| Literature DB >> 33805980 |
Zezhou Wu1, Lu Yang1, Kexi Xu2, Jinming Zhang3, Maxwell Fordjour Antwi-Afari4.
Abstract
Gated communities are the most popular residential pattern in the urban areas of China. However, along with the increasing population density in urban areas, this pattern may have negative influences on people's daily lives, such as traffic jams. To avoid the negative influences, the government has encouraged residents to open their gated communities; however, few positive actions have been taken. With this background, this study aims to explore the key factors in residents' willingness to open their gated communities. To start with, a total of 26 potential factors were identified based on a comprehensive literature review. Then, a questionnaire was designed and distributed to collect empirical data. Furthermore, logistic regression was employed to analyze the collected data. Based on the derived results, it was revealed that concerns are different between male and female residents. Male residents regarded "community safety" and "property management" as having a significant impact on their decision to open a gated community, while female residents paid more attention to the factor of "proprietary equity". The results of this study could provide valuable references that enable the government to better understand residents' underlying concerns and to make relevant policy decisions.Entities:
Keywords: gated community; key factors; logistic regression; willingness
Year: 2021 PMID: 33805980 PMCID: PMC8037551 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18073401
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Factors affecting the opening of gated community.
| Category | Code | Factors | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community area (CA) | CA1 | Increase public areas | Positive | [ |
| CA2 | Improve the utilization rate of the community area | Positive | [ | |
| Community environment (CE) | CE1 | Increase the exposure to vehicle exhaust | Negative | [ |
| CE2 | Increase the risk of noise disturbance to residents | Negative | [ | |
| CE3 | Increase the garbage pollution to community | Negative | [ | |
| CE4 | Increase the number of posted ads in the community | Negative | [ | |
| CE5 | Increase disorderly parking in the community | Negative | [ | |
| Community safety (CS) | CS1 | Increase the difficulty of protecting private properties | Negative | [ |
| CS2 | Increase the possibility of traffic accidents in the community | Negative | [ | |
| CS3 | Increase the risk of owners’ privacy invasion | Negative | [ | |
| CS4 | Reduce residents’ personal safety in the community | Negative | [ | |
| City traffic (CT) | CT1 | Reduce the occurrence of traffic jams | Positive | [ |
| CT2 | Increase non-motor vehicle flows on the branch roads | Positive | [ | |
| CT3 | Reduce the time of traffic congestion | Positive | [ | |
| Proprietary equity (PE) | PE1 | Reduce residents’ utilization rate of community facilities | Negative | [ |
| PE2 | Increase the risk of damage to the community facilities | Negative | [ | |
| PE3 | Decrease owners’ equity in the community | Negative | [ | |
| Property management (PM) | PM1 | Reduce property management fees | Positive | [ |
| PM2 | Increase income channels of property management companies | Positive | [ | |
| PM3 | Increase the property maintenance costs | Negative | [ | |
| PM4 | Increase the difficulty of property management | Negative | [ | |
| Social development (SD) | SD1 | Weaken the division of social classes | Positive | [ |
| SD2 | Stimulate the vitality of the community atmosphere | Positive | [ | |
| SD3 | Increase the inclusiveness of a city | Positive | [ | |
| SD4 | Reduce the residents’ sense of ownership | Negative | [ | |
| SD5 | Reduce the residents’ sense of respect | Negative | [ |
Basic information of respondents.
| Item | Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 138 | 44.23% |
| Female | 174 | 55.77% | |
| Age | Under 20 | 20 | 6.41% |
| 20~29 | 209 | 66.99% | |
| 30~39 | 71 | 22.76% | |
| 40~49 | 6 | 1.92% | |
| 50 and above | 6 | 1.92% | |
| Education | PhD | 14 | 1.28% |
| Master | 185 | 34.94% | |
| Bachelor | 109 | 59.29% | |
| Senior high school or below | 4 | 4.49% | |
| Identity | House owner | 171 | 54.81% |
| House tenant | 132 | 42.31% | |
| Property manager | 2 | 0.64% | |
| Government officer | 7 | 2.24% | |
| Residential pattern | Gated community | 102 | 32.69% |
| Semi-gated community | 140 | 44.87% | |
| Open community | 70 | 22.44% | |
| Private car | With a private car | 106 | 33.97% |
| Without a private car | 206 | 66.03% | |
| Willingness to open their own gated community | Agree | 48 | 15.38% |
| Neutral | 152 | 48.72% | |
| Disagree | 112 | 35.90% | |
| Willingness to open others’ gated community | Agree | 62 | 19.87% |
| Neutral | 198 | 63.46% | |
| Disagree | 52 | 16.67% |
Goodness of fit measures.
| Model Fitting Statistics | Model 1 Male Respondents | Model 2 Female Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| χ2 | 65.89 | 55.397 |
| −2Log likelihood | 71.243 | 72.770 |
| Hosmer-Lemeshow | 2.869 | 8.229 |
| Total sample | 138 | 174 |
Logistic regression analysis of Models 1 and 2.
| Code | Model 1 Male Respondents | Model 2 Female Respondents | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | OR(Exp(B)) | Sig. | B | OR(Exp(B)) | Sig. | |
| CA1 | −0.077 | 0.926 | 0.901 | 0.091 | 1.095 | 0.876 |
| CA2 | 1.699 | 5.47 | 0.005 *** | −1.297 | 0.273 | 0.065 * |
| CE1 | −2.274 | 0.103 | 0.041 ** | −0.101 | 0.904 | 0.899 |
| CE2 | −0.388 | 0.678 | 0.603 | 2.265 | 9.63 | 0.063 * |
| CE3 | 0.621 | 1.861 | 0.478 | −1.281 | 0.278 | 0.179 |
| CE4 | −0.771 | 0.463 | 0.349 | −1.196 | 0.302 | 0.078 * |
| CE5 | 1.392 | 4.023 | 0.124 | 1.099 | 3.002 | 0.168 |
| CS1 | 1.451 | 4.265 | 0.01 *** | 0.589 | 1.802 | 0.172 |
| CS2 | 0.702 | 2.017 | 0.33 | 0.299 | 1.349 | 0.492 |
| CS3 | −1.235 | 0.291 | 0.041 ** | 0.316 | 1.371 | 0.634 |
| CS4 | 1.965 | 7.138 | 0.005 *** | −0.456 | 0.634 | 0.486 |
| CT1 | −2.106 | 0.122 | 0.004 *** | 0.822 | 2.276 | 0.234 |
| CT2 | 0.457 | 1.58 | 0.368 | −1.088 | 0.337 | 0.035 ** |
| CT3 | −0.597 | 0.55 | 0.329 | 1.204 | 3.332 | 0.079 * |
| PE1 | 0.616 | 1.852 | 0.167 | −1.423 | 0.241 | 0.028 ** |
| PE2 | −0.054 | 0.948 | 0.943 | −1.814 | 0.163 | 0.012 ** |
| PE3 | −0.015 | 0.985 | 0.981 | 1.547 | 4.697 | 0.042 ** |
| PM1 | −2.003 | 0.135 | 0.004 *** | −0.047 | 0.954 | 0.912 |
| PM2 | 1.15 | 3.158 | 0.012 ** | −0.113 | 0.893 | 0.801 |
| PM3 | 1.056 | 2.874 | 0.029 ** | −1.015 | 0.363 | 0.037 ** |
| PM4 | −0.842 | 0.431 | 0.171 | 0.862 | 2.367 | 0.16 |
| SD1 | 0.756 | 2.129 | 0.073 * | −0.675 | 0.509 | 0.15 |
| SD2 | −0.853 | 0.426 | 0.182 | −1.436 | 0.238 | 0.108 |
| SD3 | 0.282 | 1.326 | 0.716 | 0.512 | 1.669 | 0.543 |
| SD4 | −0.143 | 0.867 | 0.822 | −1.143 | 0.319 | 0.135 |
| SD5 | −0.462 | 0.63 | 0.45 | 0.771 | 2.163 | 0.207 |
Note: * Significant at 10% level; ** Significant at 5% level; *** Significant at 1% level.