Landscape Route Sharing Ratio in Nature-Integrated Community: Cross-Boundary Features and Design Implications

Abstract

Amid rapid urbanization in China, widespread gated residential districts have created physical and visual isolation from surrounding nature, undermining environmental benefits and daily accessibility. The emergence of a twenty-first-century “sharing” paradigm reshapes how buildings and landscapes are used and experienced, opening new opportunities for diversified sharing between communities and natural systems. Yet, despite mature research on city-scale landscape sharing, micro-scale tools to balance sharing versus exclusive route allocation—and to operationalize cross-system sharing-route design—remain limited. This study examines nature-integrated community design through the Landscape Route Sharing Ratio (LRSR), a metric derived from the Length and Density of Sharing Landscape Route (L_s/D_s), the Length and Density of Non-shared Landscape Route (L_ns/D_ns). It analyzes eight cases using a mixed-methods approach (field surveys, spatial mapping, planning-document review and quantitative measurement), and identifies five core cross-system features through typological analysis: extension to surrounding landscapes (ENL), cross-boundary landscape axes (CBLA), multi-scale hierarchy (MSH), multi-elevation systems (MES), and non-motorized priority (NMP). This study demonstrates that higher LRSR values significantly enhance landscape integration and pedestrian experiences. By establishing actionable target ranges (0.50–0.70), the research provides a practical decision-support tool for nature-integrated community design, advancing the methodological understanding of how shared routes foster ecological and social vitality in contemporary urban environments. The framework effectively bridges the gap between quantification with design guidance for nature-integrated communities.

1. Introduction

Over recent decades, rapid urbanization in China has led to the widespread development of gated residential communities characterized by inward-facing layouts and limited public access [1,2]. While historically associated with safety and management efficiency, this model has produced significant spatial and ecological separation from surrounding natural systems, reducing everyday exposure to landscapes and limiting ecological flows [3,4]. As research in environmental psychology and urban health indicates, such disconnections weaken the restorative and cultural value of nature in daily life.

Meanwhile, the rise of the twenty-first-century “sharing paradigm”—including shared space, mobility and services—has reshaped expectations of residential environments [5,6,7]. Instead of isolated enclaves, communities are increasingly viewed as intermediary layers within broader mountain–water urban systems, where shared pedestrian routes, greenways and ecological corridors mediate the interaction between residents, visitors and nature [8,9]. These shifts underscore the need for residential environments that safeguard privacy while offering opportunities for sociability and flexible engagement with natural landscapes.

Although extensive work exists on macro-scale ecological networks, greenway planning, and nature-based solutions [10,11,12], a gap remains at the micro scale: few methods evaluate how much and in what form shared routes should be incorporated within communities. Current metrics emphasize public-space accessibility or regional connectivity but rarely differentiate between shared and exclusive pedestrian routes at the community scale. As a result, design discussions on community–landscape integration often remain conceptual, lacking operational tools to inform route allocation strategies.

To advance this field of study, this research regards nature-integrated communities as a typological category where residential environments and natural landscapes coexist through diverse spatial configurations. It aims to explore what spatial design approaches and to what extent of sharing can be applied to landscape routes within nature-integrated communities to achieve positive interactions with natural landscapes.

Against this backdrop, this study adopts a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative analyses. By means of morphological and typological spatial diagramming, it integrates five design features of cross-system shared routes—Extension to Natural Landscapes, Organizational Axes, Multi-scale Hierarchy, Multi-elevation Systems, and Non-motorized Priority—into the analytical framework. Meanwhile, the Landscape Route Sharing Ratio (LRSR) is introduced as a micro-scale quantitative indicator to measure the relative proportion of shared routes within the overall pedestrian network of residential communities.

Through empirical analysis of 8 representative cases of nature-integrated communities, this research explores the potential coupling mechanism between LRSR and the five cross-system shared route design features, thereby providing a reference basis for the spatial planning and design of nature-integrated communities from the perspective of shared routes.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Urban and Peri-Urban Nature-Integrated Communities

Rapid urbanization has turned residential areas into critical interfaces between urban footprints and natural systems [13,14]. However, the prevalence of gated communities in China has created significant spatial and visual isolation from landscape infrastructures, such as rivers and green corridors, hindering ecological permeability and daily nature exposure [15]. Emerging frameworks like Landscape Urbanism, Shan-Shui City, and Park City advocate for reframing residential districts as active components of the urban landscape rather than isolated units [16,17,18]. Nature-integrated communities are understood as settings where communities and urban green spaces are mutually embedded and co-structured, enabling ecological flows, biodiversity and multi-scalar public use [19,20]. This shift aligns with the 21st-century “sharing paradigm,” where communities must balance privacy with the increasing demand for collective space and nature interaction [21,22].

Despite these theoretical advancements, a fundamental tension persists between traditional gated morphologies and the need for synergistic urban-rural ecological development. While Landscape Urbanism emphasizes infrastructural connectivity, it often overlooks the micro-scale link between communities and urban networks [23,24]. Enclosed walls remain dual impediments to both ecological flows and social interaction [17,25]. Consequently, fragmented internal paths fail to couple with regional ecological networks [26,27]. This spatial decoupling results in limited nature experiences for residents and functional discontinuities within the ecosystem.

To bridge this gap, a design evaluation framework that quantifies both spatial sharing and ecological connectivity is urgently needed. Current research often focuses on single-dimension metrics—either ecological (e.g., green coverage) or behavioral (e.g., walkability) [28,29,30]. The role of “sharing pathways” as key mediators linking social needs and ecological functions remains under-analyzed. Since route networks serve as conduits for both daily human engagement and ecological processes [31], a dual-dimensional model is essential. Such a framework can reveal how different spatial typologies balance private domains with public resources, offering precise guidance for sustainable, nature-integrated community design.

2.2. Sharing Spatial Networks, Green-Blue Infrastructure and Slow Mobility

Within this transformation, sharing spatial networks—such as pedestrian routes and community greenways—have emerged as vital mediators between residential life and landscape systems. Blue-green infrastructures, including rivers and ecological corridors, serve as structural backbones for urban environments [32,33,34]. When integrated with slow-mobility systems, these infrastructures form landscape routes that link city-scale networks with neighborhood experiences. Research on multi-level pedestrian networks and elevated promenades indicates that route configurations (e.g., hierarchy, elevation, loops) fundamentally dictate how residents access nature and how landscape vitality penetrates communities [35,36]. Conversely, route systems in gated districts often remain inward-looking and fragmented, lacking cross-system connectivity and permeability [37,38]. This gap highlights the necessity of using sharing routes as strategic tools to integrate communities into broader ecological networks.

Yet, the effective integration of sharing routes with blue-green infrastructure faces systemic challenges rooted in segmented planning paradigms [39,40]. In many Chinese cities, jurisdictional boundaries separate the management of ecological corridors from residential circulation, causing mismatches in design standards [41]. For example, municipal greenways often terminate at gated community boundaries, disrupting potential synergies. This administrative fragmentation is exacerbated by a development tendency to treat sharing spaces as aesthetic amenities rather than ecological conduits [42]. As a result, the capacity of green-blue elements to support biodiversity or microclimate regulation is constrained without a continuous, accessible slow-mobility network [43].

Addressing these limitations requires reconceiving sharing routes as multi-functional landscape interventions. Emerging research suggests that pathways, through thoughtful plan and section configuration, can act as “ecological stitching”—reconnecting habitats, managing stormwater, and fostering social interaction [44,45,46]. Moving beyond conventional “internal circulation” typologies toward a hybrid approach is essential. This requires collaborative frameworks that align architecture, landscape, and infrastructure engineering across scales, reimagining sharing networks as embedded ecological infrastructure to enhance both environmental resilience and everyday nature experiences.

2.3. Quantitative Evaluation of Sharing Routes and Research Gap

Despite progress in evaluating walkability and spatial connectivity, few quantitative tools differentiate between sharing and exclusive routes at the community scale. Existing indicators—such as network density and space syntax—primarily analyze public road systems [47]. For example, existing studies have confirmed the influence of urban street-level features on pedestrian movement, these methods may exhibit limitations when applied to micro-scale community environments [48]. First, quantitative tools are highly sensitive to scale. At the micro-community level, the variance in environmental scale and route choice diminishes, making it difficult to capture the impact of subtle differences on pedestrian behavior. Second, although previous research has explored the relationship between different land uses and transportation interactions [49,50,51], these models tend to weaken the critical distinction in right-of-way, particularly between internal routes within gated communities and sharing routes. This fails to fully explain the inherent permeability and accessibility issues within the Chinese context, nor does it provide a quantitative framework for assessing the quality of sharing routes within these communities.

Consequently, these findings are rarely translated into design strategies or extended to complex transportation dimensions [52,53], revealing three main gaps: (1) the absence of pathway metrics grounded in the sharing concept; (2) an integrated framework for the holistic analysis of diverse transportation systems, such as public roads and community pathways, has yet to be established.; and (3) limited empirical evidence exists on how diverse spatial typologies within communities foster sharing and integrate enclosed pathways.

The present study therefore introduces the Landscape Route Sharing Ratio (LRSR) as a community-scale indicator, integrates it with a set of cross-system design features and typologies. The proposed LRSR integrates path morphology with quantitative methods to focus on the connectivity and sharing between transportation networks and intra-community traffic. It explicitly distinguishes between routes that facilitate community-landscape integration and those serving exclusively internal functions. This distinction proves particularly valuable for diagnosing spatial configurations in different typologies.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Case Selection and Data Collection

Eight representative cases from multiple regions in China form the empirical basis (

Table 1. Basic Information of the Eight Research Cases.

Case	Master Plan (Drawn to Scale)	Landscape and Location	Built Year and Designer	Floor Area	FAR
1. Baixiangju Community		Jia Ling River, Mountainous Terrain (Chongqing)	1992 Chongqing Jianzhu University	/	/
2. Chunsen Bi’an Community		Jia Ling River, Mountainous Terrain (Chongqing)	2009 MRY Architects & Chongqing Architectural Design Institute	160,200 m2	4.9
3. Beibuwan No. 1 Community		Beihai Bay, Landscape Garden (Beihai)	2015 MAD Architects	109,200 m2	3.5
4. Sunshine 100 Community (South District)		6-Kilometer Riverside (Wuxi)	2016 SHL Architects	400,000 m2	1.8
5. Lixian Future Community		Qu River (Quzhou)	2024 gad Design	107,000 m2	2.0
6. Jiangshangyin Community		Fenghua River (Ningbo)	2021 Lacime Architects	119,340 m2	2.7
7. Liandu Future Community		Mountain View (Lishui)	2022 Zhejiang Provincial Architectural Design Institute	220,200 m2	2.0
8. Guomao Tianqin Community		Wuyuanwan Wetland, Ecological Green Axis (Xiamen)	2022 Xiamen Tefang Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd.	79,400 m2	4.7

). Case selection follows the following criteria:

(1)

Diversity of landscape types. China is rich in diverse mountain-water resources, generally categorized into three major types: mountain landscapes, waterfront landscapes and composite landscapes. It selects representative cities for each category, and further screens research cases from them.

(2)

Forward-looking spatial characteristics: Since the housing reform in the 1990s, a large number of residential communities have been built in China. However, most communities developed with a strong commercial orientation exhibit homogenized and enclosed characteristics. The 8 selected cases are all completed community projects publicly published in professional design journals by renowned architects or design institutes (Table 1), featuring certain experimental and forward-looking attributes. They hold guiding significance for the design of China’s nature-integrated communities, which are still in the exploration stage.

Through extensive literature research, preliminary screening of mountain-water community cases built in China after the 1990s was conducted to ensure the selected cases are representative and scientifically valuable. On this basis, key research cases were further screened, and field investigations were carried out, including direct observation and documentation methods such as on-site measurements, photographic records, mapping, and interviews. These efforts aimed to collect first-hand detailed data and information. Ultimately, 8 nature-integrated community cases were selected as the focus of this study.

Data sources include field surveys, Google Map (Web version, 2026) satellite imagery, and publicly available planning drawings. To verify the alignment between the LRSR metric and real-world operational logic, semi-structured consultations or in-depth on-site interviews were conducted with key informants (including project managers and planning consultants) from representative cases such as Xiamen Guomao Tianqin Community, Beihai Beibuwan No. 1 Community, and Ningbo Jiangshangyin Community. The qualitative insights obtained serve as a supplementary calibration for the morphological analysis, ensuring that the identified transboundary features and design implications are grounded in practical feasibility. The summary of these stakeholder consultations is provided in Appendix A.

3.2. Research Methods

Based on eight case studies, this paper adopts a comprehensive research method integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, incorporating morphological methods, indicator construction, spatial measurement, and empirical evaluation (Figure 1).

3.2.1. Qualitative Analysis: Urban Morphological and Typological Method

The qualitative component of this study combines urban morphology, architectural typology, and diagrammatic (graphic) analysis to systematically interpret how pedestrian routes interact with the spatial form of nature-integrated communities.

Urban morphology, following the Conzenian and typomorphological traditions, views urban form as a layered system comprising street networks, plot structures, building fabric, open spaces, and landscape elements [54,55,56]. In this study, these principles guide the examination of community boundaries and edge conditions, the organization of internal circulation networks, the relationship between built form, topography, and adjacent natural systems, the degree of permeability between community spaces and surrounding landscapes.

To operationalize this analytical framework, based on planning documents, satellite imagery, and field survey data, this study reconstructs simplified axonometric drawings, sectional diagrams, and schematic plans through spatial diagramming, thereby distilling complex spatial conditions into comparable analytical models. Focusing on spatial structural relationships, hierarchical logic, and circulation organization, diagrammatic analysis serves to identify the operational mechanisms of landscape-related pedestrian routes under different design strategies.

3.2.2. Quantitative Analysis: Measurement and Comparison of the LRSR Index

This study proposes the Landscape Route Sharing Ratio (LRSR) as a core indicator to quantify the balance between shared and non-shared routes within nature-integrated communities. The formulation of LRSR is consistent with previously established measurement models for nature-integrated communities, in which route length and route density jointly describe the structure of the pedestrian system.

The measurement of LRSR in this study is defined as follows: 1. Landscape routes are limited to pedestrian paths with close accessibility to natural landscapes, excluding functional corridors such as motor vehicle lanes and fire lanes; 2. path boundaries are based on the community site boundary, and only the path system within the site boundary is included; 3. path classification criteria include shared paths that refer to paths open to non-residents unconditionally or conditionally (e.g., via registration or reservation), and non-shared paths refer to paths accessible only to community residents.

The definitions and measurement purposes of the aforementioned indicators are presented in the

Table 2. Indicator System of LRSR.

Indicator	Definition	Purpose
S0	Total land area of the community	/
Ds	Density of shared landscape route in the nature-integrated community	micro-scale intensity
Dns	Density of non-shared landscape route in the nature-integrated community	exclusivity intensity
D	Overall density of landscape route in the community	overall accessibility
Ls	Total length of shared landscape routes in the community	measures openness
Lns	Total length of non-shared landscape routes in the community	measures privacy
LRSR	Landscape Route Sharing Ratio: Micro-scale indicator of shared-route balance	core indicator

:

To reduce ambiguity in distinguishing shared from non-shared routes, this study further classifies openness conditions into three levels: (1) fully open routes accessible to all visitors without registration; (2) conditionally open routes accessible via registration, reservation, or time-based management; (3) resident-only routes with controlled access. In the LRSR calculation, levels (1) and (2) are counted as shared routes while level (3) is classified as non-shared.

LRSR is defined as the proportion of shared route length in the total route length of a community:

$$\mathrm{LRSR}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{L}}_s}{{\mathrm{L}}_s+{\mathrm{L}}_{ns}}}$$

(1)

where Ls denotes the total length of shared routes, i.e., publicly accessible paths that support collective use, social interaction and cross-system access, and L_ns represents the total length of non-shared (exclusive) routes, i.e., circulation segments primarily serving private or restricted movement.

Route length is the basic metric for assessing the scale of the circulation network. The magnitude of Ls intuitively reflects the overall amount of shared route resources available to residents, whereas L_ns captures the extent of routes dedicated to private or semi-private activities. Comparing these two values provides an initial picture of how a community allocates its route system between shared and exclusive functions.

To describe spatial intensity rather than scale alone, we further compute route density per unit land area. Shared-route density D_s, non-shared-route density D_ns, and total route density D are defined as Formulas (2)–(4):

$${\mathrm{D}}_s={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{L}}_s}{{\mathrm{S}}_0}}$$

(2)

$${\mathrm{D}}_{\mathrm{n}s}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{L}}_{ns}}{{\mathrm{S}}_0}}$$

(3)

$$\mathrm{D}={\mathrm{D}}_{\mathrm{s}}+{\mathrm{D}}_{ns}$$

(4)

where D_s denotes the density of shared routes, D_ns the density of non-shared routes, and D the overall route density; S₀ is the total land area of the community. A higher D_s indicates a denser and more fine-grained shared route network, while D_ns reveals the intensity of private circulation. Together, these density measures offer quantitative support for evaluating the spatial rationality of the route layout.

4. Results

4.1. LRSR Measurement Results

Following the measurement indicators for the Landscape Route Sharing Ratio (LRSR) established in the methodology section, the shared and non-shared circulation routes across the eight selected communities were digitized and measured on site plans via AutoCAD 2013. The spatial distribution and mapping results are presented in Figure 2.

To further examine LRSR’s functional significance, each case was evaluated according to the five cross-system features. Strong correlations are observed between high LRSR and the comprehensive presence of cross-system features, particularly in communities with multi-elevation systems and multi-scale hierarchies.

Notably, extension to natural landscapes and non-motorized priority show the strongest alignment with increased shared-route proportions. This suggests that the more a community intends to enable public interaction with nature, the more it structurally depends on shared routes.

Multi-elevation systems serve as a particularly influential factor in nature-integrated communities. Elevated platforms, sunken gardens, and transition ramps substantially expand the shared-route network by providing additional layers of movement beyond conventional ground-level paths. These systems not only boost the length of shared routes but also offer diverse vantage points, enabling experiential richness that contributes to community–landscape integration.

For cases where LRSR reaches 1.0 (e.g., Beibuwan No. 1 and Lixian Future Community), this value results from podium-level continuous open spaces or elevated public gardens that dominate the circulation system rather than a complete absence of residential exclusivity. These configurations reflect specific design strategies that prioritize urban integration and vertical layering, and therefore should not be interpreted as fully eliminating private circulation spaces (

Table 3. Relevant Indicators and Calculation Results of LRSR for the Eight Cases.

No.	Case	S0 (ha)	L (km)			D (km/ha)			LRSR
			Ls	Lns	Total	Ds	Dns	Total
1	Liandu Future Community, Lishui	22.0	2.47	4.15	6.62	0.11	0.19	0.30	0.37
2	Chunsen Bi’an Community, Chongqing	16.0	1.35	1.46	2.82	0.08	0.10	0.18	0.48
3	Jiangshangyin Community, Ningbo	12.7	1.11	1.00	2.11	0.09	0.08	0.17	0.53
4	Baixiangju Community, Chongqing	1.6	0.91	0.47	1.38	0.58	0.30	0.88	0.66
5	Guomao Tianqin Community, Xiamen	6.8	0.90	0.40	1.30	0.13	0.06	0.19	0.69
6	Sunshine 100 South District, Wuxi	40.0	6.00	2.30	8.30	0.15	0.06	0.21	0.72
7	Lixian Future Community, Quzhou	10.7	3.20	0.00	3.19	0.30	0.00	0.30	1.00
8	Beibuwan No. 1 Community, Beihai	4.3	1.72	0.00	1.72	0.40	0.00	0.40	1.00

).

4.2. Spatial Characteristics of Cross-System Shared Routes

The cross-boundary landscape circulation system plays a significant role in enhancing the continuity of landscapes both within and outside the community. Its goal is to improve the coherence of the community’s internal landscape and spatial system, while also strengthening the interaction between the community and its external environment through multidimensional spatial design.

The Cross-System contains 5 core elements: Extension to Natural Landscapes (ENL), Cross-boundary Landscape Axes (CBLA), Multi-scale Hierarchy (MSH), Multi-elevation Systems (MES) and Non-motorized Priority (NMP).

4.2.1. Extension to Natural Landscapes (ENL)

This system uses strategic design methods to integrate the internal landscape elements of the community with the surrounding natural landscapes, achieving a seamless visual and ecological transition that extends the landscape [57], creating continuity both visually and ecologically.

Positioned on the Jialing River’s northern riparian slopes, the Chunsen Bi’an community represents a sophisticated response to complex topographical constraints. With a high density (plot ratio 4.88) and significant topographic relief (72 m elevation difference), the design utilizes a five-tiered terracing system and a topography-responsive central spine to bridge the vertical gap between the riverside and the upper urban fabric [58,59].

The spatial evolution of its sharing network was catalyzed by the 2020 completion of the Zengjiayan Bridge [59]. This infrastructure served as a pivot for reconfiguring three primary pedestrian trajectories: a cross-river link integrated with the bridge’s infrastructure, an ascending path connecting to a hilltop communal node and transit hub (Liyuchi Station), and a descending route optimized for riverfront engagement via a series of scenic lookouts. These paths converge to form a tri-directional shared network, effectively transforming the gated residential enclave into a permeable urban node that facilitates cross-boundary connectivity between the community, the river, and the broader metropolitan transit system (Figure 3).

Beibuwan No. 1 in Beihai, Guangxi, utilizes a top-level concession strategy, ceding 80% of the site to the city via a shared garden atop the building’s podium [60]. This platform offers urban functions such as scenic viewpoints, leisure areas, and dining overlooking the Beibuwan coastline, while residential functions are consolidated into linear, mountain-shaped high-rises on the north side to maximize site liberation. The 8 m-high rooftop garden serves as a public amenity without gates or walls, accessible via community entrances and a dedicated coastal tourist gate.

The podiums of Phase I (300 m wide) and Phase II (350 m wide) are bifurcated at the ground level by arched openings to allow urban roads to pass through. Visitors access the rooftop shared network via lateral ramps along the urban roads or through the coastal entrance on Lianzhouwan Avenue, where elevators lead to the third-floor viewing platform. Facilities such as infinity pools and sunken lounges further diversify the community’s urban functions, demonstrating a successful model of vertical landscape integration (Figure 4).

4.2.2. Cross-Boundary Landscape Axes (CBLA)

The design emphasizes landscape axes that break traditional physical boundaries [61]. Through these axes, the isolation between the community and its surrounding environment is eliminated, promoting spatial flow and openness.

The central green axis of Xiamen Guomao Tianqin Community, about 30 m wide, extends beyond the site and connects to the Wuyuan Bay Wetland Park to the north, creating a layered landscape from the outer sea to the inner bay and the park. The layout adopts a “one axis, one belt, two connections” design, spanning two city blocks [62]. The green axis is linked by pedestrian bridges to the northern wetland park and southern office district, with convenient connections through corridors and underground parking. Small commercial, dining, and entertainment facilities line both sides of the green axis, forming an open layout with water features, walking paths, and ancient trees creating a rich, shared landscape corridor (Figure 5).

4.2.3. Multi-Scale Hierarchy (MSH)

The design considers spatial needs at different scales, from large-scale regional planning to micro-scale pedestrian pathways, creating a rich spatial hierarchy that meets the needs of various users and offers diverse experiences.

Guided by the Multi-scale Hierarchy (MSH) framework, the Ningbo Jiangshangyin Community hierarchically defines its riverside and street interfaces through strategic planning controls, ensuring the progressive calibration of spatial sharing. This is achieved via architectural interventions like ground-floor piloti (elevated spaces) and semi-enclosed courtyards. Along the riverside, seven elevated nodes totaling 136 m in width—exceeding one-third of the site’s riverfront—maximize public permeability. The streetscape is further diversified by commercial setbacks and plazas, maintaining a fine-grained grain with continuous building lengths under 10 m. These small-scale waterfront courtyards (approx. 7 m × 8 m) not only bolster commercial vitality but also preserve the regional “living by water” heritage (Figure 6a).

Wuxi Sunshine 100 International Community constructs a “multi-level courtyard” system based on the MSH concept. Progressing from the riverside Shuicheng Road to internal residential clusters, it realizes landscape penetration and spatial hierarchical transition through the alternation of “extroverted-introverted-semi-enclosed” courtyards, improving privacy. The residential courtyards of the Wuxi project are ~50 m × 100 m, while the waterfront courtyards of Ningbo Jiangshangyin Community are ~7 m × 8 m. These scale differences adapt to residential aggregation and commercial-cultural functions respectively, reflecting the functional adaptability of the MSH concept (Figure 6b).

4.2.4. Multi-Elevation Systems (MES)

By employing multi-level terracing to negotiate topographic variations, MES serves a dual purpose. Structurally, it enables the configuration of serpentine or looped path networks that optimize pedestrian connectivity. Spatially, the elevation shifts broaden the visual corridors of residential units, effectively integrating external natural assets into the domestic experience through the traditional technique of “borrowed scenery.” (Figure 7).

In the site planning and layout of the Baixiangju community in Chongqing, the designers ingeniously conceived the “aerial passage level” and the “public social corridor,” driven by the prevailing design codes of that time and the developer’s cost-saving considerations [63]. Today, this public social corridor, which connects all six butterfly shaped buildings, has evolved into a renowned scenic sharing corridor that attracts numerous tourists across various social media platforms. Guided by “visiting strategies” found on platforms like Xiaohongshu and Douyin, visitors explore and photograph the semi-open shared corridors, outdoor staircases, and rooftop platforms. This multi-level sharing path has become a media catalyst for unique urban experiences in Chongqing on social networks, demonstrating remarkable vitality both online and offline.

In the Liandu Future Community (Lishui, Zhejiang), an elevated “High Line Park” functions as a 5 m-high aerial pedestrian spine traversing the settlement’s north–south axis [64,65]. A key design feature is its hierarchical access management: while the promenade is accessible to the public via the southern lobby and northern youth apartment exits, the interface between this elevated route and the private residential clusters is secured by encrypted gate systems reserved for inhabitants. This configuration allows tourists to experience the elevated landscape without compromising residential privacy. This structural axis serves as a multi-functional catalyst, linking thematic nodes such as sports courts and social plazas. Simultaneously, the sheltered space under the deck is utilized for “trans-clubhouse” programs—including communal “living rooms” and play areas—effectively creating a continuous, weather-protected corridor that enhances the ground-level permeability (Figure 8).

4.2.5. Non-Motorized Priority (NMP)

The design emphasizes the importance of non-motorized transportation. By incorporating walking and biking paths, it encourages residents to adopt slow transportation, enhancing community accessibility, promoting healthier lifestyles, and reducing environmental impact.

Quzhou Lixian Future Community arranges two primary openings emphasizing both visual and spatial qualities along the riverfront interface. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes are seamlessly connected to these openings, guiding residents and visitors to access the internal courtyard spaces through non-motorized travel. Meanwhile, the riverside natural landscape is deeply integrated with the non-motorized system, making the landscape an extension of the slow-travel experience [66].

The courtyard spaces located on the podium roof stretch along the riverbank, forming an irregular spatial sequence that extends deep into the urban hinterland. These courtyards are interconnected by S-shaped routes, enhancing the experience of “winding paths leading to sequestered tranquility.” Serving not only as transitional spaces, the courtyards also accommodate diverse functions such as fitness, relaxation, and landscape viewing, enabling residents to engage in daily activities amidst the natural environment (Figure 9).

Based on this, a 1–5 scoring system (5 = strongest implementation intensity, 1 = weakest) is adopted following a five-level “strong-weak” gradient. Combined with the five core features of the cross-boundary shared route system, the implementation intensity criteria for each feature across the cases are defined. Guided by a three-dimensional evaluation logic encompassing “planning and design implementation degree + spatial usage efficiency + goal achievement degree,” the criteria are established through field surveys, planning drawing analysis, and case usage feedback. Although this constitutes a subjective quantification approach, the explicit definition of core indicators and judgment standards for each intensity level minimizes evaluation bias, making it suitable for the comparative analysis of cross-boundary route systems. The evaluation criteria for the implementation intensity of the five core elements of the cross-boundary shared route system are presented in Appendix B.

Although the scoring adopts a structured five-level system, it remains a semi-subjective assessment based on field observations, planning documents, and user feedback. Explicit criteria for each level were defined to minimize evaluator bias, but the results should be interpreted as expert-informed judgments rather than mechanical measurements.

5. Discussion

Building upon the empirical results presented in Section 4, two primary findings emerge. First, cross-system features—specifically extension to natural landscapes (ENL) and multi-elevation systems (MES)—demonstrate a strong, tiered association with higher LRSR values. Second, LRSR operates as an integrative indicator that quantitatively captures the coupling between community openness, landscape permeability, and the depth of nature-based experiences. Although this study does not explicitly calculate the construction cost of shared landscape routes in communities, a higher LRSR generally signifies more efficient path reuse and landscape utilization, which helps optimize the cost allocation of community and municipal infrastructure in the long run.

The findings suggest that LRSR serves not only as an evaluative indicator but also as a strategic framework for planning and design. Its practical implications extend across typological mechanisms, cross-system feature integration, and broader urban design strategies.

However, given the limited sample size (n = 8), the relationships identified should be interpreted as qualitative associations rather than statistically validated correlations. Future research utilizing larger datasets is required to perform quantitative tests such as correlation analysis or regression modeling.

5.1. Mechanism for LRSR Enhancement and the Coupling Effect of Spatial Design Features

The quantitative evaluation results of the five cross-system features indicate that the improvement of LRSR (Landscape-Related Spatial Reachability) is not driven by a single design method, but is closely related to the “combination package” of cross-system shared route features. When a community integrates four or more of these features (e.g., Extension to Natural Landscapes, Multi-scale Hierarchy, Multi-elevation Systems, Non-motorized Priority), its LRSR value in the observed cases exceeds 0.70; conversely, communities implementing only one or two of these features mostly have an LRSR value below 0.60. This hierarchical relationship demonstrates that the “systematic construction” of shared path networks is far more critical than scattered individual optimizations.

While traditional urban morphology studies, such as those utilizing Space Syntax, emphasize the topological importance of street networks in public domains [67,68], they often overlook the “soft boundaries” and management constraints inherent in gated residential areas. Our findings suggest that LRSR fills this gap by quantifying the actual shared interface. Unlike the linear landscape connectivity in residential communities [3], the LRSR in nature-integrated communities is highly sensitive to the cross-system Landscape Axes (CBLA), which convert “dead ends” of gated enclaves into “active nodes” of urban ecological networks.

Among these features, “Extension to Natural Landscapes” and “Non-motorized Priority” are the two most fundamental core elements. The former explicitly directs shared paths toward natural resources such as rivers, mountains, and wetlands, making them the preferred channels for residents to interact with nature rather than merely serving internal community transportation functions; the latter, by restricting motor vehicle interference and expanding walking and cycling spaces, provides a structural prerequisite for shared paths to become high-frequency “daily spaces.”

These features exhibit a clear hierarchical mechanism in promoting LRSR: serving as the fundamental layer of structural prerequisites, Extension to Natural Landscapes (ENL) and Non-motorized Priority (NMP) are the two most basic elements driving LRSR improvement—ENL explicitly guides shared paths toward natural resources such as rivers, mountains, and wetlands, making them the primary choice for residents to engage with nature instead of solely fulfilling internal community transportation needs, while NMP provides a structural prerequisite for shared paths to become frequently used “daily spaces” by limiting motor vehicle interference and expanding walking and cycling areas. In the amplifying layer focused on spatial deepening and network increment, Multi-elevation Systems (MES) and Multi-scale Hierarchy (MSH) function as amplifiers: MES significantly increases the total length of shared paths through vertical spaces such as elevated corridors, sunken courtyards, and ramps, while providing diverse and three-dimensional recreational experiences, effectively enhancing the density of shared routes per unit land area without expanding the land use scope; MSH, through a three-level spatial hierarchy (city-community-cluster), clearly balances publicity and privacy, ensuring that the openness of shared routes does not conflict with the exclusivity of residential areas. As the integrative layer responsible for cross-boundary connection, Cross-boundary Landscape Axes (CBLA) ensures that the shared network within the community is not an isolated internal feature, but establishes positive connections with external public and ecological nodes such as urban parks and waterfront areas, thereby forming a complete connection loop spanning city-community-cluster.

In addition, the two special cases, Beibuwan No. 1 and Lixian Future Community, achieve an LRSR value of 1.00 thanks to their unique planning and development models.

In Beibuwan No. 1 Community, all community landscapes are concentrated on the podium roof. During on-site investigations, the authors, as non-residents, were able to access the entire roof garden without barriers or registration. This shows that by concentrating private residential functions into a linear planar layout, the community has successfully opened its entire landscape to the city.

Lixian Future Community differs slightly. During fieldwork, the authors also accessed the elevated ground floors and central courtyards of the enclosed residential clusters without obstruction, with complete and continuous landscape routes. In this case, residential privacy is ensured by independent access control for each residential unit.

In these two cases, residential privacy is maintained through vertical decoupling, where independent access control at each residential unit’s entrance separates the shared landscape routes from the private living quarters. Therefore, the synergy between spatial configuration and management protocols allows for a maximized LRSR without compromising the necessary security of the residential domain.

The LRSR does not imply a “higher is better” linear logic; rather, it functions as a diagnostic tool for design trade-offs. The observed 0.5~0.7 range reflects a negotiated equilibrium where the community achieves ecological infiltration without compromising the “territorial sense” of inhabitants.

5.2. Correlation Between Planning Intervention Modes and Route Sharing Quality

From the perspective of planning and design practice, the design of shared trails in nature-integrated communities should not be regarded as an “additional landscape configuration” but rather incorporated into the overall planning of spatial structure and land use patterns from the outset.

The comparative analysis of four communities (Baixiangju, Chunsen Biyan, Guomao Tianqin, and Lishui Liandu Future Community) reveals critical implications for the planning and design of cross-boundary route systems in urban residential areas, centered on the balance between public sharing and residential privacy.

Firstly, preliminary urban design intervention is the foundational premise for high-quality sharing. Unlike Baixiangju (built in 1992) where routes were passively attached to residential buildings leading to frequent conflicts, the latter three communities achieved effective separation of public and private spaces through prior planning—such as Chunsen Biyan’s independent landscape corridors, Guomao Tianqin’s urban green axis, and Lishui Liandu’s elevated park. This confirms that integrating cross-boundary route systems into the early urban design stage, clarifying spatial boundaries and functional orientations, can fundamentally avoid overlaps between shared routes and residential spaces.

Secondly, hierarchical spatial organization and multi-dimensional feature synergy enhance system resilience. Guomao Tianqin’s “urban-level green axis + closed residential clusters” and Lishui Liandu’s “three-level privacy transition with multi-layered access control” demonstrate that a hierarchical layout (from urban to community to cluster) and synergistic implementation of core features (e.g., ENL, CBL, MSH, MES) can reconcile high sharing rates with privacy protection. Specifically, connecting to natural landscapes (ENL) and urban public nodes (CBL) enhances the public value of routes, while multi-scale hierarchy (MSH) and multi-elevation systems (MES) optimize spatial separation.

Thirdly, adaptive management models and functional configuration improve usage quality. Chunsen Biyan’s semi-open registration system, Guomao Tianqin’s graded opening strategy, and Lishui Liandu’s conditional sharing with access control prove that management models should match community positioning—dense urban communities may adopt refined control (e.g., multi-layered access), while riverside or urban core communities can implement more open models. Additionally, equipping shared routes with diverse functions (viewing, recreation, fitness) as seen in Guomao Tianqin and Lishui Liandu reduces single-function conflicts and enhances user experience.

Finally, response to contextual conditions enriches practice diversity. While topographical and density conditions do not determine sharing effects, as evidenced by the similar terrain but distinct outcomes of Baixiangju and Chunsen Biyan, adaptive design (e.g., using height differences for MES) and integration with local contexts (e.g., inheriting “living by water” traditions in riverside communities) can maximize the suitability of route systems. In summary, the planning and design of cross-boundary route systems should adhere to the logic of “preliminary planning guidance + hierarchical spatial separation + adaptive management + contextual adaptation,” with core features as quantitative benchmarks, to achieve sustainable balance between public sharing and residential privacy in urban communities.

This typological evolution addresses a critical dilemma in the Chinese “Open Block” policy: the conflict between public permeability and residential security. Previous studies argued that opening gates might compromise privacy [69]. However, our analysis of Multi-elevation Systems (MES) provides a morphological solution where sharing occurs on podium roofs or elevated layers, effectively decoupling public flows from private entrances. This validates that nature-integration does not necessitate a complete loss of gated security, but rather a structural re-stratification.

5.3. LRSR Theoretical Contributions

The proposed target range of 0.50–0.70 distinguishes this study from purely qualitative design guidelines. Compared to the New Urbanism advocacy for total openness [70], our data suggests that a “threshold of moderate sharing” is more sustainable in high-density Asian cities. Exceeding 0.70 may lead to excessive maintenance costs and management complexity for property owners, while dropping below 0.50 fails to activate the environmental value of the nature interface. This range provides a quantitative benchmark that reconciles ecological idealism with urban management realism.

The main theoretical contribution of this study lies in positioning the Landscape-Related Spatial Reachability (LRSR) as a micro-scale evaluation framework for community-landscape integration. At its core, the theoretical value of the LRSR index resides in its role as a micro-scale framework for assessing the degree of community-landscape integration, with its operational mechanisms manifested in three key dimensions:

Firstly, in quantifying spatial openness and permeability, LRSR serves as a tool to directly measure a community’s spatial openness and permeability to its surrounding environment by quantifying the proportion of shared landscape route length in the total route length. A high LRSR value signifies a transformation of the community’s spatial structure from the traditional inward-looking, gated model to an outward-oriented, integrated system, converting community boundaries from physical barriers into positive ecological and social interfaces.

Secondly, as micro-scale carriers of ecological infiltration, shared paths inherently function as micro-scale conduits for the infiltration of ecological vitality into communities—including daily human-nature interactions, species movement, and hydrological processes. LRSR links the physical dimensions of route networks (length and density) to their functional and experiential dimensions, emphasizing the lived-in value of natural landscapes rather than mere aesthetic appeal. This aligns closely with the contemporary concept of “Nature-based Solutions” thereby establishing LRSR as a refined tool for diagnosing the degree of spatial-ecological coupling at the residential district level.

Thirdly, as a quantitative benchmark for reconciling privacy and sharing, the core mechanism of LRSR is to provide planners and designers with a quantitative balance point to coordinate residents’ demand for private and exclusive routes with the urgent need for public and shared routes in urban development. The proposed target range of LRSR (e.g., an LRSR value between 0.6 and 0.7 facilitates stronger natural connectivity and outward extension) offers evidence-based guidance for design practice, enabling designers to proactively manage this ratio. In doing so, it maximizes the value of shared resources while ensuring a sense of territorial exclusivity within residential areas.

In nature-integrated communities, the connotation of “sharing” extends far beyond a simple aggregation of accessible spaces. On the contrary, sharing constitutes a core principle of spatial encoding—a principle through which the physical forms of landscapes and architecture shape an environment imbued with an inherent “sharing gene”. Such an environment can support ecological continuity, facilitate social interactions, and enable multi-scale experiential exchanges. As Beatley emphasizes in the book Biophilic Cities, natural and biophilic elements should be placed at the core of all our design and construction endeavors [57]. Contemporary nature-integrated communities are increasingly regarded as an intermediate tier within the broad eco-system, bridging macro-scale natural structures and refined daily living spaces. This perspective implies that communities must not only safeguard privacy and preserve residential territoriality, but also respond to the growing demands for social interaction and cultural activities, as well as the need for integrated online-offline communication modes, all of which are driven by digital urban lifestyles.

Although the limited sample size (n = 8) precludes the establishment of universal standards, this study provides exploratory insights into the logic of landscape sharing in nature-integrated communities. The LRSR and cross-system design objectives should be regarded as flexible design guidelines that vary with different spatial typologies.

6. Conclusions

This study establishes the LRSR framework as a micro-scale tool that quantifies shared-route allocation and interprets the functional meaning of route sharing through cross-system design features. Through eight empirical cases, the study demonstrates that higher LRSR values correlate with stronger landscape integration and more diverse pedestrian experiences. The proposed LRSR target ranges—0.60–0.70 for landscape connection and 0.50–0.60 for multi-scale and multi-elevation balancing—offer actionable decision support for designing nature-integrated communities.

Altogether, this research advances the conceptual, methodological, and practical understanding of how shared pedestrian routes operate as conduits for ecological and social vitality within contemporary urban living environments.

It should be noted that the LRSR metric primarily serves as a spatial measurement of potential accessibility. While field observations and semi-structured consultations were utilized to calibrate the management boundaries, this study focused on the physical and structural logic of sharing routes rather than statistical usage frequency. A structured questionnaire was intentionally excluded from this stage to maintain the methodological purity of morphological assessment, ensuring the metric operates as a robust and objective design-support tool for architects and planners.