Socio-cultural Utilization of Open Spaces in the Traditional Residential Neighborhood of Ile-Ife,Nigeria

Abstract

This study explores the socio-cultural uses of open spaces within and around buildings in the traditional residential neighborhood of Ile-Ife, Nigeria. This is with a view to provide information that could guide open space planning and management in traditional residential environments. The data for this study were obtained through a questionnaire survey, direct observation, measurement of open spaces, and photographic recordings. It is established that open spaces played a number of crucial roles in the socio-cultural life of residents: they served as areas for social ceremonies, burying the dead, ancestral worship/rituals, family meetings, and reception of visitors. The important determinants of the uses of open spaces were traditions and cultural practices, the need for social interactions among neighbors and climatic condition. The study concluded that open spaces are settings where residents connect socially, culturally and spiritually in the traditional environment. It is therefore recommended that physical planners should endeavor to appreciate the socio-cultural values and needs of urban residents in open space planning, design, and management.

Keywords

Open space culture open space management traditional residential neighborhood Nigeria

Introduction

Open space is a valuable component of urban landscape in the built environment. It is an outdoor area of the built environment, which is accessible to urban residents for use (CEQR, 2014; Gold, 1980; Woolley, 2005). As noted by Carmona, Heath, Oc, and Tiesdell (2003), open spaces can facilitate outdoor life and social interaction among urban residents. Open spaces in urban context can be categorized into three groups based on a spatial scale continuum: city-wide, intermediate (neighbourhood), and individual building (Stanley, Stark, Johnston, & Smith, 2012). Open spaces on a city scale are meant for the use of large segments of the urban population. These include higher-order spaces like town square, beach, and stadium. The intermediate scale refers to open spaces that serve many buildings in a more localized area of a city, such as a residential neighbourhood/district. A neighbourhood park is a typical example of open spaces in this category. At the smallest scale, individual buildings may have open spaces including private gardens, courtyards, and front and rear yards that family members and neighbors can use and enjoy. Open spaces at different levels across the scale continuum can be put into diverse uses in urban settings. The focus of this study, however, is the socio-cultural utilization of open spaces within and around buildings in the context of a traditional residential neighbourhood in Africa with a focus on Nigeria.

In Nigeria, the built-up area before the establishment of the British rule is regarded as the traditional residential neighborhood (Afon, 2011; Mabogunje, 1968). The area was developed based on the socio-cultural needs and local knowledge of the early settlers prior to the introduction of modern physical planning by the colonialists (Afon & Badiora, 2017; Aluko, 2011). Thus, the Western concept of open space such as neighborhood parks where urban residents can enjoy close to residences may not apply to the area. Many buildings are usually laid out in traditional compounds with open courtyards that are used by residents for socio-cultural activities. Apart from a courtyard, which is an enclosed open space, the front, rear and air spaces of buildings are also utilized for diverse purposes. Examples of Nigerian cities where traditional residential neighborhood is identifiable are Ile-Ife, Ibadan, Oyo, Ogbomosho, Osogbo, Ilorin, Benin, Minna, Bida, Zaria, and Kano.

A number of studies on open space utilization in urban residential environments exist (Adedeji & Fadamiro, 2011; Bulus, 2016; Priego, Baena, & Breuste, 2012; Wahid, 2008). For instance, the studies of Priego et al. (2012), and Kilnarova and Wittmann (2017) document the social functions of courtyard as a private space within residential buildings in European countries. Similarly, in Asia, Wahid’s (2008) study examines the recreational experiences of urban residents in public parks in Malaysia. Although the previous studies have enhanced our understanding of the way urban residents perceive and use open spaces within the built environment, much is still unknown on the socio-cultural functions of open spaces in African traditional residential settings. It is in the light of the foregoing that this study explores the socio-cultural uses of open spaces within and around buildings in traditional residential neighbourhood of Ile-Ife, Nigeria.

This study addresses the following research questions: What are the characteristics of open spaces within and around buildings in the traditional residential neighborhood of Ile-Ife, Nigeria? Who are the residents in the traditional residential neighbourhood of Ile-Ife? What are the different socio-cultural activities taking place in open spaces? What are the land-use problems emanating from the uses of open spaces? What are the factors determining the uses of open spaces? The study is considered important for a number of reasons. First, it could guide policymakers and urban planners on how to design and manage open spaces according to the socio-cultural values and needs of local residents in traditional residential environments. Second, it would provide information on the landscape character and the sizes of open spaces consciously provided by local residents on a residential scale. Such information could reveal the extent to which local residents comply with town planning laws concerning the minimum requirements for open spaces in residential development. In addition, the study could be useful for creating urban awareness and educating local residents on proper usage and management of open spaces in their residential environments.

Theoretical Perspective of the Study

Open space is a cluster concept with numerous definitions (Kohn, 2004). Nevertheless, attempts have been made by some scholars to define the concept for the purpose of physical planning (Carmona, Magalhaes & Hammond, 2008; Falade, 1985; Gold, 1980; Oktay, 2002). For instance, Gold (1980) defines open space as an area of land that is not covered by buildings in an urban setting. In another view, Carmona et al. (2008) describes open space as an uncovered part of the built environment that is accessible to urban residents for use. It is also said to be a publicly or privately owned land for outdoor recreation (CEQR, 2014). These definitions suggest that accessibility and ownership are important aspects of open space. Thus, open space is not merely an uncovered part of the built environment, but an outdoor space that is accessible to urban residents for use.

Outdoor spaces that are simply “left-over” between buildings will not be utilized by urban residents. Fundamentally, there are different kinds of outdoor space in the built environment: negative and positive space (Alexander et al., 1977). An outdoor space of the built environment is negative if it has no definite and distinct shape—the residue left over when buildings are placed on a land area. In an area where outdoor spaces are negative, buildings will be seen as figures and outdoor areas as ground, with no reversal. Positive outdoor space on the other hand has distinct and definite shape of the surrounding enclosure like that of a room. It is possible to see positive outdoor spaces as figure and the adjoining buildings as ground, and vice versa. As put forward by Alexander et al. (1977), urban residents are likely to feel more comfortable in positive outdoor spaces and use the spaces for diverse purposes. A typical example of positive outdoor space is the courtyard, which is an enclosed open space within buildings. Apart from the courtyard, the front and rear yards of individual buildings can also be surrounded by trees, hedges, and fences to become settings with positive quality. Such open spaces can offer occupants of the adjoining buildings access to outdoor environment with some degree of safety, privacy, and territorial control.

In urban settings, open spaces within and around buildings are used for various purposes. For instance, private gardens of residential buildings are known to serve religious functions to Muslims in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (Al-Nassan, 2008). Muslims utilize private gardens for daily prayers as a way of reflecting about paradise and after life. In Chinese cities, courtyards serve as an area for domestic activities such as washing and cooking (Pang, 2006). Likewise, Myeni (2013) documents that the courtyard serves as an area for household activities, marriage ceremonies, and daily ritual activities/worship in India. The study of Adeokun, Ekhaese, and Sodeye (2013) examines the use of the courtyard, and the front, rear, and air space of buildings in Nigeria. The authors found that the open spaces were used for activities such as petty trading, cooking, laundry, storage, and livestock rearing. Since open space serves various purposes, it is perceived differently by users.

The manner in which urban residents perceive, use, and experience open spaces is dependent on some factors. Faizi, Hosseini, and Maleki (2011) observed that people can make use of open spaces in different manners owing to variations in socio-economic characteristics such as age, educational status, and income. Along this line, Agboola, Rasidi, and Said (2016) documented that the users’ socio-cultural background, personal preferences, and accessibility and availability of supporting facilities for recreation are the factors influencing the use of open spaces.

In African settings, some researchers have opined that socio-cultural, economic, religious, and climatic factors are the major determinants of open space utilization (Aragaw, 2011; Falade, 1985). Furthermore, Okaka, Omondi, and Peter (2014) noticed that the principal land-use problems associated with the use of open spaces were noise pollution, indiscriminate dumping of refuse, and odor from uncollected wastes. Likewise, Okanlawon and Odunjo (2016) identified noisy environment, littering, blockage of drainages, and offensive odor from uncollected wastes and defecation as the major consequences of the use of open space for ceremonies in Nigeria. The fact that the use of open spaces generates land-use problems calls for a serious concern in African countries, particularly Nigeria.

In Nigeria, one type of living environment that requires much attention with regard to the use of open spaces is the traditional residential neighborhood. The area was built prior to the introduction of modern physical planning regulations by the British colonialists. It is therefore characterized by inadequate amenities and poor layout in terms of modern physical planning. The Western concept of neighborhood recreational parks and garden may also not apply to the area; however, open spaces within and around buildings are used by local residents for various socio-cultural activities. A good understanding of such activities could guide the physical planners on how to successfully plan, design, and manage open spaces according to the cultural practices and social needs of people in traditional environments of Nigeria, and by extension, Africa.

The Study Area: An Overview

The study area is the traditional residential neighborhood of Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria. Ile-Ife is mainly a Yoruba-speaking city. It is found between latitude 7°28′ and 7°45′ north of the Equator and Longitude 4°30′ and 4°34′ east of the Greenwich Meridian. Administratively, Ile-Ife is made up of two local government areas, which are Ife Central and Ife East (see Figure 1). The estimated population of the two local government areas were 230,300 and 259,700, respectively, in 2016. Both areas consist of 21 political wards for conducting elections (INEC, 2015). There are four distinct residential neighborhoods that can be identified in the city: traditional, transition, sub-urban, and post-crisis areas.

Figure 1.

Map of Nigeria and Osun State, indicating the local government areas of Ile-Ife.

The traditional residential neighbourhood is isolated for this study because the area is known to be the hub of socio-cultural activities in Ile-Ife. Located at the center of the area are the king’s palace, sacred gardens, shrines, and other cultural centers (see Figure 2). The residents are highly sociable, and rooted in traditions and culture. Despite the introduction of Christianity and Islam in Ile-Ife as in other Nigerian settlements, the residents still deeply cherish the worship of deities. Generally, the residents worship deities at two levels: the house and neighbourhood. The individual family deities are worshipped at the house level and the societal gods at the neighborhood level (Falade, 1985). This style of worship is done to uphold individuals and the community spiritually. Thus, the residents in the traditional residential neighbourhood are known to have real experiences of using open spaces in their daily lives for socio-cultural functions.

Figure 2.

Map indicating the traditional residential neighborhood of Ile-Ife.

The neighbourhood also serves as an ancestral home of origin for every indigenes of Ile-Ife. There is no indigene that does not have a family house in the neighborhood. The indigenes, irrespective of where they reside, usually return home whenever there are important socio-cultural events at the family house. The outdoor spaces of buildings are settings for diverse socio-cultural functions such as festivals and ceremonies. The area is also situated in the tropical region of the world where hot humid climate encourages outdoor life in open spaces within and around buildings. For all these reasons, the traditional neighborhood of Ile-Ife is an ideal environment for studying the socio-cultural uses of open spaces in Nigeria.

In delineating the traditional residential neighborhoods from the other residential districts, two factors were considered. These were historical and physical attributes of the buildings and the environment. Historically, the traditional neighborhood existed before the advent of colonialism in Nigeria. The existence of the neighborhood predates the introduction of modern physical planning in the country. Physically, the study area is predominantly residential. It is characterized by many old houses with mud walls and red roofs.

Methodology: Data Collection and Analysis

To provide optimal answers to the research questions, the study utilized data obtained through a questionnaire survey, direct observation, measurement of spaces, and photographic recording. To obtain the data, a total of 318 buildings with open spaces were identified in the study area. Using the systematic sampling technique, one of every two buildings with open spaces was selected for sample. This was after the first building had been chosen randomly. From this technique, questionnaires were administered to 159 household heads in the selected buildings. The questionnaire was used to obtain information on the socio-economic attributes of the residents in the selected buildings, the uses to which open spaces are put, the land-use problems associated with space utilization, and factors determining the uses of spaces.

Two indices were developed to measure the magnitude of land-use problems associated with the uses of spaces and the level of importance attached to the factors determining the uses. These were “Relative Aggregated View Index” (RAVI) and “Utilization Factor Index” (UFI), respectively. To obtain the RAVI, the respondents rated the land-use problems associated with open space utilization in the questionnaire using one of the 5-point Likert scales of strongly agreed (SA), agreed (A), just agreed (JA), disagreed(D), and strongly disagreed (SD). These ratings were assigned weight values of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively. The Total Weight Value (TWV) for each attribute is obtained through the summation of the product of the number of responses for each rating to an attribute and the respective weight value. Statistically, this is denoted as:

TWV = \sum_{i = 1}^{5} x i y i

where x_i is the number of respondents rating an attribute i; and y_i is the value attached to attribute i;

The RAVI for each of the variables was computed by dividing the TWV by the summation of the respondents to each of the five ratings. This is statistically expressed as:

RAVI = \frac{T W V}{\sum_{i = 1}^{5} x i}

where RAVI and x_i are as defined previously. The RAVI can take a value between 5 and 1. The nearer the RAVI to 5, the higher the respondents’ level of agreement to an effect of open space utilization.

The mean index ( $\bar{R A V I}$ ) was also computed. This was obtained by summing the indices of all land-use problems, and dividing it by the number of all the identified types of problems (n = 10). Similarly, the factors determining the socio-cultural uses of open spaces were measured in the study through the UFI obtained from the analysis of rating performed by the respondents. The rating is based on the 5-point Likert scale of very important, important, just important, not important, and not at all important. The method of arriving at the UFI was the same used for RAVI. There are numerous studies where respondents’ perception on the various elements of urban residential environment were determined through similar ratings (Adebara, 2017; Afon, 2011; Anand, 1999; Opricovic & Tzeng, 2003).

Direct observations and photographic recordings were also made on the sampled open spaces to find out about their uses and landscape character. The sizes of spaces were determined through actual measurement carried out using a measuring tape. This was done to establish minimum, maximum, and average sizes of open spaces. For instance, the sizes of front, rear, and air spaces of buildings were determined through the measurement of the distance between buildings and property boundary (beacons) to the frontline, and back and sides (right and left), respectively. In addition, information on the minimum size requirements for open spaces in residential development was obtained from the Ife Central Local Planning Authority. Research findings are as discussed as follows. Unless it is otherwise stated, the tables and figures through which findings are summarized and presented emanated from the survey carried out by the authors in 2017.

Research Findings

The findings are presented in four sections. The first discusses the characteristics of open spaces and the socio-economic attributes of residents in the traditional residential neighborhood. The second section is devoted to the documentation of the socio-cultural functions of open spaces. While the focus of the third is on the examination of the land-use problems associated with the use of open spaces, factors determining the utilization of open spaces for socio-cultural activities are investigated in the fourth section.

The Characteristics of Open Spaces and Socio-economic Attributes of Residents

The focus of this section is the examination of the characteristics of open space and the socio-economic attributes of residents. The examination is premised on the existing literature establishing that the characteristics of open space and users’ socio-economic background have influence on its utilization (Agboola et al. 2016; Faizi et al., 2011). The open spaces identified were courtyards, and front, rear, and air spaces of residential buildings.

The courtyard is an internal open space of buildings. It is an enclosed outdoor space within residential compounds for social exchanges among family members. It also gives room for day lighting, ventilation, and heat control. Courtyard houses in the traditional neighbourhood of Ile-Ife can be categorized into two groups. The first group consists of traditional residential compounds (Agbo-Ile) built around one or two courtyards. An example of a typical layout of traditional compound with open courtyard in the neighbourhood is presented in Figure 3. In most cases observed, almost all the rooms in the traditional compounds have access to the courtyards. The compounds are inhabited by the members of the extended family. It was observed during the survey that only few of such compounds have survived in the traditional neighbourhood. The reason for this could be connected to the socio-economic changes in Nigeria since the advent of colonialism and the quest for private home ownership. The second group consists of more recently built houses, with rows of rooms arranged around a common passage (corridor) that leads to the courtyard (See Figures 4 and 5). The passage also facilitates visual continuity into the adjoining courtyard as the living rooms and bedrooms within the houses are accessible through the passage. Such houses are inhabited by the members of the nuclear family.

Figure 3.

A typical layout of a traditional compound in Ile-Ife.

Figure 4.

Floor plan of a house with an open courtyard.

Figure 5.

A typical layout of a residential building for nuclear family in Ile-Ife.

Front, rear, and air spaces are outdoor areas around individual buildings. They are external open spaces of buildings. Front and rear spaces are areas between a building and property boundary (beacons) to the frontline and back respectively. Similarly, the distance between a building and the property boundary to the right and left sides is the air space. These spaces provide better condition for circulation of air around buildings. They also serve as a buffer area for preventing incidents such as fire from spreading to other buildings. The appearance of such open spaces exhibits the features of family outdoor lifestyle in the traditional neighborhood of Ile-Ife.

Generally, the open spaces were developed as hard landscape, either with cement concrete or bare surface. There were few conscious attempts at introducing trees, shrubs, and other soft landscape features into the open spaces to create well-shaded and aesthetically pleasing outdoor areas for socio-cultural activities. This could be a result of the residents’ lack of interest in landscaping, beautification of their outdoor environments and the high cost of maintaining soft landscape elements such as lawns, water fountains, and assorted flowering plants. Few trees commonly planted in outdoor spaces by the residents were limited to fruit trees such as Carica Papaya (Pawpaw tree), Mangifera Indica (Mango tree) and Musa Sapientum (Banana tree).

Information obtained from the Ife Central Local Planning Authority confirmed that there are minimum physical planning requirements (standards) for open spaces in the residential development. The minimum requirement was 4.5 meters for front space, and 1.8 meters for each of the rear and air spaces. It is therefore considered important to examine the sizes of open spaces surveyed to establish the minimum, maximum, and average sizes. The descriptive analysis of the sizes of open spaces is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Analysis of the Sizes of Open Spaces in the Study Area.

Open space	Units of measurement	Min. size	Max. size	Mean
Courtyard	m²	24.3	257.6	93.5
Front space	m	1.4	6.4	3.3
Rear space	m	0.4	1.4	0.9
Air space (right side)	m	0.5	1.3	0.9
Air space (left side)	m	1.0	1.7	1.4

Note: min. and max. represent minimum and maximum respectively.

From Table 1, the findings showed that the minimum size (area) of the courtyard surveyed was 24.3 m² while the maximum was 257.6 m². It was also established that the average size of the courtyards was 93.5 m². Courtyards of such dimensions were purposely designed to accommodate diverse socio-cultural activities within residential buildings in the neighborhood. For instance, courtyards served as an area for ancestral worship, graveyards for burying the dead (departed ancestors), and for social ceremonies among other uses.

Similarly, the computed average sizes of front and rear spaces of buildings were 3.3 m and 0.9 m respectively. This indicated that the average sizes of front and rear spaces of buildings were smaller than the minimum requirements specified by the town planning regulations in the residential neighborhood. It is therefore conclusive that there was a low level of compliance with physical planning regulations concerning the sizes of front and rear spaces of buildings. This could be ascribed to the fact that the traditional residential neighborhood had been in existence long before the advent of modern physical planning regulations in Nigeria. The modern regulations might not be in consonance with the standards employed in the area long ago. Moreover, it was observed during the survey that open spaces sparsely existed between several buildings in the area. In fact, many of buildings were only accessible through footpaths.

Like front and rear spaces, the average size of air spaces did not meet the minimum requirement of 1.8 m. Thus the space would not be big enough for socio-cultural functions and other uses. In addition, there would be problem of ventilation as a result of inadequate open spaces (especially with regards to the right and left side airspaces). In case of a fire outbreak, the adjoining buildings and their occupants would be in serious danger.

The study also investigated the socio-economic attributes of the residents, since they are the open space users. The attributes considered to have a very strong relationship with the focus of study were educational status, income, and residents’ length of stay in the neighborhood. The findings on the socio-economic attributes as summarized in Table 2 established that the highest proportion of the residents in the study area were lowly in educational qualification and income status. This finding corroborated the work of Afon (2011) that established that largest proportion of low-income earners and illiterate folks in Ile-Ife concentrated in the traditional residential neighborhood.

Table 2.

Residents’ Socio-economic Background in the Study Area.

Variable	Frequency (%)
Level of Education
No formal education	89 (56.0)
Primary	41 (25.7)
Secondary	26 (16.3)
Tertiary	3 (1.9)
Total	159 (100.0)
Income Group
Below poverty line	33 (20.8)
Low income	110 (69.2)
Middle	16 (10.1)
High	− (0.0)
Total	159 (100.0)
Length of Stay (years)
≤ 5	− (0.0)
6-10	33 (20.8)
11-15	19 (11.9)
16-20	27 (17.0)
> 20	80 (50.3)
Total	159 (100.0)

Furthermore, information presented in Table 2 indicated that all the respondents had lived for more than 5 years in the area. Under this condition, they were expected to have adequate information and knowledge on different uses of open spaces in the neighborhood.

The Socio-Cultural Utilities of Open Spaces

Discussed in this section are the socio-cultural activities that take place in the open spaces. They include social ceremonies, family meetings, ancestral worship/rituals, reception of visitors, playing of Ayo/Draft games, and story-telling. Such activities are products of the traditions and cultural value-system of the residents. They help the residents to connect socially, culturally, and spiritually. Thus, they are considered to be activities that are socially, culturally, and spiritually important and necessary.

As shown in Figure 6, social ceremonies were the most important activities that take place in courtyards. This accounted for 28.3% of all the socio-cultural activities. The reason for this could be attributed to the fact that the residents in the study area are highly sociable and rooted in culture. Moreover, any small-scaled traditional rites such as child naming, marriage, introduction, and funeral or wake-keep usually took place in the courtyard. Next to hosting social ceremonies, the most important uses of courtyard were for burying the dead (26.2%) and holding family meetings (16.6%). Similarly, it was showed through Figure 7 that ceremonies were the most common socio-cultural activities taking place in front spaces of buildings. The high cost of renting event halls for hosting social ceremonies in Nigeria could be responsible for this. Besides, it is part of the tradition and culture of Yoruba people to hold social ceremonies in family houses usually located in the traditional residential neighborhood. The use of the front space as burial ground ranked second in importance, accounting for 28.3%. This explains the cultural belief of the residents that burying the elderly around residence is an indication that the dead is the owner of the house. It is also seen as a way of assuring the presence of the deceased spirit around the loved ones.

Figure 6.

Uses of courtyards.

Figure 7.

Uses of front space of buildings.

The socio-cultural activities taking place in rear spaces of buildings were ancestral worship/rituals and burying of the dead. While the use of rear space as a burial ground accounted for 42.3% of the activities, the proportion of ancestral worship/rituals was 57.7% (See Figure 8). Thus, the most important socio-cultural function of rear space in the traditional neighborhood was ancestral worship/rituals. Like in the rear space, the uses of right and left side air spaces of buildings were ancestral worship/rituals and burying of the dead. However, the proportion of each the uses accounted for differed (see Figures 9 and 10).

Figure 8.

Uses of rear space of buildings.

Figure 9.

Uses of buildings’ air space (right).

Figure 10.

Uses of buildings’ air space (left).

From the foregoing, it can be seen that the courtyards and front spaces of buildings were used more intensively than the rear and air spaces (right and left). The explanation for this phenomenon could be the fact that the available rear and air spaces of buildings in the neighbourhood were not large enough for holding elaborate socio-cultural activities. For instance, a large area of space is required for entertaining guests and visitors during elaborate ceremonies. Moreover, as established earlier, there was a very low level of compliance with town planning laws as regards the minimum size requirement for rear and air spaces. Presented in Figures 11, 12, 13 and 14 are the life examples of open spaces used for socio-cultural functions in the study area.

Figure 11.

Open space used for holding social ceremony in the traditional area of Ile-Ife.

Figure 12.

Space used for entertaining guests during a social event in the study area.

Figure 13.

Space used as a burial ground in the study area.

Figure 14.

A sacred space used for worshipping river goddess (Osun Olugbodo) at the house level.

The Environmental Effects of the Socio-Cultural Utilities of Open Spaces

In urban settings, the uses of open spaces can generate land-use problems in residential neighborhood (Okaka, 2014; Okanlawon and Odunjo, 2016). To this end, the effects of the uses of open spaces for socio-cultural purposes in the study area were investigated. The rating of the effects of the uses of open spaces as indicated by the residents was used to develop the RAVI, as previously discussed. Summarized in Table 3 are the residents’ opinions on the level of the effects of the use of open spaces.

Table 3.

Residents’ Opinion on the Environmental Effects of the Uses of Open Spaces.

Effects of the uses of spaces	(Courtyard) RAVI	(Front space) RAVI	(Rear space) RAVI	(Right side air space) RAVI	(Left side air space) RAVI
Noise pollution	3.57	4.42	3.85	3.87	3.67
Breeding of mosquitoes and rats from open dump	4.04	4.33	4.14	4.13	4.10
Open space littering	4.02	4.25	4.39	4.45	4.20
Odor from uncollected waste	3.80	4.21	3.90	4.04	3.90
Contamination of surface and underground water source	3.65	4.03	3.78	3.53	3.83
Odor from filthy drain	3.68	3.96	3.77	3.21	3.93
Air pollution	3.58	3.88	3.77	3.67	3.70
Circulation disturbance within premises	3.74	3.71	3.89	4.42	4.10
Deface of aesthetic quality of residential environment	3.43	3.70	3.34	3.90	3.77
Blockage of drainage by wastes	3.31	3.19	3.81	3.17	3.63
$\bar{R A V I}$	3.68	3.97	3.86	3.82	3.88

The mean RAVI computed for the effects of courtyard utilization was 3.68. This implies that the aggregate view of the residents was between “agreed” and “just agreed”. Indeed, the figure is closer to the former than the later. Using the mean RAVI as a reference point, effects of courtyard utilization can be grouped into two. The first group consists of the effects with index above the mean RAVI. On the other hand, the second group comprises effects with index below the mean RAVI. While the group with index above the mean RAVI had positive deviations, the effects with index below the mean had negative deviations. Positive deviation indicated the effects that constituted major land-use problems. Hence, the residents were of the opinion that breeding of disease vectors, open space littering, odor from uncollected waste, and circulation disturbance within premises were the notable land-use problems emanating from courtyard utilization. The respective RAVI of these effects were 4.04, 4.02, 3.80, and 3.74. Each of these were above the computed $\bar{R A V I}$ of 3.68. On the other hand, the least rated effect was blockage of drainage by wastes with RAVI of 3.31.

The effects of the uses of front space that constituted major land-use problems included noise pollution, breeding of disease vectors, and open space littering. These had indices of 4.42, 4.33, and 4.25 respectively with positive deviation about the mean RAVI of 3.97. Conversely, the least perceived effect was blockage of drainage by wastes (3.19). This had negative deviation about the mean. With an index of 4.39, open space littering was the most perceived effect of the uses of rear space of buildings among the residents. In contrast, deface of aesthetic quality (3.34) was the least rated effect. Similarly, open space littering was the highly ranked effect of the uses of right and left side air spaces of buildings (see Table 3). Other important consequences of the usage of air spaces included circulation disturbance within premises, and breeding of mosquitoes, flies, and rats.

Factors Influencing the Use of Open Spaces

The level of importance attached to each of the factors determining the use of open spaces for socio-cultural functions, denoted by the UFI is presented in Table 4. From the findings, the most important factor considered to be influencing the use of courtyards was culture and tradition with a UFI of 4.21. Other important factors included the need for social interaction (4.17), the need for outdoor room during dry season/climatic condition (4.02), the need to have entertainment in the house (3.94), and the need for separate space for worship (3.93). Each of these had an index above the mean UFI. On the contrary, the factor with the lowest UFI was lifestyle and taste (3.53). This factor was considered to be of less importance in determining the use of courtyard for socio-cultural purposes in the traditional residential neighborhood.

Table 4.

Factors Influencing the Use of Open Spaces.

Factors	(Courtyard) UFI	(Front space) UFI	(Rear space) RAVI	(Right side air space) RAVI	(Left side air space) RAVI
It is part of our culture and tradition	4.21	4.70	3.83	4.04	4.31
The need for social interaction among neighbors	4.17	4.73	4.00	4.24	4.33
The need for outdoor room during dry season	4.02	3.64	3.95	4.08	3.98
To have entertainment in the house	3.94	3.98	3.51	3.92	3.93
High cost of renting halls for ceremonies/events	3.93	3.77	3.66	3.60	3.80
The need for separate space for worship around the house	3.92	3.79	3.47	3.76	3.81
Open space is used to bury and assures the presence of the dead	3.87	3.96	3.80	3.80	3.92
It is more secure and safe to have activities around the house	3.67	3.83	3.75	3.92	3.85
It is more convenient to have activities around the house	3.67	3.84	3.92	3.84	3.88
Poor economic condition	3.66	4.85	3.68	3.80	3.67
No serious regulation against usage of spaces around homes	3.65	3.55	3.65	3.72	3.60
There is no agency controlling the use of open space	3.64	3.58	3.70	3.68	3.54
Lifestyle and taste	3.53	3.60	3.50	3.56	3.53
$\bar{U F I}$	3.84	3.99	3.72	3.84	3.86

It was also shown that the most important factor determining the use of front space of buildings was poor economic condition with a UFI of 4.85. This had a positive deviation about the mean. Other factors with positive deviations included the need for social interaction, and tradition and culture. The indices for these were 4.73 and 4.70, respectively. In the same vein, the three most important determinants of the use of rear space were the need for social interaction among neighbors, outdoor room during dry season, and convenience, with UFIs of 4.00, 3.95, and 3.92, respectively. Furthermore, it could be deduced from Table 4 that the most important reason for the use of right and left side air space of buildings was the need for social interaction among neighbors, with indices of 4.24 and 4.33, respectively. On the other hand, the least rated factor influencing the use of the air spaces was lifestyle and taste with UFIs of 3.56 and 3.53.

Implications and Conclusion

From the given findings, the study established that open spaces within and around buildings were of socio-cultural value in the traditional residential neighborhood of Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Open spaces played crucial roles in the socio-cultural life of the residents by functioning as an arena for social ceremonies, ancestral worship/rituals, and family meetings as well as a graveyard for burying the dead, among other things. This suggests that governments and physical planners should endeavor to appreciate the socio-cultural benefits of open spaces in the area. There have been intentions for total slum clearance to upgrade the traditional residential environment (Afon, 2006). However, government activities here should be aimed at enhancing the quality of life of local residents without destroying the socio-cultural fabric. The existing open spaces in the neighborhood should be preserved, while the designing of new open spaces should be done in the light of the socio-cultural needs of the residents in addition to the modern requirements.

The study also showed that there was a low level of compliance with the minimum town planning requirements for the sizes of open spaces in the area, while most of the residents were lowly in educational and income statuses. This calls for the reassessment of the existing town planning regulations to take cognizance of the reality and the local conditions in the traditional environments. The contents of the regulations should be in consonance with the socio-economic status, cultural practices, and social needs of the residents. In order to improve the management of open spaces, it is recommended that the residents should be enlightened and educated on the implications of violating the minimum requirements for open spaces in residential development. In addition, they should be educated on the land-use problems that can emerge while they are using open spaces. Besides, the traditional neighbourhood is home to residents who are lowly in educational status. The residents can be educated through jingles (in local dialects) on the media. Educational and enlightenment talks can also be held in churches, mosques, and traditional worship centers in the neighbourhood.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Temitope Muyiwa Adebara

Author Biography

Abel Omoniyi Afon is a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. His research focuses on environmental management and urban studies. He has supervised several doctoral theses on issues that revolve around solid waste management, open space utilisation, place attachment, urban crimes and street children.

Temitope Muyiwa Adebara is a PhD candidate in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. His research interests and activities focus on open space and recreational planning, urban design and environmental & behavioral studies.

References

Adebara

T. M.

(2017). Physical planning implications of open space utilization in Ile-Ife, Nigeria (Unpublished master’s thesis). Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.

Adedeji

J. A.

Fadamiro

J. A.

(2011). The “duo”, building setback and landscape quality: Lautech (Nigeria) Neighborhood Examined. Journal of Architecture and Built Environment, 38 (1), 23-30.

Adeokun

C. O.

Ekhaese

E. N.

Isaacs-Sodeye

(2013). Space use patterns and building morphology in Yoruba and Benin domestic architecture: A study of two cultures in South-West Nigeria. In Kim

Y. O.

Park

H. T.

Seo

K. W.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 1-24). Seoul: Sejong University. Retrieved from http://www.sss9sejong.or.kr/proccedings/proceedings_1.asp

Afon

A. O.

(2006). The use of residents’ satisfaction index in selective rehabilitation of urban core residential areas in developing countries. International Review for Environmental Strategies, 6(1), 137-152.

Afon

A. O.

(2011). Residential differentials in behaviour and environmental hazards and risks perception in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. In: Afon

A. O.

Aina

O. O.

(Eds.), Issues in the built environment of Nigeria (pp. 52-80). Ile-Ife: Obafemi Awolowo University Press.

Afon

A. O.

Badiora

A. I.

(2017). The dynamics of crime opportunities: evidences from weather conditions and spatial pattern of residential neighborhood in Ibadan, Nigeria. Papers in Applied Geography, 1-20. doi: 10.1080/23754931.2017.1346520.

Agboola

O. P.

Rasidi

M. H.

Said

I. B.

(2016). Challenges in sharing neighborhood open space among residents in South-West, Nigeria. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research, 4(2), 34-49. Retrieved from www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com

Alexander

Ishikawa

Silverstein

Jacobson

Fiksdahl-King

Angel

(1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings and construction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Al-Nassan

(2008). Land of civilizations. Retrieved from http://www.landcivi.com/new June 14, 2016.

10.

Aluko

(2011). Development control in Lagos State: An assessment of public compliance to space standards for urban development. International Multidisciplinary Journal, Ethiopia, 5(5), 169-184. doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4314/afrrev.v5i5.14

11.

Anand

(1999). Waste management in Madras revisited. Environmental and Urbanization, 11(2), 61-176.

12.

Aragaw

M. T.

(2011). Urban open space use in Addis Ababa: The case of Meskel Square (Master’s thesis). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp. Retrieved from www.stud.epsilon.slu.se

13.

Bulus

(2016). Evaluation of courtyard usage and its design requirements in residential buildings in Nigerian hot-dry Climate. International Journal of African Society Cultures and Traditions, 4(4), 1-12.

14.

Carmona

Magalhaes

Hammond

(2008). Public space: The management dimension. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

15.

Carmona

Tiesdell

Heath

(2003). Public places urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Amsterdam: Architectural Press.

16.

CEQR (City Environmental Quality Review). (2014). City environmental quality review technical manual. New York City. Retrieved from www.nyc.gov>oec>pdf>2014_ceqr_tm.

17.

Faizi

Hosseini

S. B.

Maleki

S. N.

(2011). Achieving design guidelines of neighborhood open spaces through users’ characteristics in different times. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(19), 4000-4008. doi: 10.5897/SRE10.965

18.

Falade

J. B.

(1985). Nigeria’s urban open space: An inquiry into their evolution, planning and landscape qualities (Doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk>bitstream.

19.

Gold

S. M.

(1980). Recreation planning and design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

20.

INEC (Independent National Electoral Commission). (2015). Osun State directory of polling units. Federal Republic of Nigeria: INEC.

21.

Kilnarova

Wittmann

(2017). Open space between residential buildings as a factor of sustainable development: Case studies in Brno (Czech Republic) and Vienna (Austria). IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 95, 1-12. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/95/5/052008

22.

Kohn

(2004). Brave new Neighborhood: The privatization of public space. New York: Routledge

23.

Mabogunje

A. L.

(1968). Urbanization in Nigeria. London: University of London Press.

24.

Myeni

K. K.

(2013). “Courtyard as a building component” its role and application in developing a traditional built form, creating comfort: A case of Athangudi Village, India. International Journal of Chemical, Environmental & Biological Sciences, 1(4), 633-639.

25.

Okaka

F. O.

Omondi

Peter

J. M.

(2014). Eldoret town residents’ assessment of the use, changes in size and ownership of public open spaces in Eldoret Town, Kenya. The International Journal of Social Sciences, 26(1), 57-66. Retrieved www.tijoss.com

26.

Okanlawon

S. A.

Odunjo

O. O.

(2016). Residents’ evaluation of road utilisation as space for holding social ceremonies in indigenous residential area of Ogbomoso, Nigeria. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 216, 316-329.

27.

Oktay

(2002). Design with the climate in housing environments: An analysis in Northern Cyprus. Building and Environment, 37(10), 1003-12.

28.

Opricovic

Tzeng

(2003). Fuzzy multi-criteria model for post-earthquake land-use planning. Natural Hazards Review, 4(2), 59-64.

29.

Pang

W. K.

(2006).Urban morphology of traditional Chinese cities in the context of modernization: A Case Study of Suzhou. Turkey: 42nd ISoCaRP Congress.

30.

Priego

Baena

L. R.

Breuste

J. H.

(2012). The courtyards of Cordoba in Spain: Social functions of private spaces in historical neighbourhoods. Laufener Spezialbeltrage, 67-72. Retrieved from https://www.anl.bayern.de>doc>Isb201

31.

Stanley

B. W.

Stark

B. L.

Johnston

K. L.

Smith

M. E

. (2012). Urban open spaces in historical perspective: A transdisciplinary typology and analysis. Urban Geography, 33(8), 1089-1117.

32.

Wolley

(2005). Urban open spaces (2nd ed.). London and New York: Spon Press.

33.

Wahid

(2008). Utilization of open space–Tale of two cities. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Built Environment in Developing Countries (pp. 2193-2202). Retrieved from http://eprints.usm.my>HBP18