Content uploaded by Ayhan Bekleyen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ayhan Bekleyen on Sep 07, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Ayhan Bekleyen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ayhan Bekleyen on Sep 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
149
UDC: 711.58:364.68:365.6
DOI:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2016-27-01-005
Received: 29Aug.2015
Accepted: 25Feb.2016
Ayhan BEKLEYEN
İlham YILMAZ-AY
Are gated communities indispensable
for residents?
Gated communities (GCs) – that is, residential areas
with restricted access– have recently become widespread
around the world. is study focuses on two GCs in
Diyarbakır, one of the largest cities of southeast Turkey.
e purpose of the study was to determine the satisfac-
tion levels and preferences of residents of these commu-
nities. e ndings, which revealed high resident satis-
faction levels, show that residents chose to live in these
communities mainly because of safety and prestige. e
results of the study also indicate that long-term residents
of GCs have a fear of living outside this kind of arrange-
ment, which is reected in a fear of moving.
Keywords: gated community, safe area, resident prefer-
ences, resident satisfaction levels, security, fear of crime
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
150
1 Introduction
Gated communities(GCs) can be found in many cities around
the world (Blakely & Snyder, 1997; Grant & Mittelsteadt,
2004). ey are mostly preferred by the upper class and
upper-middle class, and they oer the perception of a safer
zone (Roitman, 2005). erefore, their marketing generally
emphasises safety in addition to other characteristics of their
construction, such as high status and distinction (Blandy,
2006). Not surprisingly, these new living spaces have attracted
researchers’ attention. ere is a wide array of research related
to GCs, including their denitions, characteristics, types and
resident preferences. is study examines residents’ satisfac-
tion levels in GCs with regard to the houses, their immediate
environment and neighbourhood relations. In addition, the
study also focuses on why residents prefer living in gated or
safer communities.
is study is based on the proposition that residents’ satisfac-
tion indicates that GCs will be increasingly preferred in the fu-
ture. e following research questions were asked in the study:
1. What are residents’ satisfaction levels in the two GCs in
Diyarbakır?
2. What are their reasons for living in a gated community?
3. What are their preferences related to GCs and what are
their reasons?
2 Research background
e social and physical characteristics of a house and its milieu
are indicators of housing conditions. Housing satisfaction, one
of the indicators of housing performance (Paris& Kangari,
2005; Adriaanse, 2007; Andersen, 2011), reects residents’
adaptation to these features(Lu, 1998). Residents’ subjective
comments indicate the levels of this adaptation(Wiesenfeld,
1992; Amerigo & Aragones, 1997; Liu, 1999). Residents’
life quality can also be represented by their satisfaction lev-
els (Chi & Grin, 1980; Wiedemann & Anderson, 1985;
Amerigo& Aragones, 1990; Liu, 1999; Lu, 1999; Sendi, 2013;
Aigbavboa & wala, 2014). Higher satisfaction levels per-
taining to the built environment may show a harmony between
residents’ actual situation and their preferred housing condi-
tions, whereas lower satisfaction levels could indicate the oppo-
site(Bonaiuto etal., 1999; Winstanley etal., 2002; Rapoport,
2004; Pevalin etal., 2008; Moolla et al., 2011; Bekleyen&
Korkmaz, 2013; Tsenkova, 2014; Grum& Kobal Grum, 2015;
Rogatka& Ramos Ribeiro, 2015). Hence, dissatisfaction may
create a desire to move, which sometimes leads to actual move-
ment(Lu, 1998; Opoko etal., 2015).
A residence is regarded as part of its surroundings. According-
ly, the relationship with neighbours is one of the determiners
of housing satisfaction because strong social bonds within the
neighbourhood reduce both the fear of crime and the desire
to move(Newmann, 1972; Andersen, 2008; Vera-Toscano&
Ateca-Amestoy, 2008; Yau, 2012; Shrestha, 2013; Jurkovič,
2014). As stated by RichardM.Carpiano(2007), neighbour-
hood relations may even have a positive eect on residents’
health. Another benet of these relations is related to security.
Because friendly neighbours are on alert against any threat
from strangers, a secure environment is created (McDonell,
2006). Neighbourhood attachment levels are enhanced with
the perception that a good neighbourhood makes the residence
a safer place. is enhancement will also lead residents to keep
an eye on their environment(Brown etal., 2003; Comstock
etal., 2010). e objective characteristics of the neighbour-
N
0 1 2 3 km
TURKEY Diyarbakir
Diyarbakir
Gökkuşağı
Gated
Community
Hamravat
Gated
Community
Tigris
River
a
b
Figure1: a)map of Diyarbakır; b)location of gated communities(a:il-
lustration: Ayhan Bekleyen; b:source: Internet 1).
A. BEKLEYEN, İ. YILMAZ-AY
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
151
hood should also support this tendency because the physical
environment has an eect on shaping perceptions of crime and
safety(Rollwagen, 2014).
Gated communities(GCs), the modern version of an ancient
city form, were rst built at the end of the twentieth century
and soon became symptomatic of modern living spaces. ese
communities are more like security zones(Blakely& Snyder,
1997; Lang & Danielsen, 1997; Ellin, 2001; Grant& Mit-
telsteadt, 2004; Bekleyen& Dalkılıç, 2011; Yılmaz-Ay, 2013).
“ey have security devices such as walls, fences, gates, barriers,
alarms, guards and Closed Circuit Television(CCTV) cam-
eras”(Roitman, 2005: 304). e need for GCs may stem from
“the rise of insecurity and fear of crime, the deciency of the
state in providing basic services to citizens, increasing social in-
equalities, the advancing process of social polarization, as well
as an international trend encouraged by developers”(Roitman,
2005: 304–305). Fear of violence and crime is the main reason
why people move to these communities(Low, 2003). Com-
pared to the heterogeneous structure of other communities,
GCs reect a more homogenous structure with residents from
the upper or upper-middle class(Roitman, 2005).
1. Entrance
2. Foyer
3. Toilet
4. Bathroom
5. Family room
6. Kitchen
7. Living room
8. Terrace
9. Hallway
10. Laundry
11. Bedroom
0 5 m
Ground oor plan
Upper oor plan
a b
Figure2: Floor plans of duplexes in the Hamravat Gated Community(illustration: adapted from the original project by MetropolCo.Ltd.).
Figure3: a)front and b)back views of duplexes in the Hamravat Gated Community(photo: İlham Yılmaz-Ay).
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
152
Security is a strong motivator for those that want to live in
GCs(Atkinson& Flint, 2004; Asiedu& Arku, 2009; Polan-
ska, 2010). However, studies examining the security levels of
GCs have revealed interesting ndings. Some studies indicate
that GCs attract criminal behaviour such as burglary(Breetzke
et al., 2014), and some others show that they do not truly
meet security standards. For instance, in a study about GCs
in Canada, Jill Grant(2005: 282) indicates that most security
conditions are not met in the sample communities because
“fences are quite low(1.2 m or less) [and] guards and video
surveillance are rare, except in the most exclusive projects”.
Studies focusing on the fear of crime imply that GCs may be
dystopian reections of future cities(Atkinson& Flint, 2004).
On the other hand, people in various parts of the world have
diverse attitudes towards gated communities because of their
lifestyles and needs. For example, Yasser Mahgoub and Fatma
Khalfani (2012) have observed that people in Qatar prefer
living in detached homes rather than in gated communities.
Although GCs were rst developed to meet residents’ security
needs, they were presented as more prestigious and privileged
living spaces over time as a marketing strategy(Blandy, 2006).
1. Entrance
2. Foyer
3. Toilet
4. Storeroom
5. Family room
6. Kitchen
7. Living room
8. Terrace with foldable
glass wall
9. Terrace
10. Hallway
11. Laundry
12. Bathroom
13. Bedroom
14. Balcony
0 5 m
Ground oor plan Upper oor plan
ab
Figure4: Floor plans of detached homes in the Gökkuşağı Gated Community(illustration: adapted from the original project by MetropolCo.Ltd.).
Figure5: a) front and b)back views of detached homes in the Gökkuşağı Gated Community(photo: İlham Yılmaz-Ay).
A. BEKLEYEN, İ. YILMAZ-AY
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
153
Later, these communities became well known for their high
status(Richter& Goetz, 2007; Çekiç& Gezici, 2009; Alma-
tarneh& Mansour, 2013). People had a desire to live in GCs
because they wanted to have a better lifestyle, represented by
several factors such as “the avoidance of the problems in a
city, e.g.people asking for money and food; and the search for
social homogeneity, status and exclusivity within some social
groups in the context of a general process of impoverishment
of the society” (Roitman, 2005: 305). In other words, these
communities became widespread around the world with the
demands of opulent people.
Although social bonds are not the main reason for moving
to GCs (Blandy & Lister, 2003), it has been observed that
this community type improves neighbourly relations(Garip&
Şener, 2012). e reason for this improvement may stem from
the fact that the residents live in a restricted area(Edgü &
Cimşit, 2011). Within this protected area, social bonds and
neighbours’ support also help residents develop a sense of
safety(Grant, 2005).
3 Method
3.1 Sampling
is study examined residents’ satisfaction levels in GCs and
focused on their preferences and the bond between them and
the community. A descriptive research method was used in the
design of the study, which focused on two GCs in Diyarbakır,
a city in southeast Turkey. is city has attracted migration
from rural areas for various reasons, such as the lack of job
opportunities in the area and the drawn-out conict in the re-
gion. e rst GCs in the city were built aer2000. Two GCs
in the city of Diyarbakır– the Hamravat Gated Community
and Gökkuşağı Gated Community– were examined as part of
this study. ese communities were selected because they were
the rst GCs in the city and they are larger than the others.
e study involves two GCs(Figure1). e Hamravat Gat-
ed Community(HGC) has 305 houses, most of which are
duplexes(Figure2 and 3). It was privately built in2002 for
members of upper class. e Gökkuşağı Gated Communi-
ty(GGC), which was completed in2007, has256detached
homes(Figures4 and5).
3.2 Participants
irty-three residents from HGC and twenty-seven from
GGC agreed to take part in the study. e total number of
participants was sixty and90% of them were female. Among
the female participants, 53% were housewives. Administer-
ing the questionnaires was rather challenging due to attitudes
displayed by the community administrators and some resi-
dents of the GCs. Because of constraints by the community
administrators, the questionnaires could only be administered
during the daytime. Male residents were not usually at home
during that time, and those that could be found were not as
eager as women to answer the questionnaires. Because women
traditionally spend more time within the residence and take
care of the children, it made more sense to administer the
questionnaires to women rather than men.
Half of the respondents were university graduates and all of
them owned their houses. Fiy-two per cent of the residents
were over forty. ere were fewer than ve household members
in72% of the houses. e average time of home ownership
was more than ve years in HGC(94%) and less than three
years in GGC(100%; Table1).
3.3 Research instruments
A questionnaire technique was used to collect data in the two
GCs selected. A demographic information sheet was prepared
to obtain background information about the participants. e
main questionnaire consisted of three parts, the rst of which
was related to residents’ satisfaction levels pertaining to the
residence, neighbours and neighbourhood. e second part
examined residents’ satisfaction levels in detail, asking for opin-
ions about housing quality and environmental features. Finally,
opinions related to the house and its immediate environment
were examined. e Cronbach alpha coecient of the research
instrument was found to be0.73. e rst and second parts of
the questionnaire consisted of four-point Likert-type questions
with a scale ranging from very satised to very dissatised, and
the third part consisted of two options.
3.4 Data analysis
e ndings were analysed using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences. Aer the descriptive statistics were calculated,
a Mann–Whitney U Test was administered to determine the
dierence between the nonparametric data obtained from the
average scores of two independent samples.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Satisfaction levels in the two GCs in
Diyarbakır
e conceptual framework for this part of the study was
formed based on the classication by Maria Amerigo and Juan
Ignacio Aragones(1997), who evaluated residential satisfac-
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
154
Table1: Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants.
Hamravat Gated Community Gökkuşağı Gated Community Total
n= 33 n= 27 n= 60
F (%) F (%) F (%)
Sex
Male 5(15) 1(4) 6(10)
Female 28(85) 26(96) 54 (90)
Age
20–30 4(12) 2(7) 6(10)
31–40 12(36) 11(41) 23 (38)
> 40 17(52) 14 (52) 31 (52)
Occupation
Housewife 19(58) 13(48) 32 (53)
Public sector 9(27) 12(44.5) 21(35)
Private sector 5(15) 2(7.5) 7(12)
Education
Primary education 5(15) 1(4) 6(10)
Secondary education 14(42.5) 10(37) 24(40)
Bachelor’s degree 12(36.5) 13(48) 25(42)
Master’s degree 2(6) 3(11) 5(8)
Marital status
Married 29(88) 27(100) 56(93)
Single 4(12) 0(0) 4(7)
Household size
2 3(9) 5(18.5) 8(13)
3 8(24) 5(18.5) 13(22)
4 11(33.5) 11(41) 22(37)
5 or more 11(33.5) 6(22) 17(28)
Length of residence(years)
1 0(0) 2(7) 2 (3)
2 1(3) 20(74) 21(35)
3 0(0) 5(19) 5(8)
4 1(3) 0(0) 1 (2)
5 or more 31(94) 0(0) 31(52)
Tenure status
Owner-occupied 33(100) 27(100) 60 (100)
Rented 0 (0) 0(0) 0(0)
tion by considering three aspects: the neighbourhood, neigh-
bours and house. As seen in Table2, the residential satisfaction
levels were quite high in the two communities. Although no
statistically signicant results were found when the two com-
munities were compared, GGC had higher satisfaction levels
in terms of the house and neighbourhood, but HGC had a
higher result for neighbours. Compared to non-gated com-
munities in the same city, the satisfaction levels of the resi-
dents in the GCs were quite high. For example, Nail Mahir
Korkmaz(2007), who examined house satisfaction levels in a
non-gated community in the same city, found that76.7% of
participants were satised with their houses. is nding is
low compared to the result obtained in this study(HGC =
91%, GGC= 100%).
e questionnaire also asked detailed questions about the
house and its environment such as the size of the house and
its rooms; the number of rooms, kitchen, bathroom and gar-
den; the external appearance of the residence; play areas for
children; pedestrian routes and sports areas; management;
community security; home security; the eects of living in
a restricted area; and transport facilities. Table 3 shows that
A. BEKLEYEN, İ. YILMAZ-AY
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
155
the satisfaction levels for all of these items were quite high in
both communities. e only item that lowered the satisfaction
levels was the one asking about plumbing systems, which had
oen failed.
When the two communities were compared, some statistically
signicant dierences were found in certain areas(Table3).
e residents of HGC were signicantly more satised with
social activities compared to the residents of GGC (U =
260.00, p < 0.01). As already stated, HGC consists of du-
plexes whereas GGC is mainly composed of detached homes.
Residents’ satisfaction levels concerning the distance between
houses were quite low in HGC compared to GGC (U =
312.00, p <0.05). Another question asked about the imme-
diate environment of the communities. e satisfaction level in
GGC was lower compared to HGC(U= 259.50, p< 0.01).
is may stem from the fact that tall buildings near GGC
violated the privacy of the houses in the community. In Turkey,
cities have so far generally been developed vertically. How-
ever, the new policy of the Turkish government, introduced
in2014, urges developers to build horizontal cities. If followed
properly by citizens, this policy may prevent similar problems
in the future.
Summing up the results, it can be concluded that the satisfac-
tion levels were found to be high in the sample communities.
e high satisfaction levels may be connected to the fact that
all of the residents were homeowners. A number of studies
have indicated that homeowners generally have higher house
satisfaction levels(Elsinga& Hoekstra, 2005; Grinstein-Weiss
etal., 2011; Tech-Hong, 2012). It was also found that98%
of the participants were satised with living in a restricted
area(i.e.,in a gated community).
4.2 Reasons for living in a gated community
Various reasons were obtained as a result of the data analysis
performed for this study. is part of the study explores the
underlying reasons for residents’ desire to live in a GC in depth.
4.2.1 Security
e results of previous studies have indicated that the exist-
ence of GCs is based on a need for security(Blakely& Snyder,
1997; Atkinson& Flint, 2004; Grant& Mittelsteadt, 2004;
Roitman, 2005; Asiedu& Arku, 2009). Similarly, the ndings
of this study show that the participants think their communi-
ties and houses are safe(90% and 93%, respectively). ese
results, presented in Table3, prove that the residents nd this
community type better in terms of security. However, when
the participants were asked about shortcomings in security,
it was found that there were still some examples of crime in
these GCs. As shown in Table4,10% of the participants wit-
nessed crime in their communities and23% did not nd their
houses safe against burglars. When asked about the cause of
this perception, most respondents(60%) mentioned security
weakness at the entrances of the communities. e total per-
centage of satisfaction with security contradicts this nding.
is contradiction can be explained by the eect of the good
relations between neighbours (McDonell, 2006; Carpiano,
2007). Such restricted communities increase neighbourhood
attachment and the tendency of neighbours to protect their
living spaces (Brown et al., 2003; Comstock et al., 2010).
Accordingly, the fact that the residents know one another
closely(92%, Table2) may have an eect on their perception
of safety.
From the results of this study, it is possible to conclude that the
main reason the participants preferred these communities was
Table2: Residents’ satisfaction levels related to living area.
Communities Satisfaction Mean Percentage of satisfaction
4 3 2 1
House
HGC 11 19 3 0 3.24 91
GGC 8 19 0 0 3.30 100
Neighbourhood
HGC 9 19 6 1 3.00 79
GGC 8 16 3 0 3.19 89
Neighbours
HGC 11 22 0 0 3.33 100
GGC 9 16 1 1 3.22 93
Note: 4= very satised, 3= satised, 2 =dissatised, 1 = very dissatised; HGC= Hamravat Gated Community(n = 33), GGC = Gökkuşağı
Gated Community(n = 27)
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
156
Table3: Residents’ satisfaction levels related to the house and community characteristics.
Communities Satisfaction Mean Percentage of
satisfaction
Total percentage
of satisfaction
4321
Size of house
HGC 8 25 0 0 3.24 100 97
GGC 8 17 2 0 3.22 93
Number of rooms
HGC 8 22 3 0 3.15 91 92
GGC 8 17 2 0 3.22 93
Sizes of rooms
HGC 10 23 0 0 3.30 100 95
GGC 7 17 3 0 3.15 89
Kitchen
HGC 10 20 2 1 3.18 91 83
GGC 8 12 7 0 3.04 74
Bathroom
HGC 5 22 4 2 2.91 82 80
GGC 9 12 6 0 3.11 78
Garden
HGC 9 19 4 1 3.09 85 88
GGC 10 15 2 0 3.30 93
Plumbing system
HGC 0 8 12 13 1.85 24 28
GGC 1 8 12 6 2.15 33
Aesthetic appearance of residence
HGC 2 26 4 1 2,88 85 82
GGC 3 18 5 1 2.85 78
Child play area
HGC 5 20 8 0 2.91 76 82
GGC 5 19 2 1 3.04 89
Raising children here
HGC 15 16 2 0 3.39 94 93
GGC 7 18 2 0 3.19 93
Pedestrian routes
HGC 4 20 9 0 2.85 73 73
GGC 4 16 5 2 2.78 74
Social activity
HGC 9 20 4 0 3.15** 88 70
GGC 4 9 10 4 2.15** 48
Sports areas
HGC 3 25 5 0 2.94 85 83
GGC 6 16 4 1 3.00 81.5
Management of community
HGC 4 16 10 3 2.64 61 65
GGC 1 18 6 2 2.67 70
Distances between houses
HGC 2 16 13 2 2.55* 55 65
GGC 5 16 6 0 2.96* 78
A. BEKLEYEN, İ. YILMAZ-AY
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
157
Communities Satisfaction Mean Percentage of
satisfaction
Total percentage
of satisfaction
4321
Population outside community
HGC 6 9 13 5 2.48** 45.5 35
GGC 0 6 8 13 1.74** 22
Security of community
HGC 12 17 4 0 3.24 88 90
GGC 8 17 2 0 3.22 93
Home security
HGC 11 20 2 0 3.27 94 93
GGC 9 16 2 0 3.26 93
Living in a restricted area
HGC 15 17 1 0 3.42 97 98
GGC 11 16 0 0 3.41 100
Transport facilities
HGC 3 15 14 1 2.60 55 57
GGC 1 15 9 2 2.56 59
Note: 4 = very satised, 3 = satised, 2 = dissatised, 1 = very dissatised; HGC = Hamravat Gated Community (n = 33), GGC = Gökkuşağı
Gated Community (n = 27); * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01
the need for safety in spite of the weaknesses. ose respon-
sible for security could easily solve these problems by taking
some additional measures. ese ndings were presented to
the managers of both communities.
4.2.2 Living in a prestigious area
Eighty per cent of the participants regard their residences as
modern, and83% think they are good value for money(Ta-
ble4). Here, the word modern is used in the sense of ‘up-to-
date’ and ‘of good quality’. is shows that the residences are
accepted by the residents. Moreover, the participants think
that they live in a respectable area(82%) and a place of high
status(78%), and93% feel themselves to be part of this living
area. ese ndings are consistent with the ndings of Sonia
Roitman’s study(2005).
4.3 Preferences related to GCs and reasons
Ninety-three per cent of the residents are very satised with
raising their children in a restricted area (Table3) because
a safe atmosphere makes them feel at ease and less anxious.
e good relations among the neighbours(92%) show that
dialog and cooperation are at the highest level among neigh-
bours (Table 4). is allows the neighbours to keep an eye
on children. Similar results were found by WilliamM.Rohe
et al. (2013), who stated that, unlike tenants, home owners
tend to stay in the same neighbourhood for a long time and
have a tendency to control their living area. Surveillance not
only helps control the environment but also decreases the level
of anxiety among residents(Rollwagen, 2014) by creating a
secondary security zone within the community.
In addition to providing a safe and prestigious living space
for residents, GCs also create an attachment to place. One
interesting nding of the study is that40% of the participants
are afraid of living outside of a GC(Table4). e percentage
is higher in HGC(54.5%) than in GGC(22%; U= 301.50,
p< 0.05). is may be due to the fact that the residents of
HGC have been living in a restricted area for a longer period
of time.
Based on the ndings of this study, it is possible to conclude
that the existence of GCs, which are considered safe and pres-
tigious living spaces, depends on the feelings they give to their
residents: being privileged and far from crime. At least for some
residents, this is proved by a fear of living outside of the gated
community. Considering that the communities are defendable
and far from crime, they feel an attachment to the place and
create their own world in this restricted area. On the other
hand, the feeling of being privileged implies another factor:
it shows that the value of their real estate will increase in the
future(Le Goix, 2005). is feeling of attachment indicates
that mobility will be at a minimum(Andersen, 2011).
Residents’ perception of being privileged can be reected by
their opinion that the neighbourhood where they live is re-
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
158
Table 4: Residents’ opinions related to houses and immediate environment.
Question Community F(%)
Yes No
Have you observed any crime in your living area?
HGC 3(9) 30(91)
GGC 3 (11) 24 (89)
Total 6 (10) 54 (90)
Do you feel that you belong to this place?
HGC 31(94) 2(6)
GGC 25 (93) 2 (7)
Total 56(93) 4 (7)
Is your house worth the money you spent?
HGC 29(88) 4(12)
GGC 21(78) 6(22)
Total 50(83) 10(17)
Would it frighten you to live outside the gated community?
HGC 18(54.5)* 15(45.5)
GGC 6(22)* 21(78)
Total 24(40) 36(60)
Do you think that your house is safe against burglary?
HGC 27(82) 6(18)
GGC 19(70) 8(30)
Total 46(77) 14(23)
Do you know your neighbours?
HGC 30(91) 3(9)
GGC 25(93) 2(7)
Total 55(92) 5(8)
Do you think that your house is modern?
HGC 25(76) 8(24)
GGC 23(85) 4(15)
Total 48(80) 12(20)
Do you think that you live in a respectable neighbourhood?
HGC 29(88) 4(12)
GGC 20(74) 7(26)
Total 49(82) 11(18)
Do you think that you live in a high-status neighbourhood?
HGC 28(85) 5(15)
GGC 19(70) 8(30)
Total 47(78) 13(22)
Do you think that the entrances to the gated community are controlled properly?
HGC 12(36) 21(64)
GGC 12(44) 15(56)
Total 24(40) 36(60)
Note: HGC = Hamravat Gated Community (n = 33), GGC = Gökkuşağı Gated Community (n = 27), * p < 0.05
A. BEKLEYEN, İ. YILMAZ-AY
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
159
spectable and high status, and worth the money they paid.
Later, this attitude may lead to an increase in the overall value
of the place. Studies by EdwardJ.Blakely (1999) and Dou-
gles S.Bible and Chengho Hsieh (2001) predicted that the
housing value of GCs would increase. Moreover, as stated by
Jill Grant and Lindsey Mittelsteadt(2004), wealthy families
living in these communities are content with the comfort of
having neighbours from similar social background. In other
words, the wealth of the other residents is also an indicator
of living in a prestigious neighbourhood. To sum up, these
communities may be favoured even more in the future based
on implications in various studies(Ellin, 2001; Webster, 2001;
Stoyanov & Frantz, 2006; Roitman, 2010; Ülkü & Erten,
2013). Without doubt, this will also lead to an increase in
the property value of the GCs(Blakely, 1999; Bible& Hsieh,
2001).
5 Conclusion
e ndings of this study indicate that residents’ satisfaction
levels pertaining to house, neighbours and neighbourhood
are rather high in the sample communities. Minor causes of
complaints, such as the plumbing system and high buildings
around the communities, do not outweigh the high satisfac-
tion levels. Residents’ reason for living in a gated area is similar
to that of other residents of GCs around the world: the desire
to live in a safe and prestigious area. e ndings also reveal
that the feeling of place attachment is strong.
Living in a safe and restricted area and raising children in an
atmosphere that is far from crime changes residents’ perception
of security. is secluded lifestyle isolates them from the out-
side world and later it becomes an indispensable part of their
lives. In addition, strong relations with neighbours continue
to exist in this restricted environment. Aer experiencing this
lifestyle, residents may even nd it intolerable to live in a house
outside a GC because they envision detached homes as risky
and unsafe based on their previous experiences. Considering
the present situation in the world, it seems that the tendency
to live in a wealthy and homogenous group will continue with
the construction of more communities of this type. As men-
tioned above, many studies have stated that the overall value of
GCs will increase in the future due to the fact that they have
a positive eect on their residents and high satisfaction levels.
In other words, what is known about GCs justies the predic-
tion that they will be indispensable for residents in the future.
Ayhan Bekleyen
Dicle University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture,
Diyarbakır, Turkey
E-mail: ayhan.bekleyen@gmail.com
İlham Yilmaz-Ay
Dicle University, Institute of Science, Diyarbakır, Turkey
E-mail: y.ilham@hotmail.com
References
Adriaanse, C. C. M.(2007) Measuring residential satisfaction: A residen-
tial environmental satisfaction scale(RESS). Journal of Housing and the
Built Environment, 22(3), pp.287–304. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-007-9082-9
Aigbavboa, C.& Thwala, W.(2014) Structural equation modelling of
building quality constructs as a predictor of satisfaction in subsidised
low-income housing. Urbani izziv, 25(supplement), pp.S134–S147.
DOI:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-supplement-010
Almatarneh, R.& Mansour, Y.(2013) The role of advertisements in the
marketing of gated communities as a new western suburban lifestyle:
A case study of the Greater Cairo Region, Egypt. Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment, 28(3), pp.505–528.
DOI:10.1007/s10901-012-9326-1
Amerigo, M.& Aragones, J. I.(1990) Residential satisfaction in coun-
cil housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(4), pp.313–325.
DOI:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80031-3
Amerigo, M.& Aragones, J. I.(1997) A theoretical and methodological
approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmen-
tal Psychology, 17(1), pp.47–57. DOI:10.1006/jevp.1996.0038
Andersen, H. S.(2008) Why do residents want to leave deprived neigh-
bourhoods? The importance of residents’ subjective evaluations of their
neighbourhood and its reputation. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 23(2), pp.79–101. DOI:10.1007/s10901-008-9109-x
Andersen, H. S.(2011) Explaining preferences for home surroundings
and locations. Urbani izziv, 22(1), pp.100–114.
DOI:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2011-22-01-002
Asiedu, A. B.& Arku, G. (2009) The rise of gated housing estates in
Ghana: Empirical insights from three communities in metropolitan
Accra. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24(3), pp.227–247.
DOI:10.1007/s10901-009-9146-0
Atkinson, R.& Flint, J. (2004) Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spa-
tial revolt of the elites and time-space trajectories of segregation. Hous-
ing Studies, 19(6), pp.875–892. DOI: 10.1080/0267303042000293982
Bekleyen, A.& Dalkılıç, N.(2011) The inuence of climate and privacy
on indigenous courtyard houses in Diyarbakır, Turkey. Scientic Re-
search and Essays, 6(4), pp.908–922.
Bekleyen, A.& Korkmaz, N. M.(2013) An evaluation of Akabe mass
housing settlement in Sanliurfa, Turkey. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 28(2), pp.293–309. DOI:10.1007/s10901-012-9313-6
Bible, D. S.& Hsieh, C.(2001) Gated communities and residential prop-
erty values. The Appraisal Journal, 69(2), pp.140–145.
Blakely, E. J.& Snyder, M. G.(1997) Fortress America: Gated communities
in the United States. Washington, DC, Brookings Institution Press.
Blakely, E. J.(1999) The gated community debate. Urban Land, 58(6),
pp.50–55.
Blandy, S.(2006) Gated communities in England: Historical perspec-
tives and current developments. Geojournal, 66(1–2), pp.15–26.
DOI:10.1007/s10708-006-9013-4
Blandy, S.& Lister, D.(2005) Gated communities:(Ne)gating community
development? Housing Studies, 20(2), pp.287–301.
DOI:10.1080/026730303042000331781
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
160
Bonaiuto, M., Atello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M.& Ercolani, P.(1999)
Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and
neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of En-
vironmental Psychology, 19(4), pp.331–352. DOI:10.1006/jevp.1999.0138
Breetzke, G., Landman, K.& Cohn, E. G. (2014) Is it safer behind the
gates? Crime and gated communities in South Africa. Journal of Hous-
ing and the Built Environment, 29(1), pp.123–139.
DOI:10.1007/s10901-013-9362-5
Brown, B., Perkins, D. D.& Brown, G. (2003) Place attachment in a revi-
talizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), pp.259–271.
DOI:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00117-2
Carpiano, R. M.(2007) Neighborhood social capital and adult health:
An empirical test of a Bourdieu-based model. Health and Place, 13(3),
pp.639–655. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.09.001
Çekiç, T. I.& Gezici, F.(2009) Gated communities leading the develop-
ment on the periphery of Istanbul metropolitan area. A| Z ITU Journal
of the Faculty of Architecture, 6(2), pp.73–97.
Chi, P.& Grin, M. (1980) Social indicators for measuring residential
satisfaction in marginal settlements in Costa Rica. Social Indicators
Research, 8(4), pp.453–465. DOI:10.1007/BF00461155
Comstock, N., Dickinson, L. M., Marshall, J. A., Soobader, M. J., Turbin,
M. S., Buchenau, M., etal. (2010) Neighborhood attachment and its
correlates: Exploring neighborhood conditions, collective ecacy, and
gardening. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), pp.435–442.
DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.001
Edgü, E.& Cimşit, F.(2011) Island living as a gated community: Place
attachment in an isolated environment. A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty
of Architecture, 8(2), pp.156–177.
Ellin, N.(2001) Thresholds of fear: Embracing the urban shadow. Urban
Studies, 38(5–6), pp.869–883. DOI:10.1080/00420980124399
Elsinga, M.& Hoekstra, J. (2005) Homeownership and housing satisfac-
tion. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), pp. 401–424.
DOI:10.1007/s10901-005-9023-4
Garip, S. B.& Şener, H.(2012) Analysing environmental satisfaction in
gated housing settlements: A case study in İstanbul. A|Z ITU Journal of
the Faculty of Architecture, 9(1), pp.120–133.
Grant, J.(2005) Planning responses to gated communities in Canada.
Housing Studies, 20(2), pp.273–285.
DOI:10.1080/026730303042000331772
Grant, J.& Mittelsteadt, L. (2004) Types of gated communities. En-
vironment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(6), pp.913–930.
DOI:10.1068/b3165
Grinstein-Weiss, M., Yeo, Y., Anacker, K., van Zandt, S., Freeze, E.&
Quercia, R.(2011) Homeownership and neighborhood satisfaction
among low- and moderate-income households. Journal of Urban Aairs,
33(3), pp.247–265. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2011.00549.x
Grum, B.& Kobal Grum, D.(2015) A model of real estate and psycho-
logical factors in decision-making to buy real estate, Urbani izziv, 26(1),
pp.82–11. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-01-002
Internet1: https://www.google.com.tr/maps (accessed20Feb.2015).
Jurkovič, N. B.(2014) Perception, experience and the use of public
urban spaces by residents of urban neighbourhoods. Urbani izziv, 25(1),
pp.107–125. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-01-003
Korkmaz, N. M.(2007) Post-occupancy evaluation of mass housing settle-
ments in Diyarbakır and Sanliurfa: A comparative analysis. Master’s thesis.
Diyarbakır, Dicle University, Institute of Science.
Lang, R. E.& Danielsen, K. A. (1997) Gated communities in America:
Walling out the world? Housing Policy Debate, 8(4), pp.867–899.
DOI:10.1080/10511482.1997.9521281
Le Goix, R.(2005) Gated communities: sprawl and social segregation in
southern California. Housing Studies, 20(2), pp.323–343.
DOI:10.1080/026730303042000331808
Liu, A. M. M.(1999) Residential satisfaction in housing estates: A
Hong Kong perspective. Automation in Construction, 8(4), pp.511–524.
DOI:10.1016/S0926-5805(98)00098-3
Low, S.(2003) Behind the gates: Life, security and the pursuit of happiness
in fortress America. New York, Routledge.
Lu, M.(1998) Analysing migration decision making: Relationships be-
tween residential satisfaction, mobility intentions, and moving behav-
iour. Environment and Planning A, 30(8), pp.1473–1495.
DOI:10.1068/a301473
Lu, M.(1999) Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered
logit vs. regression models. Growth and Change, 30(2), pp.264–287.
DOI:10.1111/0017-4815.00113
Mahgoub, Y. & Khalfani, F.(2012) Sustainability of gated communities in
developing countries. Developing Country Studies, 2(6), pp.53–63.
McDonell, J. R.(2006) Neighborhood characteristics, parenting,
and children’s safety. Social Indicators Research, 83(1), pp.177–199.
DOI:10.1007/s11205-006-9063-5
Moolla, R., Kotze, N.& Block, L. (2011) Housing satisfaction and quality
of life in RDP houses in Braamscherville, Soweto: A South African case
study. Urbani izziv, 22(1), pp.138–143.
DOI:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2011-22-01-005
Newmann, O.(1972) Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban
design. New York, Macmillan.
Opoko, A. P., Ibem, E. O.& Adeyemi, E. A.(2015) Housing aspiration in
an informal urban settlement: A case study. Urbani izziv, 26(2), pp.117–
131. DOI:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-02-003
Paris, D. E.& Kangari, R.(2005) Multifamily aordable housing: Residen-
tial satisfaction. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 19(2),
pp.138–145. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2005)19:2(138)
Pevalin, D. J., Taylor, M. P. & Todd, J.(2008) The dynamics of unhealthy
housing in the UK: A panel data analysis. Housing Studies, 23(5),
pp.679–695. DOI: 10.1080/02673030802253848
Polanska, D.(2010) The emergence of gated communities in post-
communist urban context: And the reasons for their increasing popu-
larity. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(3), pp.295–312.
DOI:10.1007/s10901-010-9189-2
Rapoport, A.(2004) Culture-architecture-design. Istanbul, YEM Publica-
tions.
Richter, C.& Goetz, A.(2007) Gated communities in the Denver–Boul-
der metropolitan area: Characteristics, spatial distribution, and resi-
dents’ motivations. Housing Policy Debate, 18(3), pp.535–555.
DOI:10.1080/10511482.2007.9521610
Rogatka, K.& Ramos Ribeiro, R. R.(2015) A compact city and its social
perception: A case study, Urbani izziv, 26(1), pp.121–131.
DOI:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-01-005
Rohe, W. M., Van Zandt, S.& McCarthy, G.(2013) The social benets
and costs of homeownership: A critical assessment of the research. In:
Tighe, J. R.& Mueller, E. J.(eds.) The Aordable Housing Reader, pp.196–
213. New York, Routledge.
Roitman, S.(2005) Who segregates whom? The analysis of a gated
A. BEKLEYEN, İ. YILMAZ-AY
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
161
community in Mendoza, Argentina. Housing Studies, 20(2), pp.303–321.
DOI:10.1080/026730303042000331790
Roitman, S.(2010) Gated communities: Denitions, causes and conse-
quences. Urban Design and Planning, 163(1), pp.31–38.
DOI:10.1680/udap.2010.163.1.31
Rollwagen, H.(2014) The relationship between dwelling type
and fear of crime. Environment and Behaviour, 48(2), pp.365–387.
DOI:10.1177/0013916514540459
Sendi, R.(2013) The low housing standard in Slovenia: Low purchas-
ing power as an eternal excuse. Urbani izziv, 24(1), pp.107–124.
DOI:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2013-24-01-002
Shrestha, B. K.(2013) Residential neighbourhoods in Kathmandu: Key
design guidelines. Urbani izziv, 24(1), pp.125–143.
DOI:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2013-24-01-003
Stoyanov, P.& Frantz, K.(2006) Gated communities in Bulgaria: Inter-
preting a new trend in post-communist urban development. GeoJour-
nal, 66(1–2), pp.57–63. DOI: 10.1007/s10708-006-9016-1
Teck-Hong, T.(2012) Housing satisfaction in medium- and high-cost
housing: The case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat Interna-
tional, 36(1), pp.108–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.06.003
Tsenkova, S.(2014) The housing policy nexus and people’s responses
to housing challenges in post-communist cities, Urbani izziv, 25(2),
pp.90–106. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-02-002
Ülkü, G.& Erten, E.(2013) Global image hegemony: Istanbul’s gated
communities as the new marketing icons. International Journal of Archi-
tectural Research, 7(2), pp.244–257.
Vera-Toscano, E. & Ateca-Amestoy, V.(2008) The relevance of social
interactions on housing satisfaction. Social Indicators Research , 86(2),
pp.257–274. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-007-9107-5
Webster, C.(2001) Gated cities of tomorrow. The Town Planning Review,
72(2), pp.149–170.
Wiedemann, S.& Anderson, J. R. (1985) A conceptual framework for
residential satisfaction. In: Altman, I.& Werner, C.(eds.) Home Environ-
ments, pp.153–182. New York, Plenum Press.
DOI:10.1007/978-1-4899-2266-3_7
Wiesenfeld, E.(1992) Public housing evaluation in Venezuela: A
case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3), pp.213–223.
DOI:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80136-7
Winstanley, A., Thorns, D. C.& Perkins, H. C.(2002) Moving house,
creating home: Exploring residential mobility. Housing Studies, 17(6),
pp.813–832. DOI: 10.1080/02673030216000
Yau, Y.(2012) Insignicant or ignored? Antisocial behaviour in private
housing in Hong Kong. Urbani izziv, 23(2), pp.103–111.
DOI:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2012-23-02-003
Yılmaz-Ay, I.(2013) An investigation of the user satisfaction in the gated
housing settlements of Diyarbakır: Hamravat and Gökkuşağı Settlements.
Master’s thesis. Diyarbakır, Dicle University, Institute of Science.
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
