AI模型能辅助评估绿地吸引力,但需人类参与校准。
Assessing Greenspace Attractiveness with ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini: Do AI Models Reflect Human Perceptions?
- 用街景图像对比AI与居民对绿地的审美判断
- 对正式绿地吸引性判断一致率高,对非正式绿地则低
- AI忽视安全与本地特色,适合辅助评估而非替代
理解绿地吸引力对打造宜居包容的城市环境至关重要,但现有评估方法常忽略非正式或临时空间,且资源消耗大,难以规模化捕捉主观感知。本研究考察了多模态大语言模型(MLLMs)ChatGPT GPT-4o、Claude 3.5 Haiku和Gemini 2.0 Flash,利用谷歌街景图像评估绿地吸引力的能力,是否与人类一致。将模型输出与波兰罗兹市居民的地理问卷调查结果进行对比,涵盖正式绿地(如公园)与非正式绿地(如草地、荒地)。受访者及模型均判断绿地是否吸引人,并提供最多三条自由文本解释。分析比较判断一致性及解释内容在共享推理类别中的分布。结果显示:对吸引人的正式绿地与不吸引人的非正式绿地,模型与人类判断高度一致;但对吸引人的非正式绿地与不吸引人的正式绿地,一致性较低。模型始终强调美学与设计特征,低估了居民重视的安全性、功能性基础设施及本地嵌入特质。研究表明,这些模型具备规模化预评估潜力,但仍需人类监督与参与式方法补充。结论为:MLLMs可支持但无法取代规划实践中的情境敏感型绿地评估。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Understanding greenspace attractiveness is essential for designing livable and inclusive urban environments, yet existing assessment approaches often overlook informal or transient spaces and remain too resource intensive to capture subjective perceptions at scale. This study examines the ability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), ChatGPT GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Haiku, and Gemini 2.0 Flash, to assess greenspace attractiveness similarly to humans using Google Street View imagery. We compared model outputs with responses from a geo-questionnaire of residents in Lodz, Poland, across both formal (for example, parks and managed greenspaces) and informal (for example, meadows and wastelands) greenspaces. Survey respondents and models indicated whether each greenspace was attractive or unattractive and provided up to three free text explanations. Analyses examined how often their attractiveness judgments aligned and compared their explanations after classifying them into shared reasoning categories. Results show high AI human agreement for attractive formal greenspaces and unattractive informal spaces, but low alignment for attractive informal and unattractive formal greenspaces. Models consistently emphasized aesthetic and design oriented features, underrepresenting safety, functional infrastructure, and locally embedded qualities valued by survey respondents. While these findings highlight the potential for scalable pre-assessment, they also underscore the need for human oversight and complementary participatory approaches. We conclude that MLLMs can support, but not replace, context sensitive greenspace evaluation in planning practice.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。