Urban Morphology–Environmental Performance of Campus Public Spaces in a Hot–Arid Context: An Integrated GIS and User Perception Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31185/wjes.Vol14.Iss2.951Keywords:
walkability, GIS analysis, user perceptioncampus public spaces, hot–arid environments, urban morphology–environmental performanceAbstract
This study examines how campus urban morphology influences the environmental performance of public spaces in hot-arid university settings, using Wasit University in Iraq as a representative case. It responds to a common gap in campus research, where built form, environmental support, and user experience are often treated as separate issues, limiting a more integrated understanding of how outdoor spaces function under harsh climatic conditions.
To address this gap, the study adopts a mixed-method approach that combines GIS-based morphological analysis with a user perception survey involving 131 participants. The spatial analysis focuses on the relationship between built and open space structure, pedestrian network connectivity (γ = 0.42), network redundancy (α = 0.18), global integration (Rn), and shaded path continuity (SPCI = 0.28) in order to evaluate the level of environmental support provided by the pedestrian system. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, reliability testing (Cronbach’s α = 0.832), and Spearman correlation analysis.
The findings reveal a noticeable gap between the spatial availability of open areas and their actual environmental usability. Although open spaces account for nearly 66% of the total campus area, their fragmented layout and weak integration within the movement network reduce their functional and environmental effectiveness. Environmental conditions were found to play a major role in route selection (M = 3.878), while perceptions of nighttime safety (M = 2.702) and support for informal study activities (M = 2.893) were relatively weak.
The correlation analysis further shows that psychological comfort is strongly linked to several environmental qualities, particularly cleanliness and maintenance (ρ = 0.612), greenery (ρ = 0.461), natural lighting and ventilation (ρ = 0.447), and pedestrian continuity (ρ = 0.421), all at a high level of statistical significance (p < 0.001). Overall, the results suggest that environmental performance in hot-arid campuses depends less on the quantity of open space and more on the continuity, integration, and climatic responsiveness of the public-space network.
The study contributes to the field by proposing a context-sensitive morphology-continuity framework that connects spatial configuration with user perception, offering a more climate-responsive basis for evaluating and improving campus public spaces.
References
[1] E. Jamei and K. Habibi, “Evaluating the influence of urban form on outdoor thermal comfort in hot climates,” Urban Clim., vol. 37, p. 100858, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100858.
[2] N. Abuwaer, S. Ullah, and S. G. Al-Ghamdi, “Establishing the nexus between urban walkability and thermal comfort in a changing climate,” Nat. Cities, 2025, [Online]. Available: mailto:https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-025-00315-w
[3] Z. Asadi-Shekari, M. Moeinaddini, Z. Sultan, M. Z. Shah, and A. Hamzah, “The relationship between street network morphology and percentage of daily trips on foot and by bicycle at the city level,” J. Teknol., vol. 76, no. 14, pp. 23–28, 2015, doi: 10.11113/jt.v76.5608.
[4] P. Schon, E. Heinen, and B. Manum, “The associations of street network and urban form with walking frequencies,” Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 107–132, 2025, doi: 10.59490/ejtir.2025.25.1.7234.
[5] C. C. Pezzuto, N. L. Alchapar, and E. N. Correa, “Urban cooling technologies potential in high and low building densities,” Sol. Energy Adv., vol. 2, no. 4, p. 100022, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.seja.2022.100022.
[6] F. Guo et al., “The mechanism of street spatial form on thermal comfort from urban morphology and human-centered perspectives,” Buildings, vol. 14, no. 10, p. 3253, 2024, doi: 10.3390/buildings14103253.
[7] Y. Zhu, Y. Zhang, and F. Biljecki, “Understanding the user perspective on urban public spaces,” Cities, vol. 156, p. 105535, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2024.105535.
[8] S. Ning, J. Wei, and G. Zhang, “Evaluation of pedestrian-perceived thermal comfort based on sunlight perception,” Sci. Rep., vol. 13, p. 16112, 2023.
[9] H. Boumaraf and L. Amireche, “Thermal comfort and pedestrian behaviors in urban public spaces,” Open House Int., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 143–159, 2021, doi: 10.1108/OHI-06-2020-0060.
[10] G. Ellis, R. F. Hunter, M. A. Tully, M. Donnelly, L. Kelleher, and F. Kee, “Connectivity and physical activity: Using footpath networks to measure the walkability of built environments,” Environ. Plan. B, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 130–151, 2016, doi: 10.1177/0265813515610672.
[11] M. M. Elzeni, K. El-Rayes, and K. Abdelghany, “Evaluating the impact of urban morphology on walkability in campus environments,” Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 77, p. 103558, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103558.
[12] Y. D. Ercek and N. Yuca, “The importance of walkability on university campuses.” 2023. [Online]. Available: mailto:https://avesis.yyu.edu.tr/yayin/e4b24eb1-eae0-4877-bd0a-3c428fbf0786
[13] R. Aghamolaei, A. Madani, and M. Kermani, “Assessing walkability and user perception in public open spaces,” J. Urban Des., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 489–507, 2022, doi: 10.1080/13574809.2021.1981264.
[14] N. Mouada, N. Zemmouri, and R. Meziani, “Urban morphology, outdoor thermal comfort and walkability,” Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 117–133, 2019, doi: 10.14246/irspsda.7.1_117.
[15] M. A. Alharthi, S. Lenzholzer, and J. Cortesao, “Climate responsive design in urban open spaces,” Discov. Cities, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44327-025-00069-z.
[16] A. Speak et al., “Forehead temperatures as an indicator of outdoor thermal comfort,” Urban Clim., vol. 39, p. 100965, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100965.
[17] H. Al-Yozbakee and O. Al-Hafith, “Examining thermal comfort in open spaces in higher education,” Archit. Sci. Rev., 2025, doi: 10.1080/00038628.2025.2545320.
[18] X. Zhu, Y. Lin, and Y. Sun, “User experience and spatial quality of public spaces,” Cities, vol. 144, p. 104589, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2023.104589.
[19] O. Gocer et al., “Spatio-temporal mapping based POE method,” Build. Environ., 2018, [Online]. Available: mailto:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132318305602
[20] A. Zencirkiran and O. Suta, “Spatial organization and user experience in a university campus,” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 24, p. 11221, 2025, doi: 10.3390/su172411221.
[21] S. M. Labib, S. Lindley, and J. J. Huck, “Urban green-blue spaces and human health,” Environ. Res., vol. 180, p. 108869, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108869.
[22] H. Ning et al., “Pedestrians’ perception of solar exposure and shading,” Build. Environ., vol. 231, p. 109999, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.109999.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Manal A. Al-Mayahi, Rabee J. Al-Shammari, Hadi Ebadi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
