; Figure 53; Figure 54; Figure 55; Figure 56). The suggested systems are those which best
match the user parameters preferences. Upon selecting either system the user is given system attributes,
characteristics, and also reasons for the suggested system.

90

Figure 52. System recommendation screen with the option to see suggested plants available in the user location
zone, which may aid to the suggested system.
91

Figure 53. System design details for Living Wall - In Situ, suggested plants option is displayed through the tool output
screen for expansion of user knowledge.
92

Figure 54. System design details for Living Wall - In Situ, reasons for this suggestion provides description of attention
to detail and summarizes the recommended system advantages and disadvantages.
93

Figure 55. System design details for Living Wall – Mineral Wool Based, suggested plants option is displayed through
the tool output screen for expansion of user knowledge.
94

Figure 56. System design details for Living Wall – Mineral Wool Based, reasons for this suggestion provides
description on attention to detail, and summarizes the recommended system advantages/ disadvantages.
95
The tool was designed to be able to identify the plants when the user determines their location in the USDA
Plant Hardiness Zone Map. When the user selects to ‘see suggested plants’ the information shown would
be the plant species that thrive in their zone and their attributes (Figure 57).

Figure 57. Example of plant selection suggestion based on user zone location. Southern California serves as the
example of user interface and information architecture for future developments.
Additional information is accessible through the tool menu, upon clicking the top left corner of the screen.
The tool menu consists on design assist, favorites – system recommendations or plants a user might want
to save, case studies and the tool settings (Figure 58).
96

Figure 58. Tool menu, consisting of design assist, favorites, case studies, and settings.
Case studies provide design technical information, objectives, challenges, solutions, conclusion, and sources (Figure
59). The user is also able to add their own case studies; a template is given for them to follow (Figure 60).

Figure 59. Relevant case studies installed in the tool for user knowledge of challenges and solutions professionals
deal with in green facade design (all case studies are provided in Appendix B).
97

Figure 60. Add your own case study - template given for users to follow.
The tool settings consist of terms and conditions – copyrights under thesis author for any and all research
material and documentation provided in the software (Figure 61). Copyrights are shared with Israel Flores
who developed the tool script. Research and documentation – the unification of information sources, and
the disclaimer – stating the tool status and reaffirming the studies educational purposes (Figure 62).
98

Figure 61. Tool settings consist of terms and conditions, research and documentation, as well as, the disclaimer.

99

Figure 62. Research and documentation (left) and tool disclaimer (right).
6.3 Chapter Summary
The user interface was an iterative process which consisted of many discussions, research and
documentation. The prototype results have been constantly tested to make sure no bugs arise, and to test
the accuracy of the recommendations given. The prototype results display the hypothesis visualized. Study
conclusions and future developments are established in the next chapter.
100
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Future Developments
Investigation of green façades and unification of their information was implemented into a tool, a mobile
application, to assist design. Information was taken from several academic sources which had shown
consistency in their research, a lack of contrasting conclusions between research, and thorough background
and literature reviews. The conclusions made determine the success of the hypothesis, the overall tool
achievements and recommended future developments.
7.1 Hypothesis
Overall, the in-depth investigation of green facades systems proved to be a much arduous task than
expected. Though an overall analysis was accomplished, there are still many unknown factors which may
need to be included for better design recommendations. The selection criteria of academic and outside
sources are also another factor which ultimately determined the unified information.
The information was limited due to only including a select few of academic papers and resources, amongst
the many different green facades research existant. Determining what parameters to base the tool foundation
was accomplished through the online card sort testing done on real participants; because there are various
determinants in green facades, choosing ones that are known to both professionals and non-professionals
alike, became a solid foundation for the study.
7.2 Green Facades Systems
Green facades are a living system, and must be treated as so. The study concludes green facades as part
‘living’ and part system. The tool specifically separates the “living” element of green façade systems,
plants, as they have characteristics that must be acknowledged and understood for a proper designed system.
The taxonomy tool takes into account parameters which are most often forgotten or dismissed as anything
but critical for the functions of a green facade system. Careful thoughts must be made into each design, and
considerations must be made by users when adapting green facades to their preferences.
The taxonomy tool uses some copyrighted information, for this reason, all sources are appropriately cited
in the research and documentation section of the tool from the books, papers, journals, guides, manuals,
and websites where information was derived from. The outside source which plants were first derived from
proved to be an unsuccessful approach as they were not the original owners of the information accessed.
7.3 Future Developments
As the study focused on the integration of information, future developments would be more visualization
methods implimented into the tool and additional information from studies researching new green façade
integrations. Additional elements that were not added into the taxonomy tool due to time constraints were
potential LEED credits, advantages comparison between systems, and sustainability possibilities.
Suggested plants were simply coded for Southern California as an example of the potential the mobile
application can have with the information available. Though a full plant list was not integrated as part of
the final prototype results due to copyrights, it became a foundation set up for future developments of the
green facades design assist mobile application.
7.4 Chapter Summary
In conclusion, the taxonomy tool is not meant to be comprehensive as there are still a variety of green
facade systems in the market today. The mobile application was made to guides users, designers of all
stages, to not only be conscious of the outcome of their decisions but also to be made more knowledgeable
in the applications, variations, and integrations of green facade systems, sub-systems and plant
characteristics.

101
References

- Air pollution. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary.
Houghton Mifflin Company. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/air pollution (accessed:
August 15, 2015).

- Alconini, S. 2005. “Machu Picchu: Unveiling the Mystery of the Incas.” Hispanic American
Historical Review 85 (3): 500–502. doi:10.1215/00182168-85-3-500.

- Álvarez, Asunción, and Tom Ritchey. 2015. “Applications of General Morphological Analysis
From Engineering Design to Policy Analysis.” Acta Morphologica Generalis AMG 4 (1).

- American Society of Landscape Architects, Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at The
University of Texas at Austin, and United States Botanic Garden. 2009. “The Sustainable Sites
Initiative: Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks.” Building, 233..

- "BioWall." HVAC Systems Variety. May 2, 2012. Accessed October 28, 2015.

- Blanc, Patrick, and Véronique Lalot. The Vertical Garden: From Nature to the City. New York:
W.W. Norton, 2008.

- Bellomo A (2003) Pareti verdi. Sistemi editoriali, Napoli

- Chen, Qiuyu, Baofeng Li, and Xiaohu Liu. 2013. “An Experimental Evaluation of the Living
Wall System in Hot and Humid Climate.” Energy and Buildings 61. Elsevier B.V.: 298–307.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.02.030.

- David Tilley, Anita Alexander, Alice Chang, Casey Price, Alexandra Welch, Brian Wells and
Scott Tjaden. 2014. “Green Facades- Ecological Designed Vertical Vegetation Helps Create a
Cleaner Environment.” UM Extension Publications Environment (FS-978): 1–6.
http://www.extension.umd.edu/learn/pubs/green-facades-ecologically-designed-vertical-
vegetation-helps-create-cleaner-environment.

- Declaration, Health Product, and Life Cycle Assessment. 2013. “Green Facade LEED v4 Credit
Applications.”

- Dunnett, N., Kingsbury, N., 2004. Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls, Timber press.

- "Download Android Studio and SDK Tools | Android Studio." Android Developers. Accessed
May 25, 2016. https://developer.android.com/studio/index.html.

- Eckert, Karl. 2009. “Garden Cities: Lessons from Germany.” Focus 6 (1).
doi:10.15368/focus.2009v6n1.7.

- Ely, Martin, and Sheryn Pitman. 2013. “Green Infrastructure Life Support for Human Habitats
Environments,” no. November: 340.

- Francis. A. R, Lorimer. J, 2011. Urban reconciliation ecology: The potential of living roofs and
walls; Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1429-1437.

- Geus, Martijn de. “Blackbox”. 2007. www.martijndegeus.com.
102

- Giacomelli, Gene. 2011. “How to Build Your Own Hydroponic Garden.” Desert Rain Research
& Communication.

- Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. 2008. “Introduction to Green Walls Technology, Benefits &
Design.” Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, no. September: 37.

- Greenscreen. 2005. “Guidelines for Green Facade Plant Selection.”

- Green Screen. 2012. “Considerations for Advanced Green Facade Design.”

- "Hanging Gardens of Babylon." Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Accessed July 29, 2015.
http://www.unmuseum.org/mob/hangg.htm.

- "Health & Wellness." Green Walls Benefits -. Accessed January 14, 2016.
http://www.greenovergrey.com/green-wall-benefits/health-wellness.php.

- Hermy M., Schauveliege M. en Tijskens G, 2005. Groenbeheer, een verhaal met toekomst. Velt
in samenwerking met afdeling Bos & Groen, Berchem.

- Howard, Ebenezer, and Frederic J. Osborn. Garden Cities of To-morrow. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.
Press, 1965.

- Kibert, Charles;, Leslie; Thiele, Anna; Peterson, and Martha Monroe. 2007. “The Ethics of
Sustainability.” Textbook, 16–36. doi:10.4324/9780203962084.

- Köhler M. (1993). Fassaden- und Dachbergrunung.Ulmer Fachbuch Landschafts- und
Grunplanung, Stuttgart.

- Köhler M, Schmidt M (1997) Verbundene Hof-, Fassaden- und Dachbegrünung.
Landschaftsentwicklung- und Umweltforschung 105:1–156

- Köhler, Manfred. 2008. “Green Facades—a View Back and Some Visions.” Urban Ecosystems
11 (4): 423–36. doi:10.1007/s11252-008-0063-x.

- Krusche, P., Krusche, M., Althaus, D., Gabriel, I., 1982. Ökologisches bauen. Herausgegeben
vom umweltbundesamt, Bauverlag.

- "LEED: Better Buildings Are Our Legacy." LEED: Better Buildings Are Our Legacy. Accessed
January 15, 2016. http://leed.usgbc.org/.

- Manso, Maria, and Joao Castro-Gomes. 2014. “Green Wall Systems: A Review of Their
Characteristics.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 41 (JANUARY 2015): 863–71.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.203.

- Mazzali, Ugo, Fabio Peron, Piercarlo Romagnoni, Riccardo M. Pulselli, and Simone Bastianoni.
2013. “Experimental Investigation on the Energy Performance of Living Walls in a Temperate
Climate.” Building and Environment 64. Elsevier Ltd: 57–66.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.03.005.

103
- Merriam-Webster. Accessed September 10, 2015.
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/taxonomy.

- Mir, Ma. 2011. “Green Façades and Building Structures,” no. 1058010: 125.

- Ottelé, Marc. 2011. “The Green Building Envelope Vertical Greening.” Department of Materials
and Environment, 261.

- Ottelé, Marc, Katia Perini, A.L.A. Fraaij, E.M. Haas, and R. Raiteri. 2011. “Comparative Life
Cycle Analysis for Green Façades and Living Wall Systems.” Energy and Buildings 43 (12):
3419–29. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.09.010.

- Pérez, Gabriel, Julià Coma, Ingrid Martorell, and Luisa F. Cabeza. 2014. “Vertical Greenery
Systems (VGS) for Energy Saving in Buildings: A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 39. Elsevier: 139–65. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.055.

- Perini, Katia, and Adriano Magliocco. 2012. “The Integration of Vegetation in Architecture,
Vertical and Horizontal Greened Surfaces.” International Journal of Biology 4 (2): 79–91.
doi:10.5539/ijb.v4n2P79.

- Perini, Katia, Marc Ottelé, E. M. Haas, and Rossana Raiteri. 2013. “Vertical Greening Systems, a
Process Tree for Green Façades and Living Walls.” Urban Ecosystems 16 (2): 265–77.
doi:10.1007/s11252-012-0262-3.

- Perini, Katia, and Paolo Rosasco. 2014. “Vertical Greening Systems : Social and Private Bene Its
and Costs.”

- Proto.io - Prototypes That Feel Real. Accessed May 25, 2016. http://www.proto.io.

- Ritchey, Tom. 2015. “Principles of Cross-Consistency Assessment in General Morphological
Modelling” 4 (2): 1–20.

- Ritchey, Tom. 2011. “Modeling Alternative Futures with General Morphological Analysis.”
World Future Review 3 (1): 83–94. doi:10.1177/194675671100300105.

- Ritchey, Tom. 2010. “MA / Start : Specifying Training and Instruction Requirements Using
Morphological Analysis.” Icelw.

- Ritchey, Tom. 1998. “General Morphological Analysis A General Method for Non-Quantified
Modelling.” 16th EURO Conference on Operational Analysis, 1–10. doi:citeulike-article-
id:8916360.

- Ritchey, Tom. 2012. “On the Formal Properties of Morphological Models *.” Acta Morphologica
Generalis AMG 1 (2).

- Ritchey, Tom. 2012. “Outline for a Morphology of Modelling Methods Contribution to a General
Theory of Modelling.” Acta Morphologica Generalis AMG 1 (1).

- Safikhani, Tabassom, Aminatuzuhariah Megat Abdullah, Dilshan Remaz Ossen, and Mohammad
Baharvand. 2014. “A Review of Energy Characteristic of Vertical Greenery Systems.” Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 40: 450–62. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.166.
104

- Scarpa, Massimiliano, Ugo Mazzali, and Fabio Peron. 2014. “Modeling the Energy Performance
of Living Walls: Validation against Field Measurements in Temperate Climate.” Energy and
Buildings 79. Elsevier B.V.: 155–63. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.04.014.

- Sheweka, Samar Mohamed, and Nourhan Magdy Mohamed. 2012. “Green Facades as a New
Sustainable Approach towards Climate Change.” Energy Procedia 18: 507–20.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.05.062.

- Sketch - Professional Digital Design for Mac. Accessed May 25, 2016.
http://www.sketchapp.com.

- Tamasi, Alexandra. "Green Facades in General." Greenwall.pro. Accessed July 28, 2015.
http://greenwall.pro/en/architecture/.

- Technologies, Green Wall, James Sable, Case Study, U S Census Bureau, Catherine Mahan, and
Mahan Rykiel. 2008. “Green Wall Technologies, Benefits and Design,” 1–5.

- The Cities of Melbourne, Port Phillip, Yarra and Stonnington, University of Melbourne and State
Governement. 2013. “Victoria’s Guide to Green Roofs, Walls, & Facades.”

- Timur, Özgur Burham, and Elif Karaca. 2013. “Vertical Gardens.” Advances in Landscape
Architecture, 239 pages. doi:10.5772/55763.

- "United States Department of Agriculture." USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map. 2012. Accessed
October 15, 2015. http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/.

- Vining, Joanne, Melinda S. Merrick, and Emily A. Price. 2008. “The Distinction between
Humans and Nature: Human Perceptions of Connectedness to Nature and Elements of the Natural
and Unnatural.” Human Ecology Review 15 (1): 1–11.

- Yu-Peng Yeh, 2010. Green Wall; The Creative Solution in Response to the urban heat island
effect. National Chung-Hsing University.

- Wolverton, B C, Willard L Douglas, and Keith Bounds. 1989. “A Study of Interior Landscape
Plants for Indoor Air Pollution Abatement.” Science, 1–30.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930072988.

- "What is Java? - Definition from WhatIs.com." SearchSOA. Accessed May 25, 2016.
http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/Java.

- "What is XML (Extensible Markup Language)? - Definition from WhatIs.com." SearchSOA.
Accessed May 25, 2016. http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/XML.

- Wolverton, Bill, Anne Jhonson, Online Training, Practical Training, C Darin, Rank Online
Training, M Kimberly, et al. 1989. “Interior Landscape Plants for Indoor Air Pollution
Abatement.” National Aeronautics and Space Addminitration, NASA, no. 1: 1–5.
doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.

105
Appendix A: Morphological Analysis
A.1 Experimental Strategy: Computer – Aided Morphological Analysis
This strategy was accomplished with limited green façade design information, the sources which are now
used for the unification of information were derived through the cross-consistency assessment done on the
green façade systems known at the time.
A.1.1 GMA Test Cases
Two test cases are detailed , with the purpose of trying to generate new integrations and combinations
between components, characteristics, climate zone, plant diversity, certain advantages and disadvantages.
Displayed on the morphological field are systems which were determined as having different attributes and
characteristics based on their components.
Certain systems like, vertical farming, was not included in the background researched green façade
characteristics but included in the test case in order to determine a potential new integration. Vertical
farming is an initiative movement created as the potential solution towards the increase of population in
urban centers, minimizing land for farming and food growth (Despommier 2010).
A.1.1.1 Test Case 1 – Morphological Box
The template was made up of 8 green façade systems which showed a contrast in material composition,
characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages (Table 22). Depending on the perspective, one might
categorize a certain façade system as the same or different from another. Specifically, for the GMA, the
solution expected was one which showed distinct variables for each system selected, demonstrating that
they are both different and able to be integrated amongst each other, therefore creating potential new system
modifications.
Table 22. 8-parameter green facades variables and values exercise template.

A.1.1.2 Test Case 1 - Cross Consistency Assessment
The objective of the cross-consistency assessment was to uncover internal relationships between
components and make new relationships which were yet to be integrated. The cross consistency assessment
106
was done through analysis of hw each variable and value relate to each other using the morphological
assessment keys “x”, “K”, and “-“ (Figure 63).
This assessment evaluated how parameter variables against each other. The process of this was asking how
a parameter relates to another – which consisted in constact researching of how they are related, why they
haven’t or have been integrated in the past, and wether the particular combination can or should be
integrated.
The research sources that aided in the assessment were added to the gathered sources of unified information.

Figure 63. 8-parameter green facades variables and values cross consistency assessment.
A.1.1.3 Test Case - Prototype Model
The desired scenarios of the prototype were to display relationships between the parameters and values.
The prototype models displayed were the outcome of the cross consistency analysis. Due to having too
many of the “-” (good fit) and “X” (not possible) in the parameter blocks, much of the prototype model
107
systems showed no solution at all, while others showed either a differentiation or similarity in variable
conditions.
No solution systems are those which when selected (red), show no parameter choices (Figure 64; Figure 65; Figure
66).

Figure 64. Green wall system showing no solutions.

Figure 65. Bio-wall system showing no solutions.
108

Figure 66. Modular soil based panels showing no solutions.
Solution systems are those which when selected (red) provide the values (blue) that go with that particular system in
the hopes that new integrations are formed (Figure 67; Figure 68; Figure 69; Figure 70).

Figure 67. Vertical garden solution space.
109

Figure 68. Pre-vegetated fabric panels solution space.

Figure 69. Living wall outcome solution space.
110

Figure 70. Vertical farming outcome showing a solution space.
A.2 Morphological Analysis and Green Facades Determination
The following observations helped understand why the method did not work for the integration of the
morphological analysis and green facades.
1. The specific template sent for analysis (8-parameter morphological box) had 16 million+
configurations in the problem space and 1,792 cross-consistency assessments.
2. In order for the morphological field to be reduced, one must have a good proportion of each
assessment key. If there are too many “unconstrained” blocks in a field, it would not reduce
significantly; instead a very large solution space (output) would be the outcome.
3. The model was over-constrained. No optimal solutions at all (“-” assessments), 121 solutions
containing one or more “k” assessments, and no “primary solutions.”
4. Due to the cross-consistency deliberation, it was proven that some of the green façade systems are
inaccurate as they have shown to simply be a component of a green façade system instead of a
system in itself.
5. Though there were many configurations and assessments possible, due to the amount of “K”
(possible, could work, but not optimal) the model input/output of some parameters could not cancel
out or find an optimal solution, therefore do not appear on the solution space.
6. Specifically, the green wall, bio-wall, modular soil-panels, and hydroponic (soil-less) parameters
do not show any outputs when selected.
7. A great factor to take into account is that of human error. The cross-consistency was an arduous
task, which requires much deliberation.
The test case prototype model outcome consisted of no solution models and similarity in models. There
were no new integrations found, the test cases proved unsuccessful and because of time management, were
not further studied.

111
Appendix B: Case Studies
The following case studies give examples and additional resources of green façade systems applications,
implementations, and modifications. The case studies provide brief descriptions of the project design
concept goals and overview of the objectives, challenges, solutions and conclusions of each project. Each
case study systems has been modified to fit the proper green façade system and sub-systems as detailed in
chapter 4. The source is given for users to find more thorough description of each study.

112
B.1 Educational and Institutional

Project Name: Rutgers University NJ Institute for
Food, Nutrition, and Health Living Wall
Year: 2015
Owner: Rutgers University
Location: New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Building Type: Educational
Type: Vertical Garden – Modular (Hydroponic) +
Living Wall – Foam Based
System: Single Source Provider
Size: 1320 sq.ft.
Slope: 100%
Access: Accessible, Open to Public
Submitted by: Michael Coraggio, EcoWalls, LLC

Summary:
Completed in 2015, the New Jersey Institute of Food, Nutrition, and Health building consists of the largest interior
living wall system. Composed of 46 different species, with 5,200 plants and covering a wall surface of 1,320 ft.
2

System Description:
Integration of hydroponic technology implemented with a foam based substrate.
Objective:
• To promote health and wellness through a connection to nature.
• To be an interactive sustainable education incentive.
• To push the limits of living walls though plant diversity and longevity.
Challenges:
• Lighting requirements due to being an interior installation.
• Irrigation delivery and collection due to large surface coverage.
Solutions:
• Site analysis aided in determining plant selections.
• Daylight analysis aided in determining supplemental lighting design.
• Comprehensive maintenance strategy.
• Used prefabricated modules for faster surface coverage.
Conclusions:
Green facades may be modified and even combined in a variety of ways, the green facade at the New Jersey
Institute integrates a hydroponic irrigation system with foam substrate making it an energy saving, biodegradable,
and educational system.
Source: “Greenroofs.com Project – Rutgers University NJ Institute for Food, Nutrition, and Health Living Wall.”
Greenroofs.com Project – Rutgers University NJ Institute for Food, Nutrition, and Health Living Wall. Accessed
April 16, 2016. http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/pview.php?id=1753.
113
B.2 Commercial and Mixed-Use

Project Name: Studio 5C
Year: 2001
Owner: Sudios 5C
Location: Tempe, AZ
Building Type: Commercial/Mixed Use
Type: Green Wall – Soil Planted
System: Structural Steel Frames; trellis panels
Size: 3,707 Sq. Ft.
Cost: $6.71 Sq. Ft.
Access: Accessible, Open to Public
Manufacturer: GreenScreen

Summary:
Completed in 2001 by green facades panels manufacturer, greenscreen, Studio 5C green wall system
provided both cooling and shading in a hot desert environment while being both cost effective and
implementing design methods corresponding to the environment.
System Description:
Trellis panels mounted on structural steel frames.
Objective:
• Innovative design and addition to property value.
• Create circulation in between outdoor spaces.
• Minimize use of air conditioning use.
• Promote the use of outdoor spaces.
Challenges:
• Creating shade and outdoor circulation corresponding with environmental factors.
Solutions:
• Shade and screening were created by structural steel frames in filled with trellis panels which
facilitated plant growth habits.
• Used plants which require little soil to growth; 14” planting bed is enough for climbing vines
which may grow up to 40’ tall.
• The vertical flowering of the climbing vines minimized solar heat gain through
evapotranspiration which kept temperatures at a comfortable range.
Conclusions:
With the green wall system, made up of flowering climbing vines which grew up to 40 Ft. covering all
of the surface area, building surface temperatures remained cooler due to leaf surface temperatures. The
green facades application helped with heat gain control, cost effective design, and accommodated the
environmental attributes of the region.
Source: Series, Education. 2012. “Commercial/Mixed Use: Studios 5C.” Greenscreen Education
114
B.3 Transportation/Transit

Project Name: Valley Metro Light Rail
Year: 2008
Owner: Tempe Transportation Center
Location: Phoenix Vicinity and Tempe, AZ
Building Type: Transportation
Type: Green Wall – Soil Planted
System: Custom panel sizes, trims, curves, cuts
Size: 2, 745 Sq. Ft.
Cost: N/A
Access: Accessible, Open to Public
Manufacturer: GreenScreen

Summary:
Completed in 2010 by green facades panels manufacturer, greenscreen, Valley Metro Light Rail Stations
(28 stations) green wall system was designed to provide shade and cooling for travelers, while
minimizing heat gain on the structure.
System Description:
Custom greenscreen panels; custom clip attachments to steel structures by others.
Objective:
• Provide shade, alleviate heat gain, and create comfortable zones for travelers.
Challenges:
• Panel configurations needed to be customized to fit the desired environmental scenarios.
• Panel configurations for each of the 28 stations while providing the same desired scenarios in
each.
Solutions:
• Plant substrate set between panels at pedestrian level for additional shading and reduction of
reflected heat gain.
• Implementation of 30 different panel configurations which met both tamper resistance and
security requirements.
Conclusions:
Through a comprehensive research study, design implementations taken for the Tempe Transportation
Center stations showed that areas could be up to 30 degrees cooler than hardscape areas exposed to the
sun. The customized greenscreen panels and application of plant materials being used at pedestrian
levels provided additional benefits in cooling due to the evotransporation of plants. The project was
awarded a 2006 ASLA Merit Award for its innovation and was incorporated into the METRO Design
Criteria Manual.
Source: Series, Education. 2012. “Transportation: Valley Metro Light Rail.” Greenscreen Education
115
B.4 Restaurant/Dining

Project Name: 171 Broadway Restaurant
Year: 2007
Owner: 171 Broadway Restaurant
Location: New York City, NY
Building Type: Restaurant
Type: Vertical Garden – Modular (Substrate)
System: Custom panel sizes, trims, curves,
cuts
Size: 300 Sq. Ft.
Cost: $110 per Sq. Ft.
Access: Private; Dining
Manufacturer: Green Living Technologies

Summary:
Completed in 2007 by Green Living Technologies, the vertical garden system was customized to aid in
the dining experience of its inhabitants, provide health and wellness benefits, and add to the aesthetics
of the restaurant.
System Description:
Custom greenscreen panels; custom clip attachments to steel structures by others.
Objective:
• Create a peaceful and relaxed ambiance for dining.
Challenges:
• Increased air quality and increased humidity.
Solutions:
• Custom designed support system was made to fit the walls uneven surface.
• Irrigation system was built in with a water basin which was customized to contain 240 gallons
of water.
Conclusions:
The vertical garden installed was able to provide health and wellness benefits to the dining experience
of its inhabitants. The system also added to the interior aesthetics as it covered the uneven surface of its
brick walls.
Source: Green Roofs For Healthy Cities. 2008. “Introduction to Green Walls Technology, Benefits &
Design.” Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, no. September: 37.

Additional Information

Plants Used:
Pothos
Climbing Jade
Philodendren
Aglonema

System Dimensional Characteristics:
Standard - 2’x 2’x 3” depth

Structural Support System:
Custom GLT mounting brackets

116
B.5 Event Space/Multi-Purpose

Project Name: SmogShoppe
Year: 2009
Owner: Marvimon Productions
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Building Type: Multi-purpose Event Space
Type: Vertical Garden – Felt Layer Panels
System: Custom panel sizes, trims, curves, cuts
Size: 390 Sq. Ft. (interior) & 588 Sq. Ft.
(exterior)
Cost: N/A
Access: Public & Private
Manufacturer: Woolly Pocket

Summary:
Completed in 2007 by Green Living Technologies, the vertical garden system was customized to aid in the
dining experience of its inhabitants, provide health and wellness benefits, and add to the aesthetics of the
restaurant.
System Description:
Instead of panels, the systems used custom made pockets in both the interior and exterior installations. For
the interior installation, 7 pockets had water collectors and 42 without. In the exterior installation, 7 pockets
had water collectors and 63 without.
Objective:
• Innovative living wall design to add to the aesthetics of the event space, as well as, dampen the
noise from the busy street and act as a sound buffer for the interior space.
Challenges:
• Noise reduction/providing a sound barrier of the noisy, busy street of the surrounding location.
Solutions:
• A self regulating drip irrigation system was installed; the system is set to automatically run two
times a week for 10 minutes.
• Any additional water travels below the walls to the plant bed, providing minimal waste.
Conclusions:
The green façade system was used just as desired, serving as part of event backdrops and provided noise
reduction/barrier of the busy street. The exterior vertical garden system is accessible to the public but
interior courtyard is only accessible for private events. The green façade system is composed of a variety
of succulent plants.
Source: “SmogShoppe.” – Case Study. Accessed April 23, 2016. http://www.woollypocket.com/case-
study/smog-shoppe-case-study-225/.

117
Appendix C: Tool Script
Android studio was used for writing the tool script, the coding for each part of the prototype is displayed in
the following pages.

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137
138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162
163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179
180

181

182

183

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Green facades are any exterior or interior wall hidden by vertical vegetation purposely designed for their particular location or application. Green façades are continuously being modified, and their applications have surpassed being merely aesthetics to being adapted to sustainable design practices. ❧ An investigation of green facade systems tested in previous research, detailing their system composition, advantages, disadvantages and affecting parameters has been established to create a tool, a mobile application, to assist design based on user input. User inputs are plant life expectations, irrigation and drainage, price/cost, maintenance, systems durability, energy saving possibilities, system weight, direct greening, and indirect greening. ❧ The mobile application went through a series of user interface design concepts to establish a user-friendly experience and to determine how information should be displayed. User inputs were determined after an online card sort testing done in Optimal Workshop, an online survey for user experience (UX) research. There were 14 participants, located in 10 different locations, with an educational background in 6 different subjects. The programs used to accomplish the prototype were Sketch, initial user interface concepts, Proto.io, interactive visualization and Android Studio, integrated development environment (IDE) by Google, for coding. In Android Studio, the parameters were reduced to simple Boolean values (true or false), which allowed the tool to search the database for relational values, giving an output of recommended green façade systems based on user input. ❧ Additional information implemented into the tool are the USDA plant hardiness map zones, relevant case studies and the ability for users to add their personal case studies or documentation. ❧ Results showed that through user input of green façade design parameters, applicable systems could be determined to match their preferences. ❧ The unified information has the potential to educate designers about green façades and their many possibilities, can be used as a communication device for green façade designers of all stages to find, explore, and share their design ideas. ❧ The tool prototype and information is not meant to be comprehensive because a wide variety of green façade systems are in the market today. The associated information may be used to expand user knowledge of the various modifications of green façade systems while allowing users to remain creative in their designs and be environmentally conscious of their choices.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Multi-domain assessment of a kinetic facade: determining the control strategy of a kinetic façade using BIM based on energy performance, daylighting, and occupants’ preferences; Multi-domain asse...

PDF

Envisioning seismic Los Angeles: data visualization techniques for an interactive seismicity and building response map application

PDF

Effective light shelf and form finding: development of a light shelf design assistant tool using parametric methods

PDF

Kinetic facades as environmental control systems: using kinetic facades to increase energy efficiency and building performance in office buildings

PDF

Blind to light loss: evaluating light loss through commercial building facades as a contribution to urban light pollution

PDF

Streamlining sustainable design in building information modeling: BIM-based PV design and analysis tools

PDF

Streamlining precast back-frame design: automated design using Revit plugin

PDF

Skin fit and retrofit: challenging the sustainability of curtainwall practice in tall buildings

PDF

Performative shading design: parametric based measurement of shading system configuration effectiveness and trends

PDF

A simplified building energy simulation tool: material and environmental properties effects on HVAC performance

PDF

MM Electrical Tool: a tool for generating electrical single line diagrams in BIM

PDF

Adaptive façade controls: A methodology based on occupant visual comfort preferences and cluster analysis

PDF

Using building information modeling with augmented reality: visualizing and editing MEP systems with a mobile augmented reality application

PDF

Energy savings by using dynamic environmental controls in the cavity of double skin facades

PDF

Energy efficient buildings: a method of probabilistic risk assessment using building energy simulation

PDF

Visualizing architectural lighting: creating and reviewing workflows based on virtual reality platforms

PDF

Precast concrete thin-shell skins: a smart computer tool for generating complex shapes

PDF

Structural design tool for performative building elements: a semi-automated Grasshopper plugin for design decision support of complex trusses

PDF

Building information modeling based design review and facility management: Virtual reality workflows and augmented reality experiment for healthcare project

PDF

Double skin façades performance: effects on daylight and visual comfort in office spaces

Asset Metadata

Creator Catumbela, Edna (author)

Core Title Green facades: development of a taxonomy tool to assist design

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Building Science

Degree Program Building Science

Publication Date 07/08/2018

Defense Date 06/08/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag bio-wall,design assist,green facades,green wall,living wall,mobile application,OAI-PMH Harvest,taxonomy,vertical garden

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Noble, Douglas (committee chair), Kensek, Karen (committee member), Longcore, Travis (committee member)

Creator Email catumbel@usc.edu,catumbel95@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-264462

Unique identifier UC11281441

Identifier etd-CatumbelaE-4526.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-264462 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CatumbelaE-4526.pdf

Dmrecord 264462

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Catumbela, Edna

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA