149 UDC: 711.58:364.68:365.6 DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2016-27-01-005 Received: 29 Aug. 2015 Accepted: 25 Feb. 2016 Ayhan BEKLEYEN Ilham 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. This study focuses on two GCs in Diyarbakir, one of the largest cities of southeast Turkey. The purpose of the study was to determine the satisfac­tion levels and preferences of residents of these commu­nities. The findings, which revealed high resident satis­faction levels, show that residents chose to live in these communities mainly because of safety and prestige. The results of the study also indicate that long-term residents of GCs have a fear of living outside this kind of arrange­ment, which is reflected in a fear of moving. Keywords: gated community, safe area, resident prefer­ences, resident satisfaction levels, security, fear of crime 1 Introduction Gated communities (GCs) can be found in many cities around the world (Blakely & Snyder, 1997; Grant & Mittelsteadt, 2004). They are mostly preferred by the upper class and upper-middle class, and they offer the perception of a safer zone (Roitman, 2005). Therefore, 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. There is a wide array of research related to GCs, including their definitions, characteristics, types and resident preferences. This study examines residents’ satisfac­tion 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. This study is based on the proposition that residents’ satisfac­tion indicates that GCs will be increasingly preferred in the fu­ture. The following research questions were asked in the study: 1. What are residents’ satisfaction levels in the two GCs in Diyarbakir? 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 The 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), reflects 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 lev­els (Chi & Griffin, 1980; Wiedemann & Anderson, 1985; Amerigo & Aragones, 1990; Liu, 1999; Lu, 1999; Sendi, 2013; Aigbavboa & Thwala, 2014). Higher satisfaction levels per­taining to the built environment may show a harmony between residents’ actual situation and their preferred housing condi­tions, whereas lower satisfaction levels could indicate the oppo­site (Bonaiuto et al., 1999; Winstanley et al., 2002; Rapoport, 2004; Pevalin et al., 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 move­ment (Lu, 1998; Opoko et al., 2015). A residence is regarded as part of its surroundings. According­ly, 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; Jurkovic, 2014). As stated by Richard M. Carpiano (2007), neighbour-hood relations may even have a positive effect on residents’ health. Another benefit 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. This enhancement will also lead residents to keep an eye on their environment (Brown et al., 2003; Comstock et al., 2010). The objective characteristics of the neighbour­ 1. Entrance 2. Foyer 3. Toilet 4. Bathroom 5. Family room 6. Kitchen 7. Living room 8. Terrace Ground floor plan 9. Hallway 10. Laundry 11. Bedroom 0 5 m Upper floor plan Figure 2: Floor plans of duplexes in the Hamravat Gated Community (illustration: adapted from the original project by Metropol Co. Ltd.). Figure 3: a) front and b) back views of duplexes in the Hamravat Gated Community (photo: Ilham Yilmaz-Ay). hood should also support this tendency because the physical environment has an effect on shaping perceptions of crime and safety (Rollwagen, 2014). Gated communities (GCs), the modern version of an ancient city form, were first built at the end of the twentieth century and soon became symptomatic of modern living spaces. These communities are more like security zones (Blakely & Snyder, 1997; Lang & Danielsen, 1997; Ellin, 2001; Grant & Mit­telsteadt, 2004; Bekleyen & Dalkiliç, 2011; Yilmaz-Ay, 2013). “They have security devices such as walls, fences, gates, barriers, alarms, guards and Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cam­eras” (Roitman, 2005: 304). The need for GCs may stem from “the rise of insecurity and fear of crime, the deficiency of the state in providing basic services to citizens, increasing social in­equalities, 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). Com­pared to the heterogeneous structure of other communities, GCs reflect a more homogenous structure with residents from the upper or upper-middle class (Roitman, 2005). 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 Ground floor plan Upper floor plan 0 5 m Figure 4: Floor plans of detached homes in the Gökkusagi Gated Community (illustration: adapted from the original project by Metropol Co. Ltd.). Figure 5: a) front and b) back views of detached homes in the Gökkusagi Gated Community (photo: Ilham Yilmaz-Ay). 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 findings. 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 reflections 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 first developed to meet residents’ security needs, they were presented as more prestigious and privileged living spaces over time as a marketing strategy (Blandy, 2006). 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 & Sener, 2012). The reason for this improvement may stem from the fact that the residents live in a restricted area (Edgü & Cimsit, 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 This 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 Diyarbakir, a city in southeast Turkey. This city has attracted migration from rural areas for various reasons, such as the lack of job opportunities in the area and the drawn-out conflict in the re­gion. The first GCs in the city were built after 2000. Two GCs in the city of Diyarbakir – the Hamravat Gated Community and Gökkusagi Gated Community – were examined as part of this study. These communities were selected because they were the first GCs in the city and they are larger than the others. The study involves two GCs (Figure 1). The Hamravat Gat­ed Community (HGC) has 305 houses, most of which are duplexes (Figure 2 and 3). It was privately built in 2002 for members of upper class. The Gökkusagi Gated Communi­ty (GGC), which was completed in 2007, has 256 detached homes (Figures 4 and 5). 3.2 Participants Thirty-three residents from HGC and twenty-seven from GGC agreed to take part in the study. The total number of participants was sixty and 90% of them were female. Among the female participants, 53% were housewives. Administer­ing the questionnaires was rather challenging due to attitudes displayed by the community administrators and some resi­dents 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. Fifty-two per cent of the residents were over forty. There were fewer than five household members in 72% of the houses. The average time of home ownership was more than five years in HGC (94%) and less than three years in GGC (100%; Table 1). 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. The main questionnaire consisted of three parts, the first of which was related to residents’ satisfaction levels pertaining to the residence, neighbours and neighbourhood. The second part examined residents’ satisfaction levels in detail, asking for opin­ions about housing quality and environmental features. Finally, opinions related to the house and its immediate environment were examined. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the research instrument was found to be 0.73. The first and second parts of the questionnaire consisted of four-point Likert-type questions with a scale ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied, and the third part consisted of two options. 3.4 Data analysis The findings were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. After the descriptive statistics were calculated, a Mann–Whitney U Test was administered to determine the difference 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 Diyarbakir The conceptual framework for this part of the study was formed based on the classification by Maria Amerigo and Juan Ignacio Aragones (1997), who evaluated residential satisfac­ Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants. Hamravat Gated Community Gökkusagi Gated Community Total n = 33 n = 27 n = 60 Male 5 (15) 1 (4) 6 (10) Female 28 (85) 26 (96) 54 (90) 20–30 4 (12) 2 (7) 6 (10) 31–40 12 (36) 11 (41) 23 (38) Housewife 19 (58) 13 (48) 32 (53) Public sector 9 (27) 12 (44.5) 21 (35) 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) Married 29 (88) 27 (100) 56 (93) Single 4 (12) 0 (0) 4 (7) 2 3 (9) 5 (18.5) 8 (13) 8 (24) 5 (18.5) 13 (22) 11 (33.5) 11 (41) 22 (37) 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) 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 Table 2, the residential satisfaction levels were quite high in the two communities. Although no statistically significant results were found when the two com­munities 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 com­munities in the same city, the satisfaction levels of the resi­dents 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 that 76.7% of participants were satisfied with their houses. This finding is low compared to the result obtained in this study (HGC = 91%, GGC = 100%). The 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 gar­den; the external appearance of the residence; play areas for children; pedestrian routes and sports areas; management; community security; home security; the effects of living in a restricted area; and transport facilities. Table 3 shows that Table 2: Residents’ satisfaction levels related to living area. Communities Satisfaction Mean Percentage of satisfaction GGC 8 19 0 0 3.30100 HGC 9 19 6 13.0079 GGC 8 16 3 03.1989 HGC 11 22 0 0 3.33100 GGC 9 16 1 13.2293 Note: 4 = very satisfied, 3 = satisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 1 = very dissatisfied; HGC = Hamravat Gated Community (n = 33), GGC = Gökkusagi Gated Community (n = 27) the satisfaction levels for all of these items were quite high in both communities. The only item that lowered the satisfaction levels was the one asking about plumbing systems, which had often failed. When the two communities were compared, some statistically significant differences were found in certain areas (Table 3). The residents of HGC were significantly more satisfied with social activities compared to the residents of GGC (U = 260.00, p < 0.01). As already stated, HGC consists of du­plexes 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 imme­diate environment of the communities. The satisfaction level in GGC was lower compared to HGC (U = 259.50, p < 0.01). This 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. How­ever, the new policy of the Turkish government, introduced in 2014, 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 satisfac­tion levels were found to be high in the sample communities. The 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 et al., 2011; Tech-Hong, 2012). It was also found that 98% of the participants were satisfied 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. This part of the study explores the underlying reasons for residents’ desire to live in a GC in depth. 4.2.1 Security The results of previous studies have indicated that the exist­ence 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 findings of this study show that the participants think their communi­ties and houses are safe (90% and 93%, respectively). These results, presented in Table 3, prove that the residents find 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 Table 4, 10% of the participants wit­nessed crime in their communities and 23% did not find 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. The total per­centage of satisfaction with security contradicts this finding. This contradiction can be explained by the effect 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%, Table 2) may have an effect 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 Table 3: Residents’ satisfaction levels related to the house and community characteristics. Communities Satisfaction Mean Percentage of satisfaction Total percentage of satisfaction HGC 8 25 0 0 3.24 100 97 GGC 8 17 2 0 3.22 93 HGC 8 22 3 0 3.15 91 92 GGC 8 17 2 0 3.22 93 HGC 10 23 0 0 3.30 100 95 GGC 7 17 3 0 3.15 89 HGC 10 20 2 1 3.18 91 83 GGC 8 12 7 0 3.04 74 HGC 5 22 4 2 2.91 82 80 GGC 9 12 6 0 3.11 78 HGC 9 19 4 1 3.09 85 88 GGC 10 15 2 0 3.30 93 HGC 0 8 12 13 1.85 24 28 GGC 1 8 12 6 2.15 33 HGC 2 26 4 1 2,88 85 82 GGC 3 18 5 1 2.85 78 HGC 5 20 8 0 2.91 76 82 GGC 5 19 2 1 3.04 89 HGC 15 16 2 0 3.39 94 93 GGC 7 18 2 0 3.19 93 HGC 4 20 9 0 2.85 73 73 GGC 4 16 5 2 2.78 74 HGC 9 20 4 0 3.15** 88 70 GGC 4 9 10 4 2.15** 48 HGC 3 25 5 0 2.94 85 83 GGC 6 16 4 1 3.00 81.5 HGC 4 16 10 3 2.64 61 65 GGC 1 18 6 2 2.67 70 HGC 2 16 13 2 2.55* 55 65 GGC 5 16 6 0 2.96* 78 Communities Satisfaction Mean Percentage of satisfaction Total percentage of satisfaction HGC 6 9 13 5 2.48** 45.5 35 GGC 0 6 8 13 1.74** 22 HGC 12 17 4 0 3.24 88 90 GGC 8 17 2 0 3.22 93 HGC 11 20 2 0 3.27 94 93 GGC 9 16 2 0 3.26 93 HGC 15 17 1 0 3.42 97 98 GGC 11 16 0 0 3.41 100 HGC 3 15 14 1 2.60 55 57 GGC 1 15 9 2 2.56 59 Note: 4 = very satisfied, 3 = satisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 1 = very dissatisfied; HGC = Hamravat Gated Community (n = 33), GGC = Gökkusagi Gated Community (n = 27); * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 the need for safety in spite of the weaknesses. Those respon­sible for security could easily solve these problems by taking some additional measures. These findings 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, and 83% think they are good value for money (Ta­ble 4). Here, the word modern is used in the sense of ‘up-to-date’ and ‘of good quality’. This 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%), and 93% feel themselves to be part of this living area. These findings are consistent with the findings of Sonia Roitman’s study (2005). 4.3 Preferences related to GCs and reasons Ninety-three per cent of the residents are very satisfied with raising their children in a restricted area (Table 3) because a safe atmosphere makes them feel at ease and less anxious. The good relations among the neighbours (92%) show that dialog and cooperation are at the highest level among neigh-bours (Table 4). This allows the neighbours to keep an eye on children. Similar results were found by William M. 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 finding of the study is that 40% of the participants are afraid of living outside of a GC (Table 4). The percentage is higher in HGC (54.5%) than in GGC (22%; U = 301.50, p < 0.05). This 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 findings of this study, it is possible to conclude that the existence of GCs, which are considered safe and pres­tigious 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). This feeling of attachment indicates that mobility will be at a minimum (Andersen, 2011). Residents’ perception of being privileged can be reflected by their opinion that the neighbourhood where they live is re­ HGC 3 (9) 30 (91) GGC 3 (11) 24 (89) HGC 29 (88) 4 (12) HGC 18 (54.5)* 15 (45.5) GGC 6 (22)* 21 (78) HGC 30 (91) 3 (9) HGC 25 (76) 8 (24) HGC 29 (88) 4 (12) HGC 28 (85) 5 (15) HGC 12 (36) 21 (64) GGC 12 (44) 15 (56) Total 24 (40) 36 (60) Note: HGC = Hamravat Gated Community (n = 33), GGC = Gökkusagi Gated Community (n = 27), * p < 0.05 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 Edward J. Blakely (1999) and Dou­gles 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 The findings 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 satisfac­tion 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. The findings 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. This secluded lifestyle isolates them from the out­side world and later it becomes an indispensable part of their lives. In addition, strong relations with neighbours continue to exist in this restricted environment. After experiencing this lifestyle, residents may even find 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 men­tioned 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 effect on their residents and high satisfaction levels. In other words, what is known about GCs justifies the predic­tion that they will be indispensable for residents in the future. Ayhan Bekleyen Dicle University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Diyarbakir, Turkey E-mail: ayhan.bekleyen@gmail.com Ilham Yilmaz-Ay Dicle University, Institute of Science, Diyarbakir, Turkey E-mail: y.ilham@hotmail.com References Adriaanse, C. C. M. (2007) Measuring residential satisfaction: A residen­tial 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 coun­cil 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 Environmen­tal 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 spa­tial revolt of the elites and time-space trajectories of segregation. Hous­ing Studies, 19(6), pp. 875–892. DOI: 10.1080/0267303042000293982 Bekleyen, A. & Dalkiliç, N. (2011) The influence of climate and privacy on indigenous courtyard houses in Diyarbakir, Turkey. Scientific Re­search 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 prop­erty 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 perspec­tives 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 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 En­vironmental 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 Hous­ing 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 revi­talizing 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 develop­ment on the periphery of Istanbul metropolitan area. A | Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 6(2), pp. 73–97. Chi, P. & Griffin, 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., et al. (2010) Neighborhood attachment and its correlates: Exploring neighborhood conditions, collective efficacy, and gardening. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), pp. 435–442. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.001 Edgü, E. & Cimsit, 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 satisfac­tion. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), pp. 401–424. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-005-9023-4 Garip, S. B. & Sener, H. (2012) Analysing environmental satisfaction in gated housing settlements: A case study in Istanbul. 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. En­vironment 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 Affairs, 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 psycho­logical 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 Internet 1: https://www.google.com.tr/maps (accessed 20 Feb. 2015). Jurkovic, 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 settle­ments in Diyarbakir and Sanliurfa: A comparative analysis. Master’s thesis. Diyarbakir, 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 be­tween residential satisfaction, mobility intentions, and moving behav­iour. 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 Braamfischerville, 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 affordable housing: Residen­tial 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 popu­larity. 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 Publica­tions. Richter, C. & Goetz, A. (2007) Gated communities in the Denver–Boul­der metropolitan area: Characteristics, spatial distribution, and resi­dents’ 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 benefits and costs of homeownership: A critical assessment of the research. In: Tighe, J. R. & Mueller, E. J. (eds.) The Affordable Housing Reader, pp. 196– 213. New York, Routledge. Roitman, S. (2005) Who segregates whom? The analysis of a gated community in Mendoza, Argentina. Housing Studies, 20(2), pp. 303–321. DOI: 10.1080/026730303042000331790 Roitman, S. (2010) Gated communities: Definitions, causes and conse­quences. 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 purchas­ing 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: Inter­preting a new trend in post-communist urban development. GeoJour­nal, 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 Interna­tional, 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 Archi­tectural 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 Environ­ments, 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) Insignificant 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 Yilmaz-Ay, I. (2013) An investigation of the user satisfaction in the gated housing settlements of Diyarbakir: Hamravat and Gökkusagi Settlements. Master’s thesis. Diyarbakir, Dicle University, Institute of Science.