Measuring People–Place Relationships in Residential Environments: Framework Development and Pilot Testing in Damascus

Abstract

Conceptual ambiguity in People–Place Relationships (PPR) research limits consistent operationalization and cross-context comparability, particularly in under-represented cultural settings. This study develops an integrated, context-sensitive framework for assessing PPR in residential environments and empirically examines its measurement structure. The framework is applied in Damascus as a pilot context to assess its structural validity, internal consistency, and applicability. The methodological approach comprised two stages: conceptual development and empirical validation. First, two rounds of case-study analysis derived from a prior systematic literature review synthesized environmental (social and urban) and relational (cognitive, affective, attachment) dimensions into a coherent framework. Second, the framework was operationalized and tested using survey data from 1610 residents across Damascus districts. Six first-order indices and one composite PPR index were constructed and evaluated using exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha with item–total correlation analysis. Results demonstrate a stable multidimensional structure that integrates evaluative environmental conditions with relational processes, moving beyond emotion-dominant interpretations of attachment. The framework advances existing approaches by linking theoretical constructs to empirically tested measurement dimensions. While further validation in diverse contexts is required, the results indicate that the model provides a coherent and adaptable basis for assessing residential PPR in socio-culturally complex urban environments.

1. Introduction

People–place relationships (hereafter PPR) describe the dynamic interaction between people and the physical environments, in which human experiences, values, representations and emotions turn abstract spaces into meaningful places, and those places subsequently shape people’s identities, attachments and rootedness [1,2,3]. The varied experiences of people–place relations across social and geographical contexts highlight the field’s complexity and its roots in multiple disciplines [4,5].

The study of PPR in scientific literature can be traced back to the early 20th century, starting with ideas from social and behavioral theorists, then expanding over the years to other disciplines such as geography, architecture and urban planning, environmental psychology, and landscape architecture. Publication output accelerated in the 21st century, with more than 60 percent of place-related articles appearing in the decade prior to 2011 [6]. The foundational works of the field came in the 1970s from humanistic geography: Yi-Fu Tuan’s Topophilia (1974) and Space and Place (1977), and Edward Relph’s Place and Placelessness (1976). Their insights have significantly influenced other scientific disciplines, for example, in environmental psychology, the concept of attachment began to appear more and more frequently from the 1980s, until it moved to the center of the field in the 1990s, when the affective dimensions of person–environment relations received sustained attention [7]. Parallel developments occurred in social science and design disciplines: social science examined connectedness and identity in the built environment, while design disciplines investigated perceptions and experiences shaped through design [8].

Furthermore, in design disciplines, PPR are studied to better understand how human activities shape and are shaped by physical environments, revealing deep connections between social psychology, attitudes, visual perception, and physical attributes [9]. Classic urban theorists placed social life at the center of design thinking, like Jan Gehl [10] and Jane Jacobs [11]. A growing body of empirical work further demonstrates why PPR are central to landscape architectural research and practice. Studies show that place attachment is a major predictor of residents’ perceived quality of life, underlining that built and green environments contribute to well-being not only through their physical attributes but also via affective bonds and social support structures [12]. In rural and peri-urban landscapes, place meanings and attachments have been linked to environmental concern, land stewardship and conservation behaviors [13,14,15,16,17]. Together, these studies position PPR not only as an outcome of designed environments, but also as a key lever through which landscape architects and planners can promote environmental stewardship, social sustainability and quality of life across rural, riverine and urban contexts.

Given this dynamic, multi-disciplinary development of PPR research, many review papers have been conducted over the years, highlighting the general trends and essential gaps in the domain [6,7,8,18,19,20,21]. Their findings indicated that one of the most significant gaps in the field is the conceptual ambiguity of PPR studies, due to the variety of terminologies used to describe the bond between people and place, with no clear distinctions. According to the extensive review by Lewicka (2011) [6], the most frequently used concepts in the field today are place attachment (PA), sense of place (SOP), and place identity (PI). These terminologies would vary depending on the specific author or study discipline, and are often used interchangeably across different contexts with no clear justification [18]. There is no clear agreement in the literature yet on how to distinguish these concepts, or which concept includes the other. Some authors treat SOP as a broad construct that gathers attachment, identity, dependence and satisfaction [22,23], while others position attachment as the overarching notion that brings together affective, cognitive and behavioral ties, with identity and dependence as facets [3,6,24]. This inconsistency leads to overlapping terms such as belonging, rootedness and place identity, and it limits comparability across studies. To avoid ambiguity, this study does not center on one label. It treats PPR as an umbrella construct that integrates all of these concepts.

This conceptual ambiguity is also evident in the conceptual frameworks developed in the field. Classic accounts distinguish cognitive, behavioral and emotional interactions: cognition concerns formal qualities, behavior concerns functional use and activities, and emotion concerns meanings and feelings [25]. Phenomenological work adds two layers to place itself, symbols and lived experience, with the former shaped by spatial structures and the latter by everyday routines [26]. Structural models define place as the interaction of physical setting, activity and meaning [27], and separate cognitive–perceptual and physical factors [25,28]. Low and Altman [3] treat attachment as an integrating concept that spans affect, cognition and practice, varies by scale and actors, and unfolds over time, with cultural beliefs and long-term experience deepening bonds. Recent work argues that SOP arises from an interplay of people, environment and context, moving beyond earlier static, property-based views [29]. New integrated frameworks, therefore, combine person, place and process by adding time and social context or by joining cognitive, affective and conative facets for planning and evaluation [5,30,31].

Across all the conceptual models used in the field, the most influential framework for place-based concept is the tripartite model of place attachment developed by Leila Scannell and Robert Gifford (2010) [24] (Figure 1). Since its publication in 2010, it has been cited over 4500 times in Google Scholar, cutting across environmental psychology, human geography, urban planning, sociology and beyond. The framework defines the variables of PA as the three P’s: Person, Process, and Place. Different disciplines emphasize different variables, which creates blind spots. Environmental psychology centers on the Person component and often overlooks Process, Place and socio-political implications [6,32]. Design and planning disciplines often remain focused on the physical aspects [30].

Another persistent gap in the domain is the inadequate addressing of the vital role of context on PPR-related concepts. The majority of existing frameworks still assume universal, context-independent qualities of place that risk overlooking local particularities [29]. Historically, design and planning have often treated SOP as a singular property captured by observable attributes, influenced by the idea of genius loci; while this can help preserve local character, it can also overlook the relational and contextual nature of PPR [29,30,33]. Therefore, there is a need for frameworks that keep human needs and experiences central while recognizing the dynamic, socio-ecological processes through which places gain meaning [8,34].

Regarding the spatial context of PPR research, residential environments provide an essential context to study PPR, as a key scale for understanding everyday human behavior and associated meaning [35,36,37], as well as the construction of social ties within the community [38,39]. The importance of examining PPR in residential areas has been highlighted by many researchers. According to [40,41], neighborhoods serve important psycho-social functions at different scales and are crucial for understanding social processes, behavioral characteristics, and policy implementation. Other researchers have pointed out the importance of neighborhood to the wider scale; for example, [42] highlighted that neighborhood mirrors the fluidity, growth, and social class differentiation wrought by the larger society, while [43] emphasized that linkages among the various districts within a city, or interactions within the district itself, should not be ignored, as cities are made of neighborhoods and districts, and their spatial and social organization give these cities their identity.

Beyond these conceptual accounts, empirical research on PPR in residential neighborhoods has been the favorite target of PA research [6,7,44]. Cross-cultural studies using Perceived Residential Environment Quality Indicators (PREQIs) demonstrate that residents’ evaluations of architecture, green spaces, services and safety are systematically associated with neighborhood attachment and residential satisfaction, underlining the centrality of perceived residential quality for PPR [45,46,47,48]. A multimodal, scale-sensitive study in Ankara’s housing developments shows that place identity, place dependence, belonging and social bonding differ among building, street and neighborhood scales [49]. While in Hong Kong, perceived qualities of buildings and housing, community and public spaces, and environmental conditions have been found to be strong predictors of neighborhood SOP, which in turn is linked to higher emotional, social and psychological well-being [50]. Neighborhood-based studies indicate that dwelling conditions and urban design can underpin, and sometimes outweigh, socio-demographic factors in predicting residential satisfaction and attachment, while social ties, length of residence, homeownership and community participation remain crucial for neighborhood identity and commitment [35,36,51,52]. Taken together, this work shows why residential neighborhoods are central to PPR research.

Despite the large body of PPR research in residential environments, its geographical distribution reveals a pronounced spatial imbalance. The systematic literature review [18] showed that PPR research is unevenly distributed, with over 50% of studies concentrated in Asia and Europe. The Middle East remains significantly underrepresented, with Arab countries largely absent from the discourse. Cities in this region hold a distinctive position in global urban discourse due to their deep historical roots, geopolitical centrality, and complex socio-spatial dynamics [53]. Besides the country-specific differences among these cities, they experienced rapid urbanization post-World War II. This was further compounded by a set of unique challenges, including political instability, colonial powers, ongoing conflicts [54,55,56,57,58], environmental and economic changes [54,59,60], and population growth and immigration flows [57,59,61,62]. These factors influenced how residential areas evolved, and today they are marked by informal settlements [59,62,63], socio-economic disparities and inequality [64,65,66,67], and a pronounced lack of green spaces [68,69]. However, these conditions are rarely examined from the perspective of residents, particularly in how they perceive and relate to their environments. This study aims to address this gap by developing a framework for assessing PPR, with particular attention to the socio-spatial characteristics of Middle Eastern residential environments.

The lack of conceptual clarity in the PPR research domain makes it more challenging to study and operationalize PPR in a consistent, comparable way. This research addresses these shortcomings by developing an integrated, context-sensitive framework to assess People–Place Relationships (PPR) in residential environments, empirically tested in Damascus as a pilot context to evaluate its structural validity, internal consistency, and applicability within a Middle Eastern urban setting. Damascus was selected as a contextually relevant case due to its complex socio-spatial structure, long urban history, and diversity of residential environments, providing a suitable testing ground for examining the applicability of the framework.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodological framework of this study, illustrated in Figure 2, consists of two steps: conceptual development and empirical validation. First, for the conceptual development, the study performed two rounds of case-study analysis to systematically develop an integrated, context-sensitive framework to assess PPR in residential areas. These case studies were derived from the systematic literature review, done by the authors in a previous paper [18]. Following this, the framework was empirically tested across residential districts of Damascus as a pilot case to examine its measurement structure using exploratory factor analysis and its internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha and item–total correlation analysis, conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 27).

2.1. The Conceptual Development: Two Rounds of Case-Study Analysis

The two rounds of case-study analysis were informed by a systematic literature review (SLR) conducted in a previous study [18], which examined how sense of place (SOP) and place attachment (PA) have been conceptualized and empirically operationalized in spatial disciplines. The review was carried out in the Scopus database between January and February 2023, targeting publications containing SOP or PA in the title, abstract, or keywords, combined with terms related to measurement and application (assessment, evaluation, measuring, spatial assessment). The initial results were subjected to a three-stage screening process (removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening, and full-text review), resulting in a final dataset of 120 studies. These studies were analyzed according to four main aspects: geographical context, conceptual framework, methods and tools, and application of results (see

Table A1. Analytical framework for systematic literature review. Adapted from [18].

SLR Questions	Analytical Aspects	Categories
Is there any geographical reference/significance to the conceptual frameworks?	Geographical context of study	Study location	Europe, Asia, North America, South America, Australia, South Africa, Middle East, Turkey, Iran
		Scale of place	Country–Regional–City- Rural Areas–Town–Neighborhood–Urban/Rural Facilities (Building)
		Type of place	Natural settings; Urban/Rural Landscape; Tourist Destination (e.g., Festival); Urban Environment; Residential/House Development; Risk Area
	Conceptual framework	Concept used in the study	PA/SOP/PI
		Concept’s dimensions
What are the methods used to study the concepts PA and SOP, and which dimensions were considered?	Methods/tools	Questionnaire/survey; Qualitative interview; Models (attachment scale/designated scale); Workshop/focus group; On-site narratives; Photo-based methods (photo elicitation/photo projective method); Participatory mapping (public participation GIS, participant observation); Mixed methods
What is the relevance and application of operationalizing PA and SOP in a planning context?	Application	Pro-environmental behavior; Climate change adaptation; Tourism and recreation; Wellbeing and quality of life; Public policy and spatial planning

in Appendix A for the detailed analytical framework).

The findings of the SLR informed the case-study analyses by guiding the selection of studies through a two-stage filtering process based on their geographical context: first by scale of place to retain urban settings, and subsequently by type of place to focus on residential environments.

In the first round, 63 studies that address SOP and PA in urban environments were selected from the 120 papers identified in the systematic literature review by filtering the scale of place category, retaining only those focused on urban settings: city, town, and neighborhood. These 63 studies were analyzed using the Scannell and Gifford (2010) tripartite model [24] due to its broad recognition as a foundational structure for PA research. Its clarity, breadth, and flexibility make it a widely used reference for quantitative scale development, qualitative interview guides, and mixed-method designs. The results of this round, demonstrated in the three-dimensional conceptual framework, served as the analytical basis for the second round of case-study analysis.

In the second round, 30 empirical studies on SOP and PA in residential contexts, encompassing 448 measurements (indicators), were analyzed. The full list of extracted indicators (n = 448), including their original sources and classification, is provided in

Table A2. Extracted indicators from reviewed empirical studies (n = 448). This table presents the full set of indicators extracted from the 30 empirical studies, including their original formulation, assigned sub-dimensions, and corresponding framework dimensions.

Source	Indicator	Sub-Dimension	Dimensions
[106]	1. Is there an area around here where you are now living which you would say you belong to?	Sense of belonging	PPR Process
	2. How interested are you to know what goes on in “Home area”	Knowledge	PPR Process
	3. Supposing that for some reason you had to move away from … how sorry or pleased would you be to leave?	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
[71]	4. Institutional ties—the extent to which the respondent’s family was formally involved in the neighborhood?	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	5. Sociable neighboring—a scale measuring the degree to which members of the respondent’s family talked, spent time with neighbors	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	6. Organizational involvement—membership and activity in a neighborhood organization	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	7. Kin in neighborhood—whether various relatives lived in the neighborhood	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	8. Friend in neighborhood—the presence of at least some of the respondent’s friends in the neighborhood	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	9. Happy with neighborhood—how happy the respondent was with the neighborhood	Affect	PPR Process
	10. Unhappy to leave—how unhappy the respondent would be if he or she had to move	Affect	PPR Process
[96]	11. In general, is it pretty easy or pretty difficult for you to tell a stranger in your neighborhood?	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	12. Would you say that you really feel a part of your neighborhood, or do you think of it more as just a place to live?	Identity	PPR Process
	13. How about kids in your immediate neighborhood? How many of them do you know by name?	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	14. How many years have you personally lived in your present neighborhood?	length of residency	Socio-demographics
	15. Do you own your home, or do you rent it?	Tenure status	Socio-demographics
	16. Do you expect to be living in this neighborhood 2 years from now?	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
[70]	17. Owner status	Tenure status	Socio-demographics
	18. Length of address in the neighborhood	length of residency	Socio-demographics
	19. Assessment of overall perceived similarity with neighbors on the block	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	20. Proportion of addresses on the block where he or she was acquainted with someone	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	21. Belongingness to any other local organizations to which other residents on the block also belong	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	22. Reliance on neighbors (3 items)	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	23. Ability to provide a neighborhood name	Knowledge	PPR Process
	24. Gardening in back (as rated by the authors)	Green space	Urban enviro
[100]	25. Holiday decorating Behavior (4 items)	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	26. Index of neighboring Behaviors (amount and kind of contact with neighbors, 1 to 11)	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	27. Scale of satisfaction (5 items)	Affect	PPR Process
	28. Scale of identification (4 items)	Identity	PPR Process
	29. Scale of sense of security on the block (5 items)	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	30. Scale of pride in the home’s physical appearance (6 items)	Affect	PPR Process
	31. Scale of sense of privacy (2 items)	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	32. Scale of pleasure derived from decorating the home (2 items)	Affect	PPR Process
[107]	33. If I could keep the home I now have, but could move it to another neighborhood, I probably would move it	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	34. I am interested in what happens in this neighborhood	Knowledge	PPR Process
	35. If I had to move from this neighborhood now, I would be sorry to leave it	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	36. I plan to be living in this neighborhood still five years from now	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	37. I feel like I am definitely part of this neighborhood	Identity	PPR Process
[101]	38. How attached do you feel to your neighborhood?	Attachment	PPR Process
	39. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your neighborhood as a place to live?	Affect	PPR Process
	40. How good or bad is your neighborhood as a place to live?	Affect	PPR Process
	41. How much do you like or dislike your neighborhood as a place to live?	Affect	PPR Process
[20]	42. I have got native feelings for Heidelberg	Affect	PPR Process
	43. I see myself as a ‘Heidelbergian’	Identity	PPR Process
	44. I feel really at home at Heidelberg	Attachment	PPR Process
	45. The town is like a part of myself	Identity	PPR Process
	46. External evaluation	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	47. Continuity with personal past	Memories	PPR Process
	48. Perception of familiarity	Knowledge	PPR Process
	49. Commitment	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
[108]	50. Social contacts in home and near home-home territories	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	51. Personal intentions about home and near home-home territories	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	52. Behaviors within home and near home-home territories	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	53. Opinions about home and near home-home territories	Knowledge	PPR Process
[99]	54. Embeddedness, a sense of belonging in, being part of, and feeling at home in the residential environs	Sense of belonging	PPR Process
	55. Community, a sense of being involved with and tied to geographically based social group	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	56. At-easiness, a sense of being unconstrained and comfortable in a familiar place	Affect	PPR Process
	57. Uniqueness of place, a belief in the uniqueness of one’s home locale, a place that is unequalled and irreplaceable	Affect	PPR Process
	58. Care and concern, a sense of responsibility and commitment to continue to attend to and tend for a home place	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	59. Unity of identities, a joining of the identity of self and referent group(s) to the physical setting	Identity	PPR Process
	60. Bodily orientation, unconscious orientation of the body and bodily routines in the	Affect	PPR Process
	61. Appropriation of place, perceived or actual possession and/or control over place	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	62. Centeredness, home place as a focal point of one’s experiential space, a point of departure and return	Identity	PPR Process
	63. Descriptions about where the interviewees currently lived and their plans for the future	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
[102]	64. General attachment	Attachment	PPR Process
	65. Satisfaction with the apartment	Affect	PPR Process
	66. Feelings of rootedness	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	67. Safe haven, the home is a safe haven where the resident can relax and feel secure	Affect	PPR Process
	68. Connection, the home is a place to spend time with family members and to feel a sense of belonging and connection	Affect	PPR Process
	69. Activity, the home is a place to carry out daily activities that the resident enjoys easily	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	70. Identity, through personalization and as a repository for identity linked objects	Identity	PPR Process
[46]	71. This is the ideal neighborhood to live in	Affect	PPR Process
	72. Now this neighborhood is a part of me	Identity	PPR Process
	73. There are places in the neighborhood to which I am very emotionally attached	Attachment	PPR Process
	74. It would be very hard for me to leave this neighborhood	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	75. I would willingly leave this neighborhood	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	76. I would not willingly leave this neighborhood for another	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
[98]	77. Feeling at ease	Affect	PPR Process
	78. Feeling at home	Affect	PPR Process
	79. Being interested in the future of the neighborhood	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	80. Happiness/unhappiness to leave	Affect	PPR Process
	81. Presence of relatives/friends in the neighborhood	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	82. Occurrence of encounters with familiar people	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	83. Nature of neighboring relationships	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	84. Satisfaction with neighboring relationships	Affect	PPR Process
	85. Nature of relationships with shopkeepers	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	86. Satisfaction with relationships with shopkeepers	Affect	PPR Process
[103]	87. How attached do you feel to [Specific place]?	Attachment	PPR Process
	88. How satisfied are you with [Specific place]?	Affect	PPR Process
	89. In comparison to with the EX-USSR, are you satisfied with [Specific place] more, less or the same?	Affect	PPR Process
	90. How sorry would you be to leave [Specific place] now?	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	91. To what extent do you feel that this is your country/neighborhood/apartment?	Identity	PPR Process
[104]	92. Feelings of place attachment	Attachment	PPR Process
	93. Importance of localized ancestry	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	94. Feelings of being an insider	Identity	PPR Process
	95. Motivation to remain on the locale	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
[82]	96. Moving from place to place is exciting and fun	Preferences	Socio-demographics
	97. I could not be happy living in one place for the rest of my life	Preferences	Socio-demographics
	98. Living close to certain natural features such as the ocean or mountains is very important to me	Preferences	Socio-demographics
	99. I like going places where no-one knows me	Preferences	Socio-demographics
	100. There is not much of a future for me in my home town	Preferences	Socio-demographics
	101. Most of the people that I knew when I was growing up have moved away	Preferences	Socio-demographics
	102. I am extremely satisfied with my present home	Affect	PPR Process
	103. My family is very close-knit and I would be unhappy if I could not see them on a regular basis	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	104. I have several close, life-long friends that I never want to lose	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	105. I love to reminisce about the places I played when I was a child	Childhood	Socio-demographics
[109]	106. Proud to live in the neighborhood	Affect	PPR Process
	107. Sorry to move out	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	108. Have plans to move out during the next year	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	109. Local social ties	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	110. Economic and social investment in the locale	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	111. Satisfaction with the neighborhood	Affect	PPR Process
[52]	112. Clarity of personal neighborhood image	Knowledge	PPR Process
	113. Clarity of official neighborhood image	Knowledge	PPR Process
	114. Correspondence of personal to official neighborhood image	Knowledge	PPR Process
	115. Neighborhood name	Knowledge	PPR Process
	116. Neighborhood size	Knowledge	PPR Process
	117. The neighborhood is (has):	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	118. Attractive	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	119. Clean	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	120. Quiet	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	121. Well-maintained	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	122. Adequate recreational space	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	123. Cleanliness	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	124. Type of people	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	125. Shopping facilities	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	126. Housing	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	127. Crime	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	128. Neighbor recognition	Knowledge	PPR Process
	129. Social life mostly in neighborhood	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	130. Just a place to live?	Affect	PPR Process
	131. Grocery shopping	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	132. Drugstore shopping	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	133. Restaurants	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	134. Bars	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	135. Art fair	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	136. Length of residence	length of residency	Socio-demographics
	137. Tenure status	Tenure status	Socio-demographics
	138. Household income	Household income	Socio-demographics
	139. Occupation	Occupation	Socio-demographics
[74]	140. This place is very important to me.	Affect	PPR Process
	141. This place means a lot to me.	Affect	PPR Process
	142. I am rooted in this place.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	143. I feel this place is a part of my life	Identity	PPR Process
	144. Lots of activities in my daily life are strongly connected with this place.	experiences	PPR Process
	145. If my situation changes (e.g., health or financial status), I won’t be able to continue living in this place.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	146. If I don’t make efforts to maintain health, I can no longer live in this place.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	147. Living at this place makes me feel secure.	Affect	PPR Process
	148. This is a good place for me to live.	Affect	PPR Process
	149. I prefer to live here compared to other places.	Affect	PPR Process
	150. I wish to live in this place for a long time.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	151. I cannot bear to move out of this place.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	152. I think the facilities and services for daily life in this place will remain suitable for me in the future.	Perceived quality	urban enviro
	153. I think the health, leisure, medical facilities, and services in this place will remain suitable for me in the future.	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	154. I think the social activities and social occasions in this place will remain suitable for me in the future.	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	155. I have a familiar feeling toward this place.	Affect	PPR Process
	156. I live in this place because my family members, relatives, and friends are here.	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	157. I am very close to the residents of this place.	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	158. I often hang out with the relatives and friends in this place.	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
[75]	159. I feel secure in Mavişehir	Affect	PPR Process
	160. I would not like to move out from here	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	161. I want to be involved in what is going on here	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	162. I know Mavişehir very well	Knowledge	PPR Process
	163. I defend Mavişehir when somebody criticizes it	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	164. I miss Mavişehir when I am not here	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	165. I am proud of this place	Affect	PPR Process
	166. I am rooted in Mavişehir	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	167. Mavişehir is a part of myself	Identity	PPR Process
	168. I have no influence on its affairs	Identity	PPR Process
	169. I leave Mavişehir with pleasure	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	170. I don’t like Mavişehir	Affect	PPR Process
	171. Evaluation	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	172. Attachment	Attachment	PPR Process
	173. Familiarity	Knowledge	PPR Process
	174. Commitment	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	175. Continuity	memories	PPR Process
	176. Sex	Sex	Socio-demographics
	177. Age	Age	Socio-demographics
	178. Income	Household income	Socio-demographics
	179. Ownership	Tenure status	Socio-demographics
	180. Education	Educational level	Socio-demographics
	181. Marital status	Martial status	Socio-demographics
	182. Household size	Household size	Socio-demographics
	183. Length of residency	length of residency	Socio-demographics
	184. Birthplace	Birthplace	Socio-demographics
[73]	185. I am very attached to…	Attachment	PPR Process
	186. …… is very special to me.	Attachment	PPR Process
	187. I identify strongly with ……	Identity	PPR Process
	188. I feel …… is a part of me.	Identity	PPR Process
	189. …… means a lot to me.	Affect	PPR Process
	190. I have a lot of fond memories of….	memories	PPR Process
	191. Living in this community says a lot of who I am.	Identity	PPR Process
	192. The best place. whether community or activities	Affect	PPR Process
	193. No other place can compare.	Affect	PPR Process
	194. I would not substitute any other area.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	195. Living life in … is better than living anywhere in the world.	Affect	PPR Process
	196. Satisfies my needs better than any other place.	Affect	PPR Process
	197. Doing my activities in … is more important to me than doing them in any other place.	Affect	PPR Process
	198. There is no better place I would like to live in than ……	Affect	PPR Process
[49]	199. I would be sorry to move out of this neighborhood without the people I live with/appreciate	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	200. I would be sorry if the people I lived with/appreciate moved out from this neighborhood without me	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	201. I would be sorry if I and the people I lived with/appreciate moved out of my neighborhood	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	202. I am very attached to my neighborhood	Attachment	PPR Process
	203. This neighborhood is very special to me	Identity	PPR Process
	204. My neighborhood has distinct features and shows my personal preference	Identity	PPR Process
	205. I feel this neighborhood is a part of me	Identity	PPR Process
	206. My neighborhood is significantly important to me	Identity	PPR Process
	207. My neighborhood is identifiable	Identity	PPR Process
	208. My neighborhood is generally comfortable and functional	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	209. My neighborhood is the best place for what I would like to do	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	210. No other place can compare to my neighborhood	Affect	PPR Process
	211. I get more satisfaction out of living in this neighborhood	Affect	PPR Process
	212. Doing what I do in my neighborhood is more important to me than doing it in any other place	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	213. The neighborhood is well associated with nature	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	214. My garden/balcony or green spaces in the neighborhood is sufficient	green space	Urban enviro
	215. I prefer spending time in the garden or communal spaces in the neighborhood rather than the alternatives outside	green space	Urban enviro
	216. There are specific activities performed in the garden/balcony or communal spaces in my neighborhood	green space	Urban enviro
	217. I would prefer to live in a greener neighborhood	preferences	Socio-demographics
	218. Green spaces and buildings are well balanced in the neighborhood	green space	Urban enviro
	219. Green spaces encourage me to use the neighborhood actively	green space	Urban enviro
	220. I feel social bonding is strong in my neighborhood	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	221. People living in the same neighborhood think about themselves and have little interest in others	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	222. I think the family/neighborhood values are respected in my neighborhood	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	223. I am satisfied with my close relationships with family members/friends/neighbors in the neighborhood	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	224. People of the same neighborhood are often acquainted	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	225. I feel I belong to this neighborhood	Sense of belonging	PPR Process
	226. There is a peaceful rhythm of life in the neighborhood	Perceived quality	urban enviro
	227. It is a neighborhood with many points of interest/my house is not only a dormitory	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	228. I think I am a part of this neighborhood	Identity	PPR Process
	229. I feel familiar with my neighborhood	Knowledge	PPR Process
	230. I moved to this neighborhood because of its familiarity to me	Knowledge	PPR Process
	231. I feel this neighborhood reflects my cultural and social values	Identity	PPR Process
	232. Spatial organization of the neighborhood provides enough opportunities for social PPR Process	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	233. There is a lack of meeting places in this neighborhood	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	234. This neighborhood is good for me to interact with other people	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
[50]	235. There are parks for children to play freely.	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	236. There are more and more green spaces.	green space	Urban enviro
	237. There are enough parks and public spaces.	green space	Urban enviro
	238. There is at least a garden/park where people can meet.	green space	Urban enviro
	239. The neighborhood offers opportunities for play and hobbies.	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	240. The neighborhood has interesting local history and culture.	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	241. I see and speak to other people when I am walking in my neighborhood.	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	242. The place I live in can fulfill my needs.	Affect	PPR Process
	243. As far as I am concerned, there are no better places to be than at the place I live in.	Affect	PPR Process
	244. I think the place I live in is walkable.	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	245. My neighbors share similar values with me.	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	246. I feel that I am part of the place I live in.	Identity	PPR Process
	247. I have positive relationships with my neighbors.	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	248. I feel relaxed when I’m at the place I live in.	Affect	PPR Process
	249. I feel happiest when I’m at the place I live in.	Affect	PPR Process
	250. The place I live in is my favorite place to be.	Affect	PPR Process
	251. I really miss the place I live in when I’m away from it for too long.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	252. My neighbors and I share common goals.	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	253. I enjoy being involved in community affairs of the place I live in.	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	254. I am willing to spare my leisure time to help the place I live in.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	255. I am willing to devote my resources to help the place I live in.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
[51]	256. Open spaces/Positive	green space	Urban enviro
	257. Service facilities/Positive	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	258. Lack of maintenance/Negative	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	259. Overcrowding//Negative	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	260. Daily encounters/Positive	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	261. Number of relatives/Positive	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	262. Cultural tensions/Negative	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	263. Lack of contribution/Negative	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	264. Accessibility problems/Negative	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	265. Crimes/Negative	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
[35]	266. “I feel this neighborhood is a part of me,”	Identity	PPR Process
	267. “This neighborhood is very special to me,”	Identity	PPR Process
	268. “I identify strongly with this neighborhood,”	Identity	PPR Process
	269. “I am very attached to this neighborhood,”	Attachment	PPR Process
	270. “Visiting this neighborhood says a lot about who I am,”	Identity	PPR Process
	271. “This neighborhood means a lot to me	Identity	PPR Process
	272. This neighborhood is the best place for what I like to do,”	Affect	PPR Process
	273. “No other place can compare to this neighborhood,”	Affect	PPR Process
	274. “I get more satisfaction out of visiting this neighborhood than any other,”	Affect	PPR Process
	275. “Doing what I do at this neighborhood is more important to me than doing it in any other place,”	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	276. “I wouldn’t substitute any other area for doing the types of things I do at this neighborhood.”	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	277. Floor area, layout, interior design, building quality, ventilation, and natural lighting	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	278. Building aesthetics, noise, walking environment, parking, green space, general cleanliness, and public facilities	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	279. Health services, entertainment, commercial services, public transport, and education	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	280. “Neighbors are friendly,”	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	281. “Wanting to be involved in community improvement,”	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	282. “Wanting to be involved in collective activities,”	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	283. “Kids often play with each other in open space,”	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	284. “Neighbors often chat with each other in open space,”	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	285. “Neighbors would confront kids when they see kids spraying graffiti,”	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	286. “There are harmonious relationships in this community,”	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	287. “I know most of the people in this community.”	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	288. “Feel safe if out alone at night in this neighborhood,”	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	289. “Feel safe if stopped by a stranger for directions,”	Affect	PPR Process
	290. “Not worry about criminal victimization,”	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	291. “Neighborhood has good security facilities”	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	292. Years of residence	length of residency	Socio-demographics
	293. Gender	sex	Socio-demographics
	294. Homeownership	Tenure status	Socio-demographics
[94]	295. Accessibility: Accessibility related to public transportation	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	296. Accessibility: Accessibility related to school	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	297. Accessibility: Distance to workplace	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	298. Accessibility: Availability of internet/telephone network	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	299. Accessibility: Availability of electricity network	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	300. Accessibility: Accessibility related to market	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	301. Accessibility: Intensity of passing vehicles	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	302. Accessibility: Proximity to city center	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	303. Accessibility: Accessibility related to hospital/clinic	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	304. Accessibility: Availability of parking space	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	305. Environmental Health: Noise	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	306. Environmental Health: Air pollution	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	307. Environmental Health: Animal pest	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	308. Environmental Health: Housing density	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	309. Environmental Health: Rubbish	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	310. Environmental Health: Chaotic housing	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	311. Environmental Health: Water pollution	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	312. Environmental Health: Land pollution	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	313. Environmental Health: Traffic congestion	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	314. Availability of Infrastructure: Quality of drinking water	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	315. Availability of Infrastructure: Availability of drinking water	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	316. Availability of Infrastructure: Road width	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	317. Availability of Infrastructure: Availability of water supply	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	318. Availability of Infrastructure: Condition of road surface	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	319. Housing Affordability: Adequacy of the number of indoor spaces	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	320. Housing Affordability: Physical resistance of the house	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	321. Housing Affordability: Bathroom inside	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	322. Housing Affordability: Availability of yard/garden	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	323. Housing Affordability: Size	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	324. Availability of Public Facilities: Availability of recreational facilities	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	325. Availability of Public Facilities: Availability of sports facilities	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	326. Availability of Public Facilities: Availability of tourist attraction	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	327. Availability of Public Facilities: Availability of sewage drainage	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	328. Social Solidarity: Community participation	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	329. Social Solidarity: Community motivation	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	330. Social Solidarity: Natural environment	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	331. Social Solidarity: Convenience of the environment	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	332. Social Solidarity: Mutual cooperation	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	333. Social Solidarity: Convenience of the climate	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	334. Social Solidarity: High-quality of society	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	335. Environmental Security: Gambling	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	336. Environmental Security: Networking of drug users	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	337. Environmental Security: Prostitution	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	338. Environmental Security: Juvenile delinquency (brawl)	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	339. Environmental Security: Crime (robbery, theft)	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	340. Environmental Security: Outdoor security at night	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	341. Environmental Security: Natural disaster threat	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	342. Social Cohesion: Social tolerance among neighbors	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	343. Social Cohesion: PPR Process and communication among neighbors	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	344. Social Cohesion: Diversity of ethnic/cultural/religious communities	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	345. Social Cohesion: Pleasant atmosphere	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	346. Economic Capacity: Life fulfilment	Economic	Socio-demographics
	347. Economic Capacity: Employment status	occupation	Socio-demographics
	348. Economic Capacity: Monthly income	Household income	Socio-demographics
	349. Economic Capacity: Homeownership status	Tenure status	Socio-demographics
	350. Territoriality: Privacy	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	351. Territoriality: Driving safety	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	352. Functional: I prefer to live in …… compared to other places (COMPARISON)	Affect	PPR Process
	353. Functional: There is no other place I want to live in other than …… (COMPARISON)	Affect	PPR Process
	354. Functional: …… is truly meaningful to me (MEANING)	Identity	PPR Process
	355. Functional: I have an emotional attachment to …… … (ATTACHMENT)	Attachment	PPR Process
	356. Functional: Many of my friends/family prefer to live in …… compared to other places (COMPARISON)	Affect	PPR Process
	357. Cognitive: I can recognize …… strongly (RECOGNITION)	Knowledge	PPR Process
	358. Cognitive: I am satisfied because I have lived in …… … for a long time (LONG STAY)	Affect	PPR Process
359. Cognitive: My experience during staying in …… is unforgettable (POSITIVE EXPERIENCE)	experiences	PPR Process
360. Cognitive: I am satisfied with my life in …… (SATISFACTION)	Affect	PPR Process
361. Cognitive: …… fulfills my needs well (SATISFACTION)	Affect	PPR Process
362. Cognitive: I am satisfied because I was born in …… (BIRTHPLACE)	Birthplace	Socio-demographics
363. Cognitive: My memory in …… makes me feel more in love with this place (LOVE)	memories	PPR Process
[97]	364. Gender	sex	Socio-demographics
	365. Time of residency	length of residency	Socio-demographics
	366. Accessibility	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	367. Social infrastructure	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	368. Open spaces	green space	Urban enviro
	369. Places for daily operations	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	370. Sense of community	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	371. Social relations	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	372. Social network	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	373. Sense of place	Knowledge	PPR Process
	374. Security and safety	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	375. Participation	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	376. Future of space	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
[95]	377. I feel at home in this area	affect	PPR Process
	378. I feel a sense of familiarity when I am in this area	Knowledge	PPR Process
	379. I am proud of this area	Affect	PPR Process
	380. I have personal memories that link me to this area	memories	PPR Process
	381. This area is the best place for the activities I like to do	experiences	PPR Process
	382. Living in this area says a lot about who I am	Identity	PPR Process
	383. For the activities I like to do most, no other place can compare to this area	Affect	PPR Process
	384. I know folk tales about this area	Knowledge	PPR Process
	385. I have heard personal stories that took place in this area	Knowledge	PPR Process
	386. I think the landscape genesis is visible in this area	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	387. I have learned more about the historical features of this area	Knowledge	PPR Process
	388. Belonging to volunteer groups in this area is very important to me	preferences	Socio-demographics
	389. I feel connected to the neighborhood/street where I live	Identity	PPR Process
	390. The friendships developed in this area strongly connect me to it	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	391. Age	Age	Socio-demographics
	392. Education	educational level	Socio-demographics
	393. Family situation	Household income	Socio-demographics
	394. Gender	sex	Socio-demographics
	395. Owned property	Tenure status	Socio-demographics
	396. Distance to … here river.	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	397. Born in the area	Birthplace	Socio-demographics
	398. Length of residence	length of residency	Socio-demographics
[105]	399. PI-1: I am very attached to the UGS and visit on a regular basis.	Attachment	PPR Process
	400. PI-2: I have a lot of fond memories of my nearby UGS.	memories	PPR Process
	401. PI-3: I miss it when I am away for a long time.	Affect	PPR Process
	402. PI-4: The UGS close to my house/office reminds me of what I am and my heritage.	green space	Urban enviro
	403. PI-5: The UGS reminds me of some of my loved ones (parents, children, spouse, etc.)	green space	Urban enviro
	404. PD-1: Living close to UGS is good for my health/physical agility	green space	Urban enviro
	405. PD-2: Living close to UGS makes me feel more protected from natural disasters	green space	Urban enviro
	406. PD-3: I prefer to live close to UGS because I believe it offers a good and clean-living environment.	green space	Urban enviro
	407. PD-4: I feel mentally rejuvenated when I visit a nearby UGS	green space	Urban enviro
	408. PD-5: UGS has a lot of impacts on my health and wellbeing	green space	Urban enviro
	409. PD-6: I feel my UGS should be protected at any cost	green space	Urban enviro
	410. PD-7: Doing an activity in my UGS means more to me than doing it anywhere else	green space	Urban enviro
	411. SB-1: Visiting UGS helps to improve my family bonding	green space	Urban enviro
	412. SB-2: UGS helps me to socialize within my community	green space	Urban enviro
	413. SB-3: I have made a lot of new friends while visiting the nearby UGS	green space	Urban enviro
	414. SB-4: UGS helped my community to conduct social events (e.g., flea markets, community performances, etc.)	green space	Urban enviro
	415. SB-5: Our nearby UGS contributed hugely to developing a sense of community	green space	Urban enviro
	416. NB-1: When I spend time in the nearby UGS, I feel a deep feeling of oneness	green space	Urban enviro
	417. NB-2: I would feel less attached if the native plants and animals in the UGS disappear	green space	Urban enviro
	418. NB-3: I learn a lot about myself when spending time in the UGS	green space	Urban enviro
	419. NB-4: I feel a general sense of well-being when visiting the UGS	green space	Urban enviro
[110]	420. Identity; personal	Identity	PPR Process
	421. Dependence; personal	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	422. Social bonding	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	423. Nature bonding	green space	Urban enviro
[45]	424. Architecture: Building aesthetics	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	425. Architecture: Building density	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	426. Architecture: Building volume	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	427. Accessibility: Internal practicability	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	428. Accessibility: External connections	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	429. Green areas	green space	Urban enviro
	430. People and social relations: Security	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	431. People and social relations: Discretion	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	432. People and social relations: Sociability	Social PPR Process	Social enviro
	433. Welfare services: Educational services	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	434. Welfare services: Social health services	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	435. Cultural–recreational services: Sport services	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	436. Cultural–recreational services: Socio-cultural activities	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	437. Commercial services	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	438. Public transport	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	439. Pace of life: Relaxing/distressing	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	440. Pace of life: Stimulating/boring	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	441. Environmental health	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
	442. Maintenance and care	Perceived quality	Urban enviro
[46]	443. This is the ideal neighborhood to live in.	Affect	PPR Process
	444. Now this neighborhood is a part of me.	Identity	PPR Process
	445. There are places in the neighborhood to which I am very emotionally attached.	Attachment	PPR Process
	446. It would be very hard for me to leave this neighborhood.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	447. I would willingly leave this neighborhood.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process
	448. I would not willingly leave this neighborhood for another.	Behavior/rootedness	PPR Process

in Appendix A. These 30 studies were filtered from the previous 63 urban-setting studies by selecting only those in the type of place category that focused on residential or housing environments. These 30 empirical frameworks were analyzed using the three categories defined in the conceptual framework developed in the previous round.

Indicators Selection Logic

For the first round of case-study analysis, for each of the 63 studies, all terms and associated dimensions were extracted. These included conceptual variables, measurement dimensions, and indicators explicitly used to describe or operationalize PPR in the reviewed studies. Drawing on the tripartite model, comprising Place, Person, and Process, each extracted dimension was classified under the most appropriate category. The classification was guided by the following criteria: dimensions referring to socio-demographic characteristics, social relations, or user groups were assigned to the Person component; dimensions referring to physical form, spatial structure, or environmental attributes were assigned to the Place component; and dimensions referring to meanings, perceptions, emotions, attachment, or identity were assigned to the Process component. By overlaying these three dimensions across all cases, a holistic framework for PPR in urban settings was synthesized, consisting of three main dimensions: social environment, urban environment, and relationship processes.

In the second round, each indicator or measurement mentioned in these studies was recorded and organized within the three core dimensions of the conceptual framework developed in the previous round. All measurement items reported in the selected 30 empirical studies were systematically extracted, including survey items and indicators, resulting in a total of 448 measurements (indicators). The items of each dimension and sub-dimension in the developed empirical framework were derived from the extracted indicators and determined based on their frequency of use across the reviewed studies and their contextual relevance to Middle Eastern residential environments. Indicators with similar meanings and measurement roles were grouped into sub-dimensions through a step-by-step classification process, where related items were clustered based on their conceptual similarity and functional role in capturing aspects of PPR. For example, items referring to emotions such as happiness, pride, and satisfaction were grouped under the affect dimension, while items related to knowledge, memory, and experience were grouped under cognition.

The categorization was further informed by established empirical models in the field. Earlier works on neighborhood attachment [52,70,71] provided structured operationalizations of social cohesion and social composition. Well-established neighborhood-focused instruments, such as PREQIs [72] and APAS [73], offered empirically validated measurement structures. Recent context-sensitive urban studies [35,49,51,74,75] also contributed contemporary operational perspectives. These works served as conceptual and methodological anchors, while the final selection of indicators remained grounded in the synthesis results and aligned with the socio-spatial specificities of Middle Eastern residential contexts.

2.2. Construction of the Framework Indices

The empirical application was conducted exclusively in Damascus as a pilot context for testing the operationalization and internal consistency of the proposed framework. The aim of this stage was not to produce a representative comparative analysis across cities, but to evaluate the feasibility and measurement performance of the framework within a real urban setting.

The framework was operationalized through a questionnaire designed based on the indicators defined in the framework (see

Table A3. Overview of the questionnaire used in Damascus case study, aligned with the measured dimensions and indicators. Source: authors.

Dimension	Indicators		Question Used in Google Form	Answer	*
Define the place	Define the district		Which district do you live in?	Choose from the 16 districts	I
	Define the neighborhood		Which neighborhood do you live in (within the selected district)?	Choose from the list of neighborhoods	I
	Define the residential block (optional)		What is the name of the street or block where you live? If there is no official name, please mention a well-known landmark near your residence	Short answer	II
Socio-demographics background	Sex		Sex	Male/Female	III
	Age		Age group	18 or less/19–29/30–44/45–59/60 or more	III
	Educational level		What is your educational level?	Elementary & lower/Basic education/Secondary/Intermediate institutes/University degree & above	III
	N. of children		Are there any children under the age of 16 living in your household?	Yes/No	III
	Residential duration		How long have you been living in your current neighborhood?	less than 5/5–15 years/15–30 years/more than 30	III
	Type of housing		What type of housing do you live in?	Apartment in a residential building (5 floors or less)/Apartment in a residential building (6 floors or more)/Independent (villa)/Traditional (inner courtyard)/connected or informal	III
	Tenure status		What is the tenure status of the house you live in?	Own/Rent	III
	Childhood location		Where did you spend most of your childhood?	In the same neighborhood where I live now, In a different neighborhood in Damascus, In another city in Syria, Outside Syria	III
Perceived social environment	Perceived similarities with neighbors		How much do you have in common with your neighbors in the following aspects?	Social class and economic status	V
				Cultural and ethnic background
				Religious practices and beliefs
	Nature of neighboring relationships		How would you describe the nature of your relationship with your neighbors?	Based on family connections/friendships (e.g., from school, work, etc.)/proximity (e.g., living close by)/shared interests/same social class/no relation	IV
	Social interactions	amount	Rate the following statements about your neighborhood community on a scale from 1 to 5:	I often interact with my neighbors	V
		quality		I have positive relationships with my neighbors.
		bonding outcome		There are harmonious relationships in my neighborhood community
	Places for social interactions		Where do you most commonly interact with your neighbors?	Religious places (e.g., mosque, church)/Public spaces (e.g., street, local shops or markets)/GS (e.g., gardens, open areas)/Sports facilities (e.g., gym, sports courts)/Neighborhood organizations (e.g., community/cultural centers)/At home (e.g., inviting neighbors over)/social event	IV
Perceived urban environment	Perceived quality of neighborhood		Please rate the following qualities of your neighborhood:	Safety/Calmness/Cleanliness/Privacy/Aesthetics/Availability of main services (e.g., water, electricity, transportation)/Adequate recreational spaces (e.g., green areas, gardens)/Walkability (e.g., pedestrian-friendly streets, ease of walking)	V
Relationship formation	Cognition (Knowledge, Memory, Experience)		Please rate the following statements about your familiarity and experiences with your neighborhood	I know this neighborhood very well	V
				I have profound memories in this neighborhood
				I have positive experiences in this neighborhood
	Affect (Emotion, Satisfaction)		Please rate the following statements about your feelings and satisfaction with living in your neighborhood	I feel happy and comfortable living in this neighborhood.	V
				I am proud of living in this neighborhood
				I think my neighborhood is a good place to live
				I am satisfied with my relationships with neighbors
	Rootedness, Identity, Attachment		To what extent do you agree with the following statements about your relationship with your neighborhood?	If I had to move from this neighborhood now, I would be sorry to leave it
				For me, this neighborhood is just a place to live
				I feel strongly attached to my neighborhood

* Type of question used in Google form: I = Dropdown/II = Short answer/III = Multiple choices/IV = Checkboxes/V = Multiple choices grid (Likert scale).

in Appendix B). The questionnaire comprised 19 questions, including six multiple-choice grid questions, and was administered in Arabic via social media platforms and professional and personal networks between 23 March and 3 May 2025. The questionnaire was intentionally designed to be concise and clearly structured to facilitate participation and completion in an online setting, consistent with the exploratory nature of this pilot study.

This approach enabled broad and rapid access to respondents across multiple residential districts in Damascus, which was essential for the empirical testing of the framework. At the same time, this method introduces limitations related to sample representativeness, particularly the potential exclusion of older residents and individuals with limited digital access. While the sample size (n = 1610) provides sufficient statistical power for the construction and reliability testing of the study indices, it does not fully reflect the broader population structure. The collected sample represents a relatively young, highly educated, and predominantly female segment of Damascus residents.

Index construction is a widely applied procedure in quantitative social and environmental psychological research, particularly for the operationalization of complex, multidimensional constructs such as attitudes, perceptions, or attachment [76,77]. Due to their inherent complexity, these constructs cannot be sufficiently represented by a single indicator; therefore, the aggregation of theoretically related items is methodologically justified. PPR represent a similarly multidimensional phenomenon [6,7,24]. Multi-item measurement follows the logic of classical test theory, according to which the aggregation of indicators reduces random measurement error and increases the stability of the measurement [78,79]. Accordingly, six indices were constructed: (Cognition, Affect, Attachment, Similarity, Interaction, Quality), and a composite PPR Main Index.

2.2.1. Structural Validity Assessment (EFA)

Structural validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) based on the predefined framework structure. Principal Axis Factoring was applied. Promax rotation was used for the PPR subdimensions (Affect, Cognition, Attachment), specifying a three-factor solution, while one-factor solutions were tested separately for the PPR Main Index and for the Similarity, Interaction, and Quality indices.

Sampling adequacy was evaluated using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Factor loadings ≥ 0.30 were considered meaningful.

2.2.2. Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha and Item–Total Correlation)

To verify that items within each dimension measured the same underlying construct, item–total correlations were examined using a minimum threshold of r ≥ 0.30. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and interpreted according to the commonly applied classification proposed by [80], as detailed in

Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal consistency. Adopted from [80].

Cronbach’s Alpha (α)	Internal Consistency
α ≥ 0.9	Excellent
0.8 ≤ α < 0.9	Good
0.7 ≤ α < 0.8	Acceptable
0.6 ≤ α < 0.7	Questionable
0.5 ≤ α < 0.6	Poor
α < 0.5	Unacceptable

. Indices with alpha values of 0.70 or higher were considered to demonstrate at least acceptable internal consistency and were retained for further analysis.

3. Results

This section presents the findings of the study in three consecutive parts. First, it reports the results of the two rounds of case-study analysis, which led to the development of (1) the conceptual framework of People–Place Relationships (PPR) within design disciplines and (2) the detailed empirical framework tailored to residential contexts. Second, it presents the empirical testing of the framework in the case of residential districts in Damascus, including the assessment of its structural validity using exploratory factor analysis and its reliability through internal consistency measures. Together, these results establish both the theoretical grounding and the empirical robustness of the proposed PPR framework.

3.1. Conceptual Framework of PPR in Design Disciplines

The review of 63 urban-focused frameworks on SOP and PA according to the three categories of the tripartite model showed that only 20 frameworks (31.7%) explicitly include a People dimension; of these, 13 (20.6%) focus mainly on social bonding, while seven (11.1%) refer more broadly to “people” or user groups, and socio-demographic or socio-cultural characteristics are rarely developed in a systematic way. A Place dimension appears in 26 frameworks (41.3%) and is dominated by form-related aspects: 21 of these (80.8%) emphasize physical form, spatial structure or landscape features, whereas functional roles and everyday activities are less visible. A Process dimension is present in 60 frameworks (95.2%), but it is strongly skewed towards affect: 56 studies (88.9%) include emotional indicators such as belonging, attachment and satisfaction, while only six (9.5%) explicitly discuss cognitive processes and seven (11.1%) behavioral processes.

Taken together, these patterns indicate that existing frameworks on PPR-related concepts in urban environments rarely bring together the person, the social and urban environment, and the full range of relationship processes in a single, coherent structure. The person side is mostly reduced to community ties, the urban environment is treated mainly through physical form, and relationship processes are dominated by affect, with cognition and behavior under-specified. On this basis, the 63 cases were overlaid to develop a holistic conceptual framework for PPR, as shown in Figure 3. The environmental side is organized into a social environment dimension, which combines socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., age, length of residence and other attributes) with perceived social environment (including social bonding and wider social–cultural setting), and an urban environment dimension captured through place evaluation, that is, people assessments of the qualities and conditions of the urban environment. The relational side is structured into three core processes (cognition, affect and attachment), which together describe how people perceive and understand their urban environment, how they act in it (use, staying or wishing to move), and how they feel about it (belonging, satisfaction, identity, attachment). This framework forms the conceptual basis for the empirical framework of this study.

3.2. Empirical Framework of PPR in Residential Contexts

The review of 30 case studies on SOP and PA in residential areas, covering 448 indicators, showed that most empirical work concentrates on two main aspects: people’s relationship with place and their evaluation of neighborhood conditions. The largest share of indicators dealt with people–place processes, with a strong emphasis on emotional ties such as belonging, satisfaction, pride, identity and attachment, followed by behavioral rootedness (staying, moving, everyday use of the neighborhood) and, to a lesser extent, cognitive aspects like knowledge, memories and lived experience. Urban-environment indicators focused mainly on perceived neighborhood quality (safety, calmness, cleanliness, aesthetics and access to services). The social environment was captured primarily through neighboring relations and social interactions (knowing one’s neighbors and the frequency and quality of encounters), whereas socio-demographic indicators were largely concentrated on residential history and housing status (length of residence, tenure status), with fewer studies systematically engaging with life stage, family structure or socio-economic position. Building on these patterns and informed by established empirical frameworks in the field while remaining responsive to the socio-spatial specificities of Middle Eastern residential contexts, we organized the 448 indicators into an empirical framework aligned with the study’s conceptual model, illustrated in Figure 4 and detailed in

Table 2. Detailed structure of the empirical framework, showing dimensions and associated indicators and sub-indicators. Source: author.

Dimension	Indicators		Items (Sub-Indicator)
People–Place Relationships formation 3 indicators 10 sub-indicators	1. Cognition		(1) Knowledge
			(2) Memory
			(3) Experience
	2. Affect		(4) Emotions (happiness)
			(5) Emotions (proudness)
			(6) Satisfaction (urban environment)
			(7) Satisfaction (social environment)
	3. Rootedness & attachment		(8) Rootedness
			(9) Identity
			(10) Attachment
Social environment 12 indicators 6 sub-indicators	Socio-demographics	1. Sex
		2. Age
		3. Educational level
		4. Number of children
		5. Residential duration
		6. Type of housing
		7. Tenure status
		8. Childhood location
	Perceived social environment	9. Perceived similarities with neighbors	(1) Social class and economic status
			(2) Cultural and ethnic background
			(3) Religious practices and beliefs
		10. Nature of neighboring relationships	Based on: family connections/friendships/proximity/shared interests/same social class/no relation
		11. Social interactions	(1) Amount & frequency
			(2) Quality of interactions
			(3) Bonding outcome
		12. Place for social interactions	Religious places/Public spaces/Green spaces/Sports facilities/Neighborhood organizations/at home/social event
Urban environment 1 indicator 8 sub-indicators	Perceived quality of neighborhood		(1) Safety
			(2) Calmness
			(3) Cleanliness
			(4) Privacy
			(5) Aesthetics
			(6) Availability of main services (e.g., water, electricity, transportation)
			(7) Adequate recreational spaces (e.g., green areas, gardens)
			(8) Walkability (e.g., pedestrian-friendly streets, ease of walking)

.

The social environment dimension integrates eight basic socio-demographic indicators that were the most frequently used across reviewed frameworks, which are: sex, age, education, number of children, type of housing, tenure status, residential duration and childhood location. The perceived social environment was addressed in four separate indicators to reflect the socio-cultural significance of Middle Eastern residential areas. The first indicator is the perceived similarities with neighbors, which was addressed in three key domains: social class and economic status, cultural and ethnic background, and religious practices and beliefs. The second indicator is the nature and frequency of neighboring relationships, which address the origin of these relations, whether it is based on family connections, friendships, or more due to proximity matters, or related to shared interests and social class conditions. The third is about the state of the social interactions between neighbors, which addresses the amount, quality and bonding outcomes of these social interactions to the general social atmosphere in the neighborhood. The fourth indicator is the places for social interaction, which addresses the spatial sphere of where these interactions are occurring.

The urban environment dimension was specified as place evaluation, capturing residents’ assessments of neighborhood qualities that are particularly salient in Middle Eastern cities, including safety, calmness, cleanliness, privacy, access to basic services (water, electricity, transportation), recreational spaces and walkability. The people–place relationship itself was structured into three core processes: cognition (knowledge, memory, experience), affect (positive emotions and satisfaction with the social and urban environment) and rootedness and attachment (rootedness, identity and attachment), which together describe how residents understand, feel about and position themselves within their neighborhoods.

3.3. The Framework Indices: Structural Validity and Reliability

The construction of the indices was based on the conceptual development of the study framework and on the empirical dataset derived from the 1610 respondents across the residential districts of Damascus. Accordingly, six first-order indices were constructed: Similarity, Interactions, Quality, Cognition, Affect, and Attachment, in addition to a composite index: PPR Main Index. This index was constructed by averaging the Cognition, Affect, and Attachment indices, and it captures the overall perception of PPR formation.

3.3.1. Structural Validity of the Framework (EFA)

The EFA results support the structural validity of the proposed framework.

Across all analyses, Bartlett’s tests of sphericity were statistically significant (p < 0.001), and KMO values indicated acceptable (KMO > 0.60) sampling adequacy in each case, confirming that the data were suitable for factor analysis.

The three-factor solution for the PPR items reproduces the expected structure, as conceptualized based on a systematic literature review, of the PPR dimensions: Affect–Factor 1 (Satisfaction 0.927; Emotion 0.857; Social Satisfaction 0.599; Proud 0.581), Cognition–Factor 2 (Memory 0.891; Knowledge 0.790; Experience 0.598), and Attachment–Factor 3 (Identity 0.835; Attachment 0.640; Behavior 0.607). These can be interpreted as identifiable factors with limited cross-loadings in the case of Experience (0.339) and Behavior (0.303), as they correspond to more than one dimension, as detailed in

Table 3. Factor loadings table (Affect, Cognition and Attachment).

Items	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Satisfaction	0.927	-	-
Emotion	0.857	-	-
Social Satisfaction	0.599	-	-
Proud	0.581	-	-
Memory	-	0.891	-
Knowledge	-	0.790	-
Experience	0.339	0.598	-
Identity	-	-	0.835
Attachment	-	-	0.640
Behavior	0.303	-	0.607

KMO: 0.91; Bartlett’s test: χ²(45) = 10,232.12, p < 0.001. Extraction: PAF, Rotation: Promax, Only loadings ≥ 0.30 reported.

.

At the higher-order level, the three dimensions loaded on a single dominant factor (eigenvalue = 2.263), explaining 64.16% of the variance, indicating a robust underlying construct. All three first-order indices contributed to this general factor, supporting the aggregation of Cognition, Affect, and Attachment into a composite (PPR main) index. Factor loadings were substantial for Affect (0.734) and Attachment (0.743), with Cognition (0.448) also contributing to the overall structure.

The Similarity Index showed a one-factor structure (eigenvalue = 1.936; explained variance = 50.7%). All items loaded on the factor, with the highest loading for Cultural-ethnic similarity (0.927), followed by Religion (0.588) and Socio-economic similarity (0.562), as detailed in

Table 4. Factor loadings table (Similarity, Interaction and Neighborhood Quality).

One-Factor Solution—Similarity		One-Factor Solution—Interaction
Items	Factor 1	Items	Factor 1
Cultural-ethnic	0.927	Interaction Amount	0.651
Religion	0.588	Interaction Quality	0.819
Social-economic	0.562	Bounding Outcome	0.572
Eigenvalue: 1.936; Explained variance: 50.66% KMO: 0.625; Bartlett’s test: χ2(3) = 1083.34, p < 0.001 Extraction PAF		Eigenvalue: 1.920; Explained variance: 47.41% KMO: 0.656; Bartlett’s test: χ2(3) = 981.54, p < 0.001 Extraction PAF
One-Factor Solution—Quality
Items	Factor 1	Eigenvalue: 4.294; Explained variance: 47.49% KMO: 0.887; Bartlett’s test: χ2(28) = 5786.40, p < 0.001 Extraction PAF
Cleanliness	0.823
Aesthetics	0.821
Walkability	0.704
Privacy	0.671
Green	0.670
Calmness	0.641
Services	0.566
Safety	0.565

.

The Interaction Index also formed a one-factor solution (eigenvalue = 1.920; explained variance = 47.4%), with all items contributing to the factor, with loadings ranging from 0.572 to 0.819.

The Quality Index produced a general factor (eigenvalue = 4.29; explained variance = 47.5%), with loadings between 0.565 and 0.823. Overall, the factor analysis indicates that the indices are structurally interpretable, providing a basis for subsequent assessment of their internal consistency.

3.3.2. Reliability Assessment (Cronbach’s Alpha and Item–Total Correlation)

The results of the reliability and consistency analyses indicate that the operationalization developed in this study provides a statistically robust framework for capturing multidimensional people–place relationships. Following data transformation and reliability testing, all six indices demonstrated satisfactory to good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.712 to 0.874. In addition, all item–total correlations exceeded the recommended threshold of r ≥ 0.30 (

Table 5. The Cronbach’s alpha of each index. Source: author.

Index Name	Item–Total Correlations	Cronbach’s Alpha (0.70 ≤ α ≤ 0.90)	N of Items
PPR Main Index	Cognition: 0.574 Affection: 0.706 Attachment: 0.702	α = 0.807	3
Cognition Index	Knowledge: 0.697 Memory: 0.738 Experience: 0.678	α = 0.834	3
Affect Index	Emotion: 0.798 Proud: 0.759, Satisfaction: 0.795 Social satisfaction: 0.515	α = 0.864	4
Attachment Index	Behave: 0.696 Identity: 0.630 Attachment: 0.743	α = 0.830	3
Similarity Index	Socio-economic similarity 0.482 Cultural-ethnic similarity: 0.654 Religion: 0.511	α = 0.722	3
Interactions Index	Amount: 0.523, Quality: 0.607, Bonding outcome: 0.475	α = 0.712	3
Quality Index	Safety: 0.531 Calmness: 0.586 Cleanliness: 0.756 Privacy: 0.622 Aesthetic: 0.755 Services: 0.534 Green: 0.625 Walkability: 0.662	α = 0.874	8

), indicating that the items within each index coherently represent their intended constructs. Collectively, these findings support the empirical reliability and structural coherence of the measurement framework applied in this study.

The first-order indices demonstrate consistent internal reliability. The Cognition Index is classified within the good reliability range (α = 0.834), with item–total correlations of 0.697 (Knowledge), 0.738 (Memory), and 0.678 (Experience). The Affect Index also exhibits good reliability (α = 0.864), supported by item–total correlations of 0.798 (Emotional attachment), 0.759 (Proud), 0.795 (Satisfaction), and 0.515 (Social satisfaction). Similarly, the Attachment Index demonstrates good internal consistency (α = 0.830), with item–total correlations of 0.696 (Behavioral attachment), 0.630 (Identity), and 0.743 (Attachment). The Quality Index also demonstrates good internal consistency (α = 0.874). The corrected item–total correlations indicate coherent contributions of all eight sub-indicators, including 0.531 (Safety), 0.586 (Calmness), 0.756 (Cleanliness), 0.622 (Privacy), 0.755 (Aesthetics), 0.534 (Services), 0.625 (Green spaces), and 0.662 (Walkability). These values confirm that each component contributes consistently to the overall construct of perceived urban quality.

The remaining indices meet the criteria for at least acceptable reliability. The Similarity Index demonstrates acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.722), with item–total correlations of 0.482 (Socio-economic similarity), 0.654 (Cultural-ethnic similarity), and 0.511 (Religious similarity). The Interactions Index correspondingly demonstrates acceptable reliability (α = 0.712), supported by item–total correlations of 0.523 (Amount), 0.607 (Quality), and 0.475 (Bonding outcome). The People–Place Relationships (PPR) Main Index, constructed as a composite of the Cognition, Affect, and Attachment sub-indices, also demonstrates good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.807), with component correlations of 0.574 for Cognition, 0.706 for Affect, and 0.702 for Attachment.

In summary, the item selection process, based on a comprehensive review and synthesis of the relevant literature, and the subsequent construction of the index system, proved to be empirically grounded. The factor analysis indicated that the constructed indices are structurally interpretable and consistent with the proposed framework, while the reliability analysis confirmed satisfactory internal consistency across all indices. No indicators required removal, as all items demonstrated adequate item–total correlations and acceptable Cronbach’s alpha values within their respective indices. Together, these findings support the use of the developed framework as a stable and empirically supported structure for operationalizing multidimensional PPR.

4. Discussion

In this study, an integrated framework to assess People–Place Relationships (PPR) in residential environments is developed and empirically examined within the context of Middle Eastern cities, an under-represented setting in the field. The framework is grounded in a systematic review and theoretical synthesis of the relevant literature, through which indicators and sub-indicators were conceptually defined and aggregated into coherent dimensions. This conceptual structuring was followed by a rigorous operationalization process, where theoretically derived items were empirically tested through exploratory factor analysis and reliability assessment.

The patterns identified in this study resonate with but also extend existing empirical findings in the PPR research domain. Similar to previous reviews of place attachment (PA) and sense of place (SOP) research [6,7,8,18,19,20,21], the analysis of 63 frameworks confirms the strong dominance of affective indicators, with belonging, attachment, and satisfaction constituting the primary operational measures, and an underrepresentation of cognitive and behavioral processes. The imbalance identified in the reviewed frameworks can be better understood in light of how PA and SOP have been conceptualized in the literature. PA has traditionally been framed as an affective bond between person and setting, often defined as an emotional tie and a desire to maintain proximity [6,44]. Although foundational scholars emphasized its multidimensional and holistic nature [3,24], empirical operationalizations have frequently privileged affect over other components. Similarly, SOP has been described as a broad, integrative construct encompassing meanings, identity, and lived experience [34,81]; however, it is often used interchangeably with PA or overlapping constructs such as place identity and dependence [22,23,82]. This conceptual overlap contributes to the ambiguity observed in empirical models. The results of the present study, in which 88.9% of frameworks emphasized affect, while cognition and behavior were marginal, reflect this historical tendency to equate PPR primarily with emotional bonds.

Moreover, while both PA and SOP are theoretically described as multidimensional, integrating physical, perceptual, psychological, and socio-cultural dimensions [83,84,85,86,87], the empirical frameworks reviewed rarely operationalize these dimensions in a balanced manner. The literature acknowledges that attachment is shaped by both environmental attributes and user characteristics [83,84], yet the Person dimension remains weakly structured and often reduced to social bonding [88,89,90], and the Place dimension reflects the morphology-oriented bias frequently observed in urban and landscape studies, where spatial structure and visual qualities are emphasized over everyday practices and functional evaluations [91,92,93]. This gap between theoretical multidimensionality and empirical simplification helps explain the fragmentation identified in the review. By explicitly structuring environmental (social and urban) and relational (cognitive, affective, and attachment) dimensions, the present framework responds directly to this conceptual inconsistency and aligns more closely with the holistic understanding originally proposed in foundational PA and SOP scholarship.

Empirically, the study translates the conceptual structure into a measurable framework comprising 16 indicators and 24 sub-indicators, enabling a systematic assessment of how environmental and relational dimensions interact within residential contexts. The environmental side is organized into two analytically distinct yet interrelated dimensions: the social environment and the urban environment.

The social environment dimension integrates eight socio-demographic indicators. Among these, sex, tenure status, and length of residency are consistently identified in the literature as core variables shaping place-based bonds [35,52,75,94,95,96], while age, education level, number of children, housing type, and childhood location are less consistently operationalized [49,52,95,97]. Beyond structural attributes, the framework places strong emphasis on perceived social conditions, extending beyond narrow interpretations of community ties to capture broader socio-cultural settings, which are particularly significant and require careful consideration in Middle Eastern residential contexts. This is operationalized through four indicators: perceived similarity with neighbors, the nature and frequency of neighboring relationships, social interactions between neighbors, and the availability of places for social interaction. Existing empirical models tend to address these aspects in a fragmented manner. Social interaction is the most frequently represented dimension, often through measures of social solidarity [85], engagement and participation with neighbors [97], social activities [74], or everyday social life and daily encounters [51,52]. Other aspects, such as social cohesion [94], cultural tension [51], and the presence of relatives or friends in the neighborhood [50,98], appear less consistently and are typically treated as isolated variables rather than as components of an integrated structure.

Overall, the literature addresses elements of the social environment in a scattered and non-systematic way, rarely providing a coherent overview of neighborhood-level social dynamics. The developed framework focuses on two core indices, Similarity and Social Interaction, supported by two descriptive variables (nature of neighboring relations and places for social interaction). Despite this structured approach, it is important to acknowledge that capturing the full complexity of the social environment in Middle Eastern contexts extends beyond the indicators included here. Dimensions such as inclusiveness, segregation, and conflict-related dynamics, particularly relevant in post-conflict urban settings, are not directly operationalized within the current framework.

The selection of similarity and social interaction reflects a methodological prioritization. Social interaction is consistently identified in PPR literature as a key proxy for neighborhood-level social dynamics, while similarity was included to address ongoing debates on the role of social homogeneity versus heterogeneity in shaping PPR. This is particularly relevant in Middle Eastern cities, where patterns of residential differentiation, linked to socio-economic, cultural, and religious factors, are historically embedded in the urban structure. At the same time, this reflects a trade-off between analytical depth and empirical feasibility. Given the multidimensional scope of the framework and the reliance on a large-scale online survey, a limited set of robust indicators was prioritized to ensure clarity, respondent engagement, and completion rates. Future research, particularly case-specific or smaller-scale studies, could extend this dimension by incorporating more detailed measures of inclusiveness, segregation, and post-conflict dynamics.

The urban environment dimension is frequently addressed in the literature through the notion of place evaluation. Earlier work conceptualized place evaluation as a relatively unified construct, often framed as external evaluation [20,52,99], while subsequent research has progressively disaggregated it into more detailed environmental predictors. Building on identified predictors of place attachment [51], factors such as open spaces, service facilities, maintenance, overcrowding, accessibility, and crime were highlighted. Similarly, the Perceived Residential Environment Quality Indicators (PREQIs) framework by [45] operationalized place evaluation through ten compound indicators, including architecture, accessibility, green areas, welfare services, and others. [94] further refined this approach by structuring place quality into eight compound indicators, such as accessibility, environmental health, and infrastructure availability.

While these frameworks offer detailed and multidimensional assessments of environmental quality, their extensive structure often shifts the analytical focus toward environmental performance itself rather than toward the interaction between environmental characteristics and relationship formation. In contrast, the present study defines a single composite indicator for the urban environment, encompassing eight core characteristics. These characteristics represent essential everyday conditions shaping residential experience and directly structuring how residents perceive and evaluate their neighborhood environment. This more focused operationalization moves beyond form-dominant interpretations of place by capturing evaluative assessments of everyday spatial qualities and lived conditions, thereby integrating functional and experiential aspects of residential landscapes. While future studies may break down specific environmental components at a finer scale, the composite measure adopted here serves as an analytically coherent tool for examining the interplay between environmental characteristics and PPR, without diverting attention from the core relational processes.

On the relational side, the framework rebalances the dominance of affect by explicitly integrating cognition, affect, and attachment as core processes shaping relationship formation. In the literature, affect is most frequently operationalized through broad evaluative and emotional responses, such as satisfaction, pride, comfort, and feeling at home, and it often functions as the primary empirical proxy for PPR strength [20,35,46,73,74,100,101]. Cognition, by contrast, appears less consistently and is typically captured through familiarity and knowledge-based measures, such as knowing the neighborhood well, recognizing people/place cues, naming the neighborhood, or clarity of neighborhood image [20,49,52,70,75]. Attachment itself is often measured in condensed form, commonly via direct self-report items (“How attached do you feel… ?”) or short scales, rather than being modeled as something that emerges through cognitive, everyday practices, and affective evaluation [46,102,103,104,105]. As a result, many empirical models implicitly conflate attachment with affective evaluation, while leaving cognition under-specified and treating attachment mainly as an outcome label. By operationalizing these components explicitly and in parallel, the present framework addresses this imbalance and supports interpreting PPR not merely as an emotional bond but as a structured, multi-layered process through which residents perceive and understand their environment (cognition), evaluate and feel toward it (affect), and develop enduring bonds and identification with place (attachment).

Beyond conceptual development, this study advances the framework through empirical testing across the residential districts of Damascus. To reach a broad sample across all districts in the city, the questionnaire was distributed via social media platforms. The large sample size (n = 1610) provided sufficient statistical power to construct and validate six indices derived from the framework, representing the core measurements of environmental conditions and relationship formation. However, this approach introduces limitations in sample representativeness, as it relies primarily on social media access and may exclude certain population groups. This step moves the study from theoretical synthesis to measurable operationalization, addressing a common limitation in PPR research where conceptual models are not systematically validated at the urban-residential scale.

At the center of this structure is the PPR Main Index, developed in response to the conceptual fragmentation in place-related research, where constructs such as sense of place (SOP), place attachment (PA), and place identity (PI) are frequently used interchangeably without clear analytical distinction. To overcome this ambiguity, the study adopts People–Place Relationships (PPR) as an overarching construct that integrates these perspectives within a unified, multi-level structure. This structure aligns with the multidimensional logic widely acknowledged in PPR-related scholarship, yet its novelty lies in treating PPR as a composite construct that simultaneously captures the overall state of the relationship and the mechanisms through which it is formed. At the composite level, the index provides a clear overall picture of PPR across residential districts. At the level of sub-indices and individual items, it allows the analysis to unpack this outcome and identify which cognitive, affective, or attachment-related mechanisms are influenced by environmental conditions.

Within the People–Place Relationships (PPR) formation dimension, three indices were established: the Cognition Index, the Affect Index, and the Attachment Index. The Social Environment dimension was operationalized through the Similarity Index and the Interactions Index, while the Urban Environment dimension was represented by the Quality Index. The dimensional structure and internal coherence of the indices were examined using exploratory factor analysis and reliability testing. While the factor analysis indicates that the overall structure is interpretable, cross-loadings were present among the PPR subdimensions, and the results show uneven structural strength across indices, particularly for Similarity and Quality. Although the explained variance was slightly below 50% and two cross-loadings marginally exceeded the 0.30 threshold, these were considered acceptable in the context of the overall results, while also pointing to the need for further analyses to strengthen these findings. The relatively lower Cronbach’s alpha values for the Similarity and Interaction indices, while within acceptable thresholds, may reflect the inherent complexity of social environment constructs, especially in contexts characterized by layered socio-spatial conditions.

The findings indicate that the developed framework constitutes a stable and empirically grounded structure for operationalizing multidimensional people–place relationships in residential environments. While the overall structure is supported, variations in structural strength across indices suggest areas for further refinement. As the framework was tested in a single urban context, further validation and recalibration across diverse socio-cultural settings remain necessary. In addition, the integration of qualitative approaches could further enhance the framework by capturing the lived experience of residents, which is not fully addressed through quantitative measures alone.

5. Conclusions

This study developed and empirically examined an integrated framework for assessing People–Place Relationships (PPR) in residential environments, responding to persistent conceptual ambiguity and empirical fragmentation in the field. By structuring environmental (social and urban) and relational (cognitive, affective, and attachment) dimensions in parallel, the framework aligns theoretical multidimensionality with systematic operationalization. Empirical testing across the residential districts of Damascus (n = 1610) confirmed a generally stable and reliable measurement structure, including six first-order indices and a composite PPR Main Index.

By consolidating previously fragmented models into a cohesive analytical structure, the study moves beyond emotion-dominant interpretations of attachment and integrates environmental evaluation with relational processes. Although variations in structural strength across indices indicate opportunities for further refinement, the framework provides a coherent and empirically grounded basis for analyzing people–place relationships. Tested in a single urban setting, it is positioned as adaptable rather than universal, offering a transferable structure for application across diverse socio-spatial contexts. Limitations related to sample representativeness and the use of an online survey remain, highlighting directions for future research through broader sampling and continued empirical application.