Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Climatology

, Volume 108, Issue 1–2, pp 105–117 | Cite as

Characterization and estimation of urban heat island at Toronto: impact of the choice of rural sites

  • Tanzina Mohsin
  • William A. Gough
Original Paper

Abstract

In this study, the urban heat island of Toronto was characterized and estimated in order to examine the impact of the selection of rural sites on the estimation of urban heat island (UHI) intensity (∆T u-r). Three rural stations, King Smoke Tree (KST), Albion Hill, and Millgrove, were used for the analysis of UHI intensity for two urban stations, Toronto downtown (Toronto) and Toronto Pearson (Pearson) using data from 1970 to 2000. The UHI intensity was characterized as winter dominating and summer dominating, depending on the choice of the rural station. The analyses of annual and seasonal trends of ∆T u-r suggested that urban heat island clearly appears in winter at both Toronto and Pearson. However, due to the mitigating effect on temperature from Lake Ontario, the estimated trend of UHI intensity was found to be less at Toronto compared to that at Pearson which has no direct lake effect. In terms of the impacts of the rural stations, for both KST and Millgrove, the trends in UHI intensity were found to be statistically significant and also were in good agreement with the estimates of UHI intensities reported for other large cities in the USA. Depending on the choice of the rural station, the estimated trend for the UHI intensity at Toronto ranges from 0.01°C/decade to 0.02°C/decade, and that at Pearson ranges from 0.03°C/decade to 0.035°C/decade during 1970–2000. From the analysis of the seasonal distribution of ∆T u-r, the UHI intensity was found to be higher at Toronto in winter than that at Pearson for all three rural stations. This was likely accounted for by the lower amount of anthropogenic heat flux at Pearson. Considering the results from the statistical analysis with respect to the geographic and surface features for each rural station, KST was suggested to be a better choice to estimate UHI intensity at Toronto compared to the other rural stations. The analysis from the current study suggests that the selection of a unique urban–rural pair to estimate UHI intensity for a city like Toronto is a critical task, as it will be for any city, and it is imperative to consider some key features such as the physiography, surface characteristics of the urban and rural stations, the climatology such as the trends in annual and seasonal variation of UHI with respect to the physical characteristics of the stations, and also more importantly the objectives of a particular study in the context of UHI effect.

Keywords

Urban Heat Island Urban Station Rural Station Urban Heat Island Effect Urban Heat Island Intensity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ackerman B (1985) Temporal march of the Chicago heat island. J Clim Appl Meteorol 24:547–554Google Scholar
  2. Adebayo YR (1991) Heat island in a humid tropical city and its relationship with potential evaporation. Theor Appl Climatol 43:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Böhm R (1998) Urban bias in temperature time series- A case study for the city of Vienna, Austria. Climatic Change 38:113–128.Google Scholar
  4. Camilloni I, Barros V (1997) On the urban heat island effect dependence on temperature trends. Climatic Change 37:665–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Çiçek İ, Doğa U (2006) Detection of urban heat island in Ankara, Turkey. IL NUOVO CIMENTO 29 C(4):399–409Google Scholar
  6. Eliasson I (1994) Urban-suburban-rural air temperature differences related to street geometry. Phys Geogr 15:1–22Google Scholar
  7. Gough WA, Rozanov Y (2001) Aspects of Toronto’s climate: heat island and Lake Breeze. Canadian Meteorological Oceanographic Society Bulletin 29:67–71Google Scholar
  8. Hansen J, Ruedy R, Sato M, Imhoff M, Lawrence W, Easterling D, Peterson T, Karl T (2001) A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J Geophys Res 106:23947–23963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hedquist BC, Brazel AJ (2006) Urban, residential and rural climate comparisons from mobile transects and fixed stations: Phoenix, Arizona. J Arizona Naveda Acad Sci 38:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (1992) Statistical methods in water resources. Elsevier, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Hirsch RM, Slack JR, Smith RA (1982) Techniques of trend analysis for monthly water quality data. Water Resour Res 18:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones PD, Kelly PM, Goodess CM, Karl T (1989) The effect of urban warming on the northern hemisphere temperature average. J Clim 2:285–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalnay E, Cai M (2003) Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature 423:528–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King Township History and Heritage (2006) http://www.tourism.my-king.com/heritage.html. Accessed February 2011.
  15. Klysik K, Fortuniak K (1999) Temporal and spatial characteristics of the urban heat island of Lodz, Poland. Atmos Environ 33:3885–3895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lowry WP (1977) Empirical estimation of urban effects on climate: a problem analysis. J Appl Meteorol 16:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mohsin T, Gough WA (2010) Trend analysis of long-term temperature time series in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Theoretical and Applied Climatology 101:311–327 Google Scholar
  18. Munn RE, Hirt MS, Findlay BF (1969) A climatological study of urban temperature anomaly in the lakeshore environment of Toronto. J Clim Appl Meteorol 8:411–422Google Scholar
  19. Nasrallah HA, Brazel AJ, Bailing RC (1990) Analysis of the Kuwait City urban heat island. Int J Climatol 10:401–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oke TR (1973) City size and the urban heat island. Atmos Environ 7:769–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oke TR (1976) The distinction between canopy and boundary-layer heat islands. Atmosphere 14:268–277Google Scholar
  22. Oke TR (1982) The energetic basis of the urban heat island. Q J Roy Meteorol Soc 108:1–24Google Scholar
  23. Ripley EA, Archibold OW, Bretell DL (1996) Temporal and spatial temperature patterns in Saskatoon. Weather 51:398–405Google Scholar
  24. Runnalls KE, Oke TR (2000) Dynamics and controls of the near-surface heat island of Vancouver, British Columbia. Phys Geogr 21:283–304Google Scholar
  25. Sakakibara Y, Owa K (2005) Urban-rural temperature differences in coastal cities: influence of rural sites. Int J Climatol 25:811–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sen PK (1968) Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall’s Tau. J Am Stat Assoc 63:1379–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sneyers R (1990) On the statistical analysis of series of observations. WMO technical note 143. WMO No. 415, TP-103. World Meteorological Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. Stewart ID (2000) Influence of meteorological conditions on the intensity and form of the urban heat island effect in Regina. The Canadian Geographer 44(3):271–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stewart ID, Oke TR (2006) Methodological concerns surrounding the classification of urban and rural climate stations to define urban heat island magnitude. In: International Association for Urban Climate (Ed.) The Sixth International Conference on Urban Climate, 12th - 16th, June, 2006, Göteborg, Sweden. Göteborg, International Association for Urban Climate. pp.1–4Google Scholar
  30. Stewart ID, Oke TR (2009) Newly developed “Thermal Climate Zones” for defining and measuring urban heat island magnitude in the canopy layer. In: International Association for Urban Climate (Ed.) 8th Symposium on the Urban Environment, 10-15 January, 2009, Phoenix, AZ. Phoenix, American Meteorological Society. pp. 1–4Google Scholar
  31. Stone B Jr (2007) Urban and rural temperature trends in proximity to large US cities: 1951–2000. Int J Climatol 27:1801–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trenberth KE, Jones PD, Ambenje P, Bojariu R, Easterling D, Klein A, Tank D, Parker F, Rahimzadeh JA, Renwick M, Rusticucci B, Soden, Zhai P. (2007) Observations: surface and atmospheric climate change. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Unger J (1996) Heat island intensity with different meteorological conditions in a medium-sized town: Szeged, Hungary. Theor Appl Climatol 54:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vincent LA, Gullett DW (1999) Canadian historical and homogeneous temperature datasets for climate change analysis. Int J Climatol 19:1375–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. von Storch H (1995) Misuses of statistical analysis in climate research. In: Storch HV, Navarra A (eds) Analysis of climate variability: applications of statistical techniques. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–26Google Scholar
  36. von Storch H, Zwiers FW (1999) Statistical analysis in climate research. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  37. Yue S, Wang CY (2002) Power of the Mann-Whitney test for detecting a shift in median or mean of hyrdo-meteorological data. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 16:307–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yue S, Pilon P, Phinney B, Cavadias G (2002) The influence of autocorrelation on the ability to detect trend in hydrological series. Hydrolog Process 16:1807–1829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang X, Vincent LA, Hogg WD, Niitsoo A (2000) Temperature and precipitation trends in Canada during the 20th century. Atmosphere-Ocean 38:395–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations