Beyond Gated Communities: A Typology of Residential Compounds in Granada

Abstract

Gated communities have spread globally, though unevenly. However, their early popularity and expansion from North America to other different localities have led to their physical and social diversification (i.e., morphological design and locking mechanisms and their resident profiles, which are not limited to the richest classes). This diversity has resulted in varied and sometimes conflicting concepts and classification criteria. Given this situation, this study aims to propose a typology of these developments that encompasses all current forms, based on an exhaustive census we compiled. We used a broader concept adapted to the research context, that of the 'Residential Compound', based on the idea that total closure is not an essential condition for consideration. Although the empirical work is based on the metropolitan area of Granada (Spain), we believe it is representative of most Spanish and possibly European metropolitan areas. Using satellite images and the Spanish electronic cadastre, we compiled a census of 642 residential compounds, classified based on over 50 variables. These compounds were categorized into five types depending on the enclosure level: (1) protected compounds; (2) controlled compounds; (3) structurally self-isolated compounds; (4) individualistic compounds; and (5) symbolic compounds.

Full text

Citation: Baldán, H.; Torrado, J.M.;
Susino, J. Beyond Gated Communities:
A Typology of Residential Compounds
in Granada. Land 2024,13, 1116.
https://doi.org/10.3390/10.3390/
land13081116
Academic Editor: Jianjun Zhang
Received: 22 June 2024
Revised: 16 July 2024
Accepted: 21 July 2024
Published: 23 July 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
land
Article
Beyond Gated Communities: A Typology of Residential
Compounds in Granada
Henar Baldán * , JoséManuel Torrado and Joaquín Susino
Department of Sociology, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain; josetr@ugr.es (J.M.T.); jsusino@ugr.es (J.S.)
*Correspondence: henarbl@ugr.es
Abstract: Gated communities have spread globally, though unevenly. However, their early popularity
and expansion from North America to other different localities have led to their physical and social
diversification (i.e., morphological design and locking mechanisms and their resident profiles, which
are not limited to the richest classes). This diversity has resulted in varied and sometimes conflicting
concepts and classification criteria. Given this situation, this study aims to propose a typology of
these developments that encompasses all current forms, based on an exhaustive census we compiled.
We used a broader concept adapted to the research context, that of the ‘Residential Compound’, based
on the idea that total closure is not an essential condition for consideration. Although the empirical
work is based on the metropolitan area of Granada (Spain), we believe it is representative of most
Spanish and possibly European metropolitan areas. Using satellite images and the Spanish electronic
cadastre, we compiled a census of 642 residential compounds, classified based on over 50 variables.
These compounds were categorized into five types depending on the enclosure level: (1) protected
compounds; (2) controlled compounds; (3) structurally self-isolated compounds; (4) individualistic
compounds; and (5) symbolic compounds.
Keywords: gated communities; residential compounds; typology; metropolitan area; Granada (Spain)
1. Introduction
Gated communities are becoming increasingly important developments worldwide.
Although it is not possible to know exactly how many there are, nor how many households
or people reside in them, estimates have been made in the USA and elsewhere [
1
–
4
]. Their
popularity has grown notably in North America since the late 20th century [
5
], expanding
to other territories such as the United Kingdom and Australia [
3
,
6
] and other regions like
Latin America [
7
], Asia, and Africa [
8
,
9
]. However, in Continental Europe [
10
], specifically
in Spain [11], their presence appears to be less prominent.
The proliferation of this residential phenomenon in diverse sociocultural contexts
reveals a much more varied reality, both in its physical and spatial manifestations and in
the social profiles of its residents. Increasingly, there are examples of semi-gated, pseudo-
gated, symbolic, and open residential compounds [
6
,
12
,
13
], located in suburban areas and
urban centres [
7
], that are inhabited by people from the middle class or more popular
social strata [
14
]. The presence of this diversity of urbanization in Spain and Europe
goes beyond the traditional gated community. Nonetheless, there is not yet a universal
term to refer to this broad and plural residential phenomenon [
15
] that can encompass its
proven complexity.
Based on this scenario, the main objective of this work is the elaboration of a typology
based on the way in which these housing developments achieve greater or lesser isolation
from the surrounding environment, limited to its morphological characteristics. This
requires the use of the concept of the residential compound, capable of encompassing each
of the heterogeneities that these urbanisations already manifest in the current urban context
in Spain. This typology is the result of more than two years of empirical work identifying
Land 2024,13, 1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081116 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land

Land 2024,13, 1116 2 of 16
and quantifying all the residential precincts (a complete census) in the metropolitan area
of Granada (Spain) until 2022. The selection of the metropolitan area of Granada derives
from its high representativeness of medium-sized metropolitan cities in Spain [
16
] and,
potentially, of the European context in general.
This study is divided into six main sections. The first two provide a brief overview of
gated communities, highlighting the diverse definitions, typologies, and categories used to
describe them. The fourth outlines the focus on Granada and the methodology for creating
the typology. The fifth section presents results, showcasing examples and summarizing
characteristics. Finally, the study concludes by discussing the importance and implications
of the proposed typology.
2. From Gated Communities to a More Pluralistic Reality
The academic literature on gated communities has currently reached a substantial
volume, especially for works referring to America (both North and South) but increasingly
to Asia and Europe, mainly in the UK. In this context, several typologies of gated commu-
nities have been proposed from different perspectives: from their demand (residents) or
supply (developers) but also from their physical characteristics (i.e., enclosure and security
measures, the common facilities and services, the architectural layout, etc.) or from their
integration within the urban environment.
One of these first proposals is that of Blakely and Snyder [
1
], which focuses on the
functions of these developments and the reasons why people choose to live in them, dis-
tinguishing three ideal types in the United States: (1) lifestyle communities; (2) prestige
communities; and (3) security zone communities. These functions relate, however, to
the characteristics of amenities and facilities, the type of resident (socio-economic and
occupational profiles), and security, respectively. Subsequently, Grant and Mittelsteadt [
17
]
extended the typology previously created by Blakely and Snyder, including other char-
acteristics such as the tenure or size of the development and those related to location or
policy context. The combination of all these items would give rise to a huge number of
classes of gated communities. However, the authors ended up proposing a classification
through a continuum of ‘enclosure’ of eight different types. This typology emphasizes
morphological aspects. Other authors [
18
,
19
] have adopted a more social approach, consid-
ering the socio-economic profile of the residents and the type of tenure, as well as other
personal determinants (search for prestige, security, etc.), although they also included some
structural elements.
Based on a sample of advertisements in the property press during 2003, Blandy [
20
]
proposed a typology of gated communities based on their built form and their purpose
from the developers’ point of view: (1) ‘Infill’ gated communities, which are small-scale
and not of very high status. They are the most common and are usually located in urban
areas. (2) ‘Heritage conversion’ gated communities, which are more exclusive and arise
from the use of pre-existing historic buildings with heritage value. (3) ‘Village’ gated
communities, which are large urban developments, very similar to Blakely and Snyder’s
‘lifestyle communities’. Similarly, Ainur-Zaireen et al. [
21
] considered a plurality of factors
in their typology, depending on the risks and rewards that developers face. However, this
is only a framework for a typology, which is not presented as such.
Other authors focus on the impact of gated communities on patterns of residential
segregation [
22
] or on how they are embedded in and affect the urban fabric of the imme-
diate surroundings [
7
]. Similarly, La Grange [
23
], in an assessment of gated communities
in Hong Kong, argued that demand- and supply-side factors are of a higher order than
those relating to physical characteristics and built form. However, residents’ life aspirations
continue to be inferred from the morphological characteristics of these developments, rather
than by surveying or interviewing residents directly. Therefore, we believe that it is the
morphological characteristics that are most relevant for constructing a typology.
This variety of classifications responds, in part, to the fact that the phenomenon
presents itself in different forms in different countries, depending on their history and

Land 2024,13, 1116 3 of 16
social relations, as well as on their legal frameworks. However, the expansion of this
phenomenon globally must respond to a shared determinant, a question that we will
not go into in this paper. All these typologies start from a very strict definition of gated
communities, where access control and the existence of private amenities and facilities
are fundamental [
1
,
3
,
24
]. However, some authors now use broader definitions of gated
communities, emphasizing the physical and social heterogeneity of their territories.
For example, Grant and Mittelstead [
17
] identified some types that are not strictly
gated: (1) ornamental gating; (2) walled subdivisions; (3) faux-gated entrances; etc. Others,
for example, speak of ‘semi-gated communities’ [
25
] or ‘fake gated communities’ [
26
].
Furthermore, Wehrhahn and Raposo [
12
] distinguished between gated communities,
pseudo-communities, and condominiums. Landman [
8
] identified gated neighbourhoods
with restricted access and townhouse neighbourhoods designed as gated communities.
Dowling et al. [
6
], based on the nature of the enclosures and governance mechanisms,
distinguished three types of communities according to shared services and amenities and
whether the road system was public or private: (1) gated communities; (2) semi-gated
communities; and (3) symbolic communities.
Two general conceptualisations of the gated community can be distinguished. The first
is limited and only includes fully enclosed, single-family housing developments with com-
mon services [
3
]. The second, which is a broader conceptualisation, includes developments
with varying degrees of enclosure [
9
] or with more subtle (symbolic) boundary mechanisms,
such as ‘private property’ signs or dead-end streets [
4
], as well as diverse housing types and
facilities. However, both conceptualisations share the same premise: gated communities
represent an urban development in which access to and use of shared services is restricted
to its inhabitants. Even so, debates persist about the degree of enclosure required for a
development to be considered a gated community [27].
The scarcity of more descriptive typologies that emphasize their morphological plu-
rality may be due to the methodological field. Some authors [
11
] have highlighted the
absence of statistics to quantify the presence of these residential developments in the urban
landscape. Case studies (generally qualitative) predominate, which poses challenges for
a comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon [
28
]. This empirical gap hinders a
broader understanding of these residential patterns, hindering the development of descrip-
tive typologies that emphasize morphological characteristics and can be extrapolated to
different contexts.
In summary, diverse concepts and definitions highlight the multifaceted nature of
this residential phenomenon beyond strict gated expressions. Efforts to study these resi-
dential developments have primarily focused on recognizing their current morphological
plurality [
4
]. Nevertheless, these definitions and terms undergo continuous revisions,
adding or removing elements based on specific contexts rather than aiming for a better,
more universal understanding of this phenomenon. This highlights the importance of using
a broad concept that encompasses the heterogeneity of these residential models, regardless
of the economic, cultural, or planning framework of any territory. By doing so, researchers
and policymakers can better address the complexity of this phenomenon and its potential
impact on the socio-urban structure of their cities.
3. Residential Compounds: A More Inclusive Concept Adapted to Other Contexts
Given the multiplicity of conceptualizations and typologies, a broad concept is needed
to encompass the various expressions of this residential phenomenon that we have seen. In
addition, a precise definition is essential to identify housing developments and to be able
to make a typology, which is the object of our empirical study.
Previous studies have already used a broader term to encompass these alternative,
more ‘open’ forms of spatial enclosure in these residential settings, for example, the
master-planned residential estates [
6
,
29
], whose use remains tied to the original Australian
context [
30
]. Other manifestations of this same residential phenomenon are ‘horizontal
gated condominiums’ [
31
], or simply ‘condominiums’, in Brazil or Turkey [
32
,
33
]. Also

Land 2024,13, 1116 4 of 16
included are ‘enclosed communities’ [
34
], ‘gated urban enclaves’ [
35
], ‘fraccionamientos
cerrados’ [
36
], and ‘countries’ or ‘barrios privados’ [
37
], although not ‘ciudad blindada’ [
38
],
‘barrer community’ [
39
,
40
], or ‘defended neighbourhood’ [
40
]. In all these examples, we
can see that either the element ‘gated’ or ‘community’ is substituted, and in some cases
both. Therefore, as has long been pointed out [
28
], gated communities are challenged in
both their terms: the enclosure itself and the community relations, because access is not
always controlled nor is a sufficient sense of community always developed.
The plurality inherent in these residential developments can be explained largely by
the urban and land-use planning policies applied in each country, and even in each region
or province [
15
] (p. 9). Consequently, these developments take various physical forms,
depending on the legal and urban planning framework.
Regarding common real estate property, in Spain, it is regulated by the Horizontal
Property Law [
41
], which establishes that there is community when a property is shared
by several people, highlighting the responsibilities of payment and maintenance of shared
services. Common properties can be very varied, from swimming pools, paddle tennis
courts, or children’s playgrounds in urbanisations to the lobby, lifts, aerials, or stairs, as in
any normal building. This communal property is duly registered as such and can be the
basis for its study, as we do in this work. This regulation is based on Roman law and is
similar in much of the Western world.
According to the urban planning framework, as in other European countries, Spain
does not have a code that legally protects the development of private and gated residential
models [
42
]. However, such developments have existed since the 1950s, and continue to
occur [
11
]. In Spanish urban planning laws, the most similar are the so-called ‘private
urbanisations’ [
43
], which are not an autonomous category but rather an intermediate stage
in the process of urbanization and urban management. It is a stage that can, however, be
prolonged indefinitely through agreements with local governments or because they are
simply tolerated.
This study uses the term ‘residential compounds’ as a more adaptable alternative to
describe these developments, for several reasons. First, planning legislation on ‘private
residential developments’ imposes limits on their development, especially on the enclosure
and private management of public roads and services. Second, private residential com-
pounds have undergone great diversification, in which what unifies them is not enclosure
but the presence of shared services and facilities. Third, this has gone hand in hand with an
increase in diversity, not only morphological but also social. More specifically, the choice of
each of the terms has two explanations.
First, ‘residential’ has been chosen instead of gated to avoid taking into consideration
the nature of the closure—whether it is more physical or symbolic—and to attribute a
value to the compound that goes beyond the result of differentiating the community
from the outside. As mentioned earlier, the diversity and heterogeneity characterizing
this phenomenon are primarily evident in its physical expression and delimitation. This
diversity extends to various socio-economic groups, encompassing not only the upper class
but also the middle and working class [
14
]. Emulating unique residential patterns involves
employing more affordable enclosure mechanisms and sometimes lighter or more subtle
morphological expressions of enclosure. By using the term residential instead of ‘gated’,
we encompass these more recent expressions of the phenomenon.
Second, the term ‘community’ has been discarded because, although communal
ownership of common facilities is a necessary condition, it does not imply the development
of community ties in a sociological sense. Their shared existence facilitates social interaction
among residents [
44
] and may lead to the possibility of creating stronger social bonds
among inhabitants, such as feelings of collectivity or belonging [
45
]. However, community
is not a hallmark of the residential compound, although it may become one. It seems to
us that applying the term community to this residential phenomenon without confirming
the existence of a genuine sense of community is inappropriate. The alternative chosen is
the term ‘compound’ which is understood as “an enclosed area of land that is used for a

Land 2024,13, 1116 5 of 16
particular purpose” [
46
] (British English meaning 1; or “an enclosed space with a building
or group of buildings within it” [
46
] (American English meaning 2). Thus, a more neutral
term is used that does not prejudge the social and community functionality within them.
According to the concept of ‘Residential compound’, any urban development must
meet two basic conditions to be considered as such:
(1)
The existence of communal facilities for recreational use (swimming pools, padel/tennis
courts, playgrounds, furnished gardens, etc.) inside the residential compound that
could serve as spaces for members’ social interaction [
9
]. Studies [
47
,
48
] confirm the
vital role of public spaces and amenities in fostering routine interactions. In our case,
the availability of communal amenities offers the potential for intra-neighbourhood
interactions but not necessarily the development of strong community ties.
(2)
The presence of one or several demarcation mechanisms, either physical or symbolic,
establishing social–spatial separation between life within an urban development and
the external environment—not only the physical ones (walls, fences, etc.) but also
symbolic closures, which are less aggressive objects used to create an atmosphere of
residential self-isolation [4,11].
All these demarcation mechanisms will be outlined below, forming part of the empiri-
cal work conducted for this study, wherein all residential compounds in the metropolitan
area of Granada (Spain) were identified and counted. This effort resulted in an exhaustive
census of residential compounds, serving as the foundation for developing the typology of
residential compounds.
4. Scope and Methodology
4.1. The Granada Metropolitan Area as the Scope of Study
Founded on the delimitation of metropolitan areas by Feria and Bernabéu [
49
] based
on daily residence–work mobility according to the 2011 census, the area of Granada stands
out as a fairly representative case of the Spanish metropolitan area and possibly of southern
Europe as a whole [
16
]. Located in southeast Spain, the Granada metropolitan area contains
a total of 46 municipalities with more than 500,000 inhabitants in 2023. Among its most
outstanding characteristics are the following.
Despite its average size, the Granada area (Figure 1) has a very dynamic and consol-
idated metropolitan housing and labour market, making it particularly suitable for this
study [
16
]. The structure of the labour market in Granada is clearly centralized by the
capital city. The housing market in Granada is largely characterized by suburbanization
and movements between suburban municipalities. Granada’s centralized suburban config-
uration imparts a functional and morphological structure typical of a standard metropolitan
city. The economic activity is concentrated in the urban centre, while extensive residen-
tial suburbs are connected to the capital through a network of circular motorways and
tramway connections.
The configuration of the Granada area makes it particularly useful in the context of
this study, as it represents the type of metropolitan area that is predominant not only in the
Iberian Peninsula but in most Western countries [
16
]. However, Granada exhibits distinct
features, notably a bourgeois urban centre and clearly defined working-class outskirts [
50
],
setting it apart from cities in England and America. This unique social division in the
metropolitan space must be considered in the analysis of residential compounds, influenc-
ing both symbolic enclosure mechanisms and the urban-centric locations of the compounds,
in contrast to more suburban settings.

Land 2024,13, 1116 6 of 16
Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17
Figure 1. Granada metropolitan area.
The configuration of the Granada area makes it particularly useful in the context of
this study, as it represents the type of metropolitan area that is predominant not only in
the Iberian Peninsula but in most Western countries [16]. However, Granada exhibits dis-
tinct features, notably a bourgeois urban centre and clearly defined working-class out-
skirts [50], seing it apart from cities in England and America. This unique social division
in the metropolitan space must be considered in the analysis of residential compounds,
influencing both symbolic enclosure mechanisms and the urban-centric locations of the
compounds, in contrast to more suburban seings.
4.2. Fieldwork: Creating a Residential Community Census
To identify the residential compounds, two main sources used were: (1) the Google
Earth web application (the satellite images and Street View mode) and (2) the Spanish
electronic land registry (Sede Electrónica del Catastro). During the initial identification of
residential compounds, special aention was paid to the availability of communal amen-
ities (e.g., swimming pools, sports grounds, children’s playgrounds, etc.). These features
make it easier to identify the phenomenon from a bird’s eye view, using satellite images
from Google Earth. The land registry was used to quantify the number and type of prop-
erties in each compound, as well as to establish their lot boundaries. The fieldwork culmi-
nated in a census made up of a total of 642 residential compounds disbursed around the
Granada metropolitan area. A wide variety of compounds in terms of composition and
morphological structure was observed.
Once the census of the residential compounds was completed, the information re-
lated to the relevant variables in Table 1 was compiled for later classification, with the
variables largely taken from the works on classification by the authors discussed above
[11]. The variables were measured during subsequent on-site visits to some of the residen-
tial compounds where the data provided by the electronic sources were either somewhat
incoherent or limited. The final database contained a total of 57 observational variables
separated into 10 different blocks.
Figure 1. Granada metropolitan area.
4.2. Fieldwork: Creating a Residential Community Census
To identify the residential compounds, two main sources used were: (1) the Google
Earth web application (the satellite images and Street View mode) and (2) the Spanish
electronic land registry (Sede Electrónica del Catastro). During the initial identification
of residential compounds, special attention was paid to the availability of communal
amenities (e.g., swimming pools, sports grounds, children’s playgrounds, etc.). These
features make it easier to identify the phenomenon from a bird’s eye view, using satellite
images from Google Earth. The land registry was used to quantify the number and type of
properties in each compound, as well as to establish their lot boundaries. The fieldwork
culminated in a census made up of a total of 642 residential compounds disbursed around
the Granada metropolitan area. A wide variety of compounds in terms of composition and
morphological structure was observed.
Once the census of the residential compounds was completed, the information related
to the relevant variables in Table 1was compiled for later classification, with the variables
largely taken from the works on classification by the authors discussed above [
11
]. The
variables were measured during subsequent on-site visits to some of the residential com-
pounds where the data provided by the electronic sources were either somewhat incoherent
or limited. The final database contained a total of 57 observational variables separated into
10 different blocks.
Table 1. Observational variables in the residential community database.
Observational Variables
Blocks Codes Description
General information CPRO Province of Granada code
MUN Name of municipality
CMUN Municipality code (3 digits)

Land 2024,13, 1116 7 of 16
Table 1. Cont.
Observational Variables
Blocks Codes Description
General information
CDIS Census district code (2 digits)
CSEC Census section code (3 digits)
CMAN Association code (2 digits)
CCOM Residential compound code (3 digits)
CC Complete compound code (8 digits)
MAN Association, yes or no
LAT Latitude (UTM; ETRS89_30N)
LON Longitude (UTM; ETRS89_30N)
Basic characteristics
AÑO Year of construction
SUP Plot surface area (m2)
NVI Number of dwellings
Residence type
VAI Isolated single-family home
VPA Semi-detached single-family home and others
VAD Terraced single-family home
PMC Closed blocks of flats
PMA Open blocks of flats
CON Under construction
Structural aspects
CSS Dead-end street
CFS Cul-de-sac street
CPE Pedestrian street
LIN Inside commercial premises (urban development)
LEX Outside commercial premises (urban development)
Road use
PPU Public domain and public use
PRE Private domain and restricted public use
PPR Private domain and private use
Distance from main hub DIS
Isolated urban development
Separate urban development
Urban development integrated into the inner city
Enclosure type
VER Gates or fences
MUR Walls
CAD Chains
BOL Bollards
ARB Bushes
CPP Private property signs
Entry points
PVI Individual dwelling entrance/s
PBL Block entrance/s
COM Communal entrance to urban development
COMS Several communal entrances to urban development
Communal amenities
PIS Swimming pool
PTP Tennis/paddle tennis court
PBA Basketball court
CFU Football pitch
CGO Golf course
GIM Gym
PAR Children’s playground
MOB Furnished patio
JAR Gardens/parks
Security
GSE Security guard
CSE Security cameras
BSE Security boom barrier
ASE Security alarm
Source: authors.

Land 2024,13, 1116 8 of 16
Besides basic variables like property type, quantity, and construction year, various
characteristics were recorded, including communal amenities, potential security features,
and diverse physical enclosure mechanisms (e.g., fences, walls, and bushes). The enclosure
variable involves elements as distancing mechanisms, not strict perimeter enclosures. It
includes the road arrangement, the distance from the nearest population centre, and the
nature of entry points (total or partial; one or many). The internal road structure, typically
one-way streets or cul-de-sacs, along with the use of private property signs contributed to
the symbolic isolation of the residential compound [
3
]. Crucial factors, such as distance
from the population centre and spatial barriers like lakes, rivers, and motorways, enhance
this self-exclusion, with some dating back decades. In Spain, the development of gated
residential compounds lacks legal coverage, regulation, or definition, resulting in a hybrid
evolution in practises. Self-enclosure mechanisms are employed to achieve a similar result.
4.3. Construction of the Typology
Once the database was complete, the typology was constructed in two phases. Firstly,
a process synthesized information and constructed new variables based on observational
variables. The presence of communal facilities and amenities was a necessary condition
to define a residential compound but was not essential for classification. Consequently,
only variables enabling the determination of physical or symbolic enclosure based on mor-
phological structure and spatial arrangement were considered for residential compounds.
Additional variables, specifically property characteristics, were excluded following a statis-
tical factor analysis revealing their significant internal heterogeneity and lack of informative
value for potential typology. Efforts to simplify the information resulted in five types of
derivative variables (Figure 2):
(1) Security: either through video surveillance cameras, security alarms, barriers, or signs
indicating their existence, as well as the possible availability of a contracted security
service (i.e., a security guardhouse inside the compound).
(2)
Entry points: whether access to the urbanization is communal or individual. They are
communal when the members of the development must access the development and
communal amenities through the same entrances as the rest of their neighbours. They
are individual if each resident or specific group of residents (i.e., block entrance/s)
has their own access to the residential development or communal areas.
(3)
Type of enclosure: determined by observational variables that indicate the material
and harder enclosure of the complex through gates, fences, or walls, in addition to
other softer access restriction mechanisms (i.e., bollards, bushes, etc.).
(4)
Pedestrian or vehicle traffic control: determined by documenting instances where a
residential compound has internal commercial premises, necessitating partial open-
ness to the general public, especially during business hours (road use); this detail
enables the distinction between compounds completely closed all day and those that
are not.
(5)
The structural enclosure of the residential compound: created by several elements of
two observational variables (i.e., dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs from “structural
aspects” and “distance to the main core”); both are indirect devices that help to
regulate inflow and restrict access to the residents of the complex or its visitors.
Finally, a synthesis was conducted from the three first-order variables, resulting in only
one second-order derivative variable: the type of residential compound. This single variable
summarizes residential compounds in the Granada metropolitan area, according to the form
of control over their entrances. A total of five categories of residential compounds were
classified: protected, controlled, structurally self-isolated, individualistic, and symbolic.
The subsequent section analyses their descriptions and characteristics.

Land 2024,13, 1116 9 of 16
Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
enables the distinction between compounds completely closed all day and those that
are not.
(5) The structural enclosure of the residential compound: created by several elements of
two observational variables (i.e., dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs from “structural
aspects” and “distance to the main core”); both are indirect devices that help to reg-
ulate inflow and restrict access to the residents of the complex or its visitors.
Figure 2. The process of constructing derivative variables to measure the residential compound en-
closure.
Finally, a synthesis was conducted from the three first-order variables, resulting in
only one second-order derivative variable: the type of residential compound. This single
variable summarizes residential compounds in the Granada metropolitan area, according
to the form of control over their entrances. A total of five categories of residential com-
pounds were classified: protected, controlled, structurally self-isolated, individualistic,
and symbolic. The subsequent section analyses their descriptions and characteristics.
5. Results
5.1. Characteristics of the Typology
The typology contains 642 residential compounds in the Granada metropolitan area.
Its internal logic corresponds to a continuum according to the type of enclosure ranging
from protected—classified as gated communities—to symbolic compounds with less-
strict non-physical enclosure mechanisms. Excluding protected compounds, the others
can be conceptualized within the broader term of residential communities, following the
approach of authors studying the phenomenon in Europe [6,13]. A simple look at the
number of residential communities according to this typology indicates their heterogene-
ity in Granada, which also applies to Spain overall.
Out of the total registered compounds, only 10% are equivalent to the category of
traditional gated communities, while the remaining ones align with the broader concept,
featuring less restrictive enclosures. Reviewing the features of each residential compound
type (Tables 2 and 3) and their locations (Figure 3) uncovers trends highlighting the dis-
tinctive nature of southern European residential compounds. Protected and controlled
compounds are primarily located in the urban centre, predominantly featuring blocks of
flats. However, most of the symbolic compounds are in the central municipality. This con-
trasts with the traditional conception of more enclosed compounds in other countries,
which are quite the opposite: single-family homes located in the suburbs. However, the
type of communal amenities indicates that these urban compounds, especially the pro-
tected ones, share sophisticated and complex facilities (more than two sports and
Figure 2. The process of constructing derivative variables to measure the residential compound
enclosure.
5. Results
5.1. Characteristics of the Typology
The typology contains 642 residential compounds in the Granada metropolitan area.
Its internal logic corresponds to a continuum according to the type of enclosure ranging
from protected—classified as gated communities—to symbolic compounds with less-strict
non-physical enclosure mechanisms. Excluding protected compounds, the others can be
conceptualized within the broader term of residential communities, following the approach
of authors studying the phenomenon in Europe [
6
,
13
]. A simple look at the number of
residential communities according to this typology indicates their heterogeneity in Granada,
which also applies to Spain overall.
Out of the total registered compounds, only 10% are equivalent to the category of
traditional gated communities, while the remaining ones align with the broader concept,
featuring less restrictive enclosures. Reviewing the features of each residential compound
type (Tables 2and 3) and their locations (Figure 3) uncovers trends highlighting the dis-
tinctive nature of southern European residential compounds. Protected and controlled
compounds are primarily located in the urban centre, predominantly featuring blocks of
flats. However, most of the symbolic compounds are in the central municipality. This
contrasts with the traditional conception of more enclosed compounds in other countries,
which are quite the opposite: single-family homes located in the suburbs. However, the
type of communal amenities indicates that these urban compounds, especially the protected
ones, share sophisticated and complex facilities (more than two sports and recreational
facilities). Most compounds, however, have only a basic facility (simple gardens with
playgrounds or walking areas) or a simple facility (a single sports or recreational facility,
usually a swimming pool).
The typical suburban residential compound does not have a strict degree of enclosure
but uses structural distancing strategies. Like the individualistic compounds, these self-
isolated compounds are primarily made up of single-family homes. However, there are
some divergences, due to their structure. While the structurally self-isolated compounds
are larger and have more complex or sophisticated equipment, individualist compounds
are smaller and have fewer common services. This is due to their structure; the former
construction is usually located far from the population centres, while the individualistic
compounds are generally closer and have a lower number of communal amenities.

Land 2024,13, 1116 10 of 16
Table 2. Basic characteristics of the residential compounds by type.
No. Residential
Compounds
Surface Area (m2)No. Dwellings
Total % Average Total % Average
Protected 62 1,256,997 21% 20,274 7084 17% 114
Controlled 261 908,802 15% 3482 14,006 34% 54
Self-isolated 38 1,868,693 31% 49,176 2902 7% 76
Individualistic
213 900,820 15% 4229 8973 22% 42
Symbolic 68 1,184,861 19% 17,424 8416 20% 124
Total 642 6,120,173 100% 9533 41,381 100% 64
Source: authors.
Table 3. Type of residence and communal amenities in residential compounds.
%
Compounds
in Granada
Distribution of Dwellings by Type Communal Amenities
Single-Family
Homes
Blocks of
Flats Both Types
Sophisticated
Complex Simple Basic
Protected 66% 9% 91% 1% 6% 27% 45% 21%
Controlled 55% 8% 92% 0% 3% 8% 61% 29%
Self-isolated 0% 82% 16% 3% 5% 11% 58% 26%
Individualistic
33% 32% 67% 1% 0% 6% 76% 18%
Symbolic 65% 21% 66% 13% 0% 6% 44% 50%
Total 47% 21% 76% 3% 2% 9% 62% 27%
Source: authors.
Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17
recreational facilities). Most compounds, however, have only a basic facility (simple gar-
dens with playgrounds or walking areas) or a simple facility (a single sports or recrea-
tional facility, usually a swimming pool).
Table 2. Basic characteristics of the residential compounds by type.
No.
Residential
Compounds
Surface Area (m2) No. Dwellings
Total % Average
Total % Average
Protected 62 1,256,997
21% 20,274 7084 17% 114
Controlled 261 908,802 15% 3482 14,006 34% 54
Self-isolated
38
1,868,693
31%
49,176
2902
7%
76
Individualistic 213 900,820 15% 4229 8973 22% 42
Symbolic 68 1,184,861
19% 17,424 8416 20% 124
Total 642 6,120,173
100% 9533 41,381 100% 64
Source: authors.
Table 3. Type of residence and communal amenities in residential compounds.
%
Compounds
in Granada
Distribution of Dwellings by Type
Communal Amenities
Single-Fam-
ily Homes
Blocks of
Flats Both Types
Sophisti-
cated Complex Simple Basic
Protected 66% 9% 91% 1% 6% 27% 45% 21%
Controlled 55% 8% 92% 0% 3% 8% 61% 29%
Self-isolated 0% 82% 16% 3% 5% 11% 58% 26%
Individualistic
33%
32%
67%
1%
0%
6%
76%
18%
Symbolic 65% 21% 66% 13% 0% 6% 44% 50%
Total
47%
21%
76%
3%
2%
9%
62%
27%
Source: authors.
Figure 3. Residential Compounds in the Granada Metropolitan Area by Type.
Figure 3. Residential Compounds in the Granada Metropolitan Area by Type.

Land 2024,13, 1116 11 of 16
5.2. Typology of Residential Compounds
Classified in descending order according to the intensity of the enclosure, topping the
list is the protected residential compound. This residential model is more like the ideal
gated community that is very common in Australia, North America, and Latin America.
However, this study does not distinguish between gated urban developments and single-
family homes and condominiums.
As seen in Figure 4, control and privacy in these residential settings is not only ensured
by the perimetral enclosure made up of walls and communal entry points but also by using
security services or mechanisms like cameras, signs, and guards. These urbanisations have
completely delimited residential perimeters, controlled using communal entry points and
security services and mechanisms like guards, boom barriers, security cameras, and the
like. The two examples in the figure also have gatehouses with guards (a role at times filled
by the caretakers of the urban development) or video cameras.
Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
The typical suburban residential compound does not have a strict degree of enclosure
but uses structural distancing strategies. Like the individualistic compounds, these self-
isolated compounds are primarily made up of single-family homes. However, there are
some divergences, due to their structure. While the structurally self-isolated compounds
are larger and have more complex or sophisticated equipment, individualist compounds
are smaller and have fewer common services. This is due to their structure; the former
construction is usually located far from the population centres, while the individualistic
compounds are generally closer and have a lower number of communal amenities.
5.2. Typology of Residential Compounds
Classified in descending order according to the intensity of the enclosure, topping
the list is the protected residential compound. This residential model is more like the ideal
gated community that is very common in Australia, North America, and Latin America.
However, this study does not distinguish between gated urban developments and single-
family homes and condominiums.
As seen in Figure 4, control and privacy in these residential seings is not only en-
sured by the perimetral enclosure made up of walls and communal entry points but also
by using security services or mechanisms like cameras, signs, and guards. These urbani-
sations have completely delimited residential perimeters, controlled using communal en-
try points and security services and mechanisms like guards, boom barriers, security cam-
eras, and the like. The two examples in the figure also have gatehouses with guards (a role
at times filled by the caretakers of the urban development) or video cameras.
Figure 4. Protected residential compounds: Granada (left); Albolote (right).
Protected compounds are followed by controlled residential compounds (Figure 5),
which are also characterized by the strict physical enclosure of the urban development.
Entry is communal and limited to residents. However, unlike the first type, these do not
have security and the only way to control who enters and leaves is through the entry point.
Since these are communal, the residents of the urban development themselves can deter-
mine whether the people coming in and going out are residents or not.
Figure 4. Protected residential compounds: Granada (left); Albolote (right).
Protected compounds are followed by controlled residential compounds (Figure 5),
which are also characterized by the strict physical enclosure of the urban development.
Entry is communal and limited to residents. However, unlike the first type, these do not
have security and the only way to control who enters and leaves is through the entry
point. Since these are communal, the residents of the urban development themselves can
determine whether the people coming in and going out are residents or not.
The middle of the list is occupied by structurally self-isolated residential compounds
(Figure 6), which are characterized by the self-isolation of the residential setting via a road
system that structures the compound and its distance from the rest of the population. These
residential structures are highly developed internally, using dead-end streets or cul-de-sacs
to restrict access to residents and their visitors. Although the access is technically open,
the arrangement of the streets alone indicates that this is an isolated residential space that
excludes the non-resident population.
Clear examples of these compounds can be found in specific suburban municipalities
where the developments are distinct from the population centre and feature a single com-
munal entry point. Additionally, access is only relevant to residents or their visitors. The
winding road system described above further contributes to securing this self-enclosure.

Land 2024,13, 1116 12 of 16
Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17
Figure 5. Controlled residential compounds: Granada (left); Alfacar (right).
The middle of the list is occupied by structurally self-isolated residential compounds
(Figure 6), which are characterized by the self-isolation of the residential seing via a road
system that structures the compound and its distance from the rest of the population.
These residential structures are highly developed internally, using dead-end streets or cul-
de-sacs to restrict access to residents and their visitors. Although the access is technically
open, the arrangement of the streets alone indicates that this is an isolated residential
space that excludes the non-resident population.
Clear examples of these compounds can be found in specific suburban municipalities
where the developments are distinct from the population centre and feature a single com-
munal entry point. Additionally, access is only relevant to residents or their visitors. The
winding road system described above further contributes to securing this self-enclosure.
Figure 5. Controlled residential compounds: Granada (left); Alfacar (right).
Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17
Figure 6. Structurally self-isolated residential compounds: Jun (left); Atarfe (right).
The distinguishing feature of individualistic residential compounds (Figure 7) lies in
their individual entry points. Each house or building has its own entrance to the urban
development. In this respect, it is more difficult to keep track of and control who enters
the compound, compared to controlled compounds.
Figure 7. Individualistic residential compounds: Ogíjares (left); Armilla (right).
The last type of compound comprises symbolically (Figure 8) enclosed residential
compounds, which have a very subtle or practically non-existent degree of enclosure. In
these developments, access to passers-by is not forbidden, although it is restricted in
Figure 6. Structurally self-isolated residential compounds: Jun (left); Atarfe (right).
The distinguishing feature of individualistic residential compounds (Figure 7) lies in
their individual entry points. Each house or building has its own entrance to the urban
development. In this respect, it is more difficult to keep track of and control who enters the
compound, compared to controlled compounds.
The last type of compound comprises symbolically (Figure 8) enclosed residential
compounds, which have a very subtle or practically non-existent degree of enclosure.
In these developments, access to passers-by is not forbidden, although it is restricted
in different ways. This residential compound is usually located in an urban centre and

Land 2024,13, 1116 13 of 16
often combines the use of private property signs, bollards to limit pedestrian access, and
communal, open access to the development.
Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17
Figure 6. Structurally self-isolated residential compounds: Jun (left); Atarfe (right).
The distinguishing feature of individualistic residential compounds (Figure 7) lies in
their individual entry points. Each house or building has its own entrance to the urban
development. In this respect, it is more difficult to keep track of and control who enters
the compound, compared to controlled compounds.
Figure 7. Individualistic residential compounds: Ogíjares (left); Armilla (right).
The last type of compound comprises symbolically (Figure 8) enclosed residential
compounds, which have a very subtle or practically non-existent degree of enclosure. In
these developments, access to passers-by is not forbidden, although it is restricted in
Figure 7. Individualistic residential compounds: Ogíjares (left); Armilla (right).
Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17
different ways. This residential compound is usually located in an urban centre and often
combines the use of private property signs, bollards to limit pedestrian access, and com-
munal, open access to the development.
Figure 8. Symbolic residential compounds: Alfacar (left); Granada (right).
The symbolically enclosed residences primarily comprise landscaped areas, as well
as communal spaces such as tennis or paddle tennis courts or a swimming pool. Access is
open, but the residents cover the maintenance and administrative expenses of the com-
munal areas. As seen in the example (right), some degree of restriction may be practised
using signs, bollards, or barriers that impede admiance to vehicles and pedestrians. Like-
wise, access to the swimming pool and paddle tennis courts is only available to residents
(left).
6. Discussion and Conclusions
The hypothesis guiding this paper is that to properly understand housing complexes,
it is necessary to first consider the phenomenon in its entirety and analyze all its existing
categories rather than focusing on a single specific type.
Our analysis shows the continuity that exists between the different types of com-
pounds, which makes it clear that they all belong to a common phenomenon that we refer
to here as ‘residential compounds’. Perhaps in other contexts where residential security is
more important [8,24,32], it makes more sense to look at the category of more enclosed
and isolated urbanizations with respect to the immediate surroundings of the gated com-
munities. However, this is not the case in Spain, nor in continental Europe [12], where
these assumptions are less evident. Thus, in Granada, this type of more enclosed complex
represents no more than 10% of the total. Even in complexes where there are barriers that
physically delimit the urbanization, most of the time, these represent a very weak imped-
iment to passage that is easily circumvented, which differentiates them from the tradi-
tional model of gated communities.
Granada, like other regions around the world, but especially in Europe, illustrates
this diversity in the form and composition of the structures, which range from very closed
(protected) to more open (symbolic) enclosures. This is particularity due to the fact that,
possibly, the legal regulation of property rights and urban planning activity in Europe is
Figure 8. Symbolic residential compounds: Alfacar (left); Granada (right).
The symbolically enclosed residences primarily comprise landscaped areas, as well as
communal spaces such as tennis or paddle tennis courts or a swimming pool. Access is open,
but the residents cover the maintenance and administrative expenses of the communal
areas. As seen in the example (right), some degree of restriction may be practised using
signs, bollards, or barriers that impede admittance to vehicles and pedestrians. Likewise,
access to the swimming pool and paddle tennis courts is only available to residents (left).

Land 2024,13, 1116 14 of 16
6. Discussion and Conclusions
The hypothesis guiding this paper is that to properly understand housing complexes,
it is necessary to first consider the phenomenon in its entirety and analyze all its existing
categories rather than focusing on a single specific type.
Our analysis shows the continuity that exists between the different types of com-
pounds, which makes it clear that they all belong to a common phenomenon that we refer
to here as ‘residential compounds’. Perhaps in other contexts where residential security
is more important [
8
,
24
,
32
], it makes more sense to look at the category of more enclosed
and isolated urbanizations with respect to the immediate surroundings of the gated com-
munities. However, this is not the case in Spain, nor in continental Europe [
12
], where
these assumptions are less evident. Thus, in Granada, this type of more enclosed complex
represents no more than 10% of the total. Even in complexes where there are barriers
that physically delimit the urbanization, most of the time, these represent a very weak
impediment to passage that is easily circumvented, which differentiates them from the
traditional model of gated communities.
Granada, like other regions around the world, but especially in Europe, illustrates
this diversity in the form and composition of the structures, which range from very closed
(protected) to more open (symbolic) enclosures. This is particularity due to the fact that,
possibly, the legal regulation of property rights and urban planning activity in Europe
is inspired by Roman law, which hinders, but does not prevent, the privative actions
typical of the large gated communities in other parts of the world [
1
,
2
,
30
]: armoured
cities—or defended neighbourhoods—within the cities themselves [
38
,
40
]. But, this is only
a hypothesis that needs to be studied in detail.
It is essential to conduct more studies that survey residential compounds in metropoli-
tan areas across different countries. One significant challenge is the lack of reliable statistics
on this phenomenon [
11
]. While the Spanish cadastre collects information that, with sub-
stantial effort, could facilitate such studies, it remains uncertain if similar data collection is
feasible in other countries.
However, the conceptual and typological framework presented here is just the initial
step in a larger task that involves investigating the values residents associate with these
compounds, the relationships between neighbours, and, ultimately, what motivates them
to choose to live there and their experiences as residents. Moreover, on a more quantitative
level, this study is the preliminary step to delving deeper into the contribution of the com-
pounds to the processes of residential segregation to which this phenomenon is normally
linked. All these tasks are addressed in other papers.
This analysis, based on an exhaustive census of residential compounds in the Granada
area, shows why we need a defining framework capable of integrating the morpholog-
ical and social heterogeneity of the phenomenon. A framework that allows us to better
understand each of the types and their similarities and differences with the others, espe-
cially the so-called ‘gated communities’. Research (beyond typologies) based on very strict
definitions tends to place excessive importance on security, physical encapsulation, and
the dynamics of inclusion/exclusion associated with them, at the expense of other equally
relevant residential values such as the desire for social distinction [
6
]. This is why we adopt
a broader concept of residential compounds, in which the gated community in the strict
sense is just one more case, in order to study this phenomenon in all the complexity with
which it is presented in Granada and, surely, in a large part of Europe.
In any case, we need more studies based on censuses of residential compounds in
other metropolitan areas, especially in Europe, to check the suitability of both the definition
and the typology proposed here.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.B. and J.S.; methodology, J.M.T. and H.B.; software,
J.M.T. and H.B.; investigation, H.B., J.M.T., and J.S.; resources, H.B. and J.S.; writing—original draft
preparation, H.B.; writing—review and editing, J.S. and J.M.T.; visualization, H.B. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Land 2024,13, 1116 15 of 16
Funding: This work was supported by Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities [grant
number FPU 18/02311]. The translation was financed by the R&D Project ‘P20_00572, Mobility,
Housing and Residential Behavior in Andalusia (MOVICRA)’, funded by the Ministry of Science
and Innovation of Spain and National Research Agency [MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/]. The
results are part of the R&D Project ‘Multi-methodological approach to residential behaviour and
everyday life (MARBEL)’ [grant number PID2020-119569GA-I00].
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Blakely, E.J.; Snyder, M.G. Fortress America, Gated Communities in the United States; The Brookings Institution Press: Washington,
DC, USA, 1999.
2.
Webster, C.; Glasze, G.; Frantz, K. The global spread of gated communities. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2002,29, 315–320.
[CrossRef]
3.
Atkinson, R.; Flint, J. Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time–space trajectories of segregation.
Hous. Stud. 2004,19, 875–892. [CrossRef]
4. Le Goix, R.; Webster, C.J. Gated communities. Geogr. Compass 2008,2, 1189–1214. [CrossRef]
5.
Gatari´c, D.; Belij, M.; Ðerˇcan, B.; Filipovi´c, D. The origin and development of Garden cities: An overview. Zb. Rad.-Geogr. Fak.
Univ. Beogr. 2019, 33–43. [CrossRef]
6.
Dowling, R.; Atkinson, R.; McGuirk, P. Privatism, privatisation and social distinction in master-planned residential estates. Urban
Policy Res. 2010,28, 391–410. [CrossRef]
7.
Kostenwein, D. Between walls and fences: How different types of gated communities shape the streets around them. Urban Stud.
2021,58, 3230–3246. [CrossRef]
8.
Landman, K. Gated communities in South Africa: The challenge for spatial planning and land use management. Town Plan. Rev.
2004,75, 151–172. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, S.; Zheng, G. Gating or de-gating? The rise of the gated village in Beijing. Habitat Int. 2019,85, 1–13. [CrossRef]
10.
Vesselinov, E. Segregation by design: Mechanisms of selection of latinos and whites into gated communities. Urban Aff. Rev. 2012,
48, 417–454. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11.
Villar-Lama, A.; García-Martín, M. Ciudad segregada en España: Urbanizaciones cerradas en Valencia y Sevilla. Rev. INVI 2016,
31, 145–177. [CrossRef]
12.
Wehrhahn, R.; Raposo, R. The rise of gated residential neighbourhoods in Portugal and Spain: Lisbon and Madrid. In Private
Cities: Global and Local Perspectives, 1st ed.; Glasze, G.C., Webster, C., Fratz, K., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2005; pp. 167–186.
13.
Iqbal, A.; Shaukat, T.; Nazir, H. Safety Perceptions and Micro-Segregation: Exploring Gated-and Non-Gated-Community
Dynamics in Quetta, Pakistan. Land 2024,13, 727. [CrossRef]
14.
Müllauer-Seichter, W. Conflictos vecinales y mediación social en los condominios populares de Lima (Perú). Disparidades. Rev.
Antropol. 2019,74, e023. [CrossRef]
15. Roitman, S. Urbanizaciones cerradas: Estado de la cuestión hoy y propuesta teórica. Rev. Geogr. Norte Gd. 2004,32, 5–19.
16. Feria, J.M. Towards a taxonomy of Spanish metropolitan areas. Boletín Asoc. Geógrafos Españoles 2013,63, 349–378.
17. Grant, J.; Mittelsteadt, L. “Types of gated communities”. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2004,31, 913–930. [CrossRef]
18.
Richter, C.; Goetz, A.R. Gated communities in the Denver-boulder metropolitan area: Characteristics, spatial distribution, and
residents’ motivations. Hous. Policy Debate 2007,18, 535–555. [CrossRef]
19.
Smigiel, C. The production of segregated urban landscapes: A critical analysis of gated communities in Sofia. Cities 2013,35,
125–135. [CrossRef]
20.
Blandy, S. Gated communities in England: Historical perspectives and current developments. GeoJournal 2006,66, 15–26.
[CrossRef]
21.
Ainur-Zaireen, Z.; Hussin, K.; Maslinda, A.L.; Norhidayah, M.Y.; Razali, M.N.; Aizuddin, N.; Mohammed, A.H.; Siti Radiaton
Adawiyah, Z. The Interpretations of Gated Communities from the Malaysian Gating Experience. J. Teknol. 2015,73, 17–24.
22.
Vesselinov, E.; Le Goix, R. From picket fences to iron gates: Suburbanization and gated communities in Phoenix, Las Vegas and
Seattle. GeoJournal 2012,77, 203–222. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. La Grange, A. Classifying elements of a typology of gated communities. Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 2018,11, 520–540. [CrossRef]
24.
Caldeira, T.P. City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in São Paulo, 1st ed.; University of California Press: London,
UK, 2000.
25.
Wu, X.; Tan, X. Is the gated community really safe? An empirical analysis based on communities with varying degrees of closure.
Int. J. Urban Sci. 2023,27, 725–745. [CrossRef]
26. Yip, N.M. Walled without gates: Gated communities in Shanghai. Urban Geogr. 2012,33, 221–236. [CrossRef]
27.
Thompson, S.E.; Easthope, H.; Davison, G. Including the majority: Examining the local social interactions of renters in four case
study condominiums in Sydney. J. Urban Aff. 2022,46, 119–138. [CrossRef]

Land 2024,13, 1116 16 of 16
28.
Roitman, S.; Webster, C.; Landman, K. Methodological Frameworks and Interdisciplinary Research on Gated Communities. Int.
Plan. Stud. 2010,15, 3–23. [CrossRef]
29. Richards, L. Nobody’s Home: Dreams and Realities in a New Suburb, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: Melbourne, Australia, 1990.
30.
McGuirk, P.M.; Dowling, R. Understanding master-planned estates in Australian cities: A framework for research. Urban Policy
Res. 2007,25, 21–38. [CrossRef]
31.
Rios, M.F.G.; Lima, J.J.F. Produçäo e configuraçäo de condomínios fechados horizontais na cidade de Belèm-pará-br, décadas de
1990 e 2000. Rev. Proj.-Proj. Percepção Ambiente 2020,5, 79–95. [CrossRef]
32.
Caldeira, T. Fortified enclaves: The new urban segregation. In The Urban Sociology Reader, 2nd ed.; Lin, J., Mele, C., Eds.; Routledge:
London, UK, 2012; pp. 327–335.
33.
Çalı¸skan, O.; Temizel, N.P.; Akay, M.; Mashhoodi, B. Typological diversity and morphological continuity in the modern residential
fabric: The case of Ankara, Turkey. Habitat Int. 2023,142, 102950. [CrossRef]
34.
Grundström, K.; Lelévrier, C. Imposing ‘enclosed communities’? Urban gating of large housing estates in Sweden and France.
Land 2023,12, 1535. [CrossRef]
35.
Blandy, S.; Wang, F. Curbing the power of developers? Law and power in Chinese and English gated urban enclaves. Geoforum
2013,47, 199–208. [CrossRef]
36.
Cabrales-Barajas, L.F.; Canosa-Zamora, E. Segregación residencial y fragmentación urbana: Los fraccionamientos cerrados en
Guadalajara. Espiral Estud. Sobre Estado Soc. 2001,7, 223–253. [CrossRef]
37. Svampa, M. Los Que Ganaron: La Vida en los Countries y Barrios Privados, 1st ed.; Editorial Biblos: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2001.
38. Vidal-Koppmann, S. Diseño urbano y control del espacio. De la ciudad privada a la ciudad blindada. Scr. Nova 2014,493, 1–13.
39. Suttles, G.D. The Social Construction of Communities, 1st ed.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1972.
40. Susser, I. Urban Anthropology in the USA. RAIN 1982, 6–8. [CrossRef]
41.
del Estado, J. Ley 49/1960, de 21 de Julio, Sobre Propiedad Horizontal. 1960. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/
1960/BOE-A-1960-10906-consolidado.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2024).
42.
Canosa, E. Urbanizaciones cerradas en espacios metropolitanos: Ínsulas para unos pocos. In La Vivienda y el Espacio Residencial en
las Áreas Metropolitanas; Feria Toribio, J.M.I., Módenes Cabrerizo, J.A., Eds.; Centro de Estudios Andaluces: Sevilla, España, 2007;
pp. 151–169.
43.
Berberoff-Ayuda, D. Régimen jurídico de las urbanizaciones privadas, Decimoséptimos encuentros del foro aragonés. Actas,
Zaragoza, España. 2007. Available online: https://www.consultores-urbanismo.com/archivos/documentos/3416a75f4cea9109507
cacd8e2f2aefc.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2023).
44.
Rincón-Salazar, M.T. La convivencia vecinal en unidades residenciales de Cali, Colombia. Un análisis cualitativo con modelo
multidimensional. Entramado 2017,14, 214–229. [CrossRef]
45.
Sakip, S.R.M.; Johari, N.; Salleh, M.N.M. Sense of community in gated and non-gated residential neighborhoods. Procedia-Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2012,50, 818–826. [CrossRef]
46.
Collins Dictionary. (s.f.). Query for the Term “Compound”. Available online: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/
english/compound (accessed on 13 December 2023).
47.
Talen, E. Sense of community and neighborhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism. Urban Stud. 1999,
36, 1361–1379. [CrossRef]
48.
Mouratidis, K.; Poortinga, W. Built environment, urban vitality and social cohesion: Do vibrant neighborhoods foster strong
communities? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020,204, 103951. [CrossRef]
49.
Feria, J.M.; Bernabeú, L.M. La definición y delimitación del sistema metropolitano español: Permanencias y cambios entre 2001 y
2011. Ciudad Territ. Estud. Territ. 2016,48, 9–24.
50.
de Pablos Ramírez, J.C.; Susino, J. Vida urbana: Entre la desigualdad social y los espacios del habitar. Anduli Rev. Andal. Cienc.
Soc. 2010, 119–142. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.