**5.4 Impact of residential land use on the study area**

Data from the National Population Commission [27] census analysed in **Table 3** shows a huge leap in housing development in both Ikorodu and Ibeju-Lekki local government areas from the year 2006. Ikorodu local government has witnessed a more residential land conversion than Ibeju-Lekki. Housing developments in Ikorodu was 52,819 units in 2006, and 89,609 units in 2016


**53**

*Disparity in Peri-Urbanisation Process in Lagos, Nigeria DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93530*

*Residential land use in the study area between years 2006 and 2016.*

for peri-urbanisation in both cases.

2006 \*

*Source: National population Commission [27].*

*\*\*Source: Field survey (2017).*

*\**

**Table 3.**

0.6% for other needs.

supply of materials for their enterprises.

public transport were considered in the study areas.

**5.5 Commuting patterns in the study areas**

as obtained in the surface counting of selected 18 peri-urban settlements in Ikorodu. In Ibeju-Lekki local government, as noted by the National population Commission [27], a total of 7701 housing units were acknowledged in 2006 while during the surface counting of residential developments aided by aerial photographs during the field work in September, 2016, 11,746 units of housing were noted in the selected 16 peri-urban settlements in Ibeju-Lekki. In comparison to the urban core, individuals have access to affordable lands for housing and economic-related developments in the peri-urban and this is a major pull factor

**Year Housing units Housing units**

2016 \*\*89,609 \*\*11,749

**Ikorodu Ibeju-Lekki**

7701

52,819 \*

In the expansion of periphery settlements, linkages play a huge role. This comes in terms of interconnectivity between metropolises and the rural areas. Good commuting encourages a pull of urban population to the city periphery for residential and industrial development. The commuting patterns of the respondents in the case studies as presented in **Table 4** shows 38.8% of Ikorodu residents commute daily to the city, 36.1% on a weekly basis and 25.1% as the need arises. This reflects good level of linkage between Ikorodu periphery and the surrounding urban areas. The commuting hour shows 31.1% of the residents spend less than 30 minutes for daily commuting to work, 30.6% spend about 1 hour, 13.5% show a commuting time of 1 hour, 30 minutes, 16.6% spend between 1 and 2 hours, 5.8% spend 3 hours and other unspecified commuting time is about 1.6%. Residents' purpose of commuting to the city shows 54.4% of the respondents' population commute to the city for work, 23.2% for groceries, 20.3% for supply of their medium scale businesses and

In Ibeju-Lekki, 34.2% of the respondents' population travel to the urban centres daily, 33.3% commute to the city centre weekly and 31.4% travel as the needs arise. The highest commuting time to and from places of work daily in Ibeju-Lekki periurban is 3 hours while the least commuting time is 30 minutes. 35.2% spends an average of 60 minutes (1 hour) daily commuting, 24.6% spend 90 minutes, 15.6% spends less than 30 minutes, 14.2% spends almost 180 minutes (3 hours) while 10.4% spend an average of 120 minutes (2 hours) commuting daily. 42.6% of the respondents travel for work related purpose, 30.3% travel to either the city centre and neighbouring peri-urban for groceries while 27% travel to the city centre for

**5.6 Impact of locational convenience on spatial expansion of the study area**

Convenience is vital in the expansion of cities 'periphery'. Factors like closeness to work, closeness to market or the central business district, and availability of

### **Table 2.** *Drivers of expansion in the study areas.*


### **Table 3.**

*Landscape Architecture - Processes and Practices Towards Sustainable Development*

also grew in response topography, culture and political reasons.

**5.3 Residents' perception of urban expansion in the study area**

increase because of the improved urban quality in Ibeju-Lekki.

**5.4 Impact of residential land use on the study area**

major highways while the growth of the inner periphery was in response to land speculation. With land reclassification and government acquisition of land for development, infrastructure limited was necessary thus aiding the opening of the inner periphery for mixed use development. Residential segregation and residents' socio-demography influenced the settlement patterns. Various types of settlements

From the perception of the residents, different factors were driving urban expansion in Ikorodu and Ibeju-Lekki periphery as analysed in **Table 2**. The major factors driving urban expansion in Ikorodu are low cost of living 20.8%, land affordability 18.2%, employment 16.1%, improved urban quality 12.9%, workplace location, and property investment. Ikorodu is known to house various institutions both private and public thus creating a haven for employment. In terms of land affordability, in comparison to the excessive cost of land in Lagos urban centre, Ikorodu provide good workplace and residential location at affordable cost. Other less important drivers are road accessibility, secured land tenure, cost of transportation, education and closeness to kinsmen. Peri-urbanisation process is driven by different principal factors in Ibeju-Lekki. In this periphery, major causes of the expansion in the study area are land affordability 27.3%, workplace location 14.8%, improved urban quality 15% and property investment 14.2%. Also vital to the growth of Ibeju-Lekki are employment and closeness to kinsmen. Governmentled and private developer-led housing developments in the study area are on the

Data from the National Population Commission [27] census analysed in **Table 3** shows a huge leap in housing development in both Ikorodu and Ibeju-Lekki local government areas from the year 2006. Ikorodu local government has witnessed a more residential land conversion than Ibeju-Lekki. Housing developments in Ikorodu was 52,819 units in 2006, and 89,609 units in 2016

**Drivers of expansion N = 379 % N = 366 %** Land affordability 69 18.2 100 27.3 Low cost of living 79 20.8 29 7.9 Workplace location 43 11.3 54 14.8 Improved urban quality 49 12.9 55 15 Employment 61 16.1 29 7.9 Study 7 1.8 3 0.8 Good and accessible road network 3 0.8 2 0.5 Low cost of transportation 10 2.6 1 0.3 Secured land tenure 14 3.7 15 4.1 Property investment 38 10 52 14.2 Closeness to kinsmen 16 4.2 26 7.1

**Ikorodu Ibeju-Lekki**

**52**

**Table 2.**

*Drivers of expansion in the study areas.*

*Residential land use in the study area between years 2006 and 2016.*

as obtained in the surface counting of selected 18 peri-urban settlements in Ikorodu. In Ibeju-Lekki local government, as noted by the National population Commission [27], a total of 7701 housing units were acknowledged in 2006 while during the surface counting of residential developments aided by aerial photographs during the field work in September, 2016, 11,746 units of housing were noted in the selected 16 peri-urban settlements in Ibeju-Lekki. In comparison to the urban core, individuals have access to affordable lands for housing and economic-related developments in the peri-urban and this is a major pull factor for peri-urbanisation in both cases.

## **5.5 Commuting patterns in the study areas**

In the expansion of periphery settlements, linkages play a huge role. This comes in terms of interconnectivity between metropolises and the rural areas. Good commuting encourages a pull of urban population to the city periphery for residential and industrial development. The commuting patterns of the respondents in the case studies as presented in **Table 4** shows 38.8% of Ikorodu residents commute daily to the city, 36.1% on a weekly basis and 25.1% as the need arises. This reflects good level of linkage between Ikorodu periphery and the surrounding urban areas. The commuting hour shows 31.1% of the residents spend less than 30 minutes for daily commuting to work, 30.6% spend about 1 hour, 13.5% show a commuting time of 1 hour, 30 minutes, 16.6% spend between 1 and 2 hours, 5.8% spend 3 hours and other unspecified commuting time is about 1.6%. Residents' purpose of commuting to the city shows 54.4% of the respondents' population commute to the city for work, 23.2% for groceries, 20.3% for supply of their medium scale businesses and 0.6% for other needs.

In Ibeju-Lekki, 34.2% of the respondents' population travel to the urban centres daily, 33.3% commute to the city centre weekly and 31.4% travel as the needs arise. The highest commuting time to and from places of work daily in Ibeju-Lekki periurban is 3 hours while the least commuting time is 30 minutes. 35.2% spends an average of 60 minutes (1 hour) daily commuting, 24.6% spend 90 minutes, 15.6% spends less than 30 minutes, 14.2% spends almost 180 minutes (3 hours) while 10.4% spend an average of 120 minutes (2 hours) commuting daily. 42.6% of the respondents travel for work related purpose, 30.3% travel to either the city centre and neighbouring peri-urban for groceries while 27% travel to the city centre for supply of materials for their enterprises.

### **5.6 Impact of locational convenience on spatial expansion of the study area**

Convenience is vital in the expansion of cities 'periphery'. Factors like closeness to work, closeness to market or the central business district, and availability of public transport were considered in the study areas.


### *Landscape Architecture - Processes and Practices Towards Sustainable Development*

### **Table 4.**

*Commuting patterns in the study areas.*

### *5.6.1 Availability of public transport*

Good public transportation system exists in Ikorodu as shown in **Table 5** and **Figure 4**. Among the respondents, 83.9% have access to good transport system while 15.6% do not. In Ibeju-Lekki, 22.1% of household heads lack good public transportation due to their residential location in the inner periphery. This is translated to high cost of transportation for residents without personal vehicles in such areas as shown by observation during the field survey. However, 77.6% indicated good public transportation at their disposal.

### *5.6.2 Closeness to work*

In Ikorodu, good accessibility to work is enhanced by the strategic locations of most institutions and the efficient distribution of government organisations around both primary and secondary roads. 72.8% of the respondents' population were privileged to have good proximity to their works while 26.9% were not as presented in **Table 5**. In Ibeju-Lekki, a greater percentage of the respondents have good workplace location than in Ikorodu. 85.8% indicated locational benefits while 14.2% are were negatively affected by their residential location in relation to places of work. These findings gives strength to Alonso's access trade off model which states that the choice of residential location in periphery settlements could offer an opportunity lost and opportunity cost. A trade-off exists between cheaper land in the peri-urban and the hours of commuting (**Figure 5**).

**55**

*5.6.3 Closeness to the central business district*

*Workplace locations in Ikorodu periphery. Source: Field survey (2017).*

In Ikorodu periphery, 72.0%, a reasonable size of the respondents had residential

location advantage by virtue of their proximity to the central business districts, but 27.4% were disadvantaged. 86.1% of respondents in Ibeju-Lekki periphery were

*Road networks and transportation system in Ikorodu periphery. Source: Field survey (2017).*

*Disparity in Peri-Urbanisation Process in Lagos, Nigeria DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93530*

**Availability of public transport**

**Closeness to work**

**Closeness to CBD**

*Source: Field survey (2017).*

*Analysis of locational convenience in the case studies.*

**Table 5.**

**Figure 4.**

**Figure 5.**

**Ikorodu Ibeju-Lekki**

**Variable N = 379 % N = 366 %**

Yes 318 83.9 284 77.6 No 59 15.6 81 22.1 Unknown 2 0.5 1 0.3

Yes 276 72.8 314 85.8 No 102 26.9 52 14.2 Unknown 1 0.3 0 0

Yes 273 72 315 86.1 No 104 27.4 51 13.9 Unknown 2 0.5 0 0


### **Table 5.**

*Landscape Architecture - Processes and Practices Towards Sustainable Development*

Daily 147 39 125 34.2 Weekly 137 36 122 33.3 Others (specify) 95 25 116 31.7

Less than 30 minutes 118 31 57 15.6 31–60 minutes (1 hour) 116 31 129 35.2 61–90 minutes (1 and half hours) 51 14 90 24.6 91–120 minutes (2 hours) 63 17 38 10.4 121–180 minutes (3 hours) 22 5.8 51 13.9 Unknown 9 2.4 1 0.3

Work 206 54 156 42.6 Groceries 88 23 111 30.3 Supply for business 77 20 99 27 Others 8 2.2 0 0

**Ikorodu Ibeju-Lekki N = 379 % N = 366 %**

**54**

(**Figure 5**).

*5.6.1 Availability of public transport*

*Commuting patterns in the study areas.*

**Frequency of commuting**

**Average time of commuting**

**Purpose of commuting**

*Source: Field survey (2017).*

**Table 4.**

*5.6.2 Closeness to work*

good public transportation at their disposal.

Good public transportation system exists in Ikorodu as shown in **Table 5** and **Figure 4**. Among the respondents, 83.9% have access to good transport system while 15.6% do not. In Ibeju-Lekki, 22.1% of household heads lack good public transportation due to their residential location in the inner periphery. This is translated to high cost of transportation for residents without personal vehicles in such areas as shown by observation during the field survey. However, 77.6% indicated

In Ikorodu, good accessibility to work is enhanced by the strategic locations of most institutions and the efficient distribution of government organisations around both primary and secondary roads. 72.8% of the respondents' population were privileged to have good proximity to their works while 26.9% were not as presented in **Table 5**. In Ibeju-Lekki, a greater percentage of the respondents have good workplace location than in Ikorodu. 85.8% indicated locational benefits while 14.2% are were negatively affected by their residential location in relation to places of work. These findings gives strength to Alonso's access trade off model which states that the choice of residential location in periphery settlements could offer an opportunity lost and opportunity cost. A trade-off exists between cheaper land in the peri-urban and the hours of commuting

*Analysis of locational convenience in the case studies.*

### **Figure 4.**

*Road networks and transportation system in Ikorodu periphery. Source: Field survey (2017).*

### **Figure 5.**

*Workplace locations in Ikorodu periphery. Source: Field survey (2017).*

### *5.6.3 Closeness to the central business district*

In Ikorodu periphery, 72.0%, a reasonable size of the respondents had residential location advantage by virtue of their proximity to the central business districts, but 27.4% were disadvantaged. 86.1% of respondents in Ibeju-Lekki periphery were

close to the central business district while 13.9% were not close to the central business district leading to increased commuting to the city.
