## 1 Introduction  
Urban greening is essential for improving the urban ecological environment, enhancing living conditions, and increasing the well-being of residents [1]. Previous studies have consistently confirmed the comprehensive benefits of urban green spaces [2]. One of their most significant values lies in their ability to alleviate environmental stressors, such as air pollution [3], noise [4], heat waves [5], and flooding [6]. Additionally, urban greening can increase property values, create employment opportunities, and play a crucial role in promoting economic development and social harmony [7]. Moreover, by providing spaces for exercise and gatherings, urban green spaces encourage more physical activity, strengthen community cohesion, and thus promote physical and mental health [8]. Despite the proven necessity of adequate urban greening for ensuring residential health, many regional studies have shown that residents often struggle to benefit equally from the surrounding greenery [9; 10]. Due to urban population expansion and limited green space resources, residential differentiation in urban areas leads to spatial injustice in the distribution of green resources [11]. The geographical distribution of urban infrastructure is widely acknowledged as an environmental justice issue, with greening being a critical component [12]. Different types of urban greening provide varying benefits to residents [13], making it essential to quantify the characteristics of green spaces surrounding people. In the literature on environmental inequality, various indicators have been developed to assess different types of green spaces around communities. Two of the most widely used are the availability of green spaces within a community and the visiting distance to public green spaces [13; 14]. Availability refers to the amount of green space accessible within a community and is commonly used due to its ease of quantification [14]. Current quantitative assessments of green space availability have primarily utilized remote sensing data to examine the quantity and morphology of urban vegetation, employing indicators such as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) [15], canopy coverage (CC) [16], and leaf area index (LAI) [17]. Remote sensing imagery provides a bird's-eye view of green space data, which have been used to accurately capture large-scale green spaces, such as parks, revealing the distribution characteristics of urban green spaces [18]. As scholars have gained a deeper understanding of residents' needs, the accessibility of park green spaces has gradually become an important indicator for evaluating the equitable distribution of urban green spaces [19; 20]. Although two-dimensional remote sensing images effectively capture the horizontal distribution of green spaces, they often fail to accurately represent the three-dimensional distribution of greenery within urban areas, especially in regions with rich vertical greening [21]. Street view images, captured from the ground, provide direct observation at the street level from the perspective of human visual experience [22; 23], which is crucial for understanding how pedestrians and residents perceive and interact with surrounding greenery. Moreover, compared to bird's-eye remote sensing data, ground-level street greening assessments may more directly impact individual physical activity and mental health [24; 25; 26]. In compact urban planning, street-level greenery (e.g., street trees, grasslands, and vegetation) tends to be smaller in scale and more cost-effective. The aesthetic value and health benefits derived from green visibility in a community can play a crucial role in decisions to walk or cycle [27; 28]. To assess the quality of green spaces perceived by humans, [PERSON] [29] first introduced the concept of green view index (GVI), which refers to the proportion of greenery visible within a person's field of view.