3.1. Changes in Ta, Ws, Rh, and MRT
3.1.1. Microclimate Change Under Different Building Layouts
Figure 3 presents box plots for each indicator from 9:00 to 17:00 across different building layout simulation scenarios, allowing for an evaluation of the changes in MRT, Rh, Ws and Ta under simulated conditions. The data for these box plots represent the averages collected during the simulation period (9:00–17:00) at a height of 1.4 m above the ground.
The changes in Ta for the row-type, point-cluster, and enclosed layouts all show an increasing trend from 9:00 to 13:00, with the average temperature reaching its highest at 13:00 and slowly decreasing thereafter, and the order of the average temperatures of the three layouts at each time point is maintained as point-cluster > row-type > enclosed. The largest change in the data range occurs at 13:00 between the row-type layout and the enclosed layout. The enclosed layout reduces the direct sun area by shading the buildings from each other, which reduces the peak daytime Ta by 0.61 °C compared to the point-cluster layout. The row-type layout, on the other hand, has a larger angle (45°) between the long axis of the buildings and the dominant summer wind (14° SW), which leads to a decrease in ventilation efficiency (average Ws of 0.3 m/s), weakening the thermal convection heat dissipation capacity, and resulting in a peak Ta of 0.21 °C higher than that of the enclosed type.
The Ws for the three building layouts gradually increased from 9:00 to 17:00. During this time, the ranking of Ws was point-cluster, row-type, and enclosed layouts. At 13:00, the average Ws for the row-type and enclosed layouts decreased by 0.05 and 0.1, respectively, compared to the point-cluster layout.
The Rh for the three building layouts exhibited a changing trend from 9:00 to 17:00, initially rising before reaching its lowest value at 13:00. This drop can be attributed to the increased solar radiation at that time, which elevates ground temperature and air saturation pressure. During the afternoon’s high-temperature period, the actual water vapor pressure increases relatively slowly, making it more challenging for water vapor to remain in the air. Consequently, some of the water vapor may evaporate into the atmosphere or dissipate through other means. At 13:00, the average Rh was measured at 49.60%, 48.91%, and 48.39% for the point-cluster, row-type, and enclosed layouts, respectively. Compared to the point-cluster layout, the average Rh for the row-type and enclosed layouts decreased by 0.69% and 1.41%, respectively.
In terms of MRT, the three simulations initially showed an increase before declining, with the peak occurring at 14:00. The MRT ranking was as follows: enclosed layout, row-type layout, and point-cluster layout. The MRT for the row-type layout and point-cluster layout decreased by 0.34 and 0.64, respectively.
3.1.2. Microclimate Change in External Surface Materials of Different Buildings
Figure 4 shows the average data of the simulated environment at a height of 1.4 m above the ground for different building envelope materials. Since the changes in MRT, Rh, Ws, and Ta are most significant at 13:00 during the day, a box plot for the simulation time of 13:00 is selected to represent the impact of building envelope materials on the microclimate.
The building envelope materials do not influence the variation in Ws. The differences in mean Ws are solely attributed to the layout of the buildings. In fact, the mean Ws remains consistent across the use of glass, concrete, and brick, with no discernible change.
The changes in Ta across all cases are minimal; however, the average temperatures generally follow the order of glass, concrete, and brick. For instance, in the row-type layout, the average temperatures are 37.35 °C for glass, 37.29 °C for concrete, and 37.23 °C for brick. When using glass as the building envelope material, the average Ta for concrete and brick decreased by 0.06 and 0.12, respectively.
Among the three types of building envelope materials, brick exhibits the highest average Rh, followed by concrete and glass. In the simulations, the enclosed building layout shows higher average Rh compared to the other two layouts. However, the most significant changes occur in the row-type layout, where the average Rh for brick and concrete decreased by 0.15 and 0.13, respectively.
The albedo of glass (0.4) is higher than that of brick (0.2), but its low heat capacity leads to rapid release of heat after absorption during the daytime, making its 13:00 Ta 0.12 °C higher than that of brick. In contrast, the high heat capacity of brick delays the heat release, making its daytime Ta 0.06 °C lower than that of concrete (concrete albedo 0.3). It is noteworthy that the high albedo of glass did not significantly reduce the MRT (difference < 0.5 °C), presumably its lower surface longwave emissivity (0.84) weakened the radiative heat dissipation capacity.
3.1.3. Microclimate Change in Different Surface Materials
Figure 5 presents the average data from the simulation conducted at 13:00, with measurements taken at a height of 1.4 m above ground level for different surface materials in the row-type layout. Given the consistent microclimate changes observed across the three building layouts, the row-type layout is used as a benchmark to assess the impact of the surface material on MRT, Rh, Ws, and Ta.
As the proportion of the surface material increased, the Ta of concrete and brick materials exhibited a downward trend, while asphalt showed the opposite effect. Specifically, from 25% to 100%, the average temperatures for concrete and brick decreased by 0.11 °C and 0.06 °C, respectively. In contrast, the average temperature of asphalt rose by 0.1 °C. At 100% coverage, the average temperatures for these three surface materials were 37.23 °C, 37.49 °C, and 37.28 °C, respectively, with asphalt recording the highest average temperature and concrete the lowest, resulting in a difference of 0.26 °C.
The variation in Ws is entirely dependent on the presence of vegetation. Consequently, in the absence of vegetation, changes in surface material type or the proportion of surface materials do not influence Ws.
In terms of Rh, both concrete and brick materials demonstrated an increasing trend in average Rh with a higher proportion. The average Rh of concrete increased from 48.88% at 25% coverage to 49.02%, reflecting an increase of 0.14%. Similarly, the average Rh of brick material rose from 48.87% to 48.98%, an increase of 0.11%. In contrast, asphalt exhibited a downward trend; the average Rh decreased by 0.24% when moving from 25% to 100% coverage. This indicates that the use of concrete and brick materials can enhance the Rh of the building environment, with the effect becoming more pronounced as the proportion of these materials increases.
The effect of all three modelled scenarios on the MRT showed a trend of lower MRT for higher percentages, which was more pronounced for asphalt and brick compared to the concrete material, where the low albedo of asphalt (0.12) reduces shortwave reflections but its high emissivity promotes the dissipation of longwave radiation heat, resulting in a MRT reduction of 1.08 °C compared to concrete. Despite the fact that the Ta of asphalt is 0.26 °C higher than that of concrete, its MRT reduction contributes 82% to PET improvement (2.65 °C PET reduction), suggesting that controlling the radiative load weighs more heavily on thermal comfort than temperature regulation alone in hot climate zones.
3.1.4. Microclimate Change in Different Green Infrastructure Configurations
Figure 6 presents the average data collected at 13:00 under three layout conditions, each featuring different levels of green infrastructure configuration. The simulations were conducted at a height of 1.4 m above the ground, with the objective of examining the impact of tree configuration on the microclimate of the building environment.
Under different building layouts, the tree configuration consistently shows a trend where a higher proportion of trees results in a lower Ta. For the same proportion of trees, the enclosed layout has the lowest average temperature. With a 25% tree coverage, the average temperature is 36.96 °C, while with 100% coverage, the average temperature is 36.51 °C. Additionally, in the row-type layout, the variation caused by differences in tree coverage is the most significant. Compared to 25% tree coverage, the average temperature with 100% tree coverage is reduced by 0.58 °C.
The change in Ws caused by different tree coverage proportions is minimal, generally showing that as the proportion of trees increases, the Ws decreases. Taking the enclosed layout as an example, for every 25% increase in tree coverage, the average Ws in the building environment decreases by 0.01.
In terms of Rh and MRT, the effects of varying tree proportions are more pronounced. Rh increases with a greater number of trees, while MRT decreases. In the row-type layout at 13:00, the average Rh with 100% tree coverage is 1.85% higher than with 25% coverage, and the MRT is 3.45 °C lower. This trend is consistent across all three layout forms. Therefore, it can be concluded that increasing tree coverage significantly reduces both the temperature and MRT of the built environment, while also enhancing the Rh in the surrounding area.
3.2. Changes in the PET Index
Figure 7 presents the PET simulation results from 9:00 to 17:00 at a height of 1.4 m above the ground across all simulation cases. The findings regarding the PET index are as follows: (1) The average daily duration of extreme heat stress (PET > 41 °C) under the baseline scenario (row-type layout without optimization) is 8 h (9:00–17:00), of which the peak value of PET reaches 54.3 °C from 13:00 to 14:00, which is far beyond the threshold of human body’s tolerance (the risk of heatstroke can be triggered by the PET > 41 °C lasting for 4 h). Combined with the population density characteristics of Fuyang’s old residential areas (volume ratio > 2.5), the cumulative duration of exposure to extreme heat stress exceeded the safety threshold due to the high frequency of outdoor activities and weak heat adaptation capacity of elderly residents in high-density living environments, which may lead to a 2–3-fold increase in the incidence rate of heat-related diseases. (2) The average PET values for each simulation scenario showed an increasing trend from 9:00 to 14:00 on the simulation day and a slow decrease from 15:00 to 17:00.
Using the 14:00 average PET value of the row-type layout as the benchmark, the comparison shows that the point-cluster layout with 100% tree coverage results in the greatest improvement in PET, reducing it from 54.27 °C to 52.17 °C, a decrease of 2.1 °C. On the other hand, the enclosed layout has the opposite effect on PET, increasing it from 54.27 °C to 54.32 °C, an increase of 0.05 °C. Compared to the row-type layout, the point-cluster layout reduces PET by 0.2 °C, indicating that among the three building layouts, the point-cluster layout provides the best improvement in PET.
Using the average PET value of the row-type layout as the benchmark,
Figure 8 illustrates the daily accumulation difference of the average PET value across all simulated cases. Negative values indicate an improvement in the daily average PET value due to the simulated conditions, while positive values signify a deterioration in the PET environment. The results indicate the following: (1) Among the building layouts, the daily accumulated PET value is improved the most with the point-cluster layout, followed by the row-type and enclosed layouts; (2) Regarding building envelope materials, green infrastructure configuration, and surface materials, the most effective strategies for improving the daily average PET value involve using glass as the building envelope material based on the point-cluster layout, planting 100% tree coverage based on the row-type layout, and utilizing 100% asphalt coverage as the surface material in the point-cluster layout. These three scenarios resulted in reductions of 3.51 °C, 23.87 °C, and 2.65 °C in the daily average PET value, respectively; (3) A comparison of the improvements in daily accumulated PET values reveals that the influence on PET is ranked as green infrastructure configuration, building layout, building envelope materials, and surface materials. In addition to this, the improvement of PET values by 100% tree coverage (ΔPET = −23.87 °C) was mainly due to the synergistic effect of shading effect and transpiration cooling: shading reduced MRT by 3.45 °C by reducing direct sunlight, contributing 58% of the PET reduction; transpiration contributed the remaining 42% by reducing air temperature (ΔTa = −0.58 °C) and enhancing humidity (ΔRh = +1.85%). PET reduction increased significantly from 25% to 75% coverage (4.5 °C/25%), but the rate of increase plummeted to 1.4 °C/25% beyond 75% coverage, presumably due to canopy overlap that reduced the marginal benefit of shade and saturated moisture within the canopy that inhibited transpiration efficiency. The PET improvement ability of vegetation was significantly better than that of a single material (e.g., for asphalt, ΔPET = 2.65 °C), and this result verified the irreplaceable nature of vegetation shade and transpiration, while revealing the physical bottleneck of thermal comfort optimization in the high-coverage scenario.