Two Ways of Seeing Green – London Street Greenery Visibility
GVI · Vehicle baselineGoogle Street View · road-centre camera
PGVI · Pedestrian measureMapillary / field image · sidewalk camera

Pedestrian-level street greenery · City of London

Whose green view counts?

Traditional GVI sees London from a Google Street View car. We move the camera onto the sidewalk—and test which measure better reflects the greenery pedestrians actually experience.

2,758road-centre sample points
11,032Google car views
9street green types
183volunteer evaluations
Scroll to compare
The camera problem

Google Street View drives the road.
Pedestrians walk the sidewalk.

01 / Move the camera

Traditional GVI inherited the driver’s seat.

Google Street View is usually captured from a vehicle in the road. Its Green View Index is therefore a car-level measure – affected by road width, parked vehicles and distance from sidewalk planting.

Google car-based GVI Mapillary sidewalk PGVI

Two sampling positions. Two green views.

Traditional GVI observes the city from the road centre. PGVI moves the camera to the sidewalk, where planting, parked vehicles, road width and pedestrian-only space enter the frame differently.

0.56 Car-based GVI
perception correlation
0.59 Sidewalk PGVI
perception correlation
GVI · Vehicle viewGoogle Street View · road centre · car-height camera
PGVI · Pedestrian viewMapillary / field image · sidewalk · eye-level camera
02 / Method

Move from the road to the sidewalk, then test the difference.

The workflow compares vehicle-based GVI with sidewalk-based PGVI, adds citywide spatial visibility, and validates all three against volunteers’ lived perception.

01 · Baseline input
11,032

Google car views

Four directional Street View images at 2,758 road-centre sample points form the traditional GVI baseline.

02 · Pedestrian input
PGVI

Mapillary imagery

Pedestrian-level images capture sidewalk planting, cycle paths, pedestrian streets and narrow alleys.

03 · Viewpoint test
9

street green types

The same typologies are read from both the vehicle lane and the sidewalk.

04 · Spatial model
VGA

spatial visibility

3D tree attributes and building geometry become a planar visibility field.

05 · Human test
183

volunteer evaluations

Seven streetscape indicators ground the computational outputs in perception.

03 / London field

The official City boundary frames 2,758 road-centre points.

The City of London boundary comes from the Greater London Authority’s official GIS service. Inside it, the study’s 50-metre sample points each represent four Google Street View directions; colour encodes vehicle-based GVI.

Official City of London boundary 2,758 points · 50 m interval · 11,032 images
Select a point to inspect its road-centre GVI.
The reason PGVI was needed

When the car and sidewalk disagree, whose green view are we measuring?

04 / Street lab

Nine streets, seen from the lane and the sidewalk.

Select a type to compare the actual Google car view with the pedestrian sidewalk view, then read the GVI-PGVI gap alongside spatial visibility and human ratings.

Google Street View · vehicle baseline
T1 street photographed from Google Street View at vehicle level
Pedestrian view · high-resolution sidewalk image
T1 street photographed from pedestrian sidewalk level
T1 · no greenery · buildings on both sides
Street type T1

Built edges, no greenery

A useful baseline: geometry remains visible, while almost no green enters the pedestrian frame.

PGVI · sidewalk
0.0004
GVI · Google car
0.003
VGA-GVI · spatial
315.50
Human rating
6.46

Bars are normalized within each metric across the nine sampled typologies. Values retain the published units.

Mapillary

Pedestrian imagery made a sidewalk metric possible.

Through collaboration with Mapillary, the study could capture sidewalk greenery, pedestrian-only streets, cycle paths and narrow alleys that conventional car-based imagery often misses.

Read the Mapillary story ↗

The viewpoint changes the GVI.

Vehicle-level Google Street View and sidewalk-level Mapillary imagery do not frame the same greenery. The published segmentation table exposes the mismatch across all nine types.

Published comparison of vehicle-level and pedestrian-level street images and their segmentation results for nine street types.
Published Table 4 · Vehicle-level and pedestrian-level image segmentation results · Chen et al. (2025)
05 / What aligned

The sidewalk view comes closest to human perception.

Mapillary-based PGVI showed the strongest relationship with perceived green visibility. Traditional car-based GVI can underestimate greenery when the vehicle camera is distant from or obstructed from sidewalk planting.

Correlation with volunteer ratings of perceived green visibility. A higher value means the computational measure more closely follows what participants reported.

PGVI · Mapillary sidewalk
0.59
VGA-GVI · spatial
0.57
GVI · Google car
0.56
01 · Strongest perceptual link
0.72

Safety

Green is noticed more when the street also feels secure.

02 · Visual openness
0.69

Transparency

Clear sightlines reinforce the visibility and legibility of greenery.

03 · Everyday access
0.53

Walkability

A pedestrian-friendly street makes green experience easier to reach.

One relationship at a time.

Explore the full published correlation matrix. Hover or focus a cell to read the variables and coefficient.

Explore: choose a cell in the matrix. positivenegative
06 / Design implications
01

Measure from the sidewalk, not the traffic lane.

Car-based imagery remains scalable, but any claim about pedestrian experience should be checked from the pedestrian’s actual position.

02

Mix heights and occupy both sides.

Trees combined with shrubs or grass, especially on both sides of a street, produce stronger pedestrian visibility.

03

Design the conditions around green.

Safety, visual transparency and walkability shape whether visible greenery becomes a positive human experience.

Measure the city
from where people stand.

Measuring pedestrian-level street greenery visibility through space syntax and crowdsourced imagery
Mingze Chen, Yuxuan Liu, Fan Liu, Trishla Chadha & Keunhyun Park
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 105 (2025) 128725
doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128725
Visual story developed from the published paper and project materials.