| Literature DB >> 28196071 |
Abstract
Extensive evidence has revealed that street greenery, as a quality-of-life component, is important for oxygen production, pollutant absorption, and urban heat island effect mitigation. Determining how green our streets are has always been difficult given the time and money consumed using conventional methods. This study proposes an automatic method using an emerging online street-view service to address this issue. This method was used to analyze street greenery in the central areas (28.3 km2 each) of 245 major Chinese cities; this differs from previous studies, which have investigated small areas in a given city. Such a city-system-level study enabled us to detect potential universal laws governing street greenery as well as the impact factors. We collected over one million Tencent Street View pictures and calculated the green view index for each picture. We found the following rules: (1) longer streets in more economically developed and highly administrated cities tended to be greener; (2) cities in western China tend to have greener streets; and (3) the aggregated green view indices at the municipal level match with the approved National Garden Cities of China. These findings can prove useful for drafting more appropriate policies regarding planning and engineering practices for street greenery.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28196071 PMCID: PMC5308808 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The 245 cities at or above the prefecture level with street-view service in China.
Fig 2Roads/streets of the study area in Beijing in 2014.
Fig 3Framework for analyzing street greenery in a typical area (SVP = street view picture).
Fig 4Process for simplifying street segments.
Parameters for the SVP crawling API.
| Parameter | Mandatory item? | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Size | Yes | Picture size in pixels; maximum width and height: 960 by 640 | Size = 138 x 187 |
| Location | Either location or pano | Coordinates or place name for confirming the street-view location | Location = Tsinghua University or location = 39.12,116.83 |
| Pano | Street-view ID for confirming the street-view location | Pano = 10011022120723095812200 | |
| Heading | No | The angle of the forward direction in relation to the north, measured clockwise from 0 to 360 degrees (0 is the default value) | • North: heading = 0 |
| Pitch | No | The vertical angle the camera covers, -20 to 90 degrees, in which a positive number indicates the degree of looking up and vice versa (0 is the default value) | Pitch = 0 |
| Key | Yes | Developer’s key (can be retrieved through online application) | Key = OB4BZ-D4W3U-7BVVO-4PJWW-6TKDJ-WPB77 |
Fig 5Spatial distribution of the average street GVI of each city (a) and the four types of cities classified (b).
Statistical descriptions for locations, street segments, and blocks in the street GVI for the 131 valid cities.
| Type | No. of Features | Min. | Max. | Mean | Green View Index | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 0.2 | 0.2–0.4 | 0.4–0.5 | > 0.5 | |||||
| Locations | 173,425 | 0.000 | 0.913 | 0.277 | 55,962 (32.3%) | 85,702 (49.4%) | 21,224 (12.2%) | 10,537 (6.1%) |
| Street segments with over 13 locations per km) | 23,917 | 0.002 | 0.840 | 0.261 | 8,188 (34.2%) | 12,619 (52.8%) | 2,258 (9.4%) | 852 (3.6%) |
| Blocks greater than 1 ha with over 1 location per ha | 9,424 | 0.002 | 0.737 | 0.265 | 2,583 (27.5%) | 5,931 (62.9%) | 718 (7.6%) | 192 (2.0%) |
* “13” was the average location density value for all street segments.
** “1” was the average location density value for all blocks greater than 1 ha.
Fig 6Street GVI for typical cities.
Note that only street segments and blocks that follow the definition in Table 2 are mapped in the figure.
Regression results for location-level street GVI.
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | Coefficients | Coefficients | ||||
| (Constant) | ||||||
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||
| -0.003 | 0.444 | 0.004 | 0.341 | |||
| 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||
| 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||
| 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||
| 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||
| 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||
| 0.000 | ||||||
| 0.000 | ||||||
| Adjusted | 0.014 | 0.025 | 0.036 | |||
Note: coefficients in bold are significant at the 0.05 level. All coefficients for the three models have been standardized. The explanation of each variable is available in Section 5.2.
Regression results for location-level street GVI for each level of cities.
| Variables | All levels | LEVEL = 2 | LEVEL = 3 | LEVEL = 4 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | Coefficients | Coefficients | Coefficients | |||||
| (Constant) | ||||||||
| 0.047 | 0.000 | 0.062 | 0.000 | -0.040 | 0.000 | 0.053 | 0.000 | |
| 0.115 | 0.000 | 0.094 | 0.000 | 0.090 | 0.000 | 0.117 | 0.000 | |
| 1.525 | 0.000 | -0.011 | 0.001 | |||||
| −0.042 | 0.000 | 1.097 | 0.000 | -0.041 | 0.000 | |||
| 0.034 | 0.000 | -0.338 | 0.000 | 0.011 | 0.001 | |||
| -0.153 | 0.000 | -0.159 | 0.000 | |||||
| -0.032 | 0.000 | -0.100 | 0.000 | -0.751 | 0.000 | -0.026 | 0.000 | |
| 0.018 | 0.000 | -0.541 | 0.000 | |||||
| 0.143 | 0.000 | -0.093 | 0.000 | 0.132 | 0.000 | |||
| Adjusted | 0.036 | 0.019 | 0.092 | 0.037 | ||||
| N | 173,425 | 3,636 | 12,141 | 157,648 | ||||
Note: all coefficients for the three models have been standardized. The explanation of each variable is available in Section 5.2.
Our method versus that of Li et al. [4].
| Comparison Dimension | This Study’s Method | [ |
|---|---|---|
| Sampling strategy | Every 50 m on streets | Random |
| Data source used | Tencent | |
| Validation | Photoshop, SegNet, and official list of National Garden Cities | Photoshop |
| Application area | Central areas of 245 cities | A local area of a city |
| Spatial unit(s) for analysis | Site, streets, and blocks | Sites |
| City-level comparison | Yes | No |
| Results derived | Both intra- and inter-city findings | Intracity findings |