Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27369974›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of biometeorology2017

Comparison of selected approaches for urban roughness determination based on voronoi cells.

Christine Ketterer, Marcel Gangwisch, Dominik Fröhlich, Andreas Matzarakis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of biometeorology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christine KettereriMA Richter & Röckle, Eisenbahnstrasse 43, 79098, Freiburg, Germany.
Marcel GangwischChair of Environmental Meteorology, Albert-Ludwigs- University of Freiburg, Werthmannstraße 10, 79085, Freiburg, Germany.
Dominik FröhlichChair of Environmental Meteorology, Albert-Ludwigs- University of Freiburg, Werthmannstraße 10, 79085, Freiburg, Germany. dominik.froehlich@meteo.uni-freiburg.de.
Andreas MatzarakisResearch Center Human Biometeorology, Deutscher Wetterdienst, Stefan-Meier-Str. 4, 79104, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wind speed is reduced above urban areas due to their high aerodynamic roughness. This not only holds for above the urban canopy. The local vertical wind profile is modified. Aerodynamic roughness (both roughness length and displacement height) therefore is relevant for many fields within human biometeorology, e.g. for the identification of ventilation paths, the concentration and dispersion of air pollutants at street level or to simulate wind speed and direction in urban environments and everything depending on them. Roughness, thus, also shows strong influence on human thermal comfort. Currently, roughness parameters are mostly estimated using classifications. However, such classifications only provide limited assessment of roughness in urban areas. In order to calculate spatially resolved roughness on the micro-scale, three different approaches were implemented in the SkyHelios model. For all of them, the urban area is divided into reference areas for each of the obstacles using a voronoi diagram. The three approaches are based on building and [+one of them also on] vegetation (trees and forests) data. They were compared for the city of Stuttgart, Germany. Results show that the approach after Bottema and Mestayer (J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 74-76:163-173 1998) on the spatial basis of a voronoi diagram provides the most plausible results.

Indexed as

CitiesModels, TheoreticalWindGermanyDisplacement heightRoughness lengthSkyHeliosStuttgartVoronoi diagram

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.