The Influence of Vegetation Environment on Thermal Experience in Hot Summer: A Case Study from Perspectives of Fitting Scale and Gender Disparity
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What is the structure of the pathway framework that encompasses thermal sensation, thermal comfort, thermal demand and their influencing factors?
- What variations exist in the relationship between thermal experience and its vegetative surroundings across different spatial scales?
- What are the gender-specific differences in the influence of the vegetation environment on the pathway of “sensation → comfort → demand”?
2. Method
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Questionnaire with Positioning and Multi-Scaled Environment
2.3. Construction of SEM Model and Its Applicability
2.3.1. Variables
2.3.2. Hypothetical Path Concept of SEM
2.3.3. The Applicability of SEM Model
3. Results
3.1. The Empirical Model and Fitting Scale Selection
3.2. The Results of the SEM Model with the Fitting Scale
3.2.1. Evaluation of the Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity
3.2.2. Interpretation of the Influencing Path
3.2.3. Gender Disparities
4. Discussion
4.1. Discussion to the Scaling Effect
4.2. Discussion to the Influence of Vegetation on Thermal Experience
4.3. Discussion to the Difference between Male and Female
4.4. Limitations and Future Works
5. Conclusions
- The vegetation environment not only influences thermal experiencing indices independently, but also reshapes the chain of “sensation → comfort → demand”. Multiple pathways of influencing effect exist between vegetation and thermal experience indexes, giving rise to a complex network of causal linkages. The presence of lawns and tree canopies has been found to have a negative impact on thermal sensation and the demand for thermal regulation, while also demonstrating a beneficial effect on thermal comfort. Moreover, a thermal experiencing process characterized by the chain of “sensation → comfort → demand” is observed to emerge under the combined influence of lawn and tree canopy.
- The influence of the vegetation on thermal experience exhibits a scale effect through the SEM performance. As the scale of the influence radius setting increases, the model’s performance declines. The fitting scale consists of an inner radius with 10 m radii and an outer radius with 30 m radii, which are identified as the thresholds. The conditions of χ2/df ≤ 3, GFI ≥ 0.9 and RMSEA ≤ 0.08 can be simultaneously satisfied only when the inner and outer radii remain below their respective thresholds, which are regarded as the requirements of the SEM framework.
- The thermal experiencing framework, consisting of multiple influencing pathways, exhibits similar attributes in terms of positive and negative characteristics but with varying degrees of intensity in genders. Women demonstrate heightened sensitivity to environmental factors and have a greater likelihood of experiencing thermal comfort and reduced thermal demand in comparison to men. Additionally, the males’ coefficients for the pathways “sensation → comfort” and “comfort → demand” are −0.578 and −0.422, respectively; their absolute values exceed those observed in females. Therefore, male individuals demonstrate a more pronounced influence pathway of “sensation → comfort → demand” in the presence of vegetation compared to female individuals.
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- 1.
- What are your sensations for the current thermal feeling?
- Q1: Temperature sensation: Cool ☐−2 ☐−1 ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 Hot
- Q2: Humidity sensation: Dry ☐−2 ☐−1 ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 Humid
- Q3: Breeze sensation: Breezy ☐−2 ☐−1 ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 Breezeless
- 2.
- How comfortable are you feeling at the present moment?
- Q4: Comfort: Uncomfortable ☐−2 ☐−1 ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 Comfortable
- Q5: Sweatless: Sweating ☐−2 ☐−1 ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 Without Sweat
- 3.
- To what extent does your demand for current thermal regulation?
- Q6: Demand for cooling: Week ☐−2 ☐−1 ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 Strong
- Q7: Demand for dehumidify: Week ☐−2 ☐−1 ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 Strong
- Q8: Demand for breeze: Week ☐−2 ☐−1 ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 Strong
- Gender:
- ☐Male ☐Female
- Questionnaire Location:
- longitude______latitude______
Latent Variables | Observation Variables | Male | Female | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC5 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC5 | ||
Thermal sensation | Temperature sensation | 0.841 | 0.780 | ||||||||
Humid sensation | 0.778 | 0.820 | |||||||||
Breeze sensation | 0.728 | 0.734 | |||||||||
Thermal comfort | Comfort | 0.752 | 0.701 | ||||||||
Sweatless | 0.806 | 0.862 | |||||||||
Demand for current regulation | Cooling demand | 0.827 | 0.847 | ||||||||
Dehumidify demand | 0.810 | 0.767 | |||||||||
Breeze demand | 0.742 | 0.804 | |||||||||
Lawn | Lawn within 20 m | 0.843 | 0.826 | ||||||||
Lawn within 40 m | 0.913 | 0.900 | |||||||||
Lawn within 60 m | 0.914 | 0.874 | |||||||||
Tree canopy | Tree within 20 m | 0.672 | 0.643 | ||||||||
Tree within 40 m | 0.854 | 0.862 | |||||||||
Tree within 60 m | 0.838 | 0.864 |
Latent Variables | Observation Variables | Std. | Unstd. | S.E. | t-Value | P | SMC | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thermal sensation | Temperature sensation | 0.826 | 1 | 0.682 | 0.845 | 0.645 | |||
Humid sensation | 0.811 | 0.993 | 0.067 | 14.848 | *** | 0.658 | |||
Breeze sensation | 0.771 | 0.943 | 0.069 | 13.721 | *** | 0.594 | |||
Thermal comfort | Comfort | 0.837 | 1 | 0.701 | 0.802 | 0.669 | |||
Sweatless | 0.799 | 0.994 | 0.071 | 13.915 | *** | 0.638 | |||
Demand for current regulation | Cooling demand | 0.885 | 1 | 0.783 | 0.85 | 0.654 | |||
Dehumidify demand | 0.768 | 0.854 | 0.057 | 14.929 | *** | 0.590 | |||
Breeze demand | 0.768 | 0.898 | 0.062 | 14.387 | *** | 0.590 | |||
Lawn | Lawn within 10 m | 0.898 | 1 | 0.806 | 0.932 | 0.873 | |||
Lawn within 30 m | 0.969 | 8.795 | 0.449 | 19.601 | *** | 0.939 | |||
Tree canopy | Tree within 10 m | 0.771 | 1 | 0.594 | 0.836 | 0.72 | |||
Tree within 30 m | 0.919 | 9.210 | 0.633 | 14.550 | *** | 0.845 |
Latent Variables | Observation Variables | Std. | Unstd. | S.E. | t-Value | P | SMC | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thermal sensation | Temperature sensation | 0.822 | 1 | 0.676 | 0.848 | 0.650 | |||
Humid sensation | 0.790 | 0.988 | 0.075 | 13.115 | *** | 0.624 | |||
Breeze sensation | 0.807 | 1.034 | 0.078 | 13.301 | *** | 0.651 | |||
Thermal comfort | Comfort | 0.962 | 1 | 0.925 | 0.866 | 0.766 | |||
Sweatless | 0.779 | 0.786 | 0.053 | 14.731 | *** | 0.607 | |||
Demand for current regulation | Cooling demand | 0.873 | 1 | 0.762 | 0.847 | 0.650 | |||
Dehumidify demand | 0.823 | 1.061 | 0.076 | 13.938 | *** | 0.677 | |||
Breeze demand | 0.714 | 0.877 | 0.072 | 12.159 | *** | 0.510 | |||
Lawn | Lawn within 10 m | 0.909 | 1 | 0.826 | 0.939 | 0.885 | |||
Lawn within 30 m | 0.971 | 8.529 | 0.401 | 21.267 | *** | 0.943 | |||
Tree canopy | Tree within 10 m | 0.751 | 1 | 0.564 | 0.823 | 0.702 | |||
Tree within 30 m | 0.916 | 9.230 | 0.684 | 13.499 | *** | 0.839 |
Male | Female | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lawn | Tree Canopy | Thermal Sense | Thermal Comfort | Thermal Demand | Lawn | Tree Canopy | Thermal Sense | Thermal Comfort | Thermal Demand | |
Lawn | 0.934 | - | - | - | - | 0.941 | - | - | - | - |
Tree canopy | 0.709 | 0.849 | - | - | - | 0.777 | 0.838 | - | - | - |
Thermal sense | −0.478 | −0.674 | 0.803 | - | - | −0.530 | −0.682 | 0.806 | - | - |
Thermal comfort | 0.501 | 0.707 | −0.792 | 0.818 | - | 0.561 | 0.721 | −0.766 | 0.875 | - |
Thermal demand | −0.491 | −0.693 | 0.600 | −0.701 | 0.809 | −0.485 | −0.624 | 0.534 | −0.641 | 0.806 |
References
- Zhang, M.; Wang, J.; Zhang, F. The Influence of Spatial Heterogeneity of Urban Green Space on Surface Temperature. Forests 2024, 15, 878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora, C.; McKenzie, T.; Gaw, I.M.; Den, J.M.; Hammerstein, V.H.; Knudson, T.A.; Setter, R.O.; Smith, C.Z.; Webster, K.M.; Patz, J.A.; et al. Over half of known human pathogenic diseases can be aggravated by climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2022, 12, 869–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Ding, N. Spatial Effects of Landscape Patterns of Urban Patches with Different Vegetation Fractions on Urban Thermal Environment. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 5684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakoto, P.Y.; Deilami, K.; Hurley, J.; Amati, M.; Sun, Q. Revisiting the Cooling Effects of Urban Greening: Planning Implications of Vegetation Types and Spatial Configuration. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 64, 127266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takebayashi, H. A Simplified Evaluation Framework for Adaptation Measures to Urban Heat Islands. Buildings 2024, 14, 2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Zhang, Z.H.; Jing, F.; Gao, J.; Ma, J.Y.; Shao, G.F.; Noel, S. An evaluation of urban green space in Shanghai, China, using eye tracking. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 56, 126903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gai, S.; Fu, J.; Rong, X.; Dai, L. Users’ views on cultural ecosystem services of urban parks: An importance-performance analysis of a case in Beijing, China. Anthropocene 2022, 37, 100323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, D. Overheating in the Tree Shade of Urban Parks: A Field Study of Thermal Adaption in China. Atmosphere 2024, 15, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schweiker, M.; Rissetto, R.; Wagner, A. Thermal expectation: Influencing factors and its effect on thermal perception. Energy Build. 2019, 210, 109729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bienvenido-Huertas, D.; Sánchez-García, D.; Rubio-Bellido, C.; Pulido-Arcas, J.A. Influence of the Improvement in Thermal Expectation Levels with Adaptive Setpoint Temperatures on Energy Consumption. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, C.K.C.; Yang, H.; Yang, X.; Liu, J.; Ou, C.; Cui, S.; Kong, X.; Hang, J. Cross-modal effects of thermal and visual conditions on outdoor thermal and visual comfort perception. Build. Environ. 2020, 186, 107297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stark da Silva, P.W.; Duarte, D.H.S.; Rahman, M.A.; Rötzer, T.; Pauleit, S. Testing Strategies for Planting Design in Urban Squares to Improve Human Comfort throughout the Seasons. Atmosphere 2024, 15, 870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morakinyo, T.E.; Ouyang, W.; Lau, K.K.-L.; Ren, C.; Ng, E. Right tree, right place (urban canyon): Tree species selection approach for optimum urban heat mitigation—Development and evaluation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 719, 137461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, Y.; Li, S.; Xing, X.; Zhou, X.; Kang, Y.; Hu, Q.; Li, Y. Cooling Benefits of Urban Tree Canopy: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Khoshbakht, M.; Liu, J.; Gou, Z.; Xiong, J.; Jiang, M. A Clustering Review of Vegetation-Indicating Parameters in Urban Thermal Environment Studies towards Various Factors. J. Therm. Biol. 2022, 110, 103340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fassbender, E.; Rott, J.; Hemmerle, C. Impacts of Photovoltaic Façades on the Urban Thermal Microclimate and Outdoor Thermal Comfort: Simulation-Based Analysis. Buildings 2024, 14, 923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, B.; Zhu, J. Constructing community gardens? Residents’ attitude and behaviour towards edible landscapes in emerging urban communities of China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34, 154–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manavvi, S.; Rajasekar, E. Evaluating outdoor thermal comfort in “Haats”-The open air markets in a humid subtropical region. Build. Environ. 2021, 190, 107527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.W.; Brown, R.D. Pedestrians’ behavior based on outdoor thermal comfort and micro-scale thermal environments, Austin, TX. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 808, 152143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, D.; Lian, Z.; Liu, W.; Guo, C.; Liu, W.; Liu, K.; Chen, Q. A comprehensive review of thermal comfort studies in urban open spaces. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 742, 140092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, M.; Zhou, W.; Zheng, Z.; Wang, J.; Qian, Y. Patch size of trees affects its cooling effectiveness: A perspective from shading and transpiration processes. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017, 247, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, P.Y.; Wong, N.H.; Tan, C.L.; Jusuf, S.K.; Schmiele, K.; Chiam, Z.Q. Transpiration and cooling potential of tropical urban trees from different native habitats. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 705, 135764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhao, Q.; Sailor, D.J.; Wentz, E.A. Impact of Tree Locations and Arrangements on Outdoor Microclimates and Human Thermal Comfort in an Urban Residential Environment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 32, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, G.; Xu, H.; Liu, F.; Dong, J. Impact of Plant Layout on Microclimate of Summer Courtyard Space Based on Orthogonal Experimental Design. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erlwein, S.; Zoelch, T.; Pauleit, S. Regulating the microclimate with urban green in densifiying cities: Joint assessment on two scales. Build. Environ. 2021, 205, 108233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, P.K.; Jim, C.Y.; Siu, C.T. Effects of urban park design features on summer air temperature and humidity in compact-city milieu. Appl. Geogr. 2021, 129, 102439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, L.; Rupprecht, C.D.D.; Shibata, S. Climate-Responsive Green-Space Design Inspired by Traditional Gardens: Microclimate and Human Thermal Comfort of Japanese Gardens. Sustainability. 2021, 13, 2736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knez, I.; Thorsson, S. Influences of culture and environmental attitude on thermal, emotional and perceptual evaluations of a public square. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2006, 50, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krüger, E.; Rossi, F. Effect of personal and microclimatic variables on observed thermal sensation from a field study in southern Brazil. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 690–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantavou, K.; Theoharatos, G.; Santamouris, M.; Asimakopoulos, D. Outdoor thermal sensation of pedestrians in a Mediterranean climate and a comparison with UTCI. Build. Environ. 2013, 66, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shooshtarian, S.; Ridley, I. The effect of individual and social environments on the users thermal perceptions of educational urban precincts. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 26, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, S.; Andrade, H. An initial assessment of the bioclimatic comfort in an outdoor public space in Lisbon. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2007, 52, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tung, C.H.; Chen, C.P.; Tsai, K.T.; Kántor, N.; Hwang, R.L.; Matzarakis, A.; Lin, T.P. Outdoor thermal comfort characteristics in the hot and humid region from a gender perspective. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2014, 58, 1927–1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lan, L.; Lian, Z.; Liu, W.; Liu, Y. Investigation of gender difference in thermal comfort for Chinese people. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2008, 102, 471–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chow, T.T.; Fong, K.F.; Givoni, B.; Lin, Z.; Chan, A.L.S. Thermal sensation of Hong Kong people with increased air speed, temperature and humidity in air-conditioned environment. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 2177–2183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Zhao, S.; Gao, S.; Zhang, H.; Arens, E.; Zhai, Y. Gender differences in metabolic rates and thermal comfort in sedentary young males and females at various temperatures. Energy Build. 2021, 251, 111360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, Y.; Feng, T.; Harry, J.P. Timmermans. Heterogeneity in outdoor comfort assessment in urban public spaces. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 147941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, G.; Leng, C.; Zhang, Z.; Zheng, C.; Wen, Z. Quantitative Study on the Effects of Vegetation and Soil on Runoff and Sediment in the Loess Plateau. Forests 2024, 15, 1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alireza, A.; Alimohammadlou, M. Toward equation structural modeling: An integration of interpretive structural modeling and structural equation modeling. J. Manag. Anal. 2021, 2, 1881927. [Google Scholar]
- Naji, K.K.; Gunduz, M.; Al-Qahtani, A. Unveiling Digital Transformation: Analyzing Building Facility Management’s Preparedness for Transformation Using Structural Equation Modeling. Buildings 2024, 14, 2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouyang, W.; Morakinyo, T.E.; Lee, Y.; Tan, Z.; Ren, C.; Ng, E. How to quantify the cooling effects of green infrastructure strategies from a spatio-temporal perspective: Experience from a parametric study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 237, 104808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fung, C.K.W.; Jim, C.Y. Influence of blue infrastructure on lawn thermal microclimate in a subtropical green space. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, J.; Li, Z.; Zheng, B. A Study on the Effect of Green Plot Ratio (GPR) on Urban Heat Island Intensity and Outdoor Thermal Comfort in Residential Areas. Forests 2024, 15, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Z.; Wu, C.; Teng, M.; Lin, Y. Impacts of Tree Canopy Cover on Microclimate and Human Thermal Comfort in a Shallow Street Canyon in Wuhan, China. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, J.; Cheng, B.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Y.; Tan, X.; Shi, M.; He, X.; Guo, J. A study of waterside microenvironmental factors and their effects on summer outdoor thermal comfort in a Cfa-climate campus. J. Therm. Biol. 2023, 117, 103700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, C.; Tang, L.; Yan, J.; Ouyang, J. Direct and indirect effects of multisensory modalities on visitor’ s thermal comfort in an urban park in a humid-hot climate. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2022, 30, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Lin, B.; Geng, Y.; Zhou, H.; Wu, X.; Zhang, C. The effect of temperature and group perception feedbacks on thermal comfort. Energy Build. 2022, 254, 111603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Li, J.; Xi, T. A Review of Thermal Comfort Evaluation and Improvement in Urban Outdoor Spaces. Buildings 2023, 13, 3050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villadiego, K.; Velay-Dabat, M.A. Outdoor thermal comfort in a hot and humid climate of Colombia: A field study in Barranquilla. Build. Environ. 2014, 75, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schellen, L.; Loomans, M.G.L.C.; de Wit, M.H.; Olesen, B.W.; Lichtenbelt, W.D.v.M. The influence of local effects on thermal sensation under non-uniform environmental conditions—Gender differences in thermophysiology, thermal comfort and productivity during convective and radiant cooling. Physiol. Behav. 2012, 107, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adekunle, T.O. Variations in Gender Perceptions of Summer Comfort and Adaptation in Colonial Revival-Style Homes. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Indraganti, M.; Rao, K.D. Effect of age, gender, economic group and tenure on thermal comfort: A field study in residential buildings in hot and dry climate with seasonal variations. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hypothesis | Paths | Positive or Negative | Definition |
---|---|---|---|
Hypothesis (H1) | θ | + | Lawn → tree canopy |
Hypothesis (H2) | γ11 | − | Lawn → sensation |
γ12 | + | Lawn → comfort | |
γ13 | − | Lawn → improvement | |
γ21 | − | Lawn → sensation | |
γ22 | + | Lawn → comfort | |
γ23 | − | Lawn → improvement | |
Hypothesis (H3) | β12 | − | Sensation → comfort |
β13 | − | Sensation → improvement | |
β23 | + | Comfort → improvement |
Latent Variables | Cronbach’s α (Male) | Cronbach’s α (Female) |
---|---|---|
Thermal sensation | 0.843 | 0.847 |
Thermal comfort | 0.806 | 0.858 |
Thermal demand | 0.844 | 0.840 |
Lawn coverage | 0.890 | 0.892 |
Tree coverage | 0.883 | 0.879 |
χ2/df | R1 | χ2/df | R1 | |||||||||||
(Male) | 10 m | 20 m | 30 m | 40 m | 50 m | (Female) | 10 m | 20 m | 30 m | 40 m | 50 m | |||
R2 | 20 m | 2.426 | - | R2 | 20 m | 2.513 | - | |||||||
30 m | 2.608 | 2.840 | - | 30 m | 2.520 | 2.970 | - | |||||||
40 m | 3.032 | 3.073 | 3.898 | - | 40 m | 2.778 | 3.114 | 3.403 | - | |||||
50 m | 3.368 | 3.307 | 4.033 | 3.649 | - | 50 m | 2.990 | 3.390 | 3.913 | 4.571 | - | |||
60 m | 3.641 | 3.582 | 4.384 | 4.291 | 4.389 | 60 m | 3.184 | 3.792 | 4.514 | 5.237 | 5.244 | |||
GFI | R1 | GFI | R1 | |||||||||||
(male) | 10 m | 20 m | 30 m | 40 m | 50 m | (female) | 10 m | 20 m | 30 m | 40 m | 50 m | |||
R2 | 20 m | 0.939 | - | R2 | 20 m | 0.924 | - | |||||||
30 m | 0.936 | 0.933 | - | 30 m | 0.924 | 0.916 | - | |||||||
40 m | 0.927 | 0.930 | 0.914 | - | 40 m | 0.918 | 0.914 | 0.906 | - | |||||
50 m | 0.921 | 0.926 | 0.912 | 0.918 | - | 50 m | 0.914 | 0.909 | 0.896 | 0.881 | - | |||
60 m | 0.917 | 0.922 | 0.907 | 0.907 | 0.904 | 60 m | 0.908 | 0.901 | 0.885 | 0.868 | 0.867 | |||
RMSEA | R1 | RMSEA | R1 | |||||||||||
(male) | 10 m | 20 m | 30 m | 40 m | 50 m | (female) | 10 m | 20 m | 30 m | 40 m | 50 m | |||
R2 | 20 m | 0.071 | - | R2 | 20 m | 0.079 | - | |||||||
30 m | 0.075 | 0.081 | - | 30 m | 0.080 | 0.091 | - | |||||||
40 m | 0.085 | 0.086 | 0.101 | - | 40 m | 0.086 | 0.094 | 0.100 | - | |||||
50 m | 0.091 | 0.090 | 0.104 | 0.097 | - | 50 m | 0.091 | 0.100 | 0.110 | 0.122 | - | |||
60 m | 0.097 | 0.096 | 0.109 | 0.108 | 0.109 | 60 m | 0.095 | 0.108 | 0.121 | 0.133 | 0.133 | |||
Note | Excellent fit | critical fit | unacceptable fit |
Male | Female | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Effects | Direct Effects | Indirect Effects | Total Effects | Direct Effects | Indirect Effects | |
Lawn → thermal sensation (γ11) | −0.478 | Not significant | −0.478 | −0.530 | Not significant | −0.530 |
Lawn → thermal comfort (γ12) | 0.501 | Not significant | 0.501 | 0.561 | Not significant | 0.561 |
Lawn → regulation demand (γ13) | −0.491 | Not significant | −0.491 | −0.485 | Not significant | −0.485 |
Trees → thermal sensation | −0.674 | −0.674 (γ21) | 0.000 | −0.682 | −0.682 (γ21) | 0.000 |
Trees → thermal comfort | 0.707 | 0.317 (γ22) | 0.390 | 0.721 | 0.372 (γ22) | 0.349 |
Trees → regulation demand | −0.693 | −0.394 (γ23) | −0.299 | −0.624 | −0.337 (γ23) | −0.287 |
thermal sensation → regulation demand (β13) | 0.244 | Not significant | 0.244 | 0.204 | Not significant | 0.204 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, C.; Li, W.; Fan, Q.; Hu, J.; Wang, D.; Ping, X.; Li, W. The Influence of Vegetation Environment on Thermal Experience in Hot Summer: A Case Study from Perspectives of Fitting Scale and Gender Disparity. Buildings 2024, 14, 3036. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103036
Zhang C, Li W, Fan Q, Hu J, Wang D, Ping X, Li W. The Influence of Vegetation Environment on Thermal Experience in Hot Summer: A Case Study from Perspectives of Fitting Scale and Gender Disparity. Buildings. 2024; 14(10):3036. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103036
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Chenming, Wei Li, Qindong Fan, Jian Hu, Dongmeng Wang, Xiaoying Ping, and Wenjie Li. 2024. "The Influence of Vegetation Environment on Thermal Experience in Hot Summer: A Case Study from Perspectives of Fitting Scale and Gender Disparity" Buildings 14, no. 10: 3036. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103036