Housing Condition and Affordability in Urban Areas: Case Study of Mushin

Housing Condition and Affordability in Urban Areas: Case Study of Mushin

Chapter One

Aim and Objectives of the Research

The aim of the research was to investigate housing condition of public and PPP residential estates in Lagos State, Nigeria with a view to identifying the determinants, and providing framework for its assessment and improvement.

In order to achieve this aim, the study pursued the following objectives, which are to:

examine the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the residents in the selected residential estates in the study area;
analyse the physical characteristics of housing units and neighbourhood environment of the selected residential estates in the study area;
evaluate residents‟ perception of the quality of housing in the selected residential estates in the study area; and
examine the affordability and other determinants of housing condition in the selected residential estates in the study area.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Concepts of Housing

Housing has been described as the residential neighbourhood, micro-district or physical structure(s) that humans use for accommodation and the environment of the structure, as well as all basic facilities, equipment and devices required for the physical health and the social well-being of the family and individual (UN cited in Jolaoso, 2001 and Abosede, 2006). It was described as the provision of any physical structures usually used for shelter (WHO, 1961), and includes all facilities, equipment, services and devices needed or described for healthful living. It is also a shelter, which to a reasonable degree maintains, protects, and supports human health, in safe and sanitary conditions and an atmosphere of reasonable dignity. It helps to fulfil man‟s social needs such as privacy, social well-being and protection against hostile physical forces and disturbances. It also serves as an area for generating social relationships (Clark, 2009; Abosede, 2006). Housing infrastructures includes type of heating fuel (where necessary), water source, source of electricity, and sewerage. A common source supplying water to five or more units is classified as a „public system‟, otherwise it is private. Housing units are either connected to a public sewer, a septic tank or cesspool, or are served by other means not specified. A public sewer may be operated by a government entity or a private organization. A housing unit is considered to be connected to a septic tank or cesspool when the unit is provided with an underground pit or tank for sewage disposal (Part Three Housing Infrastructure, 2011).

Public/social housing: Public housing is a form of government-provided housing at low rent; managed by the government and at a relatively low rent as a form of public assistance (Microsoft Encarta ME, 2009c); it is a form of housing tenure in which the property is owned by a government authority, which may be central/federal, state or local; in the U.S., it consists of houses or apartments built by the government for the poor people (Bullon, 2007; Collins, 2007). Although the common goal of public housing is to provide affordable housing, the details, terminology, definitions of poverty and other criteria for allocation vary. This is also closely related to Social housing, which is a term referring to rental housing owned and managed by the local authorities- commonly called council housing- and more recently, by housing associations and other organizations which together form the voluntary housing movement. These organizations are voluntary in the sense that, unlike the local authorities, they have no statutory obligation to provide housing. Generally, the essential characteristic of social housing is that it is provided by organizations which do not seek to make a profit (Golland & Blake, 2004). It is also an umbrella term referring to rental housing which may be owned and managed by the state, by not-forprofit organizations, or by a combination of the two, usually with the aim of providing affordable housing; in Britain, it consists of houses or apartments that the local government provides, which can be rented for a small amount of money (Bullon, 2007).

Several studies (Coker et al, 2007; Tibaijuka, 2008; Ibimilua, 2011) have revealed that there is inadequate supply of housing in the right quantity and quality in many developing countries, including Nigeria. The idea of using public funds to address housing supply deficit in Nigeria was initiated by the government when it established the Lagos State Executive Development Board in 1928. This government agency was initially given the task of combating housing-related bubonic plague in central area of Lagos at that time. Since that time, direct intervention by government in housing provision had increased as explained by Mbali & Okoli (2002). To further reduce the problem of housing inadequacy in Lagos, the Federal and Lagos State governments carried out housing developments for different categories of Nigerians in the metropolitan area. But the effect of the Federal government‟s involvement in housing delivery was not felt in Lagos until 1973 when the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) was established. This was later followed by the establishment of the Federal Ministry of Housing, Urban Development and Environment. Jiboye (2010) explained that through these agencies a good number of public housing schemes executed by both the State and Federal governments exist in different locations across the states of the federation.

Although huge resources have been expended in realising several public housing projects since the 1920s, public opinion and findings from the existing studies (UNHABITAT, 2006; Akinmoladun & Oluwoye, 2007; Ademiluyi & Raji, 2008; Jiboye, 2010) suggest that public housing projects have failed to meet the yearnings and aspirations of the people in terms of quality, satisfaction, affordability and adequacy among others. This has become more worrisome knowing that the National Housing Policy of 1991 had the ultimate goal of ensuring that all Nigerians owned or have access to decent, safe and sanitary housing accommodation at affordable cost by the year 2000 (National Housing Policy, 1991). It is also interesting to note that the Nigerian State was further enjoined by Section 16(1d) of the 1999 Constitution under the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy: “to provide suitable and adequate shelter for all citizens”. Both documents are pointers to the fact that all citizens and residents in Nigeria are entitled to good quality housing. It is however observed that more than sixteen years after the implementation of this constitution, this noble wish or dream is yet to be realized.

The problem of providing good quality housing for Nigerians, especially those living in urban areas has been a concern to the government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), professionals and many other housing stakeholders. In most urban centres in this country, the problem is not only restricted to quantity but also poor quality of available housing units and the surrounding environment. These have manifested in overcrowding in houses as well as increasing pressure on available infrastructural facilities (FGN, 1991; Ademiluyi & Raji, 2008). As is true in many cities in developing countries, housing is generally inadequate in terms of quality and quantity in rapidly growing cities like Lagos (Ibimilua, 2011). In fact, the UN-HABITAT (2006) noted that there is no urban agglomeration in Nigeria that urban housing crisis is more pronounced than in Lagos. The urban housing crisis in Lagos has been linked to a number of factors, including rapid growth in population which has contributed significantly in exacerbating the problems of inadequate and inefficient supply of housing and other basic infrastructural services (Akinmoladun & Oluwoye, 2007). Since research must precede any meaningful development in any field of human endaeavour, a study such as this may yield results that can give information on how to maintain or achieve high standard of housing (Oluwatayo, 2009).

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design

From literature, many of the previous studies adopted survey while some others adopted qualitative approach. But considering the study aim and objectives, the merits/demerits of various approaches, survey using questionnaire administration combined with observation were adopted. This survey method affords the researcher the opportunity to draw inferences about the characteristics of a population being studied and it is one in which the sampled subjects and variables were observed as they were without any control or manipulation by the researcher or anyone (Ojo, 2005; Oyeku & Ayodele, 2010).

The Research Population

The research population is made up of 26,207 dwelling units in Mushin area of Lagos State with household-head as the respondents. They are made up of 25,051 government and 1,156 Joint Venture constructed housing units, respectively.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Residents

This section deals with summary of response rate to the administered questionnaires „A‟ on the population samples on demographic and socio-economic characteristics by the 379 resident-respondents. Not more than five (5) of the resident-respondents however did not respond to the questions in this section, which yields a response rate of over 98%.

It presents data on the subject obtained from fieldwork, the relevant analyses and discusses the findings. They include, state of origin, ethnicity/tribe, religion, sex, age of respondent, length of residency, marital status, household size (persons), household composition/age ranges showing adults proportion in household, highest level of education/academic qualification of house-head/respondent, occupation/economic activity (nature of employment), average monthly income, tenure type and room occupancy rate; which are all to provide us with adequate background of the residents

(See Questionnaire „A‟ Section I in Appendix 10). The obtained data are then analysed as shown in the following sub-sections. It is pertinent to note that where „Not Sure‟ occurred in Questionnaire and analysis, it implied more of „intermediate option such as average‟ between two opposite extremes, than uncertainty.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Though the preceding Chapter Five was devoted to general results discussion of findings/application and their implications from which generalizations are made, this chapter which is the concluding part of this Thesis report on the study conducted has been classified into three major groups, namely, Summary, Recommendations and Conclusion.

Others including Chapter one focused on general introduction including the purpose (aim and objectives) of the research, and the study area. Chapter two focused on review of relevant and related literature centred on theoretical background of the subject matters (housing condition), related issues and debates in housing; and detailed discussion on theoretical/conceptual frameworks for the study, Chapter three was the detailed discussion on the methodology involving the procedures adopted in carrying out the entire research; while Chapter four was the data presentation and interpretation of the results.

Summary of Findings

General Summary

The main focus of this research was to investigate housing condition of public and PPP residential estates in Lagos State, Nigeria with a view to identifying the determinants and providing framework for its improvement.

It has been established by this study that of the thirteen (13) socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the residents investigated, only five (5), that is, length of stay in residence, religion, and tenure type, ethnicity, and occupation are predictors of housing condition in the study area.
Of the six (6) housing physical characteristics considered, only three (3), that is, „number of bedroom(s)‟ dwelling type and home based enterprises (HBE) which is an employment generator are predictors of housing condition in the study area. The importance of HBE to the residents can not be overemphasised, hence, they should be centralised in one or more appropriate location(s), depending on the size of the estate and to avoid development of slums or unpleasant consequences of their proliferation in or around dwelling units. iii. The median housing condition score of the research population in the study area obtained from residents‟ perception was 4.00; suggesting that the quality is „Good‟. Efforts of of the housing providers, professionals, managers, private partners and other stakeholders in Lagos State housing, are highly commendable because in 14 out of all the 15 sampled estates over 93% of the housing estates were either rated as having average quality or good quality and only 1 estate (less than 7%) had the housing condition rated slightly below average. Specifically, seven of the fifteen estates (2 high-income, 4 middleincome and 1 low-income) or 46.7% are of „Good‟ quality category; another seven estates (1 high-income, 3 middle-income and 3 low-income) or 46.7% are of „average‟ quality; while the remaining one low-income estate or 6.7% are of poor quality category. These percentages indicate the proportions housing classifications in the research population.

The housing condition (HC) value for the study area obtained from residents‟ perception is reliable since it was derived from broad-based or near-holistic design. Real HC assessment is not just about getting the value, but about understanding the dynamics for maintenance and improving its diverse aspects. In this study area, if a new study is derived from broad-based or near-holistic design or from previous near-holistic research conducted on HC, the result is expected to yield acceptable result.

Regarding the determinants/predictors of housing condition, the study identified a total of eleven (11) determinants/predictors in the research population in the study area. They are „housing adequacy and satisfaction, estate conditions, availability of services, dwelling type, number of bedroom(s), availability of home based enterprises (HBE), length of stay in residence, religion, and tenure type of residence, ethnicity, and occupation/economic activity‟. Hence, housing condition as found out in this study in the research population and in the study area has been defined as a function, integration or interplay of these eleven (11) determinants.
Summary of Findings on „Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Residents‟, Residents‟ Perception of the Environment of the Estates, and „Characteristics of Housing Units in the Estates‟ are in Appendix 13.

Contribution to knowledge

This study contributes to knowledge in housing which would complement the existing understanding of the subject in the following areas:

It improved understanding of the quality of housing in the selected residential estates in Lagos State, by providing methodological approach to its determination, empirical data on its characteristics, by comparing the quality of housing across delivery strategies, provider organisations and housing income classifications; and thus provides a benchmark for assessing the performance of public and PPP housing in the study area. By these, housing providers are better informed on which approach to adopt in order to achieve better housing condition for the masses than what was found in the research population; and order of housing outcomes by organisations; and order of housing outcomes by housing-income typologies.
Furthermore, the study has contributed to understanding by identifying the determinants or predictors of housing condition and developed a framework for assessing and predicting effect of changes in any of them in Lagos State which accommodates Lagos as a typical global megacity in the global south. The study has also contributed to the „housing adjustment and adaptation theory‟ by showing that housing condition was being influenced by some socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the residents. The understanding of how housing condition can be improved is vital for the purpose of improving existing housing stock and for designing, constructing and operating housing in future. This has implications for practice, research and education particularly in housing studies and architecture in general in the study area; hence, architects, planners and housing developers and managers have grasp of the specific aspects of housing delivery process that can enhance housing condition outcome.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this research the following recommendations are made.

First, in view of the result showing that over 63% of the predictors of housing condition are related to design aspect of housing, management, Tenure type of residence, Job creation , and locational aspects; while less than 37% are linked to and residents‟ personal characteristics, therefore more attention should be paid to the design parameters by architects on public housing programmes among others in the study area.
Second, it is also suggested that steps be taken to improve the quality of housing schemes targeted at the middle and low income earners. This is in view of the fact that among the three income categories of housing estates investigated, the estates designed for the middle-income and the low-income people were rated lower on the housing condition scale than the high-income types in the study area. This can be achieved by adopting the public housing delivery option more in the development of housing for the middle and low income earners. This suggestion is hinged on the finding of this study that housing provided solely by government agencies in the research population were rated higher on the quality scale than the PPP housing by the residents.

Third, the finding of this study indicates that houses in all the estates were constructed using conventional building materials with attendant high housing cost or rent, high maintenance cost and other housing expenditures; which cumulatively led to the housing being considered to be „unaffordable‟ by the residents. For this reason, it suggested that housing developers should explore into how to make housing affordable to the people. This can be achieved by: (a) bringing down the cost of housing, (b) using durable materials and construction solution that will minimize maintenance frequency, (c) providing accessible basic amenities, services and public facilities and at minimum cost in the study area. iv.Fourth, it is obvious from the study that although most of the housing estates are connected to the national grid for the supply of electricity, the main source of power supply was private electricity generating sets, which depend most on fossil fuel and has adverse environmental and health implication. In view of the current electricity supply crisis in Nigeria, it is imperative housing developers explore the integration of alternative sources of clean energy such as „solar‟ into the design and construction of mass housing.

Fifth, the situation where most of the households depend on water vendors for the supply of water for domestic consumption is very worrisome as this has serious health implications. It is therefore recommended that this should be addressed. On of the ways for achieving this for the residents Community Development Associations (CDAs) to partner with housing providers to set up efficient water supply systems in the estates by sinking (more) boreholes and constructing water reservoirs. This can ensure constant supply of good drinking water for residents of these housing estates. New schemes should consider incorporating alternative sources of water supply.
In new residential estates, provision of centralised HBEs in one or more appropriate location(s), depending on the size of the estate should planned as part of schemes to avoid development of slums or unpleasant consequences of their proliferation in or around dwelling units and any open spaces due to desire of residents in them.

REFERENCES

Abloh, F.A. (1980). A Concise Basic Sociology for Community Designers. Department of Housing and Planning Research, University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Abosede, F.B. (2006). Housing in Lagos Mega City: Improving Livability, Inclusion and Governance. Paper presented at the International Conference on „Building Nigeria‟s Capacity to Implement Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Lessons Learned,Challenges and the Way Forward‟. Abuja. 27-28 September.
Adedayo, O.A. (2006). Understanding Statistics. Lagos Nigeria: JAS Publishers
Adejumo, A. (2008a). Social housing in Nigeria. November 1st, 2008. Retrieved on March27,2011 from http://www.nigerianmusee.com/20081101142613zg/sections/ generalarticles/social-housing-in-nigeria-an-imminent-mass-housing-revolution/
Adejumo, A. (2008b). Some Thoughts on Affordable and Social Housing in Nigeria. Dec. 10, 2008, Retrieved March 3, 2011 from: http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com /articles/akintokunbo-a-adejumo/some-thoughts-on-affordable-and-social- housing-innigeria.html
Ademiluyi, I. A. & Raji, B.A. (2008). Public and Private Developers as Agents in Urban Housing Delivery in Sub-Saharan Africa: the Situation in Lagos State. Humanity &
Social Sciences Journal 3(2): 143-150, 2008, ISSN 1818-4960, IDOSI Publications, 2008
Aderamo, A.J. & Ayobolu, D.F. (2010). Spatial Structure of Housing condition in Ilorin, Nigeria. Research Journal of Social Sciences, 1 (5):12-21
Agbola, T. (2003). Lecture notes on Principles of Housing, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of the Social Science, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. 2002/2003 Session.
Agbola, T. & Kassim, T. (2007). Conceptual and Theoretical Issues in Housing, in Agbola, S.B., Egunjobi, L. & Olatubara, C.O. (Eds) Housing Development and Management. A Book of Readings, Pp. 15-69 Nigeria: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Ibadan.
Agbola, T. & Oladoja (2004). Philosophy and Theory of Urban and Regional Planning, in Agbola, T. (Ed.) Reading in Urban and Regional Planning. Pp. 1-30. Ibadan Nigeria: Macmillan.
Agbola, T. & Olatubara, C. O. (2003). Private Sector Driven Housing Delivery in Nigeria:Issues, Constraints, Challenges and Prospects. A paper presented at National Workshop organised by the Department of Estate Management, University of Lagos,Nigeria in collaboration with Real Estate Development Association of Nigeria at University of Lagos.

Related Topics:

Other Topics