The Effect of Green Spaces in Gated Communities on Residents' Social Actualization, Sulaymaniyah City as a Case Study

Volume 12 , Issue 3 , May 2026

Authors

Shaista Mohamed Raouf Hussein 1 ; Raz Saeed Faraj 1

1 University of Sulaimani , College of Engineering , Architecture Engineering Department , KR,Iraq

Keywords

Abstract

This study examines how the hierarchical structure of green spaces within gated communities influences residents’ social actualization. The research focuses on Slemani Heights in Sulaymaniyah City and adopts a mixed-methods approach combining spatial audit, graphic analysis, and a structured questionnaire survey (n = 272). Green spaces are categorized into central and pocket types to evaluate their differentiated spatial and social roles. Urban design quality is assessed through a checklist based on established planning criteria. At the same time, residents’ social actualization is operationalized as a multidimensional construct including social interaction, sense of belonging, trust, well-being, collective identity, and residential satisfaction. Statistical analysis, including ANOVA, is used to examine variations across spatial conditions. The findings indicate that pocket green spaces are more strongly associated with everyday social outcomes such as trust, belonging, and satisfaction due to their proximity and frequent use. In contrast, central green spaces contribute primarily to collective identity and shared experience, with effects dependent on accessibility and spatial integration. The study is limited by its reliance on self-reported data and a single case study, and the findings should therefore be interpreted as context-specific.

References

  1. Atkinson, R., & Blandy, S. (2005). International perspectives on the new enclavism and the rise of gated communities. Housing Studies, 20(2), 177–186.
  2. Barton, H., Grant, M., & Guise, R. (2010). Shaping neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  3. Blakely, E. J., & Snyder, M. G. (1997). Fortress America: Gated communities in the United States. Brookings Institution Press.
  4. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
  5. Brown, B. B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 259–271.
  6. Carmona, M. (2019). Principles for public space design, planning to do better. Urban Design International, 24(1), 47–59.
  7. Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Public places urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  8. Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129–138.
  9. Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R. W., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory. In J. DeLamater & A. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 61–88). Springer.
  10. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
  11. Demir, S., & Mukhlis, M. (2017). [Complete reference information needed].
  12. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.
  13. Ewing, R., & Clemente, O. (2013). Measuring urban design: Metrics for livable places (2nd ed.). Island Press.
  14. Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65–84.
  15. Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L., & Knuiman, M. (2012). Creating sense of community: The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 401–409.
  16. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space (6th ed.). Island Press.
  17. Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., Lange, A., & Donovan, R. J. (2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2 Suppl. 2), 169–176.
  18. Giles-Corti, B., Vernez-Moudon, A., Reis, R., Turrell, G., Dannenberg, A. L., Badland, H., Foster, S., Lowe, M., Sallis, J. F., Stevenson, M., Owen, N., & City planning and population health collaborators. (2016). City planning and population health: A global challenge. The Lancet, 388(10062), 2912–2924.
  19. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
  20. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2013). Architectural research methods (2nd ed.). Wiley.
  21. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207–228.
  22. Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606.
  23. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
  24. Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., & Bonn, A. (Eds.). (2017). Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas. Springer.
  25. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
  26. Kazmierczak, A. (2013). The contribution of local parks to neighborhood social ties. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 31–44.
  27. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140.
  28. Klinenberg, E. (2018). Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life. Crown.
  29. Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 823–851.
  30. Low, S. M. (2003). Behind the gates: Life, security, and the pursuit of happiness in fortress America. Routledge.
  31. Low, S. M. (2013). Public space and diversity: Distributive, procedural and interactional justice for parks. In G. Young & D. Stevenson (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to planning and culture (pp. 295–310). Ashgate.
  32. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.
  33. Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60(7), 587–592.
  34. Maas, J., van Dillen, S. M. E., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health & Place, 15(2), 586–595.
  35. Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4), 335–350.
  36. Marcus, C. C., & Francis, C. (1998). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space (2nd ed.). Wiley.
  37. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper & Row.
  38. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23.
  39. Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14(2), 161–170.
  40. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. Macmillan.
  41. Nordh, H., Alalouch, C., & Hartig, T. (2011). Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(2), 95–103.
  42. Nordh, H., & Østby, K. (2013). Pocket parks for people: A study of park design and use. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 12–17.
  43. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press.
  44. Peters, K., Elands, B., & Buijs, A. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(2), 93–100.
  45. Project for Public Spaces. (2016). What makes a successful place? Project for Public Spaces.
  46. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
  47. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
  48. Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B., & Owen, N. (2008). Associations between neighborhood open space attributes and quality of life for older people in Britain. Environment and Behavior, 41(1), 3–21.
  49. Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & DePooter, S. F. (2004). The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood spaces. Environment and Behavior, 36(5), 678–700.
  50. Talen, E. (2010). The context of diversity: A study of six Chicago neighborhoods. Urban Studies, 47(3), 486–513.
  51. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230.
  52. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Project for Public Spaces.
  53. Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244.
  54. World Health Organization. (2017). Urban green spaces: A brief for action. WHO Regional Office for Europe.
  55. Wu, F. (2010). Gated and packaged suburbia: Packaging and branding Chinese suburban residential development. Cities, 27(5), 385–396.
  56. Zhao, Y., et al. (2024). [Complete reference information needed for the cited 2024 study on green-space typologies and well-being].
Statistics
  • Article view93
  • Downloads1
  • First online21 May 2026

  • RIS
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • Mendeley
  • APA (7th edition)
  • MLA (9th edition)
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • Vancouver