Assessing the Spatial Equity and Quality of Urban Green Spaces in Riyadh with International and National Benchmarks: A GIS-Based and User Perception Analysis

Abstract

The Saudi Green Initiative (SGI) represents a major national effort to enhance environmental sustainability and urban livability in Saudi Arabia. Despite its ambitious targets, limited empirical research has evaluated its spatial performance and social impacts. This study assesses the progress of SGI implementation in Riyadh by examining the spatial distribution, accessibility, and equity of urban green spaces (UGS), alongside residents’ perceptions of their quality. A mixed-methods approach was adopted, integrating Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based spatial analysis with a structured survey of 180 residents. Spatial indicators were evaluated against the World Health Organization (WHO) benchmark of 9 m² per capita and the SGI target of 28 m² per capita. The results reveal that although total green space has increased between 2018 and 2024, its distribution remains uneven, with high-density neighborhoods consistently falling below recommended standards. Survey findings indicate high satisfaction with recreational and environmental benefits, but lower satisfaction with facilities and public engagement. The study highlights that increasing total green space alone does not ensure equitable access and emphasizes the need for population-sensitive planning strategies. These findings provide practical insights for improving the spatial equity and effectiveness of urban greening initiatives and contribute to broader sustainable urban development goals.

1. Introduction

UGS are increasingly recognized as vital assets in mitigating the negative health and environmental consequences of rapid urbanization. They provide multiple economic, environmental, and social benefits, acting as essential urban infrastructure that improves air quality, enhances biodiversity, and fosters social well-being [1]. UGS offer opportunities for recreation, relaxation, and community interaction, thereby promoting physical activity, mental restoration, and a sense of connection to nature [2]. The effectiveness of UGS depends on both objective attributes such as tree canopy coverage, pathways, and seating facilities and subjective qualities, including emotional attachment, cultural relevance, and spiritual connections to the natural environment [3].

Existing studies on UGS equity have primarily focused on temperate urban environments and frequently evaluate spatial accessibility or resident perception independently [4,5,6,7]. Limited research has integrated GIS-based spatial equity analysis with perception-based evaluation within rapidly urbanizing arid cities undergoing large-scale greening transformations. Furthermore, few empirical studies have examined how national greening initiatives contribute to environmental justice, neighborhood-scale accessibility, and spatial equity within Gulf-region metropolitan contexts. This study addresses these gaps by integrating objective spatial assessment with resident perception analysis to evaluate the distributive and experiential dimensions of UGS equity in Riyadh under the SGI.

Saudi Arabia has increasingly positioned environmental sustainability and urban livability as central priorities within its national development agenda under Saudi Vision 2030. Through the SGI and the Quality of Life Program, the Kingdom has launched large-scale urban greening projects aimed at increasing vegetation coverage, improving environmental quality, enhancing public health, and strengthening climate resilience across major cities [8]. These initiatives represent major urban greening interventions within rapidly urbanizing arid environments, where improving environmental quality, accessibility, and urban livability has become increasingly important.

Despite the significance of these initiatives, important research gaps remain regarding the implementation outcomes, spatial equity implications, and social impacts of the SGI. Although official reports highlight the scale of planned interventions, limited empirical evidence exists regarding how urban green infrastructure is spatially distributed, accessed, and experienced by residents in Riyadh. Understanding these spatial and experiential dimensions is essential for evaluating whether large-scale greening initiatives contribute not only to increasing total green coverage, but also to improving equitable urban livability and quality of life.

This study contributes to the growing literature on urban green space equity by integrating GIS-based spatial assessment with resident perception analysis within the context of a large-scale national greening initiative. Unlike studies relying solely on per capita green space indicators, this research combines spatial availability, accessibility, and neighborhood-level equity analysis with residents’ evaluations of environmental and social benefits. The study also contributes empirical evidence from Riyadh as a representative arid metropolitan context undergoing rapid urban transformation under the SGI.

Accordingly, the aim of this study is to evaluate the spatial equity and perceived quality of urban green spaces in Riyadh within the Saudi Green Initiative and WHO benchmark. To achieve this aim, the study pursues the following objectives:

• To evaluate the availability, distribution, and accessibility of urban green spaces in Riyadh using GIS-based indicators;
• To assess the spatial distribution and equity of UGS with international (WHO) and national (SGI) benchmarks in order to identify gaps and inform policy priorities.
• To analyse residents’ perceptions of green space quality and associated social and environmental benefits.

To address these objectives, the study adopts a multidimensional approach that integrates GIS-based spatial analysis with public perception surveys. This approach enables the examination of green space distribution alongside an assessment of user satisfaction. The findings are intended to identify spatial inequalities, accessibility patterns, and resident perceptions associated with urban greening initiatives in Riyadh while providing evidence-based insight into equitable urban green infrastructure planning. Ultimately, the study contributes to broader discussions on environmental justice, urban livability, and equitable green infrastructure planning within rapidly urbanizing arid cities.

2. Literature Review

Urban Justice Theory provides an important conceptual framework for understanding the equitable distribution of urban resources, services, and environmental benefits across different social and spatial groups within cities [9]. Rooted in the broader principles of social justice and environmental justice, urban justice emphasizes that all residents should have fair access to essential urban infrastructure, including housing, transportation, public services, and urban green spaces, regardless of socio-economic status or geographic location [10]. In recent years, urban justice theory has increasingly been applied in urban green space research to examine issues of spatial equity, accessibility, and environmental inequality. Studies have demonstrated that green spaces are often unevenly distributed, with affluent or low-density neighborhoods receiving greater environmental amenities compared to densely populated or marginalized urban areas [11,12,13,14].

Globally, UGS are recognized as a cornerstone of sustainable urban development, reflected in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11.7, which calls for universal access to safe, inclusive, and accessible green and public spaces by 2030. Equitable access to well-designed green infrastructure not only enhances environmental quality but also strengthens urban resilience and social inclusion [15]. In arid and semi-arid regions, however, maintaining UGS presents unique challenges due to harsh climatic conditions, water scarcity, and rapid urban expansion. These challenges are particularly relevant in Saudi Arabia, where urbanization and population growth have intensified environmental pressures on natural ecosystems [16].

Empirical studies consistently demonstrate that regular interaction with nature can reduce stress, enhance mental health, and improve life satisfaction [17,18,19]. Based on the literature review, several complementary dimensions and indicators were identified to evaluate UGS quality and residents’ satisfaction, as summarized in

Table 1. Dimensions and Indicators Used for Evaluating UGS Quality and User Satisfaction.

Dimension	Conceptual Definition	Key Indicators	Relevance to Spatial Equity and User Satisfaction	Supporting References
Accessibility	Refers to the ease with which residents can reach and utilize urban green spaces, emphasizing spatial proximity, connectivity, and walkability. Accessibility is influenced not only by distance, but also by pedestrian networks, physical barriers, and microclimatic comfort.	Walking distance, connectivity, pedestrian accessibility, service coverage	Accessibility is a critical determinant of urban livability and environmental justice because equitable green space provision depends on residents’ ability to physically access green infrastructure within reasonable walking distances.	[14,20,21,22,23]
Availability	Denotes the presence, adequacy, and spatial distribution of green spaces within the urban fabric. Availability reflects whether neighborhoods have equitable access to sufficient green infrastructure relative to population demand.	Green space per capita, spatial distribution, neighborhood provision	Availability is directly associated with environmental equity and spatial justice principles. WHO guidelines recommend a minimum of 9 m2 of green space per capita to support healthy urban environments.	[7,22]
Quality of Green Spaces	Encompasses the physical and functional characteristics of urban green spaces, including maintenance, cleanliness, shading, aesthetics, safety, and availability of amenities.	Maintenance, cleanliness, shading, seating, safety, facilities	Functional and aesthetic quality strongly influence user satisfaction, comfort, usability, and long-term utilization of urban green spaces, particularly in hot-climate urban environments.	[23,24]
Environmental Dimension	Captures residents’ perceptions of ecological and environmental benefits associated with urban greening initiatives.	Temperature reduction, greenery expansion, environmental comfort	In arid cities, vegetation contributes significantly to improving thermal comfort, environmental quality, and urban microclimatic conditions.	[25,26]
Social and Psychological Benefits	Refers to the recreational, psychological, and social benefits associated with access to urban green spaces.	Recreation, relaxation, social interaction, well-being	Interaction with nature contributes to stress reduction, improved mental health, social cohesion, and overall life satisfaction. Urban green spaces also function as important community-building environments.	[27,28]

.

Over the past few decades, Riyadh City, the capital and largest metropolitan area of Saudi Arabia, has experienced rapid urban expansion, resulting in vegetation loss, increased land surface temperatures, and declining air quality, all of which pose significant challenges to urban livability [29]. In response, the Saudi government launched the SGI in 2021 as part of Saudi Vision 2030, a national transformation plan that integrates environmental sustainability, climate resilience, and quality of life objectives. The SGI aims to plant 10 billion trees nationwide, expand vegetation cover, reduce carbon emissions by 278 million tons annually, and protect 30% of Saudi Arabia’s terrestrial and marine environments. Within this national framework, the Green Riyadh Project serves as a flagship urban greening initiative targeting the planting of 7.5 million trees and the expansion of public parks and green infrastructure across Riyadh. According to official SGI and Vision 2030 documents, Riyadh aims to increase green space provision from 1.7 m² to 28 m² per capita by 2030. These initiatives are intended to improve urban sustainability, environmental quality, and livability in Riyadh while supporting the city’s long-term transformation into a more sustainable and resilient metropolitan environment, aligning with SDG 11 and SDG 13 [30,31].

The Green Riyadh Project represents one of the major urban greening initiatives implemented under the SGI and Saudi Vision 2030 frameworks. The project aims to increase per capita green space provision and expand urban green coverage through large-scale tree planting across public spaces, urban corridors, and residential districts throughout Riyadh. Irrigation is primarily planned through the use of reclaimed water systems, while the expansion of vegetation coverage is expected to contribute to improving environmental quality, reducing urban temperatures, and enhancing outdoor livability within the city [32].

In the context of monitoring progress toward the SDGs and Saudi Vision 2030, GIS can be used to support green infrastructure planning and assessment by integrating spatial data to map, evaluate, and identify suitable areas for urban green spaces. GIS-based analysis has become an important tool for evaluating urban green infrastructure distribution, accessibility, and spatial equity by integrating demographic, environmental, and land-use data within urban planning frameworks [33].

Figure 1 illustrates the planned distribution of major green infrastructure initiatives within Riyadh under the Green Riyadh Project. As part of the broader Green Riyadh Project under the Saudi Green Initiative and Vision 2030 framework, the King Salman Park Project was launched in 2019 as one of Riyadh’s largest urban greening initiatives. King Salman Park was launched in 2019 as a major urban greening project within Riyadh’s broader environmental transformation strategy [34].

3. Dataset and Study Area

Figure 2 shows the study area of Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia, showing the administrative boundaries of the neighborhoods analyzed in this study.

To evaluate the spatial distribution, accessibility, and socio-environmental dimensions of urban green infrastructure in Riyadh, the study utilized a combination of GIS-based datasets and perception survey data. Spatial analysis was performed using ArcGIS Pro 3.6 to map the green cover and spatial distribution patterns and per capita accessibility to green space.

Table 2. Datasets Used for Spatial Analysis of Green Riyadh.

Dataset Component	Description	Data Source	Purpose of Use
Administrative Boundaries	Shapefile of Riyadh’s city and district boundaries.	General Authority for Statistics (GASTAT)	To define spatial units and ensure data alignment.
Green Space Locations and Sizes	Shapefiles with Georeferenced data of public green areas.	Green Riyadh Project	To map spatial availability, distribution and accessibility of green spaces.
Population Count/Density	Population data of neighborhoods.	General Authority for Statistics (GASTAT) And Green Riyadh Project	To calculate green space per capita and assess spatial equity.

summarizes the main datasets used for the geospatial analysis. User satisfaction was assessed through multiple key indicators extracted from literature, each reflecting a component of SGI progress as shown in

Table 3. Dataset Components for Assessing Users’ Satisfaction with SGI Progress in Riyadh.

Satisfaction Dimension	Indicators	Data Type/Scale	Purpose of Measurement
Accessibility	Walking distance, connectivity, and ease of access to a nearby green area	Five-point Likert scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high level of satisfaction)	To assess the perceived spatial accessibility and inclusivity
Availability	Number and distribution of green spaces in each district		To measure perceived sufficiency of green spaces and urban equity
Quality of Green Spaces	Maintenance, cleanliness, shading, seating, and facilities		To evaluate satisfaction with functional and aesthetic qualities
Environmental Impact	Temperature reduction, and greenery expansion		To assess perceived environmental performance of the SGI
Social and Psychological Benefits	Recreation, relaxation, social interaction, and well-being		To analyse the social value and well-being outcomes of SGI initiatives
Awareness and Engagement	Knowledge of SGI goals, visibility of projects, and participation		To evaluate how well residents understand and support the SGI implementation

.

4. Materials and Methods

This study adopts a mixed-methods framework integrating Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based spatial analysis with resident perception assessment to evaluate the spatial equity, accessibility, and quality of UGS in Riyadh. The integration of quantitative spatial analysis with perception-based evaluation enables a more comprehensive understanding of urban greening outcomes by combining objective measurements of green space provision with subjective assessments of user experience and environmental satisfaction.

The methodological contribution of this study lies in integrating GIS-based spatial equity assessment, benchmark comparison, and public perception analysis within the context of a rapidly urbanizing arid city undergoing large-scale greening transformation under the SGI. By combining objective and subjective dimensions of urban green space evaluation, the study provides a multidimensional framework for assessing the effectiveness and inclusiveness of urban greening initiatives. This study aims to evaluate the spatial equity, availability, accessibility, and perceived quality of urban green spaces in Riyadh within the context of the SGI and the World Health Organization (WHO) benchmark. To achieve this aim, the methodological framework illustrated in Figure 3 was structured into three interrelated phases.

The first phase established the conceptual and analytical framework of the study through a comprehensive literature review and identification of measurable indicators commonly used in urban green space and environmental equity research. This phase also defined the research objectives and evaluation dimensions, including accessibility, availability, quality, environmental benefits, and social satisfaction indicators.

The second phase focused on spatial analysis of green space coverage, distribution, and accessibility using ArcGIS Pro 3.6. GIS-based mapping techniques were employed to examine spatial proximity, service coverage, availability, and neighborhood-level distribution patterns in order to evaluate equity in green space provision. Accessibility was assessed using 500 m service buffers as an operational indicator of walkable access commonly applied in urban green space planning and accessibility studies. Several studies conducted in Saudi Arabia and similar hot-arid urban environments have identified approximately 500 m as an appropriate neighborhood-scale walking threshold under local climatic and urban conditions [14,35,36]. Accordingly, the threshold was adopted in this study to provide a standardized basis for evaluating potential spatial accessibility and neighborhood-level service coverage across Riyadh.

To evaluate spatial equity and neighborhood-level green space provision, this study adopted both international and national benchmark standards within the GIS-based analysis framework. WHO’s benchmark of 9 m² of urban green space per capita was used as an internationally recognized minimum standard for supporting healthy urban environments, environmental quality, and public well-being. This benchmark is widely applied in urban planning and green infrastructure studies to assess the adequacy and equity of urban green space distribution. In addition, the SGI target of 28 m² of green space per capita by 2030 was adopted as the national benchmark aligned with Saudi Vision 2030 and Riyadh’s long-term sustainability and urban livability objectives. These benchmarks were integrated into the spatial analysis to evaluate neighborhood performance and identify disparities in green space provision across Riyadh.

In this study, spatial equity is conceptualized as the fair distribution, accessibility, and usability of urban green spaces across neighborhoods with different population densities. Spatial equity is therefore evaluated through multiple complementary dimensions rather than a single indicator. Green space per capita measures the adequacy of green infrastructure relative to population demand, Green Area Ratio (GAR) reflects the physical allocation and intensity of green land within the urban fabric, while accessibility analysis evaluates residents’ potential walkable access to urban green spaces. Together, these indicators provide a multidimensional assessment of urban green space equity within Riyadh’s rapidly urbanizing and environmentally constrained urban context.

A structured questionnaire survey was conducted among residents of Riyadh between June and November 2025 using an online platform (Google Forms). The questionnaire was designed to evaluate residents’ perceptions of urban green spaces across multiple dimensions, including accessibility, availability, quality, environmental benefits, social and psychological benefits, and awareness of SGI initiatives. Responses were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).

A non-probability convenience sampling approach was adopted due to accessibility and time constraints, targeting residents from different districts across Riyadh. The questionnaire was distributed through social media platforms and community networks to obtain a geographically diverse sample. A total of 180 valid responses were collected. While the survey provides useful insights into residents’ perceptions and experiences, the sample may not fully represent the entire population of Riyadh, which is acknowledged as a limitation of the study.

Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary, and all responses were collected anonymously. Respondents were informed about the purpose of the study, and no personal identifying information was recorded, ensuring confidentiality and compliance with ethical research standards. Descriptive statistical analysis, including weighted mean, standard deviation, Relative Importance Index (RII), and ranking analysis, was conducted using Microsoft Excel to identify the most influential satisfaction dimensions and indicators. Reliability analysis was performed using Cronbach’s Alpha to assess the internal consistency of the survey instrument. Inferential statistical analysis was further conducted to examine relationships and differences among perception variables and demographic groups. Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate relationships between satisfaction dimensions, while one-way ANOVA, one-sample t-tests, and independent samples t-tests were applied to examine variations in residents’ perceptions across demographic categories.

In the final phase, findings from the GIS analysis and user perception survey were integrated to provide a comprehensive evaluation of urban green space equity and perceived effectiveness of SGI-related greening initiatives. This triangulated approach strengthened the analytical framework by linking spatial evidence with residents’ lived experiences and perceptions.

5. Results

This section presents the main findings of the study in relation to the spatial and perceptual dimensions of urban green spaces in Riyadh. The results summarize the current patterns of provision, accessibility, and equity, together with residents’ evaluations of green space quality and associated benefits.

5.1. Spatial Analysis

According to the data provided by GASTAT illustrated in Figure 4, from 2018 to 2024, Riyadh experienced steady growth in urban green areas between 2018 and 2024, particularly in the expansion of gardens and parks from 15 to 18 km², while total green space increased from 32 to 38 km², reflecting ongoing SGI-related greening efforts. The gradual growth highlights the need to accelerate expansion and focus on spatial equity to meet per capita targets.

The population distribution in Riyadh exhibits a heterogeneous spatial structure, with significant variation among neighborhoods. As illustrated in Figure 5A,B, the highest population concentrations occur in the central and southwestern areas, characterized by compact urban forms and dense residential patterns. Moderate population levels are observed in the western and southeastern sectors, reflecting transitional urban expansion. In contrast, the northern and northeastern parts of the city show low population densities and scattered settlement patterns, indicating recent development or undeveloped land.

As shown in Figure 6A, the spatial availability and distribution of green spaces in Riyadh show considerable variation across neighborhoods. The central urban area contains numerous small to medium-sized green spaces embedded within the built environment, creating a relatively continuous but fragmented pattern. In contrast, northern and northeastern districts exhibit sparse and isolated green patches with limited coverage. Southern and southwestern areas contain several large contiguous green spaces, forming prominent clusters distinct from the finer distribution observed in the city center.

Figure 6B presents the spatial coverage of 500 m service buffers generated around existing green spaces to represent potential walkable accessibility. The buffered areas form an irregular coverage pattern across the city. The most continuous coverage occurs in the central urban belt, where overlapping buffers create broad zones of accessibility due to the high density of green spaces. In contrast, large unbuffered areas appear in the northern and northeastern districts, indicating substantial gaps in green space service coverage.

Figure 7A shows the spatial distribution of total green space area across Riyadh’s neighborhoods. The largest green space areas (above ~1.5 million m² and up to 9.1 million m²) are concentrated in the western and southwestern sectors, where large contiguous green zones dominate. Moderate green space totals (approximately 456,519–1,531,787 m²) occur mainly in central and southern neighborhoods and appear as fragmented medium-sized patches. In contrast, many neighborhoods in the central, northern, and northeastern parts of the city fall within the lowest green space categories (0–102,698 m²), where green areas are limited and scattered.

Figure 7B presents the spatial variation in per capita green space availability. The highest values (above 234 m² per capita, reaching up to 2469 m² per capita) are located primarily in the western and southwestern neighborhoods, where relatively fewer residents share large green land resources. Moderate levels (21–62 m² per capita) occur in several central and southern neighborhoods, indicating more balanced relationships between population and green space. In contrast, the lowest per capita values (below 6 m² per capita) are concentrated in the northern, northeastern, and far southern districts, where large populations share limited green land.

Table A1. Neighborhood-Level Green Infrastructure Performance Analysis.

NO	Neighborhood Name	Neighborhood Area	Population	Total Green Area (m2)	Green Area Ratio (%)	Green Space per Capita (m2)	WHO Achievement Level Toward (9 m2 per Capita)	SGI Achievement Level Toward (28 m2 per Capita)	How Much Green Space (m2) Should be to Achieve SGI Target	Required Green Space (m2) to Achieve SGI Target	Required Green Space (m2) per Capita to Achieve SGI Target	SGI Achievement (%)
1	AR-RAHMANIYAH	3,743,823.435	14,600	214,114.72	5.72	14.67	Adequate	Transitional	408,800	194,685.28	13.33	52.4
2	UTAYQAH	1,895,925.056	28,975	99,937.05	5.27	3.45	Inequitable	Deficit	811,300	711,362.95	24.55	12.3
3	AL-FUTAH	1,114,624.199	15,526	129,518.00	11.62	8.34	Inequitable	Deficit	434,728	305,210.00	19.66	29.8
4	AL-MUANISIYAH	16,506,479.29	130,215	680,738.52	4.12	5.23	Inequitable	Deficit	3,646,020	2,965,281.48	22.77	18.7
5	AL-KHUZAMA	4,266,727.878	8936	1,029,799.93	24.14	115.24	Adequate	Achieved	250,208	-	-	411.6
6	AD-DIRAH	1,576,062.841	22,125	141,783.99	9.00	6.41	Inequitable	Deficit	619,500	477,716.01	21.59	22.9
7	SALAM	363,159.7795	102	251,837.33	69.35	2468.99	Adequate	Achieved	2856	-	-	8817.8
8	Al Shohlah	37,075,478.95	50<	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	1400	1400.00	28.00	0.0
9	AL-MANAKH	18,177,660.39	25,114	778,827.98	4.28	31.01	Adequate	Achieved	703,192	-	-	110.8
10	AL-MARGAB	894,762.7945	27,452	62,139.87	6.94	2.26	Inequitable	Deficit	768,656	706,516.13	25.74	8.1
11	AL-MALAZ	8,743,129.246	93,066	1,202,268.20	13.75	12.92	Adequate	Transitional	2,605,848	1,403,579.80	15.08	46.1
12	AL-MASANI	19,088,820.45	14,321	7,767,922.64	40.69	542.41	Adequate	Achieved	400,988	-	-	1937.2
13	ORAID	159,901,168.3	899	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	25,172	25,172.00	28.00	0.0
14	Al Rayah	13,677,240.97	50<	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	1400	1400.00	28.00	0.0
15	SHUBRA	4,670,779.521	39,342	279,236.73	5.98	7.10	Inequitable	Deficit	1,101,576	822,339.27	20.90	25.3
16	AS-SINAIYAH	5,500,797.212	13,007	123,638.18	2.25	9.51	Adequate	Transitional	364,196	240,557.82	18.49	33.9
17	AL-FAKHIRIYAH	1,859,209.795	6897	61,604.12	3.31	8.93	Inequitable	Deficit	193,116	131,511.88	19.07	31.9
18	AD-DIFAA	6,988,705.605	11,288	199,662.23	2.86	17.69	Adequate	Transitional	316,064	116,401.77	10.31	63.2
19	OHOD	6,933,456.529	20,287	81,912.85	1.18	4.04	Inequitable	Deficit	568,036	486,123.15	23.96	14.4
20	MANFUHA AL-JADEEDAH	1,915,945.485	51,221	178,186.75	9.30	3.48	Inequitable	Deficit	1,434,188	1,256,001.25	24.52	12.4
21	Al Ola	49,963,381.41	50<	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	1400	1400.00	28.00	0.0
22	AL-URAIJA	4,417,605.215	9146	1,513,916.25	34.27	165.53	Adequate	Achieved	256,088	-	-	591.2
23	EAST AN-NASEEM	13,694,442.74	139,943	828,840.08	6.05	5.92	Inequitable	Deficit	3,918,404	3,089,563.92	22.08	21.2
24	AL-KHALIDIAH	3,843,365.126	58,269	313,057.01	8.15	5.37	Inequitable	Deficit	1,631,532	1,318,474.99	22.63	19.2
25	EAST UMM AL-HAMAM	3,125,609.602	34,372	126,031.67	4.03	3.67	Inequitable	Deficit	962,416	836,384.33	24.33	13.1
26	AL-YAMAMAH	2,691,568.481	38,382	132,996.76	4.94	3.47	Inequitable	Deficit	1,074,696	941,699.24	24.53	12.4
27	AZ-ZAHRAA	1,747,828.923	18,684	175,821.19	10.06	9.41	Adequate	Transitional	523,152	347,330.81	18.59	33.6
28	AD-DOBBAT	2,311,898.502	22,453	372,685.20	16.12	16.60	Adequate	Transitional	628,684	255,998.80	11.40	59.3
29	SIYAH	912,537.1255	2756	645,259.90	70.71	234.13	Adequate	Achieved	77,168	-	-	836.2
30	AL-MUROOJ	4,721,753.458	39,391	469,205.35	9.94	11.91	Adequate	Transitional	1,102,948	633,742.65	16.09	42.5
31	AL-JANADRIYAH	76,925,179.72	70,875	387,719.35	0.50	5.47	Inequitable	Deficit	1,984,500	1,596,780.65	22.53	19.5
32	KHASHM AL ANN	128,200,845.4	35,362	346,148.01	0.27	9.79	Adequate	Transitional	990,136	643,987.99	18.21	35.0
33	AN-NAHDAH	10,737,617.68	99,091	553,210.48	5.15	5.58	Inequitable	Deficit	2,774,548	2,221,337.52	22.42	19.9
34	SULTANAH	2,552,918.815	23,951	973,893.51	38.15	40.66	Adequate	Achieved	670,628	-	-	145.2
35	AL-QURA	44,162.08969	195	6852.82	15.52	35.14	Adequate	Achieved	5460	-	-	125.5
36	KING SAUD UNIVERSITY	9,835,435.119	15,164	97,592.45	0.99	6.44	Inequitable	Deficit	424,592	326,999.55	21.56	23.0
37	AL-JARRADIYAH	1,330,362.383	24,858	227,038.31	17.07	9.13	Adequate	Transitional	696,024	468,985.69	18.87	32.6
38	AD-DAHOU	81,498.28	494	2459.66	3.02	4.98	Inequitable	Deficit	13,832	11,372.34	23.02	17.8
39	AL-WOROUD	4,465,076.873	39,241	343,983.86	7.70	8.77	Inequitable	Deficit	1,098,748	754,764.14	19.23	31.3
40	QURTUBAH	14,057,613.62	87,548	938,541.70	6.68	10.72	Adequate	Transitional	2,451,344	1,512,802.30	17.28	38.3
41	WEST AN-NASEEM	12,656,423.84	159,949	579,538.40	4.58	3.62	Inequitable	Deficit	4,478,572	3,899,033.60	24.38	12.9
42	AL-AZIZIYAH	20,775,206.65	175,897	913,766.24	4.40	5.19	Inequitable	Deficit	4,925,116	4,011,349.76	22.81	18.6
43	AS-SAFARAT	7,669,846.019	5558	2,441,356.46	31.83	439.25	Adequate	Achieved	155,624		-	1568.8
44	AL-MASHAEL	31,727,304.18	21,117	257,167.91	0.81	12.18	Adequate	Transitional	591,276	334,108.09	15.82	43.5
45	AL- NADWAH	4,093,886.784	43,383	199,997.61	4.89	4.61	Inequitable	Deficit	1,214,724	1,014,726.39	23.39	16.5
46	AR-RABI	5,657,812.253	35,054	370,160.67	6.54	10.56	Adequate	Transitional	981,512	611,351.33	17.44	37.7
47	AL-AOUD	2,116,208.624	25,580	94,053.32	4.44	3.68	Inequitable	Deficit	716,240	622,186.68	24.32	13.1
48	KING FAHD	4,820,309.272	34,511	342,107.80	7.10	9.91	Adequate	Transitional	966,308	624,200.20	18.09	35.4
49	ASH-SHOHDA	4,007,070.31	29,591	398,420.17	9.94	13.46	Adequate	Transitional	828,548	430,127.83	14.54	48.1
50	OKAZ	16,152,629.74	38,410	224,090.05	1.39	5.83	Inequitable	Deficit	1,075,480	851,389.95	22.17	20.8
51	AN-NADHEEM	150,564,903.5	120,695	480,310.23	0.32	3.98	Inequitable	Deficit	3,379,460	2,899,149.77	24.02	14.2
52	AL-JAZEERAH	8,822,331.615	39,842	1,208,257.30	13.70	30.33	Adequate	Achieved	1,115,576	-	-	108.3
53	AD-DUBIYAH	247,885.8052	3862	29,590.07	11.94	7.66	Inequitable	Deficit	108,136	78,545.93	20.34	27.4
54	AL-GHADEER	4,603,822.937	21,308	379,162.79	8.24	17.79	Adequate	Transitional	596,624	217,461.21	10.21	63.6
55	AL-MASEEF	4,020,747.622	42,594	367,621.40	9.14	8.63	Inequitable	Deficit	1,192,632	825,010.60	19.37	30.8
56	AT-TAAWUN	4,012,769.643	49,965	378,731.00	9.44	7.58	Inequitable	Deficit	1,399,020	1,020,289.00	20.42	27.1
57	AS-SAFA	5,357,535.188	6442	168,947.04	3.15	26.23	Adequate	Transitional	180,376	11,428.96	1.77	93.7
58	AL-MANAR	4,133,655.545	26,584	456,517.96	11.04	17.17	Adequate	Transitional	744,352	287,834.04	10.83	61.3
59	AL-MATHAR	3,190,762.239	16,529	863,619.84	27.07	52.25	Adequate	Achieved	462,812	-	-	186.6
60	Al Tadamon	44,569,192.02	50<	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	1400	1400.00	28.00	0.0
61	AL-GHANAMIYAH	8,451,101.12	4684	8750.88	0.10	1.87	Inequitable	Deficit	131,152	122,401.12	26.13	6.7
62	AL-ANDALUS	4,317,257.676	34,630	320,392.07	7.42	9.25	Adequate	Transitional	969,640	649,247.93	18.75	33.0
63	AS-SULAI	34,601,569.22	42,558	317,037.24	0.92	7.45	Inequitable	Deficit	1,191,624	874,586.76	20.55	26.6
64	AL-MALQA	21,849,351.43	87,931	1,323,379.48	6.06	15.05	Adequate	Transitional	2,462,068	1,138,688.52	12.95	53.8
65	WADY LABAN	42,990,046.44	11,867	7628.25	0.02	0.64	Inequitable	Deficit	332,276	324,647.75	27.36	2.3
66	AL-BOTAIHA	83,159.99377	3888	9087.88	10.93	2.34	Inequitable	Deficit	108,864	99,776.12	25.66	8.3
67	AL-EZDIHAR	4,006,177.639	35,507	603,613.13	15.07	17.00	Adequate	Transitional	994,196	390,582.87	11.00	60.7
68	AS-SULAIMANYAH	8,045,324.778	90,252	1,462,881.73	18.18	16.21	Adequate	Transitional	2,527,056	1,064,174.27	11.79	57.9
69	AL-NUZHA	4,099,697.964	27,415	497,221.68	12.13	18.14	Adequate	Transitional	767,620	270,398.32	9.86	64.8
70	NORTH AL-MATHAR	3,838,780.877	15,932	173,592.57	4.52	10.90	Adequate	Transitional	446,096	272,503.43	17.10	38.9
71	NEW INDUSTRIAL CITY	33,671,145.23	10,2196	328,746.46	0.98	3.22	Inequitable	Deficit	2,861,488	2,532,741.54	24.78	11.5
72	AR-RAED	4,997,094.913	9627	204,220.25	4.09	21.21	Adequate	Transitional	269,556	65,335.75	6.79	75.8
73	ASH-SHARAFIYAH	1,571,532.637	13,892	80,666.63	5.13	5.81	Inequitable	Deficit	388,976	308,309.37	22.19	20.7
74	AL-MAHDIYAH	23,667,148.38	37,067	287,965.25	1.22	7.77	Inequitable	Deficit	1,037,876	749,910.75	20.23	27.7
75	AS-SUWAIDI AL-GHARBI	5,450,392.701	42,356	417,391.59	7.66	9.85	Adequate	Transitional	1,185,968	768,576.41	18.15	35.2
76	AS-SALAM	5,619,762.168	50,079	520,579.93	9.26	10.40	Adequate	Transitional	1,402,212	881,632.07	17.60	37.1
77	GHUBAIRA	1,750,821.059	46,140	229,032.68	13.08	4.96	Inequitable	Deficit	1,291,920	1,062,887.32	23.04	17.7
78	AL-WISHAM	1,168,069.105	16,493	55,951.59	4.79	3.39	Inequitable	Deficit	461,804	405,852.41	24.61	12.1
79	Al-Wahah	3,321,937.556	17,254	143,744.82	4.33	8.33	Inequitable	Deficit	483,112	339,367.18	19.67	29.8
80	SKIRINAH	335,464.337	11,461	6522.10	1.94	0.57	Inequitable	Deficit	320,908	314,385.90	27.43	2.0
81	AN-NADA	4,003,110.232	19,017	202,522.75	5.06	10.65	Adequate	Transitional	532,476	329,953.25	17.35	38.0
82	AL-WESITA	139,955.7613	3451	11,720.04	8.37	3.40	Inequitable	Deficit	96,628	84,907.96	24.60	12.1
83	AD-DURAIHEMIYAH	1,686,070.603	12,087	79,297.52	4.70	6.56	Inequitable	Deficit	338,436	259,138.48	21.44	23.4
84	MUGHARAZAT	4,022,772.07	16,460	269,764.23	6.71	16.39	Adequate	Transitional	460,880	191,115.77	11.61	58.5
85	AN-NARJIS	48,826,651.89	82,800	804,505.41	1.65	9.72	Adequate	Transitional	2,318,400	1,513,894.59	18.28	34.7
86	Al Danah	1,2577,707.42	1404	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	39,312	39,312.00	28.00	0.0
87	AR-RAWDAH	8,734,004.46	99,115	897,688.95	10.28	9.06	Adequate	Transitional	2,775,220	1,877,531.05	18.94	32.3
88	AR-RAWABI	7,180,102.694	57,209	1,460,774.07	20.34	25.53	Adequate	Transitional	1,601,852	141,077.93	2.47	91.2
89	Al Risalah	13,440,992.61	50<	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	1400	1400.00	28.00	0.0
90	AL-WADI	3,996,354.146	42,122	307,716.54	7.70	7.31	Inequitable	Deficit	1,179,416	871,699.46	20.69	26.1
91	ASH-SHOMAISI	1,473,443.557	32,090	92,626.98	6.29	2.89	Inequitable	Deficit	898,520	805,893.02	25.11	10.3
92	AN-NAMUTHAJIYAH	2,754,591.779	8127	444,395.98	16.13	54.68	Adequate	Achieved	227,556	-	-	195.3
93	AL-MAIZALIYAH	14,107,332.87	22,592	327,604.09	2.32	14.50	Adequate	Transitional	632,576	304,971.91	13.50	51.8
94	Salah Al-Deen	3,421,723.173	9082	1,182,403.18	34.56	130.19	Adequate	Achieved	254,296	-	-	465.0
95	AL-MARWAH	6,110,265.352	17,743	315,473.85	5.16	17.78	Adequate	Transitional	496,804	181,330.15	10.22	63.5
96	AN-NOOR	8,678,540.46	6279	67,878.77	0.78	10.81	Adequate	Transitional	175,812	107,933.23	17.19	38.6
97	AL-ARID	67,174,632.2	81,528	529,189.64	0.79	6.49	Inequitable	Deficit	22,82,784	1,753,594.36	21.51	23.2
98	AD-DAR AL-BAIDA	15,281,611.25	157,909	477,970.04	3.13	3.03	Inequitable	Deficit	4,421,452	3,943,481.96	24.97	10.8
99	AL-MURABA	4,866,316.871	58,068	771,060.98	15.84	13.28	Adequate	Transitional	1,625,904	854,843.02	14.72	47.4
100	THULAIM	829,632.6781	34,355	40,621.52	4.90	1.18	Inequitable	Deficit	961,940	921,318.48	26.82	4.2
101	AL-KHALEEJ	10,324,693.43	98,961	576,685.05	5.59	5.83	Inequitable	Deficit	2,770,908	2,194,222.95	22.17	20.8
102	AL-HAMRA	8,268,974.363	53,967	894,750.59	10.82	16.58	Adequate	Transitional	1,511,076	616,325.41	11.42	59.2
103	AL-FALAH	3,992,820.514	24,782	467,457.21	11.71	18.86	Adequate	Transitional	693,896	226,438.79	9.14	67.4
104	AL-QADISIYAH	11,781,759.18	58,777	271,563.83	2.30	4.62	Inequitable	Deficit	1,645,756	1,374,192.17	23.38	16.5
105	AS-SAHAFA	7,909,887.688	52,135	627,697.89	7.94	12.04	Adequate	Transitional	1,459,780	832,082.11	15.96	43.0
106	ASH-SHIFA	9,055,629.983	70,513	850,233.60	9.39	12.06	Adequate	Transitional	1,974,364	1,124,130.40	15.94	43.1
107	AS-SALHIYAH	671,845.9209	10,586	53,273.34	7.93	5.03	Inequitable	Deficit	296,408	243,134.66	22.97	18.0
108	AL-MANSURAH (KHANSHALILAH)	5,904,437.346	68,835	769,813.14	13.04	11.18	Adequate	Transitional	1,927,380	1,157,566.86	16.82	39.9
109	Al Fursan	30,369,788.06	138	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	3864	3864.00	28.00	0.0
110	AL-HADA	13,761,911.33	6402	2,098,036.18	15.25	327.72	Adequate	Achieved	179,256	-	-	1170.4
111	AL-NAKHEEL	9,776,101.077	29,547	758,933.13	7.76	25.69	Adequate	Transitional	827,316	68,382.87	2.31	91.7
112	AL-QUDS	5,224,075.777	41,637	506,662.94	9.70	12.17	Adequate	Transitional	1,165,836	659,173.06	15.83	43.5
113	TAYBAH	25,485,989.84	7162	337,217.13	1.32	47.08	Adequate	Achieved	200,536	-	-	168.2
114	AL-FARUQ	5,655,324.544	6100	154,498.94	2.73	25.33	Adequate	Transitional	170,800	16,301.06	2.67	90.5
115	AL-MISFAH	47,223,047.23	6673	156,179.62	0.33	23.40	Adequate	Transitional	186,844	30,664.38	4.60	83.6
116	KING ABDUL AZIZ	16,768,939.16	55,187	431,627.83	2.57	7.82	Inequitable	Deficit	1,545,236	1,113,608.17	20.18	27.9
117	AL-FAIHA	54,06,752.048	58,107	305,976.01	5.66	5.27	Inequitable	Deficit	1,626,996	1,321,019.99	22.73	18.8
118	AL-MUTAMARAT	1,835,485.062	6160	57,754.46	3.15	9.38	Adequate	Transitional	172,480	114,725.54	18.62	33.5
119	AR-RABWAH	11,361,956.84	70,591	1,118,975.40	9.85	15.85	Adequate	Transitional	1,976,548	857,572.60	12.15	56.6
120	DAHIAT NAMAR	134,084,946.1	14,409	254,252.71	0.19	17.65	Adequate	Transitional	403,452	149,199.29	10.35	63.0
121	WEST AL-ORAIJA	16,146,306.48	104,688	852,132.77	5.28	8.14	Inequitable	Deficit	2,931,264	2,079,131.23	19.86	29.1
122	KING ABDULLAH	8,530,804.421	17,697	911,057.40	10.68	51.48	Adequate	Achieved	495,516	-	-	183.9
123	AL-Awaly	16,090,248.23	47,109	900,357.40	5.60	19.11	Adequate	Transitional	1,319,052	418,694.60	8.89	68.3
124	AL-MUHAMMADIYAH	4,253,384.29	21,720	146,509.13	3.44	6.75	Inequitable	Deficit	608,160	461,650.87	21.25	24.1
125	HITTEEN	18,184,546.47	35,795	797,514.69	4.39	22.28	Adequate	Transitional	1,002,260	204,745.31	5.72	79.6
126	AL-YASMEEN	12,718,878.73	107,229	557,647.41	4.38	5.20	Inequitable	Deficit	3,002,412	2,444,764.59	22.80	18.6
127	Al Rihab	20,273,627.96	3260	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	91,280	91,280.00	28.00	0.0
128	DAHRAT AL-BADEAH	7,502,044.011	49,357	2,213,460.99	29.50	44.85	Adequate	Achieved	1,381,996	-	-	160.2
129	AL-QAIRAWAN	75,535,671.4	39,300	730,976.56	0.97	18.60	Adequate	Transitional	1,100,400	369,423.44	9.40	66.4
130	AS-SUWAIDI	6,250,181.728	58,475	1,090,124.42	17.44	18.64	Adequate	Transitional	1,637,300	547,175.58	9.36	66.6
131	AL-AMAL	1,259,524.701	20,513	127,357.77	10.11	6.21	Inequitable	Deficit	574,364	447,006.23	21.79	22.2
132	AL-BADEAH	4,068,930.249	30,180	1,294,968.39	31.83	42.91	Adequate	Achieved	845,040	-	-	153.2
133	Al Nakhbah	43,526,394.58	50<	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	1400	1400.00	28.00	0.0
134	AL-MURSALAT	4,093,835.393	20,338	326,267.61	7.97	16.04	Adequate	Transitional	569,464	243,196.39	11.96	57.3
135	JAREER	2,610,864.56	30,972	227,587.92	8.72	7.35	Inequitable	Deficit	867,216	639,628.08	20.65	26.2
136	MEEKAL	202,820.343	2717	55,197.31	27.21	20.32	Adequate	Transitional	76,076	20,878.69	7.68	72.6
137	AL-FAISALIYAH	9,600,520.203	18,806	291,277.56	3.03	15.49	Adequate	Transitional	526,568	235,290.44	12.51	55.3
138	AL-AQEEK	7,992,306.15	53,471	578,129.88	7.23	10.81	Adequate	Transitional	1,497,188	919,058.12	17.19	38.6
139	AZ-ZAHRA	4,928,672.16	45,834	1,095,013.65	22.22	23.89	Adequate	Transitional	1,283,352	188,338.35	4.11	85.3
140	GHIRNATAH	3,961,346.351	33,304	121,002.01	3.05	3.63	Inequitable	Deficit	932,512	811,509.99	24.37	13.0
141	MANFUHA	2,458,731.552	39,942	102,698.40	4.18	2.57	Inequitable	Deficit	1,118,376	1,015,677.60	25.43	9.2
142	AR-RAYAN	5,959,843.557	38,492	617,025.48	10.35	16.03	Adequate	Transitional	1,077,776	460,750.52	11.97	57.2
143	AL-ISKAN	6,797,588.276	32,566	689,672.14	10.15	21.18	Adequate	Transitional	911,848	222,175.86	6.82	75.6
144	LABAN	22,869,431.25	33,179	6,114,090.35	26.73	184.28	Adequate	Achieved	929,012	-	-	658.1
145	KING FAISAL	5,166,732.855	53,554	399,005.12	7.72	7.45	Inequitable	Deficit	1,499,512	1,100,506.88	20.55	26.6
146	AL-YARMUK	9,186,174.184	100,677	483,384.74	5.26	4.80	Inequitable	Deficit	2,818,956	2,335,571.26	23.20	17.1
147	AN-NASIRIYAH	2,289,027.428	6192	139,164.40	6.08	22.47	Adequate	Transitional	173,376	34,211.60	5.53	80.3
148	Al Zaher	52,410,295.29	344	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	9632	9632.00	28.00	0.0
149	AR-RIMAL	166,520,134.6	141,144	376,140.21	0.23	2.66	Inequitable	Deficit	3,952,032	3,575,891.79	25.34	9.5
150	AL-BARIYAH	39,508,631.14	5418	213,147.61	0.54	39.34	Adequate	Achieved	151,704	-	-	140.5
151	NAMAR	7,737,875.751	17,510	2,764,363.20	35.73	157.87	Adequate	Achieved	490,280	-	-	563.8
152	UMM-SALEEM	915,867.987	23,867	59,120.00	6.46	2.48	Inequitable	Deficit	668,276	609,156.00	25.52	8.8
153	AN-NAFEL	3,990,876.484	49,438	398,843.94	9.99	8.07	Inequitable	Deficit	1,384,264	985,420.06	19.93	28.8
154	AL-WIZARAT	2,290,009.448	65,790	102,442.86	4.47	1.56	Inequitable	Deficit	1,842,120	1,739,677.14	26.44	5.6
155	AL-MANSURIAH	27,113,344.14	2617	543,118.06	2.00	207.53	Adequate	Achieved	73,276	-	-	741.2
156	AL-HAZM	10,696,505.73	58,442	739,180.73	6.91	12.65	Adequate	Transitional	1,636,376	897,195.27	15.35	45.2
157	AL-OLAYA	10,836,379.58	118,753	640,107.93	5.91	5.39	Inequitable	Deficit	3,325,084	2,684,976.07	22.61	19.3
158	DIRAB	14,366,247.55	26,948	215,030.56	1.50	7.98	Inequitable	Deficit	754,544	539,513.44	20.02	28.5
159	BADER	50,871,010.09	116,151	2,675,307.40	5.26	23.03	Adequate	Transitional	3,252,228	576,920.60	4.97	82.3
160	JABRAH	347,221.4759	8142	68,099.96	19.61	8.36	Inequitable	Deficit	227,976	159,876.04	19.64	29.9
161	MIDDLE AL-URAIJA	8,584,736.172	52,233	2,453,227.60	28.58	46.97	Adequate	Achieved	1,462,524	-	-	167.7
162	DAHRAT LABAN	37,384,574.94	237,856	863,513.63	2.31	3.63	Inequitable	Deficit	6,659,968	5,796,454.37	24.37	13.0
163	TWAEEQ	60,390,736.9	282,854	1,531,785.98	2.54	5.42	Inequitable	Deficit	7,919,912	6,388,126.02	22.58	19.3
164	AR-RAFEAH	5,515,257.575	11,518	1,294,977.23	23.48	112.43	Adequate	Achieved	322,504	-	-	401.5
165	ISHBILIYAH	9,382,042.142	96,370	519,959.85	5.54	5.40	Inequitable	Deficit	2,698,360	2,178,400.15	22.60	19.3
166	AL-IMAM MOH-BIN-SAUD ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY	4,602,246.512	6241	387,186.43	8.41	62.04	Adequate	Achieved	174,748	-	-	221.6
167	AR-RIMAYAH	21,496,911.99	13,426	538,846.60	2.51	40.13	Adequate	Achieved	375,928	-	-	143.3
168	Al Mashriq	32,287,719.92	351	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	9828	9828.00	28.00	0.0
169	Al Bayan	16,140,088.47	12,302	19,999.03	0.12	1.63	Inequitable	Deficit	344,456	324,456.97	26.37	5.8
170	Al Marjan	22,413,789.89	1681	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	47,068	47,068.00	28.00	0.0
171	Al Sahab	23,229,456.38	598	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	16,744	16,744.00	28.00	0.0
172	WEST UMM AL HAMAM	3,948,193.296	37,663	685,638.03	17.37	18.20	Adequate	Transitional	1,054,564	368,925.97	9.80	65.0
173	OLAISHAH	2,225,181.051	8150	311,389.53	13.99	38.21	Adequate	Achieved	228,200	-	-	136.5
174	Al Wasam	13,023,009.45	1890	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	52,920	52,920.00	28.00	0.0
175	AS-SAADAH	9,245,962.065	83,187	396,756.20	4.29	4.77	Inequitable	Deficit	2,329,236	1,932,479.80	23.23	17.0
176	BINBAN	125.4715762	10,000	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	280,000	280,000.00	28.00	0.0
177	AL-HAIER	1,916,986.765	14,000	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	392,000	392,000.00	28.00	0.0
178	KING ABDULLAH CITY	5,403,634.488	17,700	589.79	0.01	0.03	Inequitable	Deficit	495,600	495,010.21	27.97	0.1
179	AL-RABIA	121,536,155.5	35,100	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	982,800	982,800.00	28.00	0.0
180	HEET	250,739,346.7	833	0.00	0.00	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit	23,324	23,324.00	28.00	0.0

Note: Red colored cells indicate (Inequitable/Deficit), Yellow colored cells indicate (Transitional), and Green colored cells indicate (Adequate/Achieved).

presents the detailed neighborhood-level green infrastructure assessment across Riyadh. The analysis revealed substantial spatial disparities in green space provision and accessibility, with many densely populated districts remaining below WHO’s benchmark standards despite ongoing citywide greening expansion. The findings further demonstrate that high Green Area Ratio (GAR) values do not necessarily correspond to equitable neighborhood-scale accessibility or balanced population-level provision. The findings identify priority zones where strategic greening initiatives would yield the greatest equity improvements. Based on the analysis, three dominant urban patterns emerge:

• Peripheral abundance vs. central deficit: Low-density or institutional areas exhibit surplus greenery, while established residential districts experience shortages.
• Population pressure as the primary driver of inequity: Per capita indicators decline sharply in high-density neighborhoods regardless of total green area.
• Mismatch between land allocation and social equity: High green area ratios do not guarantee equitable distribution.

As shown in

Table 4. Summary of Neighborhood-Level Green Space Equity Assessment in Riyadh.

Indicator	Result	Percentage (%)	Interpretation
Neighborhoods meeting WHO’s benchmark (≥9 m2/person)	89	49.4	Adequate relative to WHO standard
Neighborhoods below WHO’s benchmark (<9 m2/person)	91	50.6	Deficit/inequitable provision
Neighborhoods between WHO and SGI targets (9–28 m2/person)	62	34.4	Transitional provision
Neighborhoods achieving SGI target (≥28 m2/person)	27	15.0	Target achieved
Mean green space per capita	39.29 m2/person	—	Strongly influenced by high-value outliers
Median green space per capita	8.85 m2/person	—	Typical neighborhood remains below WHO’s benchmark
Range of green space per capita	0–2468.99 m2/person	—	Indicates substantial spatial inequality

, the neighborhood-level analysis revealed substantial spatial disparities in urban green space provision across Riyadh. Although approximately 49.4% of neighborhoods met the WHO’s benchmark of 9 m² per capita, only 15.0% achieved the SGI target of 28 m² per capita. The large difference between the mean (39.29 m²/person) and median (8.85 m²/person) values further indicates a highly uneven distribution, where exceptionally high per capita values in low-density districts inflate citywide averages while many densely populated neighborhoods continue to experience insufficient provision and accessibility. These findings suggest that the principal challenge in Riyadh is not merely increasing total green space quantity, but achieving equitable neighborhood-scale distribution and accessibility relative to population concentration.

Table 5. Representative Neighborhood Categories Based on Green Space per Capita in Riyadh.

Category	Neighborhood	Green Space per Capita (m2/Person)	WHO Status	SGI Status
Highest per capita values	SALAM	2468.99	Adequate	Achieved
	AL-MASANI	542.41	Adequate	Achieved
	AS-SAFARAT	439.25	Adequate	Achieved
Neighborhoods achieving SGI target (≥28 m2/person)	AL-JAZEERAH	30.33	Adequate	Achieved
	SULTANAH	40.66	Adequate	Achieved
	TAYBAH	47.08	Adequate	Achieved
Neighborhoods meeting WHO’s benchmark but below SGI target (9–28 m2/person)	AL-MALAZ	12.92	Adequate	Transitional
	AL-MALQA	15.05	Adequate	Transitional
	AR-RABWAH	15.85	Adequate	Transitional
Neighborhoods below WHO’s benchmark but above 5 m2/person	EAST AN-NASEEM	5.92	Inequitable	Deficit
	AL-KHALEEJ	5.83	Inequitable	Deficit
	AL-OLAYA	5.39	Inequitable	Deficit
Neighborhoods below 5 m2/person but above 1 m2/person	AL-MARGAB	2.26	Inequitable	Deficit
	ASH-SHOMAISI	2.89	Inequitable	Deficit
	THULAIM	1.18	Inequitable	Deficit
Neighborhoods with 0 m2/person	Al Shohlah	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit
	Al Rayah	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit
	ORAID	0.00	Inequitable	Deficit

further illustrates the heterogeneous distribution of urban green infrastructure across Riyadh through representative neighborhood categories based on green space provision per capita. Extremely high per capita values were primarily observed in low-density or institutional districts such as SALAM, AL-MASANI, and AS-SAFARAT, where relatively small residential populations are associated with large green land allocations. In contrast, several densely populated residential neighborhoods remained below both WHO and SGI benchmarks despite ongoing citywide greening expansion. Neighborhoods such as EAST AN-NASEEM, AL-KHALEEJ, and AL-OLAYA recorded green space provision below the WHO minimum standard, while districts including AL-MARGAB, ASH-SHOMAISI, and THULAIM exhibited critically low levels of green space accessibility. Furthermore, some neighborhoods recorded no measurable publicly accessible green space within the analyzed datasets, indicating complete deficit conditions relative to both WHO and SGI standards. These findings demonstrate that aggregate citywide greening growth may mask substantial neighborhood-scale inequalities and reinforce the importance of evaluating urban green equity through multidimensional indicators integrating spatial distribution, accessibility, population density, and neighborhood-level provision rather than relying solely on aggregate per capita measures.

5.2. Resident Perceptions Analysis

Table 6. Sample characteristics.

Variable	Options	N	%
Gender	Male	97	57.8
	Female	83	42.2
	Total	180	100
Age	18–29 years	67	37.2
	30–44 years	41	22.8
	45–60 years	36	20.0
	Over 60 years	36	20.0
	Total	180	100
Frequency of Green Spaces Use	Rarely	10	5.6
	Occasionally (occasions/holidays)	28	15.6
	Sometimes (once a month)	60	33.3
	Frequently (once every two weeks)	32	17.8
	Always (once a week)	50	27.8
	Total	180	100

presents the characteristics of the sample and frequency of green space use. Males and females were relatively proportionally represented, comprising 57.8% and 42.2% of the sample, respectively. The majority of respondents were aged 18 to 29 years 37.2%. Participants aged 45 to 60 years and over 60 years each represented 20.0% of the sample. Regarding the frequency of green space use, visitation patterns varied across respondents; 33.3% of participants reported visiting green spaces once per month. Only 5.6% of respondents rarely visited green spaces.

As shown in

Table 7. Validity test of the questionnaire using Pearson correlation.

		Accessibility	Availability	Quality of Green Spaces	Environmental Impact	Social Benefits	Awareness Engagement	Overall Average
Accessibility	Pearson Correlation	1	0.03	0.560 **	0.375 **	0.103	−0.195 **	0.554 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.688	0	0	0.17	0.009	0
Availability	Pearson Correlation	0.03	1	0.190 *	0.573 **	0.107	0.257 **	0.578 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.688		0.011	0	0.155	0.001	0
Quality of Green Spaces	Pearson Correlation	0.560 **	0.190 *	1	0.443 **	0.164 *	0.189 *	0.715 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0	0.011		0	0.028	0.011	0
Environmental Impact	Pearson Correlation	0.375 **	0.573 **	0.443 **	1	0.332 **	0.123	0.785 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0	0	0		0	0.1	0
Social Benefits	Pearson Correlation	0.103	0.107	0.164 *	0.332 **	1	0.059	0.483 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.17	0.155	0.028	0		0.434	0
Awareness Engagement	Pearson Correlation	−0.195 **	0.257 **	0.189 *	0.123	0.059	1	0.429 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.009	0.001	0.011	0.1	0.434		0
Overall Average	Pearson Correlation	0.554 **	0.578 **	0.715 **	0.785 **	0.483 **	0.429 **	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0	0	0	0	0	0

Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

, the validity of the questionnaire was assessed using Pearson correlation analysis to ensure that each domain was appropriately correlated with the overall satisfaction score. The correlation coefficients between the six domains and the overall average were statistically significant at a level of α ≤ 0.01, confirming the construct validity of the instrument. The strongest association was observed between environmental impact and overall satisfaction (r = 0.785), followed by quality of green spaces (r = 0.715), availability (r = 0.578), accessibility (r = 0.554), social benefits (r = 0.483), and awareness and engagement (r = 0.429). Finally, the reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The calculated alpha value of 0.87 indicates a high level of internal consistency, confirming that the measurement scale is reliable for assessing users’ perceptions of SGI progress.

Figure 8 and

Table 8. Weighted means of users’ satisfaction level and RII of the 17 investigated design criteria.

Domain	Design Criteria	Mean	Std. S	RII	Rank	Overall Domain Mean
1. Accessibility	1.1 Walking distance	4.33	1.14	0.87	3	4.11
	1.2 Connectivity and ease of access to nearby parks	3.89	1.29	0.78	8
2. Availability	2.1 Number of green spaces in each neighborhood	4.02	1.24	0.80	7	4.08
	2.2 Distribution of green spaces in each neighborhood	4.15	0.88	0.83	5
3. Quality of Green Spaces	3.1 Maintenance	3.45	1.39	0.69	12	3.40
	3.2 Cleanliness	3.69	1.55	0.74	9
	3.3 Shading	3.53	1.37	0.71	11
	3.4 Seating	3.38	1.48	0.68	14
	3.5 Facilities	2.96	1.55	0.59	15
4. Environmental Impact	4.1 Temperature reduction	3.61	1.36	0.72	10	4.02
	4.2 Greenery expansion	4.44	0.95	0.89	2
5. Social and Psychological Benefits	5.1 Recreation	4.60	0.77	0.92	1	4.28
	5.2 Relaxation	4.20	0.97	0.84	4
	5.3 Social interaction	4.04	1.06	0.81	6
6. Awareness and Engagement	6.1 Knowledge of SGI goals	2.21	1.20	0.44	17	2.65
	6.2 Visibility of projects	3.42	1.35	0.68	13
	6.3 Participation of community	2.32	1.24	0.46	16

present the results related to users’ satisfaction with the six investigated domains and the seventeen evaluated design criteria. Users reported high satisfaction with recreation (4.60), greenery expansion (4.44), and walking distance (4.33), reflecting strong benefits in recreation, environment, and accessibility. Lower satisfaction was seen in SGI awareness (2.21), community participation (2.32), and facilities (2.96), indicating gaps in engagement and services. Domain-wise, social/psychological benefits scored highest (4.28), while awareness/engagement scored lowest (2.65).

Figure 9 illustrates the percentage distribution of responses across the five-point Likert scale for the 17 investigated criteria. Users rated environmental, recreational, and accessibility aspects of green spaces highly, with “High”/“Very High” agreement for walking distance, connectivity, greenery expansion, recreation, and relaxation. Availability and cleanliness were generally positive, though seating and facilities showed lower satisfaction. Social and psychological benefits were strong, while awareness and engagement scored lowest, revealing gaps in public knowledge and participation.

In addition to evaluating overall resident satisfaction with urban green spaces, the study also examines whether perceptions of accessibility, quality, environmental benefits, and social value vary across demographic groups. Assessing demographic variations, including gender-related differences, contributes to understanding the inclusiveness and social equity dimensions of urban greening initiatives. This perspective aligns with urban justice and environmental equity frameworks, which emphasize that urban environmental benefits should be accessible and experienced equitably across different population groups. A one-sample t-test (α ≤ 0.05, test value = 3) showed that overall satisfaction with the SGI in Riyadh is 3.77/5 p < 0.001, leading to rejection of the null hypothesis and indicating that users are generally satisfied with the initiative’s progress and outcomes.

An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine whether statistically significant differences exist between male and female respondents across the six investigated domains and the overall satisfaction score. As presented in

Table 9. Results of the independent sample t-test to examine the difference between male and female across different domains.

Domain	Mean for Males (N = 97)	Mean for Females (N = 83)	Sig. (2-Tailed)
Domain 1: Accessibility	4.026	4.211	0.028 *
Domain 2: Availability	4.124	4.036	0.878
Domain 3: Quality of Green Spaces	3.353	3.458	0.130
Domain 4: Environmental Impact	4.010	4.036	0.297
Domain 5: Social Benefits	4.368	4.181	0.591
Domain 6: Awareness & Engagement	2.760	2.522	0.194
Overall Mean	3.773	3.741	0.289

Note: * Significant difference between male and female respondents at the 0.05 significance level (p < 0.05, 2-tailed).

, overall satisfaction with SGI shows no significant gender differences male 3.77, female 3.74, p = 0.289. However, in the Accessibility domain, females rated satisfaction higher 4.21 vs. 4.03, p = 0.028, indicating better perceived access. Other domains showed no significant gender differences.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine whether overall satisfaction differs across age groups. As presented in

Table 10. Results of the one-way ANOVA test to examine the impact of age group on respondents’ overall mean.

Source of Variation	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	1.250	3	0.417	1.674	0.170
Within Groups	43.736	176	0.249
Total	44.986	179

, results showed no significant differences in overall satisfaction across age groups (F = 1.674, p = 0.170), indicating age does not affect satisfaction levels.

6. Discussion and Policy Implications

Urban justice theory emphasizes the fair distribution of environmental resources regardless of socioeconomic or spatial characteristics [9,14]. The spatial patterns observed in Riyadh reflect a common challenge in rapidly urbanizing metropolitan regions, where historical development trajectories, land-use priorities, and uneven urban expansion have concentrated green infrastructure within selected districts while leaving high-density residential neighborhoods underserved. Similar spatial inequalities in urban green space provision have been identified in several international studies, where unequal access to green infrastructure disproportionately affects densely populated and environmentally vulnerable communities [7]. Comparable findings were reported by Shi in Urumqi, China, where citywide greening policies improved overall green space coverage while significant neighborhood-level accessibility inequalities persisted [4]. Collectively, these studies demonstrate that increases in aggregate green space do not necessarily translate into equitable spatial distribution or accessibility across urban populations.

From an urban justice perspective, socioeconomic conditions may further influence the distribution, accessibility, and quality of urban green spaces. Previous international studies have demonstrated that low-income and densely populated communities frequently experience reduced access to high-quality green infrastructure and environmental amenities [37]. Although neighborhood-level income data were not incorporated in the present study due to data availability limitations, the observed spatial disparities highlight the importance of integrating socioeconomic indicators and social vulnerability measures into future urban green space equity assessments. Incorporating income-related variables would provide a more comprehensive understanding of whether disadvantaged communities are disproportionately affected by limited green space accessibility and environmental inequality within Riyadh’s rapidly urbanizing environment.

In Riyadh, comparison with the WHO benchmark (9 m² per capita) revealed that many densely populated neighborhoods continue to experience insufficient green space provision, while assessment against the SGI target (28 m² per capita) showed that most neighborhoods remain within deficit or transitional categories. Districts such as East An-Naseem, West An-Naseem, Al-Yasmeen, and Twaeeq recorded critically low levels of green space accessibility despite accommodating large population concentrations. In contrast, low-density and institutional districts such as Al-Khuzama, Al-Hada, and Laban exhibited exceptionally high per capita values due to relatively small resident populations combined with substantial green land allocations. These findings suggest that the principal challenge in Riyadh is not the overall quantity of urban green infrastructure, but rather its unequal spatial distribution and accessibility across neighborhoods.

The findings further demonstrate that conventional per capita green space indicators alone may oversimplify the evaluation of urban green equity in rapidly urbanizing arid cities. Several neighborhoods recorded exceptionally high per capita values despite limited residential populations, while densely populated districts continued to experience severe shortages in accessible green infrastructure. Similar concerns have been raised in recent international studies arguing that reliance on aggregate indicators may mask neighborhood-scale inequalities in accessibility, usability, and environmental quality [38]. Consequently, evaluating urban green infrastructure equity requires a multidimensional framework integrating accessibility, spatial distribution, population density, and user perception rather than relying exclusively on total green area or per capita provision. This issue is particularly critical in arid metropolitan environments where environmental comfort, thermal conditions, and pedestrian infrastructure strongly influence the functional usability of urban green spaces.

The accessibility analysis further revealed substantial disparities in neighborhood-scale service coverage across Riyadh. The central urban belt exhibited relatively continuous service accessibility due to overlapping green space buffers and higher concentration of green infrastructure, whereas northern and northeastern districts remained characterized by fragmented coverage and large underserved areas. Although the 500 m walking threshold is widely adopted in urban green space accessibility studies, the findings highlight the importance of considering climatic and urban-contextual conditions when evaluating accessibility in arid cities. Previous studies have demonstrated that spatial proximity alone does not necessarily ensure functional accessibility in hot-climate environments, where thermal discomfort, insufficient shading, and fragmented pedestrian infrastructure significantly influence walking behavior and park usability [39]. Similar observations have been reported in Saudi cities, where extreme temperatures substantially reduce pedestrian mobility and outdoor activity during extended periods of the year [35,40]. Consequently, accessibility assessment in Riyadh should be interpreted not only in terms of physical distance, but also in relation to thermal comfort, shading conditions, pedestrian infrastructure, and climate-responsive urban design strategies.

The survey findings complement the GIS analysis by illustrating how urban greening initiatives are experienced and perceived by residents at the local level. The questionnaire analysis revealed generally positive perceptions regarding the recreational, environmental, and psychological benefits of urban green spaces, with the highest weighted mean scores recorded for recreation (4.60), greenery expansion (4.44), and walking distance accessibility (4.33). The social and psychological benefits domain achieved the highest overall satisfaction mean (4.28), highlighting the important contribution of urban green spaces to recreation, relaxation, social interaction, and mental well-being within Riyadh.

These findings are consistent with international studies demonstrating that urban green spaces contribute significantly to psychological restoration, social cohesion, environmental satisfaction, and improved mental health in highly urbanized environments [17,27]. Similar findings were reported by Southon, who identified a positive relationship between perceived green space quality and psychological well-being [18]. The results therefore suggest that the benefits of urban greening extend beyond measurable spatial provision and include important experiential and social dimensions that may not be fully captured through GIS-based indicators alone.

However, lower satisfaction levels were associated with facilities (2.96), SGI awareness (2.21), and community participation (2.32), indicating limitations in functional service provision and public engagement. The awareness and engagement dimension contributes to understanding the social and participatory aspects of urban greening initiatives beyond purely spatial indicators of green space provision. Although awareness of SGI goals does not directly measure spatial equity, it reflects the extent to which residents recognize, understand, and interact with ongoing urban environmental initiatives. Similarly, participation in greening activities represents an important procedural dimension of urban justice because inclusive urban development depends not only on equitable spatial distribution of resources but also on opportunities for public involvement in environmental decision-making processes.

The relatively low scores associated with awareness and participation suggest that many residents perceive SGI primarily as a physical urban improvement initiative rather than an inclusive sustainability program. Similar challenges have been identified in rapidly developing urban greening programs, where emphasis is often placed on physical expansion while operational quality, usability, maintenance, and community participation remain secondary considerations [23]. Previous studies have also shown that residents’ evaluations of urban green spaces are influenced not only by green space quantity, but also by perceived quality, maintenance standards, comfort, and emotional experience [3]. Collectively, these findings highlight a disconnect between policy implementation and public engagement, emphasizing the importance of stronger communication strategies and more participatory planning approaches within future SGI-related initiatives.

The statistical analysis further reinforced the relationship between environmental quality and overall user satisfaction. Pearson correlation analysis demonstrated strong positive relationships between environmental impact and overall satisfaction (r = 0.785), as well as between quality of green spaces and overall satisfaction (r = 0.715), indicating that improvements in environmental performance and functional quality substantially influence residents’ perceptions of urban green infrastructure.

Taken together, the findings suggest that Riyadh’s urban greening strategy is transitioning from an expansion-oriented phase toward a redistribution and equity challenge. Future planning efforts should therefore shift from focusing primarily on increasing citywide green space quantity toward achieving equitable neighborhood-scale distribution, accessibility, usability, and environmental quality. Key planning implications include:

• integrating small-scale parks and neighborhood green infrastructure within dense urban districts;
• converting vacant and underutilized land into accessible green infrastructure;
• strengthening green corridors and pedestrian connectivity to improve neighborhood accessibility;
• adopting population-weighted and equity-oriented planning metrics in green infrastructure allocation;
• improving maintenance standards, shading conditions, seating areas, and recreational facilities to enhance user comfort and functional quality;
• strengthening public communication and participatory planning approaches to increase residents’ awareness and engagement with SGI-related initiatives.

Such strategies would better align spatial outcomes with the environmental justice, livability, and social sustainability objectives embedded within Saudi Vision 2030 and the Quality of Life Program. The findings demonstrate that achieving sustainable urban transformation in rapidly growing arid cities requires not only expanding green infrastructure, but also ensuring that its environmental, social, and recreational benefits are distributed equitably across neighborhoods. In this context, urban greening effectiveness should be evaluated not solely through aggregate vegetation growth, but also through accessibility, usability, environmental quality, and residents’ lived experiences. Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of integrating GIS-based spatial assessment with resident perception analysis as a multidimensional framework for supporting evidence-based, equity-oriented urban planning.

7. Study Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study provides a multidimensional assessment of urban green space equity and residents’ perceptions within the context of the SGI in Riyadh. However, several limitations should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings.

First, the perception survey relied on a non-probability convenience sampling approach conducted through online distribution platforms. Although efforts were made to obtain responses from residents across different districts of Riyadh, the sample of 180 respondents may not fully represent the demographic and socioeconomic diversity of the city’s population. Consequently, the perception-based findings should be interpreted as indicative of general user perceptions and experiences rather than statistically representative population-wide conclusions. Therefore, the survey results are intended to provide exploratory insight into residents’ experiences with urban green spaces and SGI-related initiatives rather than definitive citywide generalizations. Second, due to a lack of available and accessible GIS data, such as the street network of Riyadh, the GIS-based accessibility analysis relied on Euclidean 500 m service buffers to represent potential walkable access to green spaces. While this approach is widely used in urban green space studies and provides a standardized basis for city-scale comparison, it does not fully capture actual pedestrian movement patterns, street-network connectivity, physical barriers, or climatic constraints affecting walkability in Riyadh. In hot-arid urban environments, factors such as thermal discomfort, inadequate shading, and limited pedestrian infrastructure may substantially influence functional accessibility beyond simple spatial proximity. Third, the analysis primarily focused on publicly accessible green spaces and may not fully account for private, semi-private, or informal green infrastructure within the urban fabric. Fourth, the study evaluated green space equity primarily through spatial distribution, accessibility, and perception indicators without incorporating direct environmental performance measures such as thermal comfort, biodiversity, ecosystem services, or microclimatic analysis. Consequently, the environmental effectiveness of green infrastructure was assessed mainly through residents’ perceptions rather than empirical environmental monitoring. Furthermore, the study did not directly incorporate socioeconomic indicators such as neighborhood-level income, social vulnerability, or housing conditions, which are important dimensions of urban justice and environmental equity research. Although the spatial disparities identified in this study suggest potential inequalities affecting densely populated communities, future studies integrating socioeconomic variables would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how environmental benefits and green infrastructure accessibility vary across different social groups.

Finally, the study adopts a cross-sectional analytical framework based on current spatial conditions and user perceptions. Although green space growth between 2018 and 2024 was examined, the research does not provide a longitudinal evaluation of long-term behavioral, environmental, or social impacts associated with SGI implementation over time. Future research should therefore incorporate larger and more representative survey samples, network-based accessibility analysis, microclimatic and thermal performance assessment, and longitudinal monitoring of urban greening outcomes. Comparative studies across multiple Saudi and Gulf cities would further strengthen understanding of urban green infrastructure equity within rapidly urbanizing arid environments. In addition, future investigations integrating socioeconomic variables, pedestrian behavior analysis, and environmental monitoring would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between urban green infrastructure, accessibility, and social equity.

8. Conclusions

This study evaluated the spatial distribution, accessibility, and perceived quality of urban green spaces in Riyadh within the framework of the SGI and the WHO benchmark. By integrating GIS-based spatial analysis with residents’ perception assessment, the study provided a multidimensional evaluation of urban green infrastructure equity and effectiveness within a rapidly urbanizing arid metropolitan context.

The GIS-based analysis revealed that although Riyadh experienced a noticeable increase in green space coverage between 2018 and 2024, substantial neighborhood-level spatial inequalities remain. A comparison with the WHO benchmark of 9 m² per capita and the SGI target of 28 m² per capita demonstrated that many densely populated residential districts continue to experience insufficient green space provision and limited accessibility despite citywide greening expansion. The findings further showed that exceptionally high per capita values in some low-density districts do not necessarily indicate equitable urban greening outcomes, highlighting the limitations of relying solely on aggregate per capita indicators in rapidly urbanizing arid cities.

The perception-based assessment demonstrated generally positive resident evaluations regarding recreation, greenery expansion, accessibility, and psychological well-being associated with urban green spaces. However, lower satisfaction levels related to facilities, awareness, and community participation indicated limitations in functional quality and public engagement. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of urban greening initiatives depends not only on increasing total green infrastructure, but also on improving accessibility, usability, environmental comfort, and residents’ lived experiences.

The integration of GIS-based spatial assessment with resident perception analysis provided complementary perspectives on urban green space conditions in Riyadh. The GIS analysis identified substantial neighborhood-level disparities in green space provision and accessibility, while the perception survey revealed residents’ evaluations of accessibility, environmental benefits, recreational value, and overall satisfaction. Although both analyses highlight important dimensions of urban green space equity, the present study did not explicitly model relationships between neighborhood-level spatial indicators and individual satisfaction responses. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted as providing complementary rather than directly linked evidence. Collectively, the results emphasize that evaluating urban green infrastructure equity requires consideration of both spatial distribution patterns and residents’ perceptions, rather than relying exclusively on aggregate land-based measures.

Based on the findings, several planning implications can be identified to improve the spatial equity and effectiveness of urban greening initiatives in Riyadh:

• prioritize high-density and underserved residential districts in future greening interventions to reduce neighborhood-level spatial inequalities;
• improve neighborhood-scale accessibility through shaded pedestrian connections, walkable green corridors, and more evenly distributed public green infrastructure;
• strengthen the functional quality and usability of urban green spaces by improving maintenance, shading, seating, and recreational facilities;
• adopt population-sensitive and equity-oriented planning approaches rather than relying solely on aggregate green space expansion targets;
• strengthen public communication and participatory planning approaches to improve residents’ awareness and engagement with SGI-related initiatives;
• integrate GIS-based spatial assessment and resident perception analysis into long-term urban planning and monitoring frameworks to support evidence-based green infrastructure planning.

The findings support the broader objectives of Saudi Vision 2030 and the Quality of Life Program by highlighting the importance of equitable and accessible urban green infrastructure in improving urban livability and environmental sustainability. The study demonstrates that achieving sustainable urban transformation in rapidly growing arid cities requires not only expanding green infrastructure, but also ensuring that its environmental, recreational, and social benefits are distributed equitably across neighborhoods. Furthermore, the study highlights the value of integrating GIS-based spatial analysis with resident perception assessment as a comprehensive framework for supporting evidence-based and equity-oriented urban planning in arid urban environments.