IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i10p4671-d1659486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Performance of a Field-Based Assessment of Human Thermal Comfort Indices in Urban Green Space

Author

Listed:
  • Hongguang Bao

    (College of Forestry, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010010, China)

  • Yiwei Sun

    (College of Forestry, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010010, China)

  • Lin Gu

    (Research Institute of Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China)

  • Xuemei Yang

    (College of Forestry, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010010, China)

  • Kalbinur Nurmamat

    (College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, China)

  • Huaxia Yao

    (Department of Biology, Chemistry and Geography, Nipissing University, North Bay, ON P1B 8L7, Canada)

Abstract

Urban green spaces, closely tied to local climates, significantly affect human comfort levels, yet existing assessment methods vary in applicability across different contexts and regions. Here, we determined the applicability of two commonly used indices to evaluate human comfort in urban green space types in Hohhot City in China, which is in an arid and semi-arid area. We established sites in four different urban green space types (S1–S4) and a control area (CK) through field-based assessment, and collected meteorological data over 10 days in each season from 2020 to 2021. Specifically, air temperature, relative humidity, and average wind speed were observed from 7:00 to 19:00. Air temperature was highest in summer and lowest in winter. Throughout the day, air temperature first increased and then decreased, with the maximum temperature occurring later in winter than in other seasons. Relative humidity showed an opposite diurnal trend to temperature, and there were no significant differences between urban green space types and CK. The average wind speed of CK was significantly higher than that of the urban green space types. HCI Lu classifies thermal comfort levels across urban green space types and seasons into four distinct categories as uncomfortable, comfortable to less comfortable, less comfortable, and extremely uncomfortable. HCI CMA further stratifies thermal conditions at urban green space types by season into cool and refreshing, most comfortable, most comfortable to slightly cool, cold, and uncomfortable. The HCI Lu ranged from 2.3 to 25.1, and tended to first decrease and then increase on a daily basis. Conversely, HCI CMA fluctuated throughout the day and ranged from 18.6 to 78.0. According to HCI Lu , the urban green space types were comfortable for 45% of the observation time, and were comfortable for a greater proportion of time compared to if the comfort was calculated using HCI CMA . HCI CMA was strongly correlated with air temperature and average wind speed. According to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) for HCI CMA was 0.59–0.91, and was higher than that of HCI Lu in each season, indicating greater suitability for the study site.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongguang Bao & Yiwei Sun & Lin Gu & Xuemei Yang & Kalbinur Nurmamat & Huaxia Yao, 2025. "Comparative Performance of a Field-Based Assessment of Human Thermal Comfort Indices in Urban Green Space," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-22, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4671-:d:1659486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4671/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4671/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fuhao Sun & Junhua Zhang & Shiro Takeda & Jingshu Cui & Ruochen Yang, 2024. "Vertical Plant Configuration: Its Impact on Microclimate and Thermal Comfort in Urban Small Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Xuyang Yao & Mingjun Zhang & Yu Zhang & Hanyu Xiao & Jiaxin Wang, 2021. "Research on Evaluation of Climate Comfort in Northwest China under Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Junzhiwei Jiang & Peter Irga & Robert Coe & Philip Gibbons, 2024. "Effects of indoor plants on CO2 concentration, indoor air temperature and relative humidity in office buildings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(7), pages 1-13, July.
    4. Reihaneh Aghamolaei & Mohammad Mehdi Azizi & Behnaz Aminzadeh & James O’Donnell, 2023. "A comprehensive review of outdoor thermal comfort in urban areas: Effective parameters and approaches," Energy & Environment, , vol. 34(6), pages 2204-2227, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jinkui Wu & Tian Jin & Yancong Wu & Yongjian Ding & Yaqiong Mu & Di Zeng, 2022. "The Variation of UTCI with the Background of Climate Change and Its Implications for Tourism in a Complicated Climate Region in Western China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-22, November.
    2. Hui Xi & Yating Li & Wanjun Hou, 2025. "Impact of Environmental Factors on Summer Thermal Comfort of Ribbon Waterfront Park in Hot Summer and Cold Winter Regions: A Case Study of Hefei," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-42, March.
    3. Md. Sarwar Jahan, 2024. "Trend Analysis Of Relative Humidity In Khulna Of Bangladesh From Historical Data," Geological Behavior (GBR), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 8(2), pages 155-163, November.
    4. Hao Mei & Jin Yang & Mingshun Xiang & Xiaofeng Yang & Chunjian Wang & Wenheng Li & Suhua Yang, 2022. "Evaluation and Optimization Model of Rural Settlement Habitability in the Upper Reaches of the Minjiang River, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-18, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4671-:d:1659486. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.