1.  Introduction

In recent years, studies on human-environment interaction have gained significant traction among researchers. Within the sphere of environmental psychology, researchers attempt to understand the behaviours and attitudes demonstrated by individuals and groups over and within physical space (Özaşçılar, 2022; Preston & Gelman, 2020; Wnuk & Oleksy, 2021; Zubaidi et al., 2013). Among the various themes explored in this field, territoriality stands out as a compelling construct. This concept is particularly pervasive in the context of residential units within urban neighbourhoods (Toruńczyk-Ruiz & Martinović, 2020). Gifford (1997) defines territoriality as the patterns of behaviour and attitude, demonstrated by individuals or groups, based on perceived, attempted or actual control of a definable physical space that involves habitual occupation, defence, personalisation and marking of such space. While space marking is integral to the concept of territoriality, it also manifests in other themes within built environment debates.

Territorial marks particularly fences and gates, feature prominently in various debates. These marks are recognized for their multifaceted functions, which transcend predictable roles. Some studies identify these marks as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies primarily serving crime prevention purposes (Badiora & Abegunde, 2015; Badiora et al., 2014; Odunlade et al., 2023; Özaşçılar, 2022; Nwokaeze et al., 2022), while others propose that they also have socio-economic implications such as enhancing privacy (Adedeji et al., 2016; Fahad et al., 2021; Kintrea et al., 2010), aesthetics, ownership (Edney, 1976; Manzo & Perkins, 2006; Saisanath &  Gnanasambandam, 2020; Sanchez et al., 2005) and improving property value (Olujimi, 2010; Soyeh et al., 2020). However, complexity arises from an incoherent understanding of the factors motivating their use and prevalence. This knowledge gap poses a considerable challenge in formulating articulate planning policies to regulate the use of territorial marks (Gooblar, 2002).

Moreover, the presence of these marks in discussions on land boundary regulation introduces an additional layer to the debate, suggesting that territoriality takes on distinct nuances in various settings (Bagaeen et al., 2010; Bandauko et al., 2021; Preston & Gelman, 2020), with neighbourhoods or communities with a history of land disputes offering a particularly compelling and underexplored context (Wnuk & Oleksy, 2021). To guide our exploration, we raise several crucial questions: Why are territorial marks prevalent in post-conflict neighbourhoods? What role do human socio-economic needs play in the prevalence of territorial marks? Are these marks primarily CPTED strategies and could they be mechanisms for land boundary regulation in response to land disputes?

In the aftermath of conflicts, communities grapple with various issues, such as land disputes and safety concerns, significantly impacting their interactions with the urban landscape (Badiora & Abegunde, 2015). Yet, scholarly attention to territoriality within post-conflict neighbourhoods remains limited. While previous studies on territoriality in post-conflict communities explored inter-community level land boundary demarcation (Wnuk & Oleksy, 2021), some other studies have shown the intricacies in territorial dynamics between and across neighbourhoods ( Jabareen & Eizenberg, 2019; Di Masso et al., 2011), leaving room for further exploration. This study aims to bridge this knowledge gap by delving into territorial marks used at plot size and within the neighbourhood.

In light of these considerations, this study will examine territoriality at both the plot size and neighbourhoods of a post-conflict community. This is particularly important, given the growing prevalence of reports and studies on perimeter fencing and gated neighbourhoods around the micro-units of the community i.e. around neighbourhoods and individual dwelling units (Bandauko et al., 2021; Mark & Overall, 2015; Olajide & Lizam, 2016; Zurainah et al., 2020). Perimeter fencing and gates are territorial marks and their prevalence highlights the urgency to understand the complexities of territoriality within post-conflict urban landscapes. Moreover, the presence of fencing and gates in social, cultural and economic themes raises intriguing debates about their true purpose and significance (Adedeji et al., 2016; Edney, 1976; Kintrea et al., 2010; Manzo & Perkins, 2006; Olujimi, 2010; Saisanath &  Gnanasambandam, 2020; Sanchez et al., 2005). This research seeks to shed light on the multifaceted aspects of territoriality in urban landscapes, providing valuable insights into the intricate relationship between humans and their environments. It seeks to expand beyond gates and fences, exploring territorial markers in urban landscapes and identifying transcendent motivators.

This study delves into territorial marks within neighbourhoods, aiming to unravel the underlying reasons behind their utilization. By shedding light on the multifaceted aspects of territoriality in urban landscapes, this study seeks to contribute valuable insights that can inform urban planning and enhance our understanding of the intricate relationship between humans and their environments. In Nigeria, and Africa there is limited knowledge regarding the various types of territorial marks and the factors that influence territoriality, even though they are ubiquitous (Mark & Overall, 2015; Odunlade et al., 2023). Moreover, previous research mainly focuses on gates and fences as they relate to social inequality and crime prevention (Adedeji et al., 2016; Badiora & Abegunde, 2015; Vesselinov et al., 2007). The current study argues that territoriality within neighbourhoods transcends the use of fences and gates. And beyond crime prevention, the use of territorial marks may find an explanation for the social, cultural and economic needs of users.

Therefore, the current study is positioned to test this argument using the post-conflict community of Ile-Ife, southwest Nigeria as a suitable example. As earlier posited, post-conflict communities offer distinct nuances given the history of land conflict and the appearance of land boundary demarcation in territoriality. Moreover, the suitability of neighbourhoods in Ile-Ife as a case study is premised on the age-long reputation of inter-communal crises fuelled by land disputes and the complex nature of the land tenure system in Nigeria (Badiora & Abegunde, 2015; Otubu, 2007). In addition, Ile-Ife is a city defined by territorial marks before and post-colonization. According to Ayangbuile and Abiodun (2014), before colonialism, the town's morphology was characterized by walls. The ancient city developed within a valley that was surrounded by seven hills, which acted as territorial boundaries. Additionally, walls were constructed around it to ensure security (Marcuse, 1995). These attributes present Ile-Ife as a suitable case study.

The study leverages residents’ perceptions to investigate the various territorial marks used in these neighbourhoods, beyond the conventional gates and fences, and to understand the factors influencing their utilization. Understanding this could aid zoning regulations and city aesthetics, especially in other traditional African settings, where territorial marks are ubiquitous. Additionally, the study aims to shed light on the implications of territoriality beyond issues of social inequality and crime prevention in urban settings. The study's findings hold significant implications for urban planning, as it could inform the design of more inclusive and cohesive neighbourhoods, taking into account the complexities of territoriality in post-conflict communities. Moreover, the research outcomes will be valuable for community development and land dispute resolution efforts, as understanding the factors influencing territoriality can help promote peaceful coexistence in vulnerable urban settings. To achieve this, this paper gives an overview of land administration in Nigeria as a background to understanding land disputes.

2.Land Tenure in Nigeria; a Driver of Territoriality?

In Nigeria, the land tenure system is a complex interplay of customary and statutory practices (Otubu, 2007). Customary land tenure is prevalent in southwestern Nigeria, granting communal ownership and usage rights to families and communities based on traditional customs). In contrast, statutory land tenure - that has the Land Use Act of 1978, as one of its most significant legislation- overseen by the state government, governs urban and peri-urban areas, allocating land for various purposes (Otubu, 2017). The coexistence of these two systems leads to overlapping interests in land, fuelling conflicts as parties assert their claims to specific parcels.

This study argues that the observed proliferation of territorial marks especially fences and gates is in a bid to protect interests and communicate possession. Hence,  individuals and families use visible and multiple territorial marks, such as fences or stone walls, and survey beacons, as tangible evidence of ownership and delineation. This practice aims to safeguard their rights and deter encroachments by other parties. However, only a few studies within the Nigerian space explored human-environment behaviour in a post-conflict setting and such studies seem to focus on why and how criminal behaviour thrives in the post-conflict urban landscape (Badiora & Abegunde, 2015). Hence, it remains to be seen, how the ownership and right considerations could impact territorial behaviour, especially at the neighbourhood plot/parcel level in urban spaces. Understanding the dynamics of land tenure and its effects on territoriality is crucial for effective land management and conflict resolution.

3. Conceptualizing Territoriality

Research has shown that the quest to claim and exercise a right of ownership over land and identified territories is significant and is of serious concern within the built environment (Gifford, 1997; Di Masso et al., 2011; Preston & Gelman, 2020). However, the concept of a territory remains rather elusive and a full understanding of the concept of territoriality cannot be achieved except clear definitions are given to the term “territory”. In the existing literature, territory has been defined from two distinct but interconnected schools of thought. The first school of thought describes territory purely as physical and or material (Gifford, 1997). The second school of thought observed territory from a mental and psychological viewpoint. The mental territory represents and has been identified and categorized as “place attachment”, “community attachment” and “belonging feeling” (Guest, 1984; Brown et al., 2004; Preston & Gelman, 2020; Wnuk & Oleksy, 2021). This categorization is based on the psychological effects of human and environmental interaction. On the other hand, the physical territory from the first school of thought connotes tangible elements that can be seen and expressed in space as territory (Brighenti, 2010; Iranamesh, 2012).

Both the physical and psychological territory are intricately connected. While the psychological dimension plays a pivotal role in shaping how individuals perceive and interact with these physical spaces, it informs why territorial marks such as fences and gates, are not merely functional but hold deep emotional and cognitive significance for users, the Physical territory represents the tangible spaces that individuals or groups occupy, personalize and defend as highlighted in the literature on territorial markers and their multifaceted functions (Odunlade et al., 2023). Given these intricacies, this study explores the physical territory defined by individuals and groups, the marks used in defining this territory and the multifaceted functionality of the marks.

Hence, the definition of Iranamesh (2012) that relates a territory to a geographical entity or a place that has a distinct boundary, habitually occupied by a group or individual who exercises control or domineering power over it, is how territoriality is conceptualized in this study.  Although only a handful of studies conceive territoriality in this light (Fahad, 1992; Odunlade et al., 2023), it makes for a compelling exploration, to understand the dynamics of territoriality at this level of the urban area. In other words, a territory is a physical space, with distinct boundaries and habitually occupied, conceived and limited in this study to a neighbourhood and individual dwelling units or plots. Moreover, groups and individuals controlling the territory are limited to the residents within a neighbourhood. Hence, territoriality in this study is conceived as the use of signs of identity (markers) by individuals or groups on an identified territory (neighbourhood and dwelling units) to communicate ownership, defence and control among other needs.

3.1 Territoriality and the Theory of Human Need

There is a relationship between the built environment and human needs. Iranamesh (2012) established this with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. This relationship is crucial and thus explained. Humans just as in other animals are observed to be conscious of their territories (Edney, 1976).  This heightened consciousness is demonstrated by the feeling of insecurity that accompanies the encroachment of territories. Humans thus make attempts to demarcate and fortify their territory against external evasion, to foster the continuation of privacy and security.  Subsequently, as humans move up in the level of their need, the importance of territoriality to man transcends or goes beyond the need for privacy and security only. Man tries to use his environment as a medium of communication. He wants others to know his status by merely looking at where he resides. He wants his environment to speak for itself. These needs are in the form of architecture and aesthetics (Fahad, 1992).  Thus, the definition of territoriality must reflect the psychological needs of man as well as the need for self-esteem, self-actualization and aesthetics among others.

Arguing along this line, Hayter (1981) opines that territoriality serves as a mechanism for supplying the three great needs of stimulation, identity and security. In other words, territoriality is not solely for establishing physical boundaries, it has evolved in its use to the meeting of other social needs of individuals and groups. It is a status symbol, which represents social class, cultural as well as ethnic affiliation. Culture is a significant determinant of the meanings and functions attached to any physical and social phenomenon and territoriality is not an exception (Iranamesh, 2012). Summarily, the need for territoriality within the literature is pinned to defence (Hayter, 1981; Newman, 1972; Newman, 1996), space marking (Brighenti, 2010; Iranamesh, 2012), esteem and belonging (Manzo & Perkins, 2006) among others.

3.2 Territorial Marks

Territorial marks are of a multifaceted dimension (Grant & Mittelsteadt, 2004; Iranamesh, 2012). Various forms of territorial marks are adopted by various groups and individuals in their physical space. Oftentimes time the choice of territorial mark is dependent on several social and economic as well as cultural attributes of the individual or group. As observed in the literature, the higher economic class especially in Nigeria adopted the use of walls and perimeter fences in territoriality. In other instances, soft landscape elements of trees and flowers are often adopted. However, the issues of territorial marks may transcend these. Other territorial marks may be employed by individuals and groups and they need to be documented, especially as it deals with culturally induced and indigenously sourced territorial marks. Accordingly, this study has tried to identify and classify several territorial marks as observed in the literature.

3.2.1        Image and Milieu

Newman (1972) described the capacity of a design feature to communicate a territory’s uniqueness, isolation and stigma as an image and milieu. Such features are specifically used to achieve the dual objective of access control and boundary delineation. These objectives are intricately tied to the concept of territoriality. They connote divide and or mark spaces while identifying the shadings between public and private spaces.

3.2.2        Security Barriers

Barriers in CPTED restrict access to target areas, reducing crime by promoting social control through territorial reinforcement and improved proprietary concern. Clear delineation of private space creates a sense of ownership, encouraging vigilance against intruders and aiding in their identification. Natural territorial reinforcement is achieved through the use of buildings, fences, lighting, and landscaping to express ownership and define public, semi-public, and private spaces. Agbola (1997) identified two barrier types: physical, which physically prevents access, such as fences and locked doors, and symbolic, which uses design to signify ownership. Arguably, both types contribute to crime reduction and enhanced security.

3.2.3        Graffiti or Symbolic Barriers

Symbolic barriers are also often identified in the literature as graffiti. These forms of territorial signs are less tangible. From the use of low decorative fences, and flower beds, changes in sidewalk patterns or materials and prominent use of signs that can be cultural, traditional or universal, such as; “No Trespassing, beware of dogs, No movement beyond a specified time” among others. In short, any form of tangible or legible material could serve as a symbolic barrier. The only requirement is that it defines a boundary, and it may not prevent physical movement.

3.2.4        Landscape, Greenery and Biophilic Marks

Landscaping is of two forms.  The hard and soft landscaping. The latter represents the use of flowers, trees and other elements that bring man closer to nature, hence the nomenclature as greenery or biophilic marks. The former represents the use of concrete and paved surfaces among others. Although one may be forced to argue that landscaping is done with the intent to achieve beautification of areas. However, in most instances, the quest for landscaping transcends the objective of beauty. Individuals and groups employ the elements of the landscape to clearly define their territories and communicate to a potential intruder that such space is preoccupied.  Landscaping serves as a versatile design element, functioning as a symbolic barrier to mark transitions between zones and convey an alert and active presence (Agbola, 1997). Features like decorative fencing, flowerbeds, and varied cement patterns indicate zone separation, while evergreen hedges can provide more substantial barriers if necessary.

A cursory look at the global literature on territorial marks, reveals an incoherent outlook, it is on this premise that this study aims to explore territorial dynamics in a post-conflict community, beginning with an overview of post-conflict Ile-Ife's morphology to shed light on its territorial history.

4. Morphology of Post-Conflict Ile-Ife

Ile-Ife, a historical Yoruba city, predates the British colonization of Nigeria. It is located at Latitude 7°29° N, 7°31° N of the Equator and Longitudes 4°43° E, and 4°45° E of the Greenwich Meridian. As with many traditional Yoruba cities, such as the Old Oyo Empire, Ile-Ife was built in a valley surrounded by seven hills that delineated the boundaries of the ancient city. According to Marcuse (1995), beyond the hills, walls were erected as an extra layer of security around the ancient town. Hence, Ayangbuile and Abiodun (2014) summarized the town's pre-colonial morphology as one defined by territorial markers.  The additional walls had a dual purpose. They were initially meant to divide the town into five sections: Iremo, Okerewe, Moore, Ilode, and Ilare (Badiora & Abegunde, 2015). These walls also indicated the social hierarchy of the residents in each section (Ayangbile & Abiodun, 2014). Essentially, the walls not only enclosed the areas but also established a hierarchy within each section. Currently, these sections are considered the traditional town centre or core residential areas. As expected, there are significant historical and cultural structures in the traditional town centre, including the palace, shrines, and groves. Protective walls were constructed around these buildings as a symbol of their historical and cultural significance, and they remain standing today. 

The traditional town centre had its most significant evolution following the collapse of the old Oyo Empire in the 19th century. Given the Yoruba knitting between the Ifes and Oyos, a section of the Oyos migrated to an area in Ile-Ife, known now as Modakeke-Ife. However, as the immigrants grew in population, cultural identity, economics and politics as reflected in land ownership and payment of land rent (Isakole), a crisis ensued between the immigrants and their host. A conflict that lasted for centuries, thereby creating invisible social and economic partitions among constituent neighbourhoods in the city, with the Modakeke partition being the stronghold of immigrants. This part of town has been referred to as post-conflict neighbourhoods in previous studies (Badiora & Abegunde, 2015). The post-conflict neighbourhoods were initially a part of the traditional town centre (see Figure 1). However, its current social and physical conditions have evolved due to the various Ife-Modakeke crisis. The area now comprises freestanding row houses, dilapidated buildings, vacant spaces, unoccupied structures, dump sites, and low trees and bushes scattered between the buildings.

Figure 1. Conflict-Affected Areas within the Context of Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria

Source: Fabiyi et al (2012).

The advent of colonialism brought some noticeable sanity to the conflict-torn community. Developmental strides and noticeable transformation and developmental strides ensued, with growth spanning beyond the traditional town centre and the complimentary walls. The city thus has two distinct centres - one representing traditional architecture and the second showcasing modern design. The modern area shares similarities with those Onekerhoraye, (1977) identified as transition or intermediate areas in other African traditional cities like Ogbomosho, Ilorin, and Benin.

Post-colonialism in Nigeria, the town witnessed a surge in developmental activities, mainly facilitated by the establishment of the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) and its Teaching Hospital in 1962 and 1975 respectively. According to Ayangbile and Abiodun (2014), the social and economic status of residents increased mainly because of the economic opportunities presented by these institutions. As a result, there was an increase in income status and a more diverse population. This led to noticeable differences in the availability of urban infrastructure in different areas of the town. Educated elites moved to new areas, which are referred to as modern residential areas in this study. Summarily, the morphology of post-conflict Ile-Ife can be described as having three distinct residential neighbourhoods, the traditional town centre (including the post-conflict neighbourhoods), the transition neighbourhoods and the modern neighbourhoods. An understanding of the evolution and morphology of the study area, provided a basis for the methodology used in this study, as summarised in the next section.

5. Materials and Methods

Primary data was collected by distributing questionnaires and observing the physical and environmental characteristics of the study area's neighbourhoods. These methods have been widely used in similar studies (Farhad et al., 2021; Gifford, 1997; Özaşçılar, 2022).

We gained a comprehensive understanding of how residents use territorial marks in their neighbourhoods by observing their physical composition. To gain further clarity on these dynamics, we administered questionnaires using a multi-stage sampling procedure. First, we identified residential neighbourhoods in the study area and divided them into three groups based on physical characteristics: traditional town centre, transition, and modern residential zone, as discussed in Section 3.

Firstly, a thorough inventory was conducted to list all 120 residential neighbourhoods within the study area. These neighbourhoods were subsequently categorized into three residential zones: traditional, transition, and modern, consisting of 36, 64, and 20 neighbourhoods respectively. To ensure representation from each zone, 25% of neighbourhoods from each zone were purposively selected, resulting in 9, 16, and 5 neighbourhoods selected from traditional, transition, and modern zones respectively. Overall, 30 neighbourhoods were included in the study, representing all residential zones.

To ensure accuracy, we conducted a thorough count of the buildings in each of the selected neighbourhoods using Google Earth Imagery. We counted a total of 2055 buildings, with 480 in the core area, 1125 in the transition, and 450 in the modern neighbourhoods. Then, we used systematic random sampling to choose sample residential units or buildings. With this technique, we selected every 10th building in a straight line directly adjacent to the street, starting with a random first building. From these buildings, we drew a sample of respondents from 206 residential buildings and administered questionnaires to adult males, preferably the household head. Data collected were analysed using frequency distribution, percentages and an index measuring residents` rating of territorial marks tagged the Territorial Marks Importance Index (TMI). To calculate the TMI, residents were asked to allot weight to the importance of each territorial mark on a 5-point Likert scale. To calculate the Sum of Weighted Value (SWV) for each variable, we added up the number of responses for each rating for a territorial mark and multiplied it by the corresponding weight of the value. Next, we found the mean index (TMI) for each territorial mark by dividing the SWV of each variable by the total number of respondents, which was 206.

6. Results

6.1 Socio-economic Attributes of Residents in Ile-Ife

We analysed the socio-economic characteristics of those who participated in the study, which included their gender, religion, type of tenure, years, spent in the neighbourhood, level of education, and household monthly income. These details can be found in Table 1. It was observed that most of the respondents (84.0%) were male, while the remaining 16.0% were female. Religion played a significant role in the use of territorial marks, with 67.5% identifying as Christians, 25.2% as Muslims, and 7.3% as practitioners of traditional religion.

The status of tenure could play a role, in influencing decisions on the use of perimeter fences. Specifically, 40.8% of respondents lived in rented houses, 37.4% in self-owned houses, 14.6% in compound houses, and 7.3% in inherited houses. Additionally, the length of stay in the neighbourhood impacted residents' disposition towards the installation and use of territorial marks. Of the respondents, 36.9% had lived in their current neighbourhood for ten years or less, 85.3% between ten to twenty-five years, 5.3% between twenty-six to forty years, and 2.45% for more than forty years, influencing their assessment and investment in the neighbourhood.

Educational attainment and average monthly income were also vital factors shaping individuals' perceptions of self and the environment. Notably, 9.7% and 41.3% of residents sampled had primary and secondary education, respectively, while 7.8% and 35.9% had technical and tertiary education, respectively. It was evident that a significant majority (35.9%) had tertiary education, and nearly half (49.1%) possessed at least a secondary education, with only 5.3% having no formal education. The findings on residents' average monthly income revealed varied income classes, with 9.7% earning less than ₦30,000, 16.0% between ₦31,000 – ₦60,000, 27.7% between ₦61,000-₦90,000, and 46.6% earning above ₦90,000. Further analysis revealed that the income of residents varied across different residential areas. Statistical test computed confirmed that residents` income varied significantly across the different residential neighbourhoods (F=19.155, p=0.000).

Based on these findings, there is a clear difference in income levels among the residential zones. The traditional town centre has more very low-income earners, while the transition neighbourhoods have more low and middle-income earners. The modern residential zone has a higher concentration of high-income earners. These socio-economic insights offer valuable perspectives on the use of territorial marks in urban landscapes.

Table 1. Residents’ Socio-economic Characteristics. 

6.2 Types and Ratings of Territorial Marks Used Around Neighbourhoods

By observing physical marks used around neighbourhoods, twelve
(12), distinct territorial marks were identified across the three residential neighbourhoods of the study. As summarised in Table 2, in the traditional town centre, the mean rating of importance () was 2.98, with roads (4.17) rated as the most important territorial mark. This was followed closely by Graffiti/street signs 4.16) and Landmarks and Monuments (TMI = 4.14). Others were Boundary stones (4.10), Bridges (3.99) and Water bodies. Around the transition neighbourhoods (= 2.94), Gates (3.69), Graffiti/Street signs (3.64) and Roads (3.22) were rated as most important in descending order of importance. Others rated as more important were Fences/walls (3.25), security posts (3.22) and Landmarks/Monuments (3.12). Around the Modern neighbourhoods (= 2.99), Gates (4.37), Fence/Wall (4.32), and Security posts (4.27) in descending order were identified as the most important territorial marks with Graffiti (4.12), Road (4.27) and Landmark/Monument (3.01) following closely in descending order of importance.

These findings around the revealed that residents in neighbourhoods of the traditional town centre attached high importance to territorial marks almost at the same level as their counterparts in the modern neighbourhoods. Moreover, within the traditional town centre, low-cost and more permanent territorial marks were used around neighbourhoods, unlike neighbourhoods in modern areas that relied on gates and fences (see Plate 1 & 2). This is a further reflection of the economic disparity between the social classes of residents within these neighbourhoods.

Table 2. Importance Rating of Territorial Marks at Neighbourhood Level in Ile-Ife.

Plate 1. Gates and Graffiti as Territorial Marks around Transition neighbourhoods.

Plate 2. Fence and Gates as territorial marks around Modern neighbourhoods.

6.3 Types and Ratings of Territorial Marks Used Around Dwelling Units

A more inward observation of dwelling units within neighbourhoods of the study area revealed an aggregate of sixteen (16) distinct territorial marks used. As summarised in Table 4, residents in the traditional town centre were with the highest mean rating of = 3.11, with the Modern (= 3.03) and Transition (= 3.00) following in descending order of overall importance attached to territorial marks.

More specifically, residents in the traditional town centres placed the most importance on Grave/tombstones (4.87), Survey Beacons (4.56) and Graffiti/Inscriptions (4.52, plate 2) in descending order. Other territorial marks with more importance among residents in the neighbourhoods in descending order were Boundary stones (4.33), Landmarks/monuments (4.29) and Charm/Religious items (3.98). In the transition neighbourhoods, residents placed the most importance on Survey Beacon (4.48), Boundary Stone (4.01) and Fence/Walls (3.88) in descending order. Others with more importance in the same order were Gate (3.87), Grave/Tombstone (3.52) and Graffiti/Inscriptions (3.44, see Plate 3). In the Modern neighbourhood areas, in descending order, residents attached the most importance to Gates (4.87), Fence/Walls (4.85) and security posts (4.27). Others were Survey Beacon (4.11), Garden/Lawn/Pavement (4.01) and Wires/Barbs/Mesh (3.98). In Modern neighbourhoods, residents attributed the most importance to Gates (4.87), Fences/Walls (4.85) and Security Posts (4.27). Others in descending order were Survey Beacon (4.11), Garden/Lawn (4.01) and Wires/Barbs (3.98).

As with neighbourhood land areas, these findings on the importance of territorial marks on dwelling units revealed that residents in the traditional neighbourhoods, despite their low-income status display more territoriality. However, they are more predisposed to the use of low-cost traditional materials, unlike residents of modern neighbourhoods whose territorial marks are more sophisticated as presented in the importance attributed to gates, fences, security posts and lawns (see Plate 5). Also obvious is the prevailing use of survey beacons (see Plate 4) across all neighbourhood zones.

Table 3. Importance Rating Marks at the Level of Dwelling Units in Ile-Ife.

Plate 3. Graffiti on walls.Plate 4. Survey Beacon, a territorial mark.

Plate 5. Fences, Gates and security as territorial features in Modern neighbourhoods.

6.4 Factors Influencing the Use of Territorial Marks

Given the prevailing and dynamic use of territorial marks in the study area, this study took a step further to probe the factors behind residents' use of these marks. Regression analysis was used to determine the association between factors identified in the literature to drive territoriality and the dependent variable (use of territorial marks). Summarised in Table 4, significant predictors for the use of territorial marks were privacy concern (t = -25.971; p = 0.000), crime prevention (t = 9.989; p = 0.000), income status (t = 5.233; p = 0.000), exercising property rights (t = 8.874; p = 0.000) and architecture and aesthetics (t = 5.071; p = 0.000). Others were boundary delineation (t = -8.257; p = 0.000), space marking (t = -4.773; p = 0.000), ownership and belonging (t = 2.218; p = 0.028) and Historical conflict (t = 0.956; p = 0.040). It is deductible from these findings that the prevalence of territorial marks is predicated on land disputes, income attributes (defined by income distribution and educational attainment) and crime prevention. While these findings support assertions by previous studies within the theme of crime prevention (Badiora & Abegunde, 2015; Nwokaeze et al., 2022), as well as social and economic needs, it argues however, that territoriality does not always find an explanation in cultural norms, the status of tenure and a historical predisposition to territoriality. 

Table 4. Determinants of Residents` Use of Territorial Marks.

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

7. Discussion

The study findings gave insights into the relationship between the use of territorial marks and land disputes in a post-conflict urban landscape. As opined in related previous studies, (Adedeji et al., 2016; Atkinson et al., 2003; Edney, 1976; Fahad et al., 2021; Kintrea et al., 2010; Manzo & Perkins, 2006; Olujimi, 2010; Saisanath &  Gnanasambandam, 2020; Sanchez et al., 2005) this study gave credence to the interplay of economic attributes of residents and their use of territorial marks. In other words, as the variation in income attributes varies across the residential zones, the types of territorial marks within and around neighbourhoods also vary. Interestingly though, the variation in the type of territorial marks does not connote that low-income earners had less territorial behaviour. This study revealed that all income groups across the distinct neighbourhoods displayed significant territorial behaviour, although their income status is reflected in the type of territorial marks used, with low-cost and traditional marks prevalent in low-income neighbourhoods. This position aligns with the arguments of some previous studies (Adedeji et al., 2016; Gifford, 1997) that human territorial behaviour is a given irrespective of socio-economic status. In other words, the study revealed that humans regardless of their cultural background, are highly territorial and would want to define and assert control and ownership over perceived territory.

This study also corroborates the position of previous studies within post-conflict urban settings that, territorial marks are as crucial for land boundary demarcation as they are for crime prevention (Preston & Gelma, 2020; Di Masso et al., 2011; Nwokaeze et al., 2022; Wnuk & Oleskksy, 2021). This study reveals further that both indigenous and contemporary territorial marks predicated on users’ economic ability are used to communicate the extent or boundary of their territory. Equally corroborating the argument of previous studies opining that human territorial nature, sense of place, place attachment and identity are important themes in territoriality (Farhad et al., 2021; Saisanath &  Gnanasambandam, 2020). In other words, barring any financial or legal restraints, human territorial behaviour is limitless. Hence, territoriality should feature prominently in discussions on land dispute resolution as equally in CPTED debates.

Noteworthy, revelations about the use of indigenous marks in a traditional African setting deepen the literature on territoriality, opening up a vista for future exploration in pan-African studies. However, these insights call for the need to control the use of these indigenous territorial marks with zoning regulations if some of the challenges such as land use distortion, crime incidence and social segregation attributed to personalized forms of markings are to be abated.

Moreover, the study showed that complexities of land law and administration explain the territorial behaviour of residents. This is evident in the prevailing use of indigenous marks to communicate possession and ownership of land across all neighbourhood groupings in the study area. This revelation strengthens the position of previous studies within the Nigerian land law context that the multiplicity and incoherency of legal frameworks have social and physical implications in the built environment (Otubu, 2017; Otubu, 2007). Moreover, the proliferation and mix of indigenous, contemporary and legal territorial marks, indicates the heightened tension on land disputes in the study. The need to harmonize land laws in this and similar settings cannot be overemphasized.

8. Conclusion and Recommendation

The results of the study corroborated the findings of other previous studies that privacy concerns, crime prevention, income status, exercising property rights, architecture and aesthetics, boundary delineation, space marking, ownership, and belonging, were all significant predictors of the use of territorial marks (Brighenti, 2010; Farhad et al., 2021; Kintrea et al., 2010; Manzo & Perkins, 2006; Newman, 1972; Newman, 1996). This study observed that within the context of a post-conflict neighbourhood, issues of territorial behaviour transcend cultural and historical disposition towards the use of territorial marks. It observes that territoriality in post-conflict urban settings is driven by specific needs predicated on clear demarcation of land boundaries, strengthening of ownership rights on land and clearly defining the extent of land rights. In other words, within post-conflict communities, territoriality appears to be primarily concerned with establishing clear boundaries for land rather than reflecting cultural attitudes. The study also concluded that residents adopt and adapt diverse forms of contemporary and indigenous territorial marks to meet this need.

The findings of this study have significant implications for urban planning, land dispute resolution efforts and the African literature on territoriality. In recognition of these implications, the study recommends the promotion of more inclusive and cohesive neighbourhoods and advocates for more research on the significance of gated neighbourhoods in social inequality and crime prevention. We equally advocate that policymakers and planners should take into account the socio-economic disparities observed in territoriality and design urban spaces that accommodate the diverse needs and preferences of residents. An emphasis on demarcating clear and recognized boundaries, potentially utilizing survey beacons or other universally understood marks, could contribute to reducing land disputes and fostering a sense of ownership and security for all residents.

In addition, it would be beneficial to introduce better strategies for land allocation and division in post-conflict neighbourhoods. The use of geographic information technology to demarcate land boundaries and ownership characteristics would help reduce disputes related to these issues. Moreover, a harmonized form of territorial marks especially those unique to neighbourhoods in Africa can be adopted and incorporated into zoning regulations, to improve neighbourhood aesthetics, and legibility and enshrine neighbourhood cohesion.

However, it is important to acknowledge that the study has limitations, including a relatively small sample size and a focus on a specific case study area. Moreover, taking a general disposition to the factors influencing territorial marks, it is important to also acknowledge that the specific needs of groups and individuals could define their preference for a type of territorial mark. Future research could expand the scope to include a more diverse range of post-conflict communities and employ larger sample sizes to further validate and generalize the findings. Furthermore, future studies, could take a pan-African and indigenous look into the type of territorial marks used in the region and understand, the role of each mark for users.

Conflict of Interests

The author(s) declare no conflict of interest and have not received any funding for this research.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

Data for this study will be made available on request.

CRedit author statement

Odunlade O. R.: Conceptualization; Data Curation; Formal Analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Software; Visualization; Writing- Original draft; Writing-review & editing.

Abegunde A.A.: Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision.

References

Adedeji, J. A., Fadamiro, J. A., & Adedeji, Y. M. (2016). Residential fencing and house gating: An overview of social inequality and urban insecurity in Ilorin, Nigeria. The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, 52, 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.024

Agbola, T. (1997). The architecture of fear: Urban design and construction response to urban violence in Lagos, Nigeria. IFRA and African Book Binders. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ifra.485

Atkinson R., Flint J., Blandy S., Lister D., (2003). Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time-space trajectories of segregation, paper presented at Gated Communities: Building Division or Safer Communities? 18–19 September, Glasgow, http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sps/cnrpapersword/gated/atkinson.doc  https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303042000293982

Ayangbile, O. A., & Abiodun, O. D. (2014). Valuing what exists: Cultural heritage planning and preservations in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 19(3), 44–45. https:// doi.org/10.9790/0837-19564452

Badiora, A. I., & Abegunde, A. A. (2015). Crime incidences in postcommunal crisis areas of Southwestern Nigeria: The effects of sociophysical characteristics. Journal of Applied Security Research, 10(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2015.972283

Badiora, A. I., Oluwadare, D.B., & Dada, O. T. (2014) Nature of Residential Burglary and Prevention by Design Approaches in a Nigerian Traditional Urban Center, Journal of Applied Security Research, 9:4, 418-436, DOI: 10.1080/19361610.2014.942823

Bagaeen, S., Uduku, O., Bagaeen, S., & Uduku, O. (2010). Gated communities: Social sustainability in contemporary and historical gated development. Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781849774772

Bandauko, E., Arku, G., & Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H. (2021). A systematic review of gated communities and the challenges of urban transformation in African cities. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 37(1), 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09840-1

Brighenti, A. (2010). On territorology: Towards a general science of territory. Theory, Culture & Society. 27(1), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409350357

Brown, B., Perkins D. & Brown, G. (2004). Incivilities, place attachment and crime: Block and individual effects, Journal of Environmental Psychology. 24(3), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.01.001.

Di Masso A., Dixon, J., & Pol, E. (2011). On the contested nature of place: ‘Figuera’s Well’, ‘The Hole of Shame’ and the ideological struggle over public space in Barcelona. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 31(3), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.05.002.

Edney, J. J. (1976). Human territories: Comment on functional properties. Journal of Environment and Behaviour, 8(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657600800103

Fabiyi O. O., Thontteh O. E. & Borisade P., (2012). Spatial and social dimensions of post-conflict urban reconstruction programme in southwestern Nigeria. The case of Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning. 3(2), 163-174. https://www.oalib.com/paper/2871773

Fahad A.M. (1992). Territorial Behaviour and the Built Environment: The Case of Arab-Muslim
Towns, Saudi Arabia. [Unpublished doctoral thesis] Mackintosh School of Architecture,
University of Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Farhad, S., Maghsoodi Tilaki, M.J. & Hedayati Marzbali, M. (2021), Architectural identity and place attachment in historic neighbourhoods: an empirical study in Sanandaj, Iran, Journal of Place Management and Development, 14(2), 148 162. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-02-2020-0018

Gifford, R. (1997). Environmental psychology: Principle and practice. Allyn and Bacon.

Gooblar, A. (2002). Outside the walls: urban gated communities and their regulation within the British planning system. European Planning Studies, 10(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310220121068

Grant J. & Mittelsteadt, L. (2004). Types of Gated Communities. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 31(6). https://doi.org/10.1068/b3165

Guest, A. M. and Barrett L. (1984) How Urbanites Define Their Neighbourhoods, Journal of
Population and environment. 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01257471

Hayter J. (1981). Territoriality as a universal need. Journal of Advanced Nursing 6(2), 79-85 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1981.tb03195.x

Iranmanesh, A. (2012). Territorial aspects of place definition: Exploring the gap within and in between territories [Unpublished Master`s Thesis]. The Institute of Graduate Studies and Research in Architecture, Eastern Mediterranean University

Jabareen Y. & Eizenberg E. (2019).  Theorizing urban social spaces and their interrelations: New perspectives on urban sociology, politics, and planning. Planning Theory. 20(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220976942

Kintrea, K., Bannister, J., & Pickering, J. (2010). Territoriality and disadvantage among young people: An exploratory study of six British neighbourhoods. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(4), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-010-9195-4

Manzo L.C. & Perkins D. D.  (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature 20(4), 335-350. DOI: 10.1177/0885412205286160

Marcuse, P. (1995). Not Chaos, but Walls: Postmodernism and the partitioned city. In K. Gibson & S. Watson (Eds.), Postmodern Cities and Spaces (pp. 243–253). Blackwell.

Mark, M. M., & Overall, C. (2015). Breaking down walls: New solutions for more effective urban crime prevention in South African Cities. International Journal of Security and Development, 4 (1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.5334/sta.es

Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space people and design in the violent city. Architectural Press.

Newman, O. (1996). Creating defensible space: People and design in violent city, department of housing and urban development McMillan.

Nwokaeze, E. C., Ikiriko, T. D., & Johnbull, S. W., (2022). Urban Security Challenges: A Review of Crime Prevention Strategies Adopted by Residents in Greater Port Harcourt City, Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Review. 9(3), 60-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52403/ijrr.20220308

Odunlade O. Adetunji O, & Ojo B. (2023). Perimeter fencing in urban landscapes: A perceptual exploration in a traditional Yoruba settler community. Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 11(1), 2236695, DOI: 10.1080/21650020.2023.2236695

Olajide, S. E., & Lizam, M. (2016). Gated communities and property fencing: A response to residential neighbourhood crime. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 13(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJESBS/2016/21796

Olujimi, J. A. B. (2010). Analysis of the relationships of infrastructural facilities in the determination of rental values of residential properties in Akure, Nigeria. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 10, 1–11. DOI: 10.4172/2151-6200.1000010

Onokerhoraye, A. G. (1977). The spatial pattern of residential districts in Benin, Nigeria. Urban Studies, 14(3), 201–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420987720080631

Otubu, A. K. (2007). Land reforms and the future of land use act in Nigeria. Nigerian Current Law Review (NIALS) 2010. 130 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1123948

Otubu, A. K. (2017). Land Administration in 21st Century Nigeria and the Land Use Act: Need for Reforms (November 27, 2017).  http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3078068

Özaşçılar, M. (2022), "Retailers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of CPTED-based techniques in reducing shoplifting: the case of Istanbul", Safer Communities, 21 (4), 229-242. https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-08-2021-0035\

Preston, S. D., & Gelman, S. A. (2020). This land is my land: Psychological ownership increases willingness to protect the natural world more than legal ownership. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101443. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2020.101443

Saisanath G., &  Gnanasambandam, S.  (2020), Study of the perceived functions and the quality of physical boundaries of public spaces, Archnet-IJAR, 14(2), 233-250. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-07-2019-0160

Sanchez, T., Lang, R., & Dhavalle, D. (2005). Security of status? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04270127

Soyeh, K. W., Asabere, P. K., & Owusu-Ansah, A. (2020). Price and rental differentials in gated versus non-gated communities: the case of Accra Ghana. Housing Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2020. 1789566.

Toruńczyk-Ruiz, S., & Martinović, B. (2020). The bright and dark sides of length of residence in the neighbourhood: Consequences for local participation and openness to newcomers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 67, 101383. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2019.101383

Vesselinov, E., Cazessus, M., & Falk, W. (2007). Gated communities and spatial inequality. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2007.00330.x

Wnuk, A., & Oleksy, T. (2021). Too attached to let others in? The role of different types of place attachment in predicting intergroup attitudes in a conflict setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 75, 101615. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2021.101615

Zubaidi, F., Santosa, H. R., & Faqih, M. (2013). Territoriality in the traditional settlement context. Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, 2(3), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20130203.12

Zurainah, T., Jalaluddin, A., Nur, H., & Shahidah, H. (2020). Review of physical planning aspect of gated community developments. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1529, 022014. https://doi. org/10.1088/1742-6596/1529/2/022014