There is a lack of empirical evidence on how accessibility, permeability, and connectivity function in newly developed gated communities in Erbil, particularly in Italian City 1—one of the city’s first and most influential residential developments. This study addresses that gap by:

1. Developing and applying two accessibility indices (IAI and OAI) tailored to the Erbil context;

2. Assessing how infrastructure quality and user perceptions align or diverge; and

3. Evaluating the implications of gated urbanism for sustainable urban form.

Urban planning literature increasingly recognizes accessibility, permeability, and connectivity as interrelated dimensions that define sustainable urban form. Together, they determine the spatial efficiency, inclusivity, and functionality of cities ((Coppola et al., 2014); (Levine et al., 2019)). Accessibility reflects how easily people can reach opportunities and essential services; permeability measures how freely individuals can move within a spatial network; and connectivity captures the structural and functional linkages between different areas ((Karndacharuk & Hillier, 2019); (Marcus & Colding, 2014)). These three indicators collectively shape mobility behavior, land-use efficiency, and urban livability, forming the foundation of equitable urban environments ((Litman, 2024); (Gaglione et al., 2022)). According to recent research, "The lack of mobility significantly impacts various aspects of life, including work, healthcare access, social interactions, and education for children" (Kerzhner et al., 2025). These results highlight how crucial it is to include socio-spatial theories in urban design, especially in places like Erbil.

Accessibility in urban planning is a multifaceted concept that includes logical, social, economic, and physical dimensions, and is particularly vital for vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities. (Guida & Caglioni, 2020) note that “the traditional focus on mobility… has created an issue: the fact that increased mobility does not always correspond to increased accessibility for all, especially vulnerable populations like the elderly. This highlights the need to redefine and better measure accessibility, particularly in cities like Erbil with unique urban challenges. Permeability, closely tied to city design, refers to how easily people can move through urban spaces. Higher pedestrian activity is often found in areas with better permeability. As noted by (Benassai-Dalmau et al., 2025) “areas with shorter edge links and more complex network structures show higher pedestrian permeability, which aligns with urban theories on walkability and accessibility. These insights emphasize the importance of integrating updated concepts of accessibility and permeability into urban planning practices.

Improving urban connectedness in Italian City 1, Erbil, depends on understanding current levels of permeability, which, along with accessibility and connectivity, plays a key role in how neighborhoods interact. Connectivity reflects how well different urban areas are linked, influencing sustainability and reliance on motorized transport. The 15-minute city concept offers a useful model by promoting access to essential services within a short walk or bike ride. As noted by (Gaglione et al., 2022), “the 15-minute city model emphasises accessibility to essential services within a 15-minute walk or cycle, which addresses challenges such as older people and energy conservation” (p. 1). This approach is particularly relevant for Erbil, where improving interconnection remains a pressing issue. Erbil can benefit from recent urban planning research, especially studies from Italy and similar cities, to address challenges in equitable access to services. Applying general urban accessibility indicators to Erbil is difficult due to its unique socio-economic and cultural context, making it hard for policymakers to implement sustainable and inclusive strategies. Adapting proven planning frameworks to local needs could enhance green spaces, public areas, and infrastructure, particularly in underserved neighborhoods. Focusing on accessibility, permeability, and connectivity is essential as the city continues to grow. This research aims to close knowledge gaps and guide urban development in Italian City 1, helping ensure fair access to opportunities and essential services for all residents through the use of socio-spatial theories and current planning practices.

The main tool for assessing the complexity of sustainable urban form is accessibility. The concept of accessibility is more comprehensive than just physical proximity to resources and services; it takes into account factors such as time, distance, cost, infrastructure quality, and user experience. In order to create urban areas that are not only efficient but also equitable and environmentally sustainable, it is crucial to assess accessibility indicators. Time is a key component of accessibility and an indicator that has a big influence on how users experience urban environments. People's travel plans, modes of transportation, and, eventually, their level of happiness with urban living conditions are all influenced by time. Time perception can change how people behave; for example, a well-functioning transit system that reduces time spent driving might make the location a more desirable place to live. Planners may create transit systems that not only make mobility easier but also fit in with urban residents' lifestyles by considering this factor. Another important indicator for assessing urban accessibility is distance. The distances people must travel, as well as the available means of transportation, affect how effective transportation networks are Shorter distances to key services like shops, schools, and businesses promote higher public transit use and walkability, enhancing overall accessibility and urban desirability. However, transportation costs can create financial barriers, particularly for low-income groups, potentially leading to social exclusion despite public transit being relatively affordable. The quality of transportation infrastructure—such as clean roads, clear signage, and reliable public services—greatly affects travel convenience, safety, and trust. Supporting alternative mobility options like walking and cycling is essential for sustainable urban planning. Additionally, diverse and inclusive transport options are crucial to meet the varied needs of urban populations, including seniors and people with disabilities. According to (Litman, 2024), accessibility evaluations should consider both mobility performance and the quality of land-use distribution, not only distance-based measures. Infrastructure quality plays a vital role in shaping urban residents’ perceptions of safety and security. Well-maintained environments encourage greater community engagement and public transport use, while poor infrastructure can increase fear and limit mobility. User satisfaction with transport systems is also influenced by factors like wait times and comfort, with negative experiences—such as overcrowded or unavailable buses—impacting perceived accessibility. Planners must consider these qualitative aspects to improve public transport usage. Additionally, noise pollution is emerging as a key accessibility indicator, as high noise levels deter walking and cycling, hindering sustainable transport efforts. Enhancing urban accessibility also requires better connectivity between transport modes. Seamless transitions between buses, trains, bike lanes, and walkways create an integrated, efficient system that supports environmentally friendly travel and reduces overall travel time.

People with disabilities often face unique accessibility challenges, such as the need for ramps, tactile guidance, or audio signals—features typically overlooked in standard transport planning. Applying universal design principles can enhance inclusivity for all urban residents. In sustainable urban development, accessibility is increasingly tied to environmental concerns. Promoting low-emission transport options and integrating sustainability into urban design can benefit both current and future generations. Evaluating accessibility requires considering factors like time, cost, distance, infrastructure quality, and user experience. A comprehensive approach to these elements supports sustainability, user satisfaction, and social equity. Ongoing research is essential to develop effective, inclusive urban planning strategies.

When assessing urban sustainability, urban permeability and connectivity are crucial factors to take into account. Planning for more livable settings can be guided by an understanding of how these aspects affect city functionality. Urban permeability is now measured using a variety of metrics, including qualitative ones like space syntax, which analyzes the impact of network layout on accessibility. Walkability indices and pedestrian counts are additional quantitative measures that offer information on accessibility and movement patterns. By looking at user views and experiences inside urban systems, qualitative evaluations are just as important as quantitative measures. A comprehensive understanding of urban settings is made possible by this combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, which also emphasises the different degrees of permeability and linked places. The choice of technique for assessing urban permeability and connectivity has a significant impact on the results. Studies of Asian cities have shown that different frameworks, such as dedicated pedestrian networks (DPNs) versus traditional street networks, can produce different levels of measurement accuracy. These differences emphasize the importance of context-specific assessment approaches. Existing tools have both strengths and limitations, often relying on assumptions that may not reflect informal or less traditional urban roads.

However, innovative approaches like the "frontage permeability" metric are gaining traction for their ability to better capture the dynamics between public and private spaces, enhancing urban vitality. Incorporating indicators like connectivity and permeability into traditional urban assessments offers a deeper understanding of urban dynamics. Urban planners increasingly use these measures to guide sustainable development, identify infrastructure gaps, and implement targeted improvements such as pedestrian zones and enhanced transport networks. (Mboup, 2013) emphasizes that street networks shape social interaction and urban prosperity, supporting the importance of evaluating permeability and connectivity in residential neighborhoods. This data-driven approach allows planners to predict outcomes and assess the impact of proposed changes. High-permeability areas often foster stronger community engagement and local economic growth, emphasizing accessibility’s role in urban success. Comparative studies across different cities help reveal how various urban environments address local challenges, providing valuable insights for both research and practice. These studies support more effective, sustainability-focused urban planning strategies. Assessing urban permeability and connectivity requires a complex interaction between quantitative and qualitative measurements. The effectiveness of initiatives aimed at supporting sustainable urban environments can be affected by the approach adopted. As urban planners continue to grapple with the complexities of urban design, adopting more thorough approaches to permeability and connectivity assessments can ultimately help create more resilient and accessible urban places. This study considers accessibility, permeability, and connectivity as equally significant dimensions of sustainable urban form, analyzed in an integrated framework rather than as isolated indicators.

This research employed a cross-sectional mixed-methods case study design, combining quantitative infrastructure audits with qualitative and quantitative survey responses. The approach was chosen to capture both the physical characteristics of Italian City 1 and user experiences of accessibility, permeability, and connectivity.

Participants were recruited through voluntary convenience sampling, facilitated by local community contacts and on-site distribution. A total of 30 respondents (18 males, 12 females) completed the structured questionnaire. While modest, this sample size is consistent with exploratory case study research in urban planning ((Ewing & Cervero, 2010); (Levine et al., 2019)). The sample allowed for basic subgroup comparisons (e.g., age, gender) while capturing a diverse range of user experiences.

Data were collected between 20 and 30 April 2025 through:

1. Infrastructure Assessment: Conducted using a standardized checklist adapted from Karndacharuk and Hillier (2019), covering sidewalks, crosswalks, bikeways, and public transport stops. Each indicator was scored as “present” or “absent” and converted into a percentage-based score.

2. Resident and Visitor Questionnaire: A 20-item survey measured perceptions across 13 accessibility sub-indicators (time, distance, cost, ease of travel, safety, comfort, environmental considerations, disability access, etc.) and 7 connectivity/permeability indicators. All participants were over 18 and provided informed consent. The complete version of the questionnaire used in this study is provided in Appendix A.

Two composite indices were developed to evaluate accessibility from both physical and perceptual perspectives:

The IAI was calculated using the following formula:

where Wi represents the weight assigned to each infrastructure component, and Si represents its standardized score.

The final IAI was classified into five levels:

Not Accessible (0), Poor (1–25), Moderate (26–50), Satisfactory (51–75), and Excellent (76–100).

where Pj is the percentage of respondents with satisfactory access to each service, and n is the total number of services considered.

Overall Accessibility Index (OAI_total):

To obtain a single composite measure that synthesizes both physical and perception-based accessibility, the two indices were combined as follows:

OAI_total = (IAI + OAI) / 2

This overall index improves methodological transparency and supports the replication of this approach in other urban case studies. To operationalize the weight assignment, respondents ranked infrastructure components (sidewalks, crosswalks, bikeways, public transport stops) based on their perceived importance using the Likert categories shown in the questionnaire. For each component, the frequency of most-positive selections (category A) and moderately-positive selections was summed to represent importance, consistent with methods in (Coppola et al., 2014). These raw counts were then normalized by dividing each by the total number of positive selections across all components, yielding proportional weights. This participatory weighting procedure ensures that the Infrastructure Accessibility Index reflects actual user mobility priorities rather than arbitrarily assigned values, aligning with the user-centered methodology recommended by (Gaglione et al., 2022). The final normalized weights assigned to the infrastructure components are presented in Table 1, reflecting user-reported mobility priorities derived from the survey results.

Data were analyzed using SPSS v.24. Descriptive statistics summarized infrastructure quality and user perceptions. Inferential tests were conducted to strengthen validity:

Results are presented with percentages and 95% confidence intervals where applicable.

Thirty participants completed the survey between 20–30 April 2025. The sample comprised 60% males and 40% females, with a mean age of 38.6 years (SD = 11.2). Respondents represented a range of occupations, with private employees forming the largest group (30%). While modest, the sample size is consistent with exploratory case study research and allows for meaningful subgroup comparisons. (See Table 2)

The audit revealed varied performance across infrastructure types. Sidewalks performed best (IAI = 55/100, 95% CI [48–62]), though accessibility was limited by obstacles and the absence of tactile paving. Crosswalks were less effective (IAI = 30/100, 95% CI [24–36]), often lacking ramps or clear markings. Bikeways scored lowest (IAI = 20/100, 95% CI [15–25]), as they were frequently shared with vehicles. Public transport access also scored poorly (IAI = 25/100, 95% CI [18–32]), with minimal facilities provided.(see Table 3) All numerical values and scores reported in this section (IAI values, percentages, and confidence intervals) are derived from the authors’ field-based infrastructure audit and survey analysis conducted in Italian City 1, following the methodology adapted from (Coppola et al., 2014) and (Gaglione et al., 2022)

Private cars were the dominant travel mode (33.3%), followed by walking (26.7%). Public transport use was low, reflecting poor infrastructure provision. More than 60% of respondents reached daily necessities in less than 10 minutes, resulting in an OAI score of 63.4% (95% CI [58–69]), classified as satisfactory.

The following conclusions were drawn from an analysis of survey results across 13 key accessibility sub-indicators:

Responses for each accessibility indicator were collected on four-point Likert scales. In the charts, categories A, B, C, and D represent the most positive, moderately positive, moderately negative, and most negative responses, respectively, following the structure of the questionnaire.

The combined evidence suggests that infrastructure presence alone does not ensure inclusive accessibility. Italian city 1 benefits from compact land use and numerous proximate services—factors that support walkability—but lacks several inclusive infrastructure elements (tactile paving, ramps, safe crosswalks, sheltered transit stops) necessary for equitable access. This pattern aligns with prior findings on gated developments that often deliver internal connectivity but restrict permeability and external multimodal access ((Marcus & Colding, 2014); (Coppola et al., 2014)). Statistical tests support the interpretation that infrastructure affects perceptions: younger respondents (<35 years) rated ease of travel higher (M = 4.2/5) than older respondents (M = 3.6/5), t(28) = 2.15, p < 0.05, suggesting generational differences in mobility expectations or tolerance for infrastructure shortcomings. Females reported significantly lower perceptions of nighttime safety (χ² = 5.23, p < 0.05). Pearson correlation between IAI and OAI was moderate and positive (r = 0.42, p = 0.03), indicating that better physical infrastructure tends to correspond with higher perceived accessibility, although the relationship is not determinative. Policy implication: improvements that target both the physical environment (ramps, crosswalks, transit shelters) and experiential factors (lighting, seating, enforcement against pavement obstruction) are needed to translate proximity into practical, equitable accessibility.When compared with international benchmarks, Italian City 1’s overall accessibility score (OAI_total = 48/100) falls below the range observed in comparable studies of walkable urban communities in Europe and Asia, which typically achieve values between 60 and 75 out of 100 ((Gaglione et al., 2022); (Coppola et al., 2014)). According to the World Health Organization & UN-Habitat (2016) guidelines for healthy and equitable cities, inclusive neighborhoods should provide safe pedestrian access to key services within 400–800 meters, with continuous sidewalks and accessible crossings. While Italian City 1 meets several spatial proximity targets, its infrastructure quality and multimodal access remain weaker than these international standards.

This suggests that although local design provides a compact form, it does not yet achieve the same level of accessibility performance found in best-practice global contexts. The statistical results underline meaningful subgroup disparities that align with global accessibility research. The significant difference in mobility perception between younger and older respondents mirrors findings in European and East Asian studies, where age strongly predicts comfort and travel mode diversity ((Levine et al., 2019); (Guida & Caglioni, 2020)). Similarly, the lower sense of safety among women reflects global gendered mobility patterns documented by the (Organization & U.N.-Habitat, 2016), emphasizing the importance of designing inclusive nighttime lighting and surveillance. The moderate positive correlation between IAI and OAI (r = 0.42, p = 0.03) further indicates that objective infrastructure quality moderately explains perceived accessibility, confirming similar relationships reported by (Gaglione et al., 2022) and (Zecca et al., 2020). Together, these results suggest that improving both physical infrastructure and perceived safety is essential to meet international accessibility benchmarks.

Permeability in Italian City 1 manifests as a mix of structural potential and operational limitation. Spatially, the neighborhood’s semi-grid layout and relatively small block sizes support route choice and internal navigability; however, cul-de-sacs, walled plots, and the absence of inter-block pedestrian shortcuts reduce true permeability. Functionally, 70% of respondents indicated they can walk across the area easily, but 60% reported the absence of pedestrian-only routes, and 55% noted frequent sidewalk obstacles (parked cars, construction). This “partial permeability” dynamic—where visible sightlines and short routes exist but pedestrian freedom is curtailed—mirrors descriptions of gated urbanism in other contexts (Marcus & Colding, 2014). Addressing permeability, therefore, requires design treatments (pedestrian cut-throughs, dedicated pathways) and management measures (enforcement of pedestrian right-of-way) to enable practical, safe pedestrian circulation.

Connectivity shows a clear internal–external contrast. Internally, Italian City 1 benefits from multiple route options and a legible street pattern, with over 65% of respondents reporting several alternative paths to destinations. Externally, connectivity depends heavily on vehicle-based links (taxis, app-based ride services) rather than formal public transit; app-based taxis (e.g., Careem) provide quick links to major roads but do not substitute for accessible, sheltered transit stops. Inclusive and multimodal connectivity is limited: sidewalks often lack curb ramps and tactile guidance, bicycle infrastructure is absent, and transit-supporting infrastructure (shelters, signage) is minimal. Cognitive connectivity is relatively strong—over 80% of respondents said the layout was easy to understand, suggesting that wayfinding is not a primary barrier. Improving connectivity, therefore, requires adding multimodal infrastructure (bike lanes, bus shelters), making pedestrian–transit transfers seamless, and retrofitting accessibility features for people with disabilities.

To synthesize infrastructure and perception, the Overall Accessibility Index (OAI_total) was computed as the mean of the Infrastructure Accessibility Index (IAI) and the Opportunity Accessibility Index (OAI). Using the reported scores (IAI overall = 32.5/100 as the unweighted mean of component scores; OAI = 63.4/100) the combined index is:

Overall Accessibility Index (OAI_total) = (IAI + OAI) / 2 = (32.5 + 63.4) / 2 = 48.0 / 100

This 48.0 score indicates moderate overall accessibility: while service proximity and cognitive legibility are strengths, infrastructure deficits for inclusivity and multimodality reduce the overall performance. Presenting both component indices and this aggregate measure helps decision-makers prioritize interventions that will raise both perceived and functional accessibility.

This study was approved by the Department of Architectural Engineering. All participants were adults who provided informed consent before completing the survey. No personal, sensitive, or identifiable information was collected at any stage of the research.

Reference: Departmental Ethics Approval – April 2025.

Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Access may be restricted due to ethical or privacy considerations.