xxiii
Fig. 3.8
Mean hourly temperature in the course of a
reference summer day in Vienna for the base
case and three mitigation scenarios ................................... 81
Fig. 3.9
Mean hourly temperature in the course
|of a reference summer day in Padua for
the base case and four mitigation scenarios ....................... 81
Fig. 3.10
Mean hourly temperature in the course of a
reference summer day in Warsaw for the
base case and two mitigation scenarios ............................. 82
Fig. 3.11
Temperature difference between the base case
and three mitigation scenarios in the course
of a reference summer day in Vienna ................................ 82
Fig. 3.12
Temperature difference between the base case
and four mitigation scenarios in the course
of a reference summer day in Padua .................................. 83
Fig. 3.13
Temperature difference between the base
case and two mitigation scenarios in the course
of a reference summer day in Warsaw ............................... 83
Fig. 3.14
Comparison of the measured mean hourly temperature
in the course of a summer day (22nd July 2010)
in Vienna with simulation results conducted with
various simulation setting and forcing parameter
options (cases I to V) ......................................................... 85
Fig. 3.15
The computed values of a number of U2O
variables for the urban areas around
the aforementioned five weather station locations ............. 88
Fig. 3.16
Correlation between the albedo and CTI values
for summer period for selected areas (A to D)
in Vienna ............................................................................ 89
Fig. 4.1
Flowchart of the human-biometeorological
assessment of the thermal environment ............................. 96
Fig. 4.2
Ta (upper graphs) and PET (lower graphs)
for the period 200–2011 and 2003 for station
Schwabenzentrum in Stuttgart ........................................... 100
Fig. 4.3
Bean plots for air temperature (upper graphs),
PET (middle graphs) and UTCI (lower graphs)
for the Stations Echterdingen (E), Schnarrenberg (Sb),
Neckartal (N), Schwabenzentrum (S) and
Hohenheim (H) for the period 2000–2011 ........................ 102
Fig. 5.1
UHI DSS logical structure of the files ............................... 111
Fig. 5.2
UHI project website ........................................................... 112
Fig. 5.3
First page of the DSS ......................................................... 112
Fig. 5.4
Link to the project logical framework ............................... 113
Fig. 5.5
Logical framework of the project ...................................... 114
List of Figures