urban landscape and environmental quality preferences in ibadan, nigeria: an exploration

Landscape and Urban Planning, 19 (1990) 263-280

263Elsevier Science Publishers B.V ., Amsterdam-Printed in The Netherlands

Urban Landscape and Environmental Quality Preferences inIbadan, Nigeria: an Exploration

BOYOWA A. CHOKOR

Department of Geography & Regional Planning, University ofBenin, P.M.B. 7154, Benin City (Nigeria)

(Accepted for publication 20 September 1988)

ABSTRACT

Chokor, B.A., 1990. Urban landscape and en-vironmental quality preferences in Ibadan,Nigeria: an exploration . Landscape UrbanPlann., 19: 263-280.

Landscape preference studies have concen-trated attention on Western European andNorth American environments, and very little isknown about the preferences and values of ThirdWorld people for various landscape types . Thispaper analyses the distinctive qualities and fea-tures that underlie high- and low-preferencelandscapes in the city of Ibadan, Nigeria. Sim-ple preference evaluation of typical urban scenes

INTRODUCTION

Landscape quality evaluation studies havefocused exclusively on Western European andNorth American environments (Lowenthaland Prince, 1964, 1965 ; Saarinen et al ., 1982 ;Chokor, 1986a; 1987a) . Cross-cultural com-parisons have not been facilitated because thereis very little information available on the land-scape "tastes" of people in the developingworld (see also Lowenthal, 1978; Ulrich,

0169-2046/90/$03 .50

© 1990 Elsevier Science Publishers B .V .

by two major resident groups, together with val-ues expressed for localities, are analysed basedon numerous judgements made on 15 surrogatestimuli photographs . Results of the study dem-onstrate that inhabitants show high preferencefor suburban landscapes with modernisticplanned features, which contrast with the unre-gulated old buildings of core inner city land-scapes. It is concluded that more aestheticallypleasing landscapes and high quality environ-ments may be achieved if attempts are made toincorporate the "tastes" ofpeople into new en-vironmental creations and programmes ofcom-munity residential renovation/improvements.

1983) . In addition, many Third World coun-tries are now in need of a range of informationthat could throw light on appropriate and pre-ferred environmental quality standards to helpmanage and alleviate the mounting crisis ofproviding both habitable and aesthetically val-ued environments to residents (see Rapoport,1979; Chokor, 1987b, 1988) . Thus to deter-mine the acceptable course of landscape changeor modifications and urban improvement,studies are urgently required in the Third

264

World to analyse the various values that lie be-hind landscape preferences in diverse milieu .This study is imbued with this spirit and it is anovel contribution to the highly neglected re-search theme of landscape assessment in theThird World; it explores the preference struc-ture of Nigerian Ibadan city residents forneighbourhood landscapes and the qualitiesthat are most desired. It thus provides a basisfor more detail research in parts of the devel-oping world as well as a context for compari-son with other cultures .

LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE STUDIESAND THE THIRD WORLD

Wide-ranging methodologies characterizelandscape research (Zube et al., 1982) . In thecourse of determining people's preferences forlandscapes, researchers have either relied onliterary/personal insights into the judgement oflandscape values (Lowenthal and Prince, 1964,1965; Lowenthal, 1979 ; Relph, 1976, 1981 ; seealso Thrift, 1983) or on empirical investiga-tions aimed at measuring landscape prefer-ences from the perspective of residents andprofessional assessors . The majority of studiesin this latter category have attempted to assesspeople's preference and the quality of land-scapes on the basis of some established objec-tive criteria or quantifiable variables, usingrating scales (Shafer et al., 1969; Crystal andBrush, 1978; Helliwell, 1978; Shomaker, 1978 ;Shuttleworth, 1979) . The work of Buhyoff etal. (1978) has attempted to examine the cor-respondence between clients' and professionallandscape architects' preferences and valuesemploying the rank order method . In general,studies of Western environments seem to re-veal an underlying preference for natural rurallandscapes over urban scenes or built views(Ulrich, 1981, 1983, 1986), while others dem-onstrate that urban scenes may be enhancedthrough the presence of vegetation, trees orgreenery (Cooper-Marcus, 1982 ; Nasar, 1983 ;Kaplan, 1983 ; Buhyoff et al ., 1984) .

B.A. CHOKOR

Two important features of landscape pref-erence studies are the reliance on both simplerating or rank ordering of landscapes and theuse of surrogate photograph stimuli . Althoughthe rank ordering procedure is "holistic", sinceit affords a judgement of landscape in totalityrather than elements of it, there is undoubt-edly the inherent danger that detailed infor-mation on component aspects or elementswhich contribute to landscape quality may belost in the judgement process (Chokor, 1987b ;but see Dunn, 1974, 1976) . A major move-ment away from the traditional perspective oflandscape evaluation using simple preferencerating is illustrated by the growing interest ofenvironmental psychologists, architects andplanners on residents' post-occupancy evalua-tion of buildings, housing/architectural land-scapes (Francescata et al ., 1979; Weidemannet al ., 1982) . The central objective has been toenrich the quality of evaluation achievedthrough the rank ordering procedure and pro-vide more divergent information on landscapepreference. By interviewing both users and vis-itors to sites, such studies have not only dem-onstrated the divergence between professionalassessments and lay users' requirements, buthave provided an alternative framework to un-derstand landscape quality and preferencemore fully, especially from the perspective ofordinary people .

The use of photographs as surrogates for realplaces or landscapes has become well estab-lished. Their use in landscape preference stud-ies is supported by the accuracy with whichphotographs elicit verbal and descriptive re-sponses comparable with those of real envi-ronments, thus forming an effective alterna-tive to the much time and money demandingprocedure of having people experience land-scapes directly, for example, through guidedwalks or closely supervised vehicular trips(Danford and Willems, 1976 ; Dunn, 1976 ;Shuttleworth, 1980) .

In the last one or two decades, however, theupsurge of interest in qualitative, phenome-

URBAN LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCES

nological and "interpretive" exposition oflandscape experience, meanings and symbol-ism, drawing on art, literature, structurationperspectives and other highly "imaginative"philosophies, particularly by cultural and hu-manistic geographers (see Duncan, 1985; Cos-grove, 1986 ; Cosgrove and Jackson, 1987 ;Cosgrove and Daniels, 1987), has diminishedthe somewhat Western emphasis on an experi-mental survey-oriented approach to landscapepreference evaluation. Clearly, however, theimplications of the orientation of the majorityof studies carried out in the West are yet to befully explored in the context of the ThirdWorld. Although preference evaluation oflandscapes has a universal appeal, it is yet tobe shown that the context of evaluation instudies carried out in the west are also suitablefor other cultures or non-Western studies . Amajor critique of existing studies, in fact, is thescant attention paid to the cultural and socialvalues that underlie preference evaluation oflandscapes. Preference measurements have toooften been associated with impersonal, objec-tive and accessible, independent and quantifi-able factors inherent in the landscape, for ex-ample, the interaction between elements andthe properties of landscape, such as colour,form, shape and lighting (see e .g. Dunn, 1976,p. 16), while actual place- and people-relatedqualities as experienced by individuals orgroups are de-emphasized . Another major crit-icism has to do with the conflict experiencedin translating preference studies into a readilyutilizable set of information on landscapemanagement . The preoccupation with profes-sional assessments, the scant attention to thepolitics of landscape management and the so-cietal relevance of studies are probable issuesaffecting the policy significance of preferencestudies .

Additionally, some of the few studies car-ried out in Third World settings have beenoverly concerned with the "accuracy" of land-scape perceptions and judgements . In Desai's(1980) study of an Indian urban community,

265

for example, an evaluation of landscape qual-ity is made by the investigator awarding scoreson physical, service, housing and sewerageconditions which were compared with these ofresident socioeconomic groups . His majorfinding was that residents tend to overestimatethe quality of their area when related to the ob-jective assessments made by research investi-gators. Also, residents with higher income, ed-ucation and status belonging to the youngerpopulation tend to estimate environmentalquality more accurately than the older, poorerpeople of lower status/education . These pat-terns of findings were attributed to place at-tachments and territoriality, and basic resi-dents' apprehensions about any kind ofenvironmental changes that may disrupt thetraditionally set up pattern . Although suchstudies contribute to our knowledge of culturaldifferences in landscape appreciation, the as-sumption that there are some accurate or ob-jective perceptions or preferences which arebetter than those of ordinary residents is a ma-jor methodological flaw .

The major points raised above have bearingon the context of landscape preference studiesto be undertaken in the Third World . Adapta-tions are made in the present study (focusedon Ibadan, Nigeria) to reflect these various is-sues and provide some framework for studiesto develop. In the study, 15 colour photo-graphs of localities in the city were used to jogpeople's memories about places in the envi-ronment. Preferences, values and experienceswere elicited in order to analyse the nature andqualities of landscapes most valued in the Af-rican city context, and to explore how best theymay be incorporated into contemporary land-scape management efforts.

STUDY AREA AND RESEARCHMETHODS

The city of lbadan is located in southwest-ern Nigeria . It has a population of about a mil-lion people and exhibits the typical contrast in

266

B.A. CHOKOR

Fig. 1, Oke-Ado - a suburban landscape: Brazilian-style' rectangular buildings, arranged in rows . The alignment of the housesand their modernity are viewed as attractive, indicative of a planned physical development which enhances the quality of thelandscape .

Fig. 2 . Inalende - a core landscape : A complex cluster of structures and less well-defined old buildings ; unimpressive arrange-ment of narrow, untarred streets with no colour reduces the quality of the landscape .


Fig. 3 . The city of Ibadan, Nigeria : sample area of the respondents and the location of the 15 photographed landscapes .

Third World urban development : the core in-ner section of the city forms the nucleus of tra-ditional pre-colonial urban development andis characterized by slum formations, while thesuburbs are modernized and more regulatedwith a substantial migrant population (seeChokor, 1986b) . The city is a true representa-tive of Nigerian urban formations .

In order to evaluate the landscape prefer-ences of people and analyse the nature of en-vironmental qualities most valued by resi-dents, a sample of 15 photographs at variousdistances from the city centre were used to elicitinformation from respondents. These photo-graphs were selected from a wider collection by

267

a group of planners and residents as represent-ing different known physical and social fea-tures of the city . The 15 photographs consistedof six broadly peripheral landscapes taken fromthe suburban migrant section of the city andnine broadly core landscapes drawn from theold indigenous city. The peripheral suburbanlandscapes are Bodija, Isale-Ososami, Ore-Meji, Oke-Ado, Mokola and Sabo, while thecore landscapes are Irefin, Ogunmola, Ibi-kunle, Inalende, Kudeti, Isale-Ijebu, Olug-bode, Isale-Afa and Alekuso (see Figs. 1-5) . Atotal of 415 respondents "randomly" selectedfrom sections of the city made verbal judge-ments and descriptions, and ranked the 15

268

Fig. 4. Isale-afa - a core landscape : A characteristic traditional cement-plastered mud architecture of the old city . The unregu-lated physical development and 'out-dated' old designs are viewed as unattractive by suburbanites .

B.A. CHOKOR

Fig . 5. Kudeti - a core landscape: A clustered development of `ancient' poorly ventilated small unit buildings . The back-to-backarrangement, though reflective of marked congestion, symbolizes the ties and social proximity of the families .

landscapes on the basis of preference . Alto- information was elicited. As in a medium ofgether there were 215 richer high-income sub- play, each respondent related to the localities,urban migrant residents and 200 poorer low- choosing the most-valued and the least-valuedincome core indigent respondents from whom

landscapes, and making specific judgements on


residential quality and attributes . Verbal ques-tions were employed which aimed to describeplace imagery, the needs and aspirations ofpeople, as well as the imagined experiences ofresidents in the most-preferred and the least-preferred landscapes .

LANDSCAPE PREFERENCEMAGNITUDE SCALING

Being a novel study in a Third World con-text, the research attempted to scale preferencejudgements of people along some simple mag-nitude line, which provides a measure of theimportance of preference judgement for plan-ning and landscape modification . The moregeneral aim was to identify detailed landscapeattributes and scale their importance along acommon line. Initially the study adopted asimple vote-count procedure, in which theproportion of people in the total sample whosaid they most liked or disliked a particularlandscape for a specific attribute was ex-pressed in percentages . To arrive at the "mag-nitude of importance" scale, respondents wereasked to indicate what proportions wereneeded in order to classify a landscape attrib-ute for modification or proposal for change asjust important, important or very important,in a situation where 10 people are voting forchange. From the averaging of various re-sponses, it was found that where 3 60% of re-spondents recalled a particular landscape at-tribute it was considered very important orsignificant, i.e. first degree (1 °) or of primaryimportance in landscape modification, plan-ning and management . On the other hand,where >40% but <60% voted or recalled aparticular attribute, it was considered impor-tant, i.e. second degree (2°) requirement inlandscape beautification and quality manage-ment. Finally, where 20-40% voted or recalledan attribute, it was viewed as just or about im-portant, or of third degree (3 °) importance tolandscape management . Figures < 20% wereviewed as not significant, a minority view-

269

point lacking wide consensus . Conversely,these figures represent the extent to which anattribute may reduce or enhance the qualitylandscapes. In general, these varying classif-cations or figures seem to represent the extentto which a landscape may be modified to com-mand wide acceptance or tolerance amongst acommunity without provoking too much of aconflict or disaffection amongst different peo-ple . These contextual assessments or classifi-cations may, however, be better made in thecontext of different socioeconomic, less heter-ogeneous groups . The overall meaning of suchscales depends on interpretation . It is sug-gested, from different shades of opinion in thescaling process, that first degree significancerefers to attributes to be accorded primary at-tention in landscape planning, while 40-60%or 2 ° implies attributes of secondary attentionin the minds of people, etc. Similar tests maybe carried out elsewhere in different culturesas this methodology may not be appropriateacross countries . Moreover, the politics andvalues that underlie landscape change may befar more complex than a simple vote count forlandscape modification or significance .

PATTERNS OF PREFERENCE FORLANDSCAPES

The preferences demonstrated for landscapephotographs illuminate the diversity of envi-ronmental issues facing urban residents of Iba-dan. While core residents appreciate the so-cial-cultural qualities and historical attributesof their locale, but prefer the physical qualitiesof peripheral landscapes, suburban migrantgroups view suburban locales with a great dealof contentment whilst adopting a more criticalpessimistic stance in describing core land-scapes. These major evaluations demonstratethe varied contrasts between core locales andperipheral environments in the African citysetting; the contrast constitutes a spur in de-veloping environmental ideals for places. It isnecessary to analyse the broad patterns of re-

270

sponses to the 15 photographed landscapes inIbadan before describing the variations in valuejudgements and descriptions elicited by thephotographs.

Expressed preferences in terms of the firstmost-valued or preferred and the least-valuedlandscapes are summarized in Table 1 andwhich shows in general that both suburban mi-grant and core indigent groups prefer newerperipheral landscapes to the older city envi-ronments. For example, the five suburban lo-cales Bodija, Isale-Ososami, Ore-meji, Oke-Ado and Mokola, at the greatest distances fromthe city centre, occupy the first five rank posi-tions in terms of overall preference . In fact,Bodija, Isale-Ososami, Oke-Ado and Mokolawere placed in the category of the most valuedplaces by between 10 and 40% of respondentsacross all groups. Only Sabo, a transitionalsuburban locale settled by predominantly poormigrant groups, failed to receive first place rat-ing from both migrants and indigenes. In con-trast, all core landscapes were rated by subur-ban migrants (100%) as failing to meet first

TABLE I

Pattern of preference for localities

*Marginally suburban .**Marginally core .

B.A. CHOKOR

place criteria. The preferences of core re-spondents were similar to those migrants .However Ogunmola is fairly well rated andother core landscapes - particularly Irefin andIsale-Afa - seem to have some amount of resi-dential value to indigenes as they receive firstposition rating from a few respondents . As maybe seen in Table 1, it is mainly core landscapesthat fall into the category of the least-desiredor least-preferred places. In fact, from thecombined preference ranking (paying atten-tion to the percentage times a locale is least andmost preferred by the different groups), a sub-urban landscape (Bodija) is evidently themost-valued locale for all groups, followed byother suburban landscapes (Isale-Ososami,Oke-Ado, Ore-Meji and Mokola ), while a corelandscape (Inalende) is considered the mostundesirable locality, followed by another corelandscape (Isale-Ijebu) . Apart from Sabo, amarginally suburban landscape which is placedthirteenth, all other core landscapes occupypositions 6-15 in overall ranking . A simplecorrelation between the distances of land-

Location Locale Approximate distancefrom city centre(km)

Times most preferredby suburban group(%)

Times mostpreferred bycore group

Times leastpreferred bysuburban group

Times leastpreferred bycore group

Rank

(%) (%) (%)

Suburban Bodija 6 .5 40 .0 36.0 00 .0 00 .0 1Isale-Ososami 4 .8 22 .3 18.0 00.0 00 .0 2Ore-Meji 4 .5 11 .6 6.5 00.0 1 .0 4Oke-Ado 4 .4 15 .8 15.0 00.0 00 .0 3Mokola 4 .0 10 .2 11 .5 00 .0 3 .0 5Sabo* 3 .5 00 .0 00.0 11 .6 11 .5 13

Core Irefin 3 .0 00.0 2 .5 13 .0 4 .5 9Ogunmola** 2 .5 00.0 6 .0 2 .8 2 .5 6Ibikunle** 2 .2 00.0 00.0 11 .2 6 .0 10Inalende 2 .0 00.0 00.0 14 .9 20 .5 15Kudeti 1 .7 00 .0 00.0 8 .8 8 .5 11Isale-Ijebu 1 .5 00 .0 00.0 15 .8 12 .0 14Olugbode 1 .3 00.0 00.0 7 .9 11 .0 12(sale-Afa 1 .0 00.0 4.0 7 .0 7 .0 7Alekuso 0 .5 00.0 0.5 7 .0 12 .5 8


scapes from the city centre and overall rank or-der preference using the Spearman approachhad a value of - 0.70, implying that the greaterthe distance from the city centre (or more sub-urban in location), the higher the preferenceor landscape value in the Nigerian city setting .The wider implication of this statement is thatconstructed modem suburban landscapes arethe epitome of physical beauty and the ideal-istic environmental setting which people de-sire; these qualities contrast with core old de-generate landscapes which constitute physicalaesthetic hazards to the people . However, whileboth suburban migrant respondents and coreindigenes, overwhelmingly attach a high valueto newer locales for a variety of reasons, theformer do not seem to share the affection whichindigenes demonstrate for their own environ-ments in their preference or rank ordering, re-flecting a divergent set of ideals or landscapevalues in the assessments made . This may, infact, be taken to mean that the values attachedto specific landscapes are much more subtleand complex beyond that which simple pref-erence ratings and correlation analysis are ca-pable of revealing. Thus while the preferenceapproach may reveal the physical aestheticqualities that are most desired in everyday life,the long-term value or significance of a land-scape to a person through a history of social/cultural associations and attachments may notbe adequately addressed . Such qualities cometo light when "ordinary" landscapes face athreat of real modifications and are, perhaps,better captured by treating people as respon-sive "participants" rather than objects, andengaging them in meaningful dialogue and in-depth probing of motives behind landscapechoice. Such a tradition of analysis belongs tothe humanistic school and does not form theprimary focus of the present study . Howeveraspects of major factors constraining land-scape preferences are discussed in the nextsection.

VALUES EXPRESSED FORLANDSCAPES

In demonstrating preference for landscapes,respondents were also asked to provide real orimagined reasons each time a landscape wasjudged either as most preferred or least pre-ferred or valued . Responses to this importantquestion could provide some indications of thenature of valued or least-valued landscapes inthe African city context, as well as forming acontext for assessing the magnitude of contrib-utory factors to landscape quality. Tables 2 and3 show the variety of reasons adduced by peo-ple in judging landscapes most valuable or un-desirable in the African city of Ibadan . Thereis a general consensus amongst poorer core in-digenes and richer, more prosperous suburbanmigrants as to what made most-preferred sub-urban landscapes valuable and notable . Thisgeneral consensus opinion is, however, notparticularly visible in the broad judgementmade for poorer largely undesirable core land-scapes of the city .

From the analyses of the ideals behind land-scape preference, four major classes of reasonsemerged for valuable landscapes in the city .These are: (1) structural/physical/visual ; (2)institutional control ; (3) social/cultural ex-pectations; (4) symbolic qualities of land-scapes. These classes of reasons underlie expla-nations of landscape preference amongst thecity inhabitants. From the scaling achieved onthe physical/structural and visual aspects, itwould appear that modernity, unique but var-ied complex architectural designs, housingmaintenance, and seclusion/spaciousness areoverly of first degree or very important for theattainment of most-valued, highly qualitativelandscapes in the eyes of people . Attributes ofmodernity include recency of construction, andmodernized or fashionable architectural de-signs, while those of architectural designsthemselves include uniqueness of type, varieddesigns within a locality, detachment, single-family dwellings and stylishness/complexity of

271

272

Magnitude of importance to quality by percent inpeople's preference (+)

(I) Structural/ (a) Modernity

New environmental constructions, fash- +

+physical/visual

ionable, modem buildingsappearance

(b) Architectural Unique, varied architectural, complex

+

+designs designs, detached single-family bunga-

lows/duplexes, enclosed self-containedflats, stylish

(c) Colour of

Use of bright attractive colours, com-

+

+buildings

patible mix, highly decorated

(d) Housing

Atmosphere of preserved quarters,

+maintenance

housing shell, windows, walls in goodstate

(e) Seclusion/

Sequestered quarters, serene atmo-

+

+spaciousness

sphere, abundant spaces between build-ings, privacy

(f) Aesthetic

Beautiful, ornamented, decorated build-

+judgement/sce- ings/portals,attractive/contrasting de-me beauty

sign arrangement pleasurable to theeyes

(g) Social

Presence of visible housing amenities

+

+facilities

telephone lines, electricity, air condi-tioners, adequate ventilation

(h) Nature/gree- Lush, opulent shade trees, flowers/nery/landscaping plants, use of gardens/fields and orna-

mental shrubs landscaping

(2) Institu-

(a) Planning/or- Planning effort, adequate land use regu- +

+tional control ganization/spa- larization, orderly arrangement of struc-

tial order tures, no unwanted accretion allowed,features are thought out and rationallyset

(b) Standards/ Standard in buildings/elements set and

+

+standardized

maintained, new strong concrete de-designs

signs, a range of buildings with strongarchitectural character and appeal

(1 ° )

(2 ° )

(3° )

(1 ° )

(2° )

(3° )

B.A. CHOKOR

Core respondents Suburban respondents

Very Impor- Just Very Impor- Justimpor- tant

impor- impor- tant impor-tant tent tant tant

TABLE 2

Reasons given for preferring locale most

Type Valued, desired Associated images, indicators/descrip-landscape/resi- tors of nigh qualitydential attributes


TABLE 2 (continued)

Magnitude of importance to quality by percent inpeople's preference (+ )

(3) Social/

(a) Clean/

Environment is clean, free of dirt/re-cultural

healthy

fuse, free of health hazardssurroundings

(b) Functional

Functional character of designs/houses,nature, comfort suitable for easy life, provides for mate-convenience of rial comfortable livingsetting

(c)* Physical

Impersonal setting of modem low-den- +

+setting and social sity buildings hinders amicable sociallife

ties and interaction, conely . individual-ism, unsuitable for extended family

(4) Symbolic (a) Educated

Enlightened rich educated people's

+

+people's

landscape, powerful and influential peo-landscape

ple, nuclear family, descent, respectablecharacters, self-interacting, culturedpeople who do not want problems forthemselves, successful, fortunate people

*Negative image/evaluation, a major critique of the most-valued environments as unsuitable for ordinary people and the kind oflife they live daily .

features. Housing maintenance, on the otherhand, embraces the preservation of originalfeatures from decay, as well as the upkeep ofwindows and roofs to prevent intense decay .Seclusion refers to the situation where land-scapes exude serenity, openness/abundantspacing and sequestered arrangement . Still onthe physical component, the colour of thebuilding is seen as just important or of seconddegree importance to quality ; so also is thepresence of visible social amenities and na-ture/greenery. While aesthetic/scenic beautyis seen as important by core indigenes who lacksuch qualities in their locales, suburban dwell-ers more accustomed to aesthetic experienceview it just as important for quality. In gen-eral, valued attributes of colours includebrightness/attractiveness, compatibility and

(1')

(2')

(3`)

(1 ° )

(2')

(3')

273

intelligible/artistic mix or combination of col-ours. The significance of social facilities oramenities for landscape quality/preference liesin the visible presence of utility lines, air con-ditioners/adequate ventilation which makelandscapes richer, enjoyable and more pleasur-able to people. Nature and greenery embracesuch qualities as luxuriant growth of vegeta-tion, shade plants, flowered setting, gardens,fields and parking/landscaping .

Institutional control represents one of themore significant reasons for the high quality ofsome landscapes. Planning, spatial regularityand order is viewed by suburban migrant andcore indigent groups as a necessity (i .e . of firstdegree importance) in attaining valuablephysical landscapes . Thus valued physicallandscapes in Ibadan, Nigeria, are the ones


Very Impor- Just Very Impor- Justimpor- tant impor- impor- tant impor-tant tant taut tant

Type Valued, desired Associated images, indicators/descrip-landscape/resi- toys of high qualitydential attributes

274

(I) Physical

(a)

Simple, local, traditional houses/set-setting

Traditionalism ting/design like an underdevelopedbackward village, remote setting, non-metropolitan character

(b) Age of

Old ancient, traditional houses, out-building

dated, unimaginative designs, slum, his-torical landscapes of previous century,derelict houses

(c)

Old underdeveloped place, neglectedMaintenance

and abandoned, unkempt, ill-main-tained, no renovations, blown-out roof,windows, worn-out paint

(d) Congestion/ Chaotic milieu, poorly ventilated, suffo-crowding

cating, stuffy, hotness, small crowdedbuildings, unsuitable for large familygroups, inexclusive, confining

(e) Aesthetic

Dull, unappealing, old ugly buildings,judgement

like a farm shed, filthy and bleak

(f) Road/drain- Untarred roads, potholes, gullies, dusty,age conditions

undulating roads, poorly drained, fewaccess roads, flood risks

(2) Institutional (a) Disorder/

Chaotic, rough, difficult landscape, un-control

underplanning planned, disorderly, area of unsched-uled development

(b) Sub stan-

Few unique designs, small familydard housing de- houses, mud buildings, weak founda-sign/materials tion of houses, absence of set standards

(3) Social/

(a) Sanitation/ Poor refuse disposal, filthy, unhealthy,cultural

health

fear of epidemics, disease and stenchridden

(b) Facilities

Poor provision of basic amenities - la-trines, kitchens and open spaces

(c) *Social

Proximate family dwellings, friendly,setting

lively sociable environments, home ofordinary people, kind and cooperative

B.A. CHOKOR

Magnitude of importance to quality by percent inpeople's preference (+ )

(1 ° )

(2° )

(3 ° )

(I ° )

(2 ° )

(3 ° )



Impor- important impor-tant tant tant tant

TABLE3

Reasons given for preferring landscapes least

Type Undesired, un- Associated images indicators/descripvalued, land- tors of low qualityscape/residen-tial attributes

(4) Historical/ (a) *Historic/

A district of earlier types of familysymbolic

cultural

houses; with environmental features oflandscapes

past historical times and cultural tradi-tions of the people, memorable ancientbuildings

(b) Poor, unin- Neglected people, landscape of illiter-formed people's ates and uneducated groups, poverty-landscape

stricken landscape, harsh living condi-tions, old people live there, conserva-tive people

(c) Landscape Indigenes of the town live there, rooted

+of indigenes

people attached to land/family houses,people with archaic ways of life, unre-ceptive to new ideas of change/development

*Positive image/evaluation, a major valued social attribute of the least-valued landscapes .

created through some form of planning inter-vention, which provides for some level of con-trolled development, more orderly organiza-tion of landscape elements and which thereforecontrasts with spontaneous accretion or hap-hazard arrangement of environmental fea-tures. To a large extent therefore valued phys-ical suburban landscapes are associated withareas where institutional planning or controlmeasures have helped to guide developmentsto achieve some desired environmental order,through the adoption of appropriate zoningpolicies and environmental standards, partic-ularly in the area of housing shell, structure,building materials, etc . The emphasis on insti-tutional control and environmental standardsin creating valued landscapes may have beeninformed by the experience of core traditionalcity landscapes which evolved without mini-mal modem planning intervention, throughindividual land use decisions and develop-


Impor- important

impor-tant

tant

tant

tant(1°)

(2°)

(3 ° )

(1°)

(2')

(3°)

ment efforts, and which are now characterizedby degenerate blighted physical structures andslums. Thus African Ibadan city residents at thesuburbs view institutional control as very im-portant (1 0 ) while core dwellers see it as im-portant (2°) in attaining valued landscapesand, perhaps, as an outlet for alleviating thedrudgery of living in physically degenerate en-vironments. Seen through their eyes, suburbanproducts of institutional control may look at-tractive; it is, however, doubtful whether pre-scriptive standards as tools of planning inter-vention will not severely interfere withestablished patterns of life in core historicaltraditional city neighbourhoods and thus canonly be enforced at a high social cost .

The third major component of valued land-scapes is social/cultural and it relates to suchissues as a clean tidy environment, functional/comfort characteristics of settings and the im-portance of setting for the social life of resi-


TABLE 3 (continued)

275

Type Undesired, on- Associated images indicators/descrip- Magnitude of importance to quality by percent invalued, land-

torn of low quality peoples preference ( + )scape/residen-tial attributes Core respondents

Suburban respondents

276

dents. A clean dirt-free environment is of sec-ond degree importance to quality. Great valueis accorded to this because it provides healthysurroundings for people. The functional na-ture of buildings for material comfort is seenas very important (1 °) for quality as the ulti-mate value of a landscape is comfort and con-venience for everyday activities/life. Most-valued suburban landscapes are howeverviewed as providing very impersonal settingsfor people and promote less social intercourse- only reserved people may wish to live there .This is a major attribute which seem to makesuch landscapes unfriendly and undesirable toordinary people .

Finally, the symbolic component of qualitymay be analysed. The most-valued urban land-scapes, according to the judgement made by allgroups, are symbolic as they symbolize wealth,influence, status and educated citizens with ahigh income. Such landscapes may have beenattained because they are exclusively createdfor the few in society, thus excluding the vastmajority of citizens .Valuations made for the least-preferred

landscapes markedly contrast those of the mostpreferred, although a similar theme of judge-ment may be discerned (Table 3) . Evidently,the least-valued urban landscapes in Nigeriaare concentrated at the core of the city. Insi-der-outsider judgements significantly influ-ence the various reasons put forward to ex-plain why these landscapes are the leastpreferred or valued . In the physical settingcontext, for example, while suburban respond-ents who do not live or wish to live in core lo-cales point to traditionalism, age of the build-ing and congestion/crowding as some of themost important (I*) reasons which lower thequality of core landscapes, core people who al-ready live within the confines of such land-scapes are of the view that congestion, and tosome extent age of the building, road condi-tions and maintenance, and not traditional-ism, are the important reasons for the poorstate of core and other least-valued landscapes .

B.A. CHOKOR

From the various descriptions and judge-ments made, it is obvious that urban land-scapes are the least preferred when they ex-hibit traditional features which reflect villagescenes, simple arrangements/design featuresand other local features that are "non-metro-politan" in character . Old buildings are alsoleast preferred as they have ancient unattrac-tive structures, dereliction and slum condi-tions. Poor maintenance is particularly stressedby core respondents as a key reason why corelandscapes are least attractive . For example,where core old buildings wear an abandonedneglected look with blown-out windows andworn-out paint, such landscapes also becomeundervalued. Crowding, on the other hand,which is viewed by both respondent groups ashaving a first degree role in the low quality ofthe least-preferred landscapes, tends to pro-duce inexclusive "hot" environments that arefound to be restraining and confining for fam-ily groups . As also is evident, the least-valuedplaces are of low quality according to suburbanrespondents because they are aesthetically dulland unappealing, an issue not stressed by corerespondents. Bad road conditions, such as un-tarred, poorly paved, gullied streets with poth-oles and poorly drained settings or places lia-ble to flood, are considered importantcontributors to the low quality of landscapes .

Divergent judgements, however, emerge be-tween both groups of respondents in the as-sessment of the role of institutional factors inenvironmental quality and preference .Whereas core people do not see disorder/un-derplanning and substandard housing design/materials as significant in low quality, subur-banites view them as very important or firstdegree in their valuation of the low quality ofcore and other least-preferred environments .Thus in the latter's assessment, disorder, un-regulated development, together with the ab-sence of standard, imaginative designs withperceived weak foundation, non-acceptance ofplanned development or the employment ofmud building materials, are key factors which


significantly explain the low quality of the least-preferred core urban landscapes .

The sociocultural context of landscape pref-erence is least emphasized when comparedwith the wide-ranging emphasis placed onphysical issues, although core respondents areunited in emphasizing that the least-preferredlandscapes with proximate family dwellings arealso places which foster close family ties be-tween people, producing amicable social lifeand co-operative community understandingrather than alienation. This is a most positiveevaluation for least-preferred landscapes . Onthe other hand, while suburban respondents seepoor sanitation, embracing poor refuse collec-tion, and filthy, unhealthy surroundings as veryimportant (l') in the environmental qualityof least-valued landscapes, core people view itas important (2 0 ) . On the contrary, they laystress on imagined poor provision of social fa-cilities such as latrines, kitchens and openspaces as more fundamental social issues whichlower the quality of such environments, an is-sue largely viewed as just important (3°) bysuburbanites.

Lastly, the symbolic qualities of the least-valued landscapes are noteworthy . Althoughthese landscapes are positively viewed as sym-bolizing the historical and cultural life of corepeople, suburbanites see such qualities as justimportant (3°), while core indigenes viewthem as very important (1 °) in enhancing theimage people have of the environments . Inter-estingly, the suburbanites see the core least-preferred landscapes not only as symbolizingthe neglected social groups, the illiterates, theold people and the conservative groups, butview such landscapes as being inhabited by in-digenes or natives of the place, who are rootedand attached to family lands, with archaic waysof life and ideas, largely unreceptive to changeand innovations; qualities which are very im-portant (1 °) contributors to the low quality ofthe areas . While indigenes agree that such .landscapes are inhabited largely by their

277

groups, they do not view it as a significant fac-tor in the quality of the environments .

CONCLUSIONS

This study has been largely exploratory, andhas attempted to identify and explain the na-ture of the valued and the least-valued urbanlandscapes in Nigeria with specific reference tothe city of Ibadan. The aim has been to dis-cover important elements or features in thelandscape that contribute to residential aes-thetic quality, to provide a basis for environ-mental/landscape improvement in Nigeria andperhaps Africa. As one author has recently ar-gued in one respect, "most people and govern-ments in the Third World countries plan andbuild houses with little or no feedback on thekind of residential environments which aresatisfying or dissatisfying to the potential resi-dents of such houses" (Ebong, 1983, p . 282) .One major conclusion to be drawn from thestudy is that city inhabitants value modem en-vironments in a freer spacious setting with newsophisticated designs. As a consequence, newersuburban localities are the most preferred whilemore historical traditional core landscapes areleast desired, although some social values areaccorded to such environments . Evaluationsand longing for modem environments seem tohave been heavily influenced by factors andfeatures such as the abundance of social amen-ities or facilities, healthiness, functionalismand comfort of designs, spaciousness, brightattractive colour of buildings, order, regular-ity/planning and adequate maintenance of thephysical environment. Thus in the African ur-ban context, environmental health, comfort,aesthetic appreciation and compatibility orcongruence between landscapes and people,design and residents, seem to be the chief ide-ological considerations in landscape evalua-tion. Such levels of judgements may have beenshaped by the high physical decay of core tra-ditional historical landscapes when comparedwith the imagined attractions of modem,

278

planned, facility-rich suburban landscapes .Although there is a preponderance of choices

made for suburban-planned physical land-scapes, the sociocultural undertones are alsorevealing and the ideological factors behind thechoices made must be properly understood. Onthe ideological plane, the choicest landscapesare symbolic of wealth, limited access and re-source concentration through public planningand maintenance, while undesired landscapesare the preserve of the poor and the highly ne-glected, highlighting an important dimensionof social inequality of landscapes and their cre-ation. Thus, to properly address the issue oflandscape quality, adequate attention must bepaid to maintenance, resource distribution andpublic policy, issues which seem to affectamenities, planning and standardization andconsequently the perceived value of land-scapes. At the level of social and cultural life,it may be seen that although core respondentsrecognized the low quality of their environ-ments and preferred them less in order to pointout the high quality of the suburbs, they werereluctant to put forward critical reasons for thechoices made, reflecting a real cultural or sen-timental attachment to core historical land-scapes. In fact, cultural resistance to change andconservative refusal to adopt environmentalinnovations or new ideas is one reason ad-duced for the non-improvement of core least-valued landscapes .

Although this study had adopted an essen-tially behaviouristic approach, as with severalstudies undertaken in Western environments,aspects of the results provide some bases forcross-cultural comparisons . First, a number ofWestern landscape preference and qualitystudies have focused almost exclusively on theaffective, descriptive and emotional psycho-logical aspects of landscapes in relation to hu-man responses (see e.g. Burgess, 1978 ; Ulrich,1979, 1981, 1983, 1986 ; Morris, 1981) . As thisstudy shows, social life, cultural identity andphysical environmental issues are key compo-nents of environmental meaning which need

B.A. CHOKOR

further emphasis . Perhaps it is the relativelyhigh level of development and affluence of theWest which has encouraged such research . Asthe present study indicates, people are morepreoccupied with the basic problems of sani-tation, the provision of essential housing orneighbourhood services and the means throughwhich their pressing environmental problems'might be resolved. Second, the research find-ings also present an interesting counterpoint tothe works of Relph (1981), Morris (1981),Lowenthal (1975, 1979) and others which re-flect a movement against modernity in theWest and a call for the preservation of the old .For example, the major tenet of Relph's workis that modern rationally and highly plannedsuburban landscapes, beyond material com-fort, are undesirable and therefore unsuitableplaces of abode. In Ibadan, Nigeria, modemlandscapes are sought by those who do not livein them and are well appreciated by those whodo. Other than social/cultural reasons, thedrudgery of living in the past or old-fashionedbuildings was too much for many people, whilstmodem suburban landscapes are valued forsymbolic reasons and the healthy lifestyle thatthey offer. The movement is also towardsmodem communal rational planning, ratherthan for excessive individual control and ac-tion as advocated by some scholars in the West.

Overall, the approach of the study providesa context for considering urban landscapeplanning, improvement and research in Ni-geria, and probably for the rest of the Africanregion and the Third World . The use of surro-gate photographs and descriptive language wasquite effective, although noise and some othersocial qualities of landscapes were not quiteembraced. The simple scaling method adoptedalso offered an appropriate context to evaluatethe severity and importance of the differentqualities of the environment for differentgroups of people for the purpose of improve-ment. It must be concluded, however, thatlandscape quality is a gamut of complex socialand physical issues which goes beyond simple


preference or psychological ratings ; the subtle-ties of people's relationships and attachmentsto specific landscapes may require forms of re-sponsive experiential investigations . It is hopedthat future studies in the Third World will re-spond to these challenges .

REFERENCES

Buhyoff, G.J ., Wellman, J .D ., Harvey, H . and Fraser, R.A .,1978. Landscape architects' interpretation of people'slandscape preference . J . Environ. Manage ., 6 : 255-262 .

Buhyoff, G.J ., Gauthier, L.J . and Wellman, J .O., 1984 . Pre-dicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetationmeasurement . For . Sci ., 30 : 71-82.

Burgess, J .A ., 1978. Image and Identity . Occasional Papers inGeography, Number 23, University of Hull, Hull, 205 pp .

Chokor, B.A., 1986a. Environment-behaviour--design re-search: A critical assessment in the context of geographyand planning with special reference to the Third World .Environ . Plann . A, 18 : 5-26 .

Chokor, B.A., 1986b. City Profile : Ibadan . Cities, 3:106-116 .Chokor, B.A., 1987a. Environmental cognition and land-

scape research : Issues and Opportunities for environmen-tal planning in Nigeria. A conference paper on Progress inGeographic Thought, presented to the Nigerian Geo-graphical Association, Imo State, University, Okigwe,March.

Chokor, B .A., 1987b. Environment-behaviour-design re-search techniques: an appraisal and review of the litera-ture with special reference to environmental and plan-ning-related information needs in the Third World .Environ . Plann . A, 19 : 7-32 .

Chokor, B .A ., 1988 . Citizens' comparative assessment of ur-ban housing environmental quality : Issues in Third WorldPlanning and a Nigerian case study . A paper presented tothe International Geographic Union Study Group on En-vironmental Perception in Resource Management, Perth,Australia, August .

Cooper-Marcus, C ., 1982 . The aesthetics of family housing :The residents' viewpoint. Landscape Res., 7: 9-13.

Cosgrove, D., 1986 . The geographical study of environmen-tal symbolism : Review and prospect . A conference paperpresented to the XXIV Congresso Italiano, 26-31 May, atTurin.

Cosgrove, D .E. and Daniels, S .J . (Editors), 1987 . The Icono-graphy of Landscape . Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, 94 pp .

Cosgrove, D .E . and Jackson, P ., 1987 . New directions in cul-tural geography . Area, 19 : 95-101 .

Crystal, KH . and Brush, R.O., 1978 . Measuring scenic qual-ity at the urban fringe . Landscape Res ., 13 : 9-11 .

Danford, S. and Willems, E.P., 1976. Subjective responses toarchitectural displays: A question of validity. Environ .Behav., 7 : 486-516 .

Desai, A ., 1980. The environmental perception of an urban

279

landscape: The case of Ahmedabad. Ekistics, 283: 279-285 .

Duncan, l .S., 1985. Individual action and political power : Astructuration perspective. In : R.J . Johnston (Editor), TheFuture of Geography . Methuen, London, pp . 174-189 .

Dunn, M.C., 1974. Landscape evaluation techniques: an ap-praisal and review of the literature . WP-4, Centre for Ur-ban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham,Birmingham, 29 pp .

Dunn, M.C ., 1976. Landscape with photographs: testing thepreference approach to landscape evaluation . J. Environ .Manage ., 4: 15-26 .

Ebong, M.O., 1983. The Perception of residential quality .Third World Plann . Rev ., 5 : 273-285 .

Francescata, G ., Weidemann, S ., Peerson, J .R. and Chenow-eth, R., 1979 . Residents' Satisfaction in HUD-AssistedHousing: Design and Management Factors . U .S. Govern-ment Printing Office, Washington, DC, 94 pp .

Helliwell, DR ., 1978 . The assessment of landscape prefer-ence. Landscape Res ., 3 : 15-17 .

Kaplan, R ., 1983 . The role of nature in the urban context . In :1. Altman and J .F. Wohlwill (Editors), Behaviour and theNatural Environment. Vol . 6 . Plenum, New York, pp . 127-161 .

Lowenthal, D., 1975 . Past time, present place: Landscape andmemory. Geogr. Rev ., 65 :1-36 .

Lowenthal, D ., 1978 . Finding valued landscapes . Prog. Hum .Geogr., 2: 373-417 .

Lowenthal, D., 1979 . Age and artifact, dilemmas of appreci-ation . In : D.W. Meinig (Editor), The Interpretation ofOrdinary Landscapes . Oxford University Press, New York,pp. 101-128 .

Lowenthal, D. and Prince, H.C., 1964. The English land-scape . Geogr. Rev., 54 : 309-346 .

Lowenthal, D . and Prince, H .C ., 1965. English Landscapetastes . Geogr. Rev., 55 : 186-222 .

Morris, C., 1981 . Townscape images: a study in meaning. In:R. Kain (Editor), Planning for Conservation : An Inter-national Perspective . Manswell, London, pp . 259-287 .

Naser, J.L., 1983. Adult viewers' preferences in residentialscenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attri-butes to preference . Environ. Behav., 15 : 589-614.

Rapoport, A., 1979. An approach to designing Third Worldenvironments. Third World Plann . Rev ., 1 : 23-40 .

Relph, E ., 1976 . Place and Placelessness. Pion, London, 156PP .

Relph, E ., 1981 . Rational Landscapes and Humanistic Ge-ography. Crown Helm, London, 224 pp .

Saarinen, T.F ., Sell, J .L. and Husband, E ., 1982 . Environ-mental perception : international efforts . Prog. Hum.Geogr ., 6 : 515-546 .

Shafer, E.L ., Hamilton, J .F. and Shmidt, E.A., 1969 . Naturallandscape preference: a predictive model . J . Leisure Res.,

1 : 1-19 .Shomaker, J-1-f-, 1978. Measurements of preferences for pro-

posed landscape modifications. Landscape Res., 3 : 5-8.Shuttleworth, S., 1979 . The evaluation of landscape quality .

Landscape Res ., 5 : 14-18 .Shuttleworth, S ., 1980, The use of landscape photographs as

280

an environmental

x, 0.1

0[;;in,laadscapestudies . J. Environ . Mansgc t It, -76,

Thrift, N .J ., 1983. Literat i,"tit

aedon of culture andthe politics of place. Antipode, 3S: 12-23 .

Ulrich, R.S ., 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being Landscape Res., 4 : 17-23.

Ulrch R,S., 1981 . Natural vs. urban scenes : Some psycho-physiological effects. Environ . Behav., 13: 523-556 .

Ulrich, R.S ., 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natu-

ral environment. In : I . Altman and J.F. Wohlwill (Edi-

B.A.CHOKOR

ton), Behaviour and the Natural Environment, Vol . 6.Plenum, New York, pp. 85-125 .

Ulrich, R.S ., 1986. Human responses to vegetation and land-scapes. Landscape Urban Plann., 13 : 29-44 .

Weidemann, S., Anderson, J.R., Batterfield, D .T. andO'Donnell, D.M., 1982 . Residents' perception of satisfac-tion and safety. Environ. Behav., 14 : 695-724.

Zube, E.H ., Sell, J .L. and Taylor, J.G ., 1982. Landscape per-ception: research, application and theory. LandscapePlane., 9: 1-34.

urban landscape and environmental quality preferences in ibadan, nigeria: an exploration

Documents