Divided by Design: Forces Driving Exclusive Residential Developments in South African Cities

Abstract

Exclusive residential developments have drawn growing attention in South African cities, where urbanisation and socioeconomic disparities continue to reshape the built environment. This study examines the underlying drivers of their proliferation and presents a taxonomy of the key forces influencing their growth. The aim is to present results of a study that sought to examine the driving forces behind the growth of exclusive residential developments. Drawing from a literature review and a quantitative inquiry approach, primary data was also collected from 109 built environment professionals. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods, particularly exploratory factor analysis (EFA), were employed to enhance the analysis. The descriptive assessment, utilising the mean score (MS) ranking technique, revealed that one of the primary factors influencing the development of exclusive residential communities was the perception among prospective residents that these environments offer enhanced safety and security. Additionally, there is a good chance that these developments may increase in value. Furthermore, the EFA revealed that the underlying grouped factors for exclusive development were ‘free market capitalism’; ‘safety and security’; ‘local demand’; ‘public–private partnership (PPP)’; ‘affordability’; and ‘profit seeking’. These findings suggest that if housing costs rise, the average citizen may not be able to afford them due to the emphasis on maximising profits over affordability. Safety and security precautions can create a sense of exclusivity and seclusion in these communities, possibly cutting them off from the larger local community and affecting local demand for goods and services outside the community’s borders.

1. Introduction

The rapid expansion of exclusive residential developments in South African cities reflects a growing shift in urban form and governance, driven by complex interactions between market forces, spatial politics, and social stratification. These developments, often manifested as gated communities, lifestyle estates, and secured enclaves, are not merely physical responses to housing demand or crime but are deeply embedded in broader processes of land commodification, neoliberal urban governance, and socio-spatial restructuring [1,2]. Their proliferation signals a transformation of the urban landscape in ways that entrench inequality, fragment cities, and limit inclusive growth.

While early studies on gated communities in South Africa highlighted spatial fragmentation and security discourses, recent scholarship has deepened the analysis, showing how exclusive urbanism is both produced by and productive of market-driven logics [3,4]. These developments are often constructed not just as responses to crime or infrastructure failure, but as aspirational commodities, marketed for their exclusivity, lifestyle branding, and investment potential [5,6]. The framing of residential space as a financial asset rather than a social right has enabled new forms of privatised urbanism, reshaping city-making agendas around profit and risk management.

The governance of urban land and housing further reinforces exclusivity through regulatory and planning mechanisms that favour low-density, high-cost development, often enabled by elite negotiation and weak public oversight [7,8]. Zoning changes, infrastructure subsidies, and informal public–private partnerships all contribute to the concentration of resources in areas designed for the affluent, reproducing legacies of apartheid spatial inequality in new forms. In South Africa, this was a systematic segregation of cities along racial lines [9]. Moreover, digital imaginaries and spatial branding, via real estate platforms, social media, and urban promotional campaigns, add symbolic capital to these spaces, reinforcing their desirability and detachment from the broader city [10,11].

At the same time, urban regeneration discourses, traditionally associated with upliftment and revitalization, have also been appropriated into exclusionary urban agendas. Studies increasingly show how regeneration initiatives, especially those framed around environmental improvements or densification, often result in displacement, speculative investment, and social boundary-making [3,5]. These dual processes of development and regeneration create a double bind for urban equity, where policies intended to deliver sustainability or housing access inadvertently reproduce exclusion.

Despite the increasing visibility and consequences of exclusive residential developments, limited empirical research has systematically investigated the driving forces behind their emergence, particularly within the South African context. While existing studies have addressed the outcomes of exclusivity, such as urban fragmentation or socio-spatial inequality, there remains a lack of empirical studies that identify and categorise the specific enabling factors of these developments. Furthermore, few studies have developed structured catalogues that consolidate these factors into a coherent analytical framework.

To address this gap, the present study aims to examine and categorise the key factors driving the proliferation of exclusive residential developments in South African cities. Drawing on quantitative data from 109 built environment professionals and employing exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the study seeks to construct a catalogue of development drivers and provide insights into the urban dynamics facilitating residential exclusivity. The study is guided by the following research questions:

• What are the primary forces enabling exclusive residential developments in South African cities?
• How can these forces be grouped into meaningful categories using empirical data and factor analysis?
• What are the urban planning and policy implications of the identified taxonomies for promoting spatial equity?

By addressing these questions, this research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on urban exclusivity and offers a diagnostic framework for practitioners and policymakers to counteract spatial segregation in rapidly urbanising contexts.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Urban Exclusivity and Spatial Fragmentation

Recent scholarship on exclusive residential developments in South Africa has moved beyond descriptive accounts of gated communities to interrogate the complex web of spatial, economic, institutional, and socio-cultural drivers underpinning their proliferation. A growing body of work emphasises the interplay of spatial fragmentation, security discourses, and neoliberal urban policies, which collectively sustain urban exclusivity.

Spatial fragmentation is widely seen as both a consequence and mechanism of exclusivity, with enclave developments reinforcing socio-economic stratification through deliberate disconnection from surrounding urban forms. Ref. [12] analyse how conflicting rationalities in Cape Town’s densification policies create informal and formal spatial divisions that prioritise elite interests while marginalising lower-income groups. Similarly, Ref. [11] illustrate how urban branding and digital representation reproduce boundaries between consolidated and emerging peripheries, intensifying spatial marginality.

Security concerns remain a discursively powerful justification for enclosure, yet recent literature critiques this narrative as a social construct. Ref. [3] show how gated residential areas are not merely responses to crime, but active products of market logics that leverage security as a class-based marketing strategy. Their study on Riyadh, though outside South Africa, offers transferable insights into how green amenities and perceived safety add symbolic and economic value to exclusionary environments.

The commodification of land and housing is a central theme. Refs. [13,14] situates exclusive residential developments within a broader landscape of land financialization, where territory is no longer a public good but a speculative asset. In the South African context, this is visible in the conversion of land into gated enclaves catering to affluent markets. Refs. [5,15,16] expand on this by highlighting how food system interventions and urban design choices are shaped by capital flows and urban investment logics, rather than inclusive planning imperatives.

Critically, urban planning and governance frameworks have been implicated in facilitating this exclusivity. Refs. [12,17] demonstrate how densification frameworks are co-opted by elite actors, reinforcing existing inequalities rather than correcting them. The state’s planning instruments and zoning decisions, often under neoliberal regimes, appear to reproduce elite privilege through spatial design. Similarly, Ref. [8] reflect on how housing policy can serve inclusionary or exclusionary outcomes depending on its governance model.

On the demand side, socio-economic shifts like the rise of the middle class, increasing mortgage access, and cultural aspirations for secure and prestigious lifestyles intensify the appetite for exclusive residences [3,18,19]. These dynamics are seldom examined in tandem with supply-side governance, creating a critical gap that newer research seeks to bridge.

Finally, digital and symbolic geographies are emerging as subtle yet significant enablers of exclusivity. Ref. [11] show how digital visibility, online branding, and social media geotagging play a role in the desirability and reinforcement of elite spaces, adding a virtual layer to spatial segregation.

Contemporary literature points to a multiscalar nexus of drivers, from planning policy and market behaviour to perception and digital culture, that shape exclusive residential developments. The analytical shift from static descriptions to dynamic causal frameworks marks a significant advancement in understanding urban exclusivity in South Africa.

Table 1 presents a structured catalogue of these drivers, synthesised from key sources across the fields of urban studies, real estate development, and spatial planning. This catalogue includes themes such as “spatial fragmentation”, “security and perceived crime”, “market-driven urbanisation”, “land commodification”, “neoliberal policy frameworks”, “socio-economic shifts”, “land-use and planning regimes”, and “digital and symbolic boundaries”. Each theme encompasses several enabling forces that have been observed across different case studies both within and beyond the South African context.

Table 1. Drivers of Exclusive Residential Development.

Driver Category	Description	Supporting Literature
Spatial Fragmentation	Emergence of physically disconnected, gated enclaves that disrupt urban integration and reinforce socio-spatial divides.	[1,11,12]
Security & Perceived Crime	Gated communities often justified by fear of crime; however, security becomes a social boundary tool and marketing device.	[3,8]
Market-Driven Urbanisation	Housing commodified as asset rather than shelter; private developers target high-income consumers to maximise investment returns.	[5,14,20]
Land Commodification	State and private actors convert land into speculative assets, limiting affordability and reinforcing exclusion.	[1,14]
Neoliberal Policy Frameworks	Deregulation, PPPs, and urban entrepreneurialism facilitate private-sector-led development with minimal public oversight.	[5,12]
Socio-economic Shifts	Rising middle class, expanded credit access, and consumer aspirations drive demand for secure, exclusive lifestyles.	[3,19]
Land Use and Planning Regimes	Zoning and planning decisions enable low-density, high-exclusivity spatial forms, often through informal or elite negotiations.	[8,12]
Digital and Symbolic Boundaries	Social media and urban branding reinforce desirability of exclusive spaces and new urban frontiers.	[1,11]

By grouping these variables thematically, Table 1 serves a dual purpose: first, it summarises the fragmented literature on exclusive development into an organised conceptual framework; and second, it guided the formulation of the survey instrument used for this study. These themes were later validated and refined through statistical analysis in the results section. Thus, Table 1 is not only a literature-based synthesis but also the empirical foundation upon which the study’s methodology was constructed.

This integrated framework allows for a more robust analysis of the causes and consequences of exclusivity in urban residential development and facilitates a clearer linkage between theoretical perspectives and observed phenomena in South African cities.

2.2. International and National Debates on Urban Regeneration

Urban regeneration has historically been associated with revitalization of declining city areas, yet recent critical research warns of its evolution into a highly contested and market-oriented process that often reproduces inequality. In the Global South, including South Africa, urban regeneration has increasingly become a vehicle for elite reterritorialization rather than social upliftment.

Ref. [14] offers a foundational critique of regeneration under capitalism, framing land redevelopment as part of broader “land fictions” where urban space is reimagined for speculative investment. This logic is echoed in [5,21], who show how urban policy interventions, even in public health and food systems, are often structured by investor logic, displacing social equity concerns in favour of market alignment. In this vein, debates on urban entrepreneurialism show how post-1970s city governance pivoted from ‘managerialism’ to actively pursuing investment, real-estate speculation and place marketing, reframing regeneration as a vehicle for competitive, revenue-seeking urbanism [22].

The green dimensions of regeneration are also under scrutiny. Ref. [3] reveal how environmental features, parks, eco-zones, and green amenities, often lead to value extraction through rising property prices, indirectly pushing out lower-income residents. This aligns with concerns about green gentrification, whereby sustainability discourses become proxies for privatisation and exclusion. Large-N comparative evidence across 28 cities confirms a strong temporal association between new greening (1990s–2000s) and subsequent gentrification (2000–2016) in most cases, substantiating green gentrification as a patterned outcome of greening-led regeneration [23].

The planning system and densification policies are now recognised as both tools of sustainability and exclusion. Ref. [12] provide a compelling case in Cape Town, where formal urban policies conflict with informal settlement practices. This tension results in elite consolidation of space and weakens inclusive planning outcomes. Similarly, Ref. [8] demonstrate that housing frameworks, ostensibly aimed at inclusive growth, can enable privatised urbanism when embedded in neoliberal governance. Relatedly, recent work documents a profit-seeking approach to publicly owned assets. For example, the disposal and redevelopment of former military land, where state actors prioritise revenue generation and privatisation, entrenching market-led regeneration logics [24].

Regeneration also plays out along symbolic and digital lines, according to [11] Their study shows how regeneration sites are promoted through social media, enhancing visibility and investor confidence but also masking deeper inequalities. This dynamic is particularly potent in suburban regeneration, where speculative development encroaches on formerly marginal land.

References [1,25] further complicate the urban-suburban binary by analysing urban competition and spatial marginalisation in African cities. They argue that regeneration and exclusion increasingly occur beyond the core, as investment targets peri-urban territories shaped by infrastructure speculation and informal displacement. This analysis positions regeneration as a territorial phenomenon, not just a central city issue. Ref. [26] reinforce this perspective in their seminal work After Suburbia: Urbanisation in the 21st century, which argues that regeneration today is best understood as a territorial process operating across a spectrum of spaces, inner cities, suburbs, peri-urban zones, and even rural-urban edges. They show how large-scale infrastructure projects, real estate speculation, and governance reforms restructure entire metropolitan regions, creating new hierarchies of inclusion and exclusion. In their analysis, suburbs and peripheral zones are not passive recipients of metropolitan growth but central sites of capital investment, securitization, and social contestation. Regeneration thus emerges as a dispersed and uneven phenomenon, extending the logics of financialization, environmental branding, and exclusion well beyond the central city [26].

Together, these studies point to a critical transformation in urban regeneration discourse. Once centred on infrastructure and revitalization, regeneration now intersects with financialization, securitization, environmental branding, and digital imaginaries, all of which contribute to spatial inequality and exclusion under the guise of progress.

In the South African context, urban regeneration policies have often followed global trends of property-led renewal, with an emphasis on public–private partnerships, commercial investment, and spatial upgrading. However, these efforts have largely neglected historical injustices and failed to address the structural inequalities rooted in apartheid spatial planning. In cities like Johannesburg and Cape Town, regeneration efforts have frequently aligned with gentrification, displacing lower-income residents and redirecting resources toward elite consumption zones.

What remains underdeveloped in both international and South African literature is a critical synthesis that brings together the multiplicity of forces, economic, institutional, discursive, that shape regeneration and exclusivity as interconnected processes. This study contributes to filling that gap by offering a catalogue of driving forces behind exclusive residential development, grounded in empirical analysis and framed within a critical urban theory perspective.

3. Research Methodology

The investigation was carried out by conducting a quantitative empirical study together with a literature review. All study participants were then asked for their consent. The research measurement instrument, sample approach, and size, as well as data collection and analysis procedures, are all included under the subheadings below. The objective is to determine the driving factors behind exclusive residential developments in South Africa and to create a taxonomy of these factors.

3.1. Measurement Instrument

In this study, the instrument for gathering data was a structured questionnaire. A thorough literature assessment was conducted to support the development of the survey instrument, and information was sourced from various databases. A scoping review approach was adopted to identify and synthesise existing research on the drivers of exclusive residential developments. This method was chosen for its suitability in mapping broad and diverse literature and clarifying key concepts in an under-defined area of urban research. The review followed the five-stage framework proposed by [27]: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) study selection, (4) charting the data, and (5) collating and summarising results.

To ensure rigour and transparency, multiple academic databases were searched—including ScienceDirect, Scopus, Emerald, SAGE, Springer, and Google Scholar—using a combination of keywords such as “exclusive residential development,” “urban fragmentation,” “gated communities,” “property-led urbanism,” and “urban inequality.” The search was limited to English-language sources published between 2000 and 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed articles, theses, and institutional reports that directly addressed the causes, patterns, or impacts of exclusive developments in urban contexts. Content analysis was used to extract and categorise key themes, which informed the development of the structured questionnaire and the taxonomy of driving forces used in the empirical analysis. Ref. [28] emphasises that this process enhances a researcher’s capacity to critically assess and integrate relevant literature on a given topic, facilitating the formulation of novel theoretical perspectives and conceptual frameworks.

The process of identifying the enabling factors and driving forces focused mostly on variables that received substantial coverage in earlier research conducted in a variety of contexts and nations. At the early stage after developing the questionnaire, pilot research was carried out to evaluate the applicability and logic of the questionnaire. It is significant to note that ten South African built environment professionals were given the questionnaire to review the thoroughness of the questions to obtain constructive input and suggestions regarding the relevance of the driving forces to the South African context. The information gathered at this point is not included in the study’s findings.

The questionnaire had two sections, the first of which was used to collect demographic data from the respondents. The scales for evaluating the motivating elements that have contributed to the expansion of exclusive residential developments were provided in the following section. A five-point Likert-type scale with the following options was used to ask survey respondents to rate the impact that each enabling factor had on the growth of exclusive residential developments: (1) To no extent; (2) To a small extent; (3) To a moderate extent; (4) To a large extent; and (5) To a full extent.

3.2. Sampling Procedure, Size, and Data Collection

This research has an interdisciplinary approach. It is crucial to highlight that the survey participants were chosen using a straightforward random sampling technique. Only those with experience in sustainable urban development who were professionally registered with their respective councils were eligible to participate in the poll. The specialists encompassed professionals from diverse disciplines, including architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, environmental management, real estate development, sociology, economics, and urban governance, with a particular focus on urban law and policy. More than 5000 registered members can be found in each of these professional councils. For calculating the appropriate sample size, statisticians have created formulas. To select a sample size without utilising the complex nature of these calculations, Ref. [29] indicate that a sample size of 400 will suffice after the population size reaches a specific threshold (about n = 5000).

Therefore, to guarantee adequate statistical power and prevent sampling error, a sample size of 400 was taken into consideration in the current investigation. Two techniques were used to gather data. First, several organisations received an online survey. When the inquirer realised after a month that the response rate was quite low, they chose to use a different approach. Second, the researcher chose to print the 11-page survey and give it to the participants by hand. The online survey revealed to the inquirer that 207 persons started it; however, some did not complete all the questions. Subsequently, 42 hard copies were scanned and combined with the internet results.

Among the individuals (n = 207) who initiated the online survey, 140 persons finished it. The investigator then used a 70% selection criterion to eliminate respondents who did not finish the survey. The study only included respondents who completed a segment of the survey with at least 70% of the questions answered (n = 67). Ref. [30] suggests that a common approach to managing missing data is to exclude cases with incomplete responses from the analysis, ensuring that only participants with fully available data are included in the study. As a result, the analysis only included the 67 legitimate online survey responses and the 42 valid hard copy responses, for a total of 109 valid cases. One reason for the 67.6% dropout rate could be a lack of interest in the subject matter or ignorance of it. The first set of participants (n = 59) stopped answering questions as early as 1.6 (which asked about demographic information). By the time they reached question 2.5 (which asked about characteristics of urban development), the number of dropouts had increased to 127 (n = 127), and by the time they reached the final question (n = 140), the number had increased once more (n = 140).

3.3. Data Analysis Techniques

The strategy for data analysis used both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. The central tendency of the data, such as the mean and the dispersion (standard deviation), were measured using descriptive statistics. The factors influencing the proliferation of exclusive residential developments in the country were subsequently ranked based on the analysed data. To assess the reliability of the measurement scales used in the study, Cronbach’s alpha was employed. This statistical method is widely recognised for evaluating the internal consistency of a scale, ensuring the reliability of the data collected [30]. Consequently, this study employed Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to assess the internal reliability of the Likert scale-based questions. The alpha coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating stronger internal consistency and greater reliability. According to [29,30], a coefficient of 0.60 indicates that the scale had internal consistency, 0.70 indicates that it was satisfactory, and 0.90 indicates that it was high. In this study, a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient exceeding 0.80 is considered indicative of a reliable factor, with 0.70 set as the minimum acceptable threshold. As shown in Table 2, the measurement conducted using a five-point Likert scale demonstrated a high level of reliability, yielding an alpha value of 0.946 for the 35 factors influencing the proliferation of exclusive residential developments. Consequently, the acquired sample can be considered comprehensive, making it suitable for subsequent rating analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in the following sections.

Table 2. Reliability Statistics.

Cronbach’s Alpha	Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardised Items	N of Items
0.946	0.947	35

Employing inferential statistical techniques, specifically exploratory factor analysis (EFA), was driven by the study’s objective to identify and categorise latent structures underlying the 35 variables influencing exclusive residential developments. While the final valid sample size of n = 109 is modest, it falls within acceptable thresholds for EFA, particularly given that Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.000) and the KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.843, both of which indicate that the data were suitable for factor analysis [30,31].

EFA was not used to generalise findings to a larger population, but rather to reduce dimensionality, uncover underlying constructs, and develop a taxonomy of driving forces, which is central to the study’s contribution. The study systematically applied all four stages of the EFA process, incorporating a range of analytical techniques. Factor extraction was conducted using principal component analysis, among other approaches, while factor rotation was performed utilising oblique methods such as oblimin rotation. Finally, factor naming was achieved by analysing the pattern matrix to interpret factor loadings.

4. Research Findings

4.1. Demographic Information

Based on their category of involvement in sustainable urban development, the respondents indicated that academics (18.1%) were the most involved, followed by town and regional planners (21.0%) and consultants (25.7%). Upon closer examination of the table, it is evident that 1.0% of respondents were sociologists and 1.0% of respondents were criminologists. According to the respondents’ most common type of urban development involvement, half of them had worked in residential buildings, followed by those in commercial buildings (39.6%), private buildings (38.7%), and government buildings (30.2%). a negligible portion (6.5%) on ecosystems and 6.6% on landscapes. Table 3 below displays the results.

Table 3. Demographic Information—Multiple Responses.

Demographic Information Frequencies		Responses		Percent of Cases
		N	Percent
Category of involvement in sustainable urban development	Landscaping Architect	2	1.5%	1.9%
	Architect	4	2.9%	3.8%
	Town/Regional Planner	22	16.1%	21.0%
	Academic	19	13.9%	18.1%
	Consultant	27	19.7%	25.7%
	Developer	10	7.3%	9.5%
	Land/Site Owner	5	3.6%	4.8%
	Sociologist	1	0.7%	1.0%
	Planning Authority	1	0.7%	1.0%
	Public Sector	10	7.3%	9.5%
	Government Agency	4	2.9%	3.8%
	Engineer	16	11.7%	15.2%
	Investor	7	5.1%	6.7%
	Criminologist	1	0.7%	1.0%
	Other	8	5.8%	7.6%
Category of urban development predominantly involved in	Public Parks	13	4.8%	12.3%
	Public Squares	11	4.0%	10.4%
	Streets	20	7.3%	18.9%
	Residential Buildings	54	19.8%	50.9%
	Commercial Buildings	42	15.4%	39.6%
	Government Buildings	32	11.7%	30.2%
	Private Buildings	41	15.0%	38.7%
	Landscapes	7	2.6%	6.6%
	Marketplaces	15	5.5%	14.2%
	Church Surroundings	17	6.2%	16.0%
	Ecosystems	8	2.9%	7.5%
	Other	13	4.8%	12.3%

4.2. Driving Forces Behind Exclusive Residential Developments

Table 4 presents the degree of concurrence among respondents regarding the 35 factors that drive exclusive residential development in South Africa. Responses are given on a scale from 1 (minimal) to 5 (major), with a mean score (MS) ranging from 1.00 to 5.00. According to the MS’s hierarchical ranking, demand for real estate with a strong likelihood of holding or increasing in value is ranked third (MS = 4.06), followed by the perception among prospective residents that exclusive developments offer a more secure living environment (MS = 4.25), and safety from crime is ranked first (MS = 4.38). There is strong motivation on the part of the developer to make a good profit from developing land (MS = 4.01), there is strong motivation to make profit out of residential developments (MS = 3.96) are ranked fourth and fifth, respectively. The descriptive statistics also showed that the least-ranked driving forces were the need for resources due to ongoing economic growth (MS = 3.30), which was ranked 32nd, political manoeuvring to create or change zoning to permit exclusive developments (MS = 3.28) which was ranked 33rd, the process of place naming *toponymy* (MS = 3.25) which was ranked 34th, and the use of joint initiatives between the public and private sectors to determine the development of spaces and places (MS = 3.25) which was ranked 35th.

Table 4. Driving forces behind exclusive residential developments.

ED_Enabling Factors	Mean	Std. Deviation	Ranking
To be safe from crime	4.38	0.745	1
Perception amongst potential residents that exclusive developments offer a more secure living environment.	4.25	0.805	2
Demand for property which has a strong chance of retaining value/improving in value	4.06	0.854	3
There is strong motivation on the part of the developer to make a good profit from developing land (use of highest and best use)	4.01	0.838	4
There is strong motivation to make profit out of residential developments.	3.96	0.922	5
Potential members have an available and flexible private transport system.	3.89	1.004	6
Rising incomes mean there is a greater pool of potential members	3.89	0.953	7
Privatisation of urban space allows for exclusive development	3.81	1.002	8
Increase in demand for accommodation in such developments within the population.	3.80	0.934	9
Reliance on capitalism as the dominant economic model.	3.75	1.085	10
High level of certainty amongst developers that there will be sufficient reliable buyers.	3.72	0.948	11
The property market caters more for the up-market segment	3.72	1.028	12
Availability of cohort of homeowners who would be candidates to own a property in an exclusive development.	3.70	0.973	13
There are well-off households in the population, e.g., many white households which have economic capacity to buy in	3.68	1.045	14
There is demand for such development from foreign investors	3.67	1.111	15
Transformation of urban space into commodities or objects of trade	3.64	1.079	16
Stakeholders are able to develop privately owned public space into exclusive developments.	3.63	1.080	17
Increase in resources of population to be able to afford accommodation in exclusive developments.	3.61	0.903	18
There is demand for single-family housing	3.61	1.026	19
Demand for exclusive residential development close to newly formed economic centres	3.59	0.958	20
Improvement in ability of private sector to convince people in community to buy into exclusive developments.	3.59	0.979	21
Demand for exclusive residential development so residents are closer to economic and other resources	3.55	1.087	22
Demand for exclusive residential development because space is available	3.54	0.961	23
The neoliberalisation of cities leads to demand for exclusive developments	3.54	1.059	24
Demand for exclusive residential development in more peripheral locations due to lack of space closer to the city	3.50	0.941	25
Use of innovative urban management which allows for different models	3.49	0.972	26
‘Social Darwinism’, i.e., competition for locations	3.45	1.068	27
Demand for exclusive residential development due to flight from the city centre	3.43	1.104	28
Government and the private sector have policies and practices which allow for exclusive developments.	3.43	1.173	29
There is lack of objectivity in city planning	3.36	1.192	30
There is strong motivation amongst some members of society to develop communities based on a specific racial/religion	3.31	1.227	31
Pressure for resources because of continued economic growth	3.30	1.051	32
There is political manoeuvring to create or change zoning to allow for exclusive developments	3.28	1.197	33
The process of place naming *toponymy*	3.25	1.254	34
Use of joint initiatives between government and private sector to determine development of spaces and places.	3.05	1.205	35

As a means of evaluating the factors’ convergent and discriminant validity, principal components analysis (PCA) was used as the extraction technique. The variables impacting the expansion of upscale residential complexes were examined using the KMO measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Bartlett’s test of sphericity conducted indicates that statistical significance should be less than 0.05 (p < 0.05), and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value should be at least 0.6 (KMO ≥ 0.6). The KMO value ranges from 0 to 1, with values closer to 1 indicating greater suitability for factor analysis [31]. As shown in Table 5 below, the KMO value is 0.843, which exceeds the minimum acceptable threshold, while Bartlett’s sphericity test yields a value of p = 0.000 (i.e., p < 0.05). These results suggest that the data are appropriate for conducting exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

Table 5. KMO and Bartlett’s Test.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.843
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	2244.522
	df	595
	Sig.	0.000

Factor extraction occurred after this phase. The number of underlying factors was determined (extracted) using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The SCREE test and Kaiser’s criterion, often known as the Eigenvalue rule, were employed to help determine how many factors should be kept. Only elements with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or above are kept for additional analysis using these two methods [31,32]. The factor structure results are presented in Table 6 below. The eigenvalues for the seven extracted components are 12.742, 3.425, 1.971, 1.651, 1.271, 1.195, and 1.007. The analysis reveals that the first component accounts for 36.405% of the total variance, while the second component explains 9.785% of the variance. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh components account for 5.632%, 4.718%, 3.630%, 3.415%, and 2.878% of the variance, respectively.

Table 6. Total variance explained by the components.

Component	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings			Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total
1	12,742	36,405	36,405	12,742	36,405	36,405	7338
2	3425	9785	46,190	3425	9785	46,190	4069
3	1971	5632	51,822	1971	5632	51,822	5873
4	1651	4718	56,541	1651	4718	56,541	5680
5	1271	3630	60,171	1271	3630	60,171	7731
6	1195	3415	63,586	1195	3415	63,586	4552
7	1007	2878	66,463	1007	2878	66,463	2496

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

A seven-factor solution was also validated by the scree plot assessment. Nevertheless, several of the components were not clearly separated from one another. The seven factors displayed a moderate inter-correlation (r = 0.374) after Oblimin rotation. After 33 repetitions, examination of the pattern matrix revealed an ambiguous factor answer. Examining the structural matrix (Table 7) revealed that only factors one and two had good discrimination, and the other factors’ discrimination was ambiguous. There were too many items loading highly on various criteria. The number of factors to be retrieved required decision-making. Since many of the items in factor 7 loaded highly on other components, it was ultimately eliminated. Overall, these findings suggested that it is possible to proceed to the next stage of analysis, which is factor naming.

Table 7. Structure Matrix of the driving forces behind exclusive residential development.

ED_Enabling Factors	Component
	1	2	3	4	5	6
There is demand for such development from foreign investors	0.796
The neoliberalisation of cities leads to demand for exclusive developments	0.744
There is political manoeuvring to create or change zoning to allow for exclusive developments	0.710
Transformation of urban space into commodities or objects of trade	0.683
‘Social Darwinism’, i.e., competition for locations	0.668
The process of place naming *toponymy*	0.646
The property market caters more for the up-market segment	0.624
There are well off households in the population, e.g., many white households which have economic capacity to buy in	0.617
Improvement in ability of private sector to convince people in community to buy into exclusive developments.	0.578
Perception amongst potential residents that exclusive developments offer a more secure living environment.		0.762
To be safe from crime		0.749
Demand for property which has a strong chance of retaining value/improving in value		0.555
Demand for exclusive residential development because space is available			0.776
Use of innovative urban management which allows for different models			0.761
Demand for exclusive residential development so residents are closer to economic and other resources			0.744
Demand for exclusive residential development due to flight from the city centre			0.671
Demand for exclusive residential development close to newly formed economic centres			0.661
Pressure for resources because of continued economic growth			0.585
Government and the private sector have policies and practices which allow for exclusive developments.				0.812
Use of joint initiatives between government and private sector to determine development of spaces and places.				0.808
Stakeholders are able to develop privately owned public space into exclusive developments.				0.742
Privatisation of urban space allows for exclusive development				0.560
Demand for exclusive residential development in more peripheral locations due to lack of space closer to the city					−0.794
Potential members have an available and flexible private transport system.					−0.750
Availability of cohort of homeowners who would be candidates to own a property in an exclusive development.					−0.727
Rising incomes mean there is a greater pool of potential members					−0.690
High level of certainty amongst developers that there will be sufficient reliable buyers.					−0.610
Increase in resources of population to be able to afford accommodation in exclusive developments.					−0.607
There is demand for single-family housing					−0.586
Increase in demand for accommodation in such developments within the population.					−0.528
There is lack of objectivity in city planning					−0.527
Reliance on capitalism as the dominant economic model.						−0.659
There is strong motivation to make profit out of residential developments.						−0.638
There is strong motivation on the part of the developer to make a good profit from developing land (use of highest and best use)						−0.598

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

The six factors as indicated in Table 7 below were named as; factor 1: market forces; factor 2: safety and security; factor 3: local demand; factor 4: public–private partnership; factor 5: affordability; and factor 6: capitalism. These factors are discussed in the following section.

5. Discussion of Results

5.1. Dynamics Driving Urban Exclusivity

Urban exclusivity and regeneration are increasingly shaped by intertwined forces that span market dynamics, governance practices, and socio-spatial processes. The results demonstrate how neoliberal restructuring, in both global and South African contexts, has reinforced the commodification of land and the pursuit of profit in urban development. This aligns with [22] analysis of urban entrepreneurialism, where cities actively mobilise market forces to attract investment, leading to the creation of elite enclaves and the reconfiguration of urban space as a marketable asset. Prior studies highlight how these trends have manifested in African cities, where the consolidation of wealth and property rights privileges elites while sidelining inclusive urban policy [1,25].

Safety and security concerns also emerge as key rationales for exclusivity, echoing [4] observation that fear of crime and discomfort with socio-economic diversity drive gated developments. The securitisation of urban life creates both physical and symbolic boundaries, reinforcing socio-spatial segregation and undermining equitable city-making [3]. This resonates with research in Cape Town that documents how formal planning often accommodates elite demands while marginalising informal communities [12].

Local demand factors reveal how exclusivity is not simply imposed by global capital but is also sustained by the aspirations of middle- and upper-income households seeking proximity to jobs, resources, and new economic hubs. Such dynamics echo findings from refs. [15,16], who demonstrate that rising incomes and urban restructuring create demand for socially and spatially selective housing markets.

Public–private partnerships further illustrate how urban governance has become increasingly collaborative yet market-driven. As refs. [5,21] note, public–private partnership (PPPs) often function as vehicles for privatisation, aligning public resources with private profit motives. This process reflects broader trends in urban entrepreneurialism, where the state and private actors co-produce exclusive spaces under the guise of modernisation and competitiveness [14].

The affordability and profit-seeking dimensions reinforce that exclusivity is not only about luxury but also about market expansion. Rising incomes and mobility enable a larger cohort of households to participate in exclusive housing markets, while developers continuously seek high returns by applying the “highest and best use” principle to land [33]. Such practices exacerbate inequality by restricting access to well-serviced environments to those who can afford it, deepening spatial divides in cities [12].

Taken together, the findings confirm that exclusivity in urban residential development is driven by a convergence of market logic, securitisation, demand pressures, governance frameworks, and profit imperatives. These forces interact across scales: from global capital flows to localised aspirations, from state policies to private investments. The result is an urban landscape increasingly structured by exclusionary dynamics, where regeneration and exclusivity are not discrete phenomena but mutually reinforcing processes. By tying these strands together, the study contributes to critical urban theory by demonstrating that exclusive residential development is both a product and a driver of neoliberal urbanism in South Africa, mirroring international trends while reflecting local socio-historical legacies of inequality.

5.2. Integrated Dynamics Driving Urban Exclusivity

The six components reveal a complex and interwoven set of forces that mutually reinforce the proliferation of exclusive residential developments in South African cities. At the structural level, market forces and profit-seeking reflect the dominant influence of neoliberal urbanism, where land is commodified and investment returns dictate spatial form. These are supported institutionally by public–private partnerships (PPPs), which blur the boundaries between public accountability and private interest, enabling developments that privilege exclusivity. The components of safety and security and local demand highlight how perceptions, particularly of risk, lifestyle, and status, are mobilised to shape consumer preferences and justify segregationist spatial arrangements. Meanwhile, affordability emerges not as a counterforce but as a facilitator, as growing income disparities and expanding middle-class markets make these developments increasingly viable for a select population. Collectively, these components point to a cyclical dynamic: economic incentives and governance mechanisms produce urban environments that are marketed as safe, desirable, and exclusive, further deepening spatial inequality. This underscores the need for critical urban policy interventions that address not only individual drivers but the systemic conditions enabling the fragmentation of the urban fabric.

6. Conclusions

The study’s objective was to identify and categorise the forces that influenced the emergence or the continued existence of exclusive housing developments. The taxonomy of the key factors was examined in general. The study used both exploratory factor analysis and the descriptive statistical method to assess the factors found in the literature. Based on the relevance of the variables’ loadings to the six components from the study of the inferential statistic, six components were found by principal component analysis. The principal component analysis results led to a categorisation of the driving factors into six main categories: free market capitalism (market forces); safety and security; demand (local demand); private-public partnerships; affordability (an increase in target population); and profit-seeking. The absence of data regarding an appropriate analytical taxonomy of the main factors influencing the emergence or existence of exclusive residential developments was an aspect of the knowledge gap when compared to earlier empirical investigations in the South African context. By classifying the underlying factors into taxonomies, this research has added to the body of current knowledge. However, the applicability of the findings to a larger context may not be possible due to a small sample size. More research needs to be conducted in this same area but to a larger population and in other parts of the world.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

While the study offers valuable insights into the driving forces behind exclusive residential developments in South African cities, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the sample size (n = 109), although statistically valid for exploratory factor analysis, recent methodological literature supports its adequacy under certain conditions. Ref. [34] notes that when communalities are high and factor loadings are strong, acceptable factor solutions can emerge even with relatively small samples. Likewise, Ref. [35] emphasise that sample size requirements for EFA should be evaluated in relation to study design features, such as the number of items, number of factors, and indicator quality, rather than fixed numerical thresholds. In our study, the adequacy of the sample for factor analysis was also supported by strong KMO and significant Bartlett’s test results, which confirmed suitability for factor extraction. Nonetheless, we recognise that while these conditions support methodological soundness, the relatively small sample size limits the generalisability of our findings to wider populations, and future studies with larger and more diverse samples are needed.

Second, reliance on professional perceptions, while useful, may not fully capture the lived experiences of residents or the perspectives of municipal authorities. Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits the ability to assess changes over time or causality between factors.

Future research could address these gaps by adopting mixed methods approaches that incorporate qualitative data from residents, developers, and policymakers. Longitudinal studies would also help trace the evolution of exclusive residential patterns in response to policy changes or socio-economic shifts. Expanding the research to other African or Global South cities could offer comparative insights and further refine the taxonomy developed in this study. Moreover, future work should investigate counterstrategies, such as inclusionary zoning or community land trusts, that may disrupt the entrenched cycle of urban exclusivity.