Natural shading vs. artificial shading: A comparative analysis of their cooling efficacy in extreme hot weather
Urban Climate, ISSN: 2212-0955, Vol: 55, Page: 101870
2024
- 8Citations
- 23Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Shading, comprising both natural and artificial coverings, is an efficient and effective strategy to reduce heat stress in outdoor environments. Despite its recognized efficiency, there is limited comparative insight into the cooling performance of natural and artificial shading. This study examined the cooling efficacy of two covered walkways and two tree canopies, concerning microclimate conditions by various variables and thermal stress quantified by four thermal indices. Our findings highlight three key points: Firstly, the average cooling effects provided by natural and artificial shading were comparable, including reductions in air temperature (1.42 °C vs. 1.31 °C), mean radiant temperature (15.93 °C vs. 13.71 °C), and Physiological Equivalent Temperature (PET) (9.06 °C vs. 9.70 °C), Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) (4.71 °C vs. 5.08 °C), and Hong Kong Heat Index (HKHI) (2.36 °C vs. 2.50 °C). Secondly, it is inconsistent which shading solution is better for microclimate improvement and heat stress alleviation, which is affected by canopy materials, configurations, and tree species. Thirdly, the four indices presented an inconsistent pattern in heat stress assessment. Notably, PET and UTCI showed similar patterns, while HKHI and modified PET presented lower sensitivity to high heat stress. This study offers valuable insights for urban designers to create sustainable shaded communities and also initiates a discourse for revising local heat warning systems, considering various thermal stress indices.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209552400066X; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2024.101870; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85188660343&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S221209552400066X; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2024.101870
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know