-
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