ENVIRONMENT/ GATED

Wilson-Doenges AND BEHAVIOR / September 2000

COMMUNITIES
AN EXPLORATION OF SENSE OF
COMMUNITY AND FEAR OF CRIME
IN GATED COMMUNITIES

GEORJEANNA WILSON-DOENGES is an assistant professor of urban and re-

gional studies and psychology at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay. Her re-
search focuses on sense of community and fear of crime in intentional communities.
She is also interested in innovative teaching in the area of environment and behavior.

ABSTRACT: As communities become more urbanized, there is concern about a

decline in sense of community and an increase in fear of crime. Developers are creat-
ing gated communities to reverse this trend, but their success remains unknown. This
research empirically addresses the issues of sense of community, crime, and fear of
crime in a comparative study of two gated and two nongated communities with similar
attributes. Mail surveys were conducted in both a gated and a nongated community in
two contexts: public housing and high-income suburban communities. Results
showed that high-income gated community residents reported a significantly lower
sense of community, significantly higher perceived personal safety and comparative
community safety, and no significant difference in actual crime rate as compared to
their nongated counterparts. In the low-income communities, there were no signifi-
cant differences between the gated and nongated communities on any of the measures.
Implications of creating gated communities in different economic contexts are
discussed.

As the suburbs become more and more urbanized, researchers and citizens
have become concerned with a decline in sense of community and an increase
in fear of crime. In an attempt to reverse this trend, planners and developers
have used design strategies to create communities that provide residents with
a more close-knit and safe place to live. One of the most common strategies
that developers are using is creating gated communities: residential areas
with restricted access through some physical barrier such as a fence, wall,
security guardhouse, or electronic gate. Blakely and Snyder (1997) estimate
that there are at least 3 million households in American gated communities,
and this number is growing quickly. California, Florida, Texas, Arizona, and

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 32 No. 5, September 2000 597-611

© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

597

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
598 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2000

New York lead the country in numbers of gated communities currently con-
structed (Pertman, 1994). The success of these efforts in creating sense of
community and decreasing fear of crime is, as yet, unknown. Blakely and
Snyder (1997) state that “for residents of gated communities, the current state
of urban America justifies their selecting a neighborhood for the security it
provides; for opponents of gated communities, sealing off neighborhoods
and creating walled enclaves further fragments our fragile social and eco-
nomic fabric” (p. vii). This study will explore these issues under two different
socioeconomic conditions in gated communities. Specifically, this study will
examine a high-income gated community and a public housing gated
community in Orange and Los Angeles counties, California, and compare
resident perceptions within these gated communities with those found in
nongated communities with similar attributes.

COMMUNITY AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY: A DISTINCTION

Community can be defined in two different ways: one with a focus on the
geographic or neighborhood unit and the other with a focus on social rela-
tionship factors without reference to location (Fischer et al., 1977). There-
fore, community must be defined either as occupying a “natural area” (Park &
Burgess, 1925) or as a set of networks among people who share interactions.
For the purpose of this article, when the term community is used alone it refers
to the geographic unit and when community is used within the context of
sense of community it refers to social networks.

THE SEARCH FOR SENSE OF COMMUNITY

Social scientists have looked historically at the concept of sense of com-

munity and have become concerned with what they see as a “decline of com-
munity,” seeing social needs more easily met outside of the local group with
ease of access made possible by modern technology (Fischer et al., 1977;
Sarason, 1974). Janowitz (1951) developed the term community of limited
liability to describe the declining importance of residents’ social involvement
in local neighborhoods. Declining sense of community may also stem from a
lack of tolerance for increasing diversity. This intolerance leads to fear,
stereotyping, and blame, all of which erode sense of community (Clark,
1993).
This decline in community interaction is seen as negative for a number of
reasons. Riger and Lavrakas (1981) have shown that social and community
support not only can reduce the consequences of emotional stress but may

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
 Wilson-Doenges / GATED COMMUNITIES 599

also aid in preventing stress from developing. Sarason (1974) states that “the
absence or dilution of the psychological sense of community is the most
destructive dynamic in the lives of people in our society” (p. 96). Nisbet
(1967) sees the loss of sense of community as “ominous” and a dislocation of
one of the “primary associative areas” of society (e.g., family, neighborhood,
church). Poplin (1972) believes that “the answer to many of our deepest prob-
lems is to restore the common bonds which seem no longer to typify the
social life of modern communities” (p. 7).
The decline in sense of community has sent Americans searching for this
lost prize. Developers and marketers of communities see this need and are
attempting to meet it. One way to do this is to develop gated communities.
Blakely and Snyder (1997) state that “developers [of gated communities] use
‘community’ as a term of art to discuss their products in promotional materi-
als. Marketing brochures are written to convey a sense of community” (p. 18).
Buyers are accepting this sales pitch and buying not only a house but also a
community. Some scholars feel that gated communities should increase
sense of community within the gates by virtue of people’s response to
increased territoriality and commonality (Lang & Danielson, 1997). Accord-
ing to this argument, when distinct boundaries exist and access is controlled,
a sense of community is likelier to develop. Blakely and Snyder’s (1997)
seminal book, Fortress America, provides a look at gated communities across
America. Their research shows that, in fact, sense of community is not a pri-
mary social value within gated communities and that the sense of community
that residents in walled communities feel is ephemeral, based on common
interests and income level and not on an actual bond with their community. In
fact, Blakely and Snyder found that when comparing their community with
other communities, the plurality of gated community residents felt that their
sense of community was “about the same” as that of residents everywhere
else.

CRIME AND THE FEAR OF CRIME

Another selling point of gated communities is the sense of increased

safety behind walls and gates. Close to 70% of the residents surveyed by
Blakely and Snyder (1997) reported that security was very important in their
decision to move to a gated community. Safety is a two-pronged concept:
There is the actual crime rate and then there are the residents’ perceptions of
safety, usually referred to as fear of crime. Although actual crime rates have
been decreasing in recent history, fear of crime is increasing. Fear of crime
has been noted to be more widespread than actual crime, and these two

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
600 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2000

factors have been shown to have little correlation (Fowler & Mangione, 1986;
Taylor, 1988). Fear of crime has just as real consequences as actual crime
does. Fear negatively affects quality of life over a long period of time, leading
people to unnecessarily secure themselves, remove themselves from social
activities, and increase levels of distrust of others (Blakely & Snyder, 1997;
Taylor, 1988).
Findings about actual crime rates in communities with physical barriers
(not necessarily gates) have been mixed. Although barriers may stop some
solicitors and others from entering, their ability to deter criminals is a current
topic of debate. Some research has suggested that there is no decrease in
actual crime rates with gates or barricades (Blakely & Snyder, 1997; Fowler &
Mangione, 1986), whereas other research has found a significant decrease
(Atlas & LeBlanc, 1994). Fowler and Mangione (1986), in their study of
street barricades and design in Hartford, found a decrease in burglary the first
year followed by an increase the next 2 years. Atlas and LeBlanc (1994), in a
study of Miami Shores’ street barricades, found a significant reduction in
burglaries, larcenies, and auto thefts and no change in robberies and assaults.
Blakely and Snyder (1997) allude to the fact that gated communities are not
crime free and do little to curb criminal activity according to police officers
with whom they spoke.
Interestingly enough, although the record of decreased crime rates is ques-
tionable at best, residents report feeling safer with these barricades (Atlas &
LeBlanc, 1994; Blakely & Snyder, 1997; Fowler & Mangione, 1986). These
studies reported an increased feeling of safety within those communities with
physical barriers. These barriers are set up to make people feel safer, and they
generally do, regardless of actual crime rates.

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL FUNCTIONING

Implicit in the discussion of sense of community, crime, and fear of crime

in gated communities is the issue of territoriality. Territoriality, alone, has
been found empirically to be related to lower fear of crime (Brower, Dockett, &
Taylor, 1983; Taylor, Gottfreidson, & Brower, 1984) after controlling for
socioeconomic status and home ownership (Perkins, Wandersman, Rich, &
Taylor, 1993); greater social interaction and sense of community (Becker, 1977);
general social cohesion (Brown & Werner, 1985); reduced crime (Becker,
1977; Brown & Altman, 1983; Brown & Bentley, 1993; Greenberg &
Rohe, 1984); and, if absent, to more crime (Brown & Altman, 1981). Other
studies show that boundaries have been shown to reduce fear of crime and
actual crime rates when informal social control is present (Brantingham &

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
 Wilson-Doenges / GATED COMMUNITIES 601

Brantingham, 1993; Coleman, 1989; Taylor et al., 1984). Two studies have
shown that strong neighborhood bonds are related to being able to identify
strangers and decreased crime rates (Riger, LeBailly, & Gordon, 1981; Taylor
et al., 1984).
Do physical barriers erected by outsiders, not by the residents, increase
territorial functioning? In turn, does this territorial functioning increase sense
of community and safety? The issue at the center of the territorial discussion
is nonresident initiation of territorial boundaries. It makes sense, based on
Newman and others’ work, that walls or fences would provide a visible and
identifiable boundary of responsibility (Brown & Altman, 1981; Newman,
1972; Taylor & Brower, 1985). Yet, mutual community responsibility is key
to the success of territorial functioning. “Eyes on the street” or community
surveillance is an important part of the territorial puzzle (Jacobs, 1961; Taylor,
1988). As Blakely and Snyder (1997) state, “When neighborhoods rely on
technological devices and hired guards for security, they weaken rather than
strengthen their connectedness and nullify individuals’ responsibility for the
security of their neighbors” (p. 163).
Taylor and Brower (1985) call “bulwarking” the action of erecting strong
defensive barriers to increase territorial control. Bulwarking is expensive and
may actually erode the social climate by putting the responsibility of territo-
rial control on an electronic device or a single person (hired guard). As Taylor
and Brower state, “In sum, then, the establishment of defensive barriers is a
predominantly individual-level approach that is expensive, but that may lead
to less regulation of behaviors in some settings, and to a deterioration of local
social ties” (p. 203). Without mutual responsibility, territorial functioning
will not be optimal and may actually be harmed.
Early findings show that, in fact, the sense of community and mutual
responsibility is not great in gated communities and that actual safety has not
been increased either. Perhaps these findings show, in a preliminary sense,
the lack of proper territorial functioning within gated communities leading to
uncertain results in social ties and safety. In addition, the question of the con-
text of the gated community also arises. Are territorial functioning, sense of
community, and crime the same within differing income levels or cultural set-
tings? This study endeavors to answer this question.

HYPOTHESES

Developers sell gated communities as promoting a greater sense of com-

munity and being safer than other communities. Previous preliminary
research begins to tell a different story. This research empirically addresses

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
602 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2000

the issues of sense of community, crime, and fear of crime in a comparative

study of two different income-level gated communities and their matched
nongated counterparts. This study will address whether gated communities
are “living up to the sales pitch” and whether that is true within each income
level: (a) the gated community will have a greater sense of community than
its nongated counterpart, (b) the gated community will have greater per-
ceived personal safety than its nongated counterpart, (c) the gated commu-
nity will have greater perceived community safety and protectedness than its
nongated counterpart, and (d) the gated community will have a lower actual
crime rate than its nongated counterpart.

METHOD

SAMPLE COMMUNITIES

Within each income level (called “high income” and “low income”), two
communities were chosen, one gated and one nongated. The gated commu-
nity was chosen first and the nongated community was matched as closely as
possible in population density, size, ethnicity, income, and housing (based on
1990 Census data). All four communities had the additional restriction of
having a distinct name.
Both high-income communities are located in Newport Beach, California,
a wealthy coastal suburb in Orange County. Both communities were master-
planned and completed in the early 1970s. The percent White and yearly per
capita incomes are not significantly different with values at about 95% and
$75,700, respectively. Although the actual density of these projects differ,
other factors were matched as closely as possible within the City of Newport
Beach including the fact that both communities have the benefit of a special
amenity (a golf course or Newport Back Bay views and access).
Both low-income communities are public housing projects located in Los
Angeles County. The gated community was completed in 1954 and was sur-
rounded by a fence in November 1991 by order of the Housing Authority of
the City of Los Angeles. The nongated community was completed about a
decade earlier in 1942. The gated community is about two times larger in size
and population than the nongated community. In both low-income communi-
ties, the majority of residents are Latino with an average yearly per capita
income of $10,800. The majority of residents are Spanish-speaking and,
hence, all correspondence with these two communities was bilingual.
Although the actual size of the communities differ, these two communities

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
 Wilson-Doenges / GATED COMMUNITIES 603

TABLE 1
Community and Respondent Characteristics

High Income
Characteristics Gated Nongated

Size 359 acres 362 acres

Number of units 774 1,523
Number of residents 1,632 3,971
Percent White 95 96
Per capita income $77,106 $74,701
Percent male respondents 56 47

Low Income
Characteristics Gated Nongated

Size 44 acres 21 acres

Number of units 598 384
Number of residents 2,321 1,414
Ethnicity (%) 57 Latino, 20 Black, 79 Latino, 11 Black,
20 Asian, 4 White 6 Asian, 5 White
Per capita income $11,532 $10,092
Percent male respondents 23 29

were the closest match on all variables of any two public housing projects in
Los Angeles County. Community characteristics are listed in Table 1.

PROCEDURES

Two hundred addresses were randomly chosen from each community’s

population list providing a stratified random sample in which the stratifiers
were gated versus nongated and income level. Surveys were then mailed to
the addresses including a cover letter, entry ticket for a drawing, and
postage-paid envelope. All information was translated into Spanish, and both
English and Spanish versions were mailed to the public housing communi-
ties. In an attempt to increase the response rate, the Dillman method (which
has been successful in improving the quality of mail survey results) was used
(Aday, 1989; Dillman, 1978; Fowler, 1993; Frey, 1989). Unfortunately, even
following these strict procedures, the overall response rate was only 29%. A
similarly low response rate (26%) was found in another recent study of gated
communities, showing the difficulty in garnering participation from these
residents (Carvalho, Varkki, & Anthony, 1997). In an effort to test the

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
604 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2000

representativeness of the samples, demographic data for each community

were compared to data from the 1990 Census and no significant differences
were found.

MEASURES

Sense of community. There are several measures in the literature that have
been used to assess sense of community with differing lengths, specificity,
units of analysis, and research to support their reliability and validity. For this
study, the short, 12-item form of McMillan and Chavis’ Sense of Community
Index (SCI) was used because of its established reliability, as well as its brev-
ity (Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, & Wandersman, 1986; McMillan & Chavis,
1986). This measure has a good track record with the unit of analysis being
block and neighborhood (Chavis et al., 1986; Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wanders-
man, & Chavis, 1990), residence (Pretty, 1990), and corporation (Pretty &
McCarthy, 1991) but has not yet been tested for community. Note that, in this
study, the word community has been substituted for the word block as it
appears in the original scale. The questionnaire instructions specified the
definition of community as the respondent’s particular community name so
that the questions were only answered in reference to the local geographic com-
munity. All “true” responses were summed (minimum = 0, maximum = 12) and,
in this sample, the reliability for this scale was good (Cronbach = .83).

Personal perceived safety. Two 4-point Likert-type scale questions that

have been widely used in the literature (see, e.g., Taylor et al., 1984) were
used to assess personal perceived safety. These questions are “How safe
would you feel being out alone in your community during the day?” and
“How safe would you feel being out alone in your community at night?”

Perceived comparative community safety. Another way in which per-

ceived safety was measured was by asking how safe the respondents felt their
community was as compared to other communities on a 5-point Likert-type
scale.

Actual crime data. Data on the following crimes were collected for each
community from the Newport Beach Police Department and the Los Angeles
Police Department for 1995: burglary, aggravated assault, robbery, forcible
rape, murder, motor vehicle theft, larceny-theft, and arson. These crime sta-
tistics were collected by reporting district, closely approximating the actual

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
 Wilson-Doenges / GATED COMMUNITIES 605

community data. Crime rate totals were calculated per capita for the total of
all the crimes listed above.

ANALYSIS

To determine whether there were differences between the gated and non-
gated communities within income level on reported sense of community and
perceived personal and community safety, analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) was used. Covariates included in each model were age, marital
status, number of children living at home, gender, and length of residence.
These covariates have been thought to be associated with sense of commu-
nity and fear of crime and were included to control for their effect.
To determine whether there were differences between the gated and non-
gated communities within income level on actual crime rates for the reporting
district, a z test for proportions was used (Fleiss, 1985).

RESULTS

WITHIN THE HIGH-INCOME COMMUNITIES

Sense of community. Within the high-income communities, the ANCOVA

revealed that the gated community sample did have a significantly different
mean sense of community score than the nongated community but in the
opposite direction from what was hypothesized. As seen in Table 2, the gated
community residents reported significantly lower sense of community scores
as compared with the nongated community (M = 8.6 vs. 9.5), F(1, 98) = 4.8, p <
.05. Gender was also significant in the model, with males shown to have sig-
nificantly lower sense of community than females.

Perceived safety. Three measures of perceived safety were measured: per-

sonal safety during the day, personal safety at night, and comparative com-
munity safety. The first analysis did not support the hypothesis, showing no
significant difference in perceived safety during the day between the gated
and nongated communities (Table 2). In addition, none of the covariates were
significant. However, Table 2 illustrates that the gated community had a sig-
nificantly higher rating of perceived safety at night than the nongated com-
munity, as hypothesized (M = 3.6 vs. 3.3), F(1, 124) = 13.3, p < .001. Also,
gender proved significant, with males having higher perceived safety at

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
606 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2000

TABLE 2
High-Income Residents’ Mean Ratings on Sense of Community and Perceived
Safety, and Actual Crime Data Between Gated and Nongated Communities

Gated Nongated

Sense of community 8.6 (2.3) 9.5 (2.1)*

Perceived safety (day) 3.9 (0.2) 3.87 (0.4)
Perceived safety (night) 3.6 (0.5) 3.3 (0.6)**
Comparative community safety 4.6 (0.6) 4.3 (0.7)*
Actual crime rate .0063 .0073
NOTE: Standard deviations in parentheses. Differences between gated and nongated communities
controlled for gender, age, marital status, number of children living at home, and length of residence.
*p < .05. **p < .001.

night. Third, in support of the hypothesis, the gated community showed a sig-
nificantly higher rating of comparative community safety as compared with
the nongated community (M = 4.6 vs. 4.3), F(1, 124) = 5.0, p < .05. The
covariates of number of children living at home and length of residence were
also significant: The more children and the longer the length of residence, the
safer the community was perceived to be.

Actual crime rates. The hypothesis for the actual crime rates was not sup-
ported. There was no significant difference in the per capita crime rate for the
gated community (.0063) as compared with the nongated community (.0073)
(see Table 2).

WITHIN THE LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES

Sense of community. Unlike the high-income communities, there was no

significant difference in sense of community between the gated and nongated
low-income communities. As seen in Table 3, the gated community residents
reported similarly low sense of community scores (M = 6.6) as compared
with the nongated community (M = 5.5). Gender and number of children at
home were significant in the model, showing females and families with more
children to have significantly higher sense of community.

Perceived safety. Surprisingly, there were no significant differences

between the gated and nongated communities on any of the perceived safety
items (see Table 3). The only significant covariate was the number of children
at home, where respondents with more children reported significantly higher

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
 Wilson-Doenges / GATED COMMUNITIES 607

TABLE 3
Low-Income Residents’ Mean Ratings on Sense of Community and Perceived
Safety, and Actual Crime Data Between Gated and Nongated Communities

Gated Nongated

Sense of community 6.6 (2.9) 5.5 (3.2)

Perceived safety (day) 3.0 (1.0) 3.0 (0.9)
Perceived safety (night) 2.0 (1.0) 2.0 (1.0)
Comparative community safety 3.7 (1.3) 3.3 (1.4)
Actual crime rate .013 .012
NOTE: Standard deviations in parentheses. Differences between gated and nongated communities
controlled for gender, age, marital status, number of children living at home, and length of residence.

perceived safety at night and significantly higher comparative community

safety.

Actual crime rates. The hypothesis for the actual crime rates was not sup-
ported. There was no significant difference in the per capita crime rate for the
gated community (.013) as compared with the nongated community (.012)
(see Table 3).

DISCUSSION

In summary, when looking at differences between gated and nongated

communities on measures of sense of community, perceived safety, and
actual crime rates, two different patterns of results are found based on income
level. Within the high-income communities, gated community residents
reported a significantly lower level of sense of community and significantly
higher levels of perceived safety at night, and perceived comparative commu-
nity safety than nongated community residents. There was no significant dif-
ference in the actual crime rate for each reporting district. In contrast, there
were no significant differences between the low-income gated and nongated
communities on any of the dependent measures.
The high-income community findings show similar results to the previous
work done by Blakely and Snyder and others supporting the notion that this
bulwarking solution to residential design helps residents feel safer, but that,
in return, they receive no benefit of increased actual safety (measured by
lower crime rates) and may suffer from an erosion of the social fabric of their

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
608 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2000

community (measured by a lower sense of community) (Blakely & Snyder,

1997; Taylor & Brower, 1985). The implications of giving people a false
sense of security and giving them opportunities to withdraw from their sur-
rounding community are serious and are in exact opposition to the sales pitch
of developers. Perhaps because the walls are erected by outsiders to the com-
munity and guarded by paid staff or electronic devices, the residents feel that
their safety is taken care of. On the other hand, they feel no ownership in the
protection of their own community assets. The bulwarking approach to
defensible space lacks the social responsibility needed to create the natural
surveillance and community bonding that is essential for territorial function-
ing to succeed. Imagine this scenario: A gated community resident pulls up to
the gate in her car, rolls down her window only long enough to insert her card
to electronically open the gate. She drives through, drives down the street to
her house, presses the garage door remote control, drives in, and shuts the
door. She enters her home after deactivating the alarm system, closes the door
behind her, and reactivates the alarm. This total lack of community interac-
tion is just the kind of result that the bulwarking approach warns us about, and
this scenario is completely feasible in the high-income gated community.
On the other hand, the results for the low-income community show differ-
ent, but equally worrisome, findings. The fact that there are no reported bene-
fits to living behind the gates, not even in the feelings of safety reported by the
residents, shows that in the low-income communities the gating process is
not working. The low-income gated community residents do not show the
same negative effects in the erosion of sense of community as the high-
income gated community residents do, but they also do not have any of the
positive effects of the increased perception of safety within their community.
Perhaps the low-income residents have a more realistic sense of their safety
than the high-income residents do. There is not the same false sense of secu-
rity. But are there benefits to having this perception of safety that the low-
income residents are missing? Evident from these findings is that in low-
income communities like this public housing complex, erecting expensive
fences and gates is not successful. The fences seem to do nothing to increase
the sense of safety or sense of community or reduce the actual crime rates.
Some would argue that the response of the high-income community is an
adaptation response to increasing urbanization. Warren (1963) and others
argued that as a response to industrialization, humans sacrificed local auton-
omy, personal involvement, and common ties for the advantages of mobility,
convenience, and privacy. Indeed, in the high-income gated community there
was a decrease in personal involvement as seen by residents reporting low
levels of importance of sense of community and participation, as well as in
common ties such as having people in the community who share common

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
 Wilson-Doenges / GATED COMMUNITIES 609

goals and interests. Furthermore, these residents reported high levels of pri-
vacy and convenience in the gated community showing the benefits for which
the personal involvement and common ties may have been sacrificed.
But if the high-income community is merely adapting to increasing
urbanization by gating to gain privacy and convenience at the expense of
social ties, why is it that the low-income communities that are located in an
urban area do not adapt in the same way? One possible answer is that the
low-income communities have been situated in an urban-like environment
since their construction, whereas the high-income communities have been
confronted with growing urbanization in the form of density and congestion
in the past few decades. Perhaps the changing and unstable environment of
these “metropolitanized” suburbs is creating stress on the residents from
which the urban residents may have long recovered or to which they may
have adapted. It is important, then, that environmental design strategies
developed to help produce sense of community should first be examined in
the social and economic context in order to better ensure the success of the
strategy.
In summary, the benefits of gated communities are not equal to the sales
pitch touted by developers. In general, gated communities do not increase
sense of community, and may actually decrease it, and give either a false
sense of security or no sense of security at all. Just as Blakely and Snyder
(1997) have created typologies of gated communities, it is important to look
at the context in which the gating is happening to truly understand their suc-
cesses or failures. But it seems that the only benefit to gated communities
supported by these findings is that the walls make high-income residents feel
safer. Gating communities seems a high price to pay for such a small return.

REFERENCES

Aday, L. (1989). Designing and conducting health surveys. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Atlas, R., & LeBlanc, W. G. (1994). The impact on crime of street closures and barricades: A
Florida case study. Security Journal, 5, 140-145.
Becker, F. D. (1977). Housing messages. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
Blakely, E. J., & Snyder, M. G. (1997). Fortress America. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the
complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
13, 3-28.
Brower, S., Dockett, K., & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Residents’ perceptions of site-level features.
Environment & Behavior, 15, 419-437.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
610 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2000

Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1981). Territoriality and residential crime. In P. J. Brantingham &
P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 56-76). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1983). Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An
environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 203-220.
Brown, B. B., & Bentley, D. L. (1993). Residential burglars judge risk: The role of territoriality.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 51-61.
Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (1985). Social cohesiveness, territoriality and holiday decora-
tions: The influence of cul-de-sacs. Environment & Behavior, 17, 539-565.
Carvalho, M., Varkki, R. V., & Anthony, K. H. (1997). Residential satisfaction in condominios
exclusivos (gate guarded neighborhoods) in Brazil. Environment & Behavior, 29, 734-768.
Chavis, D. M., Hogge, J. H., McMillan, D. W., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of community
through a Brunswik’s lens: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 1(14), 24-40.
Clark, C. (1993). Suburban crime. CQ Researcher, 3(33), 770-791.
Coleman, A. (1989). Disposition and situation: Two sides of the same crime. In D. Evans &
D. Herbert (Eds.), The geography of crime (pp. 108-134). London: Routledge.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John
Wiley.
Fischer, C. S., Jackson, R., Stueve, C. A., Gerson, K., Jones, L. M., & Baldassare, M. (1977).
Networks and places: Social relations in the urban setting. New York: Free Press.
Fleiss, J. L. (1985). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1993). Survey research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fowler, F. J., Jr., & Mangione, T. W. (1986). A three-pronged effort to reduce crime and fear of
crime: The Hartford experiment. In D. P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Community crime prevention:
Does it work? (pp. 87-108). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Frey, J. H. (1989). Survey research by telephone. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, S. W., & Rohe, W. M. (1984). Neighborhood design and crime: A test of two per-
spectives. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50, 48-61.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
Janowitz, M. (1951). The community press in an urban setting. New York: Free Press.
Lang, R. E., & Danielson, K. A. (1997). Gated communities in America: Walling out the world?
Housing Policy Debate, 8(4), 867-899.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal
of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York:
Macmillan.
Nisbet, R. A. (1967). The sociological tradition. London: Heinemann.
Park, R., & Burgess, E. (1925). The city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participation and
the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 83-115.
Perkins, D. D., Wandersman, A., Rich, R. C., & Taylor, R. B. (1993). The physical environment
of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 13, 29-49.
Pertman, A. (1994, March 14). Home, safe home: Closed communities grow. Boston Globe, sec.
1, p. 2.
Poplin, D. E. (1972). Communities: A survey of theories and methods of research. New York:
Macmillan.
Pretty, G. (1990). Relating psychological sense of community to social climate characteristics.
Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 60-65.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015
 Wilson-Doenges / GATED COMMUNITIES 611

Pretty, G., & McCarthy, M. (1991). Exploring psychological sense of community among men
and women of the corporation. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 351-361.
Riger, S., & Lavrakas, P. J. (1981). Community ties: Patterns of attachment and social interaction
in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 55-66.
Riger, S., LeBailly, R. K., & Gordon, M. T. (1981). Community ties and urbanites’ fear of crime:
An ecological investigation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 653-665.
Sarason, S. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Perspectives for community psychol-
ogy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human territorial functioning: An empirical, evolutionary perspective on
individual and small group territorial cognitions, behaviors and consequences. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, R. B., & Brower, S. (1985). Home and near-home territories. In I. Altman & C. Werner
(Eds.), Home environments (pp. 183-212). New York: Plenum.
Taylor, R. B., Gottfreidson, S. D., & Brower, S. (1984). Block crime and fear: Defensible space,
local social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
21, 303-331.
Warren, R. (1963). The community in America. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on February 15, 2015