Perimeter fencing in urban landscapes: A perceptual exploration in a traditional Yoruba settler community

ABSTRACT

The prevalent transition from ancient city walls to individualized forms of gated communities and fences elicited this study. This paper examined residents` perceptions and the characteristics of perimeter fencing in a traditional Yoruba settlement. It obtained primary data through the administration of questionnaires among residents of neighbourhoods within the study area. Physical observation aided in the identification of all residential neighbourhoods, which were stratified into three distinct and homogenous zones. One out of every four neighbourhoods in each homogenous zone was purposively selected. A total of 2055 buildings were identified within the selected neighbourhoods. Using systematic sampling, a total of 206 residents in separate dwelling units were selected for the survey. Residents perceived perimeter fencing as a feature for land boundary delineation, crime prevention, ownership and control, as well as privacy. Residential areas with a predominant rate of crime, a feeling of insecurity and disputes on land ownership were likely to witness increased use of perimeter fencing. The study recommends that local planning authorities should develop standards and regulations for perimeter fencing with consideration for the unique socio-cultural context. Improved methods of land allocation and subdivision should be implemented within traditional settlements

KEYWORDS:

• Perimeter fencing
• gated communities
• gating
• residential areas
• built environment

1. Introduction

Perimeter fencing is increasingly becoming a widely-used design feature within the built environment (Bandauko et al., 2021; Mark & Overall, 2015; Olajide & Lizam, 2016; Steinberg, 2008; Zurainah et al., 2020). Although the feature is not entirely new within the urban landscape, as most ancient cities especially in Africa, developed within walls (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005; Le-Goix & Callen, 2010; Mabogunje, 1968; Onibokun, 1985). However, in more recent years, this built environment feature is the new urban reality as individualized forms of gated communities (GC) and fences within residential areas steadily replace the ancient city walls (Sanchez et al., 2005). In a manner that suggests the new replacing the old and thus changing the urban landscape with its implications on social inequality and urban insecurity (Adedeji et al., 2016; Atolagbe, 2012; Mark & Overall, 2015; Olajide & Lizam, 2016). To mitigate its effects and to aid physical planning, attempts have been made by previous studies to explain this urban dynamic (Midveit, 2005; Singh, 2008).

The need for defence against external aggression as well as the delineation of social classes were some of the importance attributed to the use of walls and fences around ancient cities (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005; Bagaeen et al., 2010). Within the Yoruba socio-cultural group, for instance, high walls and fences around settlements in ancient cities of Ile-Ife and Oyo (Eluyemi, 1978; Marcuse, 1995), were seen as security fortresses and further, within the ancient cities, fences were used around family compounds as a tool of defining socio-political hierarchy (Ayangbile & Abiodun, 2014). Similarly, in recent literature, perimeter fencing is thematic within Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Practice (CPTED). Within this theme, studies argue that perimeter fences around residential units and neighbourhoods are a crime prevention strategy that reduces the incidence of crime and enhances residents` feeling of security (Badiora & Abegunde, 2015; E. Nwokaeze et al., 2022; Olajide & Lizam, 2016; Zurinah & Jalaluddin, 2018). However, this position has continued to divide debates, with several opposing arguments (Agbola, 1997; Agbola & Ntamark, 2017; Mark & Overall, 2015; E. C. Nwokaeze & Dawaye, 2020). For instance, Agbola (1997), argues that it paradoxically invites criminals rather than deters them.

In other parlance, fencing and gating are described as territorial behaviours exhibited by individuals or groups over owned physical spaces (Brower, 1976; Gifford, 1997; Lang, 1987; Zubaidi et al., 2013). Within this theme, it is described as human behaviour, influenced by different hierarchies of need and thus perceived as an instrument for, status symbol (Kintrea et al., 2010), communication and aesthetics, and self-actualization (Edney, 1976; Sanchez et al., 2005). With specific reference to the context of traditional settlements, Zubaidi et al. (2013) as well as Iranmanesh (2012), observed that cultural values are particularly important in defining territorial behaviours. In other words, these studies argue that human socio-cultural needs dictate the feature of perimeter fencing. These arguments are further buttressed by the increased social fragmentation reported in most urban areas (Adama, 2020; Adedeji et al., 2016; Yeboah et al., 2021). This coupled with the inconclusive debate on the role of perimeter fencing in crime prevention has implications for urban planning and decisions on the regulation of perimeter fencing, especially in areas, where its use is prevalent.

Within the Nigerian context, despite the increased prevalence of fences and gates, little is known through studies carried out on the factors influencing the use of perimeter fencing outside the famous themes of social segregation and crime prevention. In the few attempts outside these themes; Olujimi (2010) established a relationship between fences and increased property value. Ojeifo and Akihmen (2013), documented that the characteristics of perimeter fencing vary across the urban landscape, and this variation finds an explanation in the control of erosion and flooding as well as improved aesthetics of a residential property. Ojeifo and Akihmen (2013) further explained that the characteristics of fencing are in the form of attached gates, sharp pieces of glass and metals, electric barbs and wires to the perimeter fence. The height of fences is also a subject of concern in this regard, Adedeji et al. (2016) reported fence heights that are often higher than the buildings they surround. These observations on the emergence of varying characteristics of perimeter fencing in urban settlements, elicit the need to identify and document this new urban reality. Such documentation could provide information that could guide planning and control of its use, within urban areas.

Therefore, the current study is designed to contribute to this body of knowledge, using the traditional Yoruba town of Ile-Ife, Nigeria as a case study. The suitability of this case study is premised on the cultural nature of the town coupled with the age-long practice of perimeter fencing and the increased prevalence of GCs and fenced houses within the town. Collecting such information will be vital to guiding principles in the effective planning and use of perimeter fences within the urban landscape. Hence, this study seeks to explore the perception of perimeter fencing in an urban area of Nigeria. A perceptual approach gives a clearer understanding of the human viewpoint and can always serve as a reliable basis for proffering solutions arising from human endeavours (Afon, 2013). In this instance, issues associated with the use of perimeter fencing can be clearly understood. Hence, the adoption of a perceptual approach in this study. The next section gives an overview of perimeter fencing in the study area.

2. An overview of perimeter fencing in the study area

Ile-Ife is a traditional Yoruba urban centre that has been before the British colonization of Nigeria. Geographically, it is located between Latitude 7°29° N, 7°31° N of the Equator and Longitudes 4°43° E, and 4°45° E of the Greenwich Meridian (Figure 1). Historical documentation revealed that Ile-Ife developed within a valley of seven hills that served as a fortress for the ancient city (Eluyemi, 1978). Beyond the hills, Marcuse (1995), observed that walls were also built around the ancient town for security reasons. Ayangbile and Abiodun (2014) summarised the morphology of the town before colonialism, as one defined by walls.

Figure 1. Map showing Ile-ife within the context of Osun State, Nigeria.

Walls were used to originally divide the town into five quarters namely Iremo, Okerewe, Moore, Ilode and Ilare (Eluyemi, 1978). These quarters and the social hierarchy of their inhabitants were identified by the nature of the walls around them (Ayangbile & Abiodun, 2014). In other words, the walls do not just surround the compounds, they also define the social class of the people within each quarter. These quarters make up the traditional town centre or the core residential areas. The core also consists of buildings of historical and cultural values such as the palace, shrines and grooves. These buildings were built with walls around them, and walls surround them to date, as a symbol of their historical and cultural significance.

With the advent of colonialism and the subsequent developmental strides that accompanied it, the town experienced a noticeable transformation. Like many other African traditional cities, during the post-colonial era, Ile-Ife experienced a noticeable transformation with growth and expansion outside the city walls. This led to what Mabogunje in Afon (2013) described as a twin-centre city; one traditional and the other modern. This modern area shared similar characteristics with areas called the transition or intermediate areas in other African traditional cities such as Ogbomosho, Ilorin and Benin (Afon, 2013; Onokerhoraye, 1977). Furthermore, the creation of the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) and its corresponding Teaching Hospital in 1962 and 1975 respectively, coupled with the opening up of new areas, saw an increase in developmental activities within the town. This ensured an increase in the social as well as the economic status of residents (Ayangbile & Abiodun, 2014). The presence of a tertiary institution of learning meant that income status was on the increase, and so also, the population became more heterogenous, with noticeable spatial variation in the supply of urban infrastructure. The educated elites thus aggregated and moved to the new areas of the town. These areas are known in this study as the suburban residential areas.

The suburban and the transition areas are influenced by the educational status of their residents and the colonial administration respectively. Hence, residential buildings within these areas, featured duplexes, flats and bungalows, within fences adorned by well-trimmed lawns. Furthermore, unlike the traditional centre of the town, these areas were developed through layout plans. Developers were required to obtain a building permit and meet specified standards set by the planning authorities. However, these codes and regulations are silent on the standard requirement for perimeter fencing (Ife Central Local Planning Authority, 2021; National Building Code, 2006; Ojeifo & Akihmen, 2013) Developers are only required to ensure that the fence line, neither infringes on the right of way nor pose a threat to residents` health and safety. Thus, the prevalence of perimeter fencing as witnessed within the traditional areas of town also filtered into the modern areas. The result of this is an urban landscape dotted with walls and fences. It is against this backdrop that this study seeks to document the characteristics of perimeter fencing in the study area and understand the perception of residents on its use.

3. Methods

Primary data were collected for the survey. Primary data were obtained through two basic approaches, these were, through the administration of questionnaire among residents of neighbourhoods and observation of the physical and environmental composition of the neighbourhoods within the study area. These two approaches are often used and supported by literature for a study of this nature (Gifford, 1997).

For the administration of the questionnaire, multi-stage sampling procedure was employed. Along this line, firstly, all residential neighbourhoods in the study area were identified. Subsequently, all residential areas were stratified into distinct and homogenous groups based on housing and land use characteristics. Three distinct strata were identified and these were; the traditional town centre, the transition and the suburban residential areas.

The second step in the multi-stage sampling was the selection of neighbourhoods for the survey. A total of 120 neighbourhoods were identified from the three residential areas comprising 36, 64 and 20 in the town centre, transition and suburban neighbourhoods respectively. Subsequently, one out of every four neighbourhoods (25%) in each residential stratum was purposively selected. This represents a total of 30 neighbourhoods from all the residential zones.

Thereafter, in each of the 30 selected neighbourhoods, sample residents were drawn using systematic random sampling. This involves selecting every tenth (10th) building directly adjacent to the street on a straight line after the first building has been selected randomly. To achieve this, a total enumeration of buildings in each of the selected neighbourhoods was done with the aid of Google Earth Imagery. Using this method, a total of 2055 buildings were identified comprising 480, 1125 and 450 respectively in the three areas. Expectedly, respondents were selected from 206 residential buildings. Hence 206 questionnaires were administered. Data collected were analysed using frequency distribution, percentages and an index measuring residents` perception of perimeter fences tagged the Function of Perimeter Fencing Index (FPI).

4. Findings

4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of traditional Yoruba settlers

The socio-economic characteristics of respondents discussed are gender, religion, the status of tenure, length of stay in the study area, highest educational attainment and average monthly income. As presented in Table 1, findings revealed that the majority of the respondents (84.0%) were males while 16.0% were female. Another identifiable parameter concerning the perception of perimeter fencing is religion. This is relevant because it defines individuals’ and groups’ dispositions or opinions on issues within the built environment. Findings revealed that 67.5% of respondents were Christians while 25.2% were Muslims and 7.3% were practising traditional religion.

Table 1. Socio-economic Attributes of Residents.

Attributes	Core	Transition	Suburban	Total
	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)
Gender
Male	41 (85.4%)	103 (92.3%)	29 (63.0%)	173 (84.0%)
Female	7 (14.6%)	9 (8.0%)	17 (37.0%)	33 (16.0%)
Total	48 (100.0%)	112 (100.0%)	46 (100.0%)	206 (100.0%)
Religion
Christian	19 (39.6%)	81 (72.3%)	39 (84.8%)	139 (67.5%)
Islam	19 (39.6%)	27 (24.1%)	6 (13.0%)	52 (25.2%)
Traditional	10 (20.8%)	4 (3.6%)	1 (2.2%)	15 (7.3%)
Total	48 (100.0%)	112 (100.0%)	46 (100.0%)	206 (100.0%)
Status of Tenure
Rented	26 (54.2%)	53 (47.3%)	5 (10.9%)	84 (40.8%)
Self-Owned	5 (10.4%)	36 (32.1%)	36 (78.3%)	77 (37.4%)
Compound	12 (25.0%)	16 (14.3%)	2 (4.3%)	30 (14.6%)
Inherited	5 (10.4%)	7 (6.3%)	3 (6.5%)	15 (7.3%)
Total	48 (100.0%)	112 (100.0%)	46 (100.0%)	206 (100.0%)
Length of Stay in neighbourhood
≤10 years	2 (4.2%)	3 (2.7%)	17 (37.0%)	76 (36.9%)
10–25	5 (10.4%)	6 (2.4%)	29 (63.0%)	114 (85.3%)
26–40	20 (41.7%)	65 (58.0%)	0 (0.0)	11 (5.3%)
≥40	21 (43.8%)	38 (33.9%)	0 (0.0)	5 (2.4%)
Total	48 (100.0%)	112 (100.0%)	46 (100.0%)	206 (100.0%)
Educational Attainment
Primary	7 (14.6%)	10 (8.9%)	3 (6.5%)	20 (9.7%)
Secondary	32 (66.7%)	45 (40.2%)	8 (17.4%)	85 (41.3%)
Technical Training	5 (10.4%)	6 (5.4%)	5 (10.9%)	16 (7.8%)
Tertiary Education	0 (0.0)	46 (41.1)	28 (60.9)	74 (35.9)
No formal Education	4 (8.3%)	5 (4.5%)	2 (4.2%)	11 (5.3%)
Total	48 (100.0%)	112 (100.0%)	46 (100.0%)	206 (100.0%)
Average Monthly Income (₦)
≤ ₦30,000 (<$40)	20 (41.7%)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	20 (9.7%)
₦ 31000 - ₦60,000 ($40–$79)	26 (54.2%)	7 (6.3%)	0 (0.0)	33 (16.0%)
₦61000 - ₦ 90000 ($80-$100)	2 (4.2%)	55 (49.1%)	0 (0.0)	57 (27.7%)
Above ₦90,000 (>$100)	0 (0.0)	50 (44.6%)	46 (100.0%)	96 (46.6%)
Total	48 (100.0%)	112 (100.0)	46 (100.0)	206 (100.0)

The status of tenure is also expected to play a significant role in this study. It is expected that this variable could influence decisions on the use of perimeter fences. Investigation on the status of tenure showed that a higher proportion (40.8%) of respondents were in rented houses, and this reduced to 37.4% for respondents in self-owned houses. Respondents in compound houses accounted for 14.6% and respondents in inherited houses accounted for 7.3%. Length of stay in the neighbourhood is also expected to influence residents` disposition to install or use features such as fences and gates. This attribute is also considered important because it decides people`s assessment of the neighbourhood and the extent of resources or investment in the neighbourhood. Investigation on the length of stay in the study area showed that 36.9% of respondents had been in their current neighbourhood for a period of 10 years or less, 85.3% had been in their current neighbourhood for periods between 10 to 25 years, 5.3% had been in their current neighbourhood for periods between 26 to 40 years and 2.45 of respondents had been in their current neighbourhood for a duration more than 40 years.

Other identifiable parameters concerning the use of perimeter fencing are educational attainment and average monthly income. These are considered important because they define an individual`s perception of self and the environment. The findings of the study revealed that 9.7% and 41.3% of residents sampled in the study area had primary and secondary education respectively while 7.8% and 35.9% of residents sampled had technical and tertiary education respectively. This indicates that the majority of the respondents had access to formal education. And almost one-third (35.9%) of them had tertiary education while almost half (49.1%) of the sampled residents had a minimum of secondary education. This is as 5.3% of the respondents had no formal education. In the same vein, findings on residents` average monthly income were grouped into four. The criteria for grouping in this regard was the minimum salary scale operated by the federal civil service. Those earning below the minimum wage of ₦30,000 (<$40) were categorised as very low. The low monthly income was categorised from ₦31,000 to ₦60,000 ($40–$79); residents earning between ₦61,000 to ₦90,000 ($80-$100) were categorised as middle-income earners, while residents whose earning is above the ₦90,000 (>$100) mark were categorised as high-income earners. Findings revealed a variation in income among residents in the study area. As summarised in Table 1, 9.7% of the residents earned less than ₦30,000; 16.0% earned between ₦31,000 – ₦60,000; 27.7% earned between ₦61,000-₦90,000; while 46.6% earned above ₦90,000. It is deducible from these findings that variation exists in the income class across the identified residential zones in the study area. While very low-income earners were predominantly residents within the traditional town centre, the low and middle-income earners were predominantly residents in the transition neighbourhoods and the high-income earners were predominantly residents within the suburban residential zone.

4.2 Characteristics of perimeter fencing

Information on the characteristics of perimeter fencing used by traditional Yoruba settlers in Ile-Ife as put by residents is presented in Table 2. Characteristics observed from the reconnaissance survey of the study area are; fences (without gates), fences (with gates), fences (with gates and barbed wires), and fences (with broken bottles or sharp metals). Findings revealed that the lowest proportion (33.3%) of residents with perimeter fences on their residential dwelling unit is found in the core areas, the proportion of residents in the transition area with a walled fence is 61.6%. The highest (71.7%) proportion of residential areas with a walled fence is noticeable in the suburban residential areas. similarly, the use of a walled fence with a gate is favourably skewed towards the upper-income class resident in the transition and suburban zones. Within these zones, 73.9% and 51.8% of residents in the suburban and transition areas, respectively, indicated the use of a walled fence with gating on their dwelling units. As shown in Plate 1, the form of perimeter fencing that comes with electric barb wires as well as with broken bottles/sharp metals on the fence, was also prevalent in the transition and suburban residential areas.

Plate 1. Dwelling units with Perimeter Fences as high as 3 metres aided with Barb wires in the study area.

Source: Author’s field Survey (2023)

Table 2. Distribution and Characteristics of Perimeter Fencing.

Fencing Characteristics	Core	Transition	Suburban	Total
	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)
Perimeter Fence
Yes	33.3	61.6	71.7	57.3
No	66.7	38.4	28.3	49.0
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0
Fence with Gate
Yes	16.7	51.8	73.9	48.5
No	83.3	48.2	26.1	51.5
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Fence with Barb Wires
Yes	25.0	45.5	78.3	48.1
No	75.0	54.5	21.7	51.9
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Fence with Broken Bottles/Sharp Metals
Yes	25.0	40.2	73.9	44.2
No	75.0	59.8	26.1	55.8
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Height of Fences
≤1 metre	72.9	42.0	-	39.8
1.1metres-1.9 metres	12.5	8.0	-	7.3
2 metres − 2.9metres	14.6	8.9	-	8.3
≥3 metres	-	41.1	100	44.7
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

The dimension of perimeter fencing across the different residential zones shows a similar trend to its form. In the core residential areas, the heights of perimeter fences where they are available are often less than 1 metre in height. This is revealed in 72.9% of dwelling units with a perimeter fence of this height. However, as the distance from the centre of the town increases, the height of perimeter fencing used on dwelling units is also on the increase. From the findings presented in Table 2 and as shown in Plate 2, all (100%) perimeter fences around residential units in the suburban zones have a height of more than or equal to 3 metres. It is deducible that perimeter fencing in its different forms is a prominent land-use feature across the residential zones of the study area, and that the use of perimeter fencing increases as income and social-economic attributes varies across these areas. Given the varying characteristics of perimeter fencing, the next section will seek to understand the underlying issues, motivating this trend. Hence, residents` perceptions of perimeter fencing will be discussed.

Plate 2. Dwelling Units surrounded by Perimeter Fence aided with Gates and Electric Wires in the study area.

Source: Author’s field Survey (2023)

4.3 Residents` perception of perimeter fencing

Sixteen themes central to the need for perimeter fencing were identified in the literature. Using a mean rating tagged the Index Function of Perimeter fencing (IFP), and the mean deviation (MD= FPI-$\mathbf{F}\mathbf{P}\mathbf{I}$), residents were asked to rate the functioning of perimeter fencing based on their perception. From the results presented in Table 3, the mean ($\mathbf{F}\mathbf{P}\mathbf{I}$) for the functions of perimeter fencing in the core, transition and suburban neighbourhoods, were 2.90, 3.12 and 3.67 respectively. the indicates that residents of the suburban areas attributed more importance to perimeter fencing and the functions it performs compared to in the transition and the core. The study further indicates that in the Suburban areas of town, residents` perceived functions of territoriality were higher for boundary delineation (MD = 1.09), Improves feeling of safety (0.79), crime prevention (0.65), ownership and control (0.29), privacy (0.09), and control of social interaction (0.01) in the same order. In the transition, boundary delineation (0.75) was also perceived as the most important function of perimeter fencing, with ownership and control (0.72), privacy (0.31), control on social interaction (0.29), crime prevention (0.28) and feeling of safety (0.14), following in that order. Also, based on the, in the core areas, boundary delineation (1.70) was equally perceived as the most important function of perimeter fencing, with ownership and control (1.16), increasing rental value (0.93), warding off animals (0.48), and protect against harsh weather (0.43), following in that order.

Table 3. Rating Index for the Functions of Perimeter Fencing (FPI).

Functions of Perimeter Fencing	Core			Transition			Suburban
	FPI	FPI- $\mathbf{F}\mathbf{P}\mathbf{I}$	Rank	FPI	FPI- $\mathbf{F}\mathbf{P}\mathbf{I}$	Rank	FPI	FPI- $\mathbf{F}\mathbf{P}\mathbf{I}$	Rank
Land boundary delineation	4.60	1.70	1	3.86	0.75	1	4.76	1.09	1
Improves feeling of safety	3.02	0.12	8	3.25	0.14	6	4.46	0.79	2
Crime prevention	3.19	0.29	7	3.39	0.28	5	4.32	0.65	3
Ownership and control	4.06	1.16	2	3.83	0.72	2	3.96	0.29	4
Privacy	2.63	−0.27	10	3.42	0.31	3	3.76	0.09	5
Control on social interaction	2.48	−0.42	11	3.40	0.29	4	3.68	0.01	6
Show off architecture	1.00	−1.90	15	2.87	−0.24	11	3.66	−0.01	7
Beauty and aesthetics	2.48	−0.42	11	2.90	−0.21	10	3.62	−0.05	8
Status symbol	2.38	−0.52	12	2.97	−0.14	9	3.59	−0.08	9
Reduce unwanted visibility	2.17	−0.73	13	2.86	−0.25	12	3.51	−0.16	10
Protect lawns	1.63	−1.27	14	2.80	−0.31	13	3.51	−0.16	10
Increase property value	2.98	0.08	9	3.23	0.12	8	3.45	−0.22	11
Increase rental value	3.83	0.93	3	3.24	0.13	7	3.38	−0.29	12
Ward off animals	3.38	0.48	4	2.64	−0.47	14	3.34	−0.33	13
Protect against harsh weather	3.33	0.43	5	2.59	−0.52	15	3.02	−0.65	14
Control erosion and flood	3.25	0.35	6	2.59	−0.52	15	2.64	−1.03	15
	$\mathbf{F}\mathbf{P}\mathbf{I}$=2.90			$\mathbf{F}\mathbf{P}\mathbf{I}$ = 3.12			$\mathbf{F}\mathbf{P}\mathbf{I}$ = 3.67

4.4 Factors influencing residents` use of perimeter fencing

An attempt is made in this section to identify the factors influencing residents` use of perimeter fencing. Regression analysis was used to determine the association between each factor and the dependent variable (use of perimeter fencing). Summarised in Table 4, significant predictors of the dependent variable were the desire for privacy (t = −25.971; p = 0.000), rate of crime occurrence (t = 9.989; p = 0.000), average monthly income (t = 5.233; p = 0.000), need to improve property value (t = 8.874; p = 0.000), architecture and aesthetics (t = 5.071; p = 0.000). others are need to improve rental vale (t = −8257; p = 0.000), social status (t = −4.773; p = 0.000), educational attainment (t = 2.218; p = 0.028), disputes on land boundary (t = −25.971; p = 0.040) and feeling of security (t = −6.790; p = 0.000). It is deducible from these results that where these variables of significance are prevalent, the use of perimeter fencing is also expected to be prevalent. Furthermore, residential areas with a predominant rate of crime, a feeling of insecurity and disputes on land ownership are also likely to witness increased use of perimeter fencing among residents. These findings are consistent with earlier submissions from previous studies. For instance, perimeter fencing is implicated in, neighbourhood crime and feelings of insecurity (Olajide & Lizam, 2016); income and status (Kintrea et al., 2010).

Table 4. Analysis of Factors Influencing Residents` Use of Perimeter Fencing.

Variables	β	t	Sig. Level
		19.936	.000
Desire for Privacy	−1.272	−25.971	.000*
Rate of crime occurrence	0.397	9.989	.000*
Average Monthly Income	0.200	5.233	.000*
Length of stay in neighbourhood	0.002	0.068	.946
Property value	1.053	8.874	.000*
Maintenance of lawns	0.071	0.853	.395
Architecture and Aesthetics	0.673	5.071	.000*
Intensity of erosion and floods	0.013	0.450	.653
Status of Tenure	−0.011	−0.364	.716
Level of visibility	−0.147	−0.712	.477
Intensity of elements of weather	−0.095	−1.308	.193
Residential Zone	0.017	0.486	.628
Rental value	−0.317	−8.257	.000*
Social status	−0.359	−4.773	.000*
Education Attainment	0.153	2.218	.028*
Disputes on land boundary	0.36	0.956	.040*
Feeling of security	−0.266	−6.790	.000*

β: standardized beta coefficient; t: T-test statistics; Significance Level (p ≤ 0.05)

5. Discussions

The study’s findings gave insights into the relationship between income distribution and the prevalence of perimeter fencing across residential zones in the study area. Firstly, there is a variation in the income class across the identified residential zones. A cursory overview reveals that very low-income earners are the predominant residents of the traditional town centre, while low and middle-income earners dominate the transition neighbourhoods. On the other hand, high-income earners are the predominant residents found in the suburban zone. This variation in income distribution as reflected in the choice of neighbourhood, suggests that as distance from the traditional city centre increases, the quality of public goods is on the increase, while housing affordability increases. The concentration of very low-income earners in the traditional town centre may indicate a lack of affordable housing options in other residential zones. Conversely, the availability of upscale housing and desirable living condition in the suburban residential zone may explain its attractiveness to high-income earners.

The study also demonstrates that perimeter fencing, in its various forms, is a prominent land-use feature in the study area. It further revealed that there is a clear association between income and the use of perimeter fencing. In other words, as income and socio-economic attributes vary across the different residential zones, the use of perimeter fencing increases. The study deduces that residents in higher-income neighbourhoods are more likely to utilize perimeter fencing to secure their properties. It is also seen as a symbol of status and exclusivity, showing the high-income earners’ desire for privacy and protection. Conversely, residents of lower-income neighbourhoods have access to fewer resources that could aid their installation and maintenance of a perimeter fence, hence, the lesser prevalence of the feature within these neighbourhoods. Moreover, higher-income earners may have more valuable assets to protect, which may also explain their investment in perimeter fencing for enhanced security.

Additionally, the study reveals that the prevalence of perimeter fencing does not only find an explanation in income status, it also identifies significant variables such as crime, insecurity, and land ownership disputes as associated with the increased use of perimeter fencing among residents. These observations align with the position of previous studies, which have highlighted the link between perimeter fencing and Crime prevention through Environmental Design (Armitage, 2013; Cozens & Love, 2015; Gardner, 2016; E. Nwokaeze et al., 2022). These studies argue that the use of perimeter fencing can act as a deterrent against criminal activities and provide residents with a feeling of safety and security within their dwelling units.

6. Conclusion and recommendation

The findings of this study have revealed the prevalent use of perimeter fencing in Ile-Ife. It also strengthens the position of previous studies, that regarded the use of perimeter fencing as a spatial territorial behaviour, driven by the need to mark space (Iranmanesh, 2012; Zubaidi et al., 2013), exercise ownership (Abegunde, 2011; Toft, 2001), reduce the occurrence of crime and achieve a feeling of security (Badiora & Afon, 2013; Cozens & Love, 2015; E. Nwokaeze et al., 2022). Within the traditional settlement context, this study concludes that cultural needs as reflected in the need to define social class and communicate social status are also significant factors that drive the use of perimeter fencing. These conclusions equally align with the position of previous related studies that highlighted that territorial needs are largely dependent on the cultural backgrounds of individuals and that this varies among persons and groups as well as across places (Iranmanesh, 2012; Zubaidi et al., 2013).

To this end, the current study recommends that local planning authorities should develop standards and regulations for perimeter fencing. And such regulation should take cognisance of the unique socio-cultural characteristics of the local area within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, improved methods of land allocation and subdivision should be implemented within traditional settlements. Such subdivision methods should adopt geographic information technology in marking out land boundaries and ownership characteristics. This would help cut down disputes on land boundaries and ownership. Finally, crime prevention methods such as neighbourhood watch and vigilante groups should be encouraged within communities. This will be useful in reducing individualized forms of fortresses, prevalent within neighbourhoods.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).