zeit.de
Sealed Surfaces Hinder Urban Cooling During Heatwaves: LBEG Analysis
A new analysis by the Lower Saxony State Office for Mining, Energy and Geology (LBEG) reveals that sealed surfaces in cities significantly reduce cooling capacity during heatwaves, while unsealed soil acts as a natural cooler due to water evaporation; the study recommends removing sealed surfaces to combat urban overheating.
- How does the new assessment method developed by LBEG quantify the cooling effect of different land surfaces?
- The LBEG's analysis utilized a novel method combining long-term weather data (1991-2020) with soil and urban planning information to assess cooling capacity across Lower Saxony. The results show a stark contrast between rural areas (over 90% with high cooling capacity) and densely built-up urban areas (very low cooling capacity). This difference is attributed to the water evaporation cooling effect of unsealed soil.
- What is the primary cause of reduced cooling capacity in cities during heatwaves, according to the LBEG analysis?
- A new analysis by the Lower Saxony State Office for Mining, Energy and Geology (LBEG) reveals that sealed surfaces in cities like Hannover, Osnabrück, and Celle significantly reduce their ability to cool down during heatwaves. This is because asphalt and concrete retain heat and release it slowly, even at night. The study found that sealed surfaces hinder the natural cooling effect of soil.
- What are the long-term implications of this research for urban planning and climate change adaptation in Lower Saxony and other similar regions?
- The LBEG recommends removing sealed surfaces and preventing new ones to combat urban overheating. This approach, enabled by the new assessment method, allows for targeted interventions in urban planning and development to enhance cooling capacity and mitigate the impact of heatwaves. The study highlights the importance of considering soil properties in urban climate adaptation strategies.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the negative effects of sealed surfaces and the positive effects of unsealed surfaces, potentially overstating the impact of ground cover on urban temperatures. The headline and introduction immediately focus on the negative impacts of sealed surfaces, setting a tone that prioritizes this aspect of the issue. While the analysis is based on data, the presentation could be perceived as overly alarmist.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and factual. Terms such as "natural air conditioning" and "very high cooling capacity" might be slightly loaded, but they are relatively descriptive and the overall tone remains objective. The use of the word "dramatic" might be slightly subjective. More neutral alternatives could be used to avoid value judgements.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses on the impact of sealed surfaces on urban heat, but omits discussion of other contributing factors to urban heat islands, such as building materials, human activity, and industrial processes. While acknowledging limitations of scope is reasonable, the omission of these factors might lead to an incomplete understanding of the problem and potential solutions.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a clear dichotomy between sealed and unsealed surfaces, suggesting that the solution to urban overheating is solely focused on removing sealed surfaces. This ignores the complexity of urban planning and the multifaceted nature of heat island effects. More nuanced solutions beyond simple resealing might be overlooked.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative impact of urban heat islands due to sealed surfaces. By analyzing the cooling capacity of different land uses, the research suggests solutions like reducing sealed surfaces and promoting climate-adapted urban development to mitigate urban overheating. This directly contributes to SDG 11, specifically target 11.6, which aims to reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including heat stress.