sustainability

Article
Sustainable Design of Vertical Greenery Systems:
A Comprehensive Framework
Mitra Manouchehri 1, * , Joaquín Santiago López 2 and Mercedes Valiente López 3

1 Escuela Técnica Superior de Edificación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
2 Departamento de Lingüística Aplicada a la Ciencia y a la Tecnología, Escuela Técnica Superior de Edificación,
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; joaquin.santiago@upm.es
3 Departamento de Tecnología de la Edificación, Escuela Técnica Superior de Edificación,
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; mercedes.valiente@upm.es
* Correspondence: mitra.manoochehri@gmail.com

Abstract: The greening of buildings’ facades is not a new practice; it has been used since ancient
times for protection and aesthetic purposes. Nowadays, the approach used towards the greening of
facades has changed considerably. Vertical greenery systems (VGS) have been proposed as one of the
innovative solutions to promote sustainable building functions. Present-day facade greenery not only
offers traditional architectural potential but also incorporates advanced materials and technologies
to adapt to the requirements of modern urban life. In recent years, the number of buildings that
use this technology has increased considerably, and accordingly, the technology involved and the
methods of application have changed to be in line with the new necessities. Various types of VGS
have been introduced to provide users with a wider range of options that are applicable in different
climates and conditions. As a result, different methods of VGS implementation have been adopted;
however, there is no established standardization for VGS designs or their variations. Choosing
the proper type of VGS is a crucial step in the decision-making process for VGS design. In this
research, we provide an overview of the most significant existing classifications of vertical greenery
systems and propose a comprehensive classification based on an analysis of their features and
classification criteria. Moreover, influential factors in VGS design are investigated. This article
presents a comprehensive framework for the sustainable design of vertical greenery systems by
Citation: Manouchehri, M.; Santiago outlining the primary parameters that are crucial to identifying and selecting the most suitable type
López, J.; Valiente López, M. of VGS. The framework also incorporates design aspects, thus stressing the necessity of considering
Sustainable Design of Vertical changes to attributes that could affect the overall functionality of a VGS and, as a result, impact the
Greenery Systems: A Comprehensive decision-making process. The results of this study provide a valuable resource to systematically
Framework. Sustainability 2024, 16,
study greenery systems, and their parameters, and also to make informed decisions that are aligned
3249. https://doi.org/10.3390/
with current the sustainability objectives of future research in terms of cost, energy consumption,
su16083249
and maintenance.
Academic Editor: Olaf Kühne
Keywords: vertical greenery system; green wall; green facade; living wall; decision making
Received: 20 February 2024
Revised: 5 April 2024
Accepted: 8 April 2024
Published: 12 April 2024
1. Introduction
The use of vegetation in buildings is a construction technique that has always been
in use. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon is one of the first known instances of an attempt
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. to integrate plants with human-made spaces. Moving forward in time, during the Roman
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Empire, planting trees on the tops and surroundings of buildings was a common practice
This article is an open access article to create shading [1,2].
distributed under the terms and
The first patented vertical greenery system can be traced back to Stanley Hart White
conditions of the Creative Commons
in 1938, and it was called the ‘Vegetation-Bearing Architectonic Structure and System’.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Several decades later, in 1988, French botanist Patrick Blanc patented a modern living wall
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
technique called ‘Mur vegetal’. In this method, the building facade was covered with a felt
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083249 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 2 of 26

layer, allowing the plants to grow without a soil medium using a mechanical irrigation
system that delivers the crucial nutrients for plant growth [1].
Since then, research has focused on the various types of VGS with different themes or
emphases, such as thermal behaviour, vegetation-related topics, or analytical approaches [1].
By 2007, only a few instances of modern vertical greenery systems existed around
the world. The Museum de Qui Branly in Paris and the Caixa Forum building in Madrid
are two famous examples. Nowadays, this practice is becoming more popular, and many
companies are using it to cover existing walls for aesthetic purposes while benefiting from
its many advantages.
Vertical greenery systems can positively impact urban life, in both qualitative and
quantitative terms [3]. To mention but a few, the qualitative benefits derived from VGS are
the reduction of the urban heat island effect, an improvement in air quality, psychological
effects on users, an increase in biodiversity, the creation of natural animal habitats, noise
reduction, and positive social and educational benefits [3–5].
The qualitative benefits include improving building energy efficiency, indoor environ-
mental quality, internal air quality, air filtration and oxygenation, health, better envelope
protection, and interior noise reduction. The quantitative benefits are often associated with
financial returns and increased property value [5].
Despite the proven positive effects of VGS, their implementation is still relatively
scarce. There is a common belief that the cost of installation and maintenance is the main
reason for this lack of use. However, there are other important reasons, such as the lack of
information and opportunities for planners, architects, and decision-makers to efficiently
integrate these systems into the decision-making and planning process with less effort [4,6].
On the other hand, the concept of VGS is relatively new from a technological point of
view; in fact, most VGS types have emerged post-2006 [1]. Different forms of living wall
systems (LWS) have been developed in the last few years, each with specific characteristics.
The development of VGS technology has resulted in the use of typologies specific to
regions and dependent on the professionals dealing with them. It has also given rise
to several different classification systems depending on the market in which the VGS
is implemented [2].
Unlike other building systems, such as green roofs which have been classified as
extensive and intensive, in the case of vertical greenery systems, there is no established
standardization representing their design and variations, which may lead to misunder-
standings in assigning systems and methods [4,7]. This confusion is further aggravated by
a variety of terms for the same types of VGS structures appearing in the scientific resources
and manufacturer’s manuals. The problem with the names of all VGS sub-divisions follows
the same pattern. This fact prevents comparisons being made between research results,
making it necessary to provide information regarding each type of system when discussing
the results to avoid data comparisons between different systems [4,8,9].
The sort of VGS used to place plants on the building facades is one of the main factors
influencing their function [8]. Hence, it is essential to consider the significant differences
between different types of vertical greenery systems, especially between green facades
(GF) and living wall systems (LWS) which could influence a building’s overall thermal
behaviour [8]. Establishing an appropriately organized classification for different VGS
types for buildings is crucial when choosing the right type of greenery system both in new
and retrofitting projects [4].
In recent years, a considerable number of articles have been published on VGS and
various literature reviews have been conducted with the aim of furthering knowledge in
this field. Nevertheless, research studies which provide a comprehensive overview of VGS
typologies and systematically classify them are scarce. The existing research studies mainly
offer a general classification of VGS, which normally follows a more in-depth analysis
of the benefits of one category, especially their contribution to the thermal behaviour of
building envelopes. Some other studies focus on only one VGS type, overlooking the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 3 of 26

others. The main emphasis of such research endeavours lies in exploring recent technical
advancements and solutions.
In response to the escalating adoption of VGS technology in recent years, this re-
search recognizes the need for evolving methodologies and standards to keep pace with
new requirements. We aim to explore the lack of standardized designs and variations
among vertical greenery systems (VGS) despite the introduction of a diverse range of
VGS types tailored to different climates and conditions. The proper selection of a VGS
becomes a pivotal decision-making step, demanding a nuanced understanding of the
available options.
This study will address the gap regarding a VGS classification system through a
comparative analysis of the characteristics of VGS researched previously. A comprehensive
classification system is proposed based on an analytical approach to results that introduces
the most appropriate criteria for VGS classification. A range of important parameters for
decision making in VGS design is proposed after the examination of the existing systems
and their critical elements. Finally, a case study on vertical greenery systems is presented
and their characteristics and properties are analysed based on the classification method
offered in this study.
The outcomes of this research offer a valuable resource for the systematic study of
greenery systems and their parameters. By providing insights into the decision-making
process and aligning it with contemporary sustainability objectives—addressing cost,
energy consumption, and maintenance—the study lays the groundwork for future research
endeavours in the field of vertical greenery. This research serves as a guide for informed
decision-making, facilitating advancements in sustainable urban development.

2. Methodology
In this research, the authors collected data on vertical greenery systems classifications
and systematically searched for evidence within primary qualitative studies concerning
various VGS types. For clarity purposes, we divided the methodological process into two
stages. In the first stage, we aimed to study the most common existing classifications of
vertical greenery systems. In the second part, we offered up a framework that considers
the most important aspects of VGS for the decision-making process within VGS design. To
this end, we carried out the following steps:
1. Initially, data were identified from peer-reviewed scientific papers using keywords
to search through online databases. Following the conventions of systematic re-
search, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) were used to search for relevant articles.
Google Scholar was used to include complementary sources on vertical greenery
system classifications.
Additionally, a variety of VGS structures are available from commercial catalogues
and manufacturers’ websites. However, the purpose of this article is to focus on academic
and scholarly classifications, thus the keyword search was not extended to other sources
such as search engines (Google, Yahoo, etc.).
Since a wide range of terminological approaches are employed for the vertical greenery
on buildings in different studies, the commonly applied terms were considered as keywords
for this search. The terms included ‘Vertical greenery system’, ‘Vertical greening system’,
‘Green vertical system’, ‘Vertical garden’, ‘Vertical green’, ‘Green wall’, ‘Bio-shader’, ‘Bio-
wall’, and ‘Vertical landscaping’ [6,7,9,10]. In this study, we have opted for ‘Vertical
Greenery System (VGS)’ as it is widely recognized and serves as the most comprehensive
representation of these structures.
After carefully examining 36 studies centred on VGS classifications, we specifically
chose 15 studies that presented original and distinct classification systems. This selection
process was key to ensuring that our analysis was based on innovative perspectives and
fresh insights. We excluded the remaining articles from our research because they either
replicated existing classifications or relied solely on established frameworks. By prioritizing
the 15 studies with unique contributions, we aimed to enrich the depth and novelty of
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 4 of 26

our analysis. In Figure 1, a more detailed depiction of the process is provided; it includes
information such as the number of articles examined and the criteria used for their selection.
2. In the second part of the study, a comparative analysis and synthesis of existing
vertical greenery system classifications were conducted. As we indicated in the
Section 1, the main purpose was to develop a new framework for VGS classification
that facilitates the decision-making process within VGS design.
In this respect, we assessed various criteria such as system features, installation
methods, maintenance needs, environmental benefits, and performance indicators. We
analysed these factors to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each classification.
Additionally, we compared their applicability, comprehensiveness, clarity, and ease of
implementation. Beyond these criteria, we also considered factors such as plant compati-
bility, structural support requirements, maintenance needs, aesthetic considerations, and
environmental performance so as to provide an inclusive assessment.
3. Finally, based on the findings from the analysis, we synthesized information to pro-
pose an ultimate classification for vertical greenery systems. The strengths and best
practices from the existing classifications were incorporated and the selection criteria
were refined to create a comprehensive and effective classification framework.
4. As a case study, a group of different VGS were selected and their characteristics have
been analysed based on the ultimate classification to validate the effectiveness of the
framework proposed here. By applying the classification to real-world examples, we
can assess how well it captures the variations within VGS and whether it adequately
categorizes them according to relevant criteria. This case study implementation
will also ensure that the framework is robust, practical, and aligned with current
industry trends and scientific understanding. See Figure 1 for a clearer illustration of
the process.

Figure 1. Selection method.

3. Existing VGS Classifications

The 15 articles selected have been analysed according to the year of their publication
so that the changes that have occurred in VGS classification throughout the evolution of
the vertical greenery systems can be identified.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 5 of 26

The study reveals that the authors applied different general definitions and terms
for VGS classifications in their studies. Thus, for further comparison, it was necessary to
introduce the terms used by the authors into the classification along with their descriptions
to explain the reasons behind the authors’ choices.
The studies by Dunnet and Kingsbury [11] and later Kohler et al. [12] in 2008 were
the first to classify vertical greenery into two categories of green facades and living walls
based on the type of vegetation used. However, by that date, there were few examples of
LWS worldwide.
1. In a study published in 2009, Yu and Hien [13] divided VGS, or their so-called vertical
landscaping (VL), according to species of plants, types of growing media, and con-
struction methods, into four main groups: (1) tree-against-wall type, (2) wall-climbing
type, (3) hanging-down type, and (4) module type.
In this classification, the tree-against-wall type is not exactly a vertical greenery system.
However, due to the strategic method of placing trees around the building surface
and the thermal effects that they directly have on the walls of buildings, the authors
considered it as a vertical greenery method. They describe wall-climbing systems as
climbing plants that cover the walls of buildings naturally or with the help of a trellis
or other supporting system.
Furthermore, the hanging-down type is another vertical landscaping method in which
vegetation can be planted at every level from the floor to cover the partial or entire
facade by hanging down the wall surfaces. Finally, there is module type which is
introduced as the most recent greening concept consisting of lightweight panels that
contain growing media. It is noted that module VGS have a more complicated design
and require set-up and maintenance. This classification does not provide additional
detailed descriptions of the elements and functions of each classification.
2. In 2011, Perez et al. [8] suggested the term ‘green vertical systems of building’ to
generally encompass all the systems available on the market. They proposed another
classification for VGS. In this classification, the authors classified VGS into ‘extensive’
and ‘intensive’ systems according to implementation cost and further maintenance
requirements. On the other hand, this classification also organised the VGS into two
groups, green facades and living walls. It seems that Perez et al. decided to develop
the same method used for green roof classification to categorise VGS; however, this
classification falls short of covering all VGS types and lacks the development of
subdivisions for living wall systems.
Perez et al. subsequently divided extensive VGS into two different groups: (1) Traditional
green facades, which use climber plants as the facade material and as support, and
(2) double-skin green facades or green curtains, which create a double-skin or green
curtain which is separated from the wall. In the case of double-skin green facades, the
systems used are modular trellises and wired or mesh structures [8].
In the classification by Perez, intensive LWs are divided into three groups:
(1) Perimeter flowerpots, where hanging shrubs are planted around the building, cre-
ating a green curtain, (2) geotextile felt, and (3) panels. The panels and geotextile felt
are fixed to vertical supports or the wall structure and support the vegetation that can
be pre-cultivated [8].
3. In 2011, Ottelé [14] also provided a classification for VGS according to which VGS
had been initially classified as green facades and living walls. He further classified
green facades into two groups: climbing and hanging. Climbing green facades
consist of direct and indirect greening systems [9,14]. The hanging green facades
were previously mentioned by Perez et al. [8] and Yu et al. [13] under the names of
‘perimeter flowerpots’ and ‘hanging-down’.
Living walls were divided into two groups in the classification by Ottelé according to
their growing method: hydroponics and substrate-based. Substrate-based living walls
were then divided into three groups: (1) vertical, (2) angled, and (3) horizontal, which
indicates the method of plants’ arrangement [9,14]. Considering the variety of existing
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 6 of 26

LWS hitherto this method, allocating all existing types to one of these categories can
produce limitations and misunderstandings among users.
4. In 2011, Sheweka et al. [15] presented a classification of VGS that replicates the
classification by Yu et al. [13]. The only difference is the omission of the tree-against-
wall group. Ottelé et al. [14] also mentioned this type of greenery and refered to it as
near-wall planting in their research.
5. As in previous approaches, another classification by Perini et al. [16] divided vertical
greenery systems into two groups according to the growing method: facade greening
and living wall systems (LWS). They further classified green facades into direct and
indirect facades. According to their research, direct facades use climbers attached
directly to the building surface, as in traditional architecture, or supported by cables
or a trellis. In indirect facades, the greenery is supported by cables or meshes, which
could be made of different materials (coated steel, stainless steel, galvanized steel,
different types of wood, plastic, or aluminium).
Further, they classified LWS into four groups according to the different principles
of growth and planning: (1) LWS based on plastic planter boxes (HDPE) filled with
potting soil, (2) LWS based on a foam substrate with steel baskets as a support,
(3) LWS based on several felt layers that act as substrate and waterproofing, supported
by a PVC sheet, and (4) LWS based on mineral wood covered by fleece supported by
a metal frame.
Perini et al. (2011) [16,17] used this classification to demonstrate that green facades
and living wall systems (LWS) have different characteristics which help to reduce
temperatures and positively affect buildings’ insulating properties due to the thickness
of the foliage which forms a stagnant air layer and shades the facade and due to water
content, material properties, and possible air cavities being created between the
different layers of leaves.
Perez et al. [18] associated green facades with damage to the facade materials, animal
attraction, and high maintenance costs, while the research by Perini et al. [16] focuses
on the positive aspects of these systems such as cost-efficiency and sustainability.
After an analysis of the VGS types presented by Perini et al. [16,17], Čekić et al. [2]
and Trkulja et al. [19] presented a similar VGS classification that considered the
vegetation growth mechanism and the method of application of the appropriate
types of substructures, as well as the plant substrate and irrigation systems. Neither
the comparison nor selection criteria were fully clarified. However, they used the
classification to further study other criteria such as the environmental impact of VGS
using simulation on the facades of a residential building in urban areas.
6. Susorova et al. [20] also used the conventional classification of green facades and
living walls for VGS. They further classified green facades into two classes:
(1) two-dimensional, formed by cables, ropes, and meshes, and (2) three-dimensional,
formed by rigid frames and cages. Moreover, they went beyond the conventions
of living walls and introduced different classifications of living walls, including
(1) vegetated mats, (2) hanging pockets, and (3) modular systems.
In this classification, vegetated mat living walls consist of fabric layers attached to a
fixed backup layer. Pre-grown plants are inserted into holes cut in the fabric, where
they base their root system. Hanging pocket living walls consist of pocket-shaped
containers attached to a rigid backup layer. Plants are rooted in these felt or plastic
containers filled with planting medium. Modular living walls are made of rigid
rectangular containers filled with a growing medium that can be attached to an
exterior wall or be free standing. They can be in different forms: troughs, boxes with
cells, framed boxes, perforated boxes, or wire cages.
This classification is the most inclusive one to date; however, as far as the green facade
classification is concerned, there is no clear distinction between the two-dimensional
and the three-dimensional systems and the climbers attached to or hanging from the
building surfaces.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 7 of 26

7. In the research by Manso and Castro-Gomes [10] in 2015, a classification of the different
existing green wall systems that were available on the market was proposed according
to their structure and application method. Manso and Castro-Gomes [10] used the
term green wall to address VGS in general and subdivided green walls into two main
groups: green facades and living walls. The authors later classified green facades
as either direct or indirect. In direct green facades, plants are attached directly to
the wall. Indirect green facades are more modern green facade solutions, including
a vertical support structure for the growth of climbing plants. In indirect systems,
plants can be rooted directly in the ground or planters. Indirect green facades include
(1) continuous and (2) modular solutions.
Continuous indirect green facades are based on a single support structure that guides
the development of plants along the entire surface. Green facades with modular
trellises are similar solutions but result from installing several modular components
along the surface. The main difference that Manso and Castro-Gomes [10] reported
was that the modular trellises require vessels for plant rooting and an individual
support structure for guiding plant development.
According to the application method, Manso and Castro-Gomes classified living
walls as continuous or modular. Continuous LWs are based on lightweight permeable
screens into which plants are inserted individually. Modular LWS, which is a relatively
new solution, consists of elements with a specific dimension, including the growing
media where plants can grow. Modular LWS offer differences in arrangement, weight,
and assembly [10].
Manso and Castro-Gomes [10] further classified Modular LWSs into four groups:
(1) Trays, (2) Vessels, (3) Planter tiles, and (4) Flexible bags. Trays consist of rigid
containers attached together to hold the weight of the plants and the substrate. Vessels
are a transformation of the most common support used for plants, but they can be
attached to a vertical structure or be connected vertically to each other. Planter tiles
highlight the modular elements of the design of greenery layer cladding. Flexible
bags include growing media and lightweight materials that facilitate the application
of plants on surfaces with different shapes, such as curved or inclined surfaces.
The classification offered by Manso and Castro-Gomes is one of the classifications that
cover the majority of the existing VGS types. The criteria used in the classification are
based on methods of application and thus might need modifications in the future due
to the expansion and development of application methods.
8. In 2015, C.Y. Jim [21] conducted a study to address the significant variation in the
meaning and use of terms related to VGS up to 2014 and to develop an alternative
classification scheme and the terms associated with it. He proposed a triple-criteria
classification scheme that initially divided green walls (GWs) into climber (CGWs)
and herb–shrub (HGWs) types using the overarching plant growth form. Each type
was further extended based on the following factors:
(A) For climbers, two main factors were considered: (1) The training system (how the
plants are supported) and (2) the wall-toe substrate (the substrate at the base of the
wall). As a result, four options for each factor, leading to 16 possible combinations of
types of climber green walls, became available.
The author introduced four training system states crossed with four wall-toe sub-
strate states, resulting in 16 possible combinations of types of climber green walls
being available.
(B) The factors for herb–shrub green walls were (1) the type of substrate system (how
the vegetation is planted) and (2) whether the substrate is elevated or not, which in
turn yielded eight different types of herb–shrub green walls.
According to C.Y. Jim’s classification, each type and subtype has its own characteristics
and requirements. For example, CGW systems are relatively lightweight and can
be installed above ground with minimal technical constraints in hanging mode, and
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 8 of 26

HGW variants may require specific considerations of their load-bearing capacity,

especially for containerised types with heavy substrates [21].
9. Allan and Kim. [22] introduced the VGS categorisation performed by the Singapore
government and adopted it as the main classification in their approach. This classifi-
cation organised VGS into four categories: (1) Support systems, (2) Cassette systems,
(3) Planter systems, and (4) Pocket systems.
Support systems like the traditional VGS consist of planters climbing on wire trellises
of a distance, generally 3 m apart. Cassette systems consist of modular units con-
taining growing media built for manageable mounting onto metal frame structures
as stand-alone systems or attached to existing wall surfaces. Planter systems are
made of individual pots placed on a frame at regular intervals. Pocket systems are
panels consisting of a minimum of two layers of moisture retention mats attached
to a rigid backing for support. Pockets of openings are made at the outer layer for
plant placement [22].
10. Medl et al. [23] presented a new classification for vertical greenery systems developed
inspired by the ideas previously introduced by Ottelé et al. [14] and Perez et al. [18]
and replicated by Hunter et al. [24] and Safikhani et al. [7], according to which
two general forms of green facades exist: Direct green facades and double-skin green
facades. Direct green facades feature self-clinging climbers, which adhere to the
building exterior using adventitious roots or self-adhesive pads. Double-skin green
facades rely on engineered support structures (modular trellises, stainless steel cables,
or stainless steel/HDPE mesh) to assist the upward growth of a wider variety of
climbing plants.
Safikhani et al. [7] replicated the same classification which was previously offered by
Yu et al. [13]. In many of the studies this classification is assigned to Safikhani et al.;
however, this idea was first proposed by Yu et al., while Safikhani et al. did not make
any substantial contribution to the earlier classification.
Medl et al. [23] suggested the terms ‘ground-based greening method’ and ‘wall-
based greening method’, respectively, to describe green facades and living walls to
emphasise the importance of the planting method.
Ground-based greening methods rely on natural ground, while wall-based greening
methods include direct planting on the wall without a connection to the natural
ground. Green facades are further classified according to the location of the plants,
which can either be placed directly into the soil or into soil-filled planter boxes, for
which they suggest the term ‘planter box-based greening method’ [23].
In their classification, indirect green facades use supporting systems such as stainless-steel
cables, modular trellises, or stainless-steel mesh to assist the upward growth of climb-
ing plants by creating a second-skin layer at a distance from the wall [23].
Furthermore, Medl et al. classified LWS according to their application method as
(1) continuous, (2) modular, or (3) linear systems. In this classification, continuous
green walls are based on a single support structure, while modular green walls result
from installing several modular elements together to form the whole system. Linear
green walls result from cascading components linearly attached to the wall [23].
11. Bustami et al. [1] also classified VGS as green facades or living walls. According to
them, a green facade refers to vegetation grown on or adjoining to a building’s surface.
They further classify green facades into the two categories of direct and indirect. The
direct green facade is the traditional style, and indirect green facades can be grown on
continuous guides or trellises. Both can be planted in the ground or planter boxes.
The authors use the term ‘living wall’ to refer to LWS and claim that living walls could
be developed into modular systems. They classify LWS into three categories: (1) Tray,
(2) Vertical felt, and (3) Horizontal felt systems. However, they do not clearly explain
their selection criteria [1], and their classification is not inclusive.
12. Arenghi et al. [25] by elaborating the classification provided by Bi [26], proposed
a classification to divide VGS systems into specific categories based on the differ-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 9 of 26

ences among the main technological solutions by considering both geometrical and
mathematical properties that have a different effect on the building envelope. They
considered the differences in each group’s interaction with the building envelope to
emphasise the substantial differences in the approach to simulation.
This study classifies VGS into three main categories: Green Barrier Systems (GBS),
Green Coating Systems (GCS), and Green Walls (GW). GBS, including Green Tree Bar-
rier (GTB) and Green Climbing Barrier (GCB), have minimal wall contact, while GCS,
subdivided into Green Climbing Coating (GCC) and Green Modular Coating (GMC),
involve plants growing with or without climbing mechanisms. GW, encompassing
Mur Vegetal (MV), Light Systems (LS), and Heavy Systems (HS), exhibit varying
technical complexities and substrate compositions, forming a gap with walls resem-
bling ventilated facades. This classification aids in understanding the differences
in each group’s interaction with the building envelope to emphasise the substantial
differences in their approach to energy simulation [25].
13. In their study, Karimi et al. [27] proposed a classification system for vertical greenery
systems, defining three categories: wall vegetation, green facades, and living walls.
They introduced a novel classification termed ‘wall vegetation’, representing a type of
VGS where plant growth occurs organically within wall crevices and joints, devoid of
human intervention and lacking structured support systems.
Expanding upon the framework established by Medl et al. [23], Karimi et al.’s classifi-
cations (in the year 2022) of green facades and living walls demonstrate some variance
in the terminology, although the underlying principles remain similar. However, the
study lacks explicit criteria for this classification scheme, leaving some ambiguity as
to why naturally occurring wall vegetation is classified as a form of green wall.
14. Ogut et al. [28] performed a market review of VGS. According to them, ‘vertical green’
refers to all forms of vegetated wall surfaces and is mainly divided into two groups ac-
cording to the absence or presence of the following components: supporting elements,
growing media, vegetation, drainage, and irrigation. GFs require fewer components
when compared to LWs and can be classified based on where the plants are rooted.
LWs are further categorized based on characteristics such as supporting system type,
cultivation method, growing media, and integration potential. The key components of
VGS are the vegetation, structural support system, and growing media. The selection
of vegetation for GFs depends on climate conditions and available light, typically
consisting of climbing and self-clinging species. Various plant options are utilised,
including main-stem twiners, vine types with wiry tendril structures, and plants using
attachment mechanisms like leaf hooking and thorns. In this classification, both GFs
and LWs can be classified into minor categories based on several characteristics.
15. J. Irga et al. [29] built upon the established classification framework for VGS initially
outlined by Manso and Castro Gomez. However, they introduced a novel intermedi-
ate typology termed the Tessellated Double Green Perforated Facade system. This
approach combines features of both green facades and living walls, addressing the
inherent limitations of current systems.
The system diverges from conventional methods by fragmenting modular substrate
panels of living walls into facade elements. These elements are strategically rotated to
be perpendicular to the host building’s facade, thereby forming a porous structure
with apertures. These apertures serve multiple functions, facilitating maintenance
access and creating habitat corridors for various fauna, including birds, insects, and
small animals, providing the maximum diversity and depth to the ecosystem.

4. Analysis of Results
As seen in Section 3, most of the studies agree on the general division of VGS into two
main categories: green facades and living walls [1,9,10,14,16,20]. However, a key challenge
arises from variations in terminology, where certain VGS types are labelled differently
across studies, while some terms are used interchangeably for the same VGS type [10].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 10 of 26

There is also disagreement regarding the living wall classification, including subcategories
and the criteria for classification.
To consider the diverse influences of the vertical greenery systems, various criteria must be
considered. Thus, different greening variants are possible for certain circumstances. Knowledge
of the different existing VGS types, their parameters, and their strengths and limitations makes
it possible to minimize the effort required in the planning process, explore numerous variables,
and thus facilitate decision making for the improvement of sustainable cities [30].

4.1. Comparison and Analysis

It seems that since there is less variety in the types of green facades, the majority of the
authors consent to the classification of green facades into two classes: direct and indirect.
Regarding LWS, there are various discrepancies, and each researcher employs distinct
criteria and methods for classification.
Table 1 shows the 15 studies finally selected for the analysis that employed principles
to classify VGS. We indicate the year of publication and the classification criteria.
Table 1. Results from the analysis.

Classification
Author Year General Classification Sub-Classifications
Criteria
Plant species, type of
Tree-against-wall, wall-climbing,
Yu et al. [13] 2009 growing media, and -
hanging-down, and module type
construction methods
Extensive: 1. traditional green facades,
Requirements of
2. double skin (or green curtain);
Perez et al. [8] 2011 implementation cost and Intensive and extensive
Intensive: 1. perimeter flowerpots,
further maintenance
2. panels, 3. geotextile felt
GF: 1. climbing (direct, indirect), 2. hanging;
Green facades
Ottelé et al. [9,14] 2011 Growing method LW: 1. Hydroponics, 2. substrate-based
and living walls
(vertical, angled, horizontal)
Species of the plants,
Wall-climbing, hanging- down,
Sheweka et al. [15] 2011 types of growing media, -
and module green wall
and construction method
GF: 1. direct, 2. indirect;
Facade greening LWS: 1. based on plastic planter boxes (HDPE),
Perini et al. [16] 2013 Growing method
and living walls 2. based on foam substrate, 3. based on felt layers,
4. based on a foam substrate, 5. based on mineral wood
GF: 1. two-dimensional, 2. three-dimensional;
Green facades
Susorova et al. [20] 2013 Application method LW: 1. vegetated mats, 2. hanging pockets,
and living walls
3. modular systems
Manso and Structure and application Green facades GF: 1. direct, 2. indirect (continuous and modular);
2015
Castro-Gomes [10] method and living walls LWS: 1. (trays, vessels, planter tiles, and flexible bags)
Climber GW: training-system, wall-toe-substrate;
Climber green wall;
C.Y. Jim [21] 2015 Plant growth form Herb–shrub GW: substrate-system,
herb–shrub green wall
elevated-substrate
Support system, cassette system,
Allan et al. [22] 2016 Application method -
planter system, pocket system
Location of plants and Ground-based greening method Ground-based: 1. Direct, 2. double skin;
Medl et al. [23] 2017
application method and wall-based greening method Wall-based: 1. continuous, 2. modular, 3. linear.
Green facades GF: 1. direct, 2. indirect;
Bustami et al. [1] 2018 Not explained clearly
and living walls LW: 1. tray, 2. vertical felt, 3. horizontal felt
GBS: 1. green tree barrier (GTB),
2. Green climbing barrier (GCB);
Green barrier systems (GBS),
Interaction with GCS: 1. green climbing coating (GCC),
Arenghi et al. [25] 2021 green coating systems (GCS),
building envelope 2. green modular coating (GMC);
and green walls (GW)
GW: 1. mur vegetal (MV), 2. light systems (LS),
3. heavy systems (HS)
Wall vegetation, green facades, GF: 1. direct 2. indirect;
Karimi et al. [27] 2022 Growing method
living walls LW: 1. continuous, 2. modular, 3. linear
Green facades Differing based on supporter system, cultivation,
Ogut et al. [28] 2022 Characteristics
and living walls integrity, growing media
Green facades, living walls,
GF: 1. direct, 2. indirect;
J. Irga et al. [29] 2023 Application method tessellated double green
LW: 1. continuous, 2. modular, 3. linear
perforated facade system
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 11 of 26

4.2. Classification Proposed

In this study, we present a refined and more advanced approach to VGS classification.
The proposed classification is developed after a comprehensive examination of existing VGS
types available up to 2024, alongside an evaluation of the classification systems proposed
by the experts in this scientific field. After an extensive analysis of the previous VGS
classifications, we decided that the most comprehensive approach for the classification of
VGS involves the application of a multi-criteria method.
Consequently, for the initial classification stage, we adopted the widely utilised cat-
egorisation which divides VGS into two primary groups: green facades and living wall
systems. This classification, approved and used by the majority of VGS experts, effectively
divides VGS considering the application of primitive or more advanced methods of plant
growth on the building surface.
We further classified green facades into two categories considering the direction of the
plants’ growth:
(1) ascending and (2) hanging green facades.
Unlike the majority of the existing classifications, which divide green facades into only
two groups, direct and indirect [1,9,10,16,18,23], we believe that a separate classification
should be considered for hanging green facades. Hanging greenery systems differ from
ascending systems in terms of attachment and growth mechanisms. They are characterized
by the suspension of plants in containers or planters, which are often attached to (or
designed to be inside) the building’s facade through various means, such as hooks, cables,
or brackets. The plants in hanging systems generally grow downwards, allowing for a
distinctive visual appearance and unique aesthetic qualities.
Both the ascending and hanging groups can be subdivided into two categories: direct
and indirect, depending on whether they rely on a support structure. In the direct method,
plants are affixed directly to the building surface without additional assistance, whereas
in the indirect method, they utilize a support system. The type of support employed
may vary depending on the plants’ requirements and the design objectives, leading to
further classification within the indirect group based on support structure (trellis/mesh
or cable/rope). Another distinguishing factor for green facade systems is whether plants
are grown in planter boxes or directly in the soil. Hanging green facades typically utilize
planter boxes due to their intrinsic nature. However, for ascending green facades, the
planting methods may vary based on design considerations and the facilities available. All
of these types of system could be located at different heights on the facade.
On the other hand, more advanced vertical greenery systems greatly depend on the
material used as the growing medium. Therefore, in this study, the living wall systems
were classified according to their planting methods into two main categories:
(1) soil-based and (2) sheet-based.
Since the growing method directly influences the technical aspects of the VGS, such as
substrate choice, irrigation systems, nutrient delivery, and plant selection, classifying VGS
based on the growing method makes it possible to capture these technical distinctions and
understand the specific requirements and considerations associated with each type of VGS.
In addition, each growing method has its own installation, maintenance, and manage-
ment requirements. By considering the growing method in the classification, it is possible
to provide practical guidance for implementing and maintaining VGS. This information is
crucial for architects, designers, and practitioners who need to understand the practical
aspects of each method when integrating greenery into their projects.
Furthermore, classifying LWS according to the growing media used enables com-
parative analysis and benchmarking among systems that employ similar techniques. It
allows researchers to evaluate the strengths, limitations, performance metrics, and the most
appropriate practices associated with each growing method. This comparative analysis can
lead to the development of more efficient and effective VGS designs.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 12 of 26

The use of different types of soil as breeding grounds is the main factor in the dis-
tinction of LWS types. Soil-based living wall systems use soil as the growing media that
provides support to the vegetation roots, and the plants can grow in it. The soil used can
come in different forms. Depending on the LWS’ functions, sand, mineral wool, perlite, or
a mixture of them can be used as the substrate in these systems.
Soil-based systems are further classified into three sub-categories based on the
planting method:
(1) Hollow systems, (2) pocket systems, and (3) planter systems.
Hollow systems could be used to fix plants into the small mounds of soil in hole-shaped
pockets perforated inside the living wall surface. The wall surface could be made of dif-
ferent materials such as fibreglass, foam, or recycled materials that permit the partial
absorption of water.
In pocket systems, the plants are fixed into the soil and set into bags or pockets. The
pockets are normally made of a flexible material that permits the easy transit of water.
Planter-based systems typically use planter boxes, troughs, or containers built on
or attached to existing walls or support structures. Planting is supported by soil-based
substrates like those used in the pocket and hollow installations, utilising a lightweight com-
bination of recycled materials containing the right balance of nutrients with a free-draining
medium. The planter-based systems can be made of different materials such as HDPE,
metal, wood, etc.
The natural water retention of most soil types allows for the simple design and con-
struction of irrigation systems, thus reducing installation and maintenance costs. However,
a disadvantage associated with soil-based systems is their weight compared to other solu-
tions. New lightweight materials are increasingly becoming available to address this issue.
Another drawback is that the soil needs to be replaced regularly depending on the plants
and the location of the wall.
In sheet-based living wall systems, plants take root in mats made of felt, fibre mats,
or similar substances instead of soil. So, in this case, the mat is the substrate/growing
medium. Sheet-based systems are thin, and they will not be able to retain much water or
hold very large plants with long, thick roots, so this is an essential factor to be considered
by the designers at the decision-making stage.
In recent years, technologies have been developed to help adjust sheet-based LWS to
have better water retention and root-bearing capacities by using different materials, which
also tend to last much longer. Sheet-based systems generally use hydroponic or aeroponic
irrigation methods that employ nutrient-rich water or mist solutions to nourish the plants.
In these systems the vegetation is mostly grown on pre-constructed panels before vertical
installation [31].
Aeroponic and hydroponic techniques employ nutrient-rich water or mist solutions to
nourish the plants
Various authors have proposed categorising living wall systems into “modular” and
“continuous” forms. However, it becomes apparent that relying solely on these criteria is
insufficient for a comprehensive classification of VGS.
While the modular and continuous forms are crucial aspects of VGS design, they
primarily address the physical arrangement and structure of the greenery. Thus, each
sub-category of living wall systems can be further divided into modular and continuous
groups based on their potential for structural assemblage and integrity.
Effective decision-making in VGS design requires the consideration of various techni-
cal factors, such as growing methods, substrate types, irrigation systems, and maintenance
requirements. Focusing solely on one aspect limits the understanding and evaluation of
the diverse design options available, potentially leading to suboptimal design choices and
the inadequate implementation of VGS.
Given the above, a more comprehensive classification that considers multiple criteria,
including growing method and technical considerations, is necessary for effective decision
making in VGS design (see Section 4.3).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 13 of 26

It is very important that the VGS classification is assigned and selected carefully
because it can influence the entire decision-making process. Choosing the method of VGS
application as the main criteria for VGS classification would make the workflow more
manageable and cause less confusion in the selection of the parameters of the design in the
next steps. The result of our classification of VGS is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Classification for VGS (Resource: Manouchehri. M.).

4.3. Parameters for VGS Design

In the previous section, a classification method for VGS was proposed that highlights
the distinctions that can be made between different types of VGS considering the most
influential factors within their design process. Each VGS type consists of multiple individ-
ual elements made of different materials and with corresponding different life spans. For
example, the aluminium troughs used in the aluminium planter system have a potential
useful life of 40 years, whereas the drip hoses used in the irrigation system would merely
last for 10 years according to the product’s datasheet. Therefore, these properties have an
impact on the maintenance and technical servicing of the VGS [32,33].
Once the decision to design a VGS has been made, the process of determining the
VGS type and selecting the plants begins. To design a vertical greenery system successfully
a wide range of criteria must be considered. The primary parameters that should be
considered are type and classification, which identify the general characteristics of a VGS
(Section 4.2). To incorporate a wider range of systems and applications, parameters related
to design aspects should also be considered, as any changes introduced to their attributes
could affect the whole VGS’ function.
Since plants are subject to considerable changes during their life cycle due to their in-
herent characteristics, the consideration of factors such as the height of the plant and the du-
ration of greening in their different phases is important during the decision-making stages.
Other relevant plant specifications like leaf area index and reflectivity should equally
be considered. The result of the studies also shows the importance of including external
environmental factors like solar exposure, shadow, and wind [34]. Furthermore, other
parameters such as irrigation and care and maintenance intervals were proven to play an
important role in the decision-making process at an early stage. Additionally, including
details about biodiversity, effects on the microclimate, construction criteria, and details on
the substructure, etc., seem to play a positive role in the decision-making process.
Research projects, as well as the findings from practical applications, show that an
early integration of greenery into the planning process is necessary to ensure that vertical
greening systems remain healthy in the long term and to be able to include all of the aspects
of the building into the design for sufficient plant care and maintenance [35,36].
Through an analysis of the existing greenery system elements, their features, and
challenges from the pre-design to the maintenance phase, we determined the parameters
that played a significant role in the process of decision-making to achieve an optimum
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 14 of 26

VGS design. Eventually, the selected parameters were classified into eight main groups
according to their functions and impact [6]:
1. Type and classification parameters. This includes parameters that contain infor-
mation about the type of greenery system, its components, and their dimensions and
materials [37–40]. We break these factors down into five principal groups:
• Greenery System Type: This is the most influential part for the designers. One or a
combination of the classifications among the types previously mentioned in Section 4.2
must be selected based on the project’s characteristics and needs.
• Total Dimension of Greenery System: This parameter refers to the overall size and
scale of the greenery system, including its height, width, and depth. It considers the
extent of coverage and spatial requirements for installation.
• Element Dimensions: Element dimensions pertain to the individual components
or modules comprising the VGS, including panels, planters, or modules, and their
respective sizes.
• Climbing Aids: Climbing aids are structures incorporated into the system to support
climbing plants in green facades. These could include trellises, wire meshes, or other
climbing frameworks [37].
• Vegetation Support Structure: This parameter describes the primary framework
or support structure that holds the greenery system in place, providing stability
and anchorage for plant growth. It can vary from simple trellises to more complex
modular systems.
• Substrate: Substrate refers to the material in which the plants are rooted. It includes
considerations such as composition, depth, and drainage properties to support plant
growth effectively.
• Planting: Planting details encompass the selection of plant species, planting density,
and arrangement within the greenery system. It also includes considerations of
the irrigation, fertilization, and maintenance requirements to ensure plant health
and vitality.
2. Facade Design Aspects. This includes the influential parameters that need to be
considered within the planning and design. By carefully considering these aspects, architects
and designers can plan and design VGS that not only enhance the visual appeal of buildings
but also contribute to environmental sustainability and human well-being [37–40]:
• Placement: Placement involves determining the specific location on the building’s
facade where the greenery system will be installed. Factors to consider include struc-
tural integrity, architectural aesthetics, number of building openings and their location,
sunlight exposure, and accessibility for maintenance.
• Orientation: It refers to the direction in which the facade faces relative to the sun.
It influences factors such as sunlight exposure, shading effects, and microclimate
conditions, which in turn affect plant growth and the overall performance of the
greenery system.
• Coverage Pattern Selection: The coverage pattern selection involves deciding how exten-
sively the greenery will cover the facade’s surface. Options range from partial coverage
to full coverage, each offering different aesthetic and environmental benefits. Factors to
consider include visual impact, building aesthetics, and maintenance requirements.
• Plant Choice: Selecting suitable plant species is crucial for the success of the greenery
system. Considerations include climate suitability, water requirements, growth habits,
and aesthetic characteristics. Plants should be chosen based on their ability to thrive
in the specific environmental conditions of the site.
• Selection of Greening Combinations: Greening combinations involve selecting a mix
of plant species, as well as incorporating other elements such as vines, shrubs, or
flowering plants to create visual interest and biodiversity. The combination should be
harmonious, considering factors such as colour, texture, and seasonal variation.
• Selection of Greening Area Ratio (Percentage): The greenery area ratio refers to the
proportion of the facade’s surface that will be covered by vegetation relative to other
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 15 of 26

materials. This ratio affects the visual impact, thermal performance, and environmental
benefits of the greenery system. Balancing aesthetics with functional considerations is
important when determining the appropriate ratio.
• Material Choice: Material choice involves selecting appropriate materials for the
support structure, substrate, and irrigation system within the greenery system. Con-
siderations include durability, weather resistance, sustainability, and compatibility
with plant growth requirements.
• Slope Angle: The slope angle of the facade influences water runoff, sunlight exposure,
and planting arrangements. It affects factors such as drainage, soil erosion, and
plant growth orientation. Choosing an appropriate slope angle ensures the optimal
performance and longevity of the greenery system.
• Structural aspects of the building walls (edging profiles on building Corners): Edg-
ing profiles on building corners refer to the design and construction details used
to integrate greenery systems seamlessly with architectural elements. Edging pro-
files provide structural support, aesthetic cohesion, and weatherproofing for green
facades or living walls. Paying attention to the edging profiles of a building ensures
proper installation, durability, and the visual integration of greenery systems into the
built environment.
3. Irrigation Parameters. The effective design of these parameters ensures that the
greenery system receives sufficient water to support plant growth and vitality while mini-
mizing water waste and the environmental impact of the system [37–39]:
• Moisture Percentage: Moisture percentage refers to the level of soil moisture main-
tained within the greenery system. It is crucial for the health and vitality of plants, as
insufficient or excessive moisture can lead to stress, root rot, or dehydration. Monitor-
ing moisture levels helps to ensure optimal growing conditions and water efficiency.
• Irrigation Systems: Depending on the system’s needs, various irrigation systems can
be employed to deliver water to the greenery system efficiently [37].
• Irrigation Intervals: The frequency at which the greenery system is watered is an
important factor to consider in the design of VGS. This parameter depends on factors
such as the plants’ water requirements, soil type, weather conditions, and season-
ality. Balancing water conservation with plant health is essential, avoiding both
under-watering and over-watering.
4. Care and maintenance. Effective care and maintenance practices are essential for
preserving the functionality and aesthetics of greenery systems over time. A considera-
tion of the necessary actions in this regard can contribute to the long-term success and
sustainability of greenery installations:
• Accessibility: Accessibility refers to the ease with which maintenance personnel can
access and perform tasks within the greenery system. Design considerations should
ensure that access points are strategically located to allow personnel reach all areas of
the system safely and efficiently. This includes provisions for ladders, scaffolding, or
access platforms where necessary.
• Construction: Construction considerations encompass the installation process and
building techniques used to create the greenery system. Quality craftsmanship, proper
waterproofing, and adherence to structural integrity are essential for long-term dura-
bility and performance. The construction methods should also facilitate future mainte-
nance activities, such as irrigation system repairs or plant replacements.
• Maintenance Intervals: Maintenance intervals dictate the frequency at which routine
upkeep tasks are performed to ensure the health and aesthetics of the greenery system.
This includes activities such as pruning, fertilizing, pest control, and irrigation system
checks. Maintenance schedules may vary depending on factors such as plant growth
rates, seasonal changes, and weather conditions.
• Planting Intervals: Planting intervals refer to the timing and frequency of planting new
vegetation within the greenery system. This could involve replacing dead or declining
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 16 of 26

plants, refreshing planting beds, or introducing seasonal varieties for visual interest.
Planting intervals should be coordinated with maintenance schedules to minimize
disruption and optimize plant health.
5. Plant Parameters. Careful consideration of these parameters is essential for creating
resilient and visually appealing sustainable VGS [37–40]:
• Plant Type: The species or variety of plants selected for inclusion in the greenery
system play a crucial role in system’s functionality. This includes considerations such
as deciduous or evergreen, flowering or non-flowering, annuals or perennials, and
native or non-native species. Plant selection should align with the project’s goals, the
site conditions, and design aesthetics.
• Leaf Area Index (LAI): The Leaf Area Index (LAI) is a measure of the total leaf surface
area per unit of ground area. It quantifies the density of foliage within the greenery
system and influences factors such as photosynthetic capacity, shading effects, and
transpiration rates. Higher LAI values indicate denser vegetation cover and potentially
greater environmental benefits.
• Plant Height: Plant height refers to the vertical dimension of the vegetation within the
greenery system. It impacts visual aesthetics, spatial planning, and shading effects.
Selecting plants with varying heights can create visual interest and texture within the
greenery system, while also considering any height restrictions based on architectural
or functional requirements.
• Reflectivity: Reflectivity, or albedo, refers to the ability of plant surfaces to reflect
sunlight. Light-coloured or glossy foliage tends to have higher reflectivity, which can
reduce heat absorption and mitigate urban heat island effects. Reflectivity influences
microclimate conditions, energy usage, and thermal comfort within the surrounding
environment.
• Duration of Greening: Duration of greening refers to the length of time that the
vegetation remains green and actively growing within the greenery system. This
can vary depending on factors such as plant lifespan, seasonal changes, maintenance
practices, and environmental conditions. Selecting a diverse mix of plant species with
staggered growth patterns can help maintain greenery throughout the year.
6. Stress Factors. The external environmental factors that affect the greenery system’s
functions should be considered in the decision-making process when planning out VGS, as
they can greatly affect the following factors:
• Solar Exposure: The intensity and duration of sunlight received by the greenery system
throughout the day should be taken into account in the design calculations. Exces-
sive solar exposure can lead to stress on plants due to heat stress, dehydration, and
photoinhibition. It can also cause leaf scorching, wilting, and sunburn. Proper plant
selection, shading strategies, and irrigation management are essential for mitigating
the negative effects of solar exposure.
• Shadow-Stressed Area: Shadow-stressed areas are regions within the VGS that receive
limited or fluctuating sunlight due to shading from nearby structures, vegetation, or
topography. Plants in these areas may experience reduced photosynthetic activity,
slower growth rates, and an increased susceptibility to fungal diseases. Strategic plant
placement, pruning, and supplemental lighting can help address shadow-stressed
areas and maintain plant health.
• Wind Factor: The wind factor refers to the strength, direction, and frequency of wind
affecting the greenery system. Strong winds can cause mechanical stress on plants,
leading to physical damage, desiccation, and uprooting. Wind can also exacerbate
transpiration rates, drying out plant tissues and soil moisture. Windbreaks, wind-
resistant plant species, and structural reinforcements can help to mitigate the negative
effects of wind stress on greenery systems.
7. Cost information. This refers to the cost of the installation and maintenance of the
greenery system in different phases of its life cycle.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 17 of 26

• Planning: Planning involves the systematic process of envisioning, organizing, and

coordinating the development of greenery systems. It encompasses site analysis,
goal setting, stakeholder engagement, and feasibility assessments. Effective planning
ensures that greenery installations align with project objectives, regulatory require-
ments, and environmental considerations, while maximizing its aesthetic, social, and
ecological benefits.
• Design: Design encompasses the creative and technical process of conceptualizing and
specifying the physical and aesthetic attributes of greenery systems. It involves site
layout, plant selection, irrigation design, structural engineering, and integration with
architectural elements. Design considerations prioritize functionality, sustainability,
accessibility, and visual harmony to create cohesive and resilient greenery installations.
• Construction: Construction involves the physical implementation of greenery systems
according to the approved design plans and specifications. It includes site preparation,
the installation of support structures, planting, irrigation system assembly, and quality
control. Skilled labour, proper equipment, and adherence to safety protocols are
essential for ensuring the successful execution of construction activities within budget
and schedule constraints.
• Substructures: Substructures are the underlying support systems that provide struc-
tural stability and anchorage to greenery installations. These may include foundations,
retaining walls, drainage systems, and irrigation infrastructure. Substructures are
designed to withstand environmental loads, accommodate plant growth, and ensure
the longevity of greenery systems in diverse urban environments.
• Care and Maintenance: Care and maintenance encompass the ongoing activities re-
quired to preserve the health, functionality, and aesthetic appeal of greenery systems
over time. This includes watering, fertilizing, pruning, pest control, and irrigation
system maintenance. Regular monitoring, timely interventions, and proactive man-
agement practices are essential for sustaining plant vitality, preventing damage, and
maximizing the longevity of greenery installations.
• Demolition and Disposal: Demolition and disposal involve the removal and disposal
of greenery systems at the end of their life cycle or when redevelopment is necessary.
This process includes dismantling support structures, extracting plants, and disposing
of materials in accordance with environmental regulations. Proper disposal methods
prioritize recycling, composting, or repurposing materials to minimize waste and
environmental impact.
8. Other Influential Factors. There are other influential parameters that could not be
classified into any of the previous groups but were equally important for the designers:
• Light Condition: Light condition refers to the availability, intensity, and duration
of sunlight received by the greenery system. Factors such as the location of the
site, orientation of the facade, and shading from surrounding buildings influence
light conditions. Understanding these factors helps determine suitable plant species,
planting locations, and irrigation requirements to optimize photosynthesis and
plant growth.
• Effects on Microclimate: Greenery systems can significantly impact the microclimate
of their surroundings by modifying temperature, humidity, wind patterns, and air
quality. Vegetation provides shading, evaporative cooling, and air purification, which
influence thermal comfort and environmental quality in adjacent spaces. Considering
the effects on the surrounding microclimate helps to mitigate heat island effects, reduce
energy consumption, and enhance human well-being, and thus is a crucial factor in
the decision-making processes within designing a VGS.
• Biodiversity: Biodiversity refers to the variety and abundance of plant and animal
species within the greenery system and its surrounding environment. Greenery installa-
tions contribute to urban biodiversity by providing habitats, food sources, and refuge
for wildlife species. Incorporating diverse plant species, vegetation layers, and habitat
features promotes ecological resilience, pollinator health, and ecosystem services.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 18 of 26

• Growing Medium Thickness: The depth or thickness of the substrate layer within
the greenery system can affect root development, water retention, and nutrient avail-
ability for plant growth. An adequate growing medium thickness ensures sufficient
root space and support for vegetation, while also allowing for proper drainage and
soil aeration.
• Life Cycle Assessment Parameters: Life cycle assessment parameters evaluate the
environmental impacts associated with the production, installation, use, and disposal
of greenery systems. This includes considerations such as resource consumption,
energy usage, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste generation. Conducting life cycle
assessments helps to identify opportunities for improving sustainability, reducing
environmental footprints, and informing decision making throughout the project’s
life cycle.
Table 2 proposes a systematic classification of the above-mentioned parameters.
Table 2. Properties and parameter classification, (Resource: Manouchehri. M.).

Type and
Facade Design Irrigation Care and Plant Cost Other Influential
Classification Stress Factors
Aspects Parameters Maintenance Parameters Information Factors
Parameters
Light condition
(location, direction
Greenery system
Placement Moisture percentage Accessibility Plant type Solar exposure Planning and shading from
type
surrounding
buildings)
Irrigation systems Life cycle
Total dimension of Shadow
Orientation (water pipes and Construction Leaf Area Index Design assessment
greenery system Stressed Area
irrigation hoses) parameters
Element Coverage pattern Maintenance Effects on
Irrigation intervals Plant Height Wind factor Construction
dimensions selection intervals microclimate
Planting Care and
Climbing aids Plant choice Reflectivity Biodiversity
intervals maintenance
Selection of
Vegetation Duration Demolition Growing medium
greening
support structure of greening and disposal thickness
combinations
Selection of
Substrate Substructures
greening area ratio
Planting Material choice
Slope angle
Structural aspects of
the building walls

Research shows that a pure consideration of private costs and benefits is not sufficient
to reflect the actual functionality of VGS, since the effects of greening are complex and
impact different groups of people and areas at different levels. Therefore, other criteria need
to be considered in future assessments to make statements about the actual profitability of
these systems in a more comprehensive way [41–43].

4.4. Case Study

As we mentioned in Section 1, the existence of a unified classification system offers the
possibility to further analyse the different VGS types under the same climatic circumstances.
In the following section a case study of Madrid Metropolitan is presented, which can
be considered as an example of a Mediterranean climate. The different types of VGS
constructed in recent years are studied, and their structure and characteristics are analysed
according to the classification method proposed in this study to provide a clearer idea of
the classification presented.
Given the research objectives and context, purposeful sampling was employed to
select vertical greening systems (VGS) for this case study. This method allows for the
selection of cases that are most informative and illustrative of the phenomenon under
study, which, in this case, is the classification and analysis of VGS in urban environments,
specifically in Madrid, Spain.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 19 of 26

Despite the relatively small number of cases (seven), the selection of cases is based on
their relevance to the research objectives and the variability they offer in terms of the type
of VGS. This approach is particularly suitable for this study as it allows use to focus on
cases that provide the most valuable insights into the proposed classification system, thereby
enhancing the validity and reliability of the research findings. However, further investigation
is required to solidify the uniqueness and functionality of the classification system.
The selection of cases in Madrid is advantageous due to several factors. Firstly,
the utilization of VGS in Madrid has been evolving in recent years, ensuring a diverse
pool of examples with variability in the design, installation methods, and maintenance
practices used within Madrid’s urban environment. Furthermore, Madrid’s Mediterranean
climate presents a unique environment in which the performance and characteristics of
VGS can be examined. Additionally, by focusing on real-world examples in Madrid, the
research can provide practical insights into the implementation and effectiveness of VGS
in addressing the challenges of urban settings. Therefore, purposeful sampling in Madrid
enables the research to capture the complexity and variability of VGS while ensuring
that the selected cases are the most representative of and informative for the proposed
classification framework.
An analysis of the structure and characteristics of each VGS type can be found in
Table 3. These data are crucial for assessing the diversity of green facade solutions employed
in urban environments. By examining the characteristics of each system, one can discern
the suitability and effectiveness of different approaches to green facade implementation.
The classifications are justified based on the features described for each system, such
as the method of attachment, the substrate used, irrigation systems, and architectural
considerations. Understanding these classifications aids specialists in making informed
decisions regarding the selection and design of VGS to address specific needs and challenges
in urban environments.

Table 3. Specifications of the vertical greenery systems under analysis, (Resource: Manouchehri. M.).

Year of Type of Greenery

Name Location Area Architect Characteristics
Establishment System
Hispanoamerica VGS Jiloca St., Direct green Ivy climbers attached directly to the
Unknown Unknown -
(Figure 3) Madrid, Spain facade building surface
Santander Bank Castellana, Hanging green Fernando Ivy hanging from
Unknown Unknown
(Figure 4) Madrid, Spain facade Higueras building surface
Ciudad Universitaria Francisco de Diego Indirect green Hedge plants supported by a wire
Unknown Unknown -
VGS (Figure 5) St., Madrid, Spain facade mesh
Use aluminium profiles
dimensioned according to support
Canal Isabel II Bravo Murillo, 42, Hollow-soil 240 m2 divided Singular
2020 requirements, special inert substrate
(Figure 6) Madrid, Spain based into 3 parts Green
of 40 mm thickness, planting of 30
units per square meter
Polyurethane sheet is anchored to
460 m2 , more
Sheet-based the wall of building leaving a gap
Caixa Forum Paseo del Prado 36, than 15,000
2008 living wall Patrick Blanc that allows passage through its
(Figure 7) Madrid, Spain plants, 24 m
system interior for monitoring, automated
height
irrigation, and fertilisation system
Uses modular planter box and soil.
25 m height, Félix
Calle de San The irrigation system utilises the
Hotel Santo 1026 m2 , more González-
Bernardo 1, 2011 Planter-soil based water used by the 50 rooms, and
Domingo (Figure 8) than 110 species Pasquín
Madrid, Spain utilises an advanced illumination
of plants Agero
system during the night
Uses prefabricated frame; consists of
Hileras 17, Paisaje pockets made of lightweight and
El Escarpin (Figure 9) 2016 Pocket soil based 9 m2
Madrid, Spain Sostenido flexible materials; irrigation system
powered by battery

Figures 3–9 present photos of each type of VGS providing a more detailed view of
the systems and their components. In Figure 3, a four-storey residential building with a
green facade is shown. In this case, a direct green facade is applied, using ivy climbers that
directly attach to the building facade to provide a green coating over the building exterior
excluding the building openings, adding natural beauty and visual appeal to the building.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 20 of 26

This direct green facade provides natural insulation, helping to regulate indoor tem-
peratures by reducing heat gain during the summer. This can lead to energy savings and
improved comfort for the building’s occupants. The ivy-covered surface acts as a natural
air filter, removing pollutants and particulate matter from the air and contributing to a
better overall air quality in the neighbourhood while providing habitats and food sources
for birds, insects, and other wildlife, supporting urban biodiversity, and contributing to
the ecological balance in cities. The foliage can help dampen noise pollution from traffic
and other urban sources, creating a quieter and more peaceful environment for building
occupants. However, this VGS requires regular maintenance, including watering, pruning,
and pest control, which can be labour-intensive and costly.

Figure 3. Direct green facade—Hispanoamerica, Madrid, Spain (Resource: Manouchehri. M).

In Figure 4, a hanging green facade can be seen, with vegetation planted in soil on
different levels of the Santander Bank building. Some of the plants are hanging from the
facade, producing a green effect on the wall surface. The amount of plant coverage is small
compared to the building surface, which indicates the aesthetic focus of the designers rather
than the environmental concerns.
While the primary focus may be on visual enhancement, the presence of vegetation
planted at various levels provides several advantages. Firstly, the greenery contributes
to improved air quality by filtering pollutants, creating a healthier environment for both
occupants and the surrounding community. Additionally, the plants aid in temperature
regulation, reducing the building’s energy consumption by providing natural shade and
lowering the need for excessive cooling. Moreover, the green facade supports urban
biodiversity by offering a habitat for birds, insects, and other wildlife, thereby promoting
ecological balance within the urban landscape. Furthermore, the vegetation acts as a natural
sound barrier, mitigating noise pollution from nearby traffic or urban activities.

Figure 4. Hanging green facade—Castellana, Madrid, Madrid, Spain (Resource: Manouchehri. M).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 21 of 26

Figure 5 shows an indirect green facade applied to the exterior part of a building
complex. Hedge plants are used which are supported by a wire mesh to hold the plants at
a distance from the wall. This design offers specific benefits that go beyond mere aesthetics.
Firstly, the space created between the plants and the building wall serves as an effective
insulating layer, contributing to energy efficiency by regulating internal temperatures. This
not only reduces energy consumption but also leads to cost savings for building occupants.
Moreover, the hedge plants play a crucial role in improving air quality by filtering pollutants
and capturing particulate matter, thereby creating a healthier environment for residents
and visitors alike. Additionally, the dense foliage provides a habitat for wildlife, promoting
biodiversity within the urban landscape. Visually, the greenery softens the appearance of
the building complex, adding visual interest and enhancing the overall aesthetic appeal of
the surroundings. Furthermore, the hedge plants act as a natural sound barrier, reducing
noise pollution from external sources and creating a more tranquil environment within the
complex. Offering privacy and screening, they enhance comfort and security for occupants.
Finally, through carbon sequestration, the plants contribute to mitigating climate change by
absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Figure 5. Indirect green facade—Ciudad Universitaria, Madrid, Spain (Resource: Manouchehri. M).

Regarding living wall systems, there has been a fast growth in the number these
systems in recent years, and thus several LWS can be found in Madrid. However, to avoid
redundancy, only one example of each type was selected for further analysis.
Figure 6 is a hollow-soil-based living wall system with hole-shaped pockets composed
of a fibre substrate. The fibre substrate used in the hole-shaped pockets retains moisture
for extended periods, reducing the frequency of irrigation needed to sustain the vertical
garden. This not only conserves water but also minimizes maintenance requirements,
making the system more sustainable and cost-effective in the long run. Additionally, the
modular form of the panels simplifies the assembly process, allowing for easy installation
and customization to fit the specific needs and dimensions of the site. The incorporation
of a remote-controlled irrigation system further enhances efficiency by enabling precise
management of watering schedules and nutrient delivery, ensuring optimal growth con-
ditions for the diverse array of plant species selected for the vertical garden. Moreover,
by utilizing a variety of plants suitable for the climate of Madrid, the living wall system
contributes to local biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, providing habitats and food
sources for pollinators and other beneficial wildlife.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 22 of 26

Figure 6. Pocket-soil-based living wall system—Canal Isabel II, Spain (Resource: Manouchehri. M).

The famous vertical greenery system of the Caixa Forum designed by Patrick Blanc
is an example of a sheet-based green wall (Figure 7). According to the classification
proposed in this study, this VGS can be classified as a sheet-based living wall system. A
non-biodegradable felt substrate with very small openings on the surface for inserting
greenery is used for potting plants.
A polyurethane sheet is anchored to the wall of the building, leaving a gap that allows
passage through its interior for monitoring of the irrigation and fertilization system, which is
located at different heights. It includes a network of pipes placed in layers with emitters, fed
by a pump. Irrigation is vertical and layered, using gravity, wetting the felt layer and being
spread by the plants; all of this is automated. Nearly 300 different species were chosen to
sustain the façade throughout the demanding hot summers and cold winters of Madrid.

Figure 7. Sheet based living wall system—Caixa Forum, Madrid, Spain. (Resource: Manouchehri. M).

The hanging garden of the Hotel Santo Domingo, with a 1000 m2 surface, and more
than 260 plant species, is an example of a planter-based living wall system (Figure 8). The
planters are positioned at an elevated level, where certain spaces were adapted for the
soil and placed towards the edges of the planters in a way that allows the vegetation to
overhang, and some of the branches of the the larger plants could drop to the lower levels.
An air chamber is then generated between the building wall and the planters, which is
used for work and maintenance purposes so that work can be carried out in complete
safety and is perfectly accessible at any time. Irrigation was carried out with localized
drip irrigation, self-compensating to each planter and with independent phases depending
on the location of the plants. To make the best use of the available water resources and
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 23 of 26

reduce water consumption, the water from 50 hotel rooms (toilets and showers) is collected,
filtered, and purified for reuse in the irrigation system.

Figure 8. Planter-soil-based living wall system—Hotel Santo Domingo, Madrid, Spain (Resource:
Manouchehri. M).

In Figure 9, a relatively small pocket-soil-based living wall system can be seen. The VGS is
used to decorate a bare wall that belongs to a restaurant. A prefabricated frame is installed on
the wall surface covered with a felt fabric layer which consists of pockets filled with soil. Pockets
are made of lightweight and flexible materials and have space for root insertion and the growth
of plants. The irrigation system is powered by a battery that lasts for approximately 2 years.

Figure 9. Pocket-Soil-based living wall system—El Escarpin, Madrid, Spain (Resource: Manouchehri. M).

This study proposes the creation of a central online platform that provides precise naming
for VGS and detailed descriptions of their functions and components. This platform allows
researchers and manufacturers to contribute to the data synchronisation by adding their results
and commenting on the content, making it possible to compare different greenery systems.
Further study on the design and use of this online platform requires the multidisci-
plinary collaboration of architects, manufacturers, urban planners, landscape designers,
and other relevant experts. The form of access to data revision and the details of the
application can be developed in future studies.

5. Conclusions
This study introduces a novel framework for the classification of vertical greenery
systems (VGS) and addresses the critical need for consistency and clarity in this burgeoning
field. By meticulously analysing existing classifications and synthesizing their strengths
and limitations, our approach presents a multi-criteria-based classification system for VGS,
providing a comprehensive framework that can be adapted to diverse urban contexts.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 24 of 26

One of the key contributions of this work is the introduction of hanging green facades
as a distinct category, recognizing their unique characteristics and requirements compared to
traditional direct and indirect green facades. Moreover, our classification system emphasises
the importance of classifying LWS according to their substrate type, resulting in the two sub-
categories of sheet-based and soil-based living wall systems, which can affect the technical
considerations, implementation requirements, and maintenance protocols for these systems.
The proposed multi-criteria approach enables decision-makers, architects, and urban planners
to make informed choices aligned with contemporary sustainability objectives, considering
environmental impact, cost effectiveness, and maintenance efficiency.
Furthermore, our study identifies eight crucial parameters that are essential for opti-
mizing VGS design decisions, which range from facade design aspects to plant parameters
and cost information. Understanding these influential factors enables the development of
innovative, site-specific designs that can be tailored to meet the evolving needs of urban
environments, which in turn ensures that VGS installations are not only effective but also
sustainable, resilient, and capable of bringing multifaceted benefits.
The field of vertical greenery systems continues to evolve and is fuelled by advance-
ments in technology and design approaches. So, ongoing research and collaboration among
experts are imperative. This collaborative effort will facilitate the continuous refinement
and updating of our classification framework, ensuring its relevance and applicability to a
constantly changing urban landscape.
An online platform for the precise naming and description of VGS is proposed to facilitate
collaboration among researchers and manufacturers. The aim is to ensure easy access to the
latest information concerning critical factors pertinent to decision making and the design of
VGS. However, further research is necessary to enable multidisciplinary development and
application. By embracing innovation and cooperation, we can harness the full potential of
vertical greenery systems to create healthier, more sustainable cities for generations to come.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M.; investigation, M.M.; writing—original draft prepa-

ration, M.M.; writing—review and editing, J.S.L. and M.V.L.; supervision, J.S.L. and M.V.L.; funding
acquisition, J.S.L. and M.V.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

CGW Climber Green Wall

GBS Green Barrier System
GCB Green Climbing Barrier
GCC Green Climbing Coating
GCS Green Coating System
GF Green Facade
GMC Green Modular Coating
GTB Green Tree Barrier
HGW Herb-shrub Green Wall
LS Light System
LW Living Wall
LWS Living Wall System
MV Mur Vegetal
VGS Vertical Greenery System
WoS Web of Science
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 25 of 26

References
1. Bustami, R.A.; Belusko, M.; Ward, J.; Beecham, S. Vertical greenery systems: A systematic review of research trends. Build. Environ.
2018, 146, 226–237. [CrossRef]
2. Čekić, S.; Trkulja, T.; Došenović, L. Typology of vertical greenery system. Grad̄evinar 2020, 72, 1011–1019.
3. Loh, S. Living walls–a way to green the built environment. Environ. Des. Guide 2008, TEC 26, 1–7.
4. Radić, M.; Brković Dodig, M.; Auer, T. Green facades and living walls—A review establishing the classification of construction
types and mapping the benefits. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4579. [CrossRef]
5. Wood, A.; Bahrami, P.; Safarik, D. Green Walls in High-Rise Buildings: An Output of the CTBUH Sustainability Working Group;
Images Publishing: Chadstone, VIC, Australia, 2014.
6. Manouchehri, M.; Valiente López, M.; Santiago López, J. BIM Technology in Green Buildings: Integrating BIM with Greenery
Systems. In New Technologies in Building and Construction; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 141–166.
7. Safikhani, T.; Abdullah, A.M.; Ossen, D.R.; Baharvand, M. A review of energy characteristic of vertical greenery systems.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 40, 450–462. [CrossRef]
8. Pérez, G.; Coma, J.; Martorell, I.; Cabeza, L.F. Vertical Greenery Systems (VGS) for energy saving in buildings: A review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 139–165. [CrossRef]
9. Bartesaghi Koc, C.; Osmond, P.; Peters, A. Towards a comprehensive green infrastructure typology: A systematic review of
approaches, methods and typologies. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 15–35. [CrossRef]
10. Manso, M.; Castro-Gomes, J. Green wall systems: A review of their characteristics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 863–871.
[CrossRef]
11. Dunnett, N.; Kingsbury, N. Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls; Timber Press: Portland, OR, USA, 2004.
12. Köhler, M. Green facades—A view back and some visions. Urban Ecosyst. 2008, 11, 423–436. [CrossRef]
13. Yu, C.; Hien, W.N. Thermal impact of strategic landscaping in cities: A review. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2012, 3, 237–260. [CrossRef]
14. Ottelé, M.; Perini, K.; Fraaij, A.L.A.; Haas, E.M.; Raiteri, R. Comparative life cycle analysis for green facades and living wall
systems. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 3419–3429. [CrossRef]
15. Sheweka, S.; Magdy, A.N. The living walls as an approach for a healthy urban environment. Energy Procedia 2011, 6, 592–599.
[CrossRef]
16. Perini, K.; Ottelé, M.; Haas, E.M.; Raiteri, R. Vertical greening systems, a process tree for green facades and living walls.
Urban Ecosyst. 2013, 16, 265–277. [CrossRef]
17. Perini, K.; Ottelé, M.; Haas, E.M.; Raiteri, R. Greening the building envelope, façade greening and living wall systems. Open J.
Ecol. 2011, 1, 1–8. [CrossRef]
18. Perez, G.; Rincon, L.; Vila, A.; Gonzalez, J.M.; Cabeza, L.F. Green vertical systems for buildings as passive systems for energy
savings. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 4854–4859. [CrossRef]
19. Trkulja, T.; Radujković, M.; Nikolić-Topalović, M. Vertical greenery system: A model for improving energy efficiency of buildings.
Grad̄evinar 2022, 74, 561–571.
20. Susorova, I.; Bahrami, P. Facade-Integrated Vegetation as an Environmental Sustainable Solution for Energy-Efficient Buildings;
MADE Research Journal of Cardiff University: Cardiff, UK, 2013; pp. 6–14.
21. Jim, C.Y. Greenwall classification and critical design-management assessments. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 77, 348–362. [CrossRef]
22. Allan, S.; Kim, H. A study of workflow for simulations of vertical greenery systems. Archit. Res. 2016, 6, 142–153.
23. Medl, A.; Stangl, R.; Florineth, F. Vertical greening systems—A review on recent technologies and research advancement.
Build. Environ. 2017, 125, 227–239. [CrossRef]
24. Hunter, A.M.; Williams, N.S.; Rayner, J.P.; Aye, L.; Hes, D.; Livesley, S.J. Quantifying the thermal performance of green façades:
A critical review. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 63, 102–113. [CrossRef]
25. Arenghi, A.; Perra, C.; Caffi, M. Simulating and comparing different vertical greenery systems grouped into categories using
energyplus. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4802. [CrossRef]
26. Bit, E. Il Nuovo Verde Verticale: Tecnologie, Progetti, Linee Guida; Wolters Kluwer: Assago, Italy, 2012.
27. Karimi, K.; Farrokhzad, M.; Roshan, G.; Aghdasi, M. Evaluation of effects of a green wall as a sustainable approach on reducing
energy use in temperate and humid areas. Energy Build. 2022, 262, 112014. [CrossRef]
28. Ogut, O.; Tzortzi, N.J.; Bertolin, C. Vertical green structures to establish sustainable built environment: A systematic market
review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12349. [CrossRef]
29. Irga, P.J.; Torpy, F.R.; Griffin, D.; Wilkinson, S.J. Vertical greening systems: A perspective on existing technologies and new design
recommendation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6014. [CrossRef]
30. Hollands, J.; Korjenic, A. Evaluation and planning decision on facade greening made easy—Integration in BIM and implementa-
tion of an automated design process. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9387. [CrossRef]
31. Fernando, D.; Navaratnam, S.; Rajeev, P.; Sanjayan, J. Study of technological advancement and challenges of façade system for
sustainable building: Current design practice. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14319. [CrossRef]
32. Dettmar, J.; Pfoser, N.; Sieber, S. Gutachten Fassadenbegrünung; Technical University of Darmstadt: Darmstadt, Germany, 2016; p. 98.
33. Pamminger, M. Entwicklung Eines Ökologischen Bewertungsmodells für Begrünungssysteme in Kombination mit PV-Modulenunter
Betrachtung des Gesamten Lebenszyklus. Master’s Thesis, Technische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria, 2016.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3249 26 of 26

34. Perini, K.; Magrassi, F.; Giachetta, A.; Moreschi, L.; Gallo, M.; Del Borghi, A. Environmental sustainability of building retrofit
through vertical greening systems: A life-cycle approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4886. [CrossRef]
35. Izlam, T. Living-Wall Integrated Facades: Incorporating Energy Performance Evaluation. Master’s Thesis, The Pennsylvania State
University, State College, PA, USA, 2021.
36. Chew, M.Y.L.; Conejos, S.; Bin Azril, F.H. Design for maintainability of high-rise vertical green facades. Build. Res. Inf. 2018, 47,
453–467. [CrossRef]
37. Hollands, J.; Korjenic, A. Ansätze zur ökonomischen Bewertung vertikaler Begrünungssysteme. Bauphysik 2019, 41, 38–54.
[CrossRef]
38. Wang, X.; Gard, W.; Borska, H.; Ursem, B.; Van De Kuilen, J.W.G. Vertical greenery systems: From plants to trees with self-growing
interconnections. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2020, 78, 1031–1043. [CrossRef]
39. Reyhani, M.; Santolini, E.; Tassinari, P.; Torreggiani, D. Environmental assessment of design choices of green walls based for
materials combination and plants. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2023, 28, 1078–1091. [CrossRef]
40. Dahanayake, K.K.C.; Chow, C.L. Studying the potential of energy saving through vertical greenery systems: Using EnergyPlus
simulation program. Energy Build. 2017, 138, 47–59. [CrossRef]
41. Conejos, S.; Chew, M.Y.L.; Bin Azril, F.H. Green maintainability assessment of high-rise vertical greenery systems. Facilities 2019,
37, 1008–1047. [CrossRef]
42. Manso, M.; Teotónio, I.; Silva, C.M.; Cruz, C.O. Green roof and green wall benefits and costs: A review of the quantitative
evidence. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 2020. [CrossRef]
43. Tudiwer, D.; Hollands, J.; Korjenic, A. Berechnung der Kühlgestehungskosten von fassadengebundenen Begrünungssystemen im
städtischen Raum. Bauphysik 2019, 2, 120–124. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.