GATED NEIGHBOURHOODS

1.0 INTRODUCTION Gated communities are generic term that includes enclosed neighbourhoods

that have controlled access through gates. It is a sort of provision for central security system. Generally gated community is a form of residential environment where there

is strict control of inflow and outflow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It is also a community characterized by closed perimeter wall and fences (Ilesanmi, 2012). Grant and Mittelste (2003) defined gated community as housing development on private roads closed to general traffic by a gate across the primary access. The development may be surrounded by fences, walls, or other natural barriers that further limit public

access. Gated community consists of number of streets with shared amenities. Gated community is not a new phenomenon. Judd (1995) opined that in the last 20th century an ancient urban form reappear in modern settlements, fortified developments which

are becoming increasingly commonly characterized by closing off streets to enhance local security and control traffic flow.

The origin of gated communities is due to security concern in residential environment and lack of confidence in public security agencies to protect and ensure

security of the citizenry. Thus gated communities are targeted towards reducing or

curbing the incidence of crime and violence. This view is further confirmed by Grant

and Mittelste (2003); noted that gates and barriers indicate depth of security concern which contemporary cities must address to curb crime, traffic, loss of sense of community, and fear of mixing. The aim of this paper is to examine the incidence of

gated neigbourhoods in urban development.

2.0 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK This section of the paper discusses conceptual ideal relevant to gated housing

environment. The conceptual ideas discussed are the concept of safer cities and good governance. These two underpin, gated housing environment.

2

2.1 Safer Cities Concept The Safer Cities Programme was launched by UN-HABITAT in 1996 to

strengthen and empower local authorities and key stakeholders to be better equipped to deliver urban safety. UN-Habitats Safer Cities Programme operates within the

framework of the Habitat Agenda, developing tools to support municipalities and local

communities in designing and implementing local strategies for the prevention of crime and urban violence (UN Habitat, 2005).

The main objective of the programme is to create a culture of prevention and a safe environment for all urban inhabitants by helping local authorities, the criminal

justice system, the private sector and civil society partners to address urban safety and reduce delinquency and insecurity (UN Habitat, 2005). The concept of safer city is one of the concepts introduced in recent times to help address the numerous problems

of the cities and to refocus them to be able to perform their role as centers of development, innovation, possibilities.

Safer cities approach noted that crime and violence do not happen

spontaneously, inadequate urban environments that exclude some members of society

from the benefits of urbanization and participation in decision-making and

development encourage crime and violence. Also, the lack of long term solutions to

social, economic and governance issues in the cities of the world and the failure to promote inclusive policies targeting the most vulnerable groups is the root of increases

in the urban violence and crime.

It is a public approach concept which creates and promotes an urban

environment that is free from various problems that endangers the city inhabitants.

This is achieved by incorporating measures that prevents mishaps in cities in urban design. This is in view of the continuous industrialization and urbanization

phenomena that cities will experience over the years. The safer cities concept ensures

that peoples life, health, convenience, safety and well being are not hazarded by

citys activities and development. More so, helping to merge the causes and effect of

3

violence on the environment, the safer cities concept has been of great value for it has

been employed in protection of people lifes and properties and to live a violence free

physical environment.

It emphasizes that citys residence should be safe from numerous life

threatening hazards such as crime, proliferation of shanties which are discouraged through appropriate measures with respect to the areas where the poor people live as

well as new comers to the town who cannot afford the cost of house in choice areas

(Aledare, 2008). UN-Habitat Safer Cities supports local authorities in developing and implementing crime and violence prevention strategies using a systematic

participatory approach includes identifying and mobilizing diverse local partners who can contribute to reduce and prevent crime and violence; creating a local safety

coalition/partnership led by a public leader, ideally the Mayor; assessing, measuring

and understanding the local safety and security problems; developing a local crime

prevention strategy and a detailed plan of action; implementing the local strategy

through initiatives that address the fears of crime by improving social cohesion and community engagement in prevention; institutionalization of the local participatory

approach by incorporating security as a cross-cutting dimension in decisions in the

various departments of institutions such as local government, the criminal justice system and civil society. The strengthening of institutions working on violence and

crime prevention often requires training and coaching, institutional reform and

improving urban safety policies (UN Habitat, 2009). Safer city principles could be apply at neigbourhood through partnership

among relevant security agencies with the use of security devices, constant monitoring

of crime and violence prone areas and regular feedback and interaction among

stakeholders.

2.2 Good Governance Concept The concept of good governance emerged from United Nations activities in

early 1980 mainly because practices of bad governance, characterized by corruption, unaccountable governments and lack of respect for human rights. The key entry to

4

sustainable urban development is good urban governance. This is a system in which

all actors coordinate effort for the development of their locality. One distinctive

feature of good governance is meaningful participation. This is essential to accommodate different views, needs and opinions. Assumption, uniformity and

superficial participation which hitherto have characterized the basis of how human settlements are governed often leads to failure by creating wider gap between the

need to respond and the solution adopted.

Good governance is embodied in participation, since it determines the appreciation of urban environmental problems, prioritization of actions and allocation

of resources. Good governance operates on the notion that power relationship is manifested between the government and individuals and groups in civil society.

Huther and Shah (1998) identified four elements that could be used as indicators of good governance. The ability of government to ensure political transparency and

allowance for hearing the voice of all citizens particularly on issues that relate to their

physical environment and infrastructural facilities against any form of violence as a means of reducing violence in any environment. The essence of good governance is

to: provide efficient and effective public services, promote the health and well being

of the citizens, and creates a favorable climate for stable economic growth.

These indices are important for assessing the role of good urban governance in

achieving sustainable development. They ensure that the city is governed in the

manner that the political and institutional context provides equitable representation of all relevant parties. It recognizes the fact that all groups, irrespective of their social

conditions, have their say, and are all the time around to monitor the development.

Decentralization becomes a veritable tool of good urban governance to achieve

environmental sustainability when it is accompanied by recognition and acceptance of

values of participation, equity, effectiveness, transparency and accountability. All these put together will go a long way to ensure that the causes and effect of violence

are brought to minimum particularly on the environment. Also, according to United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia

and the Pacific (2010) good governance has eight (8) major characteristics. It is

5

participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and

efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption

is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the

present and future needs of society. Good governance could be incorporated into safer Safer Cities Programme through

provide the platform for transparency and accountability, this will ensure that

residents of settlement feel sense of belong.

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW The challenge of urban safety and livability has been traced to urban insecurity,

consequence of increasing urban crime and violence. The city is a melting point of

people from diverse cultural, racial and religious backgrounds, a place where they

migrate to for economic reasons. The heterogeneity of the urban environment makes it

an attractive place for different forms of violence (Agbola, 1997). Levels of crime in some developing countries pose very significant problems for municipal governments.

The seriousness of the crime, and the rate at which it takes place, make particular

demands on governments which most developed countries do not face. Urban violence

increasingly affects the quality of life and urban development throughout the world.

Schaefer (1989) referred to crime as a violation of criminal law of which its formal penalties are applied by some governmental authority. A normative definition views crime as deviant behavior that violates prevailing norms, specifically,

cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave. This approach considers

the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how

changing social, political, psychological, and economic conditions may affect the

current definitions of crime and the form of the legal, law enforcement, and penal responses made by the State (Edewor, 2010). Crime affects different people in different ways. It affects the health, the emotions, the finances and the overall wellbeing of both victims and witnesses either at a first hand or a second hand level. It

affects all individuals and groups in one way or the other (Edewor, 2010).

6

According to Chukwunka (2010) there are three main categories of crimes namely: crimes against a person; crimes against property and crimes against public

order. The crimes against a person include such deviant acts as murder, assault, and rape. The crimes against property are forgery, burglary, arson, vandalism

and violent stealing. Drug addicts and narcotics are interpreted as crime against the public order.

There exist different viewpoints on what constitute violence. Scholars view the

concept of violence from different perspectives as it relates to their disciplines. Violence is usually defined as the used of physical force, which causes hurt to others.

According to Tamuno (1991) violence is the unlawful use of threat or force, which could be a manifestation of despair and desperation. While Anifowose (1982) sees violence as the use of the threat of a physical act carried out by an individual or

individuals, and or property, with the intent to cause injury or death to persons and \ or destruction of property. Domenach (1978) opines that violence could be viewed from three angles; the psychological, involving emotional and murderous use of force; the ethical, involving the vandalism of a neighbors property or an abuse of his liberty;

and the political, involving forceful seizure of power or the illegitimate use of political

power.

Violence is not a spontaneous phenomenon but, product of a society

characterized by inequality and social exclusion. It is a distortion of social

relationships generated within social structures family, school, peer group, neighbourhood, police, justice which can no longer fulfill their role (Vanderschuren, 1996). De Soto (1989) views violence as a response to frustration that is mainly caused by the difference between what people have and what they think they are

entitled to. The World Health Organisation 2002 cited in Moser 2004, perceived

violence as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a

high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, mal-development or deprivation.

7

Galtung (1981) suggested that it is necessary to identify what is common to all phenomena termed violence. He suggested two commonalities. These are the

destruction of lives and property; and on a more abstract level, anything that impedes human self realization. The latter, being inherently subjective, also; indicates that violence is not always a directly observable phenomenon. Gizewski (1995) cited in George (2010) identified three broad categories of urban conflict: political violence, communal or ethnic violence, and criminal or anomic violence.

According to Moser and Mcllwaine (2004) violence can be divided into social violence, being mainly interpersonal and motivated by the will to get or keep social

power and control'; economic violence which is motivated by material gain and can take the form of street crime, drug-related violence and kidnapping; and political

violence which is inspired by the will to win or hold political powers Zaidi (1999) traced economic violence to frustration and insecurity and the presence of absolute

and relative poverty, according to him the urban poor are forced to resort to crime and

violence, mainly due to raising expectations and a sense of moral outrage that some members of society are getting rich while others are denied.

Causes of urban violence are complex and interrelated. It is generally agreed

that there are several key structural, developmental and social factors that provide an

environment that fosters urban violence. The kind of violence that is witnessed in

urban areas can generally be classified in four distinct but interrelated types:

institutional forms of violence (when the perpetrator is the State or vigilante groups), violence of an economical nature (broadly economically motivated crimes performed by individuals or organized criminal groups), social violence (domestic or sexual violence, and occasional quarrels) and economic/social forms of violence (gangs, street children, ethnic violence).

In many urban centers of Nigeria today, criminal activities and violence are assuming dangerous tendencies as they threaten lives and property, the national

sense of well-being and coherence, peace, social order and security, thus, reducing the citizens quality of life (Ahmed, 2010). The fear of armed robbery keeps Nigerians sleepless at night and they tend to live one day at a time with the fear of

8

whether they will see the light of tomorrow. They are especially afraid of armed-

robbers, paid assassins, political thugs and other criminals who assess life as being

worthless (Ahmed, 2012). Albert (1994) identified causes of urban violence in Africa. These include: high

population growth rates with its attendant unemployment, poor wages, poor living conditions, urban culture shocks, and poor quality of urban management that is

manifested in the crisis in health care, transportation, housing and employment.

However, in Nigeria, Aderinto (1994) postulates that the roots of urban violence could be attributed to the loss of traditional structures that kept people

together. In another perspective, Akparanta (1994) provided reasons for urban violence in Nigeria, that after the civil war, there was abundance of guns in private

hands and times were hard economically. He added that deterioration in the standard

of education, and the lack of specific training in areas of sustaining the agricultural

and the industrial sector, many youths went astray cumulating in widespread urban

violence. Habitat Safer Cities Report (2007) noted causes of crime and violence to be in three manifolds these are: social, institutional and situational (physical urban environment).Social causes includes social exclusion and marginalisation; lack of social control; lack of socialisation in the family and schooling; lack/crisis in local

traditions and values and lack of integration into society. Situational (physical urban environment) causes includes failure to master the urbanisation process; lack of urban services; absence of the conception of security in urban polices and planning; degradation of urban neighbourhoods and crowding and illegitimacy of certain

quarters that causes non-legal zones and trafficking of weapons

UN Habitat Safer Cities report also noted consequences of crime and violence

to be general feeling of insecurity which results in: abandonment of neighbourhoods

and avoidance of certain quarters; development ofarchitecture of fear; stigmatization of certain quarters or populations; creation of climate that threatens the

foundation of democratic institutions in urban areas and impedes economic development

9

Most of the violence committed in contemporary times is found in urban areas

(Uyanga, 1982). Although violence may occur in rural areas, it is not as prevalent as in big urban centers, where competition is high for facilities. Uyanga noted that the incidence of violent crimes and personality disorders is higher in big cities than in

small ones. Urban literature reveals that the major cities of the world are characterized by several forms of violence in the physical environment, which parts include

vandalization, rioting which result in loss of properties, traffic accident and death etc.

Violent acts are as a result of a number of factors which propel violence. These are factors that propel violence. Problems of urbanization are problem that causes

urban violence. These problems are by and large all over the world. They include: unemployment; overpopulation; housing shortage; poverty; inadequate infrastructure;

poor and inadequate transportation facilities; lack of public utilities and social

infrastructure etc

Neto (2002) cited in Salau and Lawanson (2009) in a study conducted in various Latin American cities, identified major factors that contribute to increase in violent crime. It is the opinion of Salau and Lawanson that these factors hold true in

Nigeria of today. In the view of Moser (1996) cited in Heinemann and Verner (2006), violence affects; labour as an asset when it limits access to jobs, Human Capital as an asset when it limits access to education and health facilities by both users and

providers, Social Capital as an asset when it reduces trust and cooperation between

community level social organizations, Household relations as an asset when it limits the capacity of households to function effectively as a unit, Productive assets when it

destroys housing the urban poors most important productive asset This highlights

the serious consequences of violence on the economic, political, and social

development of the city and inhabitants.

Effects of urban violence in the environment include forced migration; destruction of infrastructural facilities and social amenities; loss of life and properties;

polarization of economic activities; un-aesthetics environment etc. UN Habitat Safer Cities programme suggested the following options to combating urban insecurity:

Enhancing urban safety and security through effective urban planning, design and

10

governance; community-based approaches to enhancing urban safety and security;

strengthening formal criminal justice and policing; reduction risk factors; non-violent resolution to conflicts and strengthening social capital.

Garland and Sparks (2000) noted that in the 1990s fear of crime became a global concern and that criminologists maintain that we are now saturated with images of crime and fear of crime. Measures to reduce crime and recourse to self help

is the seemly inability of government to guarantee the security of the people, most

especially in Nigeria urban centres notably Lagos metropolis form the widespread adoption of gated community. This is further framed by Landman and Schnteich

(2005) that one of the consequences of governments inability to protect the life and property of all its citizens especially in developing countries is the formation of

private alternatives to crime prevention and control. Gated neighbourhoods are part of

the alternative to address the challenge of urban insecurity.

Gated communities refer to a physical area that is fenced or walled off from its

surroundings. Gated communities are walled or fenced housing development to which public access is restricted, often guarded using closed circuit television (CCTV) and/or security personnel, and usually characterized by legal agreement (tenancy or leasehold) which tie the residents to a common code of conduct (Blandy, Lister, Atkinson and Flint, 2003). From this, a gated community is basically a residential environment where access or entrance to the areas is either prohibited or controlled by

means of gates, security personnel or security equipment.

There has been an explosion of gated communities all over the world since the

end of World War II (Lentz, 2006). Gated communities are global phenomenon. The increasing development of gated communities has been observed in both developed

and developing countries. They occur in many countries like USA, Canada, Brazil,

Argentina, UK, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Russia, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Australia, Europe, France, and underdeveloped and developing countries such as

Tanzania, Ghana, Malawi, South Africa and Nigeria (Blakely and Snyder, 1999). In Great Britain, gated communities are well-established type of the residential

development. Blandy (2006) identified gated communities in Great Britain to be in

11

form of infill gated communities and heritage conversion gated communities. Infill

gated communities constitute of small group of buildings that are set backward from

the entrance and can be entered by a gate while heritage conversion gated communities are recreated by developers from already established buildings.

In China gated communities were established because of a high demand of expatriates for separate type of housing from the local Chinese market. There has been

an increase in demand for expatriate housing in China. The housing system could not

provide suitable housing for foreigners; and therefore new housing form has been established. Foreign housing is built and clustered into gated communities. This

housing phenomenon has been driven by concern for security (Fulong and Klaire, 2004). In Eastern Europe, gated communities are new phenomena of development on the property market (Gasior, Glasze and Putz, 2009). The main idea behind having these communities is the defensive trait of the property (Stoyanov and Frantz, 2006).

In Africa gated communities are solutions for daily problems of high crime rate

and ethnic conflicts (Landman and Schntiech, 2005). Gated communities differ from country to country, with respect to their characteristics and in particular with respect

to different reasons for development viz. security, ethnicity and prestige (Gulumser and Levent, 2007). In South America, the gated communities are formed because of the failure of the local government to provide adequate security for people. The

inability of effective security system makes people feel insecure, and therefore they

are willing to live in the gated communities. Thus, lower trust of people in the government contributes to the separation of the property and enclosing the property

behind the walls. Furthermore, gated communities create new system of services and

these gated communities provide the inhabitants with its own micro-governance

structure (Mycoo, 2006). Gated communities in African countries such as Tanzania, Ghana among others

emergence as a result of poor security and the increase incidence of crime and

violence which makes residential environment unsafe (Landman and Schnteich, 2002)). In Nigeria, the origin of gated community could be traced to the government-reserved area (GRA), a fortified enclave of residences for the rich, ruling elite, which

12

reflected the status-related factor (Ilesanmi, 2012). In Nigeria today, the concept of gated communities is a fast growing one especially in response to safety and security

all over the country (Ajibola, Oloke, and Ogungbemi, 2011).While the origin of gated neigbourhood in Lagos State is traced to security concerns (Uduku, 2010).

Gated communities, scattered all around the world, differ from country to country, with respect to their characteristics and in particular with respect to different

reasons for development in relation to security, ethnicity and prestige (Gulumser and Levent, 2007). In Latin American countries, the phenomenon first emerged as summer resorts then become a solution for ethnicity (Coy and Phler, 2002). In Europe the primary reason for gated communities is the seasonal use of houses in coastal zones, and a fashion trend. In Central-Eastern Europe, they first appeared after the collapse

of state socialist systems (Frantz, 2006). By contrast, in East Asia and in South Africa, these communities emerged as solutions for daily problems of high crime rate and

ethnic conflicts (Landman and Schntiech, 2002). As noted by Erien (2003) gated communities are based upon the idea of being

isolated against the disorder, dust, noise, and crowds of the city. They place total

security and protection from discourse of fear and violence as its primary feature. The

most important and leading characteristic of gated communities is the exclusion of

non-residents to access to streets, parks, playgrounds, sidewalks

Gated developments create new forms of exclusion and segregation. The access

to normal public spaces beyond a gate is restricted for a common citizen due to their privatization or the restriction of the use. They are designed in such a way that

penetration by nonresidents seems impossible. Physical barriers are created and these

places are patrolled by sophisticated systems which largely influence designs of the

establishment and regulations about the people who are allowed to enter and the

activities that are carried out there. These secured enclosures, enforced by walls, gates, fences, and guards contradict with social values materially and symbolically, and

threaten democratic spatial practices such as public access to open space and create more barriers to social interactions. They bring about their quasi-public spaces behind

13

high walls in the settlement; patrol and control operate at a high level there (Garreau 1991).

According to Landman (2000) gated communities can include both enclosed neighbourhoods and security developments. Security villages are new developments

where a variety of housing types and even social facilities are often found. In some instances the roads are not private. While enclosed townships: These are, existing,

residential areas, where a fence is erected as a boundary and some of the existing

access roads, are closed, others are merely controlled. The dominant view of gated communities is that they represent a process of

civic secession whereby residents wall themselves off from the problems of contemporary society, allowing them to avoid having to take responsibility for the

plight of others. Research on the motivations for moving into such communities

suggest that fear of crime, desire for security, maintenance of property values, limiting

of through traffic and social contact with strangers, and demand for order, cleanliness,

and a nearby amenity-rich set of services all feature among the most important predictors (Low, 2004).

Naud (2003) opined that from a criminological perspective public road closures (and also large access controlled security villages) have a limited success rate. It can reduce some opportunistic or impulsive crimes, particularly theft,

burglary/housebreaking, vandalism and street crimes (e.g. pick-pocketing and snatch-and-grab crimes) which are mostly committed by opportunistic and impulsive criminals who simply use the opportunity to commit crime while in an area. It has

very little impact on the overall crime rate at city, regional or national level. Graham

and Bennett (1995) are also of the view that although some physical security measures may be effective at the level of individual targets, there is very little evidence to show

that it can be effective at the level of whole estates, cities, regions or countries which seems to support the displacement of crime viewpoint.

Ghonimi, Alzamly, Khairy and Soilman (2010) in their study of gated communities inside Greater Cairo new towns concluded that gated communities

are not a holistic approach for urban development. There is a division between

14

practice of gated communities and theories of good communities; there is a

division between inserted westernized gated pattern and required supposed

compatible pattern with unique characteristics of gated community new towns. It should be noted that visitors must still be allowed into the enclosed area, e.g.

family and friends, relatives and friends, domestic workers, municipal workers, construction workers, garden and repair and delivery services etc, hence, there is still a

high crime risk in such closed areas (gated community). Some consequences of public road closures Naud (2003) stated are that the

larger the enclosed area or the security village, the more difficult it will be to control

lawful and unlawful access which in turn increases the crime risk, especially when the borders of the security controlled area are the existing, often inadequate, boundary

walls and fences - this is frequently the case. Access controlled areas can also create

false feelings of safety which can increase inhabitants crime risk as they are inclined

to become complacent resulting in a decrease in their vigilance, observation and

surveillance of their environment.

Another serious problem is the fact that public road closures are problematic

for emergency services such as the police, ambulances, fire brigade and private

security services which can endanger life. The question is whose right to life is the

most important: those who want to protect themselves and their property from crime

or those who need emergency life saving services? Economically it can also have a

negative effect on business operations in the enclosed area as it restricts the flow of people to the business area.

Tremendous inconvenience is also caused for the general public who are forced

to use alternative routes which in turn causes congestion and high pollution

(detrimental to the health of the home owners in these streets). Such traffic congestion can also increase the risk of pedestrian and vehicle accidents. The potential for conflict among the various home-owners is also a reality as home-owners who do

not support public road closures are often placed under tremendous psychological pressure. They are often accused of being selfish wanting the benefit of the extra

security without paying for the service.

15

As noted above, Grant (2003) also stated that during emergencies, access for fire fighters, the police, and ambulances to evacuate the injured is likely to be a major concern. Second Firestone also mentioned that the message of exclusion, which gated communities portray, has the potential to breed social discord while the militarization

of neighborhoods keeps honest people out while summoning thieves who see a collection of wealth beyond affluent community walls.

Graham and Bennett (1995) also point out that the use of situational measures on their own can lead to a kind of fortress mentality, as residents become increasingly security conscious and withdraw from the social environment which in

turn can lead to increased feelings of isolation and fear. The issue of livability is important to conducive urban living. It involves not

living conditions ability to movement with urban settlement without notion of fear

ofsafety. Nigeria cities are noted for their low levels of livability which is attributed

tio their management (Ezewayi, 2008). Economist Intelligence Unit (2013) in its annual survey rated Lagos Metropolis as the fourth least liveable city in the world (www.economist.com).

Derived from the word livable, livability is defined broadly as suitability

for human living (Merriam-Webster, 2011). Federal Highway Administration (2010) noted that Livability became a popular topic in the 1980s as planners began studying shifts in development patterns from the decline of urban centers to rapidly growing

suburban areas Liveability can essentially be defined as the degree to which an urban area

provides a safe, inclusive and environmentally benign basis for the social and

economic life of all its citizens (Environment Australia, 1998). The livability of urban environments is dependent on unique combinations of

amenity values (e.g. open space, design features, urban vegetation); historic and cultural heritage; location; and intangible attributes such as character, landscape and

sense of place. Livability contributes to both sense of place and sense of community and allows for more successful community ownership and enjoyment of urban areas. The design of cities and towns is a crucial factor that influences the way

16

people interact with their environment and an appropriate urban form is a critical

factor for urban sustainability (Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (1998). The following are identified as principles of livability, these are:

Sense of Place: The 'memorable' or distinctive characteristics that differentiate

one place from another

Legibility: The existence of entrances, exits and throughways that are easily identified and understood.

Amenity: The creation of a physical environment that is relatively free from

nuisance, overcrowding, noise, danger and pollution and allows people to live

and work in reasonable comfort.

Diversity and Choice: The availability of public and private places that cater

for all sections of the population and that provide for a diverse range of

activities and experiences.

Robustness/Fit/Responsiveness: The degree to which the elements (eg. building form, public space) that make up a city are versatile enough to accommodate and support the range of activities that people might want to engage in and their changing social/cultural needs and expectations.

Accessibility: The ease with which it is possible to reach other places, people,

activities, resources and services in a relatively direct and comfortable manner.

Efficiency: The extent to which opportunity costs and travel time is reduced

and use of existing roadways and services (eg. sewer, stormwater, water) is maximised.

According to US Environmental Protection Agency (2011) for urban place to be livable, it must provide more transportation choices to decrease household

transportation costs, reduce our nations dependence on foreign oil, improve air

quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health; promote equitable, affordable housing. Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices

for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to lower the combined cost of housing and transportation; enhance economic competitiveness. Improve economic

17

competitiveness through reliable and timely access to jobs, education, and services, as well as expanded business access to markets; support existing communities. Increase

community revitalization through transit oriented development, mixed-use development, and land recycling; coordinate and leverage federal policies and

investment. Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding, plan for future growth, and make smart energy choices such as

locally generated renewable energy. Further Mercers worlds most liveable city

survey noted that a city must score highly in terms of safety, education, hygiene, healthcare, recreation, political-economic stability and public transportation to be

consider livable (www.mercer.com, 2010). In a study of gated neigbourhood in Ibadan, Fabiyi (2004) noted that there is

spatial bias in Ibadan metropolis gated neighbourhoods incidence, the authors opined

that gates are found mostly in the medium density (Middle income) and the low density (High income) neighbourhoods, only few are found in the high density areas. Fabiyi (2004) further asserted that in Ibadan, the frequency of crime in the neighbourhood has a direct implication on the reason for erecting gates in the

neighbourhood.

4.0 IMPLICATIONS OF GATED NEIGBOURHOODS Gated neigbourhoods are common phenomenon in Lagos State. The creation of

these neigbourhood arose out of increasing level of insecurity typified by high occurrence of armed robbery, burglary, car theft incidence, thereby necessitating the

erection of gates in neigbourhood to reduce the level of crime and increase urban safety and livability within the neigbourhood. There are different implications of gated

neigbourhood; these include social, economic and physical development implications. Some of these include isolation of residential neigbourhood due to separation from the rest of the community; also gated phenomenon encourages urban space fragmentation.

The closure of public road results to loss of vehicular, pedestrians, bicyclists connectivity, this reduces the rate at which people could connect from one street to

another; and thus reduce urban mobility. Added to these is hindrance to movement during emergency such as fire outbreak, building collapse, flooding among others.

18

Increase emergency response time could increase the loss of live and properties during

such emergencies when assistance is not quickly rendered. Gated community also

hinders access to public facilities such as water supply, recreational area due to enclosed streets with restriction in hours streets gate are open. Further problems are

encouragement of wide dichotomy in security control between the neighbourhoods in the same locality; reduction in level of shared public urban space; this thus reduces the

level of communal activities and social interaction.

Gated communities can contribute to spatial fragmentation in urban areas, and reflect increased polarization, fragmentation and diminished solidarity within society.

By excluding other urban residents and people from surrounding neighbourhoods, gated communities can contribute to social exclusion, inhibiting the construction of

social networks that form the basis of social and economic activities.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION This paper provides a theoretical review of gated communities on urban development and city management. It refers to the various theoretical and empirical

researches. The paper concludes that gated neigbourhood portends both negative and

positive implications on urban development. Based on the paper review, this paper

recommends the need for relevant government agencies to deploy adequate security

mechanism to gated or non gated neigbourhood in the State to address the challenges

of the increase in the incidence of crime; the challenges of hindrance to emergencies response by gated neigbourhood should be address to appropriate policy formulation

to regulate the operations of gated neigbourhood

The paper recommends that neigbourhood should be made secure through

deployment of public security personal and devices to reduce the incidence of fear and

ensure urban livability in the State. The paper recommends appropriate control measures to emergence of gated neigbourhoods to address some of the challenges of

economic and social exclusion from gated neigbourhoods. To further reduces the incidence of gated community the paper recommends adopted of safer city framework

and also the incorporation of good governance in city management.

19

References Aderinto, A. (1994). Students Unrest and Urban Violence in Nigeria in Urban

Management and Urban Violence in Africa. Vol. 1 and 2 eds., Isaac Albert; Jinmi Adisa, Tunde Agbola; and G. Herault , Proceedings of an international symposium on Urban Management and Urban Violence in Africa held at Ibadan, 7-11 November, Ibadan: IFRA (French Institute for Research in Africa).

Agbola, T. (1997). The Architecture of Fear: Urban Design and Construction Response to Urban Violence in Lagos, Nigeria. Institut franais de recherche en Afrique, (IFRA), 1997.

Ahmed, Y.A. (2012). The Pattern and Distribution of Crime Incidence in an Urban Environment: A Case Study of Osun State, Southwestern Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. Vol. 2 No. 5; March 2012

Ahmed, Y.A. (2010). Trend and Pattern of Urban Crime in Southwestern Nigeria, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ilorin, Nigeria.

Ajibola, M. O., Oloke, O. C. and Ogungbemi, A. O. (2011). Impacts of Gated Communities on Residential Property Values: A Comparison of Onipetesi Estate and Its Neighbourhoods in Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 4, No. 2.

Akpranta, B. (1994) Reasons for Urban Violence in post- civil war Nigeria in Urban Management and Urban Violence in Africa Vol. 1 and 2

Albert I.O. (1994). Urban Violence I Contemporary Africa: some theoretical explanations. in Urban Management and Urban Violence in Africa. Vol.1 and 2 eds., Isaac Albert; Jinmi Adisa, Tunde Agbola; and G. Herault , Proceedings of an international symposium on Urban Management and Urban Violence in Africa held at Ibadan, 7-11 November, Ibadan: IFRA (French Institute for Research in Africa

Atkinson, R., Blandy, S., Flint, J. and Lister, D. (2004) Gated Communities in England. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Blakely, E.J., and Snyder, M.G. (1997). Separate Places: Crime and Security in Gated Communities. in: Felson, M. and Peiser, R.B. (eds.), Reducing Crime through Real Estate Development and Management, pp. 53-70.Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

Blandy S. (2006). Gated communities in England: historical perspectives and current developments. GeoJournal Vol. 66, No. 1-2, pp. 15-26

Brennan-Galvin, E. (2002). Crime and violence in an urbanizing world. Journal of International Affairs, 56 (1): 123-145

Burton, T. L. and Cherry, G. E. (1970). Social Research Techniques for Planners. George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London

CLEEN Foundation (2012). National Crime and Safety Survey. Lagos. Coy, M. and Pohler M. (2002). Gated communities in Latin American megacities.

Retrieved from www.crisisstates.com/download/seminars/Lemanski.12Nov08.pdf.

Cruz, J. M. (2009). Public Insecurity in Central America and Mexico. Americas Barometer Insights. No. 28

20

Environment Australia (1998). Environmental Indicators for National State of the Environment Reporting - Human Settlements.

Ezewayi E.E (2008). Investigation into Water Supply Shortages in Squatter Settlements of Enugu Urban Area, Nigeria, May 2008. Niger. J. Geogr. Environ. 1:16-17.

Fabiyi, O. (2004). Gated Neigbourhood and Privatization of Urban Security. Occasional. Ibadan, IFRA

Federal Government of Nigeria (2006). Report of the Presidential Committee on Redevelopment of Lagos Megacity, Abuja.

Fulong, W. and Webber, K. (2004). The Rise of Foreign Gated Communities in Beijing: Between Economic Globalization and Local Institutions. Cities Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 203-213

Garland, D. and Sparks R. (2000). Criminology, Social Theory and the Challenge of Our Times. The British Journal of Criminology. Vol. 40, No. 2

Gasior-Niemiec, A.; Glasze G. and Putz R. (2009). A Glimpse over the Rising Walls. The Reflection of Post-Communist Transformation in the Polish Discourse of Gated Communities East European Politics and Societies. Vol. 23, Issue 2, pp. 244-265

Ghonimi, I., Alzamly, H.; Khairy, M. and Soilman, M. (2010). Understanding and Formulating Gated Communities inside Greater Cairo New Towns Urban Fabric, 46th ISOCARP Congress, 2010.

Gizewski, P. and T. Homer-Dixon (1995). Urban Growth and Violence: Will the Future Resemble the Past? Occasional Paper. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/eps/urban/urban1.htm

Graham, J. and Bennett, T. (1995). Crime Prevention Strategies in Europe and North America. Finland: Academic Bookstore.

Grant, J., (2003), Planning Responses to Gated Communities in Canada, Housing Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2, 273285.

Guerrero, R. (1999).Violence Prevention - Technical Note 8: Violence Control at the Municipal Level. Sustainable Development Department. Washington, D.C. IDB.

Gulumser A. and Baycan-Levent T. (2005). Through the sky: vertical gated developments in Istanbul. UIA 2005 Istanbul, XXII World Congress of Architecture 07/2005: Istanbul.

Erien, O. (2003). Suburbanization in Trkiye within the Process of Integration to Global Development and a New Life-Style Settlement. PhD Thesis, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Middle East Technical University, December 2003

Frantz, Z. (Eds.), Private cities: Global and local perspectives (pp. 206-221). London, England: Routledge.

Ilesanmi, A. (2012). The roots and fruits of gated communities in Lagos, Nigeria: social sustainability or segregation? Sustainable Futures: Architecture and Urbanism in the Global South Kampala, Uganda, 27 30 June 2012

21

Iweka, A. C. O. (2013). Marital Status and Crowding Intensity: The Case of Multifamily Apartments in Lagos, Nigeria. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, Vol. 3, No. 4, Autumn 2013.

Landman K., and Schnteich M. (2005). Urban Fortresses Gated Communities as a Reaction to Crime. African Security Review. 11/4, 71-85.

Landman, K. (2003). Gated communities in South Africa: a national survey. Pretoria: CSIR Publication.

Landman, K. (2000). An Overview of Enclosed Neighbourhoods in South Africa. Pretoria: CSIR.

Low S. M., (2001). The Edge and the Center: Gated Communities and the Discourse of Urban Fear, American Anthropologist, Vol. 103, No.1

Low, S.M. (2004) Behind the Gates: Life, security, and the pursuit of happiness in Fortress America (NewYork: Routledge).

McIlwaine, C. and Moser, C. (2001). Violence and Social Capital in Urban Poor Communities: Perspectives from Colombia and Guatemala, Journal of International Development 13 (7).

Moser, C. (2005). City Violence and the Poor. Concept Note. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.

Moser, C. and Rodgers, D. (2005). Change, Violence, and Insecurity in Non-Conflict Situations, Working Paper 245. London: Overseas Development Institute.

National Crime Prevention Council (CMPC) (2002). 150 Tested Strategies to Prevent Crime from Small cities, Counties and Rural Communities A Resource for Municipal Agencies and Community Groups. Washington, D.C. NCPC. Retrieved from http://www.ncpc.org

Naud, B. (2003). The Effectiveness of Public Road Closures in Suburban Areas as a Crime Reduction Measure. Security Focus, Vol. 21, No. 6

Neto, P. (2002), Crime, Violence and Democracy in Latin America. Paper presented at Integration in the Americas Conference, Argentina. April 2002 cited in Salau, T. I. and Lawanson, T. O. (2009) Security Consciousness in City Planning: The Case of Lagos Megacity. Retrieved from http://www.unilag.edu.ng/publication/opendoc.php

Oloyede, S.A., Ajibola, M.O. and O.C. Iroham (2010). Gated communities in Lagos State: Social Segregation or Cohesion? First National Conference, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Lagos Emerging Global City: The African Challenge.

Salau, T. I. and Lawanson, T. O. (2009). Security Consciousness in City Planning: The Case of Lagos Megacity. Retrieved from www.unilag.edu.ng/opendoc.php?sno=15502&doctype=doc.

Sohnen, E. (2012). Paying For Crime: A Review of the Relationships between Insecurity and Development in Mexico and Central America Migration Policy Institute.

Tanate, T. K. (2005). Gated Communities In Metro Manila: An Empirical Analysis on Living Conditions and Social Functions. PhD Thesis, Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Tsukuba

22

Tibaijuka. A. (2007). The Worlds Urban Poor Suffer Most from Crime, Violence and Disaster. Kenya: United Nations Settlement Programme

Uduku, O. (2010). Urban gating as the default condition, In: Bagaeen, S. and Uduku, O. (eds.) Gated Communities, Earthscan: London, pp. 39-47.

UN Habitat (2005). The Safer Cities Programme: Making Cities Safer from Crime. Kenya: United Nations Settlement Programme, Kenya.

UN Habitat (2009). Safer Cities programme A Safer and Just City for All. Nairobi, Kenya.

US Environmental Protection Agency. (2011, February 3). HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from Smart Growth: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/#background Vanderschueren, F. (2000). Prevention of crime. A Safer Cities Programme. Nairobi, UNCHS (HABITAT)

Zaidi S. A. (1999). Urban Safety and Crime Prevention UMP-Asia Occasional Paper No. 42.

Zaman, H. (1999). Violence Against Women in Bangladesh: Issues and Responses, Women Studies International Forum 22 (1).

Zhao Y. (2006). China's Modern Gated Cities. In G. Glasze, C. Webster, and K. Frantz, (Eds.), Private Cities. Global and local perspectives, Routledge, Oxon UK and New York, 153-169