Social Sustainability in Urban Parks: Insights from Alaeddin Hill Park, Konya

Abstract

This study highlights the importance of social sustainability in the context of urban parks and evaluates its performance using a specific case study. It proposes a comprehensive measurement scale focused on eight dimensions: identity, sense of place, social cohesion, security and safety, equity, facilities, comfort, and accessibility, applied to Alaeddin Hill Park in Konya, Türkiye. Using a quantitative research approach and data collected from 120 participants, this study investigates these dimensions to understand their impact on the park’s social sustainability. The findings of this study reveal that, while Alaeddin Hill Park is highly valued for its identity, facilities, and social cohesion, it requires significant improvements in areas such as security and safety, sense of place, and comfort. Another finding indicates that lower-income respondents report higher levels of comfort and a stronger sense of identification with the park. This study offers practical recommendations for urban park design to improve user satisfaction and social sustainability.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, rapid urbanization and industrialization have led to a significant increase in environmental challenges such as resource depletion and the rise of environmental disasters [1,2,3]. In response, sustainable development has emerged as a framework to address these concerns, with environmental and economic dimensions receiving the most attention. However, the social dimension, particularly social sustainability, has recently gained greater prominence as researchers and policymakers increasingly recognize its importance in fostering equality, justice, and improved quality of life [4,5,6,7,8,9].

Although social sustainability lacks a universally accepted definition and measurement tools [10], as noted by [11,12], it is recognized as one of the key pillars of sustainable development. It focuses on addressing human and cultural needs while also ensuring healthy and environmentally sustainable living spaces. In this context, urban parks play a critical role as spaces where social interactions are promoted, social networks are strengthened, and the quality of life for urban residents is enhanced [13,14,15].

Despite the extensive research on individual aspects of social sustainability, there remains a gap in understanding how these components come together to create socially sustainable urban spaces. Studies often address factors such as accessibility, safety, cohesion, and place attachment in isolation, without exploring their combined impact on the broader social dynamics within urban parks [16,17,18]. Additionally, there are practical deficiencies related to the operationalization of the concept and its integration into planning projects [5].

To address these gaps, this study aims to rectify the theoretical deficiencies in understanding social sustainability by developing and empirically testing a multi-dimensional scale specifically designed to evaluate the social sustainability performance of Alaeddin Hill Park in Konya, Türkiye. This scale rigorously examines the roles of eight key dimensions: identity, sense of place, social cohesion, security and safety, equity, facilities, comfort, and accessibility.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Social Sustainability and Urban Parks

Social sustainability is increasingly recognized as a process that enhances interactions and promotes the cultural quality of life among various community groups within neighborhoods and regions [19]. In this context, social sustainability can be defined as a means to develop, support, and maintain constructive relationships among people, which are essential for mutual learning and promoting welfare [20]. This capability is crucial for fostering the intergenerational, multicultural, and diverse social group cohabitation of space [21,22].

With the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, social issues have become a central focus of the global development agenda, reflecting the intertwined nature of economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Among the 17 SDGs, several underscore the importance of social sustainability, with SDG 11 aiming to foster inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities and human settlements. This goal is complemented by SDG 10 (reducing inequalities), SDG 5 (achieving gender equality), and SDG 16 (promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions), which collectively address key aspects such as accountability, safety, inclusivity, and representation in societal development.

Notably, SDG target 11.7 emphasizes the need for equal access to safe, inclusive urban green and public spaces, a critical element in achieving socially sustainable cities. This target aligns with SDG 5.2, which seeks to enhance security through the development of well-lit, accessible public spaces. Such environments not only foster safety but also promote diverse social experiences, ranging from recreational activities to social interactions and engagement with nature. Public spaces, therefore, play a crucial role in supporting social sustainability by facilitating community connections and inclusivity.

The benefits of increased participation and integration in green spaces include not only enhanced community satisfaction but also the mitigation of negative behaviors such as crime and social isolation [23].

Urban parks play a fundamental role in advancing social sustainability by acting as inclusive public spaces that promote social justice, community participation, and well-being among urban residents [24,25]. These green spaces not only provide areas for leisure and recreation but also serve as vital hubs for social interaction and engagement, enhancing social cohesion and reducing inequalities within communities [4,5,26]. Well-designed urban parks that emphasize accessibility and safety can significantly contribute to a higher quality of life by supporting diverse social activities and fostering a sense of belonging among different user groups [27].

Urban parks promote social interactions, strengthen the sense of belonging, enhance the perception of safety, and reduce crime rates, thereby contributing to community sustainability [28,29,30,31].

Additionally, the role of urban parks in promoting mental health and well-being is well documented. Exposure to green spaces has been linked to reduced stress levels, enhanced mood, and overall improvements in mental health, contributing to healthier communities [13,32,33]. By providing well-maintained, natural sanctuaries within urban settings, these parks not only alleviate the pressures of city life but also play a crucial role in supporting public health and reinforcing social cohesion among residents [34,35,36,37,38]. Ultimately, urban parks act as integral components of both community development and mental well-being, emphasizing their value as key elements of social infrastructure.

2.2. Key Components of Social Sustainability in Urban Parks

Urban parks play a vital role in fostering social sustainability, as they share several key features that promote social cohesion and engagement. One crucial aspect is the role of “identity and place attachment” in shaping users’ sense of belonging and connection to these spaces. Research highlights that, when individuals form emotional bonds with a place, it enhances their sense of community and strengthens social ties [39,40,41]. In urban parks, such connections can be nurtured through design elements that reflect local culture and heritage, thereby fostering a shared identity among visitors. Parks that incorporate local art, cultural symbols, or heritage landscapes not only enhance residents’ connection to their environment but also serve as symbols of cultural pride and identity [42,43,44,45]. This emotional attachment transforms parks into more than recreational spaces, turning them into vital components of community identity.

Another key feature is “cohesion and social interaction”. Urban parks significantly contribute to social sustainability by promoting interactions among diverse groups of people. These spaces provide opportunities for both casual encounters and organized social activities, facilitating meaningful exchanges that bridge social divides [34,45]. Well-designed parks that support a variety of uses—both passive and active—function as social hubs, fostering intergenerational and cross-cultural interactions that are essential for building resilient and cohesive communities [28,46,47]. Thus, urban parks play a pivotal role in creating environments where social cohesion can thrive.

Green spaces, more broadly, are recognized for their contribution to social cohesion by encouraging outdoor activities and offering venues for communal interaction [48,49,50]. Facilities within these spaces promote visitation and support social exchanges, making them indispensable for enhancing social cohesion in urban environments.

“Perceived safety” is another critical factor influencing the use of natural environments and, consequently, social cohesion. Studies indicate that pedestrian safety significantly enhances social interaction, particularly among older adults in green spaces [51]. However, perceived threats to personal safety, such as harassment or feelings of insecurity, can hinder people from using green spaces. Such concerns reduce the time spent in these areas [52] or limit the activities people are willing to undertake [53]. Therefore, ensuring the safety of urban parks through proper lighting and maintenance is crucial in making these spaces more accessible and welcoming to all users [13,54].

Equitable access to green spaces is essential for reducing social disparities. Access to these areas allows individuals from diverse backgrounds to engage in recreational activities and benefit from the health advantages that nature provides [55]. Inclusive park design considers the needs of various demographic groups, including children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities, ensuring that urban parks cater to a broad user base [56,57,58,59]. By promoting social equity and inclusivity, urban parks help bridge the gaps between different social groups and strengthen community cohesion.

Moreover, the provision of comfortable and well-maintained facilities—such as seating areas, restrooms, and shaded spots—enhances the overall user experience, encouraging longer visits and more frequent use of these spaces. Research shows that parks equipped with diverse facilities that support both active and passive recreational activities become focal points for social interactions and community gatherings, further reinforcing the social fabric of urban neighborhoods [47].

3. Methods

3.1. Study Site

This research was conducted in Konya, the 6th largest city in Türkiye in terms of population. Alaeddin Hill, the sampling area where the survey was conducted, is a hill and park located in the center of the city of Konya. Named after the Seljuk sultan Alaaddin Keykubat I, who ruled the region in the 13th century, it is an abode to several historical and cultural attractions, including the Alaaddin Mosque. The park also features many walking trails and picnic areas, along with some restaurants and cafes, and has panoramic views of the city and the surrounding countryside. Alaeddin Hill park is in Karatay, the central district of Konya province. It is an oval-planned park covering an area of 157,500 m² (Figure 1).

3.2. Research Framework

This study was structured around a comprehensive, multidimensional social sustainability framework specifically adapted to urban parks. The proposed framework aimed to investigate how the identified dimensions shape the overall social sustainability of Alaeddin Hill Park in Konya—identity, sense of place, social cohesion, security and safety, equity, facilities, comfort, and accessibility—contribute to the park’s overall social sustainability. These dimensions were operationalized through a series of indicators designed to measure perceptions regarding the park’s role in promoting social sustainability (

Table 1. Dimensions and measurement variables used in the research.

Dimensions	Mesurement Variables
Identitity	I1	It holds an important place in the city’s history.
	I2	It has contributed to the preservation of the city’s historical and cultural values.
	I3	It has unique spaces.
	I4	It is among the symbols of the city.
	I5	It fosters a sense of belonging among its visitors by reflecting local culture and heritage.
Sense of Place	SP1	I feel comfortable in the park.
	SP2	I am happy to be here.
	SP3	I feel like I can be myself here.
	SP4	Being in his park gives me sense of community.
Social Cohesion	SC1	Everyone can participate in all recreational activities
	SC2	It contributes to the integration of different cultures
	SC3	While spending time here, I feel a sense of belonging to this place.
Comfort	C1	There are sufficient seating elements within the park area.
	C2	There are dining facilities such as restaurants, cafes, and kiosks available.
	C3	There are adequate facilities (toilets, fountains, etc.) to meet general needs.
	C4	The maintenance and cleanliness are sufficient.
Security and Safety	S1	The security (such as guards, private security, etc.) is adequate.
	S2	Evening lighting is sufficient.
	S3	During the day, I feel safe in the park when I am alone.
	S4	It is safe to be alone in the park after dark.
Social Equity	SE1	Regardless of language, religion, or beliefs, everyone uses the park equally.
	SE2	It is suitable for use by all age groups.
	SE3	It is open to all socio-economic groups.
Facilities	F1	The lawns are sufficient for various activities such as exercise and relaxation.
	F2	The facilities are diverse enough to meet the recreational needs of different groups.
Accessibility	A1	Access to the park is varied.
	A2	The walking areas are sufficient.
	A3	It is possible to reach every part of the area on foot.

). This study operated on the premise that social sustainability is not a static condition but a dynamic process influenced by a combination of social, cultural, and environmental factors.

3.3. Data and Sampling

The target population of this study consists of users of Alaeddin Hill Park in Konya. To determine the appropriate sample size for this population, Cochran’s Adjusted Sample Size Formula [60] was utilized:

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{n_0}{1+\frac{n_0-1}{N}}}$$

(1)

In this formula, n₀ represents the initial sample size calculated for an infinite population, which was estimated to be 384.16 based on a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. Approximately 175 individuals visit the park daily, establishing a total population measure (N) of 175 for this study.

A structured survey was administered to individuals present in the park, focusing on assessing the dimensions of social sustainability. The survey instrument was validated through a pilot study conducted with 20 participants. Data were collected in May 2023 through face-to-face surveys at Alaeddin Hill Park. A random sampling method was employed to obtain a sample that represents the broader population of park users. To account for potential variations in park usage patterns, data were collected on both weekdays and weekends and at different times of the day. Verbal consent was obtained from participants prior to each survey to ensure confidentiality and anonymity, and the survey process took approximately 10–15 min to complete.

Based on a comprehensive literature review, this study identified eight dimensions to define social sustainability within the context of urban parks: accessibility, safety and security, equity, cohesion, identity, sense of place, equality, and comfort. Each dimension of social sustainability is characterized by specific variables, with each variable corresponding to a question in the survey. The questions were structured using a five-point Likert scale, where participants rated their responses to the statements, ranging from strongly disagree (1 point) to strongly agree (5 points). The survey consisted of two sections: The first section gathered demographic information such as gender, age, education level, marital status, and income, which were used as primary control variables. Participants answered six demographic questions in this section. The second section included 28 statements addressing the key components of this study. This section aimed to collect perceptual data from users regarding the park’s social sustainability.

3.4. Data Analysis

Prior to conducting any statistical tests, the presence of outliers in the dataset was examined, as outliers can increase error variance and impact the validity of statistical tests. To assess the reliability of the scales, a Reliability Analysis was performed, and to evaluate construct validity, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted. Descriptive statistical methods, such as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were employed to analyze the demographic characteristics of the sample and the responses to the survey items. A correlation analysis was carried out to determine whether there were any relationships between the dimensions. To assess differences among demographic groups, an ANOVA test and t-Test were used. The statistical analysis of the collected data was carried out using SPSS Statistics 27.0 software.

3.5. Research Hypotheses

H1. 

Social sustainability in an urban park comprises eight main dimensions: identity, social equity, cohesion, sense of place, safety, accessibility, facilities, and comfort.

H2. 

Identity, equity, social cohesion, sense of place, safety, accessibility, facilities, and comfort are positively correlated with each other.

H3. 

Perceptions related to the dimensions vary depending on demographic characteristics such as gender, age, and income.

3.6. Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the university’s ethics committee prior to data collection. All participants were informed of this study’s purpose and their right to withdraw at any time. Verbal consent was obtained for a questionnaire, and no personal identifying information was collected.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and frequency distributions) were used to summarize the demographic characteristics of the sample and responses to survey items (

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the sample population.

Dimensions		Frequency	Frequency Percentage
Gender	Female	64	53.3
	Male	56	46.7
Age	18–24	39	32.5
	25–35	38	31.7
	36–45	17	14.2
	46–55	18	15.0
	Over 56	8	6.7
Marital Status	Married	52	43.3
	Single	68	56.7
Educational Status	Primary	12	10.0
	High	42	35.0
	University	50	41.7
	Postgraduate	16	13.3
Working Status	Public instution	15	12.5
	Private sector	40	33.3
	Unemployed	65	54.2
Income	Low	99	82.5
	Middle	18	15
	High	3	2.5

and

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of dimensions.

Dimensions	Mean	Median	Mode	Std. Deviation
Comfort	2.7583	3	3	1.02896
Accessibility	3.1417	3	3	0.98983
Facilities	3.4333	3	3	1.17204
Safety and Security	2.4417	2	3	1.08307
Sense of Place	2.5417	2	2	1.15879
Equity	3.375	3	4	1.11568
Social Cohesion	3.4917	4	4	1.20221
Identity	3.775	4	5	1.08048
Social Sustainability	3.100	3	3	0.65337

).

The demographic analysis of the sample (N = 120) showed that 46.7% of respondents were male, and 53.3% were female. The age distribution ranged from 18 to 56 and over. The socio-economic background of participants varied, with 82.5% of respondents falling into the lower-income category, 15% in the middle-income category, and 2.5% in the upper-income category (Table 2).

The dimensions used in this study are described. In Table 3, each variable is presented in terms of mean, median, mode and standard deviation.

4.2. Reliability and Factor Analysis

A reliability analysis was performed to evaluate the internal consistencies of the extracted factors. A Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliability test confirmed the reliability of the data sets (α = 0.7); hence, they are acceptable for grounding the study findings (

Table 4. The results of reliability analysis.

Dimensions	Cronbach’s Alpha	Item
Comfort	0.711	4
Accessibility	0.729	3
Facilities	0.737	2
Safety and Security	0.746	4
Sense of Place	0.755	4
Equity	0.724	3
Social Cohesion	0.715	3
Identity	0.712	5

).

An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed to examine the underlying dimensions of social sustainability in Alaeddin Hill Park. Eight factors were identified: identity, accessibility, social equity, sense of place, social cohesion, comfort, security and safety, and facilities.

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test was utilized to assess the adequacy of the sample size for conducting factor analysis. Values between 0.5 and 1.0 were evaluated as acceptable as KMO values [61]. As a result of the analysis, the KMO value was determined as 0.769, and it was concluded that the sample was sufficient to conduct a factor analysis. In addition, when the Bartlett Sphericity test results were examined, it was found that the Chi-Square value obtained was acceptable (χ²(300 = 1232.877; p = 0.000; p < 0.01)) (

Table 5. KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity results.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.		0.769
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	1232.877
	df	300
	Sig.	0.000

).

The number of factors were determined based on Eigenvalues, where only those with Eigenvalues greater than 1 were retained. These eight factors collectively account for 70.558% of the variance (

Table 6. Eigenvalues indicating the explanatory power of each factor.

Component	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings			Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total
1	6.721	24.005	24.005	6.721	24.005	24.005	4.810
2	3.806	13.592	37.597	3.806	13.592	37.597	2.963
3	2.550	9.105	46.702	2.550	9.105	46.702	3.707
4	1.624	5.801	52.503	1.624	5.801	52.503	2.339
5	1.427	5.097	57.600	1.427	5.097	57.600	2.613
6	1.293	4.618	62.218	1.293	4.618	62.218	3.152
7	1.227	4.380	66.599	1.227	4.380	66.599	2.806
8	1.109	3.959	70.558	1.109	3.959	70.558	2.991
9	0.844	3.014	73.572
10	0.765	2.732	76.304
11	0.723	2.584	78.888

).

When the value of this parameter is 0.4 or higher, it suggests that the variance shared between a construct and its indicators surpasses the measurement error variance for that construct, indicating a valid measurement model. If factor loading between constructs and indicators fall below 0.4, they must be revised or excluded from the research model [62]. Moreover, if a variance loads onto multiple factors and the difference between these loadings exceeds 0.1, the factor with the highest loading is retained. Accordingly, the sense of place was removed from the model, and equity became two factor components: cohesion and equity. The factor components identified through the analyses were redefined as follows: F1_Identity, F2_Sense of place, F3_Comfort, F4_Facilities, F5_Accessibility, F6_ Equality, F7_Social Cohesion, and F8_Security and Safety (

Table 7. Factor loadings of each variable.

Maddeler	F1_Ide	F2_Se_Pl	F3_Com	F4_Fa	F5_Acc	F6_Equ	F7_Co	F8_Sa
S24	0.626					0.307
S25	0.674
S26	0.899
S27	0.817
S28	0.829
S14		0.372						0.473
S15		0.642
S16		0.894
S17		0.860
S1			−0.666
S2			−0.728
S3			−0.844
S4			−0.783
S8				0.754
S9				0.746
S5					0.761
S6					0.810
S7				0.360	0.635
S21						0.686
S22						0.788
S23						0.699
S18						0.312	0.651
S19							0.749
S20							0.690
S10		0.367						0.715
S11								0.801
S12								0.679
S13								0.535

).

4.3. Corelation Analysis Results

A correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the dimensions (

Table 8. The correlation analysis of dimensions.

		Ide.	Se_pl	Fac.	Acc.	Sa.	Equ.	Com.	Co.
Correlations	Ide.	1.000	0.004	−0.025	0.055	0.042	−0.341	−0.115	−0.327
	Se_pl	0.004	1.000	0.071	−0.071	−0.383	−0.056	−0.106	0.076
	Fac.	−0.025	0.071	1.000	0.052	−0.123	−0.057	−0.227	−0.069
	Acc.	0.055	−0.071	0.052	1.000	−0.196	−0.019	−0.309	−0.072
	Sa.	0.042	−0.383	−0.123	−0.196	1.000	−0.006	0.047	0.006
	Equ.	−0.341	−0.056	−0.057	−0.019	−0.006	1.000	0.008	−0.159
	Com.	−0.115	−0.106	−0.227	−0.309	0.047	0.008	10.000	−0.252
	Co.	−0.327	0.076	−0.069	−0.072	0.006	−0.159	−0.252	1.000

).

4.4. T-Test and ANOVA Test Results

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and t-Test were used to test for statistically significant differences in responses based on demographic characteristics such as age, gender, and income level. This analysis helped identify whether different groups experience the park in significantly different ways (

Table 9. Descriptive statistics and t-test analysis by gender.

Dimensions	Gender	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	F	p
Comfort	W	64	2.5625	1.02159	0.641
	M	56	2.9821	0.99984		0.025
Accessibility	W	64	3.1250	0.86373	5.442	0.025
	M	56	3.1607	1.12455		0.845
Facilities	W	64	3.3750	1.11981	0.485	0.847
	M	56	3.5357	1.30683		0.470
Security and Safety	W	64	2.4688	1.06858	0.029	0.474
	M	56	2.4107	1.10826		0.771
Sense of Place	W	64	2.4219	1.10991	1.000	0.772
	M	56	2.6786	1.20766		0.228
Equity	W	64	3.3125	1.15298	0.455	0.230
	M	56	3.4464	1.07736		0.514
Social Cohesion	W	64	3.4844	1.22140	0.172	0.512
	M	56	3.5000	1.19087		0.944
Identity	W	64	3.7344	1.07263	0.090	0.944
	M	56	3.8214	1.09722		0.662
Social Sustainability	W	64	3.0156	0.65446	0.557	0.662
	M	56	3.1964	0.64441		0.131

,

Table 10. Descriptive statistics and t-test analysis by age group.

Dimensions	Age Group	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	F	p
Comfort	Y	95	2.8000	0.746	0.389	0.746
	O	25	2.6000
Accessibility	Y	95	3.0105	0.627	0.430	0.627
	O	25	2.8400
Facilities	Y	95	3.4316	0.001	0.975	0.001
	O	25	3.4400
Security and Safety	Y	95	2.3895	1.059	0.305	1.059
	Y	25	2.6400
Sense of Place	Y	95	2.5789	2.353	0.128	2.353
	O	25	2.9600
Equity	Y	95	3.3579	0.106	0.745	0.106
	O	25	3.4400
Social Cohesion	Y	95	3.4000	0.025	0.875	0.025
	O	25	3.3600
Identity	Y	95	3.6947	0.145	0.704	0.145
	O	25	3.6000
Social Sustainability	Y	95	3.0526	2.425	0.122	2.425
	O	25	3.2800

and

Table 11. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA analysis by income level.

Dimension	Income Level	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	F	p
Comfort	low	100	2.8700	1.04112	3.767	0.026
	middle	17	2.2353	0.75245
	high	3	2.0000	1.00000
Accessibility	low	100	3.0300	0.98939	1.168	0.315
	middle	17	2.6471	0.78591
	high	3	3.0000	0.00000
Facilities	low	100	3.5000	1.18492	1.041	0.356
	middle	17	3.0588	1.14404
	high	3	3.3333	0.57735
Security and Safety	low	100	2.4100	1.10184	0.360	0.699
	middle	17	2.6471	1.05719
	high	3	2.3333	0.57735
Sense of Place	low	100	2.6300	1.16042	0.597	0.552
	middle	17	2.7059	0.84887
	high	3	3.3333	0.57735
Equity	low	100	3.4500	1.12254	1.364	0.260
	middle	17	3.0000	1.06066
	high	3	3.0000	1.00000
Social Cohesion	low	100	3.4600	1.17568	1.223	0.298
	middle	17	3.0000	0.79057
	high	3	3.3333	0.57735
Identity	low	100	3.7900	1.08521	3.491	0.034
	middle	17	3.0588	1.08804
	high	3	3.3333	0.57735
Social Sustainability	low	100	3.1400	0.66697	1.169	0.314
	middle	17	2.8824	0.60025
	high	3	3.0000	0.00000

).

5. Discussion

This study developed and validated a comprehensive, multidimensional scale to measure social sustainability within the context of urban parks. By operationalizing social sustainability through eight key dimensions—identity, accessibility, facilities, equity, sense of place, social cohesion, safety and security, and comfort—we aimed to capture the multifaceted nature of this concept. The results from reliability and factor analyses confirm that the model fits the data well, with the goodness-of-fit indices demonstrating that these eight dimensions effectively represent the concept of social sustainability. These findings provide strong support for Hypothesis 1, which proposed that social sustainability in urban parks could be understood and measured through these eight distinct yet interconnected dimensions.

This result highlights the importance of approaching social sustainability as a multidimensional construct. Each dimension plays a critical role in shaping users’ experiences and perceptions of the park, and neglecting any one of these dimensions could lead to an incomplete understanding of how parks contribute to social sustainability. The successful validation of this model offers a valuable tool for urban planners and policymakers seeking to evaluate and enhance the social sustainability of parks and similar public spaces. Moreover, the findings emphasize the need for integrated strategies that address multiple facets of park design and management to promote inclusivity, equity, and community well-being.

The findings of this study reveal that. while Alaeddin Hill Park is highly valued for its identity, facilities, and social cohesion, it requires significant improvements in areas such as safety, sense of place, and comfort. Identity emerged as the dimension with the highest average score, indicating that users view the park as an important cultural or symbolic landmark within their community. This finding aligns with research conducted by [13,27] Moulay, which emphasizes the importance of urban parks in fostering a sense of community and cultural identity. Alaeddin Hill Park, therefore, plays a key role in reinforcing a sense of belonging among its visitors.

The high ratings for facilities, such as seating areas, playgrounds, and other amenities, further indicate that these elements are critical in enhancing user satisfaction and encouraging park usage. This finding is consistent with previous research suggesting that well-maintained facilities contribute to the appeal and functionality of urban parks [18]. Moreover, the park’s success in fostering social cohesion, as reflected by the relatively high scores in this dimension, demonstrates its role in strengthening social interactions and community bonds. This finding corroborates earlier studies, such as those by [29,34], which highlight the social benefits of parks in promoting both passive and active participation, thus reinforcing social networks.

On the other hand, lower scores in safety and sense of place highlight critical areas for improvement. Despite its overall significance in park satisfaction, safety concerns—especially related to lighting and security—were prominent among users, particularly at night. This finding mirrors previous studies that underscore safety as a primary factor influencing park usage, particularly among vulnerable groups such as women and the elderly [27,39]. Enhancing security features, such as better lighting and visible security measures, could address these concerns and encourage more frequent use of the park, especially during off-peak hours.

Similarly, the relatively low score for sense of place suggests that users may not feel a strong emotional or psychological connection to the park. This is an area that could be improved by introducing design elements that promote attachment and a deeper sense of belonging, such as creating more culturally significant or locally resonant features. Previous studies, such as those by [38], emphasize the importance of place attachment in fostering long-term engagement and frequent visitation to urban parks.

Comfort, which also received lower evaluations, indicates that park users may not find the park’s environment fully accommodating. Enhancing comfort through additional seating, shaded areas, and overall cleanliness could significantly improve the user experience. These findings align with research by [59], who stresses the importance of physical comfort in urban spaces as a determinant of park usage and overall satisfaction.

Interestingly, while accessibility has been highlighted as a crucial factor in many studies [35], its impact on overall satisfaction in this study was less pronounced. This outcome may suggest that, once basic accessibility needs are met, users prioritize other dimensions, such as safety, comfort, and social engagement, which have a more immediate impact on their experience. This finding contrasts with the findings of [29], which emphasize accessibility as a primary concern for park users. The relatively lower significance of place attachment and identity in influencing overall satisfaction, compared to more functional aspects like safety and comfort, further underscores the importance of addressing basic user needs before focusing on more abstract dimensions.

While the correlations between social sustainability dimensions were generally weak, the moderate negative correlations between identity and equity, and between place attachment and safety, suggest potential trade-offs between certain dimensions. This finding may indicate that focusing too heavily on one aspect (such as identity) could inadvertently lead to lower perceptions in another (such as equity), a finding that aligns with [5], who discussed the complexities of balancing various elements of social sustainability.

Lastly, the results also demonstrate that income level significantly affects users’ perceptions of comfort and identity, with lower-income respondents reporting higher comfort and stronger identification with the park. This finding suggests that socio-economic status may influence how people experience urban parks, particularly in terms of their physical and emotional connection to these spaces. However, income level did not significantly affect other dimensions, such as accessibility, social cohesion, or equity, indicating that these aspects are perceived similarly across different socio-economic groups. This result contradicts Hypothesis 3.

In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of improving safety, comfort, and sense of place to enhance the overall social sustainability of Alaeddin Hill Park. Park designers and planners should focus on creating a safer and more welcoming environment while also fostering social interactions and strengthening the park’s identity. By addressing these key areas, urban parks can better serve as inclusive spaces that promote both individual well-being and community cohesion.

6. Conclusions

This study contributes to the growing field of social sustainability by developing a comprehensive framework for evaluating urban parks. By focusing on multiple dimensions—such as safety, accessibility, social cohesion, and comfort—this study provides a more holistic understanding of how parks can support social sustainability in urban settings. The review of the literature highlights that social sustainability has yet to be fully conceptualized, largely due to the lack of a clear definition. Moreover, operationalizing social sustainability remains an area with significant gaps. This study contributes to addressing these gaps by analyzing social sustainability within the context of urban parks, making it applicable through statistical testing to ensure reliability and validity. This study also explores the application of the proposed scale to an urban park setting, specifically assessing the perspectives of park users and examining variations in results based on age, gender, and income levels. Additionally, this study contributes to the existing literature by demonstrating the multifaceted nature of social sustainability and the importance of a comprehensive approach in evaluating and improving urban parks.

This paper makes several contributions to the existing literature on social sustainability in urban parks. While most of the dimensions and variables examined in this study were explored individually in previous research, they are rarely studied collectively. As such, this study argues that failing to account for each of these dimensions may provide an incomplete picture of social sustainability, which is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon. The findings have practical implications for urban planners and policymakers who aim to design parks that not only meet environmental goals but also enhance social well-being and community engagement.

This study is confined to Konya, Turkey, and its results may not be applicable to other cultural or geographical settings. Future research should replicate this study in various cities and regions to confirm the findings. Furthermore, the use of self-reported data could lead to potential biases; thus, future studies should adopt a mixed-method approach, integrating both qualitative and quantitative techniques, to gain a more nuanced understanding of public perceptions.