Exploring the factors behind the discrepancy between two-dimensional and three-dimensional indicators of greenspace exposure

Assessing greenspace exposure is vital in environmental health research due to its impact on human health. Advances in technology, such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), enable precise three-dimensional (3D) greenspace assessments, measuring the exact volume of greenspace exposure. Despite the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lixian Su, Zihan Kan, Mei-Po Kwan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2025-06-01
Series:Ecological Indicators
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X2500514X
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849325804410896384
author Lixian Su
Zihan Kan
Mei-Po Kwan
author_facet Lixian Su
Zihan Kan
Mei-Po Kwan
author_sort Lixian Su
collection DOAJ
description Assessing greenspace exposure is vital in environmental health research due to its impact on human health. Advances in technology, such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), enable precise three-dimensional (3D) greenspace assessments, measuring the exact volume of greenspace exposure. Despite these advancements, traditional two-dimensional (2D) methods like the NDVI remain prevalent due to extensive research and data availability. Understanding the relationships and spatial discrepancies between 2D and 3D greenspace indicators is essential for improving public health strategies, as current gaps hinder comprehension of their impact on health outcomes and the application of 3D indicators in research. This study addresses this gap by explaining the inconsistent spatial patterns between the NDVI and greenspace volume, identifying landscape-related factors associated with these inconsistencies, and elucidating the implications of differences between the NDVI and volume on greenspace exposure measurement. We curated a set of landscape factors based on prior research and used an explainable machine learning technique to explore the associations between 2D and 3D greenspace indicators and these landscape elements. Our findings reveal that in highly developed urban and woodland areas, the greenspace exposure measured by vegetation volume tends to be higher than the greenspace exposure measured by the NDVI, while in areas dominated by low-growing vegetation, NDVI-based measurements are higher compared to the measure based on vegetation volume. Additionally, our study also indicates that the differences between the 2D and 3D greenspace indicators may be influenced by topographic factors. These insights offer strategic guidance for the application of 3D greenspace indicators in environmental health studies and inform future urban planning and policy decisions.
format Article
id doaj-art-2a14b8bbeaf34b4a9ee565e4cda216ae
institution Kabale University
issn 1470-160X
language English
publishDate 2025-06-01
publisher Elsevier
record_format Article
series Ecological Indicators
spelling doaj-art-2a14b8bbeaf34b4a9ee565e4cda216ae2025-08-20T03:48:19ZengElsevierEcological Indicators1470-160X2025-06-0117511358410.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113584Exploring the factors behind the discrepancy between two-dimensional and three-dimensional indicators of greenspace exposureLixian Su0Zihan Kan1Mei-Po Kwan2Department of Geography and Resource Management, Wong Foo Yuan Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Institute of Space and Earth Information Science, Fok Ying Tung Remote Sensing Science Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, ChinaDepartment of Geography and Resource Management, Wong Foo Yuan Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Institute of Space and Earth Information Science, Fok Ying Tung Remote Sensing Science Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Corresponding author at: Department of Geography and Resource Management, Wong Foo Yuan Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.Department of Geography and Resource Management, Wong Foo Yuan Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Institute of Space and Earth Information Science, Fok Ying Tung Remote Sensing Science Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, ChinaAssessing greenspace exposure is vital in environmental health research due to its impact on human health. Advances in technology, such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), enable precise three-dimensional (3D) greenspace assessments, measuring the exact volume of greenspace exposure. Despite these advancements, traditional two-dimensional (2D) methods like the NDVI remain prevalent due to extensive research and data availability. Understanding the relationships and spatial discrepancies between 2D and 3D greenspace indicators is essential for improving public health strategies, as current gaps hinder comprehension of their impact on health outcomes and the application of 3D indicators in research. This study addresses this gap by explaining the inconsistent spatial patterns between the NDVI and greenspace volume, identifying landscape-related factors associated with these inconsistencies, and elucidating the implications of differences between the NDVI and volume on greenspace exposure measurement. We curated a set of landscape factors based on prior research and used an explainable machine learning technique to explore the associations between 2D and 3D greenspace indicators and these landscape elements. Our findings reveal that in highly developed urban and woodland areas, the greenspace exposure measured by vegetation volume tends to be higher than the greenspace exposure measured by the NDVI, while in areas dominated by low-growing vegetation, NDVI-based measurements are higher compared to the measure based on vegetation volume. Additionally, our study also indicates that the differences between the 2D and 3D greenspace indicators may be influenced by topographic factors. These insights offer strategic guidance for the application of 3D greenspace indicators in environmental health studies and inform future urban planning and policy decisions.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X2500514XGreenspaceLiDARNDVILandscape factors
spellingShingle Lixian Su
Zihan Kan
Mei-Po Kwan
Exploring the factors behind the discrepancy between two-dimensional and three-dimensional indicators of greenspace exposure
Ecological Indicators
Greenspace
LiDAR
NDVI
Landscape factors
title Exploring the factors behind the discrepancy between two-dimensional and three-dimensional indicators of greenspace exposure
title_full Exploring the factors behind the discrepancy between two-dimensional and three-dimensional indicators of greenspace exposure
title_fullStr Exploring the factors behind the discrepancy between two-dimensional and three-dimensional indicators of greenspace exposure
title_full_unstemmed Exploring the factors behind the discrepancy between two-dimensional and three-dimensional indicators of greenspace exposure
title_short Exploring the factors behind the discrepancy between two-dimensional and three-dimensional indicators of greenspace exposure
title_sort exploring the factors behind the discrepancy between two dimensional and three dimensional indicators of greenspace exposure
topic Greenspace
LiDAR
NDVI
Landscape factors
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X2500514X
work_keys_str_mv AT lixiansu exploringthefactorsbehindthediscrepancybetweentwodimensionalandthreedimensionalindicatorsofgreenspaceexposure
AT zihankan exploringthefactorsbehindthediscrepancybetweentwodimensionalandthreedimensionalindicatorsofgreenspaceexposure
AT meipokwan exploringthefactorsbehindthediscrepancybetweentwodimensionalandthreedimensionalindicatorsofgreenspaceexposure