IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i9p983-d638067.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Heightened ‘Security Zone’ Function of Gated Communities during the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Changing Housing Market Dynamic: Evidence from Beijing, China

Author

Listed:
  • Ling Li

    (Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK)

  • Wayne Xinwei Wan

    (Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK)

  • Shenjing He

    (Department of Urban Planning and Design, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China)

Abstract

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has left a strong imprint on many aspects of urban life. Gated communities (GCs) in China are less commonly perceived as a negative and segregated urban form of community compared to other contexts, owing to their wide variety and relative openness. Yet, the enhanced security zone function and the popularity of GCs, along with the heightened segregation and exclusion effects, mean they are most likely to emerge in post-pandemic urban China because of the perceived effectiveness of GCs in preventing health risks by excluding outsiders during the pandemic. Drawing on empirical data from Beijing, this research presents strong evidence for a strengthened perceived ‘security zone’ effect of GCs during the pandemic. Given that rigid pandemic control measures were organized at the community level, a large-scale household survey in Beijing suggests that residents commonly recognise the effectiveness of GCs in security control and show a strong preference for GCs over open communities after the pandemic, even though there is a lack of direct evidence of reduced COVID-19 risk in GCs. The heightened perceived ‘security zone’ function of GCs has shown a significant impact on the housing market, evidenced by an increase of 2% in the housing prices for GCs, compared with those of open communities. The rising popularity of GCs is also evidenced by a significant increase in property viewings by potential homebuyers and smaller price discounts in actual transactions in gated communities vis-à-vis open communities. We argue that the rising risk-averse sentiment in the post-pandemic era has given rise to the popularity of GCs. This study provides timely and fresh insights into the changing meaning of GCs in post-pandemic China.

Suggested Citation

  • Ling Li & Wayne Xinwei Wan & Shenjing He, 2021. "The Heightened ‘Security Zone’ Function of Gated Communities during the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Changing Housing Market Dynamic: Evidence from Beijing, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:9:p:983-:d:638067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/9/983/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/9/983/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michele Acuto & Shaun Larcom & Roger Keil & Mehrnaz Ghojeh & Tom Lindsay & Chiara Camponeschi & Susan Parnell, 2020. "Seeing COVID-19 through an urban lens," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 3(12), pages 977-978, December.
    2. Michael LaCour-Little & Stephen Malpezzi, 2001. "Gated Communities and Property Values," Wisconsin-Madison CULER working papers 01-12, University of Wisconsin Center for Urban Land Economic Research.
    3. Jeffrey Pompe, 2008. "The Effect of a Gated Community on Property and Beach Amenity Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 423-433.
    4. Hong, Yun & Li, Yi, 2020. "Housing prices and investor sentiment dynamics: Evidence from China using a wavelet approach," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    5. Bo Huang & Yulun Zhou & Zhigang Li & Yimeng Song & Jixuan Cai & Wei Tu, 2020. "Evaluating and characterizing urban vibrancy using spatial big data: Shanghai as a case study," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(9), pages 1543-1559, November.
    6. Elisabeth Deutskens & Ko de Ruyter & Martin Wetzels & Paul Oosterveld, 2004. "Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-36, February.
    7. Marianne Morange & Fabrice Folio & Elisabeth Peyroux & Jeanne Vivet, 2012. "The Spread of a Transnational Model: ‘Gated Communities’ in Three Southern African Cities (Cape Town, Maputo and Windhoek)," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 890-914, September.
    8. Shima Hamidi & Sadegh Sabouri & Reid Ewing, 2020. "Does Density Aggravate the COVID-19 Pandemic?," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 86(4), pages 495-509, October.
    9. Guo, Juncong & Qu, Xi, 2019. "Spatial interactive effects on housing prices in Shanghai and Beijing," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 147-160.
    10. Tingting Lu & Fangzhu Zhang & Fulong Wu, 2020. "The variegated role of the state in different gated neighbourhoods in China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(8), pages 1642-1659, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gavin Shatkin & Vivek Mishra & Maria Khristine Alvarez, 2023. "Debates Paper: COVID-19 and urban informality: Exploring the implications of the pandemic for the politics of planning and inequality," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(9), pages 1771-1791, July.
    2. Neil Brenner & Swarnabh Ghosh, 2022. "Between the colossal and the catastrophic: Planetary urbanization and the political ecologies of emergent infectious disease," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 54(5), pages 867-910, August.
    3. Kerstin Krellenberg & Florian Koch, 2021. "Conceptualizing Interactions between SDGs and Urban Sustainability Transformations in Covid-19 Times," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 200-210.
    4. Landry, Craig E. & Shonkwiler, J. Scott & Whitehead, John C., 2020. "Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Joint Estimation of Use and Existence Values with recreation demand and contingent valuation data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Gopalakrishnan, Sathya & Smith, Martin D. & Slott, Jordan M. & Murray, A. Brad, 2011. "The value of disappearing beaches: A hedonic pricing model with endogenous beach width," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 297-310, May.
    6. Wang, Xiaoxi & Zhang, Yaojun & Yu, Danlin & Qi, Jinghan & Li, Shujing, 2022. "Investigating the spatiotemporal pattern of urban vibrancy and its determinants: Spatial big data analyses in Beijing, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    7. Andrés Rodríguez‐Pose & Chiara Burlina, 2021. "Institutions and the uneven geography of the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 728-752, September.
    8. Mehmet Ronael & Tüzin Baycan, 2022. "Place-based factors affecting COVID-19 incidences in Turkey," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 1053-1086, October.
    9. Srinivasan, V. Seenu & Netzer, Oded, 2007. "Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-attribute Preferences," Research Papers 1979, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. Christien Klaufus & Paul Van Lindert & Femke Van Noorloos & Griet Steel, 2017. "All-Inclusiveness versus Exclusion: Urban Project Development in Latin America and Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.
    11. O. Ashton Morgan & Stuart E. Hamilton, 2009. "Disentangling Access and View Amenities in Access-restricted Coastal Residential Communities," Working Papers 09-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    12. Tatsushi Fukaya & Masayuki Suzuki & Ikumi Ozawa & Takumi Nakagoshi, 2022. "An Examination of Related Factors of Mathematical Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Elementary School Teachers: Focusing on Conceptions of Teaching and Learning and Test Utilization Strategy," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, October.
    13. Gayatri Kawlra & Kazuki Sakamoto, 2023. "Spatialising urban health vulnerability: An analysis of NYC’s critical infrastructure during COVID-19," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(9), pages 1629-1649, July.
    14. Richard Florida & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Michael Storper, 2023. "Critical Commentary: Cities in a post-COVID world," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(8), pages 1509-1531, June.
    15. Fernando Gil-Alonso & Jordi Bayona-i-Carrasco & Isabel Pujadas-Rúbies, 2023. "Is Spanish depopulation irreversible? Recent demographic and spatial changes in small municipalities," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 21(1), pages 277-309.
    16. X. Angela Yao & Andrew Crooks & Bin Jiang & Jukka Krisp & Xintao Liu & Haosheng Huang, 2023. "An overview of urban analytical approaches to combating the Covid-19 pandemic," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(5), pages 1133-1143, June.
    17. Lusk, Jayson L., 2012. "The political ideology of food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 530-542.
    18. Zheng Wang & Jie Shen & Xiang Luo, 2023. "Can residents regain their community relations after resettlement? Insights from Shanghai," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(5), pages 962-980, April.
    19. Shuai Yu & Bin Li & Dongmei Liu, 2023. "Exploring the Public Health of Travel Behaviors in High-Speed Railway Environment during the COVID-19 Pandemic from the Perspective of Trip Chain: A Case Study of Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Urban Agglomera," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-22, January.
    20. Shengchen Du & Hongze Tan, 2023. "Communities in Transitions: Reflection on the Impact of the Outbreak of COVID-19 on Urban China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:9:p:983-:d:638067. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.