Cross-sectional analysis reveals horticultural spatial configuration predicts visual perception in urban parks, indicating landscape structure matters beyond vegetation quantity.
Urban park assessment typically emphasizes vegetation quantity, yet spaces with similar greenness may still produce different visual experiences. This study aimed to identify the structural characteristics of horticultural configurations and examine their incremental predictive value for multidimensional visual perception. A total of 500 local landscape scenes were selected from 10 urban parks in Chengdu and presented as standardized photographs. One hundred and fifty participants rated 17 visual attributes on a seven-point scale. Landscape structure metrics, principal component analysis, cluster analysis, cross-park validation, and SHAP analysis revealed that horticultural configurations varied primarily along three gradients: vegetation continuity–fragmentation, geometric complexity, and patch size. These gradients formed three representative states: dense woody, open heterogeneous, and impervious fragmented configurations. Visual perception was organized into three functional domains: restorative immersion, spatial openness, and affective richness. Compared with models containing only the NDVI and greenspace coverage, adding configuration metrics increased the cross-park predictive R2 by 0.257, 0.181, and 0.241 for the three perceptual domains, respectively. Vegetation aggregation and connectivity, mean patch area, and shape complexity were the primary predictors of the respective domains and exhibited stable nonlinear response patterns. This study extends park assessment from vegetation quantity to spatial organization mechanisms, providing an evidence base for perception-oriented horticultural design and helping reduce costly trial-and-error and inefficient investment in park renewal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: