IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v56y2019i13p2635-2653.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban planners and the production of gated communities in China: A structure–agency approach

Author

Listed:
  • Kaihuai Liao

    (Guangdong University of Technology, China)

  • Rainer Wehrhahn

    (University of Kiel, Germany)

  • Werner Breitung

    (Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China)

Abstract

This study takes an actor-oriented perspective and focuses on the role of urban planners in the production of gated communities in China. It probes their related values and the structural factors influencing their preferences and planning choices. The main empirical basis is a large-scale survey of urban planners throughout China. The results show for example that most of the surveyed planners are residents of gated communities themselves. This is highly important, because their residential experiences and middle-class identities are likely to affect their values and professional perspectives. Their attitudes towards gating furthermore strongly correlate with the views of the local governments for whom they work, which is understandable in view of the prevailing power structures. It is found that most planners either support gated communities or do not see much leverage to act against them, but that many are able to achieve amendments to reduce negative effects of gating.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaihuai Liao & Rainer Wehrhahn & Werner Breitung, 2019. "Urban planners and the production of gated communities in China: A structure–agency approach," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(13), pages 2635-2653, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:56:y:2019:i:13:p:2635-2653
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098018801138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098018801138
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098018801138?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sara Santos Cruz & Paulo Pinho, 2009. "Closed Condominiums as Urban Fragments of the Contemporary City," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(11), pages 1685-1710, November.
    2. Michael Ball, 1998. "Institutions in British Property Research: A Review," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(9), pages 1501-1517, August.
    3. Renaud Le Goix & Elena Vesselinov, 2013. "Gated Communities and House Prices: Suburban Change in Southern California, 1980–2008," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 2129-2151, November.
    4. Jill L. Grant, 2007. "Two sides of a coin? New urbanism and gated communities," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 481-501, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zezhou Wu & Lu Yang & Kexi Xu & Jinming Zhang & Maxwell Fordjour Antwi-Afari, 2021. "Key Factors of Opening Gated Community in Urban Area: A Case Study of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-10, March.
    2. Geoffrey K Turnbull & Velma Zahirovic-Herbert, 2020. "Private government, property rights and uncertain neighbourhood externalities: Evidence from gated communities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(4), pages 711-730, March.
    3. Senqi Yang & Wenken Tan & Longxu Yan, 2021. "Evaluating Accessibility Benefits of Opening Gated Communities for Pedestrians and Cyclists in China: A Case Study of Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Yiru Jia & Nicky Morrison & Franziska Sielker, 2023. "Delivering common property in Chinese contractual communities: Law, power and practice," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(16), pages 3272-3293, December.
    5. Morten Nielsen & Jason Sumich & Bjørn Enge Bertelsen, 2021. "Enclaving: Spatial detachment as an aesthetics of imagination in an urban sub-Saharan African context," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(5), pages 881-902, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jieming Zhu, 2005. "A Transitional Institution for the Emerging Land Market in Urban China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(8), pages 1369-1390, July.
    2. Tsu Lung Chou & Yu Chun Lin, 2007. "Industrial Park Development across the Taiwan Strait," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(8), pages 1405-1425, July.
    3. Simon Guy & John Henneberry, 2000. "Understanding Urban Development Processes: Integrating the Economic and the Social in Property Research," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(13), pages 2399-2416, December.
    4. Ho-Yin Yue, 2012. "Why housing price in Hong Kong? An explanation in game theory approach," Economics and Business Letters, Oviedo University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 8-15.
    5. Ahmet DEMIR & Mustafa MUKHLIS, 2017. "An Evaluation Of Gated Communities As A Product: An Empirical Study In Sulaimaniyah, Iraq," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 12(3), pages 63-84, April.
    6. Olszewski, Robert & Pałka, Piotr & Wendland, Agnieszka & Majdzińska, Karolina, 2021. "Application of cooperative game theory in a spatial context: An example of the application of the community-led local development instrument for the decision support system of biogas plants constructi," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. repec:dgr:rugsom:02d31 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Ferreira Verno & Visser Gustav, 2015. "A spatial analysis of gating in Bloemfontein, South Africa," Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, Sciendo, vol. 28(28), pages 37-51, June.
    9. Ajay Garde, 2020. "New Urbanism: Past, Present, and Future," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 453-463.
    10. Edwin Buitelaar & Maaike Galle & Niels Sorel, 2014. "The public planning of private planning: an analysis of controlled spontaneity in the Netherlands," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Stefano Moroni (ed.), Cities and Private Planning, chapter 12, pages 248-268, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Edwin Buitelaar, 2004. "A Transaction-cost Analysis of the Land Development Process," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(13), pages 2539-2553, December.
    12. Bo‐sin Tang & Winky K.O. Ho & Siu Wai Wong, 2021. "Sustainable development scale of housing estates: An economic assessment using machine learning approach," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 708-718, July.
    13. Rob Imrie & Peter Hall, 2001. "An Exploration of Disability and the Development Process," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 38(2), pages 333-350, February.
    14. Jieming Zhu, 2004. "From Land Use Right to Land Development Right: Institutional Change in China's Urban Development," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(7), pages 1249-1267, June.
    15. Joe Doak & Nikos Karadimitriou, 2007. "(Re)development, Complexity and Networks: A Framework for Research," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(2), pages 209-229, February.
    16. Cheung, K.S. & Wong, S.K. & Wu, H. & Yiu, C.Y., 2021. "The land governance cost on co-ownership: A study of the cross-lease in New Zealand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    17. Simon Guy & John Henneberry & Steven Rowley, 2002. "Development Cultures and Urban Regeneration," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(7), pages 1181-1196, June.
    18. Jorge Chica-Olmo & Rafael Cano-Guervos & Mario Chica-Rivas, 2019. "Estimation of Housing Price Variations Using Spatio-Temporal Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Susan J. Smith & Moira Munro & Hazel Christie, 2006. "Performing (Housing) Markets," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(1), pages 81-98, January.
    20. Yu Wang & David Shaw & Ke Yuan, 2018. "Gated Neighborhoods, Privatized Amenities and Fragmented Society: Evidence from Residential Experience and Implications for Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, November.
    21. Kauko Tom, 2019. "Institutions at the Interface of Urban Planning and Real Estate," Real Estate Management and Valuation, Sciendo, vol. 27(3), pages 17-30, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:56:y:2019:i:13:p:2635-2653. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

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

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