*4.2.1. Territoriality of the neighbourhoods*

Looking at the first indicator to measure territoriality of the study areas which is the use of landscape to create clear boundaries (see **Table 4**) it seems that KIS has the highest index at 2.8 while NBS has the least with 1.6. However, having the highest index at 2.8 out of a possible 5.0 seems to means that all the study area did not make much use of landscape as a good tool to create clear boundaries between the respective units. In terms of maintenance and cleanliness of the neighbourhood in the study area, KIS (again) seems to be the area that takes a keen interest in keeping highly maintained neighbourhood given its index of 4.4 while NBS neighbourhood appears not to take good care of its unit with an index of 2.4.

Also, there appears to be a wide gap in maintenance culture that include roads maintenance and building maintenance and landscape maintenance among others between the best-maintained areas and the least maintained. **Figure 1** above shows an example of overgrown grass in the open spaces of the Old Bodija area. Also, as shown in **Table 4** OBS and ALGRA seems to have the clearest definition of territories as evidence by its index of 3.0 each while Agodi GRA New and Bodija Scheme seems to have a relatively weak definition of its territories given an index of 2.2 the result also goes to show that it seems that all the areas do not have their territories clearly defined given a 3.0 index as the highest. In terms of elements used to define those territories, ALGRA & KIS seems to have an excellent return, this is manifested by an index of 5.0, while on the other end, Agodi GRA did not seem to care about the use element to define their territories. This can be seen in their index of 1.0. The wide gap between these areas underlines the ease with which areas seem to use simple elements to define their territories in their neighbourhoods, in the case of signs to define ownership; ALGRA seems to make the best effort at an index of 1.8 while all others areas have lower than this. However, the highest index of 1.8


#### **Table 4.**

*Territoriality of the Neighbourhood.*

**Figure 1.** *Picture showing the low level of maintenance in the neighbourhood.*

shows that perhaps not much effort is invested by the residents in putting signs that define ownership. **Figures 2**–**4**, below show evidence of ownership in ALGRA.

As for security signage at the entrance to the areas and neighbourhoods in the study areas, ALGRA seems to be in the forefront with an index of 5.0 while lowest is Agodi GRA with an index of 1.0. For Elements to restrict access ALGRA & KIS seems to have a better usage with an index of 4.0 and the lowest was New Bodija with an index of 1.6.

*Typological Analysis of Gated Communities Characteristics in Ibadan, Nigeria DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97365*

**Figure 2.** *Demonstration of ownership in ALGRA.*

**Figure 3.** *Wall around the GC and the security gate in ALGRA.*

**Figure 4.** *Street and entrance to ALGRA.*

In summary, ALGRA has the highest Territoriality index with 3.4 this was as a result of Elements used to define territory and Security sings at the entrance while NBS has the lowest index of 1.91.
