IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rjusxx/v27y2023i4p725-745.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the gated community really safe? An empirical analysis based on communities with varying degrees of closure

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaolin Wu
  • Xiaoqin Tan

Abstract

Gated communities are considered a way of living that provides privacy and security. Existing research has mostly focused on subjective emotional judgments such as fear of crime, while it is unclear whether communities with different degrees of closure have avoided insecure incidents. Taking six communities and 649 questionnaires in Changsha, China as study cases, we analyze the relationship between community closure and community security. The results show that not gated communities but open communities are the safest, while semi-gated communities are the least safe. It is confirmed that community security is regardless of being gated. One possible explanation for this is the joint effect of ‘dual security scenarios’. This means that the living communities’ security is not only rooted in the construction of a safe physical space, but also depended on a humanistic atmosphere with informal relations and residents’ safety awareness, providing natural surveillance possibilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaolin Wu & Xiaoqin Tan, 2023. "Is the gated community really safe? An empirical analysis based on communities with varying degrees of closure," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 725-745, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rjusxx:v:27:y:2023:i:4:p:725-745
    DOI: 10.1080/12265934.2022.2154248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/12265934.2022.2154248
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/12265934.2022.2154248?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:rjusxx:v:27:y:2023:i:4:p:725-745. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rjus20 .

    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.