ASSESSMENT OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND THE AFFORDABILITY IN OGUN STATE (CASE STUDY OPIC AND OGUN STATE HOUSING)


 ABSTRACT

This study was to assess housing development and the affordability in Ogun State with a particular reference to Opic and Ogun State housing. To achieve this objective, four research questions were formulated to guide the study. The data was collected from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data were collected with the help of a well-structured questionnaire of two sections administered to respondents Opic and Ogun State housing. The collected data were analyzed with tables and simple percentages to analyze the research questions. The study concluded with some recommendations that government should encourage private partnership by providing enabling environment through tax reduction, well organised mortgage schemes and low interest rate for funding housing projects and the opinions and inputs of end users of the housing schemes should be taken during the planning, design and construction stages of the project in order to meet the     beneficiaries of the schemes.

 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1    BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Housing is an integral part of human settlement that fulfils basic need and has a profound impact on the quality of life, health, welfare as well as productivity of man. It plays a crucial role in integrated physical and economic development, environmental sustainability, natural disaster mitigation and employment generation as well as wealth creation (Erguden, 2001; Boehm and Schlottmann, 2001; UN-HABITAT, 2006a). The desire for adequate and affordable housing also has strong links to the need for security, safety and proper socio-economic status of individuals and communities. In spite of this widely acknowledged importance of housing and various efforts in making adequate and affordable housing available to majority of people, a large proportion of urban residents in less developed countries do not have access to decent housing at affordable cost (Tipple,2004; 2006; UN-HABITAT, 2006a; Greene and Rojas, 2008). As a result, most urban residents in Developing Countries live in housing conditions that constitute an affront to human dignity and which comes with appalling social, economic, spatial and health implications (Rondinelli, 1990; Cotton and Tayler, 1994; Opara, 2003; UN-HABITAT, 2006d; Coker et al., 2007; UNFPA, 2007). Hence, inadequate housing condition has become an intractable challenge that has continued to receive attention from governments and individuals in many developing countries.

In line with human tradition which seeks to investigate, describe, understand and proffer solutions to ameliorate defects in human conditions, and enhance individual and collective well-being; both public and private sectors have continued to take concerted efforts at addressing the social and economic challenges posed by inadequacies in housing provision in many countries of the world. These efforts have informed legislations, policies, strategies and reforms, which most often have culminated in various housing programmes (Onibokun, 1985; Rondinelli, 1990; Ajanlekoko, 2002; Sengupta, 2005; Sengupta and Sharma, 2008). A review of literature shows that between 1950 and 2000, governments in many developing countries have engaged in different housing programmes and delivery strategies. For example, previous studies have shown that successive administrations in Nigeria had launched a minimum of seven public housing programmes in the last few decades in a bid to address increasing housing challenges in the country (Onibokun, 1985; Awotona, 1990; Ogu, 1999; Ogu and Ogbuozobe, 2001; Ajanlekoko, 2002; UN-HABITAT, 2006a; Akinmoladun and Oluwoye, 2007; Ademiluyi and Raji, 2008).

However, substantial literature on public housing in developing countries has revealed three main streams of criticism (Mukhija, 2004). First, it is argued that most public housing schemes are inefficient and ill conceived, and thus failed to meet the needs of target population (Rondinelli, 1990; Mba, 1992). Second, direct government involvement in housing provision is viewed as being negligible compared to the volume of housing provided by informal private sector (UN-HABITAT, 2006a; 2006c). Finally, government intervention in the housing market to check rising cost of housing is seen as counter-productive and an impediment to smooth operation of housing market and efficient housing delivery system (Sengupta and Ganesan, 2004; Mukhija, 2004).Consequently, many scholars and stakeholders have argued that government has no business in providing housing for people, but rather government should act as a partner, enabler and facilitator of housing process by making available appropriate incentives, policy and good regulatory environment necessary for effective private sector participation in housing provision (World Bank, 1993; UNCHS, 2000). In view of this, there is an emerging consensus that current approaches to public housing be based on market-friendly policies and strategies that encourage reduction in government’s direct involvement in public housing provision. Ong and Lenard (2002) and UN-HABITAT (2006a) were however of the opinion that this does not necessarily mean reduction in government’s social responsibility in providing housing for the citizens, but rather it implies the production of housing through collaborative approach in an integrated manner.

In the light of foregoing criticisms coupled with the need for sustainable solution to burgeoning housing challenges; most governments in developing countries are engaging in new housing policies, programmes and strategies that seek to meet demands of market-driven economies in addressing housing needs of their people (Sengupta and Ganesan, 2004; Sengupta, 2005; Sengupta and Sharma, 2008). In Nigeria for instance, current approaches to public housing provision are based on private sector-driven strategies (National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy, 2004; Aribigbola, 2008; African Ministerial Conference on Housing and Urban Development, 2008). Similar approaches are known to have been engaged in countries such as India, Malaysia, Peru and many other developing countries (see Arimah, 1999; Ong and Lenard, 2002; Sengupta and Tipple, 2007; Fernandez-Maldonado and Bredenoord, 2010). Surprisingly to date, the outcomes of those strategies, reforms and programmes are yet to be empirically evaluated in many of these countries, including Nigeria.

1.2    STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Despite burgeoning criticism on failure of public housing to provide quality, affordable and adequate housing units to target population in Nigeria; several studies have shown that governments in Nigeria have continuously engaged in different housing delivery strategies to address the problem of providing adequate, affordable and sustainable housing to the citizens (Kabir, 2004; Akinmoladun and Oluwoye, 2007; Ademiluyi and Raji, 2008). For instance, Ogun State government in Nigeria recently planned to provide about 12,230 housing units between 2003 and 2011 through its public housing programme. The Government’s commitment to public housing provision, proclaimed by its political leaders, is reflected in the objectives of the State’s Housing Policy. Specifically, the objectives of public housing provision in this State are to (i) enhance the evolution of appropriate institutional framework for public housing delivery (ii) encourage home ownership with secured tenure among all socio-economic groups (iii) promote private sector participation in public housing (iv) provide self-sufficient public housing estates that meet the daily challenges of all residents and (v) provide all socio-economic groups access to adequate housing at affordable cost . It is expected that public housing in Ogun State will result in the provision of adequate housing and improvement of aesthetics of the urban landscape, and ultimately lead to improved quality of life of residents in public housing estates.

Public housing as a social intervention programme is designed according to peoples‟ perceptions of what seems to work based on practitioners‟ assumptions and logical reasoning (Birckmayer and Weiss, 2000). According to Weiss (1997), such a programme is born out of experience and professional lore. It is usually implemented based on defined strategies to achieve set goals. Preliminary investigations revealed that current efforts in public housing in Ogun State of Nigeria has so far relied on four main housing delivery strategies-including the Core housing, Turnkey, Public-Private Partnership (PPP) and Shell stage strategies in providing the planned number of housing units. However, till date, very little is known on the performance of these strategies. Moreover, several studies (Idemudia, 1980; Muritala, 1980; Bana, 1991; Ali, 1996; Ukoha and Beamish, 1997; Ilesanmi, 2005; Olatubara and Fatoye, 2007; Fatoye and Odusami, 2009; Jiboye, 2009; 2010) have evaluated public housing schemes in different parts of Nigeria. Each of these studies attempted at identifying areas of deficiencies in public housing provision from residents‟ satisfaction point of view. But it has been observed that certain inadequacies which bear upon the focus and usefulness of the findings for factual judgement on the performance of, and validity of underlying theories in public housing exist.

1.3    OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The main aim of this study is to assess housing development and the affordability in Ogun State. The specific objectives include the following:

  1. To assess the organizational capacity of public housing agencies and compare the housing delivery strategies used        in public housing in Ogun State.
  2. To examine the characteristics of housing provided in public housing in the study area.
  3. To determine the socio-economic characteristics of residents in selected housing estates developed through the different    strategies in public housing in the study area.
  4. To examine residents’ perception of the adequacy of housing provided through the different housing delivery strategies     and factors that influenced it. Housing Development

1.4    RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following research questions were formulated to guide this study:

  1. What are the organizational capacity of public housing agencies and compare the housing delivery strategies used     in public housing in Ogun State?
  2. What are the characteristics of residents in housing provided in public housing in Ogun State?
  3. What are the socio-economic characteristics of residents in selected housing estates developed through the various           housing delivery strategies in public housing in Ogun State?
  4. What is the residents’ perception of the adequacy of housing provided through the different housing delivery strategies and factors that influenced it?

1.5    SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

In this study, the researcher set out to assess housing development and the affordability in Ogun State with the aid of highlighting the inherent problem facing low income earners in assessing affordable residential housing. It is expected that this work will be of interest to government, students and the general public.

This study will also help to serve as literature (reference source) to governments at all level, students, individuals or corporate bodies into what to carry out on further research on housing development and the affordability in Ogun State.

 1.6    SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study concerns on assessment of housing development and affordability in Ogun State with a particular reference to Opic and Ogun State Housing.

1.7    LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

Distance and its attendance cost of travel in order to obtain the needed information which to write this study will be a major limitation. Another limitation to the study is short time factor which did not give time for thorough research work, hence gathering adequate information becomes very difficult.

Finally, lack of materials on the topic; this is new in the area of housing development and affordability in Ogun State. Therefore, the researcher resolved to seek friendly approach in order to obtain the needed materials or information from the area under study through the administration of questionnaire.

1.8    DEFINITION OF TERMS

  1. a) Housing: Housing is defined as buildings or structures that individuals and their family may live in that meet certain        federal government regulations. Housing Development
  2. b) Affordable Housing: Affordable housing is housing deemed affordable to those with a median household income as rated by country, State (province), region or municipality by a recognized Housing Affordability Index.
  3. c) Income: Income is the consumption and savings opportunity gained by an entity within a specified timeframe, which is generally expressed in monetary terms (Barr, 2004). However, for households and individuals, income is the sum of all the wages, salaries, profits, interests,. payments, rents, and other forms of earnings received in a given period of time
  4. d) Accommodation: It is lodging in a dwelling or similar living quarters afforded to travelers in hotels or on cruise ships, or
  5. e) Management: Management in organizations is the function that coordinates the efforts of people to accomplish goals    and objectives by using available resources efficiently and    Housing Development