The concept of social capital has been further explored in research derived from the studies of Jane Jacobs, Robert Pantam, James Coleman, and Hudson as the first research efforts. Social capital includes social connections, attitudes, norms, and institutions that contribute to societal wellbeing, for instance, through giving us a sense of belonging. Social capital is defined as the values and properties, such as social interaction, mutual trust and understanding, and shared vision and norms, which allow organizational members to work toward a goal successfully (Ayse. et al., 2022). It is recognized as a multidimensional construct consisting of structural, relational, and cognitive capital (Fraser and Naquin. 2022). The local community is the most suitable bed for achieving social richness so that social patterns can measure the textures of urban neighborhoods. In the process of moving from the traditional concept of urban planning, traditional concepts are derived, which are inherently derived from sciences such as sociology, and the explanation of problems related to identity characteristics and attachment to neighborhoods goes through the refinement of concepts such as social capital. The definition of social capital in this study is simply a set of processes that result from social actions and can be used to meet individual personal and general needs and improve their quality of life (Pongponrat et al., 2018; Yeganeh and Kamalizadeh, 2018).

On the other hand, by changing the pattern of life in neighborhoods, local social communication and face-to-face and direct exchanges that have led to formation of the local social capital have been reduced, and social trust and civic participation, as the two main components of social capital, have diminished (Fraser et al., 2021; Fraser and Naquin, 2022). According to various studies conducted in the neighborhood, most people barely know their neighbors and have the least amount of social contact with their neighbors. Urban neighborhoods, as an intermediary between the city and citizens and as the central nuclei of social currents over time, have played a crucial role in shaping and organizing urban affairs. Providing daily services has induced a sense of belonging, identity, and richness of social relations (Monteil et al., 2020; Zare et al., 2022).

Social capital is used as a theoretical basis for examining the social status of the neighborhood. Moreover, based on that, the existing capacities in the neighborhood can be identified and considered more carefully. Local social capital can be described in terms of the following aspects:

A. Neighborhood social capital as a multilevel structure: social capital in this section can be defined as multilevel interconnections between network-based resources to be used effectively. Mutual trust in the form of networks formed within the neighborhood for neighborhood management and planning. It can lead to creating a multilevel social structure of citizens in the neighborhood and ultimately make it easier to manage neighborhood affairs.

Therefore, social capital in the neighborhood tries to gain citizens’ trust by creating a multilevel structure and developing participatory management and planning in the neighborhood. This aspect of social capital is a structural social capital, and organizations, institutions, and networks have a decisive role in its formation.

B. Neighborhood social capital as a platform for the use of local capacities: social capital creates different forms in the use of local capacities due to different dimensions and aspects and different forces. Recent research on social capital also emphasizes certain forms of social capital. It can apply social and political values and norms to all communities, just as cultural and socio-economic backgrounds shape individuals’ perceptions of social capital, so these backgrounds identify and present social capital needs. It presents the characteristics of neighborhoods with a high degree of social capital in the form of four things: people will feel that they are part of the neighborhood; they feel useful and valuable, and their ability to participate in the neighborhood is strengthened; they know themselves and feel safe in it; many networks of interactions between people are formed.

C) Social capital as a tool to strengthen appropriate neighborhood policies: planning policies can be defined at the national and significant levels and implemented at the local level with a participatory planning approach by neighborhood residents. People should be used in their implementation. The basic domains of social capital based on the said concepts and approaches can be in the form of empowerment, participation, participatory activities, and public goals and objectives to support networks; pay attention to the values and norms of society and trust as an element; strengthen and protect appropriate neighborhood policies in social capital and belonging and environmental safety; and renovation and improvement of worn-out urban tissues. The strength of these indicators among the residents of worn-out tissues can function as a facilitator and create a better ground for the success of renovation programs. However, its weakness can be considered a deterrent and negative consequence in implementing such projects.

D) Social capital as a planning tool: one neighborhood planning characteristic is based on attention to social and human capital. The formation and accumulation of these capitals require a neighborhood-oriented structure in management and planning. In centralist structures based on a traditional perspective, general and inflexible divisions of social capital, i.e., networks of cooperation and mutual trust are not formed (He et al., 2021). Neighborhood planning emphasizes that neighborhood residents, through the shared and long experience of living in an environment, can identify many of the needs and necessities of their daily lives and, in coordination with senior management, help create sustainable urban neighborhoods (Sakhaei, Yeganeh, Afhami, 2022). It has more time and space on a local scale. In terms of planning, decentralization, and transfer of affairs to local and micro levels and moving toward a self-governing system, local planning and management are other significant characteristics that can be desirably implemented in cities by relying on social capital (Hikichi et al., 2020; Yeganeh, 2020).

Urban branding is a way to increase urban attraction and an essential factor of urban cognition and identity (Rainisto, 2013; Zarei and Yeganeh, 2018). An urban brand is a complex combination of the audience’s inferences and mental images of a city and its citizens, living space, business space, and tourist attractions. In other words, “urban branding” is a comprehensive and long-term strategy along with the city’s urban development strategy and economic development strategy, consisting of a series of integrated strategies, processes, and activities (Anton and Lawrence, 2016).

Finally, it promotes the city’s reputation among other cities, increases its competitive capabilities, and improves the lives of citizens. Urban branding refers to activities that aim to turn a place into a destination (Ryan, 2005; Shafter et al., 2000; Yeganeh, 2020). Contrary to popular belief that destination brand building is known only in communication, destination branding is the identification, organization, and coordination between all available variables that affect the image of the destination brand (Sosik et al., 2012; Taylor, 2000; Tuan, 1977; Zare et al., 2022).

Place branding is sometimes used interchangeably with place marketing, which competes to attract tourists, visitors, investors, citizens, and other cities’ internal resources (Avraham and Ketter, 2008). In other words, the urban brand provides the image of the place, which emphasizes the unique features of the city so that the city can compete with other competitors. The process of urban branding is also a sequential process (Dinnie, 2011). Urban branding can be one of the most important factors for its success (Chin, 1998; Lee and Kim,1999). In accordance with their characteristics and capabilities on the one hand and the needs and requirements of the future world on the other hand, to brand consciously and systematically, conscious branding will give new identity to cities in the future (Avraham and Ketter, 2008; Braun and Zenker, 2010; Yeganeh and Kamalizadeh, 2018).

In the lifestyle of local residents (lee, 2013), branding is based on representations and perception of images. As a result of this thinking, they concluded that the landmark place is considered an imaginary city consisting of a set of images and representations under the brand name (Appleyard, 1979; CABE, 2003). Urban and neighborhood branding is an effective tool for development of cities, and on a smaller scale, neighborhoods. In fact, it increases the distinction and success of living places and the value of social capital and social, cultural, political and, consequently, absorption and development. Investment, tourism boom, technology transfer, etc., are affected. Branding, above all, is in place along with increasing and reproducing social capital (Manzo, 2005; Manzo, 2006; Lefebvre, 2009; Lewicka, 2011). The formation of entrepreneurship and urban social capital can be considered the most important fields of place marketing and urban branding (Newman, 1972; Marcus, 1974; Portes, 1998; Perkins et al., 2002; Yeganeh, 2015). Today, globalization and development of urban systems and local governments has accelerated the process of production of social capital in neighborhoods and urban branding.

Social capital is considered a community asset that can be considered in various ways in planning. Social capital refers to specific processes among people’s organizations, which are jointly formed in an atmosphere of trust and lead to mutual social benefits (Proshansky et al., 1983; Ramyar, 2011). Social capital is defined as the quality of social relationships such as trust, shared norms, and values that emerge from the heart of social groups and increase social organizations, participation, and collective action for common goals (Rapoport, 1982; Ratcliffe and Korpela, 2016). Social capital emphasizes that there is little experience with social capital on a micro scale, while its impact will be more pronounced on these scales. Scientists emphasize the role of social capital in low-income and poor societies. However, there is less knowledge about how it works in societies known at the national and national levels, often more so than on the micro and neighborhood scales. The main part of this shortcoming in micro and neighborhood scales is the ambiguity of this concept and lack of a clear definition of it in this scale (Riger, and Lavrakas,1981; Rivlin, 1982).

Ahvaz is one of the metropolises of Iran, located in the central part of Ahvaz city. The population of this city is approximately 1,200,000, and it is the seventh most populous city in Iran. Ahvaz has many bridges; for this reason, it is known as the city of bridges. Ahvaz, with an area of 18,650 ha, is considered the fourth largest city in Iran. Karun River, the most water-rich river in Iran, originates from Zardkooh and enters Ahvaz, dividing the city into eastern and western parts. The Ahvaz oil field, the largest oil field in Iran and the third largest in the world, is located within the city.

The levels of education, age, and place of residence have been studied as the three main underlying variables in this study. It significantly affects the social capital parameters with a somewhat significant coefficient. Age has little effect on the components of social capital. However, this effect is minimal and positive. The history of living in a place significantly impacts trust and social participation, solidarity, common values, and a sense of spatial belonging. Living in a place has a more negligible effect on increasing the amount of social capital. However, the most significant impact of living history is related to common values of social solidarity and trust. The effect of the place of residence on the components of social capital is between one-tenth and nineteen percent. The level of education hurts some components of social capital and positively affects some others, although this effect is minimal. Removing the common values of social participation and trust has a negative effect. The impact factor is, on average, negative three hundred percent. Also, the effect of education on spatial belonging is a positive and tiny sense of security and in the positive range is three hundred percent. Belonging and common values show that all components are positively correlated. At the level of significance, i.e., zero, all results have the necessary validity. On average, the sense of spatial belonging is somewhat equally correlated with other components. However, the data show that the sense of belonging has the slightest degree of correlation with social participation.

Examining the correlation table between the components of social capital, i.e., social participation, social trust, social security, social correlation, sense of spatial belonging, and common values shows that all components are positively correlated (Table 7). At the level of significance, i.e., zero, all results have the necessary validity. On average, the sense of spatial belonging is somewhat equally correlated with other components. However, the data in the table show that the sense of belonging has the slightest degree of correlation with social participation.

The correlation table between measures related to social capital shows that social participation and social security have a correlation of 0.59, which is the highest positive correlation. Also, the correlation coefficient between all components is positive. The correlation coefficient of social participation with social solidarity is also equal to 0.516. The correlation between social solidarity and common values is equal to 0.508. The rest of the correlations are lower than the median in the fuzzy scale.

Relevant regression tables show that the width of the origin for the linear graph between the parameters related to branding, i.e., the function of differentiation and identity with social capital is high. The maximum width of the origin or consistency is related to the function. Alternatively, beta related to function is much lower than that of differentiation and identity. This issue shows that social capital, as a dependent variable, has the most significant impact in the first place of identity and the next stage of differentiation (Table 8).

The effectiveness of function is much less compared to that of the other two items. The details of the regression data show three factors.

The regression data table (Table 9) shows the most causal relationship between identity and social capital. Next, distinction shows the most causal relationship with social capital. Also, relationship performance has a low level of meaning with social capital. It should be noted that in all samples, the significance level is zero (Sig=0.00), which is entirely significant. The formulas related to the relationship between performance, identity, and personality with social capital are as follows:

Social Capital = 3.1 + 0.17* Function

In the aforementioned linear graphs, the width is positive from the origin, and the highest value is related to the linear regression relationship between the performance and social capital.

Y=Constant + B* X

Based on the linear regression formula, the cause-and-effect relationship between social capital and place branding is according to the following formula. Therefore, place branding has a factor of 0.5 on social capital. It can be said that this linear relationship is quite significant, considering the significance level (Sig=0.00).

Social Capital = 1.8 + 0.5* Place Branding.

The branding regression table (Table 10) on the components of social capital, i.e., social participation, social trust, social security, social correlation, sense of spatial belonging, and shared values shows that place branding has the most significant impact on increasing the sense of spatial affiliation. Social trust has common values of social participation and social cohesion. It should be noted that the degree of impact on the following components is reduced as follows.

Y=Constant + B* X

Social participation = 2.04 + 0.39* Place Branding.

Social security = 1.22 + 0.55* Place Branding.

Social solidarity = 1.21 + 0.61* Place Branding.

Social attachment = 2.47 + 0.33* Place Branding

Social values = 1.27 + 0.77* Place Branding

The aforementioned linear relationships show that place branding has the most significant impact on social values and social solidarity. The amount of this effect is higher than the average. Place branding is also slightly more effective than the average on social security. Considering the significance level (Sig = 0.00), it can be said that this linear relationship is quite significant. The highest slope of the width from the origin for the linear graphs is related to the linear relationship between place branding and social attachment, that means that without place branding, the level of social attachment is acceptable.