Spatiality of Outdoor Social Activities in Neighborhood Urban Spaces: An Empirical Investigation in Erbil City Neighborhoods

Abstract

The physical characteristics of urban spaces play a role in outdoor social interactions, which are considered crucial for promoting social sustainability; however, the spatiality of social outdoor activities in neighborhood urban spaces is less investigated. To address this gap, four neighborhoods of varying urban tissue patterns in Erbil City were selected for detailed investigation. The social context of outdoor social activities as a framework consisting of three components—physical form features, uses (activities), and users—was suggested for assessing the socio-spatial characteristics of outdoor social activities. Data were collected through direct observation. ArcGIS Pro’s visualization tools, the Kernel density geoprocessing tool, and SPSS v27 were used to map the spatial distributions of outdoor activities, and their centers of formation across urban spaces illustrated in topographic density maps. A total of 3565 outdoor activities conducted by 7134 users were recorded. The findings indicate significant differences in the density and intensity of activity types, gender associations with urban form characteristics, strong relationships between land use and outdoor social activities, and concentrations of activity centers in areas of mixed land use. The study also reveals the absence of elderly individuals, high populations of children in older cases/areas, significant associations with gender, an even distribution of females and males in traditional organic urban tissue, and the presence of females in spaces with lower connectivity and greater privacy. This study provides valuable insights into urban planning, focusing on the spatiality of outdoor social activities, integrating intersubjective and objective spatiality, and understanding the built environment’s influence on urban life by revealing socially desired urban form characteristics.

1. Introduction

Physical characteristics of urban spaces play a role in outdoor social interactions [1,2,3,4], which are crucial for promoting people’s well-being, health, social life, livability, and social sustainability in urban communities [5,6,7,8,9] and are practiced in spaces between buildings [5,10]. Scholars in multidisciplinary fields have developed various theoretical and empirical approaches to understanding the relationship between urban forms and social aspects of urban development [11,12,13] under the umbrella of social sustainability [14]. Urban morphology also has an extensive historical background in analyzing the physical dimensions of socially desired urban spaces [15] in relation to their social context [12,16,17,18], as well as an increasing recognition of urban form characteristics serving as significant facilitators of social interactions [19,20]. Urban spaces are diverse in content and are characterized by different types of spatial arrangements determined by urban form characteristics such as street patterns, land use, density, urban layout, and building typology. Urban spaces, being spaces for people, encompass outdoor social activities that can be either facilitated or hindered [21]. For instance, areas that encourage activities such as walking, running, and cycling have different spatial configurations and land use compared with those that promote steady activities such as conversing, gathering, interacting, and communicating [8,14].

A notable gap in the literature exists in the study of the spatiality of outdoor social activities as observable practices of users’ social interactions in urban spaces at the neighborhood level [8,22,23]. Despite the advancements in new tools and methods, most of the existing literature has focused on the impact of urban form on social interaction, with a limited understanding of the spatial distribution, typology, age, and gender association of outdoor social activities in urban spaces. Nevertheless, researchers have advocated for further scientific inquiries and empirical data to gain a more precise understanding of the spatiality of social outdoor activities that impact social interaction and, consequently, social sustainability; however, few researchers have considered whether and how various urban layouts affect outdoor social activities across the globe, as well as their local implementation, as social aspects of urban development vary from country to country [14]. This research aims to address this gap in the current literature.

The objective of this research is to empirically investigate the interplay between changes in urban form characteristics and outdoor social activities that take place in outdoor spaces of four neighborhoods in Erbil City, the capital and biggest metropolis of Iraqi Kurdistan, which has seen rapid urban development, spatial expansion, and an expanding population in recent decades [24,25]. The following research questions are addressed: (1) What are the main components of the social contexts of outdoor social activities in urban spaces in neighborhoods? (2) What is the spatial dispersion of outdoor social activities in different urban tissues? (3) Where are the centers of formation of outdoor activities? (4) What are the gender and age specifications of participants in outdoor activities?

This research contributes to urban planning policy by delineating the spatiality of outdoor social activities across diverse urban tissue patterns developed in different historical sequences, reflecting urban formation and transformation throughout time. The components of main elements in the proposed social context are based on local social norms to add locality to the research.

The research is conducted as follows shown in Figure 1: the social context of outdoor social activities is suggested for the analysis of the spatiality of outdoor social activities on the basis of the location of outdoor social activities in the literature; frameworks of social sustainability assessments are conducted at the neighborhood level and existing factors in case studies are evaluated; the methodology used for data collection and analysis and a general profile of each case study, presenting the physical characteristics of the urban form affecting social outdoor activities, are provided; mapping and analyses of observed activities are presented in the Results and Discussion section. The study concludes with practical implications of the observations and suggestions for further studies.

2. Literature Review

Considering the physical environment as an urban social unit [26] has a major impact on human interaction, understanding the link between users and their surroundings is important to urban design [27,28]. The literature consists mostly of articles that have examined human activity in relation to the physical form of the urban environment [10,29] as a base for a theoretical framework of the current study, which focuses on all forms of outdoor social activities occurring among users in urban spaces.

The theoretical background of the importance of outdoor spaces as potential grounds for interactions and a significant place for outdoor social activities is highlighted in the key writing of Jan Gehl, Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space, which emphasizes the importance of spaces between buildings and explores the interplay between the physical environment and various activities occurring in outdoor public areas [10]. He identified key outdoor activities, including walking, seeing, hearing, sitting, standing, and conversing, and their spatial aspects.

Upon acknowledging the significant effect of the surrounding environment on individuals, Jacobs, who focused on the lives of women and children in urban settings, describes the street as the heart of the city, which must be vibrant with activities and pedestrian movement, emphasizing that a mix of residents and visitors is essential. Diversity is emphasized as a key concept in mixed land use, building typology, population density, and activity distribution, along with the significance of small or short building blocks to facilitate frequent interaction between individuals. The positioning of building entrances and the continuity of the urban fabric are also emphasized in her studies [30,31].

The spatiality of social phenomena is also illustrated in Hillier’s research, which investigated the connection between social patterns and the built environment, revealing the connection between the physical and human realm through observation and measurement of human movement, interaction, density, distribution, and behavior. By advancing his theory of space syntax, he simulated the effects of changes to the physical environment, thereby designing buildings, public spaces, and cities that are better suited to human needs [32,33].

In the context of outdoor social activities within the discourse of social sustainability, Shirazi and Keivani [14] suggest two modes of spatiality in social sustainability: objective spatiality, which focuses on the physical aspects of urban spaces, such as accessibility to services, and intersubjective spatiality, which pertains to non-physical factors associated with individuals, including social interactions, participation, and individual sociodemographic attributes such as age and gender [14].

In the recent literature, Ajayi [34] investigated the impact of urban open spaces in neighborhoods on outdoor behavior and active living, analyzing school playgrounds, neighborhood parks, and pocket parks in relation to walking and moderate, vigorous, and sedentary activities. Shirazi [8] studied outdoor activities identified by Gehl in compact neighborhoods by measuring outdoor activity’s spatial, temporal, age, and gender patterns, revealing a correlation between land use and activities, causing higher intensity and density, and concluding that urban spaces are primarily for walking.

In their paper, Mohamed and Elmokadem [35] explored social sustainability and urban form correlation in Salam New City, measuring walkability, urban patterns, green open space, and social sustainability aspects, suggesting a new design model to improve social interaction and integration with a modification of physical form. Increased density, land use diversification, and improved accessibility are suggested as strategies to enhance social sustainability in Dubai’s urban neighborhoods, Alipour and Galal Ahmed [36]. Hernbäck [37] investigated the impact of urban form on gender relationships and public space usage in slum environments, revealing gender segregation, with unplanned areas having fewer spaces for women. Shehayeb and Eid [38] studied the influence of outdoor spaces and streets on social interaction in neighborhoods, highlighting the importance of shared physical boundaries for community formation. The study by Ali, Hikmat, Yamen, and Hadeel [12] examined urban form impact on social sustainability, revealing that density, land use, and accessibility significantly influence social sustainability and, consequently, social interaction.

Abass and Andrews [20] investigated interconnection among factors influencing social interaction, social activity levels, and four common neighborhood design characteristics of low-density suburban areas—street configuration, connectivity, the presence of pedestrians in public spaces, and housing form—and found that tree coverage, availability of open spaces, and street typology were important factors affecting neighborhood contentment. Zumelzu and Barrientos-Trinanes [39] studied the urban form’s impact on neighborhood vitality; their findings indicate that some neighborhoods exhibit higher adaptation levels, and four factors, namely, block size, land use mix, plot sizes, and adaptability, contribute to increased interactions in neighborhoods. A study by Carroll and Jespersen [40] explored age-friendly neighborhood design in a poor Copenhagen neighborhood through ‘go-along’ interviews with elderly participants aged 59–90 years; their findings suggest that pavement dimensions, seating hierarchies, covered spaces, lawns, and unauthorized locations all contribute to age-friendly programming and enhancing empowerment through the physical environment.

Outdoor social interactions are highlighted in multiple approaches, concepts, and frameworks that have been developed by scholars for the purpose of measuring and evaluating social sustainability. A triad of social sustainability consisting of three pillars—neighborhood, neighboring, and neighbors—is proposed as a conceptual framework by Shirazi and Keivani [41]. A pentagon model of urban social sustainability by Akcali and Cahantimur [42] consists of five dimensions—person, place, people, perception, and process—that aim to better explain the relationship between socio-spatial aspects of urban spaces and social sustainability. Eizenberg and Jabareen [16] proposed a comprehensive conceptual framework of social sustainability composed of four interrelated socially oriented practices: equity, safety, eco-presumption, and urban form.

Indicators of outdoor social activities from the abovementioned literature are divided into three main categories: physical forms representing objective spatiality, outdoor social activity typologies, and users representing intersubjective spatiality (

Table 1. Indicators affecting outdoor social activities. Adopted from [7,9,11,13,15,19,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41].

Criteria		Indicator	Included or Excluded	Variable or Constant
Physical form	Density	Population density	✓	C
		Density of land use	✓	V
		Block area ratio	✓	V
		Urban space area ratio	✓	V
		Density of plots	✓	C
	Housing type	Row	✓	C
		Detached	✗
		Semi-detached	✗
		High rise	✗
	Urban space design	Street configuration	✓	V
		Street accessibility	✓	V
		Street connectivity	✓	V
		Intersection density	✗
		Sidewalk availability	✗
		Sidewalk curb	✗
		Sidewalk width	✗
		Block size	✓	V
		Presence of shade	✓	V
		Trees	✓	V
		Street furniture for rest stops	✓	V
	Land use	Mixed land use	✓	V
		Open spaces	✓	V
		Parks	✓	V
		Playgrounds	✗
		Semi-private gardens	✓	V
	Urban Tissue	Planned	✓	V
		Unplanned	✓	V
		Block cluster type	✓	V
Outdoor social activities	Moving activities	Walking	✓	V
		Running	✓	V
		Selling goods on a hawker or a car	✓	V
		Cycling	✓	V
		Playing	✓	V
		Playing as a group	✓	V
		Taking a pet for walks, taking children for walks using a carriage	✓	V
	Sedentary activities	Standing	✓	V
		Watching	✓	V
		Talking	✓	V
		Buying goods	✓	V
		Gardening	✓	V
		Fixing a car/washing a car	✓	V
		Cleaning/washing front door areas Sitting	✓	V
		Eating	✓	V
		Resting	✓	V
		Playing Dama or chess	✓	V
Users	Gender	Male	✓	V
		Female	✓	V
	Age	Children (persons up to 9 years old)	✓	V
		Teenagers (people aged 10–17)	✓	V
		Young adults (people aged 18–45)	✓	V
		Senior adults (people aged 46–70)	✓	V
		Elderly people (people over 70 years old)	✓	V
	Number		✓	V

Note: The table shows the criteria included or excluded in this research. (✓) represents an included indicator, while (✗) represents an excluded indicator; it also shows the constant and variable indicators in this specific research. (V) represents variable indicators and (C) represents constant indicators.

).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Social Context of Outdoor Social Activities

A conceptual framework derived from the above literature, frameworks, and existing urban settings is suggested to analyze the spatiality of outdoor social activities in urban spaces. In the case of Erbil city, a social context framework must be developed from various contexts, as there is a lack of prior research addressing similar phenomena in the Middle East or other regions with comparable urban social and morphological characteristics, specifically focusing on the spatiality of outdoor social activities.

Focus is placed on outdoor social activities that are observable parts of outdoor social interactions, which are a primary focus in urban spaces, examining urban form features that significantly influence users’ experiences and interactions with the built environment. Figure 2 captures a local street in one of the case studies and shows individuals of different genders and varying ages engaging in diverse activities on the street, which is a core component of urban spaces. Walking, sitting, standing, watching, conversing, and playing are clearly identifiable activities. Both female and male genders are also apparent. Focusing on facial aging, several age groups—children, teenagers, and adults—are also observed in the photo. Physical form features, including streets, sidewalks, and curbs, are used by people in the photo for walking, standing and walking, and sitting, respectively.

The social context of outdoor activities is detailed in Figure 3, which outlines three primary components pertinent to this research: possible physical form (reflecting the objective spatiality), uses or activities, and users (reflecting the intersubjective spatiality).

3.2. Key Constructs of Social Contexts of Outdoor Social Activities

3.2.1. Possible Physical Form Features

Urban life occurs in public spaces between buildings, focusing on micro-level urban form features that allow users to conduct activities. Possible physical forms address physical aspects of the urban form of residential areas, including mixed land use (different socio-economic functions in the area), urban tissue patterns (urban block configuration), street types (cul-de-sac, local, and collector), and the connectivity of urban areas in this research. Physical form features correspond with neighborhood [32], place [42], and urban form [16], as stated in the abovementioned frameworks.

3.2.2. Range of Possible Uses or Activities

This refers to people’s activities that generate and accommodate elements of the built environment [43]. A certain physical form, such as steps at an entrance, serves several functions; a particular activity such as ‘sitting’ or ‘standing’ can be facilitated by numerous physical forms. Walking, standing/staying, talking, running, buying, selling goods on a hawker or a car, cycling, gardening, fixing/washing a car, cleaning/washing the front door area, sitting, playing, playing as a group, and playing Dama or chess are activities that occur in urban spaces.

Table A1. Uses or activities. Source: authors.

Walking	Standing/Staying
Talking	Running
Buying goods	Selling goods on a hawker or a car
Cycling	Gardening
Fixing cars/washing cars	Cleaning/washing front door areas
Sitting	Playing
Playing as a group	Playing Dama or chess

(in Appendix A) shows activities that take place in the case studies of Erbil City, in addition to Jan Gehl’s set of activities. The use of/or activities in urban spaces corresponds with neighboring [41], process [42], and social inclusion and cohesion [44], as stated in the abovementioned frameworks.

3.2.3. Set of Possible Users

Urban-space users refer to all the people conducting their activities in urban spaces. Activities in neighborhoods are distributed by gender into male and female, while age patterns of activities are divided into age groupings, facilitating facial recognition of age differences in social activity types [8]. The age groupings are children (persons up to 9 years of age), teenagers (people aged 10–17), young adults (people aged 18–45), senior adults (people aged 46–70), and elderly people (people over 70 years of age). Users correspond with neighbors [41], people, and persons [42] stated in the abovementioned frameworks.

3.3. Position of the Research Within the Generic Structure of the Built Form

The definition of “outdoor spaces” in this study refers to areas accessible to users in the neighborhood via publicly accessible routes, including open spaces, parks, streets, and communal gardens [45]. Figure 4 illustrates the research position within a multi-level diagram of a built-form generic structure identified by Karl Kropf [43] and the limit of urban spaces to determine the minimum elements and geometric characteristics of spaces where outdoor activities take place, in addition to a hierarchical view of cities based on different levels of resolution [46]. The urban spaces are open areas and streets in the researched case studies.

3.4. Data Collection

Data were collected using different methods to thoroughly investigate the diversity of urban space characteristics and their impact on the spatiality of outdoor activities in urban spaces.

3.4.1. Questionnaires for Population Density (People and Children) Analysis

Population density is an external factor that can have an impact on the frequency of outdoor activities. In this research, real population density in each case study is obtained through a questionnaire addressed to households.

The number of family members and children in each family was obtained using a questionnaire administered randomly in all cases to obtain the real number of people and children in each case. The total sample size of the total number of dwellings (2932 dwellings) in all cases was approximately 341 dwellings based on the finite population correlation formula.

3.4.2. Semi-Ethnographic Method for Identifying the Typology of Outdoor Activities in Case Studies

Direct observation, pragmatic fieldwork, and semi-ethnographic study methods contribute specificity and contextual relevance to the research framework. An initial round of observation in four case studies using the ethnographic research methodology was conducted to identify the social context of outdoor activities’ main elements indicators, including all physical features, use (activities), and users in the domain. The results are presented in Table 1 and Table A1 in Appendix A.

3.4.3. Mapping Outdoor Social Activities

Observations are predominantly used for gathering these types of data [47]. Observational research involves manipulating an independent variable in natural environments, followed by using direct observations of the subjects to evaluate the dependent variables [48]. This research examined urban form as an independent variable, whereas outdoor social activities were considered dependent factors and were evaluated via observation. Following the methodology of Shirazi [8], this research empirically tested outdoor social activities, including walking, standing/staying, talking, running, buying, selling goods on a hawker or a car, cycling, gardening, fixing cars/washing cars, cleaning/washing the front door area, sitting, playing, playing as a group, and playing Dama or chess in urban spaces, which were defined as areas accessible to users in neighborhoods via publicly accessible routes, including open spaces, parks, streets, and communal gardens [45].

Each outdoor social activity was mapped at the time of observation and had the following characteristics: type of activity, gender, number and age of users, and time and location of activity, in addition to possible physical form features that are used for conducting activities. The observers used a checklist and map with a predefined path to record activities. The observation area included all principal routes and open spaces in which an activity is conducted within the investigated area. Gender (male or female) was recorded for all ages except users under 9 years of age. The checklist included physical form features, users, and the main activity being carried out at a specific time. The purpose of the activity was not considered, as it required interviews.

The study focused on facial aging in five age groups: children (up to 9 years old), teenagers (approximately 10–17 years), young adults (18–45 years), senior adults (46–69 years), and elderly people (70 years and above). Observations were conducted at the following time points: 7–9 a.m., 9–11 a.m., 11 a.m.–1 p.m., 1–3 p.m., 3–5 p.m., and 5–7 p.m. Due to the observable differences in activity patterns between weekdays and weekends, data collection was conducted only on weekdays, as supported by empirical studies [49,50]. In order to minimize the impact of weather and season, fieldwork was carried out in May 2024, a period characterized by pleasant weather conditions conducive to various outdoor activities.

3.5. Data Analysis

The collected data were analyzed using ArcGIS as a table and feature class, integrating them with existing GIS maps. This allowed for spatial analysis of activity patterns based on activity type, gender, and age. Datasets were arranged in a time-ordered and day-based manner. ArcGIS Pro’s visualization tools were used to create informative maps, using Kernel density geoprocessing to identify the centers of formation of activities and people. Spatial distribution was illustrated using topographic activity density maps. SPSS was used for statistical analysis. A total of 3565 activities conducted by 7134 people were mapped and processed.

3.6. Case Studies

3.6.1. Location of the Case Study in the City and Criteria for Selecting Case Studies

This study examined neighborhoods in Erbil City, one of the oldest cities in the world, with a population of over 1.3 million people and an annual growth rate of 3.1%. The city’s urban fabric is influenced by its medieval citadel [25]. Its urban formation and transformation have evolved over time [51], as shown in Chwas A. Sabir’s study of Erbil City’s urban transformation covering four periods from 1920 to 2013: 1920–1958, 1958–1991, 1991–2003, and 2003–2013 [52]. This research aimed to correlate outdoor social activities with urban form characteristics. Neighborhoods constructed across the city’s chronological order were selected in order to identify changes in urban form and street layout with varying fabrics. The typology of buildings was limited to low-rise residential dwellings located on a radial road with a maximum growth of residential projects (Figure 5). For the purpose of comparison, the investigation area, number of plots, population density, number of dwellings, and socio-economic characteristics of inhabitants were kept constant. Each case study had to be surrounded by a major road or a collector with mixed land use.

3.6.2. General Profile of the Case Studies

The general profiles of the case studies—Hasarok, Khabat, Gulan, and Chwarchra—are provided in Figure 6 and

Table 2. General profiles of all case studies illustrating urban form variables. Source: authors.

Case Studies	Case 1: Hasarok	Case 2: Khabat	Case 3: Gulan	Case 4: Chwarchra
Year of construction	1925–1940	1956–1965	1986–1995	1996–2003
Study area in hectares	17.06	16.35	16.47	16.85
Urban block area in hectares	13.41	10.22	12.02	9.75
Urban space area	5.12	4.48	5.11	6.01
Urban tissue pattern	Organic block clusters	Long parallel block cluster	Segregated interlocking block clusters	Integrated interlocking block clusters
Urban space characteristics	Street width: 7–10 m Open space: 11% Average building height-to-street ratio 1:2	Street width: 8 m Open space: 0% Average building height-to-street ratio 1:2	Street width: 10 m Open space: 14.3% Average building height-to-street ratio 1:1	Street width: 10 m Open space: 15% Average building height-to-street ratio 1:1
Mixed land use: Commercial and retail
Connectivity
Number of dwellings	728	813	702	689
Population	728 (number of dwellings) × 5.3 (number of family members per dwelling) 3858	813 (number of dwellings) × 4.39 (number of family members per dwelling) 3569	702 (number of dwellings) × 5.2 (number of family members per dwelling) 3650	689 (number of dwellings) × 6.3 (number of family members per dwelling) 4340
Children population	728 (number of dwellings) × 3.1 (number of children in family per dwelling) 2257	813 (number of dwellings) × 4.06 (number of children in family per dwelling) 3300	702 (number of dwellings) × 3.12 (number of children in family per dwelling) 2190	689 (number of dwellings) × 3.62 (number of children in family per dwelling) 2494

, illustrating the master plan with general information and urban space analysis for each case.

Case 1. Hasarok: This case study (covering an area of 17.06 hectares, with 818 dwellings and a population of 3858 (derived from the questionnaire)) is located in the Hasarok neighborhood and was constructed between 1925 and 1940. Four percent of plots are mixed land use, mainly dispersed randomly over the central area, with a majority of buildings being two storeys high and mainly used as shops; there are also two mosques. A total of 96% of plots are residential (50% two storeys, 49.5% one storey, and 0.5% three storeys). Blocks are arranged in a traditional organic manner, creating different access roads, streets, cul-de-sacs, narrow alleys, and two small gathering areas, with high connectivity at the center, resulting in urban spaces consisting of local streets, cul-de-sacs, narrow alleys, and open spaces. The urban tissue pattern is considered a traditional organic network, which is also called unplanned urban fabric.

Case 2. Khabat: This case study covers 16.3 hectares of the Khabat neighborhood and consists of 813 dwellings with a population of 4146. Thirteen percent of plots have mixed land use, mainly dispersed on the surrounding main roads, with most used as stores; there are also two mosques. The remaining plots (87%) are residential, with 71% of these being one-storey buildings and 29% being two-storey buildings. Access roads have low connectivity and lack green spaces, with streets being the only urban spaces. The urban tissue pattern is commonly regarded as a linear corridor rather than a network pattern as a result of long parallel urban blocks.

Case 3. Gulan: This case study examined a 16.47-hectare area in the Gulan neighborhood, built between 1986 and 1995. It revealed that 19% of plots have mixed land use, mainly concentrated along three surrounding main roads—Peshawa Ghazi, Termina, and Gulan 1-327—and 81% of the plots are designated for residential use. Aggregated interlocking urban tissue patterns create different access roads and streets with a medium connectivity value. This results in urban spaces consisting of streets and open spaces.

Case 4. Chwarchra: This case study (covering 16.85 hectares, with 689 dwellings and a population of 3513 people (5.1 persons per household)) is located in the Chwarchra neighborhood, constructed between 1996 and 2003. Ten percent of plots are mixed land use and are concentrated along three main roads, with the majority of buildings being three storeys high with active frontage, mainly used as shops. A total of 90% of the plots are residential (73% two storeys, 1% one storey, and 22% three storeys). Integrated interlocking urban tissue patterns create different access roads and streets with medium connectivity, leaving urban spaces consisting of streets and open spaces.

4. Results and Discussion

In this section, the results and discussion of the observations are presented based on the main components of the theoretical framework of the social context of outdoor social activities as follows:

4.1. Range of Possible Uses or Activities Within the Domain

4.1.1. Distribution of Outdoor Social Activities in All Cases

Table 3. Distribution of all activities. Source: authors.

	Hasarok	Khabat	Gulan	Chwarchra	Total
Number of activities	766 (21.4%)	1131 (31.7%)	805 (22.5%)	863 (24%)	3565 (100%)
Population	3858	3569	3650	4340	15,417
Population density of outdoor activities (Number of activities/population)	0.198	0.316	0.220	0.198	0.231

shows the distribution of outdoor social activities across all cases. Using population density of activities can be useful for comparative purposes to eliminate the misleading effects of differences in populations across case studies [8]. As shown in Figure 7, Khabat has the highest density of activities despite its narrow streets and lack of open spaces, indicating that it encompasses a greater number of activities within its neighborhood space, with no significant differences in the other cases. The lowest number of activities was registered in Chwarchra despite it having the highest residential population, a modern interlocking block cluster pattern, open spaces, and a high degree of connectivity.

4.1.2. Intensity of Activities Based on the Type

The types and intensities of activities are shown in

Table 4. Intensity of activities by type. Source: authors.

Type of Activity	Hasarok	Khabat	Gulan	Chwarchra	Total
Walking	379	432	308	516	1635
Standing/staying	290	425	392	251	1358
Talking	227	447	206	209	1089
Running	28	33	17	16	94
Buying	50	89	45	62	246
Selling goods on a hawker or a car	0	6	2	3	11
Cycling	89	101	62	79	331
Gardening	1	3	3	3	10
Fixing cars/washing cars	8	17	39	14	78
Cleaning/washing front door areas	58	60	45	56	219
Sitting	97	236	95	58	486
Playing	45	56	23	16	140
Playing as a group	26	61	11	29	127
Playing Dama or chess	4	0	0	1	5

Kruskal–Wallis H test = 1.193, p = 0.755 (n.s.).

. The predominant activity in the area is walking, indicating that, for users, the primary function of the neighborhood space is mobility and movement, with other activities being far less prominent [8]. The Shapiro–Wilk test indicated no normality (p < 0.05), and the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis H test showed that the differences were not significant.

Cluster analysis of correlation coefficients was conducted using the datasets in Table 4, which consisted of all outdoor social activities in the four cases. Cluster analysis is a statistical method that classifies activities based on similarities or distances with the aim of identifying patterns or structures in datasets without prior knowledge of group labels (Figure 8). This classification highlights unique behavioral patterns, facilitating the determination of the infrastructural requirements of each cluster.

Figure 8 illustrates this hierarchical procedure. Outdoor social activities are classified into five core groups based on their characteristics and quality, providing some insight into users’ interactions with the built environment. Cluster 1, containing only walking, irrespective of social engagement, is a dynamic variable with low intensity and requires spaces with a higher degree of accessibility. Cluster 2, which encompasses staying or standing, signifies neutral actions that are not as passive as sitting or resting or as dynamic as walking or running. Cluster 3, talking or conversing, is characterized by verbal communication; it values social engagement and interaction and prefers relational and interpersonal connections over physical activity. Cluster 4 consists of active and task-oriented outdoor activities, e.g., cleaning, playing, group play, running, purchasing and selling goods, cycling, gardening, and repairing or washing cars. Finally, cluster 5 consists only of sitting, indicating both passive and sedentary behavior. Sitting requires a low level of physical effort and is relatively motionless.

The hierarchical procedure is represented in a dendrogram (Figure 9); the activities are grouped into two broad branches based on their similarities: task-oriented and physical activities at the top and passive or social activities at the bottom. This clustering suggests that task-oriented activities should have open, multifunctional spaces, whereas passive and social activities can be better accommodated by seating areas and shaded gathering spaces. This analysis supports the conceptual description of outdoor social activity types as a synthesis of a limited number of activities that can be visually identified by observers in the field and evaluated in related maps and plans. The next section discusses the association between urban form and these typologies of activities in urban spaces.

Despite the lack of significant differences between activities in all case studies, some differences exist. Figure 10 illustrates the intensity of all activities across all case studies; cluster 1 (walking) is a dynamic variable that requires spaces with a higher degree of accessibility and has the highest value. This is followed by cluster 2, standing—a neutral activity (neither passive nor dynamic) that requires rest areas, shaded zones, and seating arrangements—and cluster 3, talking, a verbal communication variable that values social engagement and interaction requiring social hubs, plazas, gathering points, and seating corners. Cluster 5, characterized by sitting, is a passive and sedentary activity that bears minimal distinction from cluster 4. The energetic and task-oriented outdoor activities exhibit the lowest intensities in urban environments; urban environments tend to facilitate mobile activities while being less conducive to passive or sedentary, task-oriented outdoor activities.

4.1.3. Intensity of Outdoor Social Activities and Urban Tissue Patterns

This research aimed to correlate outdoor social activities with urban form characteristics by selecting case studies featuring diverse urban tissue patterns: Hasarok with a traditional organic urban pattern, Khabat with a long parallel block pattern, Gulan with a segregated interlocking block pattern, and Chwarchra with an integrated interlocking block pattern. Results are illustrated in Figure 11.

The integrated interlocking block pattern of Chwarchra had the highest amount of cluster 1 (walking) activities, significantly different from the other cases, suggesting that there are other cases that can accommodate a larger number of non-moving activities. The highest quantities of cluster 3 (talking), cluster 2 (standing), and cluster 4 (sitting) were registered in Khabat, which has a long parallel block pattern. This suggests that Khabat is capable of accommodating activities requiring longer durations, more convenient location for standing, and passive and sedentary behavior.

All other activities in cluster 5, which has a low frequency, indicate unfavorable conditions for cycling but adequate areas for recreational activities or group play. Analyzing the spatial patterns of the activities may provide insights into the reasons behind these differences. In general, the neighborhood area is primarily used for moving and walking, with socializing forming only a minor part of outdoor activities.

This finding aligns with previous studies [53,54,55] which highlighted the positive impact of connectivity and geometric measures of connectivity on pedestrian volume and the presence of different users for social interaction.

4.2. Spatial Distribution of Outdoor Social Activities

The spatiality of outdoor social activities was illustrated in maps generated using ArcGIS, enabling the exploration of the spatial distribution of outdoor social activities in neighborhood urban spaces, showing the density, intensity, and characteristics of each activity in terms of type, gender, number, and age of users. Each red dot on the map represents an activity with information such as type (e.g., walking, sitting, standing, talking), number of users involved in the activity, gender of all users (except children), and age of the users, as well as its exact location on the map. Properties of neighborhood urban spaces (e.g., land use and street type) and outdoor social activities (type and gender, number, and age of users) can be examined in terms of association, segregation, or acceptability of spatial quality, which provide guidance on advancing ideas for environmental enhancement. The Kernel density geoprocessing tool was used for visualization of the density topography of activities, using a symbology value of 100 to show the centers of formation of activities at the urban tissue level and a symbology value of 25 to illustrate the centers of formation of activities at the micro level across the urban space.

4.2.1. Spatial Distribution of Outdoor Social Activities on the Domain, Land Use, Street Layout, and Outdoor Activity Density Topography

Mixed land use is often believed to enhance social interaction in urban environments, [8,53,54]. To investigate potential relationships between different outdoor activity characteristics (type, age, and gender) and neighborhood space characteristics (land use and street type) at the macro level, spatial distributions and arrangements of all activities were overlapped with land use maps and density topographies of the activities (Figure 12).

At the macro level, Figure 12 clearly illustrates a significant spatial correlation between land use and outdoor activities. In all case studies, mixed land use zones offer higher concentrations of outdoor activities compared to other uses such as green spaces, mosques, and schools. In terms of street types, a pattern of concentrated activities can be seen along all major roads, except in Hasarok, which has an organic urban pattern of activities concentrated at a collector street in the center of the area. This indicates that mixed land use forms the centers of activities, whether on a major road surrounding the neighborhood or on a collector street deep inside the neighborhood. Numerous studies have consistently shown such a correlation [8,54,55,56].

At the micro level, using the Kernel density geoprocessing tool (with a symbology value of 25), Figure 13 illustrates that centers of formation of activities are dispersed at the street level in neighborhoods. Higher densities of centers of formation of activities are observed in areas where mixed land use is concentrated. Dispersed mixed land use, such as that seen in the case of Hasarok, can spread social activities across the neighborhood, resulting in an even use of urban spaces. The spatial distribution of centers of formation of activities is also strongly associated with land use; for example, in the case of Chwarchra, a higher concentration of activities is seen around open spaces.

4.2.2. Spatial Distribution of Types of Outdoor Social Activities in the Domain

The densities and spatial distributions of cluster 1 (walking), cluster 2 (standing), cluster 3 (talking), and cluster 5 (sitting) activities are presented in Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17. Walking, as the dominant activity, is concentrated along major roads and at junctions, except in the case of Khabat, where walking shows a scattered pattern along all local streets. Standing, similar to walking, is concentrated on major streets where mixed land use is present and shows a scattered pattern in streets in all cases. Talking activities are distributed across neighborhood spaces with higher privacy, green spaces, and mixed land use concentrations. Khabat has the highest percentage of sitting and standing activities (Table 4). Centers of formation of sitting are found across local streets in Khabat and Gulan, in green spaces in Chwarchra, and in specific locations in Hasarok. These activities are more concentrated in semi-private areas.

4.3. Set of Possible Users in the Domain

4.3.1. Gender Distribution of the Users

Intensity of the Gender Distribution of Users

Table 5. Number of female and male users. Source: authors.

	Hasarok	Khabat	Gulan	Chwarchra	Total
Total	682	1223	942	988	3835 (100%)
Female	348 (51%)	598 (49%)	339 (36%)	267 (27%)	1552 (40%)
Population Density	0.09	0.16	0.09	0.06
Male	334 (49%)	625 (51%)	603 (64%)	721 (73%)	2283 (60%)
Population Density	0.086	0.175	0.165	0.166

Chi-square test = 149.587, p < 0.0001 ** H.S.

shows the distribution of males and females (excluding children under 9 years of age who were not registered during the observation) across the 3835 activities. A quantitative analysis uncovered notable differences between genders in the domain; a total of 2283 of the users were male, accounting for 60% of the total user population (

Table 6. Male-centric and female-centric activities across all age groups (note: children under 9 years old are not included in the analysis). Source: authors.

Case Study	Gender	Gender Patterns Across Activity Types
		W	St	T	R	B	C	G	F	Cl	Si	P	Pg
Hasarok	Female	203	156	160	8	58	5	0	2	41	26	4	8
	Male	157	131	147	2	50	13	1	7	17	58	4	0
Khabat	Female	195	267	337	0	118	3	0	3	35	172	4	3
	Male	190	305	302	3	128	28	1	24	27	115	11	4
Gulan	Female	100	213	163	1	74	10	2	2	38	48	0	7
	Male	185	365	167	3	72	29	2	76	15	58	0	0
Chwarchra	Female	133	112	115	1	32	3	0	6	31	32	3	1
	Male	432	231	240	1	71	51	2	10	39	55	1	7

Note: (W) represents walking, (St) represents standing/staying, (T) represents talking (conversation), (R) represents running, (B) buying goods, (C) represents cycling, (G) represents gardening, (F) represents fixing/washing cars, (Cl) represents cleaning/washing front door areas, (P) represents playing, and (Pg) represents playing as a group.

). The Chi-square test was used to determine the association between gender and neighborhood, and the results were highly significant (Chi-square test = 149.587, p < 0.0001 ** H.S.)

Figure 18 illustrates the densities of males and females in various activities. The number of activities is divided by the population of each case study (area) to eliminate false-positive differences caused by residential populations. An equal number of female-centric and male-centric activities is observed in Hasarok, which is characterized by a traditional organic urban pattern; this is followed by Khabat, which has a long parallel block pattern. A notable difference in the presence of females and males in urban spaces is observed in Chwarchra, which is characterized by an integrated interlocking block pattern, followed by Gluan, which has a segregated interlocking block pattern. An additional correlation is observed when the chronology of neighborhood construction is considered (Figure 18): older neighborhoods have an even distribution of male-centric and female-centric activities in urban spaces.

Spatial Distribution and Densities of Female-Centric and Male-Centric Activities

Through analysis of the spatial distribution of female-centric (Figure 19) and male-centric (Figure 20) activities in urban spaces, we can observe that female-centric activities are more distributed in more semi-private spaces inside the study areas, and are less distributed in public spaces and major roads opposite male-centric activities, which are concentrated in more public and semi-public areas on major roads and in mixed land use areas in all cases except Hasarok. The traditional organic urban tissue of Hasarok has an equal distribution of females and males in its urban space.

Hasarok, built between 1925 and 1940, has a traditional organic network pattern with narrow streets, cul-de-sacs, and alleys. It also has a clearer hierarchy, with fewer public spaces for women. Khabat’s lengthy street creates a semi-private urban setting ideal for females due to its limited connectivity. Women are often confined to their homes, creating semi-private places. The contemporarily planned area has a more unequal distribution (Figure 19), leading men to occupy semi-public spaces [37].

4.3.2. Gender Distribution of Activities

Gender differences in urban space usage were studied to understand the association between gender and activity type and to show how neighborhood spaces promote gender equality. The results are shown in Table 6 and

Table 7. Distribution of activities between males and females of all ages. Source: authors.

	W	St	T	B	C	F	Cl	Si
Female	631	748	781	282	21	13	145	278
Male	964	1032	856	321	121	117	98	286

(W) represents walking, (St) represents standing/staying, (T) represents talking (conversation), (R) represents running, (B) buying goods, (C) represents cycling, (G) represents gardening, (F) represents fixing/washing cars, (Cl) represents cleaning/washing front door areas, (P) represents playing, and (Pg) represents playing as a group.

and reveal an association between gender and activity type. While sitting, talking, cleaning, and buying goods are generally gender-neutral, walking, standing, car repair, and cycling are more gender-specific, with cycling often used for pleasure. There were no statistically significant gender differences between walking and standing in Khabat and Hasarok (Table 7), with the number of females and males participating in these activities being very similar; however, differences were apparent in Chwarchra and Gualn.

4.3.3. Age of the Users

A total of 7134 people, including children under the age of 9 years, were actively involved in this study. A test of normality (p > 0.05 based on the Shapiro–Wilk test followed by ANOVA) was used to compare age categories, showing highly significant differences between age groups since the F-test = 10.768 p (< 0.001 **) H.S. When considering the overall number of users in each age group (

Table 8. Age of the users. Source: authors.

	Children, (Up to 9 Years Old)	Teenagers (Aged 10–17 Years)	Young Adults (Aged 18–44 Years)	Senior Adults (Aged 45–69)	Elderly People (Aged Above 70 Years)	Total
Hasarok	968	152	352	132	46	1650
Khabat	1312	202	630	251	140	2535
Gulan	602	118	648	89	87	1544
Chwarchra	417	143	531	222	92	1405
Total	3299	615	2161	694	365	7134

F-test = 10.768 ** Significant at level p < 0.01.

), children constituted the largest proportion of individuals participating in activities in the neighborhoods, accounting for over 46% of activities, while the elderly were the least represented. The absence of elderly individuals in urban spaces suggests that these urban areas are not well suited for the elderly population since they fail to respond to their fundamental requirements, such as facilitating social interactions and easy movement; therefore, there is an urgent need to provide outdoor spaces in neighborhoods that are age-friendly [21,40,57]. In general, there was no significant difference between the number of adults and children taking part in activities; however, there was a notable difference in the population of teenagers compared to the number of elderly individuals, i.e., they were about equal in number.

In Figure 21, it is evident that Khabat, which lacks a playground or open area for children to play, has the largest number of children; this is closely followed by Hasarok. Although Chwarchra has a modern street plan and open spaces, it has a significantly low population of children, similar to Gulan. The level of safety experienced by children [58] in the neighborhoods of Khabat and Hasarok is probably comparatively higher than in the other areas; this should be studied further in the future. In general, the spaces are more suited to children and adults while being less appealing to teenagers and the elderly.

5. Conclusions

This study investigated the spatiality of outdoor social activities in the urban spaces of four neighborhoods in Erbil City with varying urban tissue patterns and was motivated by increasing recognition of urban form characteristics serving as significant facilitators of outdoor social activities, which can be either facilitated or hindered. The study was also motivated by the limited understanding of the spatial distribution, typology, age, and gender association of outdoor social activities in urban spaces. The findings of this research provide a further understanding of how different urban form tissues can accommodate outdoor social activities, representing the most tangible aspect of outdoor social interaction, which is considered a dimension of social sustainability.

Four case studies were selected from Erbil City neighborhoods built in different eras, representing diverse urban tissue patterns, physical form features, land use, and street layouts. An observation-based methodology was used to collect data for 3565 activities and 7134 people, and ArcGIS and the Kernel density geoprocessing tool were used for data analysis to determine spatial distributions and identify centers of formation of activities across urban spaces. SPSS statistics were used for statistical and cluster analysis.

The study proposed a conceptual framework of the “social context of outdoor activities” consisting of three main components—physical form features, activity or use, and users—to analyze outdoor social activities in neighborhood urban spaces, which are defined as areas within neighborhoods that are available to users via publicly accessible routes. Each component comprises a group of indicators drawn from the literature, prior social sustainability conceptual frameworks, and observations of case studies to add locality significance to the conceptual framework.

The study concluded that the highest density of activities did not register in contemporary areas. Despite narrow streets, low connectivity, and a lack of open spaces, more activities were found to occur in older neighborhoods with long parallel urban block tissue, followed by neighborhoods with traditional organic urban tissue. The mapping and clustering of outdoor social activities indicated walking (cluster 1), which requires accessible spaces, as the primary activity, consistent with modern urban areas with strong connectivity and interlocking structures, indicating that neighborhood spaces primarily facilitate mobility and movement. This finding highlights the positive impact of accessibility and geometric measures of connectivity on pedestrian volume and the presence of different users for social interaction. Activities that require a longer duration, such as those in clusters 2, 3, and 4 (including standing, talking, and sitting), were registered in older cases (regions) with lower connectivity and higher privacy in organic urban tissue. Fewer task-oriented activities were observed across all case studies.

A clear and strong correlation exists between land use and outdoor social activities: higher centers of formation of activities were observed in areas with concentrated mixed land use, both on major roads surrounding neighborhoods and in central locations in an organic urban tissue. Mixed land use may be suggested as a viable strategy for enhancing urban life in urban space. One could contend that mixed land use may facilitate greater social interaction in urban spaces than street types, thereby aligning this debate with the socially desired urban form.

Regarding possible users’ genders, a quantitative analysis showed differences between women and men, with significant differences regarding gender and the use of spaces in all neighborhoods. There was a notable disparity between genders in modern neighborhoods, with males forming 60% of the total user population in neighborhoods with segregated and integrated interlocking block patterns. An equal presence of males and females was observed in older areas, and tissue patterns made up of organic arrangements and long parallel blocks created corridors with no networks in urban spaces, indicating female presence in spaces with less connectivity and greater privacy; thus, fewer females were attracted to open spaces.

When considering users’ age, neighborhoods were predominantly populated by children, while the elderly were the least represented; there were no significant differences in the number of adults participating in activities. The absence of elderly individuals in urban spaces suggests that these urban areas are not well suited for the elderly population. In general, contemporary urban forms are more gender-oriented than older cases.

In terms of practical implications, this study identified areas of concern regarding changes in urban form in relation to users’ outdoor social interactions; thus, it provides planners and urban designers with evidence-based information to consider the fundamental advantages of traditional urban forms that can enhance modern planning and design techniques and facilitate the creation of communities that are more socially sustainable.

The theoretical implications of this study lie in its comprehensive analysis of the precise components of urban form that influence the intensity, density, typology, gender, and number of users of outdoor social spaces. The study enriches the current literature on urban planning, concentrating on the spatiality of outdoor social activities by integrating intersubjective and objective spatiality, thus, offering comprehensive knowledge of the built environment’s influence on socially desired urban form characteristics.

This study provides valuable insights into outdoor activities and a better understanding of urban life. To further refine the findings, an improved approach, including a larger number of case studies, interviews, surveys, and observations, should be conducted; seasonal fluctuations in climatic conditions and social demographic characteristics should also be accounted for. Gender distribution in outdoor activities is crucial, as differences may reflect social and cultural norms rather than physical environment characteristics. A comprehensive analysis of social and cultural factors is needed for further studies to consider both physical and social aspects. Further studies can be conducted to establish a causal link between urban forms and social activities, considering social, economic, and cultural factors to explore external factors for comprehensive causal mechanisms, ensuring correlational relationships.