4.7 Article

Measuring oppressiveness of streetscapes

期刊

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
卷 107, 期 1, 页码 1-11

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.04.001

关键词

Oppressiveness; Tree; Streetscape; Environmental stress; High-rise buildings

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oppressiveness, as experienced in urban environments with high-rise buildings, is a form of environmental stress that poses psychological pressure on urban residents. The intention was to study the oppressiveness of streetscapes and provide a tool that urban planners could use to measure oppressiveness to then subsequently improve the livability and pleasantness. The benefits of this tool were assessed through a dialog with five planners and also as a specialist determination by the authors. The influence of trees lining a street in front of buildings was assessed in Tokyo to advance the development of an equation initiated by previous researchers aiming at measuring the oppressiveness. The measurement was clone by solid angles of physical elements of street. In the controlled environment of an experiment room, we had the opportunity to more precisely study the influences of tree, buildings, sky, and their inter-relationships on human psychology. Physical parameters of the 3D-generated scenes were able to be adjusted based on characteristics in the real urban environment. Oppressiveness significantly increased when the solid angle of the building was enlarged. Trees revealed a significant mitigating influence on the oppressiveness and the portion of trees covering the building facade had the most impact on lessening oppressiveness. The following equation was developed through correlation analysis to estimate the oppressiveness of streetscapes: omega = Sigma{(Omega(B) - Omega(TCB))Gamma(3)} where omega is the oppressiveness, Omega(B) is solid angle of building facade, Omega(TCB) is solid angle of trees covering building, and Gamma is the distance of viewer from the building complex. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据