Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Exploring interactions of thermal, acoustic, and aesthetic environments on thermal experience in parks

149 Views


Abstract

The thermal comfort of urban parks is crucial for residents’ well-being and urban livability. There is limited research on the integration of different environmental factors in urban parks, with most studies focusing on hot, sunny days in summer. This study explored the interactions of multi-sensory factors, including thermal, acoustic, and aesthetic, on thermal experience in parks across various weather types. The results reveal that thermal conditions directly dominate thermal experience. Acoustic comfort has a relatively weak positive effect on thermal comfort, and this effect disappears under strong heat-stress conditions. Natural sounds help increase thermal acceptability, whereas mechanically dominated soundscapes have the opposite effect. Aesthetic satisfaction also contributes to higher thermal acceptability. Compared with blue spaces, aesthetic satisfaction with green spaces exerts a more consistently positive influence on thermal experience. The negative effect of PET is significantly weaker than the positive effects of perceived acoustic comfort and aesthetic satisfaction on overall satisfaction. The revealed multi-sensory interactions yield practical recommendations for urban planners and designers in addressing climate change and enhancing urban livability.

Similar content being viewed by others

The effects of acoustic-light-thermal environment quality parameters on pedestrians’ overall comforts in residential districts

Article
Open access
23 August 2024

Outdoor thermal comfort benchmarks and optimization design for children in open parks of hot summer and cold winter region

Article
Open access
14 May 2025

Outdoor thermal performance of urban development patterns in Greater Adelaide since the late 19th century

Article
Open access
25 November 2024

Data availability

Data will be made available upon reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

Ta:

Air temperature ((^circ)C)

Va:

Wind speed (m/s)

Tg:

Globe temperature ((^circ)C)

PET:

Physiological equivalent temperature (^circ)C)

TCV:

Thermal comfort vote

LAeq:

A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level

AcCV:

Acoustic comfort vote

AeSVG:

Aesthetic satisfaction vote for green space

OSV:

Overall satisfaction vote

RH:

Relative humidity (%)

Tmrt:

Mean radiant temperature (^circ)C)

G:

Global radiation (W/m(^2))

TSV:

Thermal sensation vote

TAV:

Thermal acceptability vote

AcSV:

Acoustic sensation vote

AeSV:

Aesthetic satisfaction vote

AeSVB:

Aesthetic satisfaction vote for blue space

References

  1. Tuholske, C. et al. Global urban population exposure to extreme heat. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2024792118 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Watkins, R., Palmer, J. & Kolokotroni, M. Increased temperature and intensification of the urban heat island: Implications for human comfort and urban design. Built Environ. 33, 85–96 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmed, K. S. Comfort in urban spaces: defining the boundaries of outdoor thermal comfort for the tropical urban environments. Energy Build. 35, 103–110 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Loures, L., Santos, R. & Panagopoulos, T. Urban parks and sustainable city planning-the case of portimão, portugal. Population 15, 171–180 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Braubach, M. et al. Effects of urban green space on environmental health, equity and resilience. Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas: linkages between science, policy and practice 187–205 (2017).

  6. Kumar, P. & Sharma, A. Assessing the outdoor thermal comfort conditions of exercising people in the semi-arid region of india. Sustain. Cities Soc. 76, 103366 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Yahia, M. W. & Johansson, E. Evaluating the behaviour of different thermal indices by investigating various outdoor urban environments in the hot dry city of damascus, syria. Int. J. Biometeorol. 57, 615–630 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang, Y., Rao, F., Xue, J. & Lai, D. Dependence of urban park visits on thermal environment and air quality. Urban For. Urban Green. 79, 127813 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  9. De Dear, R. & Brager, G. S. Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. UC Berkeley: Center for the Built Environment (1998).

  10. Wu, H., Sun, X. & Wu, Y. Investigation of the relationships between thermal, acoustic, illuminous environments and human perceptions. J. Build. Eng. 32, 101839 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schweiker, M. et al. Review of multi-domain approaches to indoor environmental perception and behaviour. Build. Environ. 176, 106804 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Torresin, S., Pernigotto, G., Cappelletti, F. & Gasparella, A. Combined effects of environmental factors on human perception and objective performance: A review of experimental laboratory works. Indoor Air 28, 525–538 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tsai, K.-T. & Lin, Y.-H. Identification of urban park activity intensity at different thermal environments and visible sky by using sound levels. Int. J. Biometeorol. 62, 1987–1994 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Galindo, T. & Hermida, M. A. Effects of thermophysiological and non-thermal factors on outdoor thermal perceptions: The tomebamba riverbanks case. Build. Environ. 138, 235–249 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nagano, K. & Horikoshi, T. New comfort index during combined conditions of moderate low ambient temperature and traffic noise. Energy Build. 37, 287–294 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pellerin, N. & Candas, V. Combined effects of temperature and noise on human discomfort. Physiol. Behav. 78, 99–106 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pellerin, N. & Candas, V. Effects of steady-state noise and temperature conditions on environmental perception and acceptability. Indoor air14 (2004).

  18. Qin, Z. et al. Creating comfortable outdoor environments: Understanding the intricate relationship between sound, humidity, and thermal comfort. Urban Clim. 55, 101967 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lau, K.K.-L. & Choi, C. Y. The influence of perceived aesthetic and acoustic quality on outdoor thermal comfort in urban environment. Build. Environ. 206, 108333 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jin, Y., Jin, H. & Kang, J. Combined effects of the thermal-acoustic environment on subjective evaluations in urban squares. Build. Environ. 168, 106517 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fanger, P. O., Breum, N. & Jerking, E. Can colour and noise influence man’s thermal comfort?. Ergonomics 20, 11–18 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yang, W., Moon, H. J. & Kim, M.-J. Combined effects of short-term noise exposure and hygrothermal conditions on indoor environmental perceptions. Indoor Built Environ. 27, 1119–1133 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wen, X. et al. Exploring the boundaries of indoor combined thermal-acoustic environmental effects on comfort perceptions. Build. Environ. 112580 (2025).

  24. Luo, W. et al. Effects of correlated color temperature of light on thermal comfort, thermophysiology and cognitive performance. Build. Environ. 231, 109944 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lechner, S., Moosmann, C., Wagner, A. & Schweiker, M. Does thermal control improve visual satisfaction? interactions between occupants’ self-perceived control, visual, thermal, and overall satisfaction. Indoor Air 31, 2329–2349 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Brambilla, A., Hu, W., Samangouei, R., Cadorin, R. & Davis, W. How correlated colour temperature manipulates human thermal perception and comfort. Build. Environ. 177, 106929 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Qin, H. et al. The effects of brightness and prominent colors on outdoor thermal perception in chongqing, china. Int. J. Biometeorol. 68, 1143–1154 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Huebner, G. M. et al. Saving energy with light? experimental studies assessing the impact of colour temperature on thermal comfort. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 15, 45–57 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Candas, V. & Dufour, A. Thermal comfort: multisensory interactions?. J. Physiol. Anthropol. Appl. Hum. Sci. 24, 33–36 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lenzholzer, S. et al. Awareness of urban climate adaptation strategies-an international overview. Urban Clim. 34, 100705 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lin, T.-P., Tsai, K.-T., Hwang, R.-L. & Matzarakis, A. Quantification of the effect of thermal indices and sky view factor on park attendance. Landsc. Urban Plan. 107, 137–146 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mayes, H. S. et al. The effects of manipulating the visual environment on thermal perception: A structured narrative review. J. Therm. Biol 112, 103488 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Allan, A. C., Garcia-Hansen, V., Isoardi, G. & Smith, S. S. Subjective assessments of lighting quality: A measurement review. Leukos (2019).

  34. Pierson, C., Wienold, J. & Bodart, M. Review of factors influencing discomfort glare perception from daylight. Leukos 14, 111–148 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bourchtein, A., Bourchtein, L. & Naoumova, N. On the visual complexity of built and natural landscapes. Fractals 22, 1450008 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ode, Å., Hagerhall, C. M. & Sang, N. Analysing visual landscape complexity: theory and application. Landsc. Res. 35, 111–131 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sunkavalli, K., Romeiro, F., Matusik, W., Zickler, T. & Pfister, H. What do color changes reveal about an outdoor scene? In 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1–8 (IEEE, 2008).

  38. Kirchhoff, T., Ramisch, K., Feucht, T., Reif, C. & Suda, M. Visual evaluations of wind turbines: Judgments of scenic beauty or of moral desirability?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 226, 104509 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Spielhofer, R., Hunziker, M., Kienast, F., Hayek, U. W. & Grêt-Regamey, A. Does rated visual landscape quality match visual features? an analysis for renewable energy landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 209, 104000 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Drahota, A. et al. Sensory environment on health-related outcomes of hospital patients. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (2012).

  41. Meili, N. et al. Vegetation cover and plant-trait effects on outdoor thermal comfort in a tropical city. Build. Environ. 195, 107733 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Chan, S., Chau, C. K. & Leung, T. On the study of thermal comfort and perceptions of environmental features in urban parks: A structural equation modeling approach. Build. Environ. 122, 171–183 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Xu, X. et al. The cooling and energy saving effect of landscape design parameters of urban park in summer: A case of beijing, china. Energy Build. 149, 91–100 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Yan, T., Jin, H. & Jin, Y. The mediating role of emotion in the effects of landscape elements on thermal comfort: A laboratory study. Build. Environ. 233, 110130 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hodder, S. G. & Parsons, K. The effects of solar radiation on thermal comfort. Int. J. Biometeorol. 51, 233–250 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Norge, S. Ergonomics of the thermal environment-instruments for measuring physical quantities. NS-EN ISO 7726, 2001 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Standard, A. Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. ANSI/ASHRAE 55, 5 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Potchter, O., Cohen, P., Lin, T.-P. & Matzarakis, A. Outdoor human thermal perception in various climates: A comprehensive review of approaches, methods and quantification. Sci. Total Environ. 631, 390–406 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Shooshtarian, S. & Ridley, I. The effect of physical and psychological environments on the users thermal perceptions of educational urban precincts. Build. Environ. 115, 182–198 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Nikolopoulou, M. & Lykoudis, S. Use of outdoor spaces and microclimate in a mediterranean urban area. Build. Environ. 42, 3691–3707 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Krüger, E., Drach, P., Emmanuel, R. & Corbella, O. Assessment of daytime outdoor comfort levels in and outside the urban area of glasgow, uk. Int. J. Biometeorol. 57, 521–533 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Zhen, M., Chen, Z. & Zou, Q. Combined effects of thermal and acoustic environments on outdoor human comfort in university campus. Urban Clim. 49, 101566 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Zeng, Y. & Dong, L. Thermal human biometeorological conditions and subjective thermal sensation in pedestrian streets in chengdu, china. Int. J. Biometeorol. 59, 99–108 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Fang, Z. et al. Investigation of outdoor thermal comfort prediction models in south china: A case study in guangzhou. Build. Environ. 188, 107424 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Xiong, J. et al. A study of waterside microenvironmental factors and their effects on summer outdoor thermal comfort in a cfa-climate campus. J. Therm. Biol. 117, 103700 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mohammadzadeh, N., Karimi, A. & Brown, R. D. The influence of outdoor thermal comfort on acoustic comfort of urban parks based on plant communities. Build. Environ. 228, 109884 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Chen, J., Jin, Y. & Jin, H. Effects of visual landscape on subjective environmental evaluations in the open spaces of a severe cold city. Front. Psychol. 13, 954402 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ratcliffe, E., Gatersleben, B. & Sowden, P. T. Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. J. Environ. Psychol. 36, 221–228 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Zhu, R. et al. Effects of natural sound exposure on health recovery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 921, 171052 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Du, M., Hong, B., Gu, C., Li, Y. & Wang, Y. Multiple effects of visual-acoustic-thermal perceptions on the overall comfort of elderly adults in residential outdoor environments. Energy Build. 283, 112813 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ulrich, R. S. et al. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 11, 201–230 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Nikolopoulou, M. & Steemers, K. Thermal comfort and psychological adaptation as a guide for designing urban spaces. Energy Build. 35, 95–101 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Lenzholzer, S. & de Vries, S. Exploring outdoor thermal perception-a revised model. Int. J. Biometeorol. 64, 293–300 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Shashua-Bar, L., Pearlmutter, D. & Erell, E. The influence of trees and grass on outdoor thermal comfort in a hot-arid environment. Int. J. Climatol. 31, 1498–1506 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Gunawardena, K. R., Wells, M. J. & Kershaw, T. Utilising green and bluespace to mitigate urban heat island intensity. Sci. Total Environ. 584, 1040–1055 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Theeuwes, N. E., Solcerova, A. & Steeneveld, G. J. Modeling the influence of open water surfaces on the summertime temperature and thermal comfort in the city. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 8881–8896 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Teshnehdel, S., Gatto, E., Li, D. & Brown, R. D. Improving outdoor thermal comfort in a steppe climate: Effect of water and trees in an urban park. Land 11, 431 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zheng, H., Luo, M., Wang, Y. & Wei, Y. Multi-sensory interaction and spatial perception in urban microgreen spaces: A focus on vision, auditory, and olfaction. Sustainability 16, 8809 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Hao, S. et al. Multisensory urban design: Healing effects of visual, auditory, and olfactory enhancements in street landscapes. Meng, Multisensory Urban Design: Healing Effects of Visual, Auditory, and Olfactory Enhancements in Street Landscapes .

  70. Kang, J. & Zhang, M. Semantic differential analysis of the soundscape in urban open public spaces. Build. Environ. 45, 150–157 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Jeon, J. Y., Lee, P. J., You, J. & Kang, J. Perceptual assessment of quality of urban soundscapes with combined noise sources and water sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 1357–1366 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was financially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23K25067]; Environment Research and Technology Development Fund by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan [1FS-2201]; University-Driven Urban Innovation Kobe, Kobe city [A25101].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University, 3 11 Tsurukabuto, Nada-ku, 657 8501, Japan

    Yu Zhang, Yuta Uchiyama & Masayuki Sato

  2. Advanced Research Institute for Well-being, Kobe University, 3 11 Tsurukabuto, Nada-ku, 657 8501, Japan

    Masayuki Sato

Authors

  1. Yu Zhang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuta Uchiyama
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masayuki Sato
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Yu Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Visualization, Investigation, Writing -Original draft preparation. Yuta Uchiyama: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-Review & Editing. Masayuki Sato: Project administration, Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-Review & Editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Masayuki Sato.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Uchiyama, Y. & Sato, M. Exploring interactions of thermal, acoustic, and aesthetic environments on thermal experience in parks.
Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-39787-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-39787-8

Keywords

  • Outdoor thermal comfort
  • Landscape aesthetic quality
  • Acoustic environment
  • Microclimate
  • Green-blue spaces

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Application of sewage sludge as a soil biofertilizer enhances crop productivity of alfalfa plants (Medicago sativa L.) and improves soil quality without heavy metal toxicity

Land spatial optimization in ecologically fragile regions of the Lanzhou Xining urban agglomeration based on a multidimensional ecosystem framework

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close