Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online) Vol.4, No.11, 2014 14 Determinants and Pattern of Single Family Housing Estates in Port Harcourt Metropolitan Fringe Areas Dr. Collins H. Wizor Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Port Harcourt, P.M.B 5323, Port Harcourt, Nigeria Email: collins.wizor@uniport.edu.ng；wizorcollins@yahoo.com Abstract This article examines the determinants and pattern of single family housing estates in Port Harcourt fringe areas. The data obtained for the study includes the design, ownership structure and infrastructural facilities of the single family housing estates, property characteristics and residential mobility, reasons for preferring housing areas at the current metropolitan fringe areas of Port Harcourt and satisfaction level of housing located outside the city centre. Other data includes the List of single family housing estates in the current Port Harcourt Metropolitan fringe areas (both private and government) and the aggregate population of the two local government areas making up the metropolitan fringe area. The article showed changing residential location preference. Almost all of the households left the prestige districts and opportunity of being close to city center and preferred living at the periphery of the city. Findings of the study indicate that forefront pull factors are desire to ‘live in a detached house with a private garden’, ‘being close to natural amenities and large green open spaces’, and push factors ‘deteriorated environmental quality’ and ‘traffic congestion in the city center’. There is therefore the urgent need to establish single family housing estates and integrate them within the overall urban master plan. In cases where there are no master plans, relevant governments should ensure that master plans are prepared so as to foster orderly development. The government should equally ensure that majority of the single family housing estates at the fringe areas be built by major building firms in order to achieve the best desired result in terms of size, design, quality of construction and maintenance and adherence to urban planning regulations. Keywords: Determinant, Pattern, Single family housing estates, Fringe area Introduction Decentralization of cities towards their periphery has been observed since nineteenth century. In contemporary times the rate of decentralization has been astronomical due to rapid urbanization, increased urban sprawl, changes in economic structure, public policy, increased mobility, progression in transport and technology, changing household features, changes in income distribution and life styles and other related factors. In this urban development and growth dynamics, development and location choice of housing areas are important factors. These macro factors are very influential. Another factor related with the development of housing areas is the preferences and choices of households (Filion et al, 1999). These choices that are determined by some multi-dimensional and complicated decision processes vary according to economic and socio-cultural values. Factors which affect the choices are dwelling size, house price, quality, social homogeneity (especially among high-income groups), quality of life and accessibility to urban facilities and activities. There are two distinct perspectives about the location preference of housing areas at urban fringe areas (Bryant et al. 1995, Daniels 1999). Urban and rural characteristics based on the duality of the fringe area are connected with “push” and “pull” factors. This was effective in the preparation of the questionnaire and on the determination of reasons of choices. “Pull” factors come out as the advantages of urban fringe areas and are related with natural beauties, open and green space, quality of living environment, size of houses and privacy. “Push” factors on the other hand indicate to the negative images of the urban environment. Factors which lies beneath the development of the single family housing estates at urban fringes, like “being with nature”, “healthy life”, “ a clean environment”, “quality of living environment”, “metropol-phobia”, “a homogeneous social environment”, preference of single family houses” are all related with this viewpoint. The processes of peripheral growth have for a long time been observed and interpreted in the context of ‘dissolution of urban structures’ (Burdack, 2002). At the end of the dissolution of urban structure, urban-rural boundaries are increasingly blurred and the relationship between city and countryside shifting. The term associated with this peripheral growth according to Wizor (2014) is ‘urban sprawl’. A variety of urban forms have been covered by the term “urban sprawl” ranging from contiguous suburban growth, linear patterns of strip development, leapfrog and scattered development” (Ewing, 2004). Urban fringe studies are affected by its partly urban and partly rural socio-spatial characteristics. Planners, geographers and social science researchers who have tried to explain size, form, rate of expansion, and socioeconomic-environmental effects of metropolitan areas were debating for years. Nigeria has been experiencing a great transition from rural to urban oriented economy, which has been accompanied by the increasing mobility of production factors such as: capital, labour, technology and information to the metropolitan