eyond the protection of residents from the scorch of the sun, on-slaught of hales, strong winds and other harsh effects of inclement weather, protection of houses in primitive settlements of Africa and the Third World nations consisted of devices to ward off aggression from unfriendly animals and fellowmen from neighbouring ecological environments. Residents on tree-branches, hunting decks and hill-tops (Buah, 1969) relied on height advantages over aggressors who had to climb to their height level before affecting an attack. The time lag, for the intruder, to reach such heights, and energy spent in such effort provided some advantage to the home front, for a counter attack on the intruder. Spears, missiles (of stones), cutlasses and cudgels came handy as weapons to repudiate intruders' aggression. Others included ethno-medical devices, relying on fetishes, potent charms and incantations in the Yoruba (African and Asian) traditional medicine . This was a period when riparian house-steads were sparse and consisted of a relatively few, homogenous households that knew themselves and shared the same traditional and cultural beliefs. The first suspicion of an impending intrusion in such close knitted house-steads was the mere sighting of a strange man, animal, phenomenon, etc, in the housing environment that had only few accesses; and thus, enabling intruders to be seen from a warning distance. With urbanization, agglomeration of larger numbers of households and human populations Author : Department of Architecture Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria. with diverse tribal and socio-cultural backgrounds resulting in one single, dense and extensive urban settlement, ensuring security of a household has become intricate and complicated. First, strangers could no longer be easily identified as in previous, relatively smaller homogenous settlements. Nextneighbour households in cities are now strangers, as households now change often, in an urban setting characterized by changing tenants and immigrants. Second, property and thus, household boundaries and areas of influence and authority have become smaller and much more curtailed. This may, at first, appear to be an advantage; by limiting areas for security concern of each household. This is however not so, for another third reason! The urban setting is characterized by provision of urban facilities and services, whose agencies like the police, water and electricity boards, gas, milk, paper, etc, agencies, may, by virtue of their duties, have statutory rights of entrance into household premises. Thus the additional communal security provided by the vigilance of every member of the neighbourhood is lost in the urban setting where the challenge of adequate security in the house is largely the responsibility of individual households. Today, among the major factors of discomfort in urban residential houses in Nigeria is the fear of burglary attack, rape, murder, kidnapping and other similar criminal assaults (Microsoft library, 2007). How do individual households respond to this challenge? Is this response the same for all residents across the different residential zones of the city? If not, what factors account for the differences? First, a reconnaissance survey was made to draw up a checklist of physical security devices used in the city. These include erection of boundary fence, building of security gate, provision of security gatehouse and employment of security guard/gateman. A total of 1,250 houses, constituting about ten percent (10%) of the projected number of houses (1,2504) in Ogbomoso, by 2008, was sampled in a randomly systematic method. This was done in fifty percent (50%) of the total number of streets in the city; consisting of 18, from the high, 15, from the medium and 14, from the low density residential zones, respectively. In each sampled house, the incidence of any of each of the physical security devices and the socio-economic status of the household were noted B Global Journal of Human Social Science Volume XII Issue IV Version I ebruary F and recorded. The data obtained was transformed using contingency tables for houses with security fence, security gate, security gate house, and security gateman as in tables 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 respectively. Similarly, the income, education and employment status of each household sampled was examined; and the comparison shown on contingency Tables 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 respectively. Chi-square tests were run to show the significance of the scores on all indicators of physical security devices (Tables 1.0 to 4.0), and indicators of socio-economic status (Tables 5.0, 6.0 and to 7.0) respectively; in the different zones of the city. Finally, adopting the Pearson product moment coefficient, a correlation test was run between indicators of socio-economic status of residents and incidence of physical security devices in the city (Table 8.0). The frequency of each indicator of housing security and for indicators of socio-economic status are as shown in the score distributions in Tables 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0; and 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 for the high, medium and low density residential zones of Ogbomoso, respectively. About 68, 64, 45 and 53 percents of the households in the city have security fence, security gate, security gate-house and employ security gateman in the low residential density zone of the city. This is the zone with the highest proportion of households with physical security devices in the city. This is followed by the medium residential density zone with 31.6, 18.6, 12.7 and 10.1 percents, with similar devices; while the high residential density zone generally have the least; with about 8, 1.2, 1.9 and 2.8 percents of the devices, respectively (Tables 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0). The Chi-square test result is also shown in the Tables (1.0 to 4.0) as 358.217, as 468.433, 301.918 and 394.301; at 99 percent level of confidence, respectively. Thus physical security devices are significantly higher or more frequently installed by residents in the low density residential zone of the city. This is followed by residents in the medium density and least in the high density residential zones. Over four (4), and two (2), percents of residents in the low residential density zone of the city earn between N60,001 and N80,000; and N80,001 and N150,000 per month respectively. No single household in the medium and high density residential zones, earns this much range of monthly income. Moreover, about 5.3 and 10.7 percents of residents in the medium and low density residential zones earn between N40,001 and N60,000 per month. The highest set of income earners (on N20,001 -N40,000), in the high density residential zone constitutes only 1.2 percent, while those earning such and above in the medium and low density residential zones of the city constitute 19.4 and 42.3 percents respectively. The greatest percentage of those earning below N20,000 per month are in the high (69.0%) and medium (57.3%) residential zones. Thus residents with the highest monthly income are in the low followed by the medium density residential zones. Chi-square test for the distribution of these scores across the zones gives 260.512 and is significant at 99 percent confidence level (Table 5.0) About 58 percent of the residents in the low, 30 percent in the medium and 13 percent in the high density residential zones have tertiary education respectively, in the city. Conversely, a higher percentage of residents in the high (38.9%), 27.3 percent in the medium and only 15.4 percent in the low density residential areas have below secondary education (Table 6.0). This result, with a Chi-square value of 251.096 is significant at 99 percent level of confidence. Thus, education status in the city is significantly higher and better among residents in the lower density residential zones of the city. The result of the analysis on the employment status in the city also shows that the cumulative percentage of those employed in the public service (government) and private company is higher for residents in the low residential density zone (37.5%). This is closely followed by the medium (35.0%) and least in the high (13.8%), density residential zones. It will be recalled that the result on level of income (Table 5.0) shows a much higher trend in the low; and the least in the high residential zones. It is thus clear, that the self-employed, public service employed and private company-employed, in the higher residential density zones earn lower salaries compared to employees n the lower density zones. The latter may mostly be senior and management employees while the former belong to the junior cadre: With the Chi-square value of 37.271 and at 99 percent level of confidence, the employment status is significantly higher and better in the low followed by the medium, and least in the high density residential zones of the city (Table 7.0). Pearson product moment correlation test was run to examine the relationship between incidence of security devices and residents' socio-economic status. The result, shown in Table 8.0, confirms the direct correlation between these two sets of variables. The trio of monthly income, educational status and employment status -all indicators of residents socioeconomic status, each correlates, directly and significantly, with incidence of boundary fence (0.16, 0.318 and 0.162); houses with security gate (0.49, 0.297 and 0.120); houses with security gate house (0.107, 0.22 and 0.153); and with security gateman (0.118, 0.219 and 0.104), Table 8.0. Thus all indicators of housing security vary directly; and at 99 percent level of significance with the indicators of socioeconomic status of residents. Both incidence of security device and residents' socio-economic status increase directly with decreasing residential population density. All physical security devices have significantly, greater incidence of occurrence among residents in the low residential areas of the city. This is followed by the medium, and least in the high residential zones. These indicators and their Chi-square values include security fence (358.217), security gate (468.433), security gatehouse (301.918), and security gateman (394.301), are all significantly higher in the low, followed by the medium and least in the high density residential zones, at 99 percent confidence level. Similarly, all indicators of socio-economic status (Table 6.0), and Employment status (Table 7.0) are significantly higher in houses within the low, followed by the medium and least in the high density residential zones of the city. The result, each of which is significant at 99 percent confidence level, also has Chi-square values of 260.512, 251.096 and 87.271, respectively. Thus, households in the lower density residential zone and with higher incidence of physical security devices are also, of the highest socioeconomic status. This implies that residents with higher income, education and employment status are enlightened enough to realize they are at higher risk of burglary attacks. They are also more economically buoyant; on account of their higher pay. The burglary devices are also more easily affordable to them. It is no surprise therefore, that majority of them have these devices in their houses. Incidence of security devices against intruders with criminal motives is significantly higher in the lower density residential zones. The variables of such indicators also increase significantly with decreasing residential population. Similarly, residents' socioeconomic status is significantly higher in the lower residential zones. Its variables also increase significantly, with decreasing population and residential density zones. Thus households in the higher residential density zones are of significantly lower incidence of security devices; as they have lower income regime. They can therefore, ill-afford these physical security devices. They are, also, however at lower risk of criminal assault by reason of their lower socioeconomic status; and thus, materials possession. # ebruary # F Inspite of the lower likelihood of criminal attacks at a scale possible in the lower density residential zones, residents in the high, and to a greater level in the medium residential zone, may be accosted with petty criminals within their immediate zones. This explains why within the high density zone, security devices consisted more of ethno-medical indigenous forms as noted by . These potent, native charms, that have satisfied this indigenous settlement zone in the past, should be further encouraged within the richer, residents of the lower density residential zones. The latter can choose between the ethno-medical, and conventional, physical forms of anti-criminal security devices. In the face of increasing rate of crime at home, work and highways in Nigeria, and the dwindling efficacy of conventional security devices against the use of grenades, armoured tanks; with which sophisticated burglars break, formidable barriers, alternative devices are due for a welcome. Besides, the ugly trend in current burglary attacks is the invasion of the victim by criminals in large, intimidating numbers. Such burglars have, in the past, knocked and forced victims to open their doors voluntarily; or risk a complete wreck of whole apartments. Ethno-medical devices, with their latent potency, can safe, nay, forestall such harrowing situations. 12012ebruaryFGlobal Journal of Human Social Science Volume XII Issue IV Version IVariables No Response Yes No Total X 2 value: 358.217 Variables No Response Yes No Total X 2 value: 468.4330 : Houses with Security Fence Residential Density Type High Medium Low No % No % No % 25 4.9 6 1.6 10 2.8 39 7.7 119 31.6 246 67.8 404 Total No 41 443 87.4 252 66.5 107 29.3 794 508 100 377 100 363 100 1248 100 % 3.3 324 63.6 Significance level: 0.000 (99%) Table 2.0 : Houses with Security Gate Residential Density Type Total High Medium low No % No % No % No % 22 4.3 11 2.9 2 0.6 35 2.8 6 1.2 70 18.6 233 64.2 309 24.8 480 94.5 296 78.3 128 35.3 902 72.3 508 100 377 100 363 100 1248 100 Significance level: 0.000 (99%) Table 3.0 : Houses with Security Gate HouseVariablesResidential Density Type High MediumLowTotalNo%No%No %No%No Response214.182.151.4342.7Yes41.94812.7164 45.2 21617.3No48395.132185.1194 53.4 99880.2Total508100377100363 100 1248 100X 2value: 301.918Significance level: 0.000 (99%) 5.0 :Monthly Income of RespondentsRESIDENTIAL DENSITY TYPETotalVariablesHighMediumLowNo%No%No%No%No Response15129.88823.38022.031925.61 -20,00035069.021657.312935.5695 55.720,001 -40,00061.25314.19225.3151 12.1201240,001 -60,00000205.33910.7594.7ebruary60,001 -80,000 80.001 -150,0000 00 00 00 015 84.1 2.215 81.2 0.6FTotal1511003771003631001247 100X 2 Value = 260.512Significant level = 0.000 (99%)Global Journal of Human Social Science Volume XII Issue IV Version IVariables No Response Non formal Primary School Secondary School Vocational NCE/Nursing Tertiary/University Education Total X 2 Value = 251.096 Variables No Response Unemployed Self employedTable 6.0 : Educational Status of Respondents RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TYPE High No % Medium No % Low No 8 1.6 2 0.5 6 153 14.3 54 14.3 24 125 24.6 50 13.3 32 141 27.8 20 31.8 87 24.0 % 1.7 6.6 8.8 47 9.3 76 20.2 65 17.9 34 13.2 75 29.1 149 57.8 508 100 377 100 363 100 Significant level = 0.000(99%) Total No 16 231 18.5 % 1.3 207 16.6 348 27.9 188 15.1 258 20.7 1248 100 Table 7.0 : Employment Status of Respondents RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TYPE Total No % High No % Medium No % Low No % 14 2.8 9 2.4 3 0.8 26 2.1 32 6.3 27 7.2 26 7.2 85 6.8 368 72.6 198 22.5 18.5 51.0 751 60.2Public (Govt.) Service489.58422.39927.323118.5EmployedPrivateCompany224.34812.73710.21078.6EmployedPension234.5112.9133.6473.8Total5071003771003631001247100X 2 Value = 87.271Significant level = 0.000 (99%) 8VariablesMonthly incomeEducational statusEmployment statusApartment with FenceHouse with SecurityGateHouse with SecurityGatehouseHouses with SecurityGatemanMonthly Income1Educational Status0.252**1Employment Status0.196**0.370**1Apartment with Fence0.169*0.318**0.162**1Houses with security gate0.149**0.297**0.120**0.495**1Houses with security gatehouse0.107**0.220**0.153**0.3700.490**1Houses with security gate man0.118**0.219**0.104**0.326**0.378** 0.423** 1** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) Global Journal of Human Social Science Volume XII Issue IV Version I 2 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) * An Evaluation of the spatial Dimensions of Housing Stress in AM OAtolagbe 2011 * Nigeria? An unpublished Ph Ogbomoso Ilorin Nigeria Submitted to the Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Ilorin D Thesis * AM OAtolagbe Security Consciousness in Indigenous Nigeria Houses: A preliminary survey of Yoruba Ethno-Medical Devices? Studies on Ethno medicine 2011 5 * The Ancient World, A New History for Schools and Colleges Book 1, 2 nd Edition .F KBuah 1969. 2007. 2007 Macmillan Education Limited London and Basingstoke * MSN Microsoft Library 2007