 I'm Ashley and today I'll be presenting and discussing the potentials of going green vertically. So urbanization and densification continue to present a range of environmental challenges as our urban environment shifts from green to gray. Space limitations is one of the main issues in urban areas as green space is often in competition with other land uses or socioeconomic priorities. Despite this, many global cities aim to achieve sustainability targets or green goals in the near future. For example, the city of Sydney has a goal of 40% green cover by 2050. The city of Melbourne aims to achieve their 40% by 2040 and Brisbane by 2031. So urban planners, researchers and green stakeholders alike started thinking vertically when it came to re-greening cities and this vertical approach has already been implemented across Europe and Singapore, but it seems to be less so in Australia. So at current it is unknown if we can achieve these targets with current structures and designs across our cities and it was difficult to determine if it was even possible. So we developed an evaluation tool that could quantify the amount of green walls that could potentially be green wall retrofitted. This tool was applied and tested across five major cities and then the results were compared both between and within each city to assess the green wall suitability for each area. Firstly, an initial set of criteria was applied to eliminate walls from further analysis. These elimination criteria represented situations or structures where retrofitting would not be suitable to do structural and regulatory issues. If an exclusionary criteria was not triggered, then each wall underwent an evaluation through a series of additional questions. This resulted in each wall having a score from zero to six. The higher the score, the more suitable the wall was for retrofit. Then the tool was tested across five major Australian cities. These locations were selected as they generally the densest and most spatially constrained within each city and would therefore benefit the most from vertical greening. Google Street View was used to walk through these sample areas. The use of Google Street View allowed for every street and every potential wall to be assessed. This also ensured that the tool was accessible and allowed a comprehensive green wall retrofit evaluation whilst enabling comparisons between areas. Walls and building surfaces with no Street View available or walls that had already been green walled were given a separate rating. The information was then spatially mapped accordingly. Sydney was found to have a high green wall potential with both the fewest number of walls eliminated and the largest proportion of highly rated walls amongst the tested cities. In addition, 20% of the walls were considered moderately retrofitable. Retrofitable walls were more common in the east and south sides of the area. This was due to regions transitioning into residential areas resulting in less walls being eliminated. Melbourne was also quite green wallable with a larger portion of walls across all rating scores. The northern half of Melbourne's city centre demonstrated a greater proportion of feasible walls interestingly despite this area being less densely built. This could be driven by the presence of residential buildings and also the absence of low-scoring laneways or art installations which is unique to Melbourne. Brisbane demonstrated a similar green wall potential to Sydney and Melbourne with the highest percentage of highly retrofitable walls and the second lowest number of walls eliminated at 61%. Though despite having a green wall potential, Brisbane had the second lowest percentage of existing green walls already. For Brisbane, the northwestern region had the most walls with a high rating particularly due to property boundaries with no attached structural regulations or issues. Perth and Adelaide were similar in regards to green wall potential. Both cities had less than 4% of walls suitable for green wall retrofitting and more than 91% of walls were eliminated. Interestingly, both cities were spatially homogeneous compared to the other cities and this is probably driven by the presence of glacisades and residential properties with garage doors or driveways. These results indicate that cities like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane could realistically achieve their targets if they incorporated urban forestry vertically with approximately 30% or more deemed to be suitable for retrofitting. Though cities like Perth and Adelaide may need to consider other greening potentials potentially such as greeners due to their poor green wall retrofitability scores. Interestingly, spatial trends revealed high probabilities of eliminated walls in the city centre no matter the city and furthermore, Australian cities seem to have a long way to go in terms of greening as very few walls present were actually already greened. It was less than 1%. These results also highlight the importance of green walls and potentially green roofs as a solution for space constrained areas as they offer a green alternative to urban parklands and urban forestry that may not be viable in the future. So where do we go from here? This evaluation tool was designed with simplicity in mind so that it could be utilised by interested individuals or organisations globally as it is not resource intensive and requires minimal training. This evaluation tool's accessibility and design also ensured it could be applied as an analytical method with the exclusionary set of criteria removing subjectivity from the assessment while enabling comparisons between urban areas. Furthermore, this tool could easily be used in conjunction with readily available remote sensing techniques to provide a more detailed assessment and evaluation of each wall and of the areas themselves. Ultimately, policies and targets that encourage green infrastructure would undoubtedly provide more opportunities for vertical greening and this tool could support those incentives by determining if those targets are possible and where. Thank you.