Evaluating Mixed Land Use and Connectivity: A Case Study of Five Neighborhoods in Erbil City, Iraq
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Data Analysis
3.2.1. Measuring the Connectivity of Streets (Space Syntax)
3.2.2. Measuring Land-Use Mix (Entropy Index)
3.2.3. Measuring Residents’ Satisfaction
3.2.4. UN-Habitat’s Criteria for Street Network and Mixed Land Use
4. Results
4.1. Space Syntax Analysis
4.2. Entropy Index
4.3. Residents’ Satisfaction
5. Discussion and Comparison
6. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Baker, S. Sustainable development as symbolic commitment: Declaratory politics and the seductive appeal of ecological modernisation in the European Union. Environ. Politics 2007, 16, 297–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European, C. Towards Sustainability: Fifth Environmental Action Programme. Off. J. Eur. Comunities 1993, 36, 5–98. [Google Scholar]
- Ogbodo, S.G. The paradox of the concept of sustainable development under Nigeria’s environmental law. J. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 3, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaccai, E. Over two decades in pursuit of sustainable development: Influence, transformations, limits. Environ. Dev. 2012, 1, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, B. Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for sustainability. Technol. Soc. 2006, 28, 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eastwood, R.; Lipton, M. The Impact of Changes in Human Fertility on Poverty; University of Sussex: Brighton, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Environment Programme. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Chatterjee, U.; Biswas, A.; Mukherjee, J.U. Sustainable Urbanism in Developing Countries; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Jenks, M.; Burgess, R. Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries; E. & F.N. Spon: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Pugh, C.D.J.U. Sustainable Cities in Developing Countries: Theory and Practice at the Millennium; Earthscan: Oxford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- UN-Habitat. How Building Codes and Regulations Can Be Adapted to Meet the Basic Needs of the Poor: Report of the UN Seminar of Experts on Building Codes and Regulations in Developing Countries, Tӓllberg and Stockholm, March 1980; Swedish Council for Building Research: Stockholm, Sweden, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- UN. World Urbanization Prospects; Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Available online: https://population.un.org/wup/download/ (accessed on 5 January 2022).
- IOM. Iraq—Displacement Report 115 (March—April 2020); IOM Iraq: Erbil, Iraq, 2020; Available online: https://dtm.iom.int/reports/iraq-%E2%80%94-displacement-report-115-march%E2%80%94april-2020 (accessed on 5 August 2023).
- Nishan, M. Urban Expansion of Erbil and The Effects of Environmental During the Period 1947–2017 (A Study in The Geography of Cities. J. Univ. Duhok 2019, 22, 452–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammad, M.S.; Elmastas, N.; Abdullah, H. Temporal change of Urban Land Use: The case of Erbil City. Ecol. Environ. Conserv. Pap. 2021, 27, 48–58. [Google Scholar]
- Sabr, C.A. A study on the urban form of Erbil city (the capital of Kurdistan region) as an example of historical and fast growing city. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Rev. CD-ROM 2014, 3, 325–340. [Google Scholar]
- Ibrahim, R.; Mushatat, S.; Abdelmonem, M.G. Authenticity, identity and sustainability in post-war Iraq: Reshaping the urban form of Erbil City. J. Islam. Archit. 2014, 3, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, E. Potential of the compact city for promoting social equity. In Achieving Sustainable Urban Form; Williams, K., Jenks, M., Burton, E., Eds.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2000; Volume 1, pp. 19–29. [Google Scholar]
- Jabareen, Y.R. Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2006, 26, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, C.; Jenks, M.; Bramley, G. Complementarities and Contradictions. In Dimensions of the Sustainable City; Jones, C., Jenks, M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 239–256. [Google Scholar]
- Elkin, T.; McLaren, D.; Hillman, M. Reviving the City: Towards Sustainable Urban Development; Friends of the Earth with Policy Studies Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Song, Y.; Knaap, G.-J. Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2004, 34, 663–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frey, H. Designing the City: Towards a More Sustainable Urban Form; E & FN Spon: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Talen, E. Neighborhoods as Service Providers: A Methodology for Evaluating Pedestrian Access. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2003, 30, 181–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, K.; Burton, E.; Jenks, M. Achieving Sustainable Urban Form; E & FN Spon: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ewing, R.; Pendall, R.; Chen, D. Measuring Sprawl and Its Transportation Impacts. Transp. Res. Rec. 2003, 1831, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitnall, G. The History of Zoning. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 1931, 155, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN-Habitat. A New Strategy of Sustainable Neighbourhood Planning: Five Principles. 2014. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/five-principles-of-neighbourhood-design (accessed on 22 June 2023).
- Shen, Q.; Sun, F. What Makes Mixed-Use Development Economically Desirable? Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities; Modern Library: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Farr, D.; Farr, D. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Cervero, R. Land-Use Mixing and Suburban Mobility. Transp. Q. 1988, 42, 429–446. [Google Scholar]
- Alberti, M. Urban form and ecosystem dynamics: Empirical evidence and practical implications. In Achieving Sustainable Urban Form; Williams, E.B., Jenks, M., Eds.; E & FN Spon: London, UK, 2000; pp. 84–96. [Google Scholar]
- van der Waals, J. The compact city and the environment: A review. Tijdschr. Voor Econ. En Soc. Geogr. 2000, 91, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saville-Smith, K. The Value of Neighbourhood Intensification: The Interface Between Dwelling, Neighbourhood Design and Affordability. In Proceedings of the ENHR 22nd International Housing Research Conference: Urban Dynamics & Housing Change-Crossing into the 2nd Decade of the 3rd Millennium, Istanbul, Turkey, 4–7 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Dempsey, N.; Bramley, G.; Power, S.; Brown, C. The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 19, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handy, S.L. Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices: Study of Austin Neighborhoods. Transp. Res. Rec. 1996, 1552, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, J. Mixed Use in Theory and Practice: Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2002, 68, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. Travel and the Built Environment. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 76, 265–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bahadure, S.; Kotharkar, R. Assessing Sustainability of Mixed Use Neighbourhoods through Residents’ Travel Behaviour and Perception: The Case of Nagpur, India. Sustainability 2015, 7, 12164–12189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soltani, A.; Pojani, D.; Askari, S.; Masoumi, H.E. Socio-demographic and built environment determinants of car use among older adults in Iran. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 68, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baobeid, A.; Koç, M.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G. Walkability and Its Relationships with Health, Sustainability, and Livability: Elements of Physical Environment and Evaluation Frameworks. Front. Built Environ. 2021, 7, 721218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michael, B. The contradictions of the compact city: A review. In Sustainable Development and Urban Form; Breheny, M., Ed.; Regional Science Associasion: Cambridge, UK, 1992; pp. 138–159. [Google Scholar]
- Talen, E. Sprawl Retrofit: Sustainable Urban Form in Unsustainable Places. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2011, 38, 952–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moughtin, C. Urban Design: Street and Square; Butterworth Architecture: Oxford, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Carmona, M. Public Places—Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design; Architectural Askews and Holts: Preston, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Nassar, U.; Saleh, A.; Fathi, A. Urban Sustainability and connectivity in gated communities in Cairo, Egypt. In Proceedings of the Conference: Contemporary Urban Issues Conference (CUI’13)—DAKAM, Istanbul, Turkey, 4–6 November 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ewing, R.; Hajrasouliha, A.; Neckerman, K.M.; Purciel-Hill, M.; Greene, W. Streetscape Features Related to Pedestrian Activity. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2016, 36, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agency, C.I. Maps-Iraq. Available online: https://www.cia.gov/resources/map/iraq/ (accessed on 22 August 2023).
- Zlatkovic, M.; Zlatkovic, S.; Sullivan, T.; Bjornstad, J.; Kiavash Fayyaz Shahandashti, S. Assessment of effects of street connectivity on traffic performance and sustainability within communities and neighborhoods through traffic simulation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 46, 101409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VTPI. Roadway Connectivity: Creating More Connected Roadway and Pathway Networks; Victoria Transport Policy Institute_(VTPI): Victoria, BC, Canada, 2017; Available online: https://www.vtpi.org/ (accessed on 9 October 2022).
- Tasic, I.; Zlatkovic, M.; Martin, P.T.; Porter, R.J. Street Connectivity Versus Street Widening: Impact of Enhanced Street Connectivity on Traffic Operations in Transit-Supportive Environments. Transp. Res. Rec. 2015, 2494, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gul, Y.; Sultan, Z.; Jokhio, G.A. Contribution to the Environmental Sustainability by Improving the Walking Behaviour through Neighbourhoods’ Design with Special Reference to Developing Countries; E3S Web of Conferences: Les Ulis, France, 2020; EDP Sciences; Volume 158, p. 02002. [Google Scholar]
- Gul, Y.; Sultan, Z.; Moeinaddini, M.; Jokhio, G.A. The effects of physical activity facilities on vigorous physical activity in gated and non-gated neighbourhoods. Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, B.B.; Yamada, I.; Smith, K.R.; Zick, C.D.; Kowaleski-Jones, L.; Fan, J.X. Mixed land use and walkability: Variations in land use measures and relationships with BMI, overweight, and obesity. Health Place 2009, 15, 1130–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, L.D.; Pivo, G. Relationships between Land Use and Travel Behavior in the Puget Sound Region; Washington State Transportation Commission: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Frank, L.D.; Schmid, T.L.; Sallis, J.F.; Chapman, J.; Saelens, B.E. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 1932, 22, 55. [Google Scholar]
- Hillier, B.; Hanson, J. The Social Logic of Space; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1984; pp. 103–109. [Google Scholar]
- Hillier, B.; Burdett, R.; Peponis, J.; Penn, A. Creating life: Or, does architecture determine anything? Archit. Comport. /Archit. Behav. 1986, 3, 233–250. [Google Scholar]
- Song, Y.; Merlin, L.; Rodriguez, D. Comparing measures of urban land use mix. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2013, 42, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, H.; Lee, S. Residential built environment and walking activity: Empirical evidence of Jane Jacobs’ urban vitality. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2015, 41, 318–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Year | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Population | 30,000 | 53,000 | 130,000 | 279,000 | 536,000 | 706,000 | 735,000 | 846,000 |
IDPs | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | - | 215,000 |
Year | Total Population | Urban Population | Rural Population | Urbanization Index (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1950 | 5,719,192 | 2,008,691 | 3,710,501 | 35.1 |
1960 | 7,289,761 | 3,127,214 | 4,162,547 | 42.9 |
1970 | 9,917,983 | 5,569,369 | 4,348,614 | 56.2 |
1980 | 13,653,356 | 8,945,864 | 4,707,492 | 65.5 |
1990 | 17,469,005 | 12,176,901 | 5,292,104 | 69.7 |
2000 | 23,565,413 | 16,141,452 | 7,423,961 | 68.5 |
2010 | 30,762,701 | 21,258,071 | 9,504,630 | 69.1 |
2020 | 41,502,885 | 29,422,695 | 12,080,190 | 70.9 |
Aspect of Sustainable Urban Form | Indicators | Question: How Satisfied Are You with the Following Features in Your Neighborhood? |
---|---|---|
Mixed Land Use | IND 1-1: Mixed Economic Activities | Variety of shops and retailers |
IND 1-2: Mixed Land Use | Variety of educational institutions, administrative offices, health centers and recreational facilities. | |
IND 1-3: Nearby Jobs | Distance of your workplace from your home | |
IND 1-4: Mixed Building Types | Availability of different building types (high-rise, single family and multi-family buildings | |
Connectivity | IND 2-1: Connection with the Surroundings | Connections to surrounding neighborhoods via pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and/or direct routes |
IND 2-2: Size of Blocks | Walkability within the blocks | |
IND 2-3: Sidewalk Efficiency | Efficiency and width of the sidewalks | |
IND 2-4: Streets length and Pattern | Length and pattern of the streets in terms of their walkability |
Neighborhoods | Construction Year | Area (ha) | Density (P/ha) | Housing Typology | Street Networks | Location |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mustawfi | 1926–1940 | 38.50 | 172 | Open courtyard, terraced | Irregular grid streets | North |
Mufti | 1966–1975 | 111.20 | 129 | Terraced | Wide and regular grid streets | Southeast |
Kani | 1965–1986 | 69.86 | 368 | Terraced | Wide and regular grid streets | Northeast |
Italian Village | 2010 | 38.10 | 87 | Terraced, semi-detached | Cul-de-sac and end loop, wide regular streets. | West |
Park View | 2016 | 5.10 | 931 | Flats (high-rise) | n/a | Northwest |
Neighborhoods | Residential | Commercial | Public Service | Parks | Streets | Other | Total Area (ha) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mustawfi | 15 | 9 | 2.67 | 0.68 | 10.1 | 1.05 | 38.5 |
Mufti | 62.4 | 10.43 | 4.5 | 4.43 | 26.13 | 3.31 | 111.2 |
Kani | 32 | 5.97 | 11.32 | 4.12 | 16.45 | 0 | 69.86 |
Italian Village | 18.3 | 0.77 | 1.26 | 1.56 | 7.9 | 8.31 | 38.1 |
Park View | 1.38 | 1.76 | 0.2 | 0.67 | 0.49 | 0.6 | 5.1 |
Italian Village (Streets) | Italian Village (Walkways) | Mufti | Mustawfi | Park View | Kani | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Connectivity | 3.52239 | 4.23377 | 4.78838 | 5.54783 | 4.13636 | 4.58065 |
Choice R3 | 30.4478 | 40.8312 | 125.884 | 79.0435 | 27.5 | 99.0065 |
Integration [HH] R3 | 1.58683 | 1.8086 | 2.22284 | 2.1743 | 1.82438 | 2.11584 |
Node Count R3 | 23.4478 | 30.9481 | 79.2573 | 54.9304 | 23.5909 | 63.5677 |
Neighborhoods | Residential Area (ha) | Commercial Area (ha) | Public Service Area (ha) | Built-Up Ratio | Entropy Index |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mustawfi | 15 | 9 | 2.67 | 69% | 0.84 |
Mufti | 62.4 | 10.43 | 4.5 | 70% | 0.55 |
Kani | 32 | 5.97 | 11.32 | 71% | 0.80 |
Italian Village | 18.3 | 0.77 | 1.26 | 53% | 0.36 |
Park View | 1.38 | 1.76 | 0.2 | 65% | 0.79 |
Neighborhoods | IND1_1 | IND1_2 | IND1_3 | IND1_4 | IND2_1 | IND2_2 | IND2_3 | IND2_4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Availability of Shops | Mixed Land Use | Nearby Jobs | Mixed Building Types | Connection with Surrounding | Size of Blocks | Sidewalk Efficiency | Streets Length | ||
Park View | Mean | 2.06 | 1.42 | 2.18 | 1.42 | 1.88 | 2.64 | 2.52 | 3.09 |
No. of responses | 33 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 33 | |
Std. deviation | 1.088 | 0.663 | 1.185 | 0.792 | 0.820 | 1.270 | 1.093 | 1.259 | |
Italian Village | Mean | 2.30 | 2.00 | 2.27 | 2.08 | 2.24 | 3.35 | 3.78 | 3.41 |
No. of responses | 37 | 37 | 37 | 37 | 37 | 37 | 37 | 37 | |
Std. deviation | 1.199 | 0.882 | 1.146 | 1.256 | 1.140 | 1.184 | 1.109 | 1.212 | |
Kani | Mean | 4.04 | 3.36 | 3.32 | 3.25 | 3.57 | 3.11 | 2.39 | 3.43 |
No. of responses | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | |
Std. deviation | 1.105 | 1.283 | 1.156 | 1.206 | 1.230 | 1.315 | 1.166 | 1.034 | |
Mustawfi | Mean | 4.28 | 3.44 | 3.31 | 3.50 | 4.03 | 3.38 | 1.50 | 3.44 |
No. of responses | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | |
Std. deviation | 0.813 | 1.014 | 1.306 | 1.078 | 0.740 | 1.264 | 0.622 | 1.105 | |
Mufti | Mean | 3.93 | 3.40 | 3.07 | 3.03 | 3.33 | 3.50 | 3.27 | 3.23 |
No. of responses | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | |
Std. deviation | 0.907 | 1.003 | 1.202 | 1.245 | 1.061 | 1.137 | 1.015 | 1.278 | |
Total | Mean | 3.26 | 2.67 | 2.79 | 2.61 | 2.96 | 3.19 | 2.73 | 3.32 |
No. of responses | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | |
Std. deviation | 1.402 | 1.287 | 1.289 | 1.364 | 1.298 | 1.256 | 1.288 | 1.178 |
Mustawfi | Mufti | Kani | Italian Village | Park View | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mixed Land Use | (UN-Habitat’s criteria) | Economic use area | 32% | 12% | 11% | 3% | 38% | 40–60% |
Residential use area | 53% | 73% | 60% | 61% | 30% | 30–50% | ||
Public service area | 9% | 5% | 21% | 4% | 4% | 10% | ||
Residents’ satisfaction | 3.6328 | 3.3583 | 3.4911 | 2.1622 | 1.7727 | |||
Entropy index | 0.84 | 0.55 | 0.8 | 0.36 | 0.79 | |||
Connectivity | (UN-Habitat’s criteria) | Street length per 1 km2 | 28.54 | 20.10 | 22.55 | 23.14 | 11.76 | ≥18 km |
Street network area | 26% | 23% | 24% | 21% | 10% | ≥30% | ||
Residents’ satisfaction | 3.1641 | 3.3333 | 3.1250 | 3.1959 | 2.5303 | |||
Space syntax analysis | 5.54783 | 4.78838 | 4.58065 | 4.23377 | 4.13636 |
Neighborhoods | Challenges and Alterations | Level of Intervention |
---|---|---|
Mustawfi |
| Minimal |
Kani and Mufti |
| Moderate |
Italian Village and Park View |
| Substantial |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Khoshnaw, R. Evaluating Mixed Land Use and Connectivity: A Case Study of Five Neighborhoods in Erbil City, Iraq. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914265
Khoshnaw R. Evaluating Mixed Land Use and Connectivity: A Case Study of Five Neighborhoods in Erbil City, Iraq. Sustainability. 2023; 15(19):14265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914265
Chicago/Turabian StyleKhoshnaw, Rebaz. 2023. "Evaluating Mixed Land Use and Connectivity: A Case Study of Five Neighborhoods in Erbil City, Iraq" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914265
APA StyleKhoshnaw, R. (2023). Evaluating Mixed Land Use and Connectivity: A Case Study of Five Neighborhoods in Erbil City, Iraq. Sustainability, 15(19), 14265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914265