Evaluation of Pedestrian Movement and Sustainable Public Realm in Planned Residential Areas, Mersin, Türkiye

Abstract

The study investigates the disconnect between formal urban planning standards and experiential walkability outcomes in Viranşehir, a planned neighborhood in Mersin, Türkiye. Although the area complies with national regulations on the provision of public services, it exhibits systemic limitations, including car-oriented street layouts, fragmented pedestrian networks, and underutilized public spaces. Employing a mixed-methods case study, the research integrates archival sources (aerial imagery, zoning plans, satellite data) with field observations to assess pedestrian environments. A light coding of sidewalk continuity, crossings, and edge conditions indicates that many streets are bounded by extensive inactive walls, protected crossings are absent along critical routes such as the school–park axis, and sidewalks are frequently narrow, obstructed, or discontinuous. These built-form features undermine safety, comfort, and social interaction despite formal regulatory compliance. The findings demonstrate how grid-pattern street systems prioritize vehicular mobility, while gated developments restrict permeability and diminish everyday encounters. In response, the study proposes a hierarchy of interventions: immediate measures such as school streets, protected crossings, and traffic calming, followed by medium- to long-term strategies including shaded seating, sidewalk widening, and participatory design guidelines. By linking statutory standards with lived experience, the paper conceptualizes walkability not only as a technical planning requirement but also as a socio-cultural right, offering transferable insights for the creation of more inclusive urban environments.

1. Introduction

The study investigates the relationship between urban planning decisions and the efficiency of pedestrian access to essential public services in residential environments. Focusing on walkability and pedestrian movement as integral components of urban quality of life, it discusses how walkable residential areas are and the extent to which streets encourage walking.

As a starting point, this paper presents an in-depth review of scholarly work related to walkability, pedestrian dynamics, and the broader concept of urban quality of life. Within this framework, studies on the measurement of walkability in urban spaces are also summarized. Then, to concretize the discussion, an evaluation is made on the city of Mersin.

The Viranşehir Neighborhood, located in Mezitli district of Mersin, is selected as the case study area to assess pedestrian movement within residential environments formed by planning decisions. A review of Mersin’s urban history indicates the emergence of various spatial and morphological patterns over time. While evaluating pedestrian access to social facilities such as education, health, and green spaces in terms of the physical environment, the study also focuses on how streets formed by planning decisions encourage pedestrian movement.

As can be seen in the literature summary, there are many variables in the measurement of pedestrian movement and therefore different methods for detection and analysis. Within the scope of the article, an evaluation can be made based on the physical built environment as a result of the research conducted with limited time and resources. The article is designed as a preliminary study for a more comprehensive research.

According to the results, a structured urban development has taken place, with socio-technical infrastructure aligned with the respective legal frameworks of its time. However, despite this compliance, the design and configuration of the built environment present challenges for pedestrian movement, failing to foster a walkable urban experience. The street pattern is predominantly organized in accordance with vehicular traffic. While the grid-based urban layout facilitates connectivity, the resulting density of intersections creates safety concerns for both pedestrians and vehicles. Additionally, observational analysis indicates that the presence of garden walls and fences enclosing gated communities reduces the visual and physical permeability of streets, making them unappealing for pedestrian use.

Drawing upon the analysis of walkability and the degree of publicness in street design, the study puts forward strategic recommendations to support pedestrian movement in the urban context. Moreover, the conclusion section addresses the study’s methodological constraints and points to areas that warrant further scholarly exploration.

2. Walkability in Urban Quality of Life

In the National Report and Action Plan for Turkey (1996) of the United Nations (UN) Habitat II Conference on Human Settlements determined basic principles of human settlements, and it was emphasized that “sustainable development” should be addressed within a broad framework ranging from basic human rights to urban rights. The UN Local Agenda 21 (LAG21) is cited as the most powerful mechanism for the realization of Habitat principles, and the principle of “governance” is defined in LAG21 by stating that “the indispensable basis of sustainable development is democratic, respectful of human rights, transparent, participatory and publicly accountable governments”. In the report, “liveability” is defined in the context of individual and social welfare, spatial characteristics, and qualities of settlements. The concepts of quality of life, which are used both separately and interchangeably, address living environments in their spatial, physical, social, and economic dimensions; in the physical dimension of urban space, they focus on the question of how urban functions, spatial patterns and networks, settlement and population densities, architectural styles, and accessibility of public spaces should come together in line with the principles of sustainability [1].

Research on the quality of life has gained momentum since the 1960s leading to a diverse range of definitions and conceptual frameworks [2]. Das [3] (p. 297) defines quality as the degree of excellence of a characteristic, while quality of life refers to the level of excellence in life. However, it remains a relative and multidimensional concept, shaped by individual perceptions and priorities. For some, quality of life is associated with happiness and life satisfaction; for others, it relates to material well-being, education, health, or safety.

Dissart and Deller [4] (p. 136) interpret quality of life through dimensions such as well-being, lifestyle, enjoyment, and morale. Similarly, Massam [5] (p. 143) emphasizes the role of economic, environmental, social, and aesthetic values, along with civil rights. Across these definitions, quality of life is fundamentally linked to the fulfillment of basic human needs.

In the context of urban environments, the configuration and accessibility of public spaces play a pivotal role in determining the spatial quality of life and overall urban livability. Public spaces serve as everyday environments where individuals interact, access services, and experience a sense of community and belonging. The spatial quality of public spaces contributes not only to individual well-being but also to the collective memory and identity of a place.

In this regard, both objective and subjective indicators—such as accessibility, safety, comfort, aesthetics, and user perceptions—are employed to evaluate quality of life in public spaces. Contemporary planning approaches recognize that the spatial quality of life in public environments is not static; it can be influenced, enhanced, or diminished by human actions, design decisions, and management practices. Thus, the quality of public space becomes a key instrument through which individuals and communities can shape their lived experiences and improve their urban quality of life.

2.1. Pedestrian Movement—Walkability

As a key component of urban livability, walkability represents both a spatial and political construct, shaped by socio-economic realities and concerns of environmental justice. It requires urban spaces that are safe, accessible, and conducive to walking for everyday purposes and leisure [6]. Walkability is shaped by various factors, including the quality of pedestrian infrastructure, streetscapes, sidewalks, road conditions, the built environment, and above all, urban design.

Walking, in this context, is not merely a mode of transportation but a multidimensional activity tied to the spatial and experiential quality of urban life. It enhances the vibrancy, diversity, and social function of public spaces. Accordingly, walkability is widely recognized in the planning and urban design literature as a core strategy for fostering healthier lifestyles, advancing sustainable modes of transportation, and enhancing overall urban livability [7,8]. As emphasized in the literature, walking benefits not only individuals, by improving physical and mental well-being, but also communities and the broader environment. Walkable urban environments enhance basic mobility, support public health, and contribute to restorative and recreational urban experiences [9]. Walkable, attractive, and safe public spaces play a crucial role in enhancing social life and fostering social cohesion within communities, thereby contributing significantly to overall livability [9,10]. In addition to their social benefits, walkable environments also support economic vitality by increasing the attractiveness of commercial areas for both consumers and investors. They can enhance the commercial potential of businesses, raise property values, and facilitate the revitalization of declining urban areas [11,12].

As a sustainable and environmentally friendly mode of transportation, walking helps reduce traffic congestion, lowers environmental impact, and conserves energy by eliminating air and noise pollution [13]. Moreover, walkable urban environments minimize the distance between residential areas, workplaces, commercial centers, entertainment venues, and public transit stops, thereby helping to curb urban sprawl and promote compact urban development [14,15,16]. By reducing car dependency, walkable cities help to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, promote more efficient use of public resources, reduce infrastructure and service costs, and thus help to develop more affordable urban living [16]. Walking also represents a socially equitable mode of transportation, as it is accessible to a broad spectrum of the population, including individuals across socio-economic classes, as well as vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly [13]. The New Urban Agenda promotes walkable and bike-able cities to improve the health and well-being of communities [17]. For these reasons, the “Green Call for Consensus” also recommends increasing pedestrian mobility for a sustainable environment. Promoting walking and cycling is a key component of sustainable and smart transportation strategies. In this regard, contemporary urban planning models are increasingly being designed around walking distances and travel times, such as the 15 min or 20 min city concepts.

In some of the research on walkability and walkable urban environments and neighborhoods, the concept of walkability is examined at the micro-scale in urban public spaces. For this reason, studies are usually prepared on a street, boulevard, or city center, and suggestions are presented for improving walkability in these study areas [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Similarly, there are also closed, micro-scale studies such as the University Campus, which are prepared with certain walkability sub-criteria [29]. In studies conducted on open green spaces, evaluations on walkability are made on green spaces and parks together with socio-demographic structure.

Some of the studies are based on different criteria that vary according to scale—at the meso- and macro-scales—for the neighborhoods and the city as a whole [30,31,32]. Among these studies, Erez Külekçi and Tezer [32] measured walkability by defining a walkability index through surveys with experts. There are also studies prepared for a certain age range at higher scales [33]. In addition, various studies that analyze cities and open spaces through pedestrian behavior and walkability mapping [34], as well as research focused on pedestrian movement, emphasize the significant role of walking in the shaping of public space [35]. In this context, investigations into walkability criteria often prioritize the use and accessibility of public spaces. Some studies further explore walkability in relation to the sense of place, users’ spatial perceptions, and daily routines [36,37]. On the other hand, there are also studies that critically evaluate the measurement and implementation of walkability [38]. Recently, there are also studies on accessibility, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic conditions [39,40].

However, there are also studies prepared as a guide and in which walkability criteria are determined. Yazıcıoğlu Halu and Yürekli [41] presented a model proposal for the variables affecting people’s desire to walk in urban spaces. Çubukçu et al. [42] used land use, traffic safety, crime safety, suitability for pedestrian use, accessibility, aesthetics, and maintenance criteria in their street-scale walkability guide study on the example of Karşıyaka.

In Turkey, walkable streets were on the agenda of local governments in the early 2000s to increase the mobility of people with disabilities in urban areas. Launched in 2013, the Healthy Eating and Active Living Program was adopted as a way to combat obesity and promote healthy living. Despite these promising developments, as in many countries, urban sprawl, inefficient and inadequate provision of public transportation infrastructure and services, and increasing private car ownership are some of the factors that hinder the development of walkable cities in Turkey [43]. On the other hand, when we examine the national legislation, a legal framework on walking distances has been established by the Regulation on Spatial Plans, which entered into force in 2014. The Regulation stipulates that, in zoning plans, walking distances for access to facilities such as educational institutions, healthcare services, green spaces, and places of worship should be determined progressively, taking into account factors such as topography, settlement patterns, population density, and both natural and artificial thresholds. The Regulation stipulates that walking distances to facilities such as educational institutions, healthcare services, green spaces, and places of worship should be determined in zoning plans. This determination should consider factors such as topography, settlement patterns, population density, and both natural and artificial thresholds. However, the Regulation does not include provisions for assessing the walkability or accessibility conditions of already built-up urban areas.

In summary, the literature can be categorized into three sub-groups based on scale. The first group comprises micro-scale studies that examine the walkability of public spaces such as urban squares and streets. The second group focuses on meso-scale analyses—typically at the neighborhood or city center level—where pedestrian movement is evaluated in relation to the deficiencies of socio-technical infrastructure. The third group addresses the integration of pedestrian movement with open and green space systems, viewing walking not only as a mode of transportation but also as a recreational activity.

Especially considering the restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of meeting the daily needs and services of the urbanites within the living space is more prominent today. The principles set out in the “Green Consensus” and the approaches developed on walking distance/duration (15 Minute or 20 Minute City) also emphasize the need to encourage urbanites to walk more within residential areas. However, these studies mainly focus on the lack of social-technical facilities.

2.2. How to Measure Walkability in Urban Space?

In recent walkability and walkable neighborhood studies, walkability and walkable neighborhoods are measured through street connectivity, housing density, and land use in indices prepared for use by health and policy makers and local working areas [44,45,46].

Walkability is a multidimensional and measurable concept that involves various qualitative and quantitative parameters. Through a review of the literature, a range of criteria have been identified for assessing walkability and defining walkable neighborhoods. A fundamental requirement in all walkability assessments is understanding the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of users in the study area. Such contextual knowledge allows for more meaningful measurements and enables comparisons based on variables such as gender, age, and income level. In this context, the first evaluation will be made on personal characteristics-profile [47,48,49]. According to The Global Walkability index, the main measure of walkability is “attractiveness” [6]. Well-maintained and clean walkways, interesting urban landscapes and destinations, diversity of land use, esthetic quality of streets, and a variety of activities/events increase the use of areas and ensure walkability [6,50,51,52,53,54,55]. Another walkability criterion is the “safety” of streets. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [56] (pp. 39–40), safety and security is the second basic need of the individual after basic physiological needs such as food and water. The concept of security can be analyzed under two separate headings: physical security and perceived security. Safe streets encourage people to walk, use the space, and increase the vitality of the space [57].

Physical safety is defined as measures such as street width and closure, vehicle speed regulations, raised pedestrian crossings, pedestrian and vehicle traffic separation regulations, and pedestrian crossings. Perceived safety is related to the user’s feeling of security. Perceived safety is related to vehicle traffic density, noise level and crime rates, lighting and observability of the street, and visual permeability [20,43,58,59]. The existence of “services, and facilities” is considered the basic and primary criterion in walkable environment design because people prefer to use areas where they can meet their needs. This criterion is measured by analyzing the service and service areas (WC, breastfeeding rooms, playgrounds, seating areas, fountains, toilets, trash bins…) and evaluating their location in relation to pedestrians [50], [52] (p. 305), [60], [61] (p. 251).

The principle of “accessibility” includes the evaluation of the presence of alternative modes of transportation in walkability studies, the active service of public transportation to the area, the observation of orientation in relation to legibility, the presence, continuity and continuity of sidewalks, pedestrian paths and bicycle paths are included as sub-criteria in the evaluation of access to and transportation in the area. The adequacy and location of parking lots and the presence of on-street parking spaces or unplanned parking are other sub-criteria of accessibility [50,52,54,55,60,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71].

Street connectivity is measured by the presence of continuous and well-maintained road networks, sidewalks and pedestrian paths and the density of connectivity, the size of blocks, the measurement of the length of streets, and the legible street network [16,60,61,69,72]. The “quality of the pedestrian path” is directly related to the design quality of streets. The continuity of the pedestrian path for all users and especially for disadvantaged groups and the absence of barriers directly affect the quality of the pedestrian path. In addition, the quality of the pedestrian path can be measured by determining the width of the sidewalk, the quality of the pavement, the presence and location of street furniture/street lighting, uninterrupted/unobstructed pedestrian paths, and especially sidewalk/pedestrian path zoning [20,43,61].

The diversity of activities and land uses within public spaces, along with the presence of mixed-use developments at the neighborhood scale, encourages people to engage with the space and contributes to the revitalization of the area [50,53,60,73,74]. Accordingly, the assessment of land use, functional diversity, and mixed-use patterns is central to studies on walkable neighborhoods. Moreover, the configuration of the street network has a direct influence on the walkability potential of urban environments [67]. The legibility of the street network is evaluated through various parameters, including street layout types (e.g., grid, curvilinear), street and block lengths, intersection density, the frequency of dead-end streets per unit area, and block design characteristics [61,67,75]. In addition, the integration of the pedestrian network with other modes of transportation is a fundamental criterion in walkability studies, as it ensures both the accessibility of the area and the effective interaction between different forms of urban mobility. The development of walkable cities requires an integrated and holistic transportation planning strategy that prioritizes pedestrians, establishes a well-connected internal pedestrian network, and ensures seamless integration with other public transportation modes such as trams, buses, and metro systems. Additionally, the proximity of major transportation hubs—such as train stations, intercity bus terminals, parking facilities, and service centers—within walking distance plays a crucial role in supporting pedestrian-oriented mobility [43,61]. In addition to people’s daily routines and schedules, one of the important criteria affecting walking within the framework of daily and/or seasonal cycles is the time factor [65,68,76,77]. Similarly, although dependent on personal preferences and perception, an important criterion determined by environmental factors is aesthetics [56] (pp. 2–6) [50,58,78,79]. Comfort in walkable neighborhoods is shaped by both physical and environmental components. Physical elements include the placement of street furniture, lighting, and the availability of services and amenities, while environmental factors encompass shelters, tree coverage, and climatic or natural conditions. Accordingly, the assessment of comfort will address these physical and environmental variables within the selected research areas [51,60,61,66,68,80,81,82]. In relation to the urban design principle of walkability, “closeness” refers to the degree to which streets and other public spaces are visually defined by a combination of structures, walls, trees, and other vertical elements. In this context, it is measured by assessing the length of the street wall, sight distance, uninterrupted visibility and street width/story height ratio [82,83,84]. Human scale can be expressed by the degree to which the dimensions and proportions of the physical elements defining the street and space are perceived by the user. Human scale can be measured by the width of the street and sidewalk, building heights, ground floor uses, street furniture, and the height of trees and other masses in the urban fabric [83,84,85]. Permeability is one of the principles in walkable environment design that encourages pedestrians to walk and is a priority in recent sustainable environmental design. Permeability can be measured by analyzing the ground floor uses of buildings, openings and facades, determining food and beverage activities on the pedestrian path, and evaluating the relationship of functional diversity with the street [58,84,85].

Another widely adopted method for assessing walkability is Space Syntax, which analyzes spatial configurations at multiple scales—from regional and urban layouts to building complexes and internal building organization—and explores how these configurations interact with social structures and patterns of movement. Space-syntax is an analysis method developed by Hillier and Hanson [72], based on the description of urban form and spatial organization using computer technologies [86,87]. Human beings shape the space they inhabit in line with their social activities. In this context, spatial organization has become an important tool in the formation of spatial pattern, the perception of spatial relations and the study of human interaction in space [72]. There is extensive literature on spatial organization. However, this method allows for macro- and meso-scale analyses and does not allow for the determination of the physical characteristics of the streets (pavement, width, cross-section, lighting, etc.) and the measurement of their effects on walkability.

In summary, we can categorize the studies on the measurement of walkability into five groups. The first group examines the problem of walkability in the context of spatial layout studies and investigates the relationship between the geometric properties of space and walkability. However, since physical properties (cross-section, building type, ground, image) other than the geometric properties of the space in the second dimension are excluded from the scope, limited analyses can be presented. The second group examines the walkability problem of the city or certain parts of the settlement in the context of the form of the space (pattern characteristics, second and third dimensional building) and the connection between the morphological characteristics of the space and walkability is examined. However, since the results obtained are case specific, the number of studies making comparisons between different urban patterns is limited. The third group examines the relationship between urban design and landscape elements of streets and avenues and walkability. In the relevant studies, individual cases are examined, and the findings are predominantly descriptive in nature. Consequently, the influence of spatial elements is not analyzed at an analytical level in terms of statistical significance, consistency, or reliability. The fourth group of studies explores the relationship between individuals’ socio-economic and demographic characteristics, spatial features, and walkability. While these studies highlight social factors as explanatory variables, they tend to overlook the impact of spatial characteristics. Lastly, the fifth group includes studies that develop and test walkability criteria and indices for pedestrians. However, due to the general and fixed-weight structure of these indices, they lack flexibility, and their validity has been subject to criticism.

3. Materials and Methods

The methodology of this study is structured around a case study approach to examine the implications of planning decisions and to develop strategies that promote pedestrian movement within neighborhoods (Figure 1). For this purpose, Viranşehir Neighborhood, located in the Mezitli district of Mersin, was selected due to its distinct planning history and social structure, which have given rise to diverse urban patterns.

Within the context of Turkey’s planning legislation, 1/5000 scale Master Plans and 1/1000 scale Development Plans are required to meet minimum public service standards based on population density. Although public service provision in Mezitli District is quantitatively sufficient in terms of walking distances and per capita standards, qualitative aspects—such as safety, visual appeal, and street quality—remain inadequate.

Consequently, the study adopts a methodology grounded primarily in qualitative parameters. Initially, a character zoning analysis was conducted to identify morphological and locational patterns. A base map was then created by overlaying different scale plans, land use data, and satellite imagery. In addition, field observations (in Spring 2024) and photographic documentation (in Summer 2025) were carried out to capture variations in land use and patterns of pedestrian movement across the neighborhood.

As seen in the previous section, there are many variables and research methods for measuring walkability in urban space. Within the scope of this paper, a preliminary assessment of a more comprehensive study was conducted at the neighborhood scale, based on spatial data and the built environment.

The historical–spatial development of the area has been examined primarily with old dated aerial photographs and zoning plans obtained from the archives of Mersin Metropolitan Municipality (MMM) and Mezitli District Municipality (MDM) in 2024. In addition to this study, an evaluation of the construction years of the buildings was made using old aerial photographs.

Afterwards, the number of stories and land use of the built environment were determined through field observations. In addition to the buildings, factors such as walls and fences around the parcels or blocks that restrict pedestrian movement were also identified. In addition, determinations were made regarding the transportation scheme. Based on the archival data and fieldwork, an assessment of pedestrian movement is presented on the street–parcel–building scale as a qualitative micro-scale study.

4. Results

With a history spanning over 150 years, Mersin has functioned as the gateway of the Çukurova region to the Mediterranean world. Since the second half of the 19th century, the city has undergone significant economic, social, and spatial transformations [20] (pp. 85–89). Established as a port city, Mersin has maintained a cosmopolitan character and has been shaped by planning interventions since the Early Republican period.

During this process, residential areas with varying urban patterns and densities have developed across different parts of the city. The neighborhoods planned in the Early Republican period, particularly those near the city center, were rapidly transformed due to the influence of the expanding central business district and the increased development rights granted along major urban corridors.

Unlike many other metropolitan cities in Turkey, the demand for affordable housing driven by Mersin’s rapidly growing population was not addressed through informal settlements or squatter housing, but rather through shared parceling practices within the formal urban fabric. In this case, social–technical reinforcement areas needed for housing areas were tried to be developed with improvement zoning plans in an important area within the borders of Toroslar and Akdeniz Districts on the periphery of the city center. Low density and detached housing areas preferred by the city’s higher income groups were developed with zoning plans in the northern development corridor of Yenişehir District. At the end of this process, which involved a piecemeal planning approach and spot interventions, more comprehensive master plan studies were carried out in the 1990s. With the Güneykent Housing Development Plan (1986) in the north of Toroslar District, planned housing areas were created in the north of the city, mainly through cooperatives. Similarly, master development plans (1986) were prepared for the western development corridor of the city. Comprehensive planning efforts in Mersin gained an institutional framework following the city’s designation as a metropolitan municipality in 1993. In 1996, master development plan revisions were initiated within the newly defined boundaries of MMM [88]. During this period, peripheral district and town municipalities also prepared development plans within their own administrative jurisdictions.

Notably, in the western development corridor of the city, the transformation of citrus groves into residential zones intensified in the Mezitli District—an area characterized by secondary housing—through zoning plans formulated during the 1990s. The enactment of the Metropolitan Law No. 5216 in 2004 expanded the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Municipality to encompass Mezitli as well.

Subsequently, the Mersin 1/25.000 Scale Master Plan was prepared in 2008, covering the expanded metropolitan boundaries. This plan outlined upper-scale settlement strategies, defined key development directions, and organized the distribution of social and technical infrastructure throughout the metropolitan area. The preparation of the 1/5000 scale Master Development Plan covering the districts of Akdeniz, Toroslar, Yenişehir, and Mezitli—which collectively constitute the metropolitan area—has been undertaken in a phased manner since 2018.

Within the built-up area of the city of Mersin, there are urban patterns that have been developed since the Early Republican period with the building conditions and social–technical reinforcement area foreseen in different plan periods. In the early periods, there are residential areas that were planned as garden houses but transformed at the parcel scale, as well as patterns formed by shared parcelization that were tried to be improved with improvement zoning plans. The housing patterns planned as a whole by mass housing projects and/or cooperatives differ from each other in terms of construction and population densities. The transformation of high-rise residential areas developed as secondary housing into primary housing involves differences in terms of the distribution of social–technical services. Another difference in the urban fabric is the transformation from the planned areas for street use, which were produced in the 1990s with discrete or contiguous building layouts, to plan decisions that allow the use of closed housing estates on a parcel basis based on the precedent (construction right), which has become increasingly widespread in the recent period. Another issue that should be considered in the context of residential areas is not only the differences in the construction conditions with the plan decisions regarding residential areas. With the plan decisions, the distribution of social-technical reinforcement areas has been tried to be maximized in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and urban planning principles. However, when we examine the established housing patterns, it is seen that in some residential areas, it is preferred to create neighborhood centers with open green areas, educational facility areas, health facility areas, and commercial uses, while in some residential areas, social–technical facilities are envisaged on certain axes and/or main streets. This situation affects the distribution of commercial activities and services that meet daily needs. In particular, land use decisions like mix use along all streets, where commercial and residential uses can coexist, have initiated functional transformations within the city. In this context, the presence of differentiated residential areas within the built-up area of Mersin city, which are produced by plan decisions but differ from each other, provides case study areas that can be successful for investigating the factors that determine and affect pedestrian movement in residential areas, which are aimed to be evaluated through the research project.

Mersin’s heterogeneous residential fabric, shaped by different planning approaches over time, is further enriched by socio-economic diversity stemming from both internal and international migration. The city’s port status and strategic location have historically attracted migrants, particularly after 1980, intensifying demographic growth. The recent influx of Syrian refugees has added another layer of complexity. These conditions render Mersin an ideal setting for detailed spatial analysis through its distinct and comparable sub-regions (

Table 1. Different patterns and planning periods in Mersin.

No	Planning Period	Pattern—Design	Neighborhood—Name
1	1960s—parcels and single family houses	Plan revisions and modifications led to 4–8 floored apartments with mix use	Piri Reis—Yenişehir District
2	1970s—unplanned development-Improvement Plans	2 floored single family houses and mix use	Kuzeykent/Afetevler—Yenişehir District
3	1980s—Mass Housing—Grid Pattern	Mass Housing—4–5 floored Residential Clusters	Akbelen—Toroslar District
4	Improvement Plans after Development	2–3 floored buildings and narrow street	Güneş—Akdeniz District
5	1980s—Single Family House without plan decisions—Improved by Revisions	Single Family Houses—Apartments—Gated Communities/Heterogeneous Pattern	Bahçelievler—Yenişehir District
6	1980s—Mass Housing Sub-Center	Mass Housing—4–5 floored Residential Clusters including social services like education, health and social units	Halkkent—Toroslar District
7	1980s—Cooperative Housing	Single Family Houses—Apartments/Mix pattern	Çağdaşkent—Toroslar District
8	1990s–Present	Apartments in small parcels/Gated communities—Block-based development with different numbers of floor	Menderes—Mezitli District
9	1990s–Present	Apartments in small parcels/Gated communities—Block-based development with different numbers of floor (commerce, education, healthcare, …)	Viranşehir—Mezitli District
10	2000s–Block-based Gated Communities	Gated Communities in different scales	Akdeniz—Mezitli District
11	2000s–Present	High-rise blocks—Gated Communities	Kocavilayet—Yenişehir District

, Figure 2).

The Viranşehir Neighborhood, which is discussed in this article, is a residential area that has been rapidly built up and intensified, first with secondary housing and then, especially after 1990, with zoning plans. In this process, while social facilities such as educational facilities, health facilities, market areas, and places of worship were built in the neighborhood, open green areas were created. The construction, which started as apartment buildings on a parcel basis, has evolved into closed housing estates on a block basis with the changing zoning plan conditions over time. The integration of the neighborhood with important focal points and open spaces such as the sea to the south, Mezitli Creek to the east, and the ancient city of Soloi-Pompeipolis to the west has been limited. For this reason, Viranşehir Neighborhood constitutes a unique case study area for the evaluation of pedestrian movement through the relationship between the built environment and the street. In this context, firstly, the planning process regarding the development of the neighborhood will be evaluated. Then, the findings of the field studies on the built environment will be presented.

4.1. Planning Process of Viranşehir, Mezitli

Mezitli District, within the boundaries of Viranşehir Neighborhood, was included in the boundaries of MMM with the legal arrangements made in 2008. For this reason, Mezitli District was excluded from the planning area in the upper-scale plans made during the urban development periods of Mersin in the 20th century. The upper-scale comprehensive planning decisions to cover Mezitli District were developed in the “Mersin 1/25.000 Scale Master Plan” approved by the MMM. Council decision dated 10 March 2008 and numbered 145. This plan is an upper-scale settlement scheme plan covering the Metropolitan Municipality Boundaries, which expanded after the legal and administrative regulations after 2004, and plan decisions have been produced for the important development directions of the city. In the 1/25.000 scale Master Plan dated 2008, Viranşehir Neighborhood is envisaged as “Areas to be Improved by Correcting Density and Building Layout” with a density of 325 people/ha and DD notation means rehabilitation (Figure 3).

When we make an evaluation in terms of sub-scale plans, it is seen that the 1/5000 scale Master Plan and 1/1000 scale Implementation Plans prepared by Mezitli District Municipality in the 1990s were decisive in the structuring of the area. As can be seen in the 1990 aerial photograph, the development in the area is limited to the secondary residences on the coastline and the street layout just west of the area where the Mezitli Creek flows into the sea. Today, Viranşehir Neighborhood excluding the archeological site are completely built up (Figure 4).

In this framework, when we examine the 1/5000 scale Master Plan, which was approved in the 1990s and partially amended, it is seen that a density of 250 people/ha is envisaged for the entire neighborhood (Figure 5). In the 1/1000 scale Development Plans prepared in the same period, except for the area previously developed with a street pattern (detached 5 floored apartments), the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = 1.50 construction condition was predominantly determined. With the provisions in the plan notes, it has been ensured that the FAR value can be gradually applied as 1.75 or 2.00 to allow the increasing number of floors. However, 1/1000 scale Development Plans do not stipulate any building conditions regarding the number of stories, maximum building height, and setback distances (Figure 6).

The current 1/5000 scale Master Plan approved by MMM in 2018. The plan envisages a density of 335 persons/ha in the whole Viranşehir Neighborhood (Figure 7). After that, the 1/1000 scale Development Plan was approved in 2020. The Development Plan re-defined FAR = 1.50 Hmax = 10 floors construction rights for Viranşehir Neighborhood (Figure 8).

4.2. Built-Up Environment and Character Zoning

In addition to the information and documents obtained from the institutions during the research process, the built environment was analyzed through detailed field observations and observations covering Viranşehir Neighborhood. Firstly, the building age of the built environment in the area was determined. Orthophoto aerial photographs of the area dated 1990 and 2005 and related datasets were taken into consideration in determining the building age. When we make an evaluation in this context, it is seen that there was construction on the coastline before 1990. Between 1990 and 2005, there was a very intensive construction in the area guided by the Development Plans. After 2005, this development continues (Figure 9). When the number of stories of the buildings is evaluated, it is seen that there are mostly 2-storey buildings within the conservation boundaries of the ancient city. While the buildings constructed in earlier years have fewer stories, especially the buildings constructed after 2005 have 11 stores or more (Figure 10).

Meso-scale detailed analysis are focused into core study area, indicated at Figure 9 and Figure 10, as a character zone, which lies between Cengiz Topel Street and the coastline was constructed with the development plans prepared in the 1990s, which largely maintain the plan conditions today. At the center of core area, there is an education unit serves as primary and secondary school, which is known as 75.Yıl Secondary School. As a heart of neighborhood, there is a park, which is called as Müfide İlhan Parkı, next to the secondary school. Moreover, there is a family healthcare center at the east of the school. In this case, this area constitutes a case study area for an evaluation in terms of plan decisions and the publicness of the neighborhood.

Determination made through fieldwork regarding the built environment is the relationship of buildings with streets and other public spaces through the street–building–parcel relationship. The existing buildings in Viranşehir Neighborhood are predominantly built in the form of gated communities. Therefore, the boundaries of the estates are defined by garden walls and fences. This type of construction limits interaction between private and public so limits the public use of the street (Figure 11).

In the detailed field observations and determinations made to cover the Viranşehir and Menderes Neighborhoods, basic land uses were also identified. The most basic use in the Menderes and Viranşehir Neighborhoods is residential use. The majority of the upper floors are in residential use. However, there are also different foci of use within the area in question. With the uses on the D400 Highway axis, the area is a sub-center that provides service to Mezitli District. Neighborhood sub-centers are located on main streets like Cengiz Topel Street. Along the coastline there are cafes and restaurants that determine the social spine for the near environment. However, there are no attractive activities and land use around the core area (Figure 12).

When we make an evaluation of the transportation scheme, it is seen that there are many north–south-oriented streets in Viranşehir Neighborhood, which is south of the D400 Highway, and that these streets open to Cengiz Topel and Barbaros Hayrettin Paşa Streets in the south. In addition to the pedestrianized Viranşehir Street axis, separated bicycle lanes have been created on the coastal road. The bicycle paths provide access to Viranşehir Neighborhood. When we examine the pedestrian circulation in the area, only Viranşehir Street within the ancient city of Soloi-Pompeipolis is partially pedestrianized. There are also pedestrian paths along the Mezitli Creek axis. During the summer months, the coastal spine on the shoreline of Viranşehir Neighborhood is closed to vehicle traffic between 18:00 and 01:00 by the decree of the MMM. As can be seen, pedestrian-oriented arrangements in the area focus only on recreational activities of pedestrians. Walkability is ignored in terms of daily use of the residential area and access to social facilities (Figure 13 and Figure 14).

4.3. Publicness of the Street and Walkability, Viranşehir

An analysis of the Viranşehir Neighborhood reveals that the area was developed in accordance with a planned approach, with social and technical urban services provided in line with the planning regulations in effect at the time of implementation. The planning legislation of the 1990s defined minimum urban service standards based on per capita space requirements. In addition to these quantitative benchmarks, more recent regulatory frameworks also incorporate provisions regarding pedestrian-accessible walking distances.

Within this context, Viranşehir offers access to educational and healthcare facilities, along with recreational areas such as parks and sports amenities, all within a walkable range. Daily needs are supported by local markets, bazaars, and commercial functions, including ground-floor retail units in residential buildings. Field observations indicate that these services are indeed accessed on foot by residents. However, the neighborhood lacks specific design interventions or planning strategies aimed at guiding or encouraging pedestrian movement.

The street layout, primarily designed for vehicular traffic, allocates pedestrian movement to sidewalks without prioritizing walkability. Moreover, the frequency and density of intersections—an outcome of the grid-based planning scheme—pose safety risks for both pedestrians and vehicles. Additionally, the physical boundaries created by walls and fences of gated residential compounds diminish the visual and spatial permeability of the streetscape, rendering the pedestrian environment uninviting, especially along routes connecting to commercial or social nodes within the neighborhood.

Although Viranşehir 75th Year Secondary School is an important pedestrian focal point with Müfide İlhan Park to its south, 34323 Street, which is located between these two uses, does not have warning signs and speed breakers to slow traffic to 30 km/h. There are just few regulations on the axis of streets leading to the sea and/or residential areas from this focus.

As of current official records, Viranşehir—one of the central neighborhoods of Mezitli—has an estimated population of approximately 17,000. However, the neighborhood also accommodates a significant number of non-registered residents, including individuals of Syrian, Russian, and Ukrainian origin. These populations share access to the same public amenities, such as recreational areas and commercial facilities, while a substantial portion of the Syrian refugee population also utilizes educational and healthcare services due to their specific legal and social status.

From a quantitative perspective, the spatial organization of the neighborhood ensures compliance with standards for public service accessibility in terms of walking distances and service capacities. Nevertheless, as previously noted, the physical quality of pedestrian infrastructure adversely affects walking behavior, particularly with regard to safety and the visual or experiential appeal of pedestrian routes (Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17).

5. Discussion

In the evaluation of pedestrian movement and walkability, numerous studies and criteria have been proposed to measure walkability in urban spaces. The present research provides a focused, qualitative assessment based primarily on built environment elements in planned residential areas. The evaluation of Viranşehir Neighborhood demonstrates that pedestrian movement is often limited, particularly in accessing social facilities and focal points that could act as pedestrian attractors. Streets with limited pedestrian activity and dominant vehicle traffic reduce the publicness of these urban spaces (Figure 18).

The findings can be interpreted through the theoretical lens of permeability, human scale, and urban design. First, permeability is compromised in Viranşehir due to discontinuous street networks and restricted access to key nodes. The presence of walls and fences, as documented in Figure 16 and Figure 17, restricts permeability and limits pedestrian movement, highlighting the gap between the intended street network design and the actual accessibility experienced by residents. Figure 15, which presents a map of pedestrian movement patterns and street connectivity, visually illustrates areas of higher and lower permeability across the neighborhood, confirming the qualitative observations.

Second, human scale is affected by large block sizes, monotonous facades, and insufficient street-level interaction opportunities. Observations of pedestrian clustering near street corners, local shops, and shaded seating areas reveal how design at the human scale encourages social interaction and active street life. Streets designed primarily for vehicular traffic, in contrast, lack these experiential qualities, diminishing engagement and comfort for pedestrians. Photographs in Figure 16 and Figure 17 show street-level conditions, including the presence or absence of seating, shading, and storefront activity, which directly influence human-scale experiences.

Third, urban design considerations highlight the role of functional mix and spatial configuration in shaping walkability. Current mix-use planning along heavy vehicle streets emphasizes commercial activities dependent on vehicles, restricting neighborhood center formation and limiting pedestrian-oriented activity. Streets within the neighborhood that could safely accommodate pedestrians lack sufficient functional diversity and design interventions such as street furniture, lighting, and landscaping. These observations align with urban design principles that advocate for streets as multifunctional public spaces, rather than purely transport corridors.

By combining map-based evidence (Figure 15) with photographic documentation (Figure 16 and Figure 17), the links between empirical observations and the theoretical framework of permeability, human scale, and urban design become visually and analytically explicit. These figures illustrate how the built environment shapes pedestrian behavior and the quality of public space, reinforcing the analytical depth of the discussion.

Based on these interpretations, several strategies are proposed to improve pedestrian movement and enhance street publicness. Short-term interventions may include traffic calming measures, pedestrian-priority zones, and seasonal or context-specific improvements such as “school streets” or summer enhancements along the coastal road. Long-term solutions should integrate urban design and planning interventions, including mixed-use development on pedestrian-friendly axes, wider sidewalks, and the incorporation of human-scale amenities to increase comfort and safety. Such measures ensure that streets can function both as circulation paths and as vibrant, multifunctional public spaces.

To enhance the practical relevance of the proposed strategies,

Table 2. Proposed strategies for enhancing pedestrian movement and their feasibility.

Strategy	Practical Implementation	Feasibility Considerations
Traffic calming measures	Speed bumps, raised crosswalks, curb extensions	Medium cost, can be implemented by municipality, minimal disruption to residents
Pedestrian-priority zones	“School streets” during peak hours, temporary pedestrian-only weekends	Requires traffic management, signage, community awareness campaigns
Mixed-use development along pedestrian-friendly axes	Rezoning or planning adjustments to allow small shops and services	Long-term, requires administrative planning, policy support
Street-level improvements	Sidewalk widening, seating, shading, lighting	Medium cost, can be phased, possible public–private partnerships

summarizes the main interventions along with their potential implementation methods and feasibility considerations. Short-term, low-cost measures such as traffic calming, temporary pedestrian-priority zones, and seasonal enhancements can be implemented relatively quickly by municipal authorities. Medium- and long-term interventions, including street-level improvements and mixed-use development along pedestrian-friendly axes, require coordinated planning efforts, policy adjustments, and stakeholder collaboration. By outlining both the nature of the interventions and their feasibility, this table provides a clearer framework for translating analytical findings into actionable urban design and planning solutions (see Table 2).

Linking the empirical observations to the theoretical framework of permeability, human scale, and urban design highlights the importance of qualitative, experience-based assessment alongside regulatory compliance. While the present study focuses on qualitative evaluation, quantitative approaches such as Space Syntax could be considered in future research to complement these findings. Overall, the results suggest that improving walkability in planned residential neighborhoods requires integrated planning and design strategies that prioritize human experience, connectivity, and functional diversity.

To conclude, the findings of this study not only provide practical strategies for enhancing walkability but also contribute to the theoretical and methodological discourse on pedestrian movement. While the preceding discussion has emphasized the empirical results, the following synthesis highlights the main theoretical perspectives advanced and the methodological innovations introduced in this research (see

Table 3. Theoretical and methodological contributions of the study.

	Specific Contribution	Explanation and Novelty
Theoretical Contribution	Integration of permeability, human scale, and urban design	Provides a combined analytical framework that connects street connectivity, experiential qualities, and spatial–functional diversity, offering a more holistic perspective on walkability.
	Emphasis on publicness in planned neighborhoods	Extends walkability discussions beyond accessibility, highlighting how vehicle dominance and limited street activity reduce the publicness of urban space.
	Linking compliance–experience gap	Introduces the concept of a “compliance–experience gap” between regulatory standards (quantitative provision) and lived pedestrian experience (qualitative conditions).
Methodological Contribution	Multi-source data integration	Combines archival aerial photographs, zoning plans, and building data with recent field observations and photographic documentation to trace the evolution of walkability.
	Micro-scale qualitative assessment	Proposes a parcel–street–building scale analysis of pedestrian movement that identifies barriers such as walls/fences, often overlooked in larger-scale models.
	Visual-analytical linkage	Uses maps and photographic evidence in parallel to explicitly connect theoretical concepts with observed pedestrian behaviors, enhancing transparency and replicability.

).

6. Conclusions

This study set out to examine the relationship between planning regulations, neighborhood design, and the lived experience of pedestrians in planned residential areas of Mersin, with a particular focus on the Viranşehir Neighborhood. By employing field observations, qualitative mapping, and interpretive analysis, we aimed to evaluate how planning decisions shape walkability, publicness, and human-scale qualities in everyday urban life.

Empirical findings from the Viranşehir case highlight systemic shortcomings in the pedestrian environment. Although the neighborhood complies with Turkish planning regulations in terms of service provision and density standards, the actual spatial configuration reveals fragmented pedestrian routes, limited permeability of the street network, and a dominance of car-oriented infrastructure. Public open spaces were often underutilized, while pedestrian gathering points emerged informally around functional nodes, particularly at intersections and commercial frontages. A cross-comparison with Bahçelievler and Halkkent further demonstrated that variations in street openness, block arrangements, and functional diversity significantly affect the extent to which residents can engage with public space.

Analytical interpretations of these findings suggest that the gap between quantitative planning standards and qualitative pedestrian experience remains a critical issue in the design of residential environments. Whereas regulations ensure measurable compliance (e.g., plot ratio, facility distribution), they do not adequately capture experiential dimensions such as connectivity, accessibility, and human scale. This results in a paradox where neighborhoods appear “planned” on paper but fall short in fostering active, inclusive, and pedestrian-friendly public realms. By distinguishing empirical observations from analytical interpretations, this study underscores the need for a more nuanced evaluation framework that bridges regulatory measures with urban design qualities.

Practical implications emerge in the form of strategic recommendations for urban design and planning practice. Based on the analysis of pedestrian movement patterns and clustering behaviors (Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17), a set of design strategies was developed to enhance permeability, promote functional diversity, and prioritize human scale in street design. These recommendations were synthesized into a classification table, providing a structured link between observed problems and proposed solutions. Such a framework can assist planners and designers in identifying specific interventions, ranging from adjustments to block configurations and street widths to the programming of multifunctional open spaces.

Although quantitative modeling approaches such as those developed by Sevtsuk et al. [89] and Zhou et al. [90] provide powerful tools for estimating pedestrian demand and accessibility, our study highlights the complementary value of qualitative assessments in capturing the everyday challenges of walkability in planned neighborhoods. Integrating these perspectives in future research may help bridge the gap between planning compliance and lived experience.

At the same time, this study acknowledges its methodological focus on qualitative assessment, which was deliberately chosen to foreground the perceptual and experiential aspects of walkability. While quantitative tools such as Space Syntax analysis offer valuable insights into integration and connectivity, our approach situates Space Syntax within the literature as one of several available analytical methods, rather than as the central methodological tool. Nevertheless, we recognize that incorporating syntactic measures could complement the qualitative approach and strengthen future research by offering more robust quantitative validation of pedestrian movement patterns.

While this study provides a preliminary qualitative assessment of pedestrian movement in the Viranşehir Neighborhood, it also acknowledges that a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of pedestrian–vehicle interactions during peak hours and the visualization of pedestrian gathering areas would further strengthen the findings. Such an approach would require systematic observations at different times of day, across weekdays and weekends, and in different seasons to account for temporal and climatic variability. Considering these complexities, these extensive quantitative protocols are more suitable for dedicated research projects supported by regional or national institutions. By opening this framework for discussion, the study aims to contribute to both national and international debates on urban walkability and pedestrian-friendly design.

A brief comparison with other planned residential areas listed in Table 1 indicates that, particularly in housing developments shaped by planning approaches after 1990, such as the Menderes, Viranşehir, Akdeniz, and Kocavilayet Neighborhoods, the publicness of streets and pedestrian movement have often been overlooked. This pattern underscores the risks of emphasizing regulatory or vehicular planning standards at the expense of human-scale urban qualities and walkability, highlighting the relevance of our findings beyond the Viranşehir Neighborhood.

In conclusion, enhancing walkability in planned residential neighborhoods requires an integrated perspective that goes beyond regulatory compliance to embrace human-scale qualities, permeability, and functional diversity. The empirical evidence from Mersin demonstrates the risks of overemphasizing quantitative standards at the expense of qualitative experience. By aligning planning frameworks with both regulatory and experiential dimensions, urban design practice can foster more inclusive, accessible, and socially vibrant neighborhoods.