## 3 Results and Discussions
### Analysis on Experimental Results
#### 3.1.3 Analysis of Microclimate Results of Experiments on Greening Layout  
In the first group of experiments in Study 3, when the greening layout of the east-west street was designed as point greening (Model 1), the average PET value in the street was 54.58 \({}^{\circ}\)C; when the greening layout was designed as linear greening (Model 2), the average PET value in the street was 54.31 \({}^{\circ}\)C; when the greening layout was designed as planar greening (Model 3), the average PET value in the street was 56.66 \({}^{\circ}\)C; and when the greening layout was designed as a mixed point, linear and planar greening (Model 4), the average PET value in the street was 54.46 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Under the same greening area, the microclimate environment in the street with only planar greening was poor. When the greening layout was designed as point greening, linear greening, or mixed point, linear and planar greening, the microclimate environment in the street was better than in the planar greening space and the average value difference was small. In the second group of experiments in Study  
Figure 14: Distribution of PET values in sections with different open spaces on north–south street. Figure 12: Distribution of PET values in sections with different open spaces on east–west street. Figure 13: PET values at 1.0 m in different open spaces on east–west street. 3, when the greening layout of the north-south street was designed as point greening (Model 1), the average PET value in the street was 51.16 \({}^{\circ}\)C; when the greening layout was designed as linear greening (Model 2), the average PET value in the street was 51.12 \({}^{\circ}\)C; when the greening layout was designed as planar greening (Model 3), the average PET value in the street was 50.79 \({}^{\circ}\)C; and when the greening layout was designed as mixed point, linear and planar greening (Model 4), the average PET value in the street was 50.78 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The difference in the average comfort within the street was small. According to the distribution of PET values in sections of the east-west street with different greening layouts (Figure 16) and the PET results at 1.0 m at 2:00 p.m. (Figure 17), under the same greening area, when the greening layout was centralized, the microclimate environment in the street was poor, and when the greening layout was designed as mixed point, linear and planar greening, the microclimate environment was better. This is because the original airflow in the east-west street was poor in circulation, and large-scale planting and greening further hindered the airflow, worsening the microclimate environment inside the street. In contrast, the use of dispersed point or linear layouts has a smaller hindering effect on the airflow, and the airflow generated by greening with a cooling effect circulates throughout the street, resulting in a better microclimate environment. Figure 16: Distribution of PET values in sections with different greening layouts on east-west street. Figure 15: PET values at 1.0 m in different open spaces on north–south street. According to the distribution of PET values in sections of the north-south street with different greening layouts (Figure 18) and the PET results at 1.0 m at 2:00 p.m. (Figure 19), when adopting planar greening, although the proportion of sections with relatively small PET values is relatively small, the proportion of extreme sections with relatively large PET values is also small, and the average comfort of the entire street is better than the other three types of layouts. This is because the north-south street is parallel to the dominant wind direction. Under the limited greening area, the four greening layouts have a smaller hindering effect on the airflow entering the street, and the airflow in the street is unblocked.