Visual analysis of urban design and planning based on virtual reality technology

2.1 PRISMA

The methodical selection of research investigations for examining urban planning and design with virtual reality technology is described in the PRISMA flowchart. The research’s primary objective is to optimize campus green spaces with GIS to improve accessibility, use, and sustainability. Seventy full-text articles were evaluated after 270 of the 350 original records were examined. After removing 56 irrelevant or duplicate studies, 14 were included in the qualitative synthesis. The results emphasize the value of PGS in smart campuses by focusing on student demands and layout optimization. To grasp the most current trends in urban green space research, the literature search was restricted to the time period of 2015–2023. Research studies published before 2015 were excluded to maintain relevance to contemporary advancements in GIS (geographic information systems) technologies, urban planning, and green infrastructure. Recommendations based on GIS guarantee green spaces that are both functional and sustainable. Figure 3 shows the PRISMA evaluation for related works.

Figure 3

PRISMA evaluation for related works.

3.1 Data collection

Following a peak in campus construction that lasted more than 20 years, China’s growth rate has significantly slowed down, and there is now a focus on creating a sustainable and effective green campus. To determine whether or not green spaces can realize their potential advantages, it is important to improve their use, accessibility, and attractiveness. By means of a survey administered to 590 students at the Yijin Campus in Hangzhou, China, and a connectivity analysis grounded in the Space Syntax Theory, the investigators have discovered a negative usage condition for green spaces: most students visit the green space infrequently or sporadically, and their visitation time focuses in the afternoon and after class but very infrequently in early morning. China has experienced a peak in campus construction for almost 20 years; there were 1022 colleges and universities in 1998, but there were 2631 in 2017 super-over 2.5 times as many as in 1998. In addition, there were 30.18 million students enrolled in schools, an astounding over 8.3 times the number of students in 1998 (Ministry of Education 2018) [27]. It is important to note that the rate of development has greatly slowed recently, and the time of extensive college building has started to shift toward an emphasis on a sustainable and efficient campus. Additionally, public greening in Hangzhou expanded far more quickly between 2005 and 2017 than it did throughout all of China. The increase in the ratio for urban public improvement per capita in Hangzhou is also significantly higher than China’s per capita area growth rate, according to data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China in 2017 and the Bureau of Hangzhou Statistics (BHS) in 2018.

3.2 Research questionnaire

The researchers created a questionnaire to investigate the conditions and influences that encourage different uses of PGS, which, upon evaluation, revealed no privacy concerns. Additionally, Students were individually contacted, briefed, and had to acknowledge that participation in the research was optional. A total of 757 items of the questionnaire, distributed throughout the fall months of September to November 2018, were invalid, including 167 that were unrecovered or retrieved but incomplete. Thus, as detailed in the Appendix, it was used to gather basic data on 590 students. The first section covered these data, which included the students’ gender, growth environment, faculties, and dorms, as well as whether they enjoy being in nature and how frequently they move around campus. The second section spoke about how the needs of the pupils for each area were met. The third step was looking at the students’ use time, or when they leave their dorms and go about campus.

3.3 Role of campus green space system based on GIS technology

GIS is a robust technology employed to gather, analyze, and visualize geospatial data for urban planning and design. GIS facilitates mapping and analyzing the interactions between various geographical elements, enabling urban planners to make effective decisions. Visualization techniques based on GIS enhance some understanding of complex urban systems, such as transportation systems and land use, and can simulate possible urban change and the impact on nature and society. GIS ultimately aids effective urban systems planning through clear images of spatial interactions and trends that are sourced from data. A GIS technology-oriented campus green space management system uses spatial data and analysis to manage and enhance campus green spaces. It involves the use of the integration of GIS software, geospatial data, and related technologies to help plan, design, monitor, and maintain green spaces on the campus. The system uses geographic information, including maps, satellite imagery, and other relevant layers of data. The total list of green spaces, i.e., parks, gardens, lawns, sports grounds, and trees, can be quantified with these details. Based on GIS technology, the campus green spaces can be mapped and in significant detail. This displays a graphical mapping of the entire campus along with details of location, area, and characteristics of every green space. The green space data can be analyzed in numerous ways because of GIS technologies. GIS technology enables the planning and designing of green space through the facilitation of stakeholders’ visualization of prospective changes or supplements. Depending on distance from structures, topography, and existing ecology, it facilitates the identification of where future facilities are desirable, e.g., restaurants, pedestrian paths, or sports complexes. The system may involve continuously or periodically monitoring natural factors in green spaces, which would include monitoring soil moisture, temperature, and other meaningful factors. The use of GIS could be used to map and evaluate this data, and identify areas that could be improved or developed. GIS technology assists with the management and upkeep of campus green spaces by tracking the condition and maintenance history of physical features such as trees, irrigation systems, and recreational equipment. It also allows for the scheduling of maintenance, the tracking of work orders, and the optimization of resource allocation. The system could also provide a basis for civic engagement and involvement in the maintenance of green spaces. The creation of a campus green space system utilizing GIS technology can allow for colleges and other institutions of education to manage, improve, and encourage the use of green spaces on campus. It encourages eco-sustainable and people-friendly habitats, enhances maintenance and management practices, and assists in evidence-based decision making.

3.4 Analyzing the value of ecological land in campus green space

Different forms of land use have varying values for ecological services. Living organisms could find a suitable home in a place that maintains a high ecosystem service value per unit area of biodiversity. The environmental service value preserved by the examined area is determined by equation (1) using the amount of biodiversity service value per unit area of the environment, modified by the mean MTCJ j ,

where TF ′ stands for the corrected biodiversity service equivalent. Equation (2) illustrates how the preservation of water resources largely serves the environment’s supply and adaptation requirements. MTCJ means temperature change, MTCJ soil represents the measurement of soil area, MTCJ veg for the vegetation or green spaces.

For urban land, the soil retention function offers significant adjusting services that have both the environmental stability of urban green spaces and the prospects of environmentally conscious development. The equation’s fundamental form is (3)–(5), GJ j geographical index or green junction index, MTUJ j + MTCJ j building type or building temperature, | AT j | total temperature for urban zone.

At the campus green space, the disparity between the limited number of green spaces and the high population density raises the need for ecological units in the eyes of the locals. Using many sources, the search for human agglomeration zones in southeast China ZGF data. The normalized difference index of the evening light data and MTCJ max and MDF nor the NVK accordingly in equations (6)–(9)

Following training, validation, and testing, the evaluation model establishes the relationship between each neural network layer and the neurons within the permitted error range. The comprehensive weight is calculated by considering the weights from the input layer to the hidden layer and the elements from the hidden layer to the resultant layer k ji , y , x , G ji , and K ji . As a result, equations (10)–(14) represent the connection between the input and output elements using the following indicators:

Agglomeration Landscape Images Description Balance, which is based on GIS technology, is a fairly common description technique. The measured light matching complies with Glassman’s law. The following equations (15)–(18) display the particular and tristimulus values: the V , S , K , P component of the color or light matching for the landscape image, ∫ λ r φ considering all wavelengths of light, K [ K ] + S [ S ] + P [ P ] color response, and k ̅ , s ̅ , p ̅ color match functions.

3.5 The examination of the sample green spaces’ spatial syntax

The creation of a sustainable environment to be divided among various groups, individuals, or activities is the goal of landscape design, which is based on this basic idea. Since Axial Line Analysis is effective in addressing accessibility difficulties, which can be shown from several examples, it has been mostly utilized to analyze road networks. Due to this, the Yijin campus’s campus road networks were examined in this research using Axial Line Analysis, the main Space syntax approach.

3.6 Benefits of GIS-based planning and optimization

• By providing information on the distribution of current green spaces, their use, and possible growth regions, GIS technology allows data-driven decision-making. This guarantees efficient use of the available space and optimizes the distribution of resources.

• GIS tools encourage cooperation amongst the many parties engaged in the planning process, such as campus administrators, urban planners, and landscape architects. Through information exchange and input, they may jointly create sustainable green space systems.

• GIS-based design assures the long-term sustainability of campus green spaces by taking environmental elements such as sun path analysis, water runoff modeling, and tree planting techniques into account.

4.1 Results

4.1.1 Satisfaction with PGS

Campus green space system development and optimization based on GIS technology are largely influenced by how much the general public is satisfied with green spaces. GIS technology can be used by planners to identify areas with inadequate green space or that are hard for the general public to access. Green areas can be placed in the best possible positions available for campus students, residents, and visitors through planners’ evaluations of data, including pedestrian routes, transit systems, and population information. By making it easier for users to access and utilize the green areas, public enjoyment is elevated through this greater accessibility. With GIS technology, planners are able to analyze whether green areas are performing well already and identify locations where they should improve. Planners can enhance the green space design and layout to meet the various needs and desires of the public by evaluating information about amenities, recreation activities, sitting areas, and landscaping. Planners can create public-friendly green spaces that are aesthetically pleasing by incorporating this data into the design and optimization process. Customers are more likely to be satisfied in general due to this focus on aesthetics because they can benefit from a lovely and well-maintained setting. Public satisfaction rises as a result of the use of GIS technology in the design and improvement of campus green spaces. Planners may design green spaces that respond to the different requirements and preferences of the public, eventually boosting their overall pleasure and well-being, by taking into account variables such as accessibility, utility, aesthetics, environmental quality, and community participation (there were 590 responses).

In Figure 5 and Table 2, the difference between the six PGS for factors like plant collocation, overall satisfaction, test settings, safety, and the overall seasonal color change is not very great. Therefore, the researchers show a high score at any one of the spaces, which is considered as overall satisfaction, with space 6 being relatively high at 149 points and space 1 being the lowest at 126 points. The next four areas’ scores 131, 133, 135, and 139 points, respectively, had a comparable level of pleasure.

Figure 5

Comparison of satisfactions of the PGS (n = 590).

Table 2

Numerical outcomes of satisfaction of the PGS (n = 590)

	Proportion (%)
Satisfactions	Plant collocation	Seasonal color change	Settings for rest	Safety	Overall satisfaction
Space-1	118	122	108	116	126
Space-2	116	120	111	112	131
Space-3	117	121	109	110	133
Space-4	116	122	117	100	135
Space-5	115	121	116	99	139
Space-6	110	118	120	93	149

4.1.2 Demands to the PGS

According to the respondents (there were 590 responses), enjoying the environment, reading or relaxing, and conversing with others or going for a stroll are the three functions that are required the most on average. The obvious winner among them is talking or walking, which 356 respondents required, or just over 60%, demonstrating the most significant need and desire. PGS are essential elements of urban landscapes and provide the community with several advantages. The demands made on PGSs are a reflection of what the general population wants and needs. Planning and maximizing PGS must take these criteria into account to guarantee that they satisfy the needs and expectations of the general public. To improve the general quality and use of PGS, regular feedback, surveys, and community discussions may assist in collecting information and prioritizing changes.

For the overall Demands of the PGS in Figure 6 and Table 3, there is not much of a difference between the six green places in terms of things like reading or relaxing, taking in the view, conversing or strolling, fitness centers, housing options, and other things. Therefore, the study shows a high score at any one of the spaces that consider chatting or walking, with Space 4 being relatively high, Space 1 has the lowest score, 120 points, with 135 points. The other four and the other spots had the same scores, which came to 130, 121, 128, 132, and 133 indications, correspondingly.

Figure 6

Comparison of demands to the PGS (n = 590).

Table 3

Numerical outcomes of demands to the PGS (n = 590)

	Proportion (%)
Demands	Reading or resting	Enjoying Scenery	Chatting or walking	Exercise facilities	Living facilities	Others
Space-1	98	88	120	99	75	110
Space-2	111	99	121	88	98	75
Space-3	120	89	130	78	108	65
Space-4	118	107	135	79	129	87
Space-5	122	106	128	82	67	86
Space-6	105	85	132	66	83	119
Average	106	86	133	65	84	116

4.1.3 Usage periods for the PGS

The community uses PGS; however, the times of use might change depending on the weather, daylight hours, and community preferences. Respondents had the option of selecting more than one response to this section’s question, and those who rarely visited the university’s green spaces were disregarded (there were a total of 481 responses; those who replied “sometimes” and “often” to the question indicate that they often move about on campus but not “nearly no”. Depending on the location, temperature, cultural customs, and accessibility to services and programs in the green spaces, different use times may apply. PGS may be used all year long by individuals, families, and community organizations, and scheduled activities throughout the week, on the weekend, and in the evening.

The difference between the six green spaces and factors like Ante Meridiem (AM) and Post Meridiem (PM), before class, after class, evening, and others is not great for the overall usage periods to the PGS shown in Figure 7 and Table 4, so the researchers show the highest score at any one of the spaces that we consider to be after class, with space 1 being relatively high at 160 points and space 5 being the lowest at 122 points. Similar use times were present in the scores of the other areas, which were 152, 143, 134, 126, and 137 points, respectively.

Figure 7

Comparison of usage periods to the PGS (n = 481).

Table 4

Numerical outcomes of usage periods to the PGS (n = 481)

	Proportion (%)
Usage periods	AM	PM	Evening	Before class	After class	Others
Space 1	64	70	58	66	160	63
Space 2	70	72	60	68	152	59
Space 3	72	74	56	65	143	71
Space 4	80	85	72	45	134	65
Space 5	86	79	74	47	122	73
Space 6	52	92	76	68	126	67
Average	54	94	77	62	137	57

4.1.4 The convenience of the PGS

Another question we examined was, How accessible is it from the main campus gate, compared to the residence hall complexes or from any other location on campus to any of these public areas. Figure 8 shows the outcomes. The majority of students said it was rather easy to get from the primary entrance to each of the preserves. Space 2 was the least convenient because it was far from the main entrance. In contrast, since it was closest to their dorms, students felt that space 1 was the most convenient from their dorms, rating 88.

Figure 8

Comparison of the convenience of the PGS.

For the overall accessibility or convenience of the PGS in Figure 8 and Table 5, the variations among the six green areas as features, including the separation from the primary entrance, distance, from the dormitory, and distance from anywhere, are not great. The researchers will display the high score at any one of the spaces that are considered to be the distance from the main entrance, with space 1 being relatively high, with 88 points, and space 2 being the lowest, with 20 points. The average ratings for the following four locations’ convenience were comparable, at 46, 52, 65, 72, and 35 points, respectively.

Table 5

Numerical outcomes of convenience of the PGS

Convenience	From dormitory	From main entrance	From anywhere
Space 1	16	88	10
Space 2	28	20	22
Space 3	32	46	19
Space 4	41	52	35
Space 5	53	65	22
Space 6	43	72	21
Average	18	35	15

4.1.5 Collision of gender on usage periods

A total of 403 people (268 of them were men) participated in the poll, and Figure 9 demonstrates a high indicating 63% of guys seldom ever visit the campus green space. In contrast, there are very few women, only 10, or 135%, who never visit public green places. Gender may have some impact on how people use and prefer PGS, resulting in differences in utilization times. It’s crucial to understand that these are only generalizations and that people’s tastes might differ greatly. Additionally, cultural elements, social conventions, and particular community traits may affect how gender affects use times. PGS may be created and maintained to suit a variety of use patterns, promote inclusiveness and equitable access for everyone, and take into account the various requirements and preferences of all genders.

Figure 9

Comparison of collision of gender on usage periods.

For the overall Impact or collision of gender on usage periodsin, Figure 9 and Table 6, the difference between the male and females with factors such as Ante Meridiem (AM) and Post Meridiem (PM), before class, after class, evening, Nearly no (number) (frequency moving round on campus) and others is not large; the researchers will show the high score at Male which consider as from Nearly number (frequency moving round on campus) in which male is relatively high with 63% and nearly number (frequency moving round on campus) in which female is relatively low with 10%.

Table 6

Numerical outcomes of collision of gender on usage periods

	Proportion (%)
Gender on usage periods	Male	Female
Nearly no	63	10
AM	50	20
PM	45	22
Evening	32	18
Before class	30	15
After class	28	24
Others	20	26

4.1.6 Lack of appeal of green environments

Children’ enjoyment may be impacted by the standard of the green area itself, which could reflect the location’s attraction. The quality of the green space itself can have an effect on children’s enjoyment and could demonstrate how appealing the location. In the institution’s green space, however, the mix of big trees, medium in size shrubs, and perennials is herbaceous, as well as the flowering season’s concentration in spring and summer, make it easy for it to become monotonous, as seen in spaces 1 and 6 which are represented in Figure 10. The appeal of the green space itself may be increased by using a sensible plant arrangement to create a commensurate Richness of color throughout the seasons and beautiful scenery.

Figure 10

Comparative analysis of unappealing green spaces.

4.1.7 Comparison of GIS and VR/AR

In urban planning and design with GIS-based visualization, GIS is better at data visualization (90%) and impact assessment (95%), due to its capacity to render fine geographic details and evaluate environmental, social, and economic impacts efficiently. GIS is also effective in cost efficiency (85%) and scalability (90%), rendering it effective in big-scale urban planning developments. However, GIS positions low in user interaction (70%) and live data merging (80%) when compared with VR and Augmented Reality (AR) at 95 and 85%, respectively, as a result of their interactive and immersive technology. VR/AR also levels higher than GIS in user interaction and collaboration (85%), but is less cost-effective (60%) and scalable (75%) with greater technology demands and maintenance subscriptions. Generally, while GIS has strong visualization and impact evaluation, VR/AR has more user interaction and real-time integration capabilities, albeit at greater expense. Figure 11 and Table 7 show the outcome performance for comparison of GIS and VR/AR.

Figure 11

Outcome performance for comparison of GIS and VR/AR.

Table 7

Numerical comparison of GIS and VR/AR

Criteria	GIS (%)	VR/AR (%)
Data visualization	90	80
Real-time data integration	80	85
User engagement	70	95
Collaboration	80	85
Cost efficiency	85	60
Scalability	90	75
Impact assessment	95	80
Maintenance & Upkeep	85	65
Technology requirements	80	70

4.2 Findings and implications

The research emphasizes the limited impact gender and environmental conditions have on green space perception among students, with most respondents, especially men, hardly using the green spaces. The research does not provide enough context or detail on how these factors affect usage patterns and preferences. More thorough analysis of cultural and social determinants affecting gender-based differences in use would be an improvement in understanding these findings. Green space attractiveness, or the appeal of green spaces, can be enhanced by more optimal plant scheming and seasonal diversity. Specification of these factors would offer more pragmatic information for optimal green space planning. GIS excels in data visualization (90%) and impact assessment (95%), making it highly effective for large-scale urban planning developments. VR/AR outperforms GIS in user engagement (95%) and real-time data integration (85%), though at higher costs and lower scalability.

4.3 Discussion

Planning and optimizing campus green space systems is essential to developing settings that are sustainable and habitable for educational institutions. GIS technology has evolved in recent times into a powerful tool for storing, displaying, and analyzing spatial data, providing it with an ideal platform for planning and improving campus planning. This article will examine the contributions of GIS technology to the design and improvement of green space systems on campus while highlighting positive and negative aspects. Green campuses provide several environmental advantages, such as mitigating urban heat islands, improving air quality, conserving water, and enhancing biodiversity. Physical activity, social interaction, and stress relief are experiences that enhance the health and well-being of students, faculty, and staff alike. If designed well, green space can improve the learning experience, serve as outdoor classrooms, and provide space for recreation. GIS technology can collect, combine, and analyze several types of geographical data, such as information on structures, terrain, and land cover. It can assess potential locations for green space placement, assess connections to the rest of campus, and analyze how different your campus administration is related spatially. Beyond feeds of spatial data, GIS platforms can also produce attractive maps that share pertinent information while addressing stakeholder involvement, engagement, and decision making. The benefits of various designs are simulated through GIS-based software that studies the land and evaluates sun, wind, and other pedestrian access. This use of GIS will evaluate different green space designs and assess them. Campus green space networks can be designed and optimized to a significant level with the help of GIS technology. GIS facilitates efficient resource allocation, stakeholder participation, and long-term sustainability through the application of geographical data analysis, visualization, and modeling. For effective implementation, it is critical to resolve issues with data accuracy, technical expertise, and flexibility. Adopting the use of GIS technology allows schools to create vibrant, open, and environmentally friendly campus green spaces that enhance the overall campus experience. GIS is particularly good at mapping geographic data and determining impacts, hence being a sound option for massive urban planning schemes. Its cost-efficiency and scalability are significant strengths, although it lags behind VR and AR in user interaction and real-time data incorporation. VR and AR are superior in terms of interactive aspects, boosting collaboration and real-time updates, which are paramount for dynamic urban development procedures. Generally, GIS can be a better option for big investigations, while VR/AR provides more sophisticated features but at a higher price.

5.1 Limitations and future scope

A limitation of this research is the dependence on the precision and detail of GIS data, which cannot always reflect the true complexity of the real world. The absence of real-time data integration and minimal stakeholder engagement might impair the strength of the analysis in reflecting dynamic urban planning situations. Future research studies can investigate the incorporation of real-time data streams into GIS for dynamic urban planning. The integration of more holistic stakeholder feedback, including planners and local communities, could enhance the quality of decisions. Further, the implementation of novel machine learning (ML) algorithms to improve predictive modelling for urban growth could be a worthwhile area of interest.