The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time–space trajectories of segregation
Abstract
Anecdotal evidence suggests that ‘gated communities’ are growing in popularity. This paper uses empirical evidence to profile the location and characteristics of gated development in England and details the relative integration of residents. The paper also attempts to think through the wider theoretical and urban policy impacts of gating. In contrast to the view that gated communities provide an extreme example of residential segregation we go further and argue that the time‐space trajectories of residents suggest a dynamic pattern of separation that goes beyond the place of residence. Gated communities appear to provide an extreme example of more common attempts by other social groups to insulate against perceived risk and unwanted encounters. Patterns of what we term time‐space trajectories of segregation can thereby be seen as closed linkages between key fields, such as work and home, which enable social distance to be maintained and perceived risks to be managed by elite social groups. We conclude that gated communities further extend contemporary segregatory tendencies in the city and that policy responses are required which curtail the creation of such havens of social withdrawal.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.
Fernandez, R. M., Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074502 · Cited by 6,193
(1996) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,631
Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition
Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2002) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203452202 · Cited by 2,585
Non-places: Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity
(1996) · Capital & Class · doi:10.1177/030981689606000111 · Cited by 2,554
Galbraith, J. K. (1958) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,202
Reiner, R. (2010) · doi:10.1093/he/9780199283392.001.0001 · Cited by 1,886
Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition
Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001) · Durham Research Online (Durham University) · Cited by 1,775
Between Space and Time: Reflections on the Geographical Imagination1
Harvey, D. (1990) · Annals of the Association of American Geographers · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1990.tb00305.x · Cited by 1,009
Burn, O. (1982) · Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1016/0047-2352(82)90028-9 · Cited by 968
Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence
Ellen, I. G., & Turner, M. A. (1997) · Housing Policy Debate · doi:10.1080/10511482.1997.9521280 · Cited by 871
Metadata
- Authors
- Atkinson, R., & Flint, J.
- Venue
- Housing Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-11
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 875-892
- ISSN
- 0267-3037 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-1810
- OpenAlex
- W2139761298
- Cited by
- 435
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 50.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time–space trajectories of segregation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0267303042000293982
- The paper
- Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2004). Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time–space trajectories of segregation. Housing Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303042000293982
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.