Environmental Pollution 116 (2002) S119–S126

www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol

Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from
power plants
H. Akbari*
Heat Island Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkley, CA 94720, USA

‘‘Capsule’’: Urban tree planting can account for a 25% reduction in net cooling and heating energy usage in urban landscapes.

Abstract
Urban shade trees offer significant benefits in reducing building air-conditioning demand and improving urban air quality by
reducing smog. The savings associated with these benefits vary by climate region and can be up to $200 per tree. The cost of
planting trees and maintaining them can vary from $10 to $500 per tree. Tree-planting programs can be designed to have lower
costs so that they offer potential savings to communities that plant trees. Our calculations suggest that urban trees play a major role
in sequestering CO2 and thereby delay global warming. We estimate that a tree planted in Los Angeles avoids the combustion of 18
kg of carbon annually, even though it sequesters only 4.5–11 kg (as it would if growing in a forest). In this sense, one shade tree in
Los Angeles is equivalent to three to five forest trees. In a recent analysis for Baton Rouge, Sacramento, and Salt Lake City, we
estimated that planting an average of four shade trees per house (each with a top view cross section of 50 m2) would lead to an
annual reduction in carbon emissions from power plants of 16,000, 41,000, and 9000 t, respectively (the per-tree reduction in carbon
emissions is about 10–11 kg per year). These reductions only account for the direct reduction in the net cooling- and heating-energy
use of buildings. Once the impact of the community cooling is included, these savings are increased by at least 25%. # 2001
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Shade trees; Heating and cooling energy use; Carbon sequestration; Smog; Cost-benefit analysis; Heat islands

1. Introduction the oil price shocks in 1979, increased energy awareness

have led to conservation efforts and leveling of energy
World energy use is the main contributor to atmos- consumption in the industrialized countries. An impor-
pheric CO2. In 1997, about 6.4 Giga metric ton of car- tant byproduct of this reduced energy use is a lowering
bon (GtC) were emitted internationally by combustion of CO2 emissions.
of gas, liquid, and solid fuels (CDIAC, 2001), 2–5 times In the United States, of all electricity generated, about
the amount contributed by deforestation (Brown et al., one-sixth [400 tera-watt-hours (TWh), equivalent to
1988). The share of atmospheric carbon emissions for about 80 million metric tons of carbon (MtC) emissions,
the United States from fossil fuel combustion was 1.46 and translating to about $40 billion (B) per year] is used
GtC. Increasing use of fossil fuel and deforestation to air-condition buildings. Of this $40 B/year, about
together have raised atmospheric CO2 concentration half is used in cities classified as ‘‘heat islands’’ where
some 25% over the last 150 years. According to global the air-conditioning demand has risen 10% within the
climate models and preliminary measurements, these last 40 years. Metropolitan areas in the United States
changes in the composition of the atmosphere have (e.g. Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, Atlanta, New
already begun raising the earth’s average temperature. York City) typically have pronounced heat islands that
If current energy trends continue, these changes could warrant special attention by anyone concerned with
drastically alter the earth’s temperature, with unknown broad-scale energy efficiency (HIG, 2001).
but potentially catastrophic physical and political con- Strategies that increase urban vegetation and the
sequences. Since the first OPEC embargo in 1973 and reflectance of roofs and paved surfaces not only assure
cost savings to individual homeowners and commercial
consumers, but also reduce energy consumption city-
* Tel.: +1-510-486-4287; fax: +1-510-486-4673. wide. These strategies also serve to reduce smog,
E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Akbari). important in those cities such as Houston, Los Angeles,
0269-7491/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0269-7491(01)00264-0
S120 H. Akbari / Environmental Pollution 116 (2002) S119–S126

and Atlanta where air pollution is a significant health ering ambient wind speeds, (4) reducing the heat gain
problem. into the buildings by lowering ambient temperatures
Trees affect the urban ecosystem in many different through evapotranspiration in summer, and (5) in some
ways. McPherson et al. (1994) provide a good review of cases, increasing the latent air-conditioning load by
the impact of an urban forest in the city of Chicago. In adding moisture to the air through evapotranspiration
this paper, we briefly review the benefits and costs (Huang et al., 1987).
associated with a large-scale urban tree-planting pro-
gram. We specifically focus on discussing the benefits of 2.1.1. Shading
such a program as they relate to shading of buildings When properly placed and scaled around a building,
and streets, evaporative cooling of ambient air, shield- during the summer, trees can block unwanted solar
ing buildings and inhabitants from cold winter and hot radiation from striking the building and reduce its
summer winds, the collective impact of tree shading, cooling-energy use. Shading of buildings can potentially
evaporative cooling, and wind shielding on building increase the heating-energy use during the winter.
heating- and cooling-energy use, the impact of ambient Deciduous trees are particularly beneficial since they
cooling on smog reduction, and removal of PM10 (par- allow solar gain in buildings during the winter while
ticulate matter less than 10 micron) pollutants and dry blocking it during the summer. The shade cast by trees
deposition. We also briefly discuss the potential cost also reduces glare and blocks the diffuse light reflected
associated with a large-scale tree-planting program. from the sky and surrounding surfaces, thereby altering
the heat exchange between the building and its sur-
roundings. During the day, tree shading also reduces
2. Benefits associated with trees heat gain in buildings by reducing the surface tempera-
tures of the surroundings. At night, trees block the heat
2.1. Urban trees: an energy conservation strategy flow from the building to the cooler sky and surround-
ings.
In addition to their aesthetic value, urban trees can
modify the climate of a city and improve urban thermal 2.1.2. Wind shielding (shelterbelts)
comfort in hot climates. Individually, urban trees also Trees act as windbreaks that lower the ambient wind
act as shading and wind-shielding elements modifying speed, which may lower or raise a building’s cooling-
the ambient conditions around individual buildings. energy use depending on its physical characteristics. In
Considered collectively, a significant increase in the certain climates, tree shelterbelts are used to block hot
number of urban trees can moderate the intensity of and dust-laden winds. In addition to energy-saving
the urban heat island by altering the heat balance of the potentials, this will improve comfort conditions out-
entire city (Fig. 1). doors within the city. Through wind shielding, trees
Trees affect energy use in buildings through both affect a building’s energy balance in three ways:
direct and indirect processes. The direct effects are: (1)
1. Lower wind speed on a building shell slows the
reducing solar heat gain through windows, walls, and
dissipation of heat from sunlit surfaces. This in
roofs by shading, and (2) reducing the radiant heat gain
turn produces higher sunlit surface temperatures
from the surroundings by shading. The indirect effects
and more heat gain through the building shell.
are: (3) reducing the outside air infiltration rate by low-
This detrimental phenomenon (during the sum-
mer) is significant only for uninsulated buildings.
2. Lower wind speed results in lower air infiltration
into buildings. The reduction in infiltration has a
major impact on reducing cooling-energy require-
ments for old and leaky houses.
3. Lower wind speed reduces the effectiveness of
open windows during the summer, resulting in
increased reliance on mechanical cooling.

2.1.3. Evaporative cooling

The term evapotranspiration refers to the evaporation
of water from vegetation and surrounding soils. On hot
summer days, a tree can act as a natural ‘‘evaporative
cooler’’ using up to 100 gallons of water a day and thus
lowering the ambient temperature (Kramer and
Fig. 1. Methodology: energy and air-quality analysis. Kozlowski, 1960). The effect of evapotranspiration is
 H. Akbari / Environmental Pollution 116 (2002) S119–S126 S121

minimal in winter because of the absence of leaves on the DOE-2 program to estimate the indirect cooling
deciduous trees and the lower ambient temperatures. effects of trees in reducing air-conditioning energy use.
Increased evapotranspiration during the summer For all three cities, we simulated both cooling-energy
from a significant increase in urban trees can produce savings and potential heating-energy penalties. The
an ‘‘oasis effect’’ in which the urban ambient tempera- study considered planting an average of four shade trees
tures are significantly lowered. Buildings in such cooler per house, each with a top view cross section of 50 m2,
environments will consume less cooling power and and estimated net annual dollar savings in energy
energy, although in some cases the amount of latent expenditure of $6.3 M, $12.8 M, and $1.5 M for Baton
cooling, i.e. humidity removal, might be slightly Rouge, Sacramento, and Salt Lake City, respectively.
increased. The savings in energy consumption were translated into
reduced CO2 emissions using the US average emission
2.2. Estimates of energy savings of 200 gC per kWh of generated electricity. The esti-
mated annual reduction in carbon emissions is 19 kilo-
Case studies (Laechelt and Williams, 1976; Buffing- tons Carbon (ktC), 60 ktC, and 13 ktC for Baton
ton, 1979; Parker, 1981; Akbari et al., 1997) have docu- Rouge, Sacramento, and Salt Lake City, respectively
mented dramatic differences in cooling-energy use (Konopacki and Akbari, 2000).
between houses on landscaped and unlandscaped sites. In another study, Taha et al. (1996) analyzed the
Akbari et al. (1997) conducted a ‘‘flip-flop’’ experiment impact of large-scale tree-planting programs in 10 US
to measure the impact of shade trees on two houses in metropolitan areas: Atlanta GA, Chicago IL, Dallas
Sacramento. The experiment was carried out in three TX, Houston TX, Los Angeles CA, Miami FL, New
periods: (1) monitoring the cooling-energy use of both York NY, Philadelphia PA, Phoenix AZ, and
houses to establish a base case relationship between the Washington DC. Both direct and indirect effects on air-
energy use of the houses, (2) installing eight large and conditioning energy use were addressed, using the DOE-
eight small shade trees at one of the sites for a period of 2 building simulation program for energy calculations
4 weeks, and then (3) moving the trees from one site to and a mesoscale simulation model for meteorological
the other. The experiment documented seasonal cooling- calculations. The meteorological simulations showed
energy savings of about 30% (about 4 kilowatt-hour per that trees could cool the city on the average by about
day, kWh/day). The estimated peak electricity saving 0.3–1 K at 1400 h; in some simulation cells the tem-
was about 0.7 kW. In Florida, Parker (1981) measured perature was decreased by up to 3 K (Table 1). The
the cooling-energy savings from well-planned land- energy analysis focused on residential and small com-
scaping and found that properly located trees and mercial (small office) buildings. (Table 2). For most hot
shrubs around a mobile trailer reduced the daily air- cities, total (direct and indirect) annual energy savings
conditioning electricity use by as much as 50%. to be $10–$35 per 100 m2 of roof area of residential and
The evapotranspiration and wind-shielding impacts of commercial buildings.
trees have been most commonly quantified through Heisler (1990a) has measured the impact of trees in
computer simulations. In a recent study, we investigated reducing ambient wind. Akbari and Taha (1992) used
the energy-saving potential of urban trees in three US Heisler’s data and analyzed the impact of wind reduc-
cities: Baton Rouge LA, Sacramento CA, and Salt Lake tion on heating- and cooling-energy use of typical
City UT (Konopacki and Akbari, 2000). The analysis houses in cold climates. Simulations indicated that in
included both direct (shading) and indirect (evapo- cold climates, a 30% uniform increase in urban tree
transpiration) effects. Three building types were con- cover can reduce winter heating bills in urban areas by
sidered that account for over 90% of saving potentials: about 10% and in rural areas by 20%. In a follow-on
houses, offices, and retail stores. We collected data on undocumented work, we estimated that the savings in
building characteristics and stocks for each building urban areas can almost be doubled if evergreen trees are
type and developed prototypical building descriptions. planted strategically on the north side of buildings so
These buildings were then simulated with the DOE-2 that the buildings can be better protected from the cold
building-energy simulation program (BESG, 1990). We north winter wind.
considered several scenarios by strategically placing Heisler (1986, 1990b) has investigated the impact of
trees around the building (for maximum impacts) and tree location around a house on heating- and cooling-
the direct energy-savings potentials were calculated. To energy use. Trees planted on the east and west sides of
estimate the impact of evapotranspiration of trees on the building shade the walls and windows from sunlight
building energy use (indirect effect), a three-dimensional in the morning and afternoon. Depending on wall con-
meteorological model was used to simulate the potential struction, the impact of morning heating may be seen
impact of trees on ambient cooling for each region. The in the late morning and early afternoon hours. Simi-
simulations were performed using grids of 5
5 km. larly, the impact of afternoon heating of the west walls
Changes in the ambient temperatures were modeled in may be seen in evening hours. Akbari et al. (1993)
S122 H. Akbari / Environmental Pollution 116 (2002) S119–S126

Table 1
Number of additional trees planted in each metropolitan area and their simulated effects in reducing the ambient temperaturea

Location No. of additional No. of additional Max air temperature

trees in the trees in the reduction in the hottest
simulation domain (M) metropolitan area (M) simulation cell (K)

Atlanta 3.0 1.5 1.7

Chicago 12 5.0 1.4
Los Angeles 11 5.0 3.0
Fort Worth 5.6 2.8 1.6
Houston 5.7 2.7 1.4
Miami 3.3 1.3 1.0
New York City 20 4.0 2.0
Philadelphia 18 3.8 1.8
Phoenix 2.8 1.4 1.4
Washington, DC 11 3.0 1.9
a
Note that the simulated area is much larger than the metropolitan area.

Table 2
DOE-2 simulated heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) annual energy savings from treesa

Location Old residence New residence Old office New office

Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect

Atlanta 5 2 3 1 3 2 2 2
Chicago 3 2 1 0.5 1 1 2 1
Los Angeles 12 8 7 5 6 12 4 10
Fort Worth 6 6 5 4 4 5 2 4
Houston 10 6 6 4 3 5 3 3
Miami 9 3 6 3 3 2 2 2
New York City 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 2
Philadelphia 5 0 7 0 2 1 1 1
Phoenix 27 8 16 5 9 5 6 4
Washington, DC 3 2 1 1 3 1 2 1
a
Three trees per house and per small office are assumed. All savings are $/100m2.

performed parametric simulations on the impact of tree compounds (VOCs). The photochemical reaction of
locations on heating- and cooling-energy use and found VOCs and NOx produces smog (O3).
that savings can vary from 2% to over 7%; cooling- Simulations performed by Taha et al. (1997) for Los
energy savings were higher for trees shading the west Angeles indicated that, on a daily basis, 1% of the mass
walls and windows. of ozone in the mixed layer is scavenged by planting an
additional 11 M trees (dry-deposited). In addition to
2.3. Urban trees: an air-pollution reduction strategy this amount of ozone being scavenged directly from the
atmosphere, there is 0.6% less ozone formation in the
Urban trees affect air pollution through two major mixed layer due to the fact that vegetation also scav-
processes: (1) cooling of the ambient temperature and enges NO2, an ozone precursor. The total effect of
hence slowing the smog formation process, and (2) dry increased deposition by the additional vegetation is
deposition by which the airborne pollutants (both gas- thus to decrease atmospheric ozone in the mixed layer
eous and particles) can be removed from the air. Trees by 1.6%.
directly remove pollutant gases (CO, NOx, O3, and SO2) In a more recent study, Taha et al. (2000) analyzed
predominantly through leaf stomata (Smith, 1984; the impact of urban vegetation (and other heat-island
Fowler, 1985). Nowak (1994a) performed an analysis of reduction technologies: reflective roofs and pavements)
pollutant removal by the urban forest in Chicago and on ozone air quality for Baton Rouge, Salt Lake City,
concluded that through dry deposition trees on the and Sacramento. The meteorological simulations indi-
average remove about 0.002% (0.34 g/m2/year) of CO, cated a reduction in daytime ambient temperature on
0.8% (1.24 g/m2/year) of NO2, 0.3% (1.09 g/m2/year) of the order of 1–2 K. In Baton Rouge, the simulated
SO2, 0.3% (3.07 g/m2/year) of O3, and 0.4% (2.83 g/m2/ reduction of 0.8 K in the afternoon ambient tempera-
year) PM10 pollutants from air. Trees can also con- ture leads to a 4–5 ppb (part per billion) reduction in
tribute to smog problems by emitting volatile organic ozone concentration. For Salt Lake City, the afternoon
 H. Akbari / Environmental Pollution 116 (2002) S119–S126 S123

temperature and ozone reductions were 2 K and 3–4 improve air quality by dry-depositing NOx, O3, and
ppb. And in Sacramento, the reductions were 1.2 K and PM10. Rosenfeld et al. (1998) estimated that 11 M trees
10 ppb (about 7% of the peak ozone concentration of in LA will reduce PM10 by less than 0.1% through dry
139 ppb). Note that the reported reductions in ambient deposition, worth $7 M, which is much smaller than the
and ozone concentration are due to the combined effect smog benefits of $180 M from smog reduction.
of urban vegetation and reflective roofs and pavements. Rosenfeld et al. (1998) also calculated the present
Preliminary simulations indicated that in dry climates value of the energy savings and smog reduction. The
such as Sacramento and Salt Lake City, the contribu- present value (PV) of future savings of a tree is calcu-
tion of urban vegetation and reflective surfaces to lated using
ambient air temperature and ozone reduction is about
the same. In humid climates such as Baton Rouge, 1  ð1 þ dÞn
PV ¼ a
adding to the urban vegetation is less effective than d
increasing the reflectivity of surfaces in reducing ambi-
ent temperature and ozone. where a, annual savings ($); d, real discount rate (3%);
Following Taha’s (1997) work, Rosenfeld et al. (1998) n, life of the savings from tree, in years.
studied potential energy savings and ancillary benefits Rosenfeld et al. (1998) assumed the planting of small
of trees in the Los Angeles Basin, taking into account shade trees that would take about 10–15 years to reach
direct energy savings, indirect energy savings, and the maturity. Savings from trees before they reach maturity
potential impact on air pollution, specifically smog (O3). were neglected and the present value of all future sav-
The study assumed that of 5 million (M) homes in the ings was calculated to be $7.5 for each $1 saved
Los Angeles Basin the coastal houses were not air con- annually. On this basis, the direct savings to the owner
ditioned and that only about 1.8 M of the inland houses who plants three shade trees will have a present value
were air conditioned. The strategy assumed planting 11 of about $200 per home ($68/tree). The present value of
M trees according to the following plan: three shade indirect savings is smaller, about $72/home ($24/tree).
trees (one on the west and two on the south side of the The PV of smog savings is about $120/tree. Total PV of
house, each with a canopy cross-section of 50 m2) per all benefits from trees is then $210/tree.
air-conditioned house, for a total of 5.4 M trees; about Shade trees, by reducing peak power by 0.9 GW, save
one shade tree for each 250 m2 of non-residential roof about 0.5 g of NOx per kWh avoided from power plants
area for a total of 1 M trees; 4.6 M trees to shade non- in the Basin. Simulations have found that 4 t of NOx per
air-conditioned homes or to be planted along streets, in day are avoided, only 1/3% of the base case.
parks, and in other public spaces.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3; trees
can potentially save about $270 M per year in Los 3. Design of an urban tree program and costs
Angeles and can reduce peak power demand by 0.9 associated with trees
GW. Of the $270 M annual savings, about $58 M
represent direct energy savings, $35 M indirect energy Two primary factors to be considered in designing a
savings, and $180 M savings because of the reduction in large-scale urban tree program is the potential room
smog concentration. Savings in smog are the result of a (space available) for planting trees, and the types of pro-
lower ambient temperature because of the evapo- grams that utilize and employ the wide participation of
transpiration of trees. The annual cost of smog (i.e. the population. We recently studied the fabric (fraction
medical cost and time lost from work) was estimated at of different land-uses) of Sacramento by statistically
$3 B. Simulations indicated that trees can reduce smog analyzing high-resolution aerial color orthophotos of the
exceedance over the California standard of 90 ppb by city, taken at 0.30-m resolution (Akbari et al., 1999;
6% and result in an estimated savings of about $180 M Fig. 2). On average, tree cover comprises about 13% of
per year ($3B
6%). It is also suggested that trees the entire Sacramento metropolitan area. If we assume

Table 3
Air conditioning (A/C) energy savings, ozone reduction, and avoided peak power from the addition of 11 million urban shade trees in the Los
Angeles Basin (Rosenfeld et al., 1998)

Benefits A/C energy savings Smog savings Total

Direct Indirect

1 Annual energy and smog savings (M$/year) 58 35 180 273

2 Peak power reduction (GW) 0.6 0.3 0.9
3 Present value per tree ($) 68 24 123 211
S124 H. Akbari / Environmental Pollution 116 (2002) S119–S126

that trees can be planted in areas to cover barren land $300–$500 per tree. Over 90% of the cost is associated
(8%) and grass (15%), tree cover in Sacramento would with professional planting, pruning, tree and stump
increase to 36%. The design of a large-scale urban tree removal. On the other hand, a tree-planting program
program should take advantage of this type of data to administered by the Sacramento Municipal Utility Dis-
plan the program accurately for each neighborhood. trict (SMUD) and Sacramento Tree Foundation in
The cost of a citywide ‘‘tree-planting’’ program 1992–1996 planted trees 6 m (20-feet) in height at an
depends on the type of program offered and the types of average (low) cost of $45 per tree. This figure includes
trees recommended. At the low end, a promotional only the cost of a tree and its planting; it does not
planting of trees with a height of 1.5–3 m (5–10 feet) include pruning, removal of dead trees, and stump
costs about $10 per tree, whereas a professional tree- removal. With this wide range of costs associated with
planting program using fairly large trees could amount trees, in our opinion tree costs should be justified by
to $150–$470 a tree (McPherson et al., 1994). McPher- other amenities they provide beyond air-conditioning
son has collected data on the cost of tree planting and and smog reduction. The low-cost programs are then
maintenance from several cities. The cost elements probably the information programs that provide data
include planting, pruning, removal of a dead tree, stump on the energy and smog savings that trees offer to the
removal, waste disposal, infrastructure repair, litigation communities and homeowners who have decided to
and liability, inspection, and program administration. plant trees for other reasons.
The data provide details of the cost for trees located in
parks, yards, streets, highway, and houses. The present
value of all these life-cycle costs (including planting) is 4. Carbon sequestration of urban shade trees

Data for the rate of carbon sequestration by urban

trees are scarce; most data are given in the units of tons
per year of carbon per hectare of forested land. How-
ever, Nowak (1994b) has performed an analysis of car-
bon sequestration by individual trees as a function of
tree diameter measured at breast height (dbh). He esti-
mates that an average tree with a dbh of 31–46 cm
(about 50 m2 in crown area) sequesters carbon at a rate
of 19 kg/year. We also performed an analysis of the
rate of carbon sequestration for several species of trees
using data by Frelich (1992). Frelich provides data on
the age, the dbh, crown area, and height for 12 species
of trees around Twin Cities, MN. We used this data to
Fig. 2. Land use land cover (LULC) of Sacramento, CA. estimate the rate of carbon sequestration. First we

Table 4
Annual carbon sequestration by individual trees. Each tree is assumed to have a crown area 50 m2a

Tree type Age dbh (cm) H (m) Average C C sequestrated at

sequestered (kg/year) maturityb (kg/year)

Norway maple 30 33.0 10.1 3.2 9.9

Sugar maple 29 29.5 11.2 2.9 7.8
Hackberry 25 27.4 10.3 2.7 8.5
American and little-leaved linden 33 41.4 11.5 5.3 13.8
Black walnut 32 31.0 11.2 3.0 8.0
Green ash 26 30.2 11.7 3.6 10.8
Robusta and Siouxland hybrid 33 52.1 20.5 14.9 29.6
Kentucky coffee tree 40 31.0 9.9 2.1 3.6
Red maple 24 27.4 10.2 2.8 8.9
White pine 34 34.5 13.6 4.2 15.2
Blackhills (white) spruce 60 37.6 15.9 3.3 7.7
Blue spruce 60 49.3 18.9 6.7 12.8
Average 4.6 11.4
Average excluding Robusta/Siouxland 3.6 9.7
a
dbh, Diameter of tree at breast height; H, tree height (source: Frelich, 1992).
b
We define maturity when the tree has a crown area of 50 m2.
 H. Akbari / Environmental Pollution 116 (2002) S119–S126 S125

estimated the volume of the wet biomass of the trunk by Building Technologies, of the US Department of
assuming a cone with a base area with the given dia- Energy, and the US Environmental Protection Agency,
meter and height. Then we multiplied the trunk volume under contract No. DE-AC0376SF00098. This paper
by 1.5 to account for the volume of main branches and was presented at the USDA Forest Service Southern
roots. The weight of the biomass was estimated by Global Change Program sponsored Advances in Ter-
multiplying the volume by a density of 900 kg/m3. The restrial Ecosystem: Carbon Inventory, Measurements,
weight of the dry mass was estimated at 50% of the wet and Monitoring Conference held 3–5 October 2000 in
mass and the amount of carbon was estimated to be Raleigh, North Carolina.
50% of the dry mass. The calculation yielded an average
of about 4.5 kg/year over the life of a tree until its crown
has grown to about 50 m2 (Table 4). Data indicate References
that as trees grow, the rate of sequestration increases.
The average sequestration rate for a 50-m2 tree was Akbari, H., Taha, H., 1992. The impact of trees and white surfaces on
residential heating and cooling energy use in four Canadian cities.
estimated at about 11 kg/year. Energy 17 (2), 141–149.
This calculation suggests that urban trees play a major Akbari, H., Bretz, S., Hanford, J., Kurn, D., Fishman, B., Taha, H.,
role in sequestering CO2 and thereby delaying global Bos, W., 1993. Monitoring Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings
warming. Rosenfeld et al. (1998) estimated that a tree of Shade Trees and White Surfaces in the Sacramento Municipal
planted in Los Angeles avoids the combustion of 18 kg of Utility District (SMUD) Service Area: Data Analysis, Simulations,
and Results (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBL-
carbon annually, and according to our calculations an 34411). Berkeley, CA (December).
average shade tree sequesters about 4.5–11 kg/year (as it Akbari, H., Kurn, D.M., Bretz, S.E., Hanford, J.W., 1997. Peak
would if growing in a forest). In that sense, one shade power and cooling energy savings of shade tree. Energy and Build-
tree in Los Angeles is equivalent to 3–5 forest trees. ings 25, 139–148.
Akbari, H., Rose, L.S., Taha, H., 1999. Characterizing the Fabric of
the Urban Environment: A Case Study of Sacramento, California
(Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBL-44688). Ber-
5. Conclusion keley, CA (December).
Brown, L.R. (Comp.), Flavin, C., French, H.F., Abramovitz, J.,
We doubt that the direct savings noted in this paper Bright, C., Dunn, S., Gardner, G., McGinn, A., Mitchell, J.,
Renner, M., Roodman, D., Toxill, J., Starke, L. (Ed.). 1988 State of
are enough, in themselves, to induce a building owner to
the World, A World Watch Institute Report on Progress Toward a
plant shade trees for energy-savings purposes. For LA, Sustainable Society. W.W. Norton & Co., New York.
annual benefits of $270 M are possible, after 15–20 Building Energy Simulation Group (BESG), 1990. Overview of the
years of planting trees. Trees can potentially reduce DOE-3 Building Energy Analysis Program, Version 2.1D (Lawrence
energy consumption in a city and improve air quality and Berkeley National Laboratory report LBL-19735, Rev. 1). Berkeley,
comfort. These potential savings are clearly a function of CA.
Buffington, D.E., 1979. Economics of landscaping features for con-
climate: in hot climates, deciduous trees shading a build- serving energy in residences. Proceedings of the Florida State Hor-
ing can save cooling-energy use, in cold climates, ever- ticultural Society 92, 216–220.
green trees shielding the building from the cold winter CDIAC, 2001. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center World-
wind can save heating-energy use. Trees also improve Wide Web: Available at: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov. Oak Ridge
urban air quality by lowering the ambient temperature National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
Frelich, L.E., 1992. Predicting Dimensional Relationship for Twin
and hence reducing the formation of urban smog, and by Cities Shade Trees. Department of Forest Resources, University of
dry deposition to absorb directly gaseous pollutants and Minnesota—Twin Cities, St. Paul, MN.
PM10 from the air. Trees also emit volatile organic Fowler, D., 1985. Deposition of SO2 onto plant canopies. In: Win-
compounds that may contribute to air-quality problems; ner, W.E., Mooney, H.A., Goldstein, R.A. (Eds.), Sulfur Dioxide
and Vegetation. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp.
low-emitting trees should be considered in designing a
389–402.
program. Finally, a major cost of a tree-planting pro- Heisler, G.M., 1986. Effects of individual trees on the solar radiation
gram is that associated with planting and maintaining by climate of small buildings. Urban Ecology 9, 337–359.
tree professionals. The cost of water consumption of Heisler, G.M., 1990a. Mean wind speed below building height in resi-
trees in most climates is small compared to planting and dential neighborhoods with different tree densities. ASHRAE
maintenance costs. It is quite possible to design a low- Transactions 96 (1), 1389–1396.
Heisler, G.M., 1990b. Tree planting that save energy. In: Rodbell,
cost tree-planting program that utilizes and employs the P.D. (Ed.), Fourth Urban Forestry Conference, 15–19 October
full voluntary participation of the population. 1989, St. Louis, MO. American Forestry Association, Washington,
DC, pp. 58–62.
HIG, 2001. Heat Island Group World-Wide Web: Available at: http:
Acknowledgements //eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA.
Huang, Y.J., Akbari, H., Taha, H., Rosenfeld, A., 1987. The potential
This work was supported by the Assistant Secretary of vegetation in reducing summer cooling loads in residential build-
for Conservation and Renewable Energy, Office of ings. Climate and Applied Meteorology 26 (9), 1103–1116.
S126 H. Akbari / Environmental Pollution 116 (2002) S119–S126

Konopacki, S., Akbari, H., 2000. Energy savings calculations for US Dept. of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Radnor, PA.,
urban heat island mitigation strategies in Baton Rouge, Sacramento pp. 83–94.
and Salt Lake City. Proceedings of the 2000 ACEEE Summer Study Parker, J.H., 1981. Use of Landscaping for Energy Conservation.
on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Vol. 9. Pacific Grove, CA, p. 215. Department of Physical Sciences, Florida International University,
Kramer, P.J., Kozlowski, T., 1960. Physiology of Trees. McGraw Miami, FL.
Hill, New York. Rosenfeld, A.H., Romm, J.J., Akbari, H., Pomerantz, M., 1998. Cool
Laechelt, R.L., Williams, B.M., 1976. Value of Tree Shade to Home- communities: strategies for heat island mitigation and smog reduc-
owners. Alabama Forestry Commission, Montgomery, AL. tion. Energy and Building 28, 51–62.
McPherson, E.G., Nowak, D.J., Rowntree, R.A., 1994. Chicago’s Smith, W.H., 1984. Pollutant uptake by plants. In: Treshow, M. (Ed.),
Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Air Pollution and Plant Life. John Wiley, New York.
Climate Project (NE-186). Forest Service, US Dept. of Agriculture, Taha, H., Konopacki, S., Gabersek, S., 1996. Modeling the Meteoro-
Department of Agriculture, Radnor, PA. logical and Energy Effects of Urban Heat Islands and their Mitiga-
Nowak, D.J. 1994a. Air pollution removal by Chicago’s urban forest. tion: A 10-Region Study (Report No. LBNL-38667). Lawrence
In: McPherson, E.G., Nowak, D.J., Rowntree, R.A (Eds.), Chica- Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
go’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Taha, H., Douglas, S., Haney, J., 1997. Mesoscale meteorological and
Climate Project (NE-186). Forest Service, US Dept. of Agriculture, air quality impacts of increased urban albedo and vegetation. Energy
Department of Agriculture, Radnor, PA., pp. 63–81. and Buildings—Special Issue on Urban Heat Islands 25 (2), 169–177.
Nowak, D.J. 1994b. Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Chica- Taha, H.S., Chang, C., Akbari, H., 2000. Meteorological and Air-
go’s urban forest. In: McPherson, E.G., Nowak, D.J., Rowntree, quality Impacts of Heat Island Mitigation Measures in Three US
R.A (Eds.), Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Cities (Report No. LBL-44222). Lawrence Berkeley National
Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project (NE-186). Forest Service, Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.