A Performance-Based Design Framework for Coupled Optimization of Urban Morphology and Thermal Comfort in High-Density Districts: A Case Study of Shenzhen
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Research Background
1.2. Literature Review and Research Gaps
- Lack of Systemic Integration of Multi-dimensional Elements: Most existing studies tend to isolate single design elements (e.g., street orientation [9], greening coverage [10]) to determine their impacts. Although some scholars have explored combinations of factors [11], they often fail to establish a unified, automated performance-based design (PBD) framework to systematically quantify the complex, non-linear synergistic effects between building layout, geometry, and greening systems. Consequently, the resulting strategies often remain qualitative, lacking the quantifiability and operability required for complex collaborative urban planning.
- Insufficient Focus on High-Intensity Districts in Hot–Humid Climates: Current research predominantly focuses on low-density residential areas or cities in cold/temperate zones [12,13]. The existing literature often generalizes “openness” as beneficial for ventilation; however, this assumption overlooks the distinct microclimate dynamics within Shenzhen’s high-FAR urban cores. In the ultra-high-density contexts of subtropical hot–humid climates, intense solar radiation load often supersedes wind speed as the dominant driver of thermal stress. Therefore, design strategies derived from lower-density or temperate contexts may prove ineffective or even misleading when applied to these specific high-solar-load environments.
- Lack of Automated PBD Translation: Although optimization tools are widely used [8], a systematic PBD framework remains incomplete. Such a framework should automatically link multi-dimensional morphological variables, execute rigorous simulation and GA optimization (e.g., Grasshopper–Galapagos), and quantitatively translate optimal solutions into clear, actionable design guidelines for high-intensity urban renewal or new construction projects [14]. The research focus often remains on simulation analysis rather than the automated process of generating and validating performance-based design alternatives.
1.3. Research Objectives and Contributions
- Systematic Integration of Multi-Dimensional Design Elements: We established a comprehensive indicator system that quantitatively integrates spatial layout (typology), building morphology (FAR, density, geometry), and greening systems (fₗ). This transcends fragmented single-factor analysis, capturing the complex synergistic effects critical for achieving optimal thermal performance in dense urban cores (Figure 1).
- Development of an Automated, Performance-Driven Workflow: We introduced an automated optimization workflow utilizing the Grasshopper–Galapagos platform. This workflow efficiently explores the vast parameter space defined by multi-dimensional indicators, identifying optimal morphological solutions specifically for minimizing the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI).
- Scientific Validation and Climate Mechanism Revelation: The study provides quantitative evidence that in high hot–humid climate zones, high-enclosure urban morphology is the most effective heat mitigation strategy, scientifically challenging the common “open ventilation is better” viewpoint. This conclusion is rigorously validated through comparative simulation of a real-world case (Shenzhen Futian CBD).
- Actionable Design Guidelines: Complex optimization results are translated into clear, parameterized design constraints and strategies (e.g., optimal FAR ranges, preferred building orientations, and necessary greening coverage ratios), providing direct and quantifiable inputs for urban planners and architects.
2. Methodology
2.1. Study Area and Spatial Typologies
- Point-Type: Characterized by isolated high-rise towers surrounded by open ground.
- Single-Sided Enclosure: Buildings arranged primarily along one main street boundary.
- Double-Sided Enclosure: Buildings forming an enclosed space along two adjacent sides.
2.1.1. Design Variables (Optimization Genes)
2.1.2. Design Constraints and Quantitative Indicators
- FAR and Building Density (BD): These critical indicators are dynamically calculated for each generated design variant. A Python 2.7 script is integrated into the workflow to filter solutions, ensuring the final FAR remains within the realistic range of 2.4 to 13.1, reflecting standards in Shenzhen’s high-intensity core districts [18].
- Sky View Factor (SVF): This dimensionless parameter is dynamically calculated and is crucial for linking geometry to radiative exchange. A lower SVF (a direct result of a high street aspect ratio H/W) typically implies reduced solar radiation reaching the pedestrian level, which is vital in hot–humid climates [3].
- Mean Radiant Temperature (Tmrt): Although not the primary optimization objective, Tmrt is the most critical input component of UTCI; it is highly sensitive to shading from buildings and vegetation and serves as a key intermediate performance indicator.
2.2. Simulation Platform and UTCI-GA Optimization Workflow
2.2.1. Performance Indicators and Simulation Platform
2.2.2. Meteorological Data Calibration
2.2.3. Automated Genetic Algorithm (GA) Optimization
- Objective Function (Fitness): Minimize the average UTCI value (UTCI_avg) during peak hours (9:00–17:00).
- Optimization Phases: The process was structured into two distinct phases to analyze synergistic effects:
- o
- Phase I (Morphology-Only Optimization): GA optimizes only the variables of layout and building geometry (T_layout, Lx, Lγ, H, θ). This phase establishes the baseline cooling potential derived purely from passive shading and airflow control.
- o
- Phase II (Integrated Greening Optimization): It introduces the Green Shading Coverage Ratio (fₗ) as an additional parameter. This phase explores the maximum thermal benefits achievable when building morphology and green infrastructure are optimized synergistically.
- Implementation Details: The optimization ran for 50 generations with 30 individuals per generation. This setting (1500 iterations per run) was selected based on a convergence test, which showed that the fitness values stabilized after the 40th generation, ensuring a balance between computational efficiency and solution quality.
2.2.4. Statistical Analysis
- Pearson correlation analysis, used to quantify the linear relationship and significance between optimization genes (e.g., FAR, BD, fₗ) and thermal performance indicators (UTCI).
- Multiple linear regression, used to establish prediction models and demonstrate the relative contribution of each design parameter to the total variation in UTCI. High goodness-of-fit (R2 > 0.99) ensures that the model provides reliable design guidance.
2.3. Validation Protocol: Futian CBD Case Study
- Baseline Group represents the current, existing spatial configuration of the Futian CBD block.
- Morphology-Only Optimization Group applies key optimal morphological parameters from GA Optimization Phase I (e.g., fully enclosed layout, high $H/W$ ratio) without adding greening.
- Integrated Greening Optimization Group applies comprehensive optimal parameters from GA Optimization Phase II, including the combination of optimal morphology and optimal green shading coverage (fₗ ≈ 44%).
3. Results
3.1. Optimization Convergence and Layout Performance Comparison
3.1.1. Convergence Trends
3.1.2. Layout Performance Comparison (Phase I: Morphology Only)
- Optimal Performance: The fully enclosed layout consistently exhibited the best performance, achieving the most significant reduction in UTCI. The final optimized UTCI_avg for this typology dropped from an initial unoptimized value of 40.11 °C to 38.54 °C (a total reduction of ~1.57 °C).
- Enclosure Ranking: Thermal comfort performance showed a strong correlation with the degree of enclosure: fully enclosed (38.54 °C) < double-sided (38.59 °C) < single-sided (38.74 °C) < point-type (39.08 °C).
- Mechanism: The superior performance of enclosed layouts is primarily attributed to a significant reduction in Tmrt values. The mechanism analysis confirms that the superiority of the fully enclosed layout stems from the significant compression of the sky view factor (SVF) by deep canyons, which effectively blocks direct shortwave radiation. Given Shenzhen’s low wind speed context, the benefit of radiative cooling outweighs the negative impact of reduced wind speed. This explains why higher enclosure leads to more significant improvements in UTCI.
3.2. Quantitative Impact Analysis of Multi-Dimensional Parameters
3.2.1. Correlation Analysis (Pearson Coefficient)
- Urban Density Indicators: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Building Density (BD) showed strong negative correlations with UTCI (r(FAR) ≈ −0.95, r(BD) ≈ −0.91). This strong negative correlation powerfully challenges the traditional notion that “lower density is more comfortable.” The data indicate that, provided their geometry is optimized for shading, more compact and dense urban forms can actually deliver superior outdoor thermal comfort in this climate.
- Geometry and Greening Factors: The analysis further highlighted the critical roles of key geometric parameters (e.g., Street Aspect Ratio H/W) and Green Shading Coverage Ratio (fₗ). Greening coverage showed a robust negative correlation (r ≈ −0.75), confirming its significant impact on thermal mitigation through shading and evapotranspiration.
3.2.2. Multiple Linear Regression Model
- Dominant Factor (fl): The standardized coefficient (Beta ≈ −0.678) establishes the Green Shading Coverage Ratio (fl) as the single most determinant variable. This implies that, building upon passive morphological optimization, the active introduction of green infrastructure offers the highest marginal return on thermal comfort.
- Morphological Importance: Building dimensions (Lx and Ly) and average height (H) also showed significant, quantifiable impacts, supporting strategies that utilize high-rise, long-façade buildings to maximize mutual shading.
3.3. Futian CBD Case Study Validation Results
3.3.1. Quantification of Performance Enhancement
- Overall Improvement: The comprehensive performance assessment (Figure 11) shows that, compared to the baseline, the Integrated Greening Optimization scenario achieved a total UTCI reduction of 3.04 °C and a maximum Tmrt reduction of 13.12 °C. This confirms the remarkable potential of optimized morphology and greening systems in real-world, high-intensity contexts.
3.3.2. Quantification of Synergistic Contributions
- Morphological Contribution: UTCI reduced by 1.25 °C (40.19–38.94 °C).
- Synergistic Greening Contribution: UTCI further reduced by 1.79 °C (38.94–37.15 °C).
4. Discussion
4.1. Scientific Debate: Establishing the “Structural Shading First” Design Principle
4.2. Non-Linear Synergistic Effects of Morphology and Green Infrastructure
4.3. Validity and Limitations of Statistical Models
4.4. Trade-Offs: Summer Cooling vs. Other Factors
4.5. Actionable Design Strategies for High-Intensity Districts
- Layout Priority (Structural Shading): Designers should prioritize fully enclosed or double-sided enclosed layouts. In TOD development zones or high-density regulatory plans, street aspect ratios (H/W) should be increased by matching building height and density, shifting focus from promoting general airflow to maximizing mutual shading, which is the most robust heat defense mechanism in this climate.
- Morphological Control (Orientation and Dimensions): The regression analysis indicates that building dimensions should be optimized to maximize North–South façade length (Lγ). In street design, it is recommended to rotate street orientation 10–20° east or west to reduce direct solar exposure on main streets during noon hours, casting longer, more protective shadows on pedestrian paths.
- Greening Strategy (Target Coverage): To achieve effective cooling synergies, urban renewal projects must set green shading coverage (fₗ) targets between 30% and 50% along key pedestrian corridors. Strategically, tree canopy coverage should be prioritized over shrubbery to achieve the dual synergy of radiation interception and transpiration cooling.
- Microclimate Zoning Control: We recommend introducing SVF-based control thresholds (e.g., SVF ≤ 0.25) in planning practice to delineate thermal risk levels and implement targeted spatial interventions.
4.6. Discussion on Climate Zone Applicability
5. Conclusions
5.1. Research Conclusions
- Optimal Morphological Typology: Under Shenzhen’s climate conditions, a higher degree of urban enclosure is the most effective strategy for mitigating heat stress. The fully enclosed layout consistently demonstrated the best performance, with its optimized UTCI value dropping from 40.11 °C to 38.54 °C. This verifies the dominant role of structural shading in thermal comfort within high-solar-load regions.
- Synergistic Effectiveness of Integrated Systems: The integration of the greening system demonstrated significant synergistic effects. Compared to the morphology-only optimization scenario, the comprehensive optimization scenario achieved an additional 1.79 °C UTCI reduction, leading to a total maximum reduction of 3.04 °C.
- Framework Validation: Empirical validation based on the Futian CBD case confirmed the feasibility and effectiveness of the PBD framework in realistic high-density urban contexts.
5.2. Practical Application in Urban Renewal
5.3. Limitations and Future Prospects
- Year-round Balanced Optimization—expanding to multi-objective optimization to balance summer cooling with winter solar access.
- Refined Vegetation Modeling—incorporating plant physiological models to accurately simulate the cooling benefits of different vegetation configurations.
- Universality Validation—applying the PBD framework to high-density cities in arid–hot or cold climates to verify its cross-climate universality.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Calvin, K.; Dasgupta, D.; Krinner, G.; Mukherji, A.; Thorne, P.W.; Trisos, C.; Romero, J.; Aldunce, P.; Barrett, K.; Blanco, G.; et al. IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shenzhen National Climate Observatory. Bulletin of Urban Heat Island Monitoring in Shenzhen 2020; Shenzhen National Climate Observatory: Shenzhen, China, 2020; (In Chinese). Available online: https://weather.sz.gov.cn/ (accessed on 11 January 2026).
- Oke, T.R. Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat island: Comparison of scale model and field observations. J. Climatol. 1981, 1, 237–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, X. Evaluation of Outdoor Thermal Comfort and Spatial Morphology Optimization Strategies for Huaihe Road Pedestrian Block in Hefei Based on ENVI-Met. Master’s Thesis, Anhui Jianzhu University, Hefei, China, 2023. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Jendritzky, G.; de Dear, R.; Havenith, G. UTCI—Why another thermal index? Int. J. Biometeorol. 2012, 56, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Acero, J.A.; Koh, E.J.; Ruefenacht, L.A.; Norford, L.K. Modelling the influence of high-rise urban geometry on outdoor thermal comfort in Singapore. Urban Clim. 2021, 36, 100775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holland, J.H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence; Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Contreras, R.F.; Moyano, J.; Rico, F. Genetic algorithm-based approach for optimizing the energy rating on existing buildings. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2016, 37, 664–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, S.H.; Lee, D.K.; Piao, Z.G.; Park, C.Y.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, E.S. Developing a three-dimensional urban surface model for spatiotemporal analysis of thermal comfort with respect to street direction. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 97, 104721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivanit, M.; Jareemit, D. Modeling the influences of layouts of residential townhouses and tree-planting patterns on outdoor thermal comfort in Bangkok suburb. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 30, 101262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Gu, C. A Study of the Impact of Spatial Design on the Outdoor Thermal Environment in High-density Cities in Southern China. Des. Community 2024, 6, 35–43. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Gao, Q.; Li, T.; Liu, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Jia, Y. Outdoor thermal comfort of high-rise and multi-storey residential areas: Comparison and optimisation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2025, 131, 106707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundus, S.; Bassam, A.H. The effect of building height diversity on outdoor microclimate conditions in hot climate: A case study of Dubai-UAE. Urban Clim. 2020, 32, 100611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazarian, N.; Acero, J.A.; Norford, L. Outdoor thermal comfort autonomy: Performance metrics for climate-conscious urban design. Build. Environ. 2019, 155, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Middel, A.; AlKhaled, S.; Schneider, F.A.; Hagen, B.; Coseo, P. 50 Grades of Shade: Understanding the Cooling Effects of Natural and Nonnatural Urban Shading. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2021, 102, E1805–E1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Wei, D.; Jim, C.Y. Carbon-neutral potential of urban block morphology design: Balancing thermal comfort and energy consumption in hot-summer and cold-winter climates. Build. Environ. 2025, 268, 112658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bian, C.; Lee, C.C.; Chen, X.; Li, C.Y.; Hu, P. Quantifying the Thermal and Energy Impacts of Urban Morphology Using Multi-Source Data: A Multi-Scale Study in Coastal High-Density Contexts. Buildings 2025, 15, 2266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources. Shenzhen Urban Planning Standards and Guidelines (2021 Edition); Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources: Shenzhen, China, 2021. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, S. ENVI-met simulation and analysis of the impact of urban building layout elements on regional thermal environment: A case study of parts of Jiangbei New Area, Nanjing. Clim. Environ. Res. 2022, 27, 513–522. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urban Planning Committee of Shenzhen. Statutory Plan of Shenzhen Futian Central District: NO.FT01-01&02/03; Urban Planning Committee of Shenzhen: Shenzhen, China, 2018. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]











| Area Name | ID | Block Type | Building Area (m2) | Land Area (m2) | FAR | BD (%) | Green Coverage Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Futian | 1 | Single-sided enclosed block | 332,260.83 | 14,316.00 | 5.3 | 22.91 | 17.33 |
| Futian | 2 | Single-sided enclosed block | 502,378.89 | 19,358.00 | 8.0 | 30.97 | 31.69 |
| Futian | 3 | Single-sided enclosed block | 212,850.00 | 7125.00 | 3.4 | 11.40 | 18.80 |
| Futian | 4 | Single-sided enclosed block | 293,777.78 | 5200.00 | 4.7 | 8.32 | 16.16 |
| Futian | 5 | Double-sided enclosed block | 204,815.56 | 11,458.00 | 3.3 | 18.33 | 20.34 |
| Futian | 6 | Double-sided enclosed block | 720,778.06 | 26,263.00 | 11.5 | 42.02 | 13.65 |
| Futian | 7 | Fully enclosed block | 486,550.00 | 21,424.00 | 7.8 | 34.28 | 11.88 |
| Futian | 8 | Double-sided enclosed block | 332,600.00 | 10,900.00 | 5.3 | 17.44 | 18.74 |
| Futian | 9 | Fully enclosed block | 360,934.44 | 17,783.00 | 5.8 | 28.45 | 19.14 |
| Futian | 10 | Fully enclosed block | 340,768.33 | 23,623.00 | 5.5 | 37.80 | 27.77 |
| Futian | 11 | Single-sided enclosed block | 349,845.00 | 9394.00 | 5.6 | 15.03 | 10.99 |
| Futian | 12 | Single-sided enclosed block | 325,195.83 | 15,679.00 | 5.2 | 25.09 | 3.28 |
| Futian | 13 | Fully enclosed block | 430,444.53 | 11,526.57 | 6.9 | 18.44 | 11.39 |
| Futian | 14 | Fully enclosed block | 346,115.00 | 11,908.00 | 5.5 | 19.05 | 18.33 |
| Futian | 15 | Fully enclosed block | 744,146.67 | 13,132.00 | 11.9 | 21.01 | 17.40 |
| Futian | 16 | Double-sided enclosed block | 325,420.83 | 18,951.50 | 5.2 | 30.26 | 5.70 |
| Futian | 17 | Single-point block | 688,748.28 | 27,234.20 | 11.0 | 43.57 | 6.26 |
| Futian | 18 | Fully enclosed block | 273,763.70 | 5745.92 | 4.4 | 9.19 | 13.14 |
| Futian | 19 | Fully enclosed block | 437,568.33 | 16,630.00 | 7.0 | 26.61 | 16.60 |
| Futian | 20 | Single-sided enclosed block | 201,420.00 | 4652.00 | 3.3 | 7.44 | 14.28 |
| Futian | 21 | Single-sided enclosed block | 379,022.00 | 5210.00 | 6.1 | 8.34 | 14.52 |
| Futian | 22 | Fully enclosed block | 395,878.89 | 6278.00 | 6.3 | 10.04 | 11.42 |
| Huaqiang North | 1 | Single-sided enclosed block | 391,758.33 | 16,461.00 | 6.3 | 26.34 | 3.78 |
| Huaqiang North | 2 | Single-sided enclosed block | 351,012.78 | 20,444.00 | 5.6 | 32.71 | 26.05 |
| Huaqiang North | 3 | Double-sided enclosed block | 578,763.33 | 22,936.00 | 9.3 | 36.70 | 8.43 |
| Huaqiang North | 4 | Single-sided enclosed block | 239,708.33 | 10,025.00 | 3.8 | 16.04 | 7.34 |
| Huaqiang North | 5 | Single-point block | 257,925.00 | 18,610.00 | 4.1 | 29.78 | 8.62 |
| Huaqiang North | 6 | Single-sided enclosed block | 439,925.06 | 17,310.00 | 7.0 | 27.70 | 13.64 |
| Huaqiang North | 7 | Double-sided enclosed block | 821,718.06 | 16,430.00 | 13.1 | 26.29 | 8.87 |
| Luohu Center | 1 | Fully enclosed block | 566,483.33 | 17,360.00 | 9.1 | 27.78 | 10.99 |
| Luohu Center | 2 | Single-sided enclosed block | 427,277.78 | 14,000.00 | 6.8 | 22.40 | 17.51 |
| Luohu Center | 3 | Single-sided enclosed block | 309,795.33 | 15,904.00 | 5.0 | 25.45 | 10.24 |
| Luohu Center | 4 | Double-sided enclosed block | 274,813.33 | 7320.00 | 4.4 | 11.71 | 9.55 |
| Luohu Center | 5 | Single-point block | 212,777.78 | 6810.00 | 3.4 | 10.90 | 8.51 |
| Chegongmiao | 1 | Single-sided enclosed block | 229,420.00 | 12,800.00 | 3.6 | 20.48 | 17.16 |
| Chegongmiao | 2 | Single-sided enclosed block | 153,061.67 | 15,546.00 | 2.4 | 24.87 | 5.07 |
| Chegongmiao | 3 | Double-sided enclosed block | 504,371.94 | 24,072.00 | 8.1 | 38.52 | 11.84 |
| Chegongmiao | 4 | Single-sided enclosed block | 351,332.78 | 14,855.00 | 5.6 | 23.77 | 14.54 |
| Chegongmiao | 5 | Double-sided enclosed block | 211,900.00 | 7808.00 | 3.4 | 12.49 | 6.88 |
| Chegongmiao | 6 | Single-point block | 272,438.89 | 17,300.00 | 4.4 | 27.68 | 8.63 |
| Chegongmiao | 7 | Single-sided enclosed block | 396,320.00 | 18,120.00 | 6.3 | 28.99 | 21.48 |
| Chegongmiao | 8 | Fully enclosed block | 217,560.00 | 5040.00 | 3.5 | 8.06 | 23.43 |
| Ecological Technology Park | 1 | Single-point block | 349,531.67 | 10,600.00 | 5.6 | 24.74 | 41.72 |
| Ecological Technology Park | 2 | Single-sided enclosed block | 346,666.67 | 10,600.00 | 5.5 | 16.96 | 13.89 |
| Ecological Technology Park | 3 | Single-point Block | 248,102.56 | 9618.00 | 4.0 | 15.39 | 29.43 |
| Ecological Technology Park | 4 | Fully Enclosed Block | 347,445.00 | 15,226.00 | 5.6 | 24.36 | 14.78 |
| Ecological Technology Park | 5 | Single-point Block | 432,701.33 | 16,370.00 | 6.9 | 26.19 | 4.84 |
| Area Name | District ID | Building ID | Building Unit Name | Length (m) | Width (m) | Height (m) | Building Area (m2) | Land Area (m2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Futian | 1 | 1 | Shenzhen Metro Building | 75 | 70 | 128.70 | 187,687.50 | 5250.00 |
| Futian | 1 | 2 | Rongchao Building Podium | 50 | 20 | 12.00 | 3333.33 | 1000.00 |
| Futian | 1 | 3 | Rongchao Building | 63 | 32 | 89.00 | 49,840.00 | 2016.00 |
| Futian | 1 | 4 | Tianjian Century Garden | 40 | 25 | 78.00 | 26,000.00 | 1000.00 |
| Futian | 1 | 5 | Tianjian Century Garden | 60 | 38 | 54.00 | 41,040.00 | 2280.00 |
| Futian | 1 | 6 | Tianjian Century Garden | 26 | 20 | 54.00 | 9360.00 | 520.00 |
| Futian | 1 | 7 | Futian District Tianjian Primary School | 50 | 45 | 24.00 | 15,000.00 | 2250.00 |
| Scale | Design Element | Parameter | Symbol | Range/Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block | Layout Pattern | Typology | T_layout | Categorical (4 Types) |
| Street Orientation | Rotation Angle | θ | Continuous (0–45°) | |
| Building | Geometry | Building Length (E–W) | Continuous | |
| Building Length (N–S) | Continuous | |||
| Building Height | Continuous | |||
| Green | Green System | Shading Coverage | Continuous (0–50%) |
| Layout Type | Layout Design Elements | Morphological Design Elements |
|---|---|---|
| FAR | BD | |
| Point-Type | −0.950 | −0.913 |
| Single-Side Enclosure | −0.931 | −0.886 |
| Double-Side Enclosure | −0.905 | −0.885 |
| Fully Enclosed | −0.958 | −0.936 |
| Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized | Collinearity Statistics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. Error | Beta | t | Tolerance | VIF | |
| (Constant) | 42.075 | 0.023 | – | 1834.846 | – | – |
| ) | −0.017 | 0.000 | −0.325 | −113.858 | 0.613 | 1.632 |
| ) | −0.019 | 0.000 | −0.329 | −134.579 | 0.837 | 1.195 |
| ) | −0.005 | 0.000 | −0.104 | −42.827 | 0.846 | 1.182 |
| ) | −0.002 | 0.000 | −0.028 | −9.018 | 0.526 | 1.901 |
| ) | −3.371 | 0.014 | −0.678 | −233.697 | 0.594 | 1.684 |
| Performance Metric | Baseline | Phase I: Morphology-Only | Phase II: Integrated Greening | Max Improvement (Δ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average UTCI (°C) | 40.19 | 38.94 | 37.15 | −3.04 |
| (°C) | 60.58 | 55.20 | 47.47 | −13.12 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Zhang, J.; Guo, J.; Liang, W.; Chang, H. A Performance-Based Design Framework for Coupled Optimization of Urban Morphology and Thermal Comfort in High-Density Districts: A Case Study of Shenzhen. Buildings 2026, 16, 496. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16030496
Zhang J, Guo J, Liang W, Chang H. A Performance-Based Design Framework for Coupled Optimization of Urban Morphology and Thermal Comfort in High-Density Districts: A Case Study of Shenzhen. Buildings. 2026; 16(3):496. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16030496
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Junhan, Juanli Guo, Weihao Liang, and Hao Chang. 2026. "A Performance-Based Design Framework for Coupled Optimization of Urban Morphology and Thermal Comfort in High-Density Districts: A Case Study of Shenzhen" Buildings 16, no. 3: 496. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16030496
APA StyleZhang, J., Guo, J., Liang, W., & Chang, H. (2026). A Performance-Based Design Framework for Coupled Optimization of Urban Morphology and Thermal Comfort in High-Density Districts: A Case Study of Shenzhen. Buildings, 16(3), 496. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16030496

