63
UDK: 711.58:364.68:365.6
DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-2016-27-01-005
Prejeto: 29. 8. 2015 Sprejeto: 25. 2. 2016
Ayhan BEKLEYEN ilham YILMAZ-AY
So ograjene skupnosti za stanovalce nepogrešljive?
Ograjene skupnosti oziroma stanovanjske soseske z omejenim dostopom so po svetu vse bolj razširjene. Raziskava se osredotoča na ograjeni skupnosti v Dijarbakirju, enem od največjih mest na jugovzhodu Turčije. V njej avtorja preučujeta stopnjo zadovoljstva in preference prebivalcev teh skupnosti. Ugotovitve kažejo visoko stopnjo zadovoljstva med stanovalci in razkrivajo, da se ljudje za življenje v teh skupnostih v glavnem odločajo zaradi varnosti in
prestiža. Rezultati poleg tega kažejo, da se dolgoletni prebivalci OS bojijo živeti zunaj tovrstnih sosesk, kar se izraža v strahu pred selitvijo.
Ključne besede: ograjena skupnost, varno območje, preference stanovalcev, stopnja zadovoljstva stanovalcev, varnost, strah pred kriminalom
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
64
A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
1	Uvod
Ograjene skupnosti (OS) lahko najdemo v številnih mestih po svetu (Blakely in Snyder, 1997, ter Grant in Mittelsteadt, 2004). Običajno se za življenje v njih odloča višji in srednji višji sloj, saj dajejo vtis varnejšega območja (Roitman, 2005). Pri njihovem oglaševanju se zato po navadi poudarja varnost in tudi druge, z njo povezane lastnosti, kot sta prestiž in ugled (Blandy, 2006). Ni čudno, da so ta nova bivalna okolja pritegnila pozornost raziskovalcev. V zvezi z OS je bilo opravljeno že veliko raziskav, v katerih so se avtorji osredotočali na njihovo definicijo, značilnosti, vrste in preference stanovalcev. V tej raziskavi avtorja preučujeta zadovoljstvo prebivalcev OS s hišami, neposredno okolico in odnosi v soseski. Poleg tega ju zanima, zakaj se ljudje raje odločajo za bivanje v ograjenih ali varnejših skupnostih.
Raziskava temelji na domnevi, da zadovoljstvo stanovalcev kaže, da se bo v prihodnosti vse več ljudi odločalo za OS. Zastavljena so bila ta raziskovalna vprašanja:
1.	Kakšna je stopnja zadovoljstva stanovalcev v izbranih OS v Dijarbakirju?
2.	Zakaj živijo v ograjeni skupnosti?
3.	Kakšne preference imajo v zvezi z OS in zakaj?
2	Ozadje raziskave
Družbene in fizične značilnosti hiše in njene okolice so kazalnik stanovanjskih razmer, zadovoljstvo s stanovanji, eden od kazalnikov učinkovitosti stanovanj (Paris in Kangari, 2005; Adriaanse, 2007, in Andersen, 2011) pa izraža prilagojenost stanovalcev na te značilnosti (Lu, 1998). Subjektivne opazke stanovalcev razkrivajo stopnjo te prilagojenosti (Wiesenfeld, 1992; Amerigo in Aragones, 1997, in Liu, 1999). Stopnja zadovoljstva lahko razkriva tudi kakovost življenja stanovalcev (Chi in Griffin, 1980; Wiedemann in Anderson, 1985; Amerigo in Aragones, 1990; Liu, 1999; Lu, 1999; Sendi, 2013, ter Aigbavboa in Thwala, 2014). Višja stopnja zadovoljstva z grajenim okoljem lahko kaže usklajenost dejanskega položaja z želenimi stanovanjskimi razmerami, medtem ko lahko nižja stopnja zadovoljstva izraža prav nasprotno (Bonaiuto idr., 1999; Winstanley idr., 2002; Rapoport, 2004; Pevalin idr., 2008; Moolla idr., 2011; Bekleyen in Korkmaz, 2013; Tsenko-va, 2014; Grum in Kobal Grum, 2015, ter Rogatka in Ramos Ribeiro, 2015). Nezadovoljstvo lahko torej povzroči željo po preselitvi drugam, kar se lahko včasih tudi dejansko zgodi (Lu, 1998, ter Opoko idr., 2015).
Hiša je del okolice, zato so odnosi s sosedi eden od dejavnikov, ki določajo zadovoljstvo z bivališčem, saj močne družbene vezi v soseski zmanjšajo strah pred kriminalom in željo po
i—i—i—i
Slika 1: (a) zemljevid Dijarbakirja; (b) lokacija ograjenih skupnosti ((a) ilustracija: Ayhan Bekleyen; (b) vir: internet 1)
preselitvi (Newmann, 1972; Andersen, 2008; Vera-Toscano in Ateca-Amestoy, 2008; Yau, 2012; Shrestha, 2013, in Jurkovič, 2014). Kot navaja Richard M. Carpiano (2007), lahko odnosi v soseski ugodno vplivajo celo na zdravje prebivalcev. Nadaljnja korist teh odnosov je povezana z varnostjo. Ker so prijateljski sosedje pozorni na tujce, ki bi lahko kakor koli ogrozili sosesko, ustvarjajo varno okolje (McDonell, 2006). Stopnja navezanosti na sosesko se poveča z mišljenjem, da je v dobri soseski življenje varnejše. Zaradi večje navezanosti stanovalci tudi bolj pazijo na okolje, v katerem živijo (Brown idr., 2003, ter Comstock idr., 2010). To težnjo bi morale podpirati tudi objektivne lastnosti soseske, saj fizično okolje vpliva na dojemanje kriminala in varnosti (Rollwagen, 2014).
OS kot sodobne različice starodavnih mest so se začele graditi konec 20. stoletja in kmalu so postale sestavni del sodobnih bivalnih okolij. Tovrstne skupnosti so videti kot nekakšne varnostne cone (Blakely in Snyder, 1997; Lang in Danielsen, 1997;
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
So ograjene skupnosti za stanovalce nepogrešljive?
65
tloris pritličja
tloris nadstropja
1.	vhod
2.	predsoba
3.	stranišče
4.	kopalnica
5.	dnevna soba 1
6.	kuhinja
7.	dnevna soba 2
8.	terasa
9.	hodnik
10.	pralnica
11.	spalnica
5 m ]
0
Slika 2: Tlorisi dvojčkov v ograjeni skupnosti Hamravat (ilustracija: povzeto po izvirnem projektu Metropol Co. Ltd.)
Slika 3: (a) sprednja in (b) zadnja stran dvojčkov v ograjeni skupnosti Hamravat (foto: ilham Yilmaz-Ay)
Ellin, 2001; Grant in Mittelsteadt, 2004; Bekleyen in Dalkiluj, 2011, in Yilmaz-Ay, 2013). »Uporabljajo varnostne naprave, kot so zidovi, ograje, vrata, ovire, alarmi, varnostniki in nadzorne kamere.« (Roitman, 2005: 304.) Potreba po OS lahko izvira iz »vse slabšega občutka varnosti in vse večjega strahu pred kriminalom, nesposobnosti države, da bi državljanom zagotovila najosnovnejše storitve, vse večje družbene neenakosti, pospešenega procesa družbene polarizacije in mednarodnega trenda, ki ga spodbujajo gradbeni investitorji« (Roitman, 2005: 304-305). Strah pred nasiljem in kriminalom je glavni razlog, da se ljudje preselijo v take skupnosti (Low, 2003). V primerjavi z drugimi skupnostmi imajo OS bolj homogeno
zgradbo, saj tam prevladujejo stanovalci višjega ali višjega srednjega sloja (Roitman, 2005).
Varnost je močna motivacija za posameznike, ki želijo živeti v OS (Atkinson in Flint, 2004; Asiedu in Arku, 2009, in Po-lanska, 2010). Raziskave stopnje varnosti v OS pa so razkrile zanimive ugotovitve. Nekatere so pokazale, da OS pritegnejo kazniva dejanja, kot so vlomi (Breetzke idr., 2014), druge pa so razkrile, da te v resnici ne izpolnjujejo varnostnih standardov. Jill Grant (2005: 282), ki je raziskovala OS v Kanadi, navaja, da v skupnostih, vključenih v preiskovalni vzorec, večina varnostnih pogojev ni izpolnjena, saj so »ograje precej nizke (1,2 m
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
66
A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
"T
j=
JYIP
lir\
p

tloris pritličja
tloris nadstropja
1.	vhod
2.	predsoba
3.	stranišče
4.	shramba
5.	dnevna soba 1
6.	kuhinja
7.	dnevna soba 2
8.	terasa s premičnim steklenim zidom
9.	terasa
10.	hodnik
11.	pralnica
12.	kopalnica
13.	spalnica
14.	balkon
5 m
0
Slika 4: Tlorisi samostojnih hiš v ograjeni skupnosti Gekušagi (ilustracija: povzeto po izvirnem projektu Metropol Co. Ltd.)
Slika 5: (a) sprednja in (b) zadnja stran samostojnih hiš v ograjeni skupnosti Gekušagi (foto: ilham Yilmaz-Ay)
ali nižje), varnostniki in nadzorne kamere pa so redki, razen v najprestižnejših soseskah«.
Študije, ki se osredotočajo na strah pred kriminalom, kažejo, da bi bile lahko OS distopijske različice mest v prihodnosti (Atkinson in Flint, 2004). Hkrati imajo ljudje v različnih delih sveta zaradi različnih življenjskih slogov in potreb različen odnos do OS. Yasser Mahgoub in Fatma Khalfani (2012) sta na primer ugotovila, da ljudje v Katarju raje živijo v samostojnih hišah kot v OS.
OS so se najprej gradile, da bi zadovoljile varnostne potrebe stanovalcev, sčasoma pa so se kot del tržne strategije začele predstavljati kot prestižnejša in privilegirana bivalna okolja (Blandy, 2006). Pozneje so postale znane po svojem visokem ugledu (Richter in Goetz, 2007; ^eki<j in Gezici, 2009, ter Almatarneh in Mansour, 2013). Ljudje so hoteli prebivati v njih, ker so si želeli lepše življenje, kar se je izražalo v več dejavnikih, na primer v »izogibanju težavam v mestu - recimo posameznikom, ki prosjačijo za denar in hrano itd. - ter iskanju družbene homogenosti, položaja in ekskluzivnosti znotraj
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
So ograjene skupnosti za stanovalce nepogrešljive?
67
nekaterih družbenih skupin v kontekstu splošnega procesa obubožanja družbe« (Roitman, 2005: 305). Z drugimi besedami, z zahtevami premožnih ljudi so postajale te skupnosti po svetu vse bolj razširjene.
Čeprav družbene vezi niso glavni vzrok za preselitev v OS (Blandy in Lister, 2003), so raziskave pokazale, da tovrstne skupnosti izboljšajo medsosedske odnose (Garip in §ener, 2012). To izboljšanje je lahko posledica dejstva, da stanovalci živijo na območju z omejenim dostopom (Edgu in Cim^it, 2011). Na takem zavarovanem območju stanovalci zaradi družbenih vezi in podpore sosedov razvijejo tudi večji občutek varnosti (Grant, 2005).
3 Metode
3.1	Vzorčenje
Avtorja sta v raziskavi preučevala zadovoljstvo stanovalcev OS, pri čemer sta se osredotočila na njihove preference ter vezi med njimi in skupnostjo. Raziskavo sta zasnovala na podlagi opisne raziskovalne metode, ki se je osredotočala na ograjeni skupnosti v Dijarbakirju v jugovzhodni Turčiji. Ljudje s podeželja se v to mesto priseljujejo iz različnih razlogov, kot so pomanjkanje služb in dolgotrajni nemiri na tem območju. Prve OS so bile v mestu zgrajene po letu 2000. V raziskavi sta avtorja preučevala dve tamkajšnji OS: Hamravat in Gekušagi. Izbrani sta bili zato, ker sta bili prvi tovrstni skupnosti v mestu in ker sta večji od drugih.
V	raziskavi sta obravnavani dve OS (slika 1). Ograjena skupnost Hamravat (OSH) je bila leta 2002 zgrajena zasebno za pripadnike višjega sloja. v njej je 305 hiš in med njimi prevladujejo dvojčki (sliki 2 in 3). Ograjena skupnost Gekušagi (OSG) je bila zgrajena leta 2007 in ima 256 samostojnih hiš (sliki 4 in 5).
3.2	Udeleženci
V	raziskavi je sodelovalo 33 stanovalcev OSH in 27 stanovalcev OSG. Vseh udeležencev je bilo tako 60, od teh jih je bilo 90 % ženskega spola. Med udeleženkami je bilo 53 % gospodinj. Zaradi odnosa upravnikov in nekaterih stanovalcev je bilo anketiranje kar zahtevno. Zaradi zahtev upravnikov je lahko anketiranje potekalo samo podnevi. Moških takrat običajno ni bilo doma in še tisti, ki so bili, niso bili navdušeni nad odgovarjanjem na vprašanja; ženske so bile veliko bolj pripravljene sodelovati. Ker ženske običajno preživijo več časa doma in skrbijo za otroke, je bilo bolj smiselno anketirati njih kot moške.
Polovica anketirancev je imela univerzitetno izobrazbo in vsi so imeli hiše v svoji lasti. 52 % stanovalcev je bilo starih več kot 40 let. V 72 % hiš je živelo manj kot pet gospodinjskih članov. V OSH so imeli stanovalci hiše v lasti povprečno več kot pet let (94 %), v OSG pa manj kot tri leta (100 %; preglednica 1).
3.3	Orodja
Podatki v obravnavanih OS so bili zbrani z vprašalniki. Za pridobitev demografskih podatkov o udeležencih je bil oblikovan poseben list z vprašanji. Glavni vprašalnik je bil sestavljen iz treh delov. Prvi del se je nanašal na zadovoljstvo stanovalcev s hišo, sosedi in sosesko. V drugem delu so bile stopnje zadovoljstva obravnavane podrobneje, saj so morali anketiranci povedati, kaj menijo o kakovosti stanovanj in okoljskih značilnostih. V zadnjem delu so anketiranci opisali, kaj menijo o svojih hišah in njihovi neposredni okolici. Cronbachov koeficient alfa je znašal 0,73. Prvi in drugi del vprašalnika je bil sestavljen iz vprašanj na štiristopenjski Likertovi lestvici (1 - zelo nezadovoljen, 4 - zelo zadovoljen), v tretjem delu pa so anketiranci lahko izbirali med dvema odgovoroma.
3.4	Analiza podatkov
Ugotovitve so bile analizirane s statističnim paketom za družboslovje. Po izračunu opisne statistike sta avtorja uporabila Mann-Whitneyjev U-test, s katerim sta določila razliko med neparametričnimi podatki, pridobljenimi iz povprečnih rezultatov dveh neodvisnih vzorcev.
4 Rezultati in razprava
4.1 Stopnja zadovoljstva v dveh preučevanih OS v Dijarbakirju
Konceptualni okvir za ta del raziskave temelji na klasifikaciji Marie Amerigo in Juana Ignacia Aragonesa (1997), ki sta zadovoljstvo s stanovanji ocenjevala na podlagi treh vidikov, in sicer soseske, sosedov in hiše. Kot je razvidno iz preglednice 2, je bila v preučevanih skupnostih stopnja zadovoljstva s stanovanji precej visoka. Čeprav primerjava teh dveh skupnosti ni razkrila statistično pomembnih rezultatov, je imela OSG višjo stopnjo zadovoljstva s hišami in sosesko, OSH pa višjo stopnjo zadovoljstva s sosedi. V primerjavi z neograjenimi skupnostmi v mestu je bila stopnja zadovoljstva v obeh OS precej visoka. Nail Mahir Korkmaz (2007), ki je preučeval stopnjo zadovoljstva s hišami v neograjeni skupnosti v istem mestu, je na primer ugotovil, da je bilo 76,7 % anketirancev zadovoljnih s svojimi
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
68
A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
Preglednica 1: Družbeni in demografski podatki o udeležencih
	ograjena skupnost Hamravat	ograjena skupnost Gekušagi	skupaj
	n = 33	n = 27	n = 60
	F (%)	F (%)	F (%)
spol			
moški	5 (15)	1 (4)	6 (10)
ženski	28 (85)	26 (96)	54 (90)
starost			
20-30	4 (12)	2 (7)	6 (10)
31-40	12 (36)	11 (41)	23 (38)
> 40	17 (52)	14 (52)	31 (52)
poklic			
gospodinja	19 (58)	13 (48)	32 (53)
javni sektor	9 (27)	12 (44,5)	21 (35)
zasebni sektor	5 (15)	2 (7,5)	7 (12)
izobrazba
osnovna šola	5 (15)	1 (4)	6 (10)
srednja šola	14 (42,5)	10 (37)	24 (40)
univerzitetna diploma	12 (36,5)	13 (48)	25 (42)
magisterij	2 (6)	3 (11)	5 (8)
zakonski stan			
poročeni	29 (88)	27 (100)	56 (93)
samski	4 (12)	0 (0)	4 (7)
velikost gospodinjstva			
2	3 (9)	5 (18,5)	8 (13)
3	8 (24)	5 (18,5)	13 (22)
4	11 (33,5)	11 (41)	22 (37)
5 ali več	11 (33,5)	6 (22)	17 (28)
doba prebivanja (v letih)
1	0 (0)	2 (7)	2 (3)
2	1 (3)	20 (74)	21 (35)
3	0 (0)	5 (19)	5 (8)
4	1 (3)	0 (0)	1 (2)
5 ali več	31 (94)	0 (0)	31 (52)
stanovanjski status			
lastnik	33 (100)	27 (100)	60 (100)
najemnik	0 (0)
hišami. Ta stopnja pa je še vedno nizka v primerjavi z rezultati, dobljenimi v tej raziskavi (OSH = 91 %, OSG = 100 %).
Vprašalnik je vseboval tudi podrobna vprašanja o hišah in njihovi okolici (na primer o velikosti hiše in njenih prostorov; številu prostorov, kuhinji, kopalnici in vrtu; zunanjem videzu hiše; igralnih površinah za otroke; pešpoteh in športnih površinah; upravi; varnosti znotraj skupnosti; varnosti hiše; posledicah prebivanja na območju z omejenim dostopom in
0 (0) 0 (0)
prometni infrastrukturi). Iz preglednice 3 je razvidno, da je v obeh skupnostih stopnja zadovoljstva z vsem naštetim precej visoka. Nižja stopnja zadovoljstva je bila izražena samo za vodovodno napeljavo, ki je pogosto v okvari.
Primerjava obeh skupnosti je razkrila statistično pomembne razlike na določenih področjih (preglednica 3). Prebivalci OSH so bili veliko bolj zadovoljni z družabnimi dejavnostmi kot prebivalci OSG (U = 260,00, p < 0,01). Kot že rečeno,
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
So ograjene skupnosti za stanovalce nepogrešljive?
69
Preglednica 2: Zadovoljstvo stanovalcev z bivalnim okoljem
skupnost zadovoljstvo	povprečje odstotek zadovoljstva
4	3	2	1
hiša
OSH	11	19	3	0	3,24	91
OSG	8	19	0	0	3,30	100
soseska
OSH	9	19	6	1	3,00	79
OSG	8	16	3	0	3,19	89
sosedje
OSH	11	22	0	0	3,33	100
OSG	9	16	1	1	3,22	93
Opomba: 4 = zelo zadovoljen, 3 = zadovoljen, 2 = nezadovoljen, 1 = zelo nezadovoljen; OSH = ograjena skupnost Hamravat (n = 33), OSG = ograjena skupnost Gekušagi (n = 27).
v OSH prevladujejo dvojčki, v OSG pa samostojne hiše. Stopnja zadovoljstva z razdaljo med hišami je bila v OSH precej nizka v primerjavi z OSG (U = 312,00, p < 0,05). Eno od vprašanj se je nanašalo na neposredno okolico skupnosti, in stopnja zadovoljstva v OSG je bila nižja od tiste v OSH (U = 259,50,p < 0,01). To je lahko posledica tega, da visoke stavbe v bližini OSG motijo zasebnost hiš v tej skupnosti. V Turčiji so se mesta doslej običajno gradila vertikalno, nova politika turške vlade iz leta 2014 pa gradbene izvajalce spodbuja k horizontalni gradnji. Če bodo politiko ustrezno upoštevali tudi državljani, omenjenih težav v prihodnosti ne bo.
Rezultati kažejo visoko stopnjo zadovoljstva v obeh preučevanih skupnostih, kar je lahko posledica tega, da imajo vsi stanovalci hiše v svoji lasti. Številne raziskave so pokazale, da je za lastnike stanovanj običajno značilna višja stopnja zadovoljstva (Elsinga in Hoekstra, 2005; Grinstein-Weiss idr., 2011, in Tech-Hong, 2012). Rezultati prav tako kažejo, da je 98 % anketirancev zadovoljnih z življenjem na območju z omejenim dostopom (to je v OS).
4.2 Razlogi za prebivanje v OS
V tem delu raziskave sta avtorja podrobneje preučevala, zakaj želijo ljudje živeti v OS. Analiza podatkov je razkrila različne razloge za prebivanje na teh območjih.
4.2.1 Varnost
Prejšnje raziskave so pokazale, da obstoj OS temelji na potrebi po varnosti (Blakely in Snyder, 1997; Atkinson in Flint, 2004; Grant in Mittelsteadt, 2004; Roitman, 2005, ter Asiedu in Arku, 2009). Ugotovitve te raziskave podobno kažejo, da anketiranci svoje skupnosti in hiše dojemajo kot varne (90 %
oziroma 93 %). Rezultati, predstavljeni v preglednici 3, potrjujejo, da stanovalci verjamejo, da so tovrstne skupnosti varnejše. Vprašanja glede pomanjkljivosti v varovanju pa so razkrila, da v obravnavanih OS še vedno prihaja do kaznivih dejanj. Kot je razvidno iz preglednice 4, je bilo 10 % stanovalcev priča kaznivemu dejanju v svoji skupnosti in 23 % jih je menilo, da njihove hiše niso varne pred vlomilci. Ko so bili vprašani, zakaj tako mislijo, je večina anketirancev (60 %) omenila slabo varovanje vhoda v skupnost. Skupni odstotek zadovoljstva z varnostjo pa tej ugotovitvi nasprotuje, kar je lahko posledica vpliva dobrih medsosedskih odnosov (McDonell, 2006, in Carpiano, 2007). V tovrstnih skupnostih se poveča navezanost na sosesko in težnja sosedov, da varujejo svoje bivalno okolje (Brown idr., 2003, ter Comstock idr., 2010). Zato bi lahko dejstvo, da stanovalci dobro poznajo drug drugega (92 %, preglednica 2), vplivalo na njihovo dojemanje varnosti.
Rezultati raziskave kažejo, da je bila kljub pomanjkljivostim potreba po varnosti glavni razlog za to, da so se anketiranci odločili živeti v tovrstni skupnosti. Odgovorni za varovanje bi lahko te pomanjkljivosti preprosto odpravili z uvedbo določenih dodatnih ukrepov. Ugotovitve so bile predstavljene upravnikoma obeh skupnosti.
4.2.2 Prebivanje na prestižnem območju
80 % anketirancev meni, da so njihove hiše moderne, in 83 % jih verjame, da so stroškovno učinkovite (preglednica 4). Pridevnik »moderen« je tukaj uporabljen v pomenu »sodoben« in »kakovosten«. To kaže, da stanovalci dobro sprejemajo svoje hiše. Prav tako menijo, da živijo na uglednem (82 %) in prestižnem območju (78 %), in 93 % se zdi, da so del tega kraja. Opisane ugotovitve se ujemajo z ugotovitvami Sonie Roitman (2005).
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
70
A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
Preglednica 3: Stopnja zadovoljstva stanovalcev s posameznimi značilnostmi hiše in skupnosti
	skupnosti	zadovoljstvo				povprečje	odstotek zadovoljstva	skupni odstotek zadovoljstva
		4	3	2	1			
velikost hiše								
	OSH	8	25	0	0	3,24	100	
	OSG	8	17	2	0	3,22	93	
število prostorov								
	OSH	8	22	3	0	3,15	91	
	OSG	8	17	2	0	3,22	93	
velikost prostorov								
	OSH	10	23	0	0	3,30	100	
	OSG	7	17	3	0	3,15	89	
kuhinja								
	OSH	10	20	2	1	3,18	91	
	OSG	8	12	7	0	3,04	74	
kopalnica								
	OSH	5	22	4	2	2,91	82	
	OSG	9	12	6	0	3,11	78	
vrt								
	OSH	9	19	4	1	3,09	85	
	OSG	10	15	2	0	3,30	93	
vodovodna napeljava								
	OSH	0	8	12	13	1,85	24	
	OSG	1	8	12	6	2,15	33	
estetski videz hiše								
	OSH	2	26	4	1	2,88	85	
	OSG	3	18	5	1	2,85	78	
otroške igralne površine								
	OSH	5	20	8	0	2,91	76	
	OSG	5	19	2	1	3,04	89	
vzgajanje otrok na tem območju								
	OSH	15	16	2	0	3,39	94	
	OSG	7	18	2	0	3,19	93	
pešpoti								
	OSH	4	20	9	0	2,85	73	
	OSG	4	16	5	2	2,78	74	
družabne dejavnosti								
	OSH	9	20	4	0	3,15**	88	
	OSG	4	9	10	4	2,15**	48	
športne površine								
	OSH	3	25	5	0	2,94	85	
	OSG	6	16	4	1	3,00	81,5	
uprava skupnosti								
	OSH	4	16	10	3	2,64	61	
	OSG	1	18	6	2	2,67	70	
razdalja med hišami								
	OSH	2	16	13	2	2,55*	55	
	OSG	5	16	6	0	2,96*	78	
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
So ograjene skupnosti za stanovalce nepogrešljive?
71
skupnosti zadovoljstvo	povprečje odstotek	skupni odstotek
	zadovoljstva	zadovoljstva
4 3 2 1
prebivalci zunaj skupnosti								
	OSH	6	9	13	5	2,48**	45,5	35
	OSG	0	6	8	13	1,74**	22	
varnost skupnosti								
	OSH	12	17	4	0	3,24	88	90
	OSG	8	17	2	0	3,22	93	
varnost posamezne hiše								
	OSH	11	20	2	0	3,27	94	93
	OSG	9	16	2	0	3,26	93	
prebivanje na območju z omejenim dostopom								
	OSH	15	17	1	0	3,42	97	
	OSG	11	16	0	0	3,41	100	98
prometna infrastruktura								
OSH	3 15 14 1 2,60	55
-57
OSG	1 15 9 2 2,56	59
Opomba: 4 = zelo zadovoljen, 3 = zadovoljen, 2 = nezadovoljen, 1 = zelo nezadovoljen; OSH = ograjena skupnost Hamravat (n = 33), OSG = ograjena skupnost Gekušagi (n = 27); * p < 0,05, ** p < 0,01.
4.3 Preference, povezane z OS, in razlogi zanje
93 % stanovalcev je zelo zadovoljnih s tem, da lahko vzgajajo svoje otroke na območju z omejenim dostopom (preglednica 3), saj so zaradi varnega okolja bolj sproščeni. Dobri odnosi med sosedi (92 %) kažejo, da sta sporazumevanje in sodelovanje med njimi na najvišji ravni (preglednica 4). Zaradi tega vsi sosedje opazujejo otroke in popazijo nanje. Do podobnih ugotovitev so prišli tudi William M. Rohe idr. (2013), ki so ugotovili, da v nasprotju z najemniki lastniki hiš običajno v isti soseski stanujejo dalj časa in radi nadzorujejo svoje bivalno okolje. Taka kontrola pomaga pri nadzoru okolja, zmanjša pa se tudi raven zaskrbljenosti med prebivalci (Rollwagen, 2014), saj v soseski ustvari sekundarno varnostno območje.
Ob zagotavljanju varnega in prestižnega življenjskega prostora ustvarjajo OS tudi občutek navezanosti na kraj. Zanimivo je, da se 40 % anketirancev boji živeti zunaj OS (preglednica 4). Odstotek je višji v OSH (54,5 %) kot v OSG (22 %; U = 301,50, p < 0,05) in ga je najverjetneje treba pripisati temu, da prebivalci OSH na tovrstnem območju prebivajo dalj časa.
Na podlagi ugotovitev raziskave lahko sklepamo, da je obstoj OS, ki veljajo za varna in prestižna življenjska okolja, odvisen od občutkov, ki jih dajejo svojim prebivalcem (to je da so privilegirani in varni pred kriminalom). To dokazujejo ti-
sti prebivalci, ki se bojijo živeti zunaj ograjene skupnosti. Ker so tovrstne skupnosti zaščitene in varne pred kriminalom, so stanovalci navezani na kraj in si na tem območju ustvarijo svoj svet. Hkrati občutek privilegiranosti pomeni, da se bo vrednost njihove nepremičnine v prihodnosti še povečala (Le Goix, 2005). Močen občutek navezanosti na kraj prav tako nakazuje, da bo mobilnost ostala majhna (Andersen, 2011).
Občutek privilegiranosti stanovalcev se izraža v njihovem mnenju, da živijo v ugledni in prestižni soseski, ki je vredna svojega denarja. Pozneje lahko ta občutek vodi v povečanje vrednosti celotnega kraja. Edward J. Blakely (1999) ter Dougles S. Bible in Chengho Hsieh (2001) so napovedali, da se bo vrednost stanovanj v OS povečala. Jill Grant in Lindsey Mittelste-adt (2004) sta ugotovili, da je premožnim družinam, ki živijo v teh skupnostih, všeč, da imajo sosede s podobnim družbenim ozadjem. Z drugimi besedami, premožnost drugih prebivalcev je še ena od značilnosti prebivanja v prestižni soseski. Ugotovitve različnih raziskav kažejo, da se bo v prihodnje še več ljudi odločalo za življenje v teh skupnostih (Ellin, 2001; Webster, 2001; Stoyanov in Frantz, 2006; Roitman, 2010, ter Ulku in Erten, 2013), nedvomno pa se bodo s tem dvignile tudi cene nepremičnin v OS (Blakely, 1999, ter Bible in Hsieh, 2001).
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
72
A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
Preglednica 4: Mnenja stanovalcev glede hiš in neposredne okolice
vprašanje	skupnost	F (%)	
		da	ne
Ste bili na območju, kjer živite, že kdaj priča kaznivemu dejanju?			
	OSH	3 (9)	30 (91)
	OSG	3 (11)	24 (89)
	skupaj	6 (10)	54 (90)
Čutite pripadnost temu kraju?			
	OSH	31 (94)	2 (6)
	OSG	25 (93)	2 (7)
	skupaj	56 (93)	4 (7)
Je vaša hiša vredna denarja, ki ste ga plačali zanjo?			
	OSH	29 (88)	4 (12)
	OSG	21 (78)	6 (22)
	skupaj	50 (83)	10 (17)
Bi vas bilo strah živeti zunaj ograjene skupnosti?			
	OSH	18 (54,5)*	15 (45,5)
	OSG	6 (22)*	21 (78)
	skupaj	24 (40)	36 (60)
Menite, da je vaša hiša varna pred vlomi?			
	OSH	27 (82)	6 (18)
	OSG	19 (70)	8 (30)
	skupaj	46 (77)	14 (23)
Poznate svoje sosede?			
	OSH	30 (91)	3 (9)
	OSG	25 (93)	2 (7)
	skupaj	55 (92)	5 (8)
Menite, da je vaša hiša moderna?			
	OSH	25 (76)	8 (24)
	OSG	23 (85)	4 (15)
	skupaj	48 (80)	12 (20)
Menite, da živite v ugledni soseski?			
	OSH	29 (88)	4 (12)
	OSG	20 (74)	7 (26)
	skupaj	49 (82)	11 (18)
Menite, da živite v prestižni soseski?			
	OSH	28 (85)	5 (15)
	OSG	19 (70)	8 (30)
	skupaj	47 (78)	13 (22)
Menite, da so vhodi v ograjeno skupnost ustrezno varovani?			
	OSH	12 (36)	21 (64)
	OSG	12 (44)	15 (56)
	skupaj	24 (40)	36 (60)
Opomba: OSH = ograjena skupnost Hamravat (n = 33), OSG = ograjena skupnost Gekušagi (n = 27); * p < 0,05.
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
So ograjene skupnosti za stanovalce nepogrešljive?
73
5 Sklep
Ugotovitve predstavljene raziskave kažejo razmeroma visoko stopnjo zadovoljstva stanovalcev preučevanih skupnosti v zvezi z njihovimi hišami, sosedi in sosesko. Manjši vzroki nezadovoljstva, kot so vodovodna napeljava in visoke stavbe v okolici, te stopnje ne znižujejo. Razlog za prebivanje v ograjeni skupnosti, ki so ga navedli stanovalci, je podoben tistemu, ki ga navajajo stanovalci drugih OS po svetu: želja po prebivanju na varnem in prestižnem območju. Ugotovitve prav tako razkrivajo močen občutek navezanosti na kraj.
Zaradi prebivanja na varnem območju z omejenim dostopom in vzgajanja otrok v okolju brez kriminala se med prebivalci spremeni dojemanje varnosti. Zaradi odmaknjenega življenjskega sloga so ločeni od zunanjega sveta, in pozneje postane ta življenjski slog nepogrešljiv del njihovega življenja. V obravnavanem okolju se poleg tega obdržijo močne medsosedske vezi. Ko prebivalci enkrat izkusijo tak življenjski slog, si pogosto ne znajo več predstavljati, da bi živeli v hiši zunaj OS, saj na podlagi svojih prejšnjih izkušenj dojemajo samostojne hiše kot nevarne. Glede na trenutne okoliščine po svetu se zdi, da se bo z gradnjo še več tovrstnih skupnosti težnja po prebivanju v premožni in homogeni skupini nadaljevala. Kot je bilo že omenjeno, so številne raziskave pokazale, da se bo splošna vrednost OS v prihodnosti povečala, saj ugodno vplivajo na svoje prebivalce in visoko stopnjo zadovoljstva. Z drugimi besedami, na podlagi tega, kar vemo o OS, lahko upravičeno napovemo, da bodo v prihodnosti za stanovalce postale nepogrešljive.
Ayhan Bekleyen
Dicle University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Dijarbakir, Turčija
E-pošta: ayhan.bekleyen@gmail.com ilham Yilmaz-Ay
Dicle University, Institute of Science, Dijarbakir, Turčija E-pošta: y.ilham@hotmail.com
Viri in literatura
Adriaanse, C. C. M. (2007): Measuring residential satisfaction: A residential environmental satisfaction scale (RESS). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22(3), str. 287-304. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-007-9082-9
Aigbavboa, C., in Thwala, W. (2014): Structural equation modelling of building quality constructs as a predictor of satisfaction in subsidised low-income housing. Urbani izziv, 25(supplement), str. S134-S147. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-supplement-010
Almatarneh, R., in 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), str. 505-528. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-012-9326-1
Amerigo, M., in Aragones, J. I. (1990): Residential satisfaction in council housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(4), str. 313-325. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80031-3
Amerigo, M., in Aragones, J. I. (1997): A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), str. 47-57. DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1996.0038
Andersen, H. S. (2008): Why do residents want to leave deprived neighbourhoods? The importance of residents' subjective evaluations of their neighbourhood and its reputation. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 23(2), str. 79-101. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-008-9109-x
Andersen, H. S. (2011): Explaining preferences for home surroundings and locations. Urbani izziv, 22(1), str. 100-114. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2011-22-01-002
Asiedu, A. B., in 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), str. 227-247. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-009-9146-0
Atkinson, R., in Flint, J. (2004): Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time-space trajectories of segregation. Housing Studies, 19(6), str. 875-892. DOI: 10.1080/0267303042000293982
Bekleyen, A., in Dalkili;, N. (2011): The influence of climate and privacy on indigenous courtyard houses in Diyarbakir, Turkey. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(4), str. 908-922.
Bekleyen, A., in Korkmaz, N. M. (2013): An evaluation of Akabe mass housing settlement in Sanliurfa, Turkey. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 28(2), str. 293-309. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-012-9313-6
Bible, D. S., in Hsieh, C. (2001): Gated communities and residential property values. The Appraisal Journal, 69(2), str. 140-145.
Blakely, E. J., in Snyder, M. G. (1997): Fortress America: Gated communities in the United States. Washington, Brookings Institution Press.
Blakely, E. J. (1999): The gated community debate. Urban Land, 58(6), str. 50-55.
Blandy, S. (2006): Gated communities in England: Historical perspectives and current developments. Geojournal, 66(1-2), str. 15-26. DOI: 10.1007/s10708-006-9013-4
Blandy, S., in Lister, D. (2005): Gated communities: (Ne)gating community development? Housing Studies, 20(2), str. 287-301. DOI: 10.1080/026730303042000331781
Bonaiuto, M., Atello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., in Ercolani, P. (1999): Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), str. 331-352. DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0138
Breetzke, G., Landman, K., in 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), str. 123-139. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-013-9362-5
Brown, B., Perkins, D. D., in Brown, G. (2003): Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), str. 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), str. 639-655. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.09.001
(Jeki;, T. I., in 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), str. 73-97.
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
74
A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
Chi, P., in Griffin, M. (1980): Social indicators for measuring residential satisfaction in marginal settlements in Costa Rica. Social Indicators Research, 8(4), str. 453-465. DOI: 10.1007/BF00461155
Comstock, N., Dickinson, L. M., Marshall, J. A., Soobader, M. J., Turbin, M. S., Buchenau, M., idr. (2010): Neighborhood attachment and its correlates: Exploring neighborhood conditions, collective efficacy, and gardening. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), str. 435-442. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.001
Edgu, E., in Cim§it, 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), str. 156-177.
Ellin, N. (2001): Thresholds of fear: Embracing the urban shadow. Urban Studies, 38(5-6), str. 869-883. DOI: 10.1080/00420980124399
Elsinga, M., in Hoekstra, J. (2005): Homeownership and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), str. 401-424. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-005-9023-4
Garip, S. B., in §ener, 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), str. 120-133.
Grant, J. (2005): Planning responses to gated communities in Canada. Housing Studies, 20(2), str. 273-285. DOI: 10.1080/026730303042000331772
Grant, J., in Mittelsteadt, L. (2004): Types of gated communities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(6), str. 913-930. DOI: 10.1068/b3165
Grinstein-Weiss, M., Yeo, Y., Anacker, K., van Zandt, S., Freeze, E., in Quercia, R. (2011): Homeownership and neighborhood satisfaction among low- and moderate-income households. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(3), str. 247-265. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2011.00549.x
Grum, B., in Kobal Grum, D. (2015): A model of real estate and psychological factors in decision-making to buy real estate, Urbani izziv, 26(1), str. 82-11. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-01-002
Internet 1: https://www.google.com.tr/maps (sneto 20. 2. 2015).
Jurkovic, N. B. (2014): Perception, experience and the use of public urban spaces by residents of urban neighbourhoods. Urbani izziv, 25(1), str. 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. Dijarbakir, Dicle University, Institute of Science.
Lang, R. E., in Danielsen, K. A. (1997): Gated communities in America: Walling out the world? Housing Policy Debate, 8(4), str. 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), str. 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), str. 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), str. 1473-1495. DOI: 10.1068/a301473
Lu, M. (1999): Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered lo-git vs. regression models. Growth and Change, 30(2), str. 264-287. DOI: 10.1111/0017-4815.00113
Mahgoub, Y., in Khalfani, F. (2012): Sustainability of gated communities in developing countries. Developing Country Studies, 2(6), str. 53-63.
McDonell, J. R. (2006): Neighborhood characteristics, parenting, and children's safety. Social Indicators Research, 83(1), str. 177-199. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-006-9063-5
Moolla, R., Kotze, N., in Block, L. (2011): Housing satisfaction and quality of life in RDP houses in Braamfischerville, Soweto: A South African case study. Urbani izziv, 22(1), str. 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., in Adeyemi, E. A. (2015): Housing aspiration in an informal urban settlement: A case study. Urbani izziv, 26(2), str. 117131. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-02-003
Paris, D. E., in Kangari, R. (2005): Multifamily affordable housing: Residential satisfaction. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 19(2), str. 138-145. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2005)19:2(138)
Pevalin, D. J., Taylor, M. P., in Todd, J. (2008): The dynamics of unhealthy housing in the UK: A panel data analysis. Housing Studies, 23(5), str. 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), str. 295-312. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-010-9189-2
Rapoport, A. (2004): Culture-architecture-design. Istanbul, YEM Publications.
Richter, C., in Goetz, A. (2007): Gated communities in the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area: Characteristics, spatial distribution, and residents' motivations. Housing Policy Debate, 18(3), str. 535-555. DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2007.9521610
Rogatka, K., in Ramos Ribeiro, R. R. (2015): A compact city and its social perception: A case study, Urbani izziv, 26(1), str. 121-131. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-01-005
Rohe, W. M., Van Zandt, S., in McCarthy, G. (2013): The social benefits and costs of homeownership: A critical assessment of the research. V: Tighe, J. R., in Mueller, E. J. (ur.): The Affordable Housing Reader, str. 196213. New York, Routledge.
Roitman, S. (2005): Who segregates whom? The analysis of a gated community in Mendoza, Argentina. Housing Studies, 20(2), str. 303-321. DOI: 10.1080/026730303042000331790
Roitman, S. (2010): Gated communities: Definitions, causes and consequences. Urban Design and Planning, 163(1), str. 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), str. 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), str. 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), str. 125-143. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2013-24-01-003
Stoyanov, P., in Frantz, K. (2006): Gated communities in Bulgaria: Interpreting a new trend in post-communist urban development. GeoJour-nal, 66(1-2), str. 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), str. 108-116. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.06.003
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
So ograjene skupnosti za stanovalce nepogrešljive?
75
Tsenkova, S. (2014): The housing policy nexus and people's responses to housing challenges in post-communist cities, Urbani izziv, 25(2), str. 90-106. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-02-002
Ulku, G., in Erten, E. (2013): Global image hegemony: Istanbul's gated communities as the new marketing icons. International Journal of Architectural Research, 7(2), str. 244-257.
Vera-Toscano, E., in Ateca-Amestoy, V. (2008): The relevance of social interactions on housing satisfaction. Social Indicators Research , 86(2), str. 257-274. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-007-9107-5
Webster, C. (2001): Gated cities of tomorrow. The Town Planning Review, 72(2), str. 149-170.
Wiedemann, S., in Anderson, J. R. (1985): A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. V: Altman, I., in Werner, C. (ur.): Home Environments, str. 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), str. 213-223. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80136-7
Winstanley, A., Thorns, D. C., in Perkins, H. C. (2002): Moving house, creating home: Exploring residential mobility. Housing Studies, 17(6), str. 813-832. DOI: 10.1080/02673030216000
Yau, Y. (2012): Insignificant or ignored? Antisocial behaviour in private housing in Hong Kong. Urbani izziv, 23(2), str. 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 Gokku$agi Settlements. Magistrsko delo. Dijarbakir, Dicle University, Institute of Science.
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
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
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
150	A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
a
Diyarbakir
Gokkuçagi l'- Hamravat
Gated	Gated
Community Community
Tigris River
1 2 3 km
H-1-!
0
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).
Figure 1: a) map of Diyarbakir; b) location of gated communities (a: illustration: Ayhan Bekleyen; b: source: Internet 1).
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), neighbourhood 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-
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
151
Ground floor plan
Upper floor plan
1.	Entrance
2.	Foyer
3.	Toilet
4.	Bathroom
5.	Family room
6.	Kitchen
7.	Living room
8.	Terrace
9.	Hallway
10.	Laundry
11.	Bedroom
5 m ]
0
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 & Mit-telsteadt, 2004; Bekleyen & Dalkili?, 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).
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
152
A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
Ground floor plan
Upper floor plan
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
5 m
0
Figure 4: Floor plans of detached homes in the G6kku?agi 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 G6kku?agi 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).
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
153
Later, these communities became well known for their high status (Richter & Goetz, 2007; ^eki<j & 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 & §ener, 2012). The reason for this improvement may stem from the fact that the residents live in a restricted area (Edgu & Cim^it, 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 Gokku^agi 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 Gokku^agi 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. Administer-
ing 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-
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
154
A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants.
	Hamravat Gated Community	Gôkkuçagi Gated Community	Total
	n = 33	n = 27	n = 60
	F (%)	F (%)	F (%)
Sex			
Male	5 (15)	1 (4)	6 (10)
Female	28 (85)	26 (96)	54 (90)
Age			
20-30	4 (12)	2 (7)	6 (10)
31-40	12 (36)	11 (41)	23 (38)
> 40	17 (52)	14 (52)	31 (52)
Occupation
Housewife	19 (58)	13 (48)	32 (53)
Public sector	9 (27)	12 (44.5)	21 (35)
Private sector	5 (15)	2 (7.5)	7 (12)
Education
Primary education	5 (15)	1 (4)	6 (10)
Secondary education	14 (42.5)	10 (37)	24 (40)
Bachelor's degree	12 (36.5)	13 (48)	25 (42)
Master's degree	2 (6)	3 (11)	5 (8)
Marital status			
Married	29 (88)	27 (100)	56 (93)
Single	4 (12)	0 (0)	4 (7)
Household size			
2	3 (9)	5 (18.5)	8 (13)
3	8 (24)	5 (18.5)	13 (22)
4	11 (33.5)	11 (41)	22 (37)
5 or more	11 (33.5)	6 (22)	17 (28)
Length of residence (years)
1	0 (0)	2 (7)	2 (3)
2	1 (3)	20 (74)	21 (35)
3	0 (0)	5 (19)	5 (8)
4	1 (3)	0 (0)	1 (2)
5 or more	31 (94)	0 (0)	31 (52)
Tenure status			
Owner-occupied	33 (100)	27 (100)	60 (100)
Rented	0 (0)
tion by considering three aspects: the neighbourhood, neighbours 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
0 (0) 0 (0)
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
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
155
Table 2: Residents' satisfaction levels related to living area.
Communities Satisfaction	Mean Percentage of satisfaction
4	3	2	1
House
HGC	11	19	3	0	3.24	91
GGC	8	19	0	0	3.30	100
Neighbourhood
HGC	9	19	6	1	3.00	79
GGC	8	16	3	0	3.19	89
Neighbours
HGC	11	22	0	0	3.33	100
GGC	9	16	1	1	3.22	93
Note: 4 = very satisfied, 3 = satisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 1 = very dissatisfied; HGC = Hamravat Gated Community (n = 33), GGC = G6kku?agi 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
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
156
A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
Table 3: Residents' satisfaction levels related to the house and community characteristics.
Communities	Satisfaction				Mean	Percentage of satisfaction	Total percentage of satisfaction
	4	3	2	1			
Size of house							
HGC	8	25	0	0	3.24	100	
GGC	8	17	2	0	3.22	93	
Number of rooms							
HGC	8	22	3	0	3.15	91	
GGC	8	17	2	0	3.22	93	
Sizes of rooms							
HGC	10	23	0	0	3.30	100	
GGC	7	17	3	0	3.15	89	
Kitchen							
HGC	10	20	2	1	3.18	91	
GGC	8	12	7	0	3.04	74	
Bathroom							
HGC	5	22	4	2	2.91	82	
GGC	9	12	6	0	3.11	78	
Garden							
HGC	9	19	4	1	3.09	85	
GGC	10	15	2	0	3.30	93	
Plumbing system							
HGC	0	8	12	13	1.85	24	
GGC	1	8	12	6	2.15	33	
Aesthetic appearance of residence							
HGC	2	26	4	1	2,88	85	
GGC	3	18	5	1	2.85	78	
Child play area							
HGC	5	20	8	0	2.91	76	
GGC	5	19	2	1	3.04	89	
Raising children here							
HGC	15	16	2	0	3.39	94	
GGC	7	18	2	0	3.19	93	
Pedestrian routes							
HGC	4	20	9	0	2.85	73	
GGC	4	16	5	2	2.78	74	
Social activity							
HGC	9	20	4	0	3.15**	88	
GGC	4	9	10	4	2.15**	48	
Sports areas							
HGC	3	25	5	0	2.94	85	
GGC	6	16	4	1	3.00	81.5	
Management of community							
HGC	4	16	10	3	2.64	61	
GGC	1	18	6	2	2.67	70	
Distances between houses							
HGC	2	16	13	2	2.55*	55	
GGC	5	16	6	0	2.96*	78	
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
157
Communities Satisfaction	Mean	Percentage of	Total percentage
		satisfaction	of satisfaction
4 3 2 1
Population outside community								
	HGC	6	9	13	5	2.48**	45.5	35
	GGC	0	6	8	13	1.74**	22	
Security of community								
	HGC	12	17	4	0	3.24	88	
	GGC	8	17	2	0	3.22	93	
Home security								
	HGC	11	20	2	0	3.27	94	
	GGC	9	16	2	0	3.26	93	
Living in a restricted area								
	HGC	15	17	1	0	3.42	97	
	GGC	11	16	0	0	3.41	100	
Transport facilities								
HGC	3 15 14 1 2.60	55
-57
GGC	1 15 9 2 2.56	59
Note: 4 = very satisfied, 3 = satisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 1 = very dissatisfied; HGC = Hamravat Gated Community (n = 33), GGC = G6kku?agi 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 neighbours (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-
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
158
A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
Table 4: Residents' opinions related to houses and immediate environment.
Question	Community	F (%)	
		Yes	No
Have you observed any crime in your living area?			
	HGC	3 (9)	30 (91)
	GGC	3 (11)	24 (89)
	Total	6 (10)	54 (90)
Do you feel that you belong to this place?			
	HGC	31 (94)	2 (6)
	GGC	25 (93)	2 (7)
	Total	56 (93)	4 (7)
Is your house worth the money you spent?			
	HGC	29 (88)	4 (12)
	GGC	21 (78)	6 (22)
	Total	50 (83)	10 (17)
Would it frighten you to live outside the gated community?			
	HGC	18 (54.5)*	15 (45.5)
	GGC	6 (22)*	21 (78)
	Total	24 (40)	36 (60)
Do you think that your house is safe against burglary?			
	HGC	27 (82)	6 (18)
	GGC	19 (70)	8 (30)
	Total	46 (77)	14 (23)
Do you know your neighbours?			
	HGC	30 (91)	3 (9)
	GGC	25 (93)	2 (7)
	Total	55 (92)	5 (8)
Do you think that your house is modern?			
	HGC	25 (76)	8 (24)
	GGC	23 (85)	4 (15)
	Total	48 (80)	12 (20)
Do you think that you live in a respectable neighbourhood?			
	HGC	29 (88)	4 (12)
	GGC	20 (74)	7 (26)
	Total	49 (82)	11 (18)
Do you think that you live in a high-status neighbourhood?			
	HGC	28 (85)	5 (15)
	GGC	19 (70)	8 (30)
	Total	47 (78)	13 (22)
Do you think that the entrances to the gated community are controlled properly?			
	HGC	12 (36)	21 (64)
	GGC	12 (44)	15 (56)
	Total	24 (40)	36 (60)
Note: HGC = Hamravat Gated Community (n = 33), GGC = Gokkuçagi Gated Community (n = 27), * p < 0.05
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
159
spectable and high status, and worth the money they paid. Later, this attitude may lead to an increase in the overall value of the place. Studies by Edward J. Blakely (1999) and Dou-gles S. Bible and Chengho Hsieh (2001) predicted that the housing value of GCs would increase. Moreover, as stated by Jill Grant and Lindsey Mittelsteadt (2004), wealthy families living in these communities are content with the comfort of having neighbours from similar social background. In other words, the wealth of the other residents is also an indicator of living in a prestigious neighbourhood. To sum up, these communities may be favoured even more in the future based on implications in various studies (Ellin, 2001; Webster, 2001; Stoyanov & Frantz, 2006; Roitman, 2010; Ulku & 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 neighbourhoods? 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. & Dalkili;, 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
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
160
A. BEKLEYEN, i. YILMAZ-AY
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
(Jekif, 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
Edgu, E. & Cim§it, 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. & §ener, 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. 117131. 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. 196213. New York, Routledge.
Roitman, S. (2005) Who segregates whom? The analysis of a gated
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Are gated communities indispensable for residents?
161
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. GeoJour-nal, 66(1-2), pp. 57-63. DOI: 10.1007/s10708-006-9016-1
Teck-Hong, T. (2012) Housing satisfaction in medium- and high-cost housing: The case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat 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 Gökku$agi Settlements. Master's thesis. Diyarbakir, Dicle University, Institute of Science.
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016