Article Sidebar

Submitted
December 25, 2025
Accepted
February 12, 2026
Published
June 1, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study explored the impact of public green space design on social cohesion in Erbil, drawing on the experiences of the cities of Mas, Ganjan, and Lana, in the context of rapid urbanization that erodes natural areas and strains community ties. The study filled a significant gap in local research by reviewing international studies demonstrating how design elements, such as accessibility, aesthetics, and functionality, can foster trust, belonging, and interaction. It also investigated how green spaces contribute to improved health and well-being by mitigating the effects of urban heat islands, pollution, and social isolation. Using an integrated research methodology, spatial audits assessed physical characteristics on a scale of 1 to 5. Additionally, 34 participants completed Likert scale questionnaires to gather their views on design and social cohesion. Pearson correlation coefficients showed statistically significant positive relationships: design and aesthetic features (such as vegetation diversity and landscaping) had the greatest impact (r=0.543, p<0.001), followed by functional amenities such as seating, lighting, and recreational spaces (r=0.507, p<0.001), while accessibility was the least important (r=0.335, p<0.001). Linear regression analysis strongly supported this hypothesis (β=0.557, R²=31.1%, p<0.001; F=66.724), with Ganjan outperforming other cities thanks to its high-quality and well-balanced green spaces. These results underscore that prioritizing user-friendly green designs over mere proximity can foster resilient communities, prompting policymakers in Erbil to integrate plant-rich designs, recreational facilities, and pedestrian accessibility into urban planning to strengthen social bonds amidst increasing population density.

Keywords

Array Array Array Array Array

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s), under exclusive license to the University of Thi-Qar. UTJES is an open-access journal where all contents are free of charge. Articles of this journal are licensed under the terms of the Creative commons Attribution 4.0 International License Creative Commons-Attribution (CC BY 4.0) that licensees are unrestrictedly allowed to search, download, share, distribute, print, or link to the full texts of the articles, crawl them for indexing and reproduce any medium of the articles provided that they give the author(s) proper credits (citation). The authors hold the copyright for their published work on UTJES website, while UTJES is responsible for appreciating citation for their work, which is released under CC-BY-4.0 enabling the unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction of an article in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Abrahams, T. O., Ewuga, S. K., Kaggwa, S., Uwaoma, P. U., Hassan, A. O., & Dawodu, S. O. (2023). Review of strategic alignment: Accounting and cybersecurity for data confidentiality and financial security. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 20(3), 1743–1756. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.20.3.2691
  2. Adedeji, I. (2023). Nigerian urbanization and the significance of affordable housing. Journal of Service Science and Management, 16(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2023.163020
  3. Al-Kodmany, K. (2023). Greenery-covered tall buildings: A review. Buildings, 13(9), 2362. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092362
  4. Andrews, G. J., Evans, J., & Wiles, J. (2014). The association of individual and neighborhood social cohesion, neighborhood disorder, and individual health. Social Science & Medicine, 108, 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.028
  5. Bala, S., Garg, D., Thirumalesh, B. V., Sharma, M., Sridhar, K., Inbaraj, B. S., & Tripathi, M. (2022). Recent strategies for bioremediation of emerging pollutants: A review for a green and sustainable environment. Toxics, 10(8), 484. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10080484
  6. Barau, A. S., Abubakar, I. R., Kafi, K. M., Olugbodi, K. H., & Abubakar, J. I. (2023). Dynamics of negotiated use of public open spaces between children and adults in an African city. Land Use Policy, 131, 106705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106705
  7. Cardinali, G., et al. (2024). Examining green space characteristics for social cohesion: Proximity, size and vegetation matter. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 91, 128178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128178
  8. De Kleyn, L., Mumaw, L., & Corney, H. (2020). From green spaces to vital places: Connection and expression in urban greening. Australian Geographer, 51(2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2019.1686195
  9. de Vries, S., et al. (2013). Impact of proximity and usability of greenspace on residents’ well-being. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 72–83.
  10. Dushkova, D., & Ignatieva, M. (2020). New trends in urban environmental health research: From geography of diseases to therapeutic landscapes and healing gardens. Geography, Environment, Sustainability, 13(1), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2019-99
  11. Egerer, M., & Buchholz, S. (2021). Reframing urban “wildlife” to promote inclusive conservation science and practice. Biodiversity and Conservation, 30(7), 2255–2266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02182-y
  12. Elliott, H., Eon, C., & Breadsell, J. K. (2020). Improving city vitality through urban heat reduction with green infrastructure and design solutions: A systematic literature review. Buildings, 10(12), 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10120219
  13. Elsadek, M., Liu, B., & Xie, J. (2020). Window view and relaxation: Viewing green space from a high-rise estate improves urban dwellers’ wellbeing. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 55, 126846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126846
  14. Francis, J., et al. (2012). Quality or quantity? The effect of physical and social park features on park use. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(2), 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.005
  15. Jennings, V., & Bamkole, O. (2019). The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030452
  16. Kazmierczak, A. (2013). Does restorative green space offer a solution to urbanisation? Landscape and Urban Planning, 115, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.006
  17. Knobel, P., et al. (2021). Development of the Urban Green Space Quality Questionnaire (UGSQQ). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 62, 127155.
  18. Law, H. Y., et al. (2023). Evaluation-perception of site attributes and plant species diversity of urban green space in a highly urbanized city. Ecology and Society, 28(3), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14794-280322
  19. Peters, K., Elands, B., & Buijs, A. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(2), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003
  20. Reid, C. E., et al. (2022). Perceptions of green space usage, abundance, and quality during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Environmental Research, 205, 112455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112455
  21. Wan, C., et al. (2021). Underlying relationships between public urban green spaces and social cohesion. Cities, 112, 103138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103138
  22. Xu, M., et al. (2024). Utilizing regression model to characterize the impact of urban green space on stress reduction. Heliyon, 10(15), e35898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35898
  23. Zhang, Y., et al. (2024). An analysis of the effects of different urban park space types on park cooling effects. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, 1433319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1433319