Ecological Engineering 153 (2020) 105898

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng

Novel application and reused materials for extensive green roof substrates T
and drainage layers in Japan – Plant growth and moisture uptake
implementation –
Ayako Nagase⁎
Chiba University, Graduate School of Global and Transdisciplinary Studies, 1-33, Yayoicho, Inage-ku, Chiba-shi, Chiba 263-8522, Japan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study investigates the potential utility of reused materials as an alternative material for commercial sub-
Extensive green roof strate and drainage layers. The performances of reused materials were assessed using turf with trays on a roof for
Low environmental impact material two years in Chiba, Japan. Two types of materials, a commercial green roof substrate and cocopeat, were used as
Drought tolerance the substrate. For the drainage layers, five different materials were used: a commercial green roof drainage layer,
bamboo stems and nodes, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle caps and bottoms. In addition, a sample
without any drainage layer was used. The trays were prepared with the combination of these two substrates and
six drainage applications. Overall, reused materials were observed to function well as commercial green roof
materials. The turf in cocopeat was able to survive better than turf in commercial green roof substrate. In the
drainage layers, some reused materials, such as the PET bottle caps and bamboo nodes, showed higher final plant
coverage than commercial drainage layers in cocopeat. Our study has addressed the importance of realizing the
original substrate and drainage layer using reused materials for developing sustainable and inexpensive green
roofs.

1. Introduction alternative commercial green roof materials to realize low environ-

Green roofs have been installed to ameliorate the urban environ-
mental problems. Green roofs can improve the heat island effect (Imran
et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2018), reduce the water runoff (Nagase and
Dunnett, 2012), improve the water quality (Buffam et al., 2016), and
create habitats to ensure biodiversity (Köhler and Ksiazek-Mikenas,
2018). Green roofs have been extensively installed to realize sustain-
able cities, however, commercial green roof materials, usually com-
prising root barriers, drainage layers, filter mats, substrates, and ve-
getation, are often used without careful consideration of their
environmental impact. The composition, purpose, and common mate-
rials used to construct each component of the commercial green roofs
are summarized in Table 1, which indicates that majority of these
materials are artificial and unsustainable. In addition, the production
processes of some green roof materials, such as polymers, cause con-
siderable environmental pollution (Bianchini and Hewage, 2012). This
is controversial because a green roof is installed for improving the en-
vironment; however, the materials used for constructing them are not
considered environmental impact.
The aim of this study is to examine the usage of reused materials as
mental impact green roofs. We particularly focused on extensive green
roofs (thin substrate; require little maintenance/irrigation). Although
installment of intensive green roofs (thick substrate; require both reg-
ular maintenance and an irrigation system) are common and preferred
in Japan, it is important to encourage extensive green roofs for poten-
tial environmental benefit of large scale application such as hydrology
(Razzaghmanesh et al., 2014). Recently, research on the life cycle as-
sessment (LCA) of green roof materials has increased (Bianchini and
Hewage, 2012; Peri et al., 2012; Brachet et al., 2019; Rasul and Arutla,
2020). LCA examines the environmental impact associated with pro-
ducts or systems throughout their life cycles. Considering the whole life
cycle of a system, the environmental burden due to the extraction,
transportation, production, and construction of raw materials is largely
dependent on the type of system and materials involved (Perini and
Roccotiello, 2018). Reused materials, particularly locally obtained
materials, are an alternative to obtain environment-friendly green
roofs. Previous studies have shown that reused materials can reduce the
environmental impact associated with the construction of green roofs
(Rincón et al., 2014; Chenani et al. 2015; Pushkar, 2019). Using reused
materials helps to promote circulate economy. Cities and communities

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: anagase@chiba-u.jp.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105898
Received 7 January 2020; Received in revised form 28 April 2020; Accepted 9 May 2020
Available online 22 May 2020
0925-8574/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Nagase Ecological Engineering 153 (2020) 105898

Table 1
Green roof composition, purpose, and materials (adapted from Dunnett and Kingsbury, 2008; Snodgrass and Mclntyre, 2010; Pérez et al., 2012; Bianchini and
Hewage, 2012; Nektarios et al., 2011; Sutton, 2015; Asman et al., 2017).
Green roof Purpose Materials
composition

Root barriers To prevent plant damage to the roof surface, and a fully waterproof
membrane provides a watertight seal to the building below
Drainage layers To retain water when it rains and keep good drainage and aeration for
substrate and roots
Filter layer To prevent fine material infiltration to lower layers during the draining
process and maintain the integrity of the growing medium and vegetation.
Substrate To maintain adequate moisture for plant growth, facilitate the quick
removal of excess water, provide support and anchoring of the plants,
provide nutrients, and possess a pH and electrical conductivity (EC)
appropriate for plant growth
Modified bitumen; a blend of asphalt and polymer; single-ply sheets of
plastic; PVC; rubber or thermoplastic polyolefin; various fluid-applied
products
Modular panels; polyethylene or polystyrene
Stone drainage aggregates; porous stone materials such as expanded clay,
expanded shale, pumice, and natural puzolana
Polymeric fibers or polyolefins
Usually, they are light weight substrate, mixture of inorganic matter (Clay,
sand, vesicular volcanic rocks; artificial or modified minerals such as perlite,
vermiculite, rockwool, expanded clay, slate, shale) and organic matter
(compost, peat, coconut coir, or decomposed sawdust or bark).

are encouraged to apply innovative strategies for approaching circu-
larity at the urban scale (Petit-Boix and Leipold, 2018). Recycle mate-
rials have been used for green roofs. Crushed bricks are frequently used
as the commercial green roof substrate. Locally obtained materials,
including brick rubble and crushed concrete, are often used in biodi-
verse roofs, which are designed to recreate habitats. Ancient green
roofs, such as Scandinavian green roofs, are another example. They are
often constructed using readily available and cost-effective building
materials, such as birch bark for the sealing membrane, twigs for the
drainage layer, and turf cut from a meadow as insulation (Dunnett and
Kingsbury, 2008; Jim, 2017; Cascone, 2019).
Despite limited research being available with respect to the usage of
reused materials for green roofs, some studies have studied their po-
tential and discussed with respect to the environmental impact of the
materials used to construct green roofs. Commercially available green
roof substrate is characterized by the artificial mixing of minerals and
organic materials (Sutton, 2015). Previous studies for recycle materials
were mainly minerals. The studied materials include clay and sewage
sludge, paper ash, and carbonated limestone (Molineux et al., 2009);
waste drywall, concrete, roof shingles, glass, and lumber cuttings
(Carson et al., 2012); and shale, crushed porcelain, and formulated
glass (Eksi and Rowe, 2016). Organic materials are defined as plants
and animals at various stages of decomposition, the cells and tissues of
soil organisms, and substances, such as humus produced by these or-
ganisms (Handreck and Black, 2002). Generally, organic materials
should be maintained in low, recommended less than 20% by volume,
in green roof substrates owing to an associated instability (Nagase and
Dunnett, 2010). Organic matter disintegrates over time, causing the
substrate to shrink. Moreover, plants with greater biomass in high or-
ganic matter will transpire more and therefore are more likely to be
drought stressed during periods of low moisture availability (Nagase
and Dunnett, 2011; Lata et al., 2018). Humus is often used in green roof
substrates, however, recycle organic materials for green roofs have not
much been examined.
Except the substrate, very few studies have denoted the potential to
use reused materials for green roofs, such as drainage layers. The
function of the drainage layer is to remove excess water or underflow as
rapidly as possible to prevent over-long saturation. The drainage layer
in some instances may also double up as a means of introducing irri-
gation (Dunnett and Kingsbury, 2008).Some studies have examined the
manner in which using reused materials as substrates and drainage
layers can affect the performance of green roofs, including the quality
of water runoff (Chen et al., 2018) and vegetation development (Bates
et al., 2015). Further, Pérez et al. (2012) compared the performances of
puzolana and rubber with that of gravel with respect to the drainage
layers to indicate the effectiveness of puzolana and rubber. Insulation
cork board (Tadeu et al., 2019) and recycled rubber (Vila et al., 2012)
have been studied as potential drainage layers; they are effective as
commercial green roof drainage boards and exhibit comparable hy-
draulic performances and insulating properties.
The aim of this study is to examine the usage of recycled materials
as alternative commercial green roof materials i.e., drainage layers and
substrate. This research was conducted in Japan with the majority of
materials being locally sourced because very little research has been
conducted in Japan with respect to this topic. Reused materials were
chosen for the substrate and drainage layers based on the following
factors: (1) easily obtainable, (2) reminiscent of environmental issues,
(3) long durability, and (4) ability to maintain water for plant growth
(Nagase et al., 2018). This study focused on plant growth and moisture
uptake implications of substrate and drainage layer materials selection
for green roofs.
2. Materials and methods
The experiment was conducted on a roof on the ninth floor of a
building in the Nishichiba Campus, Chiba University, Chiba city, Japan
(Latitude: 35.27°; Longitude: 139.55°). The building was located at a
distance of 2 km from the sea. The roof was surrounded by a 1.2-m high
parapet; this roof received direct and unobstructed sunlight. The max-
imum and minimum temperatures as well as precipitation in Chiba are
shown in Fig. 1. Chiba city belongs to Cfa in Koppen climate classifi-
cation and mean temperature in Chiba city is 15.7C and mean pre-
cipitation is 1387.3 mm (Japan Metrological Agency, 2019).
Cocopeat (CP) was used for green roof substrate. CP is dried and
compressed coir dust extracted from the mesocarp of the coconut and is
commonly found in Asia, tropical America, and Africa (FAO, 2000). It is
often used for crop production and horticulture because it is considered
to be a high-quality substrate (Abad et al., 2002). Even though coconuts
are not produced in Japan, CP was selected because it is lightweight
and easy to handle, making it possible to lift the material onto a roof
without major difficulties. CP is very stable substrate and does not
decompose quickly. It contains much more lignin than other organic
growing substrate (Badgery-Parker et al., 2015). CP has been used as
green roof substrate mixing with other materials (e.g. Vijayaraghavan
and Raja, 2015). However, they were not widely used and use of 100%
of cocopeat as green roof substrate was novel in this study. CP was
compared to commercial green roof substrate (CS), Viva soil.Viva soil is
one of most commonly used green roof substrates in Japan. Viva soil is a
mixture of organic nutrients, moist porous minerals, and other in-
gredients necessary for plant growth. It is a moist, light, and porous
artificial soil comprising 10% organic matter (Toho leo, 2019).
Moso bamboo and High-density polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
waste material were used for the drainage layers. The materials were
chosen to mimic drainage panels. Drainage panels are molded into

2
A. Nagase
Fig. 1. Changes in the mean monthly temperature values and rainfall for Chiba city, Japan, during 2018–2019 (Japan Metrological Agency, 2019).
“cups” that retain excess water and “cones” with holes for drainage
after the cups are filled (Weiler and Scholz-Barth, 2009). Moso bamboo,
one of the largest bamboo species in the world, was introduced to Japan
approximately 300 years ago as human food (young sprouts) and other
products (adult culms) (Shibata, 2003). However, since the 1980s,
majority of these forests have been abandoned because of a rapid de-
cline in domestic bamboo industries (Fukushima et al., 2015). Moso
bamboo can reduce the biodiversity in forest owing to their invasive-
ness (Xu et al., 2020). The PET bottle waste material exhibits com-
parable concerns. Currently, PET is the most popular packaging mate-
rial in the world for beverages, and its production and consumption are
increasing (Welle, 2011). PET bottle waste was shipped to China and
Chinese government banned plastic waste imports to reduce the pol-
lution associated with the recycling process (Zhou and Xu, 2012). They
were compared to commercial green roof drainage layer (CDL).The CDL
was Prime Board 45, which is one of the most commonly used drainage
layers for green roofs in Japan.
Five types of drainage layers were tested: a commercial green roof
drainage layer (CDL), bamboo stems (BSs), bamboo nodes (BNs), PET
bottle caps (PBCs), and PET bottle bottoms (PBBs) (Fig. 2). Bamboo
with outer and inner diameters of 120 mm and 100 mm, respectively,
was used for this study. A 320-mm length bamboo was longitudinally
cut in half (BS), whereas a 50 mm depth bamboo was radially cut at the
node (BN). Two BSs and six BNs were laid directly on one tray re-
spectively. Furthermore, sections of 500-mL PET bottles were used; the
PBCs (28 mm diameter and 14 mm height) and the PBBs (65 mm dia-
meter and 50 mm height), respectively. 120 PBCs and 24 (6 × 4) PPBs
were laid directly on the trays, respectively. PBBs and PBCs were placed
randomly with open end facing surface to trap water. Above all drai-
nage layers, filter was applied.BS, PBC, and PBB were used to mimic the
drainage panels. BN was used to preserve water by the restriction of
Fig. 2. Materials used for green roof drainage layers.
3
Ecological Engineering 153 (2020) 105898
water drainage from the hole in the tray. They were used as single
layer. The no-drainage-layer (NDL) sample was filled with a substrate.
In total, six types of applications were tested for the drainage layers.For
extensive green roofs without irrigation system, drainage can be im-
peded to al1ow areas that remain moist during wet weather, but may
not be a problem for water logging because of thin substrate.
Two types of substrate, five types of drainage layers, and no drai-
nage layers were used with three experimental replications; 36 trays
were used in total (Table 2). Rigid plastic trays which has holes for
drainage (inner dimension: 400 mm length × 350 mm
width × 180 mm height and outer dimension: 500 mm
length × 400 mm width × 200 mm height) were felled based on the
combination of each drainage layer and substrate. Identical trays were
used for all of them. The depth of the substrate was 130 mm. The turf,
Zoysia japonica, was chosen as the plant material because it is drought
tolerant and widely used for extensive green roofs in Japan. One sheet
of turf was planted on June 14, 2017. The sheet of turf was
371 × 300 mm, the thickness was 2–3 cm including turf and soil. The
cross section of tray was shown in Fig. 3. The trays were arranged by 6
row and 6 lines and they were randomized. Irrigation was provided
only once to each tray once they were established; subsequently, they
received only rain water. The Viva soil and CDL were obtained from
Toho Leo (Tokyo, Japan). CP was obtained from Proto leaf. The trays
and CP were obtained from the local home centers (Chiba, Japan).
Bamboo was obtained from Koshikawa Chikuzaikogyo (Sousa, Chiba).
PET bottles were obtained from the Chiba University (Chiba city,
Chiba). Z. japonica was obtained from Himuka (Miyazaki, Japan).
Plant coverage was measured once a week for six weeks, i.e., from
July 18, 2017, to September 5, 2017, and once a month from October
10, 2017, to September 19, 2018, for 13 times in total. From November
2017 to March 2018, no measurements were recorded because Z.
A. Nagase
Table 2
Combination of substrates and drainage layers used in this ex-
periment.
Substrate Drainage layer Replication
CS NDL 3 Final coverage
CDL 3 Interaction between substrate
BS 3 and drainage layer
BN 3 Plant coverage over time
PBC 3 Repeated ANOVA
PBB 3 measures
CP NDL 3
CDL 3
BS 3
BN 3 available phosphorus, K2O, CaO, MgO, CEC (Cation Exchange
PBC 3
PBB 3
Total 36
Commercial green roof substrate = CS, Cocopeat = CP. No
drainage layer = NDL, Commercial green roof drainage layer =
CDL, Bamboo stem = BS, Bamboo node = BN, PET bottle cap =
PBC, PET bottle bottom = PBB.
Fig. 3. Cross section of tray in this experiment.
japonica was dormant in winter. The plant coverage was measured
using a quadrat (400 mm × 350 mm), with each area being divided
into 50 mm × 50 mm sections. The number of squares in the quadrat in
which Z. japonica was green was counted, and the percentage of plant
coverage was calculated. Weeds were regularly removed. On October
16, 2017, and October 29, 2018, the turf was harvested at a height of
300 mm using an electric turf mower (Yamazen, YLB-162). After har-
vesting, the harvested turf leaves were dried in a drying oven at 70 °C
for three days; subsequently, the shoot dry weight was measured. The
Volumetric Water Content (VWC) for representative of each substrate
with each drainage layer (12 trays) was measured using the Em 50 Data
Collection System (Decagondevices) with a 5TM and EC5 sensor every
hour from 19:00 on July 13, 2017, to 23:00 on November 30, 2018. The
5TM and EC5 sensor recorded the temperature and volumetric water
content. The sensor calibration for the Decagon dielectric 5 TM and EC-
5 followed a variation of the gravimetric methods outlined in methods
recommendations generated by Decagon (sensor manufacturer)
(Decagon Devices, 2012a, 2012b). After calibration, the VWC data
which was less than 0.75 for CS and 0.95 for CP were treated as error
because their solid phase of each substrate and VWC should be less than
solid phase. The data of solid phase for each substrate was obtained
from the leaflet information for each company (Toho leo, 2019;
Protoleaf, 2019).
The chemical properties of each substrate were analyzed in Ibaraki
Soukaken, a commercial soil analysis center. The following elements
were analyzed: pH, EC (electrical conductivity), NH4–N, NO3–N,
4
Ecological Engineering 153 (2020) 105898
Table 3
Summery of statistical analysis in this study.
Category Statistical analysis Effect
Shoot dry weight Two way ANOVA Substrate
Drainage layer
Paired sample T-test Substrate
Drainage layer
Capacity), base saturation degree, and humus. The analysis methods for
each category are summarized in Appendix (Nagase and Tashiro-Ishii,
2018).The analysis methods followed the protocol of Japanese society
of soil science and plant nutrition (1997).
The water retention capacity of the CS,CDL, and CP were obtained
from the leaflet information for each company (Toho leo, 2019;
Protoleaf, 2019). The water retention capacity of the BNs, PBCs, and
PBBs were measured as follow. Firstly, one of each material was wa-
tered until maximum level and the water was measured by weight.
Secondly, the maximum water holding capacity was calculated by
number of materials used per m3. The maximum water-holding capacity
of the BSs was not measured because they do not store water.
Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect the ef-
fects of different substrate types and drainage layers on the shoot dry
weight and final coverage. When significant differences were identified,
the mean values were separated using the Tukey method with a p-value
of less than 0.05. To evaluate the changes in the quadrat level of turf
coverage over time, the plant coverage was compared in substrate and
drainage layer respectively. To verify the significant differences across
substrates, a paired-sample t-test was used. Finally, repeated ANOVA
measures were used to verify the significant differences in terms of the
drainage layer. The statistical analysis was conducted using Jamovi
(Version 0.9). Statistical analysis is summarized in Table 3.
3. Results
3.1. Shoot dry weight
The mean shoot dry weight for each substrate and drainage layer in
2017 and 2018 are shown in Fig. 4. In 2017, no significant differences
could be identified between the substrate and interaction between
substrate and drainage layer. In CS, compared with the CDL, the BNs
had a significantly larger dry shoot weight; the shoot dry weights of the
remaining drainage layers were not significantly different from that of
the CDL. Overall, the shoot dry weight in 2018 was lower than 2017. In
2018, the overall growth was restricted and there were no significant
differences between the substrate, drainage layers, and interaction be-
tween substrate and drainage layer.
3.2. Plant coverage
The mean plant coverage at the end of the experiment are shown in
Fig. 5. There was significant effect on plant coverage in substrate,
drainage layers, and interaction between substrate and drainage layer.
The plant coverage of CP was significantly higher than that of CS. The
plant coverage in CS in all drainage layers except BN leached to 0% at
the end of the experiment. In CP, the PBCs and BNs had a significantly
higher plant coverage than that of the CDL. The plant coverage of the
remaining materials was not significantly different than that of the CDL.
The percentage coverage changes from July 18, 2017, to September
A. Nagase
19, 2018, are shown in Figs. 6. Repeated measure statistical analysis
showed that there was significant difference between different types of
substrate and drainage layers. For instance, in August 2017, the turf in
CS reduced plant coverage, particularly for the PBBs, which recovered
by autumn. However, in the second year, the plant coverage was re-
duced in August, resulting in complete drying. In the first year, the turf
in CP had a coverage of 100%. The plant coverage was reduced in
August 2018, particularly in case of commercial drainage layers and
PBB. The temperatures in July and August 2018 were unusually high
with very little rain. The number of days on which the temperate rises
above 30 °C were 61 days in 2018 although the average days above
30 °C in these 30 years were 41 days in Japan. The total rainfall was
58.5 mm in August 2018 although the average total rainfall was
134 mm in August in these 30 years at Chiba. (Japan Metrological
Agency, 2019). The turf in the PBCs and BNs survived well even though
its extreme weather.
3.3. VWC in substrates and drainage layers
The mean VWC for different substrates and drainage layers are
shown in Table 4. Changes in VWC for different substrates and drainage
5
Ecological Engineering 153 (2020) 105898
Fig. 4. Mean shoot dry weight for different substrates and
drainage layers in 2017 and 2018 (n = 3). Values are com-
pared within the same year. Uppercase letters of Tukey mul-
tiple comparison are for 2017; lowercase letters are for 2018.
Error bars represent standard error. Means with the same
letter do not differ significantly from each other within up-
percase or lowercase letters. No drainage layer = NDL,
Commercial green roof drainage layer = CDL, Bamboo
stem = BS, Bamboo node = BN, PET bottle cap = PBC, PET
bottle bottom = PBB.
layers are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. VWC is significantly
affected by the substrate and drainage layer. The average VWC in CS
(0.237 m3/m3) is significantly higher than that in CS (0.237 m3/m3) CP
(0.186 m3/m3). However, under the condition of low overall soil
moisture, the VWC in CP was noted to be higher than that in CS, such as
in summer time. For the drainage layer, the mean VWC was the highest
for NDL and CDL, followed by those for BNs,PBBs,BSs, and PBCs. In
many cases, the VWC in the PBBs was high, and the fluctuation of
change of VWC was also high. The water retention capacity of each
substrate and drainage layer is shown in Table 5.The water retention
capacity of CS and CP are similar. In the drainage layer, the PBBs have
the largest value, followed by the PBCs, BNs, and CDL.
3.4. Substrate analysis
The chemical properties of CS and CP are shown in Table 6. The pH
values for both CS and CP are relatively acidic. Furthermore, EC was
higher in CP (1.17 mS/cm) than that in CS (0.30 mS/cm). Some che-
mical components, such as K2O and MgO, were found in large con-
centrations in CP. However, NH4–N was low in CP. In CS, the available
phosphorus, CaO, and MgO were low.
Fig. 5. Mean plant coverage for different substrates and
drainage layers at the end of the experiment, October 29,
2018 (n = 3). Error bars represent standard error. Means with
the same letter do not differ significantly from each other. No
drainage layer = NDL, Commercial green roof drainage
layer = CDL, Bamboo stem = BS, Bamboo node = BN, PET
bottle cap = PBC, PET bottle bottom = PBB.
A. Nagase Ecological Engineering 153 (2020) 105898

Fig. 6. Change of percentage coverage for CS (n = 3) and CP (n = 3) over time. Error bars represent standard error. No drainage layer = NDL, Commercial green
roof drainage layer = CDL, Bamboo stem = BS, Bamboo node = BN, PET bottle cap = PBC, PET bottle bottom = PBB.

available for the turf in CP to survive, although overall VWC in CS was

Table 4 higher than those in CP. Many studies have confirmed that water
Mean Volumetric Water Content in every hour for different substrates and availability is the main factor affecting the survivability of plants on
drainage layer during experiment (substrate CS n = 72451, CP: n = 72750,: green roofs (Nagase and Dunnett, 2011; Nagase and Dunnett, 2013;
drainage layer n = 24250). Razzaghmanesh et al., 2014; Vandegrift et al., 2019). The shoot dry-
Substrate VWC (m3/m3) Drainage layer VWC (m3/m3) weight of turf did not significantly differ in CS and CP although sur-
vivability was low in CS. The mineral component of CS was appro-
CS 0.24 ± 3.29 e−4 a NDL 0.25 ± 4.97 e−4 a priately balanced; good growth can be achieved if sufficient water was
CP 0.19 ± 2.78 e−4 b CDL 0.25 ± 4.91 e−4 a
available or deeper substrate which is more than 13 cm. This study
BS 0.18 ± 5.23 e−4 d
BN 0.21 ± 4.87 e−4 c investigated extensive green roofs without irrigation. However, the
PBC 0.18 ± 1.40 e−3 e results may be different when the plants were planted in irrigated green
PBB 0.20 ± 5.36 e−4 b roof or deeper substrate.
In this study, both shoot dry weight and mean plant coverage of turf
Mean ±　SE. For each substrate, six application of drainage layer were aver-
dropped significantly in the second year. The previous studies using turf
aged. For each drainage layer, two application of substrate were averaged.
such as Z. japonica on green roof in Chiba in Japan showed that they
Tukey multiple comparison are comparing values within columns. Means with
the same letter do not differ significantly from each other. Commercial green were able to survive at the substrate depth of 15 cm (Andosol and
roof substrate = CS, Cocopeat = CP. No drainage layer = NDL, Commercial Isolite,8:2) without irrigation (Asano et al., 1999). However, their
green roof drainage layer = CDL, Bamboo stem = BS, Bamboo node = BN, PET studies carried out over summer only, therefore, the results may be
bottle cap = PBC, PET bottle bottom = PBB. different in the second year. When the turf experienced drought over
summer, they were not able to survive over winter.
In CP, minerals, such as phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), were
4. Discussion
obtained in large concentrations; this is agreed with previous studies
(Abad et al., 2002). The concentration of indigenous P and K in the coir
In this study, CP outperformed CS. In particular, the turf in CS was
dust markedly exceeded the optimal standard concentration ranges for
almost completely dead by the end of the experiment; however, some
P and K in organic growing media (Bunt, 1988).
survived in CP. This suggests that the turf in CS reached a permanent
However, it was unclear that how this high amount of P and K affect
wilting point during hot summers with little rain, some water is

Fig. 7. Change of VWC for substrates over time (n = 18). Commercial green roof substrate = CS, Cocopeat = CP. All applications of drainage layers were averaged
in each substrate.

6
A. Nagase Ecological Engineering 153 (2020) 105898

Fig. 8. Change of VWC for drainage layers over time (n = 6). No drainage layer = NDL, Commercial green roof drainage layer = CDL, Bamboo stem = BS, Bamboo
node = BN, PET bottle cap = PBC, PET bottle bottom = PBB. All applications of substrates were averaged in each drainage layer.

Table 5 The objective of a drainage layer is to obtain an optimal balance

Water retention capacity of substrates and drainage layers. between air and water in the green roof system. Accordingly, the
drainage layer must be able to retain water when it rains, ensuring good
Substrate Water retention capacity Drainage layer Water retention capacity
drainage and aeration of the substrate and roots (Pérez et al., 2012). In
(L/m3) (L/m2)
this study, the PBCs and BS exhibited better final plant coverage than
CS 390 ± 50 (pF1.8 – 4.2) CDL 7.1 CDL in cocopeat. PBCs were able to store more water than CDL. How-
CP 375 BN 7.2 ever, the PBBs, which can store the largest amount of water, had the
PBC 9.8
least plant coverage. This can be attributed to the fluctuations in water
PBB 31.5
over time. Moreover, a thick drainage layer can cause the soil to dry at
Commercial green roof substrate = CS, Cocopeat = CP, Commercial green roof the bottom. Interestingly, some drainage layers that do not store water
drainage layer = CDL, Bamboo node = BN, PET bottle cap = PBC, PET bottle but restrict water drainage, such as BS and NDL, exhibited good per-
bottom = PBB. formances. Green roofs without drainage layers may cause water log-
ging due to lack of aeration. For green roofs with irrigation systems, the
the plant growth. From previous study of cocopeat based media mix- drainage layer should be used because they may overflow often; how-
tures, the plant growth was affected by the differences in the physical ever, this layer may not be necessary for extensive green roofs without
properties of the media, especially with water availability and air-filled any irrigation systems. Green roof design is driven by the need for good
porosity (Awang et al., 2009). Further study is required to show the stormwater retention and adequate drainage while leaving sufficient
comparison between cocopeat with different amount of nutrient to see water in the growing media for the plants to uptake and retain storm-
how the substrate characteristics may affect the plant growth. More- water (FLL, 2008). Therefore, it is necessary to conduct further la-
over, it is important to consider the water runoff from CP when it is boratory studies to understand the manner in which drainage layers
used as a green roof substrate. Previous studies showed that the per- provide water.
centage of compost in the substrate and the fertilizer used are the two There has been very little discussion on whether drainage layer
key components apparently contributing to nutrients in green roof should be used similar to the current situation. The use of drainage
outflows (Berndtsson, 2010; Hathaway et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2019). layer may depend on the slope of green roofs. A roof deck with a slope
The quality of water runoff from substrate may change over seasons and of less than 1.1° (2%) may not adequately drain; therefore, drainage
long time (Buffam et al., 2016). The Further studies are necessary to layers are required to remove excess water (Dvorak, 2011). However, a
show the changes in the quality of water runoff from CP over time. drainage layer is not necessary for a green roof with a slope larger than

Table 6
Chemical properties of substrates.
pH EC NH4-N NO3-N Available K2O CaO MgO CEC Base saturation degree Humus soil
phosphorous

mS/cm mg/100 g mg/100 g mg/100 g mg/100 g mg/100 g mg/100 g me/100 g % %

CS 5.3 0.30 1.10 12.00 7.1 68 120 17 15.0 43.9 2.0
CP 5.1 1.17 0.94 0.16 44.0 1450 261 201 77.2 65.1 4.5

Commercial green roof substrate = CS, Cocopeat = CP.

7
A. Nagase
5° (8.7 %) because water drains easily owing to the slope itself (Dunnett
et al., 2011). Further research is required to confirm the necessity and
required conditions of drainage layers for extensive green roofs.
Using reused materials, it is possible to reduce the costs associated
with green roof materials. For example, CS costs approximately 60,000
Japanese yen per 1 m3, whereas CP costs approximately 30,000
Japanese yen (Toho leo, 2019; Protoleaf, 2019). Furthermore, CP has
the advantage of easy transportation because it is usually pressed and
condensed. This reduces construction costs because heavy substrates
may require expensive machinery such as cranes. For the drainage
layer, 1 m2 of CDL costs approximately 2000 Japanese yen (Toho leo,
2019). Conversely, PET bottles and bamboo are relatively cheap and
completely free at times. There are considerable amount of potential
materials that can be used to develop green roofs in our environment,
and these local green roofs would be important for obtaining future
green roofs.
In the green roof industry, guidelines are frequently referenced. For
example, the FLL guideline is used in Germany; currently, standards,
such as American Standard Testing Methods (ASTM) are developing in
the North American countries (Dvorak, 2011). Understanding the
guidelines is important to ensure high-quality green roofs; however,
being flexible with respect to the substrate and drainage layer types for
sustainability is also important. According to Sutton (2015), if the de-
sign objective for a specialized habitat requires particular edaphic
properties, such as wetlands, dunes, deserts, savannahs, or other dry-
land ecosystems, the FLL standards are not appropriate substrate
guidelines. Therefore, developing local guidelines for various types of
green roofs is important.
Although this study showed potential of reused materials for green
roofs, there were some limitations. Firstly, this study carried out in
short time, over two years. It was still unclear the life cycle of extensive
green roofs which comprised entirely of CP, since the knowledge of
longevity and maintenance of cocopeat on green roofs was premature.
Concerns regarding the need to replenish organic content due to de-
composition over time will need to be raised, possibly leading to a re-
commendation for further study regarding the useful life expectancy of
100% cocopeat substrate to inform life cycle analysis. Therefore, it is
also necessary to observe the manner in which CP changes over a period
Appendix A
Soil analysis methods for each category.
pH
EC
NH4-N
NO3-N
Available phosphorous
K2O
CaO
MgO
Cation Exchange Capacity
Base saturation degree
Humus
References
Abad, M., Noguera, P., Puchades, R., Maquieira, A., Noguera, V., 2002. Physico-chemical
and chemical properties of some coconut coir dusts for use as a peat substitute for
containerised ornamental plants. Bioresour. Technol. 82 (3), 241–245.
Asano, Y., Sasaki, M., Nakayama, S., Kobayashi, T., 1999. Comparison of drought toler-
ance among 7 warm-season turfgrasses. J. Jpn Turfgrass Res. Assoc. 28, 88–89 (in
Japanese).
Asman, N.S.A., Dullah, S., Ayog, J.L., Mirasa, A.K., Djamila, H., 2017. The hydrological
performance of lightweight green roofs made from recycled waste materials as the
drainage layer. In: MATEC Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, pp. 04011.
Awang, Y., Shaharom, A.S., Mohamad, R.B., Selamat, A., 2009. Chemical and physical
characteristics of cocopeat-based media mixtures and their effects on the growth and
8
Ecological Engineering 153 (2020) 105898
of several years. Secondly, only turf was used as the plant material at
single site. Sheet of turf was used because it is easy to access the plant
growth. Further studies are required to show the effect of the combi-
nation of reused materials and different types of plants. It is re-
commended to repeat the experiment with a range of species, in dif-
ferent climates and with different thickness of substrate. Finally, with
respect to the drainage layers, it is necessary to study the water drai-
nage and water storage capacity in a laboratory to obtain precise re-
sults.
5. Conclusions
This study has shown that reused materials (cocopeat, PET bottle,
and bamboo) were observed to function well as commercial green roof
materials. Our study addressed the importance of investigating the
original substrate and drainage layer using reused materials instead of
selecting the commercially available green roof materials. There are
plenty of reused materials that can be potentially used as green roof
components, therefore, further studies are required to show the per-
formance of these materials in different countries and regions. Finally,
it is important to study the manner in which green roofs obtained using
reused materials can improve the LCA.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number
26750001 and career support program for woman scientists in Chiba
University to proof our English. I thank Dr. Yoriyuki Yamada at Kajima
corporation and two anonymous reviewers for providing helpful com-
ments on my manuscript.
Method of Analysis
Glass electrode method
Electric Conductivity method
Indophenol blue absorptiometry
Naphthylethylenediamine Method
Molybdic acid (blue) absorptiometric method
Kalibor method
Ortho cresolphthalein complexone method
Xylidyl blue method
Calculation
Calculation
Absorptiometry
development of Celosia cristata. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 4 (1), 63–71.
Badgery-Parker, J., James, L., Jarvis, J., Parks, S., 2015. Commercial Greenhouse
Cucumber Production, 2010 edition. NSW Agriculture.
Bates, A.J., Sadler, J.P., Greswell, R.B., Mackay, R., 2015. Effects of recycled aggregate
growth substrate on green roof vegetation development: a six year experiment.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 135, 22–31.
Berndtsson, J.C., 2010. Green roof performance towards management of runoff water
quantity and quality: a review. Ecol. Eng. 36 (4), 351–360.
Bianchini, F., Hewage, K., 2012. How “green” are the green roofs? Lifecycle analysis of
green roof materials. Build. Environ. 48, 57–65.
Brachet, A., Schiopu, N., Clergeau, P., 2019. Biodiversity impact assessment of building’s
roofs based on Life Cycle Assessment methods. Build. Environ. 158, 133–144.
Buffam, I., Mitchell, M.E., Durtsche, R.D., 2016. Environmental drivers of seasonal var-
iation in green roof runoff water quality. Ecol. Eng. 91, 506–514.
A. Nagase
Bunt, A.C., 1988. Media and Mixes for Container Grown Plants, 1st edn. Springer,
London.
Carson, T., Hakimdavar, R., Sjoblom, K., Culligan, P., 2012. Viability of recycled and
waste materials as green roof substrates. In: GeoCongress 2012: State of the Art and
Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 3644–3653.
Cascone, S., 2019. Green roof design: state of the art on technology and materials.
Sustainability 11 (11).
Chen, C.-F., Kang, S.-F., Lin, J.-H., 2018. Effects of recycled glass and different substrate
materials on the leachate quality and plant growth of green roofs. Ecol. Eng. 112,
10–20.
Chenani, S.B., Lehvävirta, S., Häkkinen, T., 2015. Life cycle assessment of layers of green
roofs. J. Clean. Prod. 90, 153–162.
Decagon Devices, 2012a. Decagon Devices 5TE Operator's Manual. Version 7. 2012
Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman, WA Available online at: http://www.decagon.com/
assets/Uploads/13509-07-Printing.pdf (verified 10 April 2012).
Decagon Devices, 2012b. Decagon DevicesEC-5 Soil Moisture Sensor User's Manual.
Version 2.
Dunnett, N., Kingsbury, N., 2008. Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls. Timber Press,
Portland, OR.
Dunnett, N., Gedge, D., Little, J., Snodgrass, E.C., 2011. Small Green Roofs: Low-Tech
Options for Greener Living. Timber Press.
Dvorak, B., 2011. Comparative analysis of green roof guidelines and standards in Europe
and North America. J. Green Build. 6 (2), 170–191.
Eksi, M., Rowe, D.B., 2016. Green roof substrates: effect of recycled crushed porcelain and
foamed glass on plant growth and water retention. Urban For. Urban Green. 20,
81–88.
FAO, 2000. Production Yearbook 1999: FAO Statistics Series No. 53. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FLL, F.L.L., 2008. Guidelines for the Planning, Construction and Maintenance of Green
Roofing. Landscape, Research, Development & Construction Society, Bonn, Germany.
Fukushima, K., Usui, N., Ogawa, R., Tokuchi, N., 2015. Impacts of moso bamboo
(Phyllostachys pubescens) invasion on dry matter and carbon and nitrogen stocks in a
broad-leaved secondary forest located in Kyoto, western Japan. Plant Species Biol. 30
(2), 81–95.
Handreck, K., Black, N., 2002. Growing Media for Ornamental Plants and Turf, 3rd ed.
University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.
Hathaway, A.M., Hunt, W.F., Jennings, G.D., 2008. A field study of green roof hydrologic
and water quality performance. Trans. ASABE 51 (1), 37–44.
Imran, H.M., Kala, J., Ng, A.W.M., Muthukumaran, S., 2018. Effectiveness of green and
cool roofs in mitigating urban heat island effects during a heatwave event in the city
of Melbourne in southeast Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 393–405.
Japan Metrological Agency, 2019. Weather, Climate and Earthquake Information. (in
Japanese). (Accessed 30 March 2019).
Japanese Society of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 1997. Analysis fo Soil Environment
(in Japanse). Hakuyusha, Tokyo.
Jim, C.Y., 2017. An archaeological and historical exploration of the origins of green roofs.
Urban For. Urban Green. 27, 32–42.
Köhler, M., Ksiazek-Mikenas, K., 2018. Chapter 3.14 - green roofs as habitats for biodi-
versity. In: Pérez, G., Perini, K. (Eds.), Nature Based Strategies for Urban and Building
Sustainability. Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 239–249.
Lata, J.C., Dusza, Y., Abbadie, L., Barot, S., Carmignac, D., Gendreau, E., Kraepiel, Y.,
Mériguet, J., Motard, E., Raynaud, X., 2018. Role of substrate properties in the
provision of multifunctional green roof ecosystem services. Appl. Soil Ecol. 123,
464–468.
Liu, J., Shrestha, P., Skabelund, L.R., Todd, T., Decker, A., Kirkham, M.B., 2019. Growth
of prairie plants and sedums in different substrates on an experimental green roof in
Mid-Continental USA. Sci. Total Environ. 697, 134089.
Molineux, C.J., Fentiman, C.H., Gange, A.C., 2009. Characterising alternative recycled
waste materials for use as green roof growing media in the U.K. Ecol. Eng. 35 (10),
1507–1513.
Nagase, A., Dunnett, N., 2010. Drought tolerance in different vegetation types for ex-
tensive green roofs: Effects of watering and diversity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 97 (4),
318–327.
Nagase, A., Dunnett, N., 2011. The relationship between percentage of organic matter in
substrate and plant growth in extensive green roofs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 103 (2),
230–236.
Ecological Engineering 153 (2020) 105898
Nagase, A., Dunnett, N., 2012. Amount of water runoff from different vegetation types on
extensive green roofs: Effects of plant species, diversity and plant structure. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 104 (3), 356–363.
Nagase, A., Dunnett, N., 2013. Establishment of an annual meadow on extensive green
roofs in the UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 112, 50–62.
Nagase, A., Tashiro-Ishii, Y., 2018. Habitat template approach for green roofs using a
native rocky sea coast plant community in Japan. J. Environ. Manag. 206, 255–265.
Nagase, A., Yamada, Y., Aoki, T., Nomura, M., 2018. Developing biodiverse green roofs
for Japan: Arthropod and colonizer plant diversity on Harappa and Biotope roofs.
Urban Nat. 1, 16–38.
Nektarios, P.A., Amountzias, I., Kokkinou, I., Ntoulas, N., 2011. Green roof substrate type
and depth affect the growth of the native species Dianthus fruticosus under reduced
irrigation regimens. Hortscience 46 (8), 1208–1216.
Pérez, G., Vila, A., Rincón, L., Solé, C., Cabeza, L.F., 2012. Use of rubber crumbs as
drainage layer in green roofs as potential energy improvement material. Appl. Energy
97, 347–354.
Peri, G., Traverso, M., Finkbeiner, M., Rizzo, G., 2012. Embedding “substrate” in en-
vironmental assessment of green roofs life cycle: evidences from an application to the
whole chain in a Mediterranean site. J. Clean. Prod. 35, 274–287.
Perini, K., Roccotiello, E., 2018. Chapter 3.4 - vertical greening systems for pollutants
reduction. In: Pérez, G., Perini, K. (Eds.), Nature Based Strategies for Urban and
Building Sustainability. Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 131–140.
Petit-Boix, A., Leipold, S., 2018. Circular economy in cities: reviewing how environmental
research aligns with local practices. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 1270–1281.
Protoleaf, 2019. Cocopeat. http://protoleaf.co.jp/ (accessed 1st October 2019).
Pushkar, S., 2019. Modeling the substitution of natural materials with industrial by-
products in green roofs using life cycle assessments. J. Clean. Prod. 227, 652–661.
Rasul, M.G., Arutla, L.K.R., February 2020. Environmental impact assessment of green
roofs using life cycle assessment. Energy Rep. 6 (Supplement 1), 503–508.
Razzaghmanesh, M., Beecham, S., Kazemi, F., 2014. Impact of green roofs on stormwater
quality in a South Australian urban environment. Sci. Total Environ. 470–471,
651–659.
Rincón, L., Coma, J., Pérez, G., Castell, A., Boer, D., Cabeza, L.F., 2014. Environmental
performance of recycled rubber as drainage layer in extensive green roofs. A com-
parative Life Cycle Assessment. Build. Environ. 74, 22–30.
Shibata, E., 2003. Sampling procedure for density estimation of bamboo galls induced by
Aiolomorphus rhopaloides (Hymenoptera: Eurytomidae) in a bamboo stand. J. For.
Res. 8 (2), 0123–0126.
Snodgrass, E.C., McIntyre, L., 2010. Green roof manual. Timber Press.
Sutton, R.K., 2015. Introduction to green roof ecosystems. In: Green Roof Ecosystems.
Springer, pp. 1–25.
Tadeu, A., Simões, N., Almeida, R., Manuel, C., 2019. Drainage and water storage ca-
pacity of insulation cork board applied as a layer on green roofs. Constr. Build. Mater.
209, 52–65.
Toho leo, 2019. Viva Soil. http://www.r-green.jp/system/viva.html (accessed 1st
October 2019).
Vandegrift, D.A., Rowe, D.B., Cregg, B.M., Liang, D., 2019. Effect of substrate depth on
plant community development on a Michigan green roof. Ecol. Eng. 138, 264–273.
Vijayaraghavan, K., Raja, F.D., 2015. Pilot-scale evaluation of green roofs with Sargassum
biomass as an additive to improve runoff quality. Ecol. Eng. 75, 70–78.
Vila, A., Pérez, G., Solé, C., Fernández, A.I., Cabeza, L.F., 2012. Use of rubber crumbs as
drainage layer in experimental green roofs. Build. Environ. 48, 101–106.
Weiler, S., Scholz-Barth, K., 2009. Green Roof Systems: A Guide to the Planning, Design,
and Construction of Landscapes Over Structure. John Wiley & Sons.
Welle, F., 2011. Twenty years of PET bottle to bottle recycling—an overview. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 55 (11), 865–875.
Xu, Q.-F., Liang, C.-F., Chen, J.-H., Li, Y.-C., Qin, H., Fuhrmann, J.J., 2020. Rapid bamboo
invasion (expansion) and its effects on biodiversity and soil processes+. Glob. Ecol.
Conserv. 21, e00787.
Yang, J., Kumar, Mohan, L., D., Pyrgou, A., Chong, A., Santamouris, M., Kolokotsa, D.,
Lee, S.E., 2018. Green and cool roofs’ urban heat island mitigation potential in tro-
pical climate. Sol. Energy 173, 597–609.
Zhou, L., Xu, Z., 2012. Response to waste electrical and electronic equipments in China:
legislation, recycling system, and advanced integrated process. Environ. Sci. Technol.
46 (9), 4713–4724.