CHALLENGES IN SHARING NEIGHBOURHOOD OPEN SPACE AMONG RESIDENTS IN SOUTH-WEST, NIGERIA

Abstract

Researchers have attributed the collective sharing pattern of neighborhood open space such as the neighbourhood market square to various significant factors. The factors include users " socio-cultural background, personal identity and preferences. Similar factors are also rooted in socio-spatial determinants such as accessibility, features and facilities. It has been established that sharing open space among diverse ethnic groups often resulted to conflict, rift, and misunderstanding. As a result of this, little knowledge about ethnic groups sharing pattern in neighbourhood market square is known and thus become necessary to explore. Hence, this study highlights reasons adduced to the challenges targeting neighbourhood market located in socially and ethnically diverse communities of SouthWest , Nigeria. The significant of study focus on ways to sustain social interactions among the ethnic residents towards market square development. This exploratory research adopted a qualitative method in which " focus groups discussion " comprising thirty-five (n=35) participants from the three major ethnics groups representing three neighborhoods participated. The consensus group members " notes were transcribed arranged and analyzed using contents analysis and QSR N10 (Nvivo) software. The research findings identified the sources of associated problems to factors such as (i) challenges over the use of space, (ii) communication barrier and (iii) management problem. Notably, the paper recommends the following: (a) planning implication (i) re-planning and expansion of the market square to better accommodate more diverse users and facilities. (ii) Introduction of interactive social spaces within the market region. (b) Policy implication by instituting legal management committee in which all the ethnic groups will be adequately represented. The committee will be saddled with the responsibilities to oversee the affairs of market, and negotiate any disagreement among conflicting groups. Thus, study findings are beneficial to the professionals, society and the government at large. Proper planning, design and management of neighbourhood market square could better enhance residents " harmonious relationships which help in general neighbourhood development and sustainability.

Full text

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 34
CHALLENGES IN SHARING NEIGHBOURHOOD OPEN SPACE AMONG
RESIDENTS IN SOUTH-WEST, NIGERIA
Oluwagbemiga Paul Agboola
Faculty of Built Environment,
Department of Landscape
Architecture
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Post code 81310, Skudai, Johor
MALAYSIA
Mohd Hisyam Rasidi
Faculty of Built Environment,
Department of Landscape
Architecture
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Post code 81310, Skudai,
MALAYSIA
Ismail Bin Said
Faculty of Built Environment,
Department of Landscape
Architecture
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Post code 81310, Skudai,
MALAYSIA
ABSTRACT
Researchers have attributed the collective sharing pattern of neighborhood open space such as
the neighbourhood market square to various significant factors. The factors include users‟
socio-cultural background, personal identity and preferences. Similar factors are also rooted
in socio-spatial determinants such as accessibility, features and facilities. It has been
established that sharing open space among diverse ethnic groups often resulted to conflict,
rift, and misunderstanding. As a result of this, little knowledge about ethnic groups sharing
pattern in neighbourhood market square is known and thus become necessary to explore.
Hence, this study highlights reasons adduced to the challenges targeting neighbourhood
market located in socially and ethnically diverse communities of South-West, Nigeria. The
significant of study focus on ways to sustain social interactions among the ethnic residents
towards market square development. This exploratory research adopted a qualitative method
in which “focus groups discussion” comprising thirty- five (n=35) participants from the three
major ethnics groups representing three neighborhoods participated. The consensus group
members‟ notes were transcribed arranged and analyzed using contents analysis and QSR
N10 (Nvivo) software. The research findings identified the sources of associated problems to
factors such as (i) challenges over the use of space, (ii) communication barrier and (iii)
management problem. Notably, the paper recommends the following: (a) planning
implication (i) re-planning and expansion of the market square to better accommodate more
diverse users and facilities. (ii) Introduction of interactive social spaces within the market
region. (b) Policy implication by instituting legal management committee in which all the
ethnic groups will be adequately represented. The committee will be saddled with the
responsibilities to oversee the affairs of market, and negotiate any disagreement among
conflicting groups. Thus, study findings are beneficial to the professionals, society and the
government at large. Proper planning, design and management of neighbourhood market
square could better enhance residents‟ harmonious relationships which help in general
neighbourhood development and sustainability.
Keywords: Neighbourhood Open Space; Sharing Attributes; Ethnic Groups; Nigeria.
INTRODUCTION
Neighborhood open space such as “market square” is coined as a spatial planning that housed
people for discharging efficient distribution of their commodities and services (Omole et al.,
2013). Thus, it is a social area within a neighbourhood where various passive and active
sharing activities are initiated without contesting for its accessibility, right of use and
ownership or control (Megalhaes, 2010; Cobb, 2011). Explicitly, it is believed to be an arena
that favored publics‟ accessibility, meeting, interaction and engagement. According to Alubo,
(2011), the contentious use of open space in a multicultural community often time associate

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 35
with ownership tussle, mistrustful, discrimination and sometimes result to violence.
Similarly, the open space use could portray people‟s attitudinal behavior and ego exhibition
(Kyle, et al., 2004). The ego exhibition often time portrays by indigenes groups. The ego
attitudes also involve ownership and pride features in which certain place are primarily meant
for the indigenes, thus preventing other groups such as settlers from its use (Sweeney, 2004).
Literatures identified host of benefits are derived from sharing neighbourhood open space
among residents. It has been established that access to open space and natural settings permits
residents to be more physically and mentally active (Frumkin, 2001; Payne,et
al.,2005,Sugiyama,et al., 2008). It offers a unique setting where opportunities for social
interaction and benefits are derived (Kazmierczak, 2013; Thwaites, 2010; Lalli, 1992;
Hayward and Weitzer, 1984). This assertion implies that the values and benefits of open
space are paramount as it creates an avenue where residents from diverse socio-economic
background could relate together. In furtherance to this, the physical features of open space
and its planning should respond to the needs of residents from diverse cultural groups
(Francis, .2003; Wong & Domroes, 2005).
This paper focuses significance of open space management in relation to people and
environment interactions. However, fewer studies have directly explored occurrence of social
challenges associated with sharing neighbourhood market square among ethnics‟ users. The
understanding of the level of interaction among the users in Nigeria deserves studying, most
importantly in multi ethnic communities. This will further establish the associated importance
derived from enhancing ethnics‟ social interactions devoid of rancor, rift and
misunderstanding. The special report of United State Institute of Peace has iterated by Sayne
(2012) upheld the significance of this study “Nigeria, like many of its Sub-Saharan African
neighbors, struggles to accommodate ethnic and religious differences among its people.
Perhaps the third most ethnically diverse country in the world, Nigeria’s population of
150million also splits about evenly between Muslims, and Christians or animist faiths.
Hundreds of historic political units, cultures, languages, and micro economies jostle each
other in a space twice the size of California. Even under the best circumstances, this would
present real challenges for development, nation-building, and security”.
Rofe & Zarchin, (2012), identified that the creations and improvements of the open space in
rural settings relied on four key attributes, such as (i) sociability (ii) uses and activities (iii)
access and linkages and (iv) comfort and image. Therefore, the success of neighbourhood
open space depends on residents‟ active participation and involvement in communities‟
activities. The involvement of communities residents in decision making process encourage
them and give a sense of ownership and responsibility towards their neighbourhood
surroundings. Succinctly, the main objective of this research work is to explore the
challenges associating with resident interactions in “neighbourhood market square” in
Nigeria. This was supported by literature that the level of communal sharing in multi-ethnic
setting, cum socio-cultural factors in rural neighbourhood needed to be examined (Ukiwo,
2006; Bryne, 2012; Falade, 1989).The study aims at harnessing the potentials of open space
towards sustaining ethnics‟ interactions that helps on improving market square and
community development. The research findings ought to answer the following research
questions. (i) What are the challenges that associate with sharing neighbourhood market
square? (ii)Is there any perception of conflict or rift? (iii) Does sharing affected by cultural
diversity? (iii) Conflict resolution methods. (iv) Is there any impact of residents‟ sharing
towards community development and unity?

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 36
LITERATURE
In a bid to clearly understand the study concept, it becomes imperative to examine the
interrelationships among the diverse ethnics within the market square, residents‟ satisfaction
degree within market, as well as the physical conditions among others. In addition, the status
of ethnic diversities and their characteristics are equally important to discuss.
Ethnic Residents’ Social Interactions within the Market
Interaction in open space is viewed by Megalhaes, (2010), as synergy of equal right of access,
use and ownership. Also, it is suggested not to be contested, but acting as an interactive
arena, devoid of any form restrictions, regardless of the socio-cultural and ethnic background
of its users. Affordance of social interactions and recognition of other user‟s identity in open
space solidify the social contact (Huang, 2006; Völker, et al., 2007). Similarly, it was opined
that, sharing affordability of open space intertwine with networking (resident‟s social
relationship), engagement (participation of residents in neighbourhood activities and events)
as well as trust and belongingness (Kang, 2006). Definitions of open spaces by scholars
emphasized its free access for all users or groups. For instance, open space accessibility
abounds to be free, while its maintenance and management should be given an utmost
priority (Jacobs, 1961; Madanipour, 1999). In view of this, there were opinions that open
space offers people of different backgrounds opportunities for similar activities, responsive to
acceptance of each other‟s ways of life (Cattell, et al., 2008). Therefore, the successful
attributes of open space‟s design and planning depend on its creation of a conducive place for
social interactions and attraction (Sunarja, et al., 2008; Whyte, 1985).
The JRF report (2006), established the prerequisite for social interaction in open space as a
composition of residents‟ familiarity, regular use, endurance, and availability of facilities.
The qualities of open space are predetermined by the character, adaptability and diversity
(Williams and Green, 2001. Similarly, the non-discriminative nature of open space regardless
of class and age of users is important (Carr, et al., 1992). Scholars have described open space
as publicly accessible places that facilitate activities necessary for community building. For
instance Thompson (2008) while supporting this view, adjudged that open space‟s
accessibility should be equitable to all residents. Similar research in multiethnic community
of East London identified the importance of open space in the provision of equitable ground
for ethnic‟s experiences and social diversities, leading to reduction in the level of intolerance
among users (Dines and Cattell, 2006).
However, it has been established that the higher the residential social interaction, the higher
the community social development (Lalli, 1992; Kim, 1997; Carmona, 2010). Interaction
opportunity created by open space usage among diverse ethnics indicates a feeling of
acceptance of each other (Putnam, .2000). The acceptance is tantamount to human social
contacts in public space having unifying power to abridge diverse ethnics and cultural
background (Fainstein, 2005). It was noted that people with different cultural and ethnic
backgrounds utilized open spaces differently (Burgess et al., 1988; Tinsley et al., 2002).
Therefore desiring efforts are needed to better enhance residents‟ general interest towards
harmonious interaction (Dines and Cattell, 2006). Meanwhile, activities in open space
promote inhabitants‟ residential satisfaction, dependence, trust and sharing among other
social needs. Consequently, it was affirmed that differences in social and cultural factors
could act as an impediment to residents‟ participation in neighbourhood open spaces‟
activities (Brownson et al., 2001).

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 37
Ethnic’s Diversities and Open space Utilization Characteristics
The ethnics‟ diversities play a significant role while examining the pattern of neighbourhood
market square‟s utilization and interpretations (Rishbeth, 2004). Researchers have iterated the
different pattern of open space use among diverse groups around the world. However, the
research findings suggest that various ethnic groups have different patterns of behavior. For
instance, a study in Montreal by Sweeney, (2004), revealed different approaches and
perceptions to public space planning and management in the multi-ethnic neighbourhood of
Mountain Sights. The study‟s findings shows that utilization patterns of ethnics differ due to
a reasonable distance that was kept among them in the case study areas. Likewise, four parks
were studied in Los Angeles, by Loukaitou-sideris, (1995), and it was discovered that Whites,
Hispanics, African-Americans and Chinese had diversities in public space use. The author
compared patterns of usage between African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and Whites.
Findings also revealed diversities in the usage pattern. Hispanics frequently use open space
collectively in social groups, appreciating the social valued provided by the open space.
While, African Americans were involved in sporting, hence preferred the social and relaxing
benefits provided by open space. On the other hand, Whites used the place for walking and
jogging and valued the space aesthetics qualities. Meanwhile, Chinese users preferred social
interaction among each other. Sequel to this, differences were found between users of
different races and ethnicities on preferences, perceptions, and use patterns in an open space
as reinstated by Gobster, (2002).
The existence of differences in the attitudes of Blacks and Whites in American society toward
open space was also emphasized by Elmendorf et al., (2005). The examinations of public
space preferences and behaviors among residents were done and findings suggested that, race
has the strongest influence on the preferences for open space activities (Payne, et al.,.2002).
Previous research has determined cultural differences in landscape appreciation. Comparison
was made between environmental attitudes of Turkey and Canada in the context of cultural
and contextual factors by Sarigollu, (2009), and discovered attitudinal differences across their
cultures. A similar quantitative research study on ethnic, social relationship in public space in
East London by JFR report, (2006), indicates two significant findings among others (i) the
inter-ethnic encounter in public space affords social interaction that enhances local
attachment and people‟s commitment to their areas. (ii) Public spaces are adjudged to be an
important arena for sharing ethnic diversity experiences. Hence, it led to the enhancement of
the social contact between ethnic groups. The way people perceive the open space is
dependent on the characteristics of open space features, facilities, accessibility and the users‟
background. Sometimes open space may be perceived as welcoming, appealing, safe, and
accessible, while at times the perception might be negative in terms of intolerance hence
having an influence on the use pattern. Therefore, the open space could be perceived
differently by diverse people and users, based on their background (Sarigollu, 2009). In
addition, open space must be well maintained, permits range of activities, and foster social
interactions among the users.
RESEARCH STUDY AREA
Ijebu-jesa, Ijeda and Iloko are ancient communities situated in Oriade local government of
Osun state, at the South-western part of Nigeria, in Africa. The population of the local
government stands at about 148,379 (Year 2006 Nigerians census figure), with an average
coverage area of about 465 square kilometers. Ijebu-jesa town is the local government
headquarter, distant eight kilometers north of Ilesha and around 128 kilometers east of Ibadan,

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 38
and lies approximately on latitude 7.45 degrees north within the rain forest zone. The town is
encircling by two villages, Iloko-jesa and Ijeda towns among others. These two villages are
located in the north eastern part of the highly mineralized Ilesa schist belt south western
Nigeria; bounded by Latitudes 7º37'000"N and 7º41'100"N and Longitudes 4º43'500"E and
4º50'700"E.(Kayode, 2009).The choices of the neighbourhood towns for study were as a
result of their accessibility and centrality. The average distance between Iloko to Ijebu-jesa
township areas falls within two kilometers, ditto for Ijeda to Ijebu-jesa towns. Meanwhile, a
distance of about one kilometer runs through Iloko and Ijeda towns. Diverse ethnic groups
predominantly occupy the three towns with Yoruba (Indigenes), Hausas and Igbos as settlers
who migrated from other zones of the country.
Similarly, the choices of the case study market squares were equally based on their
peculiarities as the nerve centers of the socio-economic activities of the communities, where
diverse ethnic interacts. In addition, the neighbourhood markets studied possess similar
physical characteristics with other markets in the south–west region of the country. Each
market square occupies an average area of about one to two acres of land with open and few
locked up stalls. Traders display various items ranging from food items, house hold materials,
electrical, textiles and so forth, Figure 1 refers. The origin of the neighbourhood markets
could not be established but started about hundred centuries ago, when buying and selling
started with “barter”, and later with “cowries (Babatope, 2013). Beehive of market activities
is at its peak in every three-day because of its periodic nature. Nevertheless, low trading
activities operates every day in recent time.
Figure 1: Area occupied by the market square within the neighbourhood
Source: Researcher‟s field work (2015)

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 39
RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODS
This is an exploratory and interpretive research approach hinges on qualitative method, which
is deemed appropriate for studying human perceptions, behaviors, feelings and attitudes
(Draper, 2004; Fade, 2004). However, qualitative approach enables a meaningful
understanding of people‟s experiences in their natural settings, without much influence
(Allwood, 2012).This research work adopted “Focus group discussion” as a method for data
collection through a semi-structured group interview process, moderated by a group leader
Cohen and Crabtree 2006. Plethora of research work has adopted qualitative techniques in
open space studies, such as in-depth interviews (Ho, et al., 2005; Krenichyn, 2006). However,
fewer studies have adopted focus group discussion method which has been established by
Cresswell (2012), to be an effective method of getting feedback from participants on similar
research objectives.
A focus group is simply defined as a small group of interacting individuals having some
common knowledge, interest or characteristics, brought together by researcher in an
interactive manner to gain information about a specific or focused issue. In line with this
definition, focus group is discussion organized to explore a particular set of issues (Kitzinger,
1994; Rabiee, 2004). Focus group offers uniqueness in the provision of data generated from
synergy of the harmonious group interaction. Also, the method offers several advantage
among which is its creation of opportunity for researchers to investigate sensitive issues
(Cameron, 2005).
Focus Group Participants’ Recruitment and Sample Justifications
Focus group participants are small group of people recruited in many ways ranging from
nominations, random selection, networking, and volunteers among others. Therefore,
nomination sampling method were adopted in recruiting thirty- five (35) potential participants,
through the market leaders, community heads and local government administration board.
There were no standard sample sizes for qualitative research such as focus group discussion.
Feedback from small sample size will not invalidate the findings, as the main aim of the
research is to obtain in-depth understanding of the research concept, not to represent a larger
population (Rodriguez et al., 2001). However; it is advisable to keep groups as small as
possible, because managing large groups seems difficult.
An average of nine participants per session, or sometimes numbers between six to ten
homogenous strangers (respondents) is suggested by Morgan, (1996). Meanwhile, Wilkinson
(2003) advocates between six to eight participants as ideal population. The participant‟s
occupational backgrounds cut across, professionals, government employee, market men and
women, who have been residing in the neighborhood and familiar with the market for more
than three years. The neighbourhood town hall was chosen as the venue of the program,
because of its proximity to the market square and its central position within the
neighbourhood. Meanwhile, flow chart showing the procedure adapted from participants‟
recruitment procedure to research findings is graphically depicted in Figure 2.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 40
Figure 2: Focus group research flow chart
Source: researcher‟s intuition
Justification for Adopting “Focus group Discussion” Method
Researchers have been using “Focus group discussion” as qualitative data collection procedure
in various fields of leisure study, landscape and urban planning, community studies,
environmental amongst others. For instance, a leisure study was carried out through studying
the cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion, among the Latino, non-users of Urban
Park in Los Angeles (Bryne, 2012). This was an exclusively qualitative research method
adopted “focus group discussion” with a total number of twenty-three participants recruited
cutting across diverse sample of the target population. The study findings suggest an equal
access to park and nature cities of Los Angeles by all users. Similar rural study was conducted
by Holdsworth, (2009) through the same method of qualitative data collection, with twenty
nine (29) participants. The study focused on identification of a common understanding of the
concept of community cohesion and residents‟ experiences in an Australian country Town.
The research findings revealed host of factors as indicators of community cohesion, such as
neighbourliness, provision of services, and good physical environment. In the same vein,
focus group technique was adopted in the study of the contribution of local parks to
neighbourhood social ties in three inner cities of United Kingdom with eighteen (18) focus
group participants (Kazmierczak, 2013). Research finding suggest that local parks may
support the development of social ties among the park users.
Focus Group Deliberations
Though the focus group structured questionnaire was written in English, each of the
moderators were native speakers of their languages, simultaneously translated the questions to
the participants, in which the responses were equally noted accordingly. Detailed clarification
and explanations on the questions have been earlier communicated to the moderators before
the commencement of the sessions. Four sessions were held in all, with each session
completed at an average time of an hour. The first session made up of sixteen (16) Yoruba
ethnic group respondents who are indigenes; second session consisted ten (10) Igbos
respondents that are settlers from eastern part of the country. While, the third session
comprised of nine (9) Hausas respondents that migrated from Northern part of the country.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 41
The joint sessions was the fourth that combined all the sessions, the Yorubas, Hausas, and the
Igbos respondents totaling (35) thirty five respondents in all. Each group respondents‟
comments were tape recorded, and the notes were as well taken by each group moderators,
documenting the order in which respondents opined to the questions. Afterwards, the summary
consensus notes from each group moderators and their tapes were retrieved for subsequent
transcription and summary.
Data Analysis
However, qualitative approach is interpretive in nature and utilizes data in the form of text
and phrases (Neuman, 2000). It hinged on interpretative phenomenology analysis as a
method of analyzing interview data (Fade, 2004). The sequence of analysis involves, data
grouping, information labels and findings. Thus, the open and axial coding of each session‟s
consensus decision extracts was grouped by QSR N10 (Nvivo software). First, it separated,
compared and categorized the core data based on themes. Secondly, it creates links or
relationships between data categories. This provides the summary of the responses of each of
the groups based on the focus group semi-structured questionnaires. Prior to the analysis was
the development of initial coding tree. Afterwards, the coding tree was modified based on
consensus participants‟ responses, which formed the basis for transcript analysis. The coding
trees identified the key themes and matched to the groups. The identification of final core
categories and their relationships was achieved through manual selective coding based on the
themes extracted from the Nvivo grouping. However, summary of the themes comprising
each ethnics group decision extract were presented in the findings.
RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Respondents’ Profile
Despite the fact that the study is primarily qualitative in nature, better still, descriptive
statistics could still be used for the participants‟ profile. The male participants were 20(57.1%)
as against female participants who were 15(42.9%). Out of the total numbers of participants,
16 (45.7%) were government employed (Architects, Planners etcetera), while 19 (54.3%) were
self-employed (Market, men, women, artisans among others). The Yoruba ethnic participants
made up of 16 (45.7%) participants while Igbo ethnic participants comprised 10 (28.6%) of
the participants. Meanwhile, the Hausa/Fulani ethnic participants comprised of 9(25.7%)
participants. The participants‟ population does not have any negative impacts on the focus
group findings [60-62]. Participants from Ijebu-jesa township area comprised of 18(51.4%),
Iloko town were 10 (28.6%) while Ijeda town were 7(20%), Table 1 refers.
Table 1: Respondents’ profile
S/No
Profile
Participants„
Demographic
characteristics
Number of
participants
(n= 35)
Percentage
(%)
(100%)
1
Sex
Male
20
57.1
Female
18
42.9
2
Marrital
Profile
5
Ethnic groups
Yoruba
16
48.7
Igbo
10
28.6
Hausa/Fulani
9
25.7
6
Current
employment
Government
employed*
16
45.7

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 42
Status
Married
24
68.6
Single
11
31.4
3
Age groups
18-30years
9
25.7
31-50years
9
25.7
51years
above
17
48.6
4
Years lived in
Town
3-5 years
4
11.4
6-8 years
13
37.1
9-10years
7
20
11years and
above
11
31.4
Self-employed*
19
54.3
7
Education status
No formal
education
10
28.57
High school
9
25.71
Bachelor or 1st
Degree
8
22.85
Post Graduate
degree and above
8
22.86
8
Participants‟
Neighbourhood
affiliation
Ijebu-jesa town
18
51.4
Iloko town
10
28.6
Ijeda town
7
20
*Government employed includes: Professionals, such as Architects, Planners amongst
others.*Self-employed: Market men and women, artisan among others.
Focus Group Consensus Decision Extracts
Theme One: Conflict and Dominance Perceptual Dimensions
This section of the focus group questionnaires explore evidence of conflicts and rift among
the residents during interactions within the market square. It also enquires about the
significance of residents‟ sharing. The participants‟ group affirmed iota of conflict,
misunderstanding and rift during interactions. Focus group respondents equally iterated their
willingness and urge towards sharing market square with other ethnics, if the open space is
improved upon. Participants relate the sharing attitudes, though at lowest ebb to benefits
derived from mutual transaction of business and religion. For instance, the consensus of
Yoruba focus group participants stated thus:“There are occasions that conflict and
misunderstanding arises, fighting occurs among users due to limited space to display their
commodities….. Individual sellers strive to make sales from the displayed goods. Language
difference also contributes to rift and conflict...better still; we are enduring each other…
“Since we cannot just ignore or prevent other ethnics from coming to the market ……we need
improvements in our interactions and association.. We share the market together, have to
trade together…we mean selling and buying commodities together”.
This extract implies that conflict and rift arises, with moderate sharing and engagement. The
residents attributed this to the economic benefits derived from open space interactions. This
upheld previous research identified (Chiesura, 2004; Thompson, 2002).Nevertheless; there
are needs to further improve on active residents‟ interactions through provision of enough
spaces and facilities. The extract from Hausa group:“There are misunderstanding sometimes.
Sharing the market associates with conflicts as a result of inadequate spaces, there are
occasion that some users engages in fighting probably due to language barrier... Committee
could be set up to look into settling the conflict when it occurs. There will be rancour where
we have gathering of many people. ...misunderstanding always happens. .... notwithstanding
…despite we try to tolerate, respect and understand each other identities in this market
….even our religion also support the idea of mutual interrelationship…. Better still we need

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 43
improvement in the market for better sharing among us” There seems to be perceived
conflict among the users during their interactions. However, the extract substantiates the
prevalence of mutual understanding and acceptance between the diverse ethnics. This could
have been traceable to their religions and mutual benefits derived. This view was supported
by literatures that identified interrelationship between diverse groups could be as a result of
mutual engagement, tolerance and endurance (Putnam, 2000; Gilchrist, 2004).Regardless,
there are needs for improvements. Notably, there is evidence of conflict among the ethnic
users; this concurs with the previous findings of literatures (Alubo, 2011; Kyle, et al.,
2004).Also, it corroborates study‟s findings of Sweeney (2004) that revealed that minor
conflicts may ensue between residents in the neighbourhood. Summarily, three factors were
identified by the focus group participants as the root cause of the conflicts and rifts. These are
(i) contestation over the use of space due insufficiency. In other words, limited number of
open space to display goods and items, results to traders striving to use the available ones. (ii)
Language or communication differences which tend to limit resident‟s ability to form more
social ties within the market as supported by Brown and Brooks (2006) (iii) Competitions to
sell the same commodities to prospective shoppers.
Theme Two: Residents’ Sense of Community
This section sought if the use of market square influences residents‟ social interaction within
the community. The Igbo group consensus extract stated thus:“The fact that we are from
different ethnic backgrounds did not affects our interactions. Regardless of our differences in
language, culture, religion and social background we relates together in the community.
….we understands each other better every day. There are inter- marriages among the ethnic
groups, in which the courtship started from the market…some makes friends from the market
square...”The Yoruba group consensus extract:“sharing market is beneficial to the entire
community because it acts as the centre of activities for all groups, in terms of commerce,
transportation, social etc. Even the community events and meetings often held in the market
square. It increases diverse opportunities for social interactions with neighbours, and
enables meeting new visitors. Youth often like visiting the market to catch fun. Definitely, it
assists in building and uniting community residents (old and young). It impacts positively on
the communal togetherness” The extracts indicate that sharing the market seems positively
affect residents‟ social interactions and togetherness in the community (Francis, et al., 2012;
Kim and Kaplan, 2004).
Theme Three: Residents’ Disputes and Conflict Management
The residents‟ dispute and conflict resolution procedures were sought. The consensus
decision extract elicited the procedural methods initiated in conflict resolution. However, the
most prominent and common method is the resolution by the market men and women leaders
(“Iyalojas” and “Babalojas”). Other methods include the settlement by the community high
chiefs, ethnic group‟s representative leaders, King (“Oba”) and occasionally by government.
Hierarchical method of conflict resolution is diagrammatically represented in Figure 3. The
flow chart pattern has four levels in all, with government intervention as the highest level of
conflict resolution. If the conflict could not be resolved by level one and two intervention,
then the onus lies with the King at the third level, who traditionally is the owner of the market
to settle the rift. Meanwhile, the seriousness of the rift will determine the government
intervention. This happens to be the highest peak of conflict resolution.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 44
Figure 3: Hierarchical methods of conflict resolution procedures. Level 1: Market’s
leaders. Level 2: Community chiefs and ethnic groups’ leaders. Level 3: King (Oba).
Level 4: Government.
Theme four: Appraisal of residents’ satisfaction with physical environment of the
market square
This part of the questionnaires enquired about the residents‟ satisfaction with the current
market‟s physical conditions and their suggestions for improvements. All the three focus
group sessions suggest improvements on the current physical condition of the market square;
meanwhile some challenges were equally identified in the decision extracts. For instance, the
Yoruba participant‟s consensus extract stated thus:“We need improvements….more
permanent stalls and shops for us to display their commodities. We are exposed to the harsh
climatic conditions during the raining and dry seasons… trees can be planted to act as
shades from the weather…. If the market can be extended or expanded to cater for more
stalls and facilities….we shall be pleased. Markets’ overcrowding is increasing each
day…Appropriate committee could be established by the government to see to the
maintenance of the market surroundings….policies could be formulated in this regards
too”Hausa group participants extract:“…..the maintenance of the market surroundings needs
to be improved upon “Litters are found within and around the market areas. More facilities
are needed. Government should please assist by restructuring and upgrade the area to
contain all the facilities…perhaps a committee could be set up to look into this”.Igbo group
participants extract:
The main entrance roads to the market needed to be improved upon … and people movement
within the market have not been so free….. More public toilets, bore hole or deep wells are
needed.…… fire station could be established within the market areas in case of fire
outbreak…government can assist us in re-designing or expanding the market”. The extract
above illustrates perceived challenges and improvement is sought in provision of adequate
stalls, improved market maintenance, accessibility, circulation, infrastructural facilities,
provision of shade such as vegetation and trees among others. This concurs with similar
research work (Bryne, 2012; Falade, 1989).Also, previous research established that having
greenery and vegetation in open spaces could improve frequent and casual contact among
residents, which invariably enhance neighbourliness where residents support, care and protect

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 45
each other (City park forum. 2003). In view of the above, the framework of the
interrelationships among the study concept, research findings and recommendations are
presented graphically in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Framework of interrelationships between study concept, findings and
recommendation
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
A joint collaborative effort is required from all the stake holders in built environment,
consisting, professionals, residents, entrepreneurs, government and non-governmental
agencies towards improving the social interactions among the residents. Notably, stake
holders have roles to play by joining hands and participate in the process of sustaining the
resident‟s interactions within neighbourhood market square. Professionals need to take
cognizance of essence of creating harmonious open space towards the sustainability of both
the cultural and social diversity of its ethnic users. At the end, open space devoid of ethnic
rancor and conflict could be achieved. This study‟s recommendations are in two folds, first
dealt with open space planning, while the second is in line with the policy formulation.
(i) Planning and Design Implication
Re-planning and expansion of neighbourhood market square will better accommodate diverse
users and creates conducive environment. Therefore, this will ameliorate the associated
conflict identified. Expansion of the spatial layout, provision of adequate facilities such as
interactive space, water, good roads, and landscaping element will improve the user‟s well-
being, market patronage, and market attractiveness. However, open space‟s attractiveness
could be enhanced through planting of trees, shrubs, flowers among others. The
communication barrier impede residents‟ social ties. As such, language differences decreases
residents‟ ability to form social ties within the community. Therefore creating conducise
interactive outdoor sitting areas within and around the market square will help further
enhance effective social interactions among the diverse users.
Market square
&
Neighbourhood
developments
Open
space's
Appraisal
Community/
Government
involvement
Potentials for
Improvement
Challenges
in utilization
Conflict
/dispute
management
Residents'
sharing
patterns

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 46
(ii) Policy Formulation
Setting up of legal market‟s management committee saddled with the various responsibilities
among which are to oversee the affairs of the market become paramount. The three ethnics
groups should be dully represented as committee members during compositions. Active
involvement and participations of community members are important in decision making
process in connection with their open space and the community at large. Other
responsibilities of the committee should include enhancement of social interaction among
users and decision making to resolve or minimizes conflict. This study recommends that to
minimize conflict warrant adequate commitment towards enacting and enforcing better
policies. Hence, the values of coexistence, cooperation, and tolerance could be meaningful. In
view of this, equality and abridged diversity could be achieved. Proper open space‟s
management through setting up of mechanism for achieving clean, neat, and hygienic
environment is recommended. Through this, litter and waste could often time be disposed.
Well maintained and attractive market will trigger more users‟ satisfaction and
neighbourhood neighbourliness.
AUTHOR’S NOTE
This study formed part of the first author‟s ongoing PhD research work at the Faculty of Built
Environment, Department of Architecture, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310, Johor
Bahru, Malaysia.
.
REFERENCES
AluboOgoh 2011. ”The public Space in Nigeria. Politics of Power, gender and exclusion”.
Africa Development, 36(1), 75–95.
Allwood, C. 2012. The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is
problematic. Quality & Quantity, 46(5), 1417-1429.
Babatope, Babaniyi 2013. Ijebu-jesa. The Authentic History (Ijebu-Egboro, City set on the
Hill .First edition. Publication of Ijebu-Jesa Unions‟ Conference (IJUC).
Brown, E. E., & Brooks, F.. 2006. African American and Latino Perceptions of cohesion in a
Multiethnic Neighbourhood. American behaviouralScientist,50 (258),258–275.
doi:10.1177/0002764206290640. 2006.
Brownson, R. C., Baker, E. A., Housemann, R. A., Brennan, L. K. &Bacak, S. J..2001.
Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States,
American Journal of Public Health, 91, pp. 1995–2003.
Burgess, J. Harrison C.M. & Limb, M. 1988. People, Parks and the Urban Green: A study of
popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Studies, 25, 455-473.
Bryne, J.2012. When green is white: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion
in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum, 43(595-611).
Byrne, J. &Wolch, J. 2009. .Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for
geographic research. Progress in Human Geography. 33(6), 743–765.
Carmona .M, 2010. Contemporary Public Space; critique and Classification, part one;
critique. Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 15 No. 1. Pp.123-128. The Bartlett School of
Planning, University College London.
Cameron, J. 2005. “Focusing on the Focus Group” in Iain Hay (ed.), Qualitative Research
Methods in Human Geography, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Melbourne,
Chapter 8.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 47
Carr, S. Francis, M. Rivlin, L.G. and Stone, A. M. 1992. Public Space, Cambridge;
Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, N., Dines, N., Gesler, W., & Curtis, S. 2008. Mingling, observing, and lingering:
Everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations.
Health Place, 14, 544–561.
Chiesura, A., 2004.The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban
Planning 68, 129–138.
City park forum. 2003. How Cities Use Parks for Green Infrastructure. City parks. America.
https://www.planning.org/cityparks/.
Cobb, W.N. 2011. Who‟s supporting space activities? An „issue public‟ for US space policy.
Space Policy, Space Policy 27. 234-239.
Cohen D. & CrabtreeB. 2006. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. http://www.q ualres
.org/HomeFocu-3647.html.
Cresswell, J. W.2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Quanlitative Research. (R. C. Smith, P.A, Ed.) 4th edition. pp. 140–
174). New York: Pearson Education.
Dines, N., &Cattell, V. 2006.. Public spaces, social relations and well-being in East London.
Draper A.K...2004. The principles and application of qualitative research. Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society. 63, 641–646.
Elmendorf,W.F., Willits, F. K., Sasidharan, V.&Godbey, G.2005..Urban Park and forest
participation and landscape preference: a comparison between blacks and whites in
Philadelphia and Atlanta, U.S, Journal of Arboriculture, 31, pp. 318–326.
Fade S. 2004. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis for public health nutrition and
dietetic research: a practical guide. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 63, 647–653.
Green J &Thorogood N (2004) Qualitative Methods.
Falade, J.B.1989. Amenity and open space planning in Nigeria. Land Use Policy, 162–171.
Fainstein, Susan S. 2005. “Cities and Diversity: Should we want it? Can we plan for it?”
Urban Affairs Review, 41 (1), 3-19.
Francis, M.2003. Urban Open Space Washington, DC: Island Press.
Francis, J., Gilescorti, B., Wood, L., &Knuiman, M. 2012. Creating sense of community :
The role of public space. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology,32(4),401–409.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002.
Frumkin, H. 2001. Beyond toxicity human: health and the natural environment. American
Journal of Preventative Medicine, 20, 234–240.
Gilchrist, A. 2004. The Well- Connected Community: A Networking Approach to
Community Development. Bristol: Policy Press.
Gobster, P. H.2002. Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele,
Leisure Sciences, 24, pp. 143–159.
Hayward,J.and W.Weitzer. 1984. Past amenity, present ambivalence, uncertain future. Urban
Ecology 8:243-268.
Ho, et al., 2005.“Gender and ethnic variations in urban park preferences, visitation and
perceived benefits”. Leisure Research, 37(3), 281–306.
Holdsworth, L., & Hartman, Y.2009. Indicators of Community Cohesion in an Australian
Country Town, (2), 76–97.
Huang, S. A 2006. Study in outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 78, 193–204.
Jacobs, Jane, 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Random
House.
JRF report 2006. Public spaces and social relations in East London. Joseph Rowntree
Foundation Findings. (www. jrf.org.uk.). Accessed on 3rd May, 2015.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 48
Kang .B. 2006. Effects of open spaces on the interpersonal level of resident social capital: A
comparative case study of urban neighbourhoods in Guangzhou, China. Texas A. &
M. University.
Kayode John Stephen 2009. Structural trends of Ijeda-Iloko area as interpreted from total
components of ground magnetic data. Global Journal of Engg. & Technology.
Volume 2, Number 3.pp 475-484.
Kazmierczak, A. 2013. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Journal
of Landscape and Urban Planning. 109, 31–44.
Kim, J. & Kaplan, R..2004. Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New
urbanist Kent-land‟s and nearby Orchard Village. Environment and Behavior, 36,
313–340.
Kim, W. 1997. Effects of dwelling floor level on factors related to residential satisfaction and
home environment in high-rise apartment buildings. An Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation. Texas A & M University, College Station.
Kitzinger J. 1994. “The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interactions
between research participants.” Sociology of Health and Illness. 16, No 1. Pp 103–
121.
Krenichyn, K. 2006.“The only place to go and be in the city: Women talk about exercise, to
be outdoors, and the meanings of a large urban park”. Health and Place, 12, pp. 631-
643.
Kyle,G.T.,Bricker, K., Graefe, A.,& Wickham, T. 2004 An examination of recreationists‟
relationship with activities and settings. Leisure Sciences, 26(2), 123–142.
Lalli, M.1992. Urban-Related Identity: Theory, Measurement and Empirical Findings.
Environmental Psychology, 12, 285–303.
Loukaitou-sideris, Anastasia.1995 Urban form and Social Context: Cultural differentiation in
the uses of urban parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research .14: 89-102.
Megalhaes Claudio De. 2010 “Public space and the contracting-out of publicness: A
framework for analysis”. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 559–574.
Morgan, D.L.1996.”Focus Groups”. Ann. Rev. Sociol.22, 129-152..
Madanipour, A. 1999. Why Are the Design and Development of Public Spaces Significant
for Cities, Environment and Planning; Planning and Design, 26(6),879-891.
Neuman, W. L. 2000. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn& Bacon.
Omole, F. K., Lukman, Y., &Baki, A. I. 2013 “Analysis of market typology and functions in
the development of Osun state, Nigeria”. International Journal of Development and
Sustainability, 3(1), 55–69.
Payne, L., Orsega-Smith, E., Roy, M., Godbey, G.2005. Local park use and personal health
among older adults: an exploratory study. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration 23, 1–20.
Payne, L. L., Mowen, A. J. &Orsega-Smith, E.2002. An examination of park preferences and
behaviors among urban residents: the role of residential location, race and age,
Leisure Sciences, 24, pp. 181–198.
Putnam, R.D.2000. .Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community, New
York; Simon and Schuster.
RabieeFatemeh. 2004. Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society, 63,655–660. Doi: 10.1079/pns2004399.
Rodriguez K.L., Schwartz J.L., Lahman M.K.E. and Geist,M.R. 2011. Culturally responsive
focus groups: Reframing the research experience to focus on participants.
International. Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(4):400-417.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016
ISSN 2309-3218
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 49
RofeY..Feierstein B.&Zarchin,I.2012 .Quantity and Quality of Neighbourhood Public Open
Spaces in Israel. Urban Design and Planning; 165(DP3):177.
DOI:10.1680/udap.11.00021.
Rishbeth, C.2004. Ethno-cultural representation in the urban landscape, Journal of Urban
Design, 9, Pp. 311–333.
SayneAaron.2012.RethinkingNigeria‟sIndigene-SettlerConflicts: Special Report of United
States Institute of Peace. Special report. 311. http:www.usip.org.
Sarigollu E 2009: A cross-country exploration of environmental attitudes, Environment and
Behaviour, 41, Pp. 365–386.
Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B., Owen, N. 2008. Associations of neighbourhood
greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence, and local
social interaction explain the relationships? Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health 62 (9).
Sunarja, A., Wood, G. and Giles-Corti, B., 2008. A Factsheet on Healthy Public Open Space
Design for Multi-Users and Multi-Uses, Perth, Western Australia: Centre For The
Built Environment and Health, School of Population Health, The University Of
Western Australia ..www.populationhealth.uwa.edu.au.
Sweeney, Mary.2004.”Planning for public spaces in multiethnic contexts: a case study of
Mountain sights, Montreal”. Ph.D thesis submitted to Montreal University, Canada.
Tinsley, H. E.,Tinsley, D. and Croskeys C.E.2002. "Park usage, social milieu, and
psychosocial benefits of park use reported by older urban park users from four ethnic
groups." Leisure Sciences, 24: 199-218
Thompson, C. W. 2002. Urban open space in the 21st century, 60, 59–72.
Thompson, S. 2008. „Design for Open Space Factsheet‟, Your Development.
www.yourdevelopment.org.
Thwaites, K. 2010. Design Open Space People Space. Journal of Urban Design, 15(2), 285–
287. doi:10.1080/13574801003638087.
Ukiwo, U.2006. The Study of Ethnicity in Nigeria The Study of
EthnicityinNigeria,November,37–41. doi:10.1080/13600810500099592.
Völker,B.,Flap,H. D.,&Lindenberg, S. 2007. When are neighbourhoods communities?
Community in Dutch neighbourhoods. European Sociological Review, 23, 99–114.
Whyte, Williams H 1985. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington DC. The
Conservation Foundation.
Wong, K. &Domroes, M. 2005. The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park,
Hong Kong: likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32, Pp. 617–632.
Williams, K. & Green, S. 2001. Literatures Review of Public Space and Local Environments
for the Cross Cutting Review (Final Report). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University,
Oxford center for Sustainable Development.
Wilkinson S. 2003. Focus Groups In Qualitative Psychology. A Practical Guide to Research
Methods. (S. J. Ed, Ed.) (pp. 184–204). London: Sage Publication.