4.7 Article

Assessing visual green effects of individual urban trees using airborne Lidar data

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 536, Issue -, Pages 232-244

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.06.142

Keywords

Visual greenness; Lidar; Regression model; Landscape analysis

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB955501-01]
  2. Youth Scholars Program of Beijing Normal University [2014NT21]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Urban trees benefit people's daily life in terms of air quality, local climate, recreation and aesthetics. Among these functions, a growing number of studies have been conducted to understand the relationship between residents' preference towards local environments and visual green effects of urban greenery. However, except for on-site photography, there are few quantitative methods to calculate green visibility, especially tree green visibility, from viewers' perspectives. To fill this research gap, a case study was conducted in the city of Cambridge, which has a diversity of tree species, sizes and shapes. Firstly, a photograph-based survey was conducted to approximate the actual value of visual green effects of individual urban trees. In addition, small footprint airborne Lidar (Light detection and ranging) data was employed to measure the size and shape of individual trees. Next, correlations between visual tree green effects and tree structural parameters were examined. Through experiments and gradual refinement, a regression model with satisfactory R-2 and limited large errors is proposed. Considering the diversity of sample trees and the result of cross-validation, this model has the potential to be applied to other study sites. This research provides urban planners and decision makers with an innovative method to analyse and evaluate landscape patterns in terms of tree greenness. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available