Assessment of residential satisfaction in public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria

Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Habitat International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Assessment of residential satisfaction in public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria Eziyi Offia Ibem*, Egidario B. Aduwo Department of Architecture, College of Science and Technology, Covenant University, Canaan Land, Km 10 Idiroko Road, P.M.B 1023, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Residential satisfaction Public housing Turnkey Publiceprivate partnerships Core housing Shell stage

This study assessed residential satisfaction in public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria. It was based on a questionnaire survey conducted in housing estates constructed using the Turnkey, PublicePrivate Partnerships (PPPs), Core Housing and Shell Stage strategies between 2003 and 2009. Data were collected from 452 household-heads and analysed using descriptive statistics, factor and categorical regression analyses. The result shows that the respondents were generally dissatisfied with their housing conditions, but satisfaction levels were higher with dwelling unit features than neighbourhood facilities and services. Differences in socio-economic status and dimensions of evaluation of residential satisfaction were observed among the respondents across the strategies. The satisfaction levels were also higher among mortgage holders than renters and in the Core and Shell Stage houses where residents participated in the development of their houses than in the Turnkey and PPP houses, where completed houses were acquired. The three strongest predictors of residential satisfaction were adequacy of thermal and visual comfort and security; sizes of living and sleeping areas in the residences; and management of the housing estates, respectively. The study suggests that residential satisfaction and indeed quality of life of low- and middle-income residents can be enhanced through the provision of basic social amenities and infrastructural facilities in public housing schemes, and implementation of participatory and mortgagebased housing policies in Nigeria. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction The provision of satisfactory housing that meets government prescribed standards of quality and users’ needs, expectations and aspirations has always been the goal of every public housing programme in Nigeria. The UN-HABITAT (2006) report however noted that in the past few decades, despite governments’ laudable efforts, public housing has failed to achieve this goal in the country. In view of this, Fatoye and Odusami (2009) suggested that for housing sector to improve the quality of housing it produces, it must explore and understand users’ needs and expectations as well as the extent to which such needs and expectations are met through regular performance evaluation. Teck-Hong (2011) shares similar view by noting that one possible way to meet household’s housing needs is to examine factors which account for residents’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their housing conditions. These views no doubt underscore the need for studies on residential satisfaction in the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ234(0) 8037779415. E-mail addresses: eziyioffi[email protected], [email protected] (E.O. Ibem). 0197-3975/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.04.001

quest to provide housing that meets the daily needs, expectations and preferences of the occupants. Residential satisfaction has been a subject of investigation by scholars and researchers in the field of housing. On the one hand, it has been defined as a measure of residents’ satisfaction with both their housing units and the neighbourhood environment (Gaster, 1987; Hashim, 2003; Kaitilla, 1993; Ogu, 2002), and on the other hand, it has also been viewed as an assessment of the extent to which the current housing environment of residents is meeting their needs, expectations and aspirations (Mohit, Ibrahim, & Rashid, 2010; Salleh, 2008). Therefore, several existing studies on the subject (including Ibem & Amole, 2012; Jiboye, 2009; Liu, 1999; Mohit & Azim, 2012; Mohit et al., 2010; Salleh, 2008) are devoted to the assessment of the extent to which people are satisfied or dissatisfied with their housing conditions, while others (Galster, 1987; Jaafar, Hasan, Mahamad, & Ramayah, 2006; Jiboye, 2010; Salleh, Yosuf, Salleh, & Johari, 2012; Tech-Hong, 2011; Ukoha & Beamish, 1996) focus on the factors that influence residential satisfaction in the different countries. Firstly, findings of these studies help us to understand the importance of housing characteristics, housing unit support services, neighbourhood environment and management aspect of housing as well as the socio-economic and demographic

164

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

characteristics of residents in residential satisfaction. Secondly, they contribute to extending our knowledge of the housing needs and preferences of people and how they evaluate their housing environment in a given context. Lastly, these studies also help us to know that factors within and outside the housing domain have significant influence on residential satisfaction. Despite these insights provided by the existing studies, there is yet little or no consensus in the literature on the general pattern of residential satisfaction and the specific factors that influence it across various socio-economic groups in the different countries and cultures. Also, there is a paucity of empirical literature on the differences in residential satisfaction between residents of housing constructed using different strategies, especially in the developing countries. This is because the influence of such factors as housing acquisition process (housing delivery strategies and methods of acquisition of housing by residents) on residential satisfaction has largely been unexplored by researchers. The differences in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of residents, tenure options, housing quality standards, housing acquisition process as well as values and meanings people attach to their residential environment in different countries and cultures, suggest that there could be differences in satisfaction between residents in houses provided using different strategies and those acquired through different processes in a particular country, region or locality. Therefore, this study examined residential satisfaction in public housing provided using the Turnkey, PublicePrivate Partnerships (PPPs), Core Housing and Shell Stage strategies in Ogun State Southwest Nigeria between 2003 and 2009. The hypotheses put forward and tested in this study are: (i) there is significant socioeconomic differences between residents in housing provided using different strategies between 2003 and 2009 in the study area (ii) the residents of public housing constructed within the period under review are generally satisfied with their housing conditions (iii) the residents’ socio-economic attributes and housing characteristics have significant influence on the levels of satisfaction with their housing conditions, and (iv) housing acquisition process has influence on residential satisfaction in the study area. It is hoped that this study will bridge some gaps in the literature on the subject and contribute to public housing policy and development in Nigeria. The context of study Ogun State is one of the six States in Southwest Nigeria. It is next to Lagos and Kano in terms of concentration of industries and has the highest number of Universities in the country. It is therefore not surprising that between 1991 and 2006 the population of the State grew from 2,333,726 to 3,728,098 (Ogun State Regional Development Strategy, 2008) and current estimates indicate that by 2025 its population figure will rise to about 9.3 million and 6.5 million representing around 70% of the total population will be urban dwellers (Ogun State Regional Development Strategy, 2008). Suffice it to say that since the creation of Ogun State on April 1, 1976, the rate of urban population growth has outstripped housing supply. As at 2007, the housing supply deficit in the State was put at 240,000 units, and the Ogun State Regional Development Strategy (2008) has predicted that by 2025 an additional 1.55 million housing units will be required to meet the growing housing need in the State. Therefore, in a bid to narrow this huge housing supply gap, several public housing schemes have been underway in the State. Public housing schemes in this context represent housing projects constructed either solely by government agencies or in partnerships with the private sector organizations. A survey by Ibem (2011) revealed that efforts by government in Ogun State to provide housing for the residents were concentrated in urban

centres and that four main housing delivery strategies: the Turnkey, Core Housing, PublicePrivate Partnerships (PPPs) and Shell Stage were used to provide over 1000 housing units for the different socio-economic groups in the State between 2003 and 2009. Examination of the operations of each of these housing delivery strategies shows that the Turnkey strategy which is also known as ‘build and then sale’ involved the construction and marketing of completed housing units by the government, while in the PPP Strategy, government provided land to corporate private sector housing developers to construct houses for public acquisition under a joint-venture partnership agreements. Houses provided in both the Turnkey and PPP Strategies were acquired by members of the public either through mortgage or outright purchase. The Core Housing Strategy involved the construction of one-bedroom Core housing units by the government in the Workers’ Housing Estate. The Core houses were allocated to low- and middle-income public sector workers under a mortgage arrangement with an amortization period of between 10 years and 25years. During this period, beneficiaries can upgrade the dwelling units to 3-bedroom apartments as their income status improves. On the other hand, in the Shell Stage Strategy, the sub-and super structures of housing units were constructed by the government after which the ‘Shell houses’ as they are called were acquired through outright purchase by interested members of the public who then finished the houses according to their taste. The uniqueness of each of these housing delivery strategies as seen in the level of participation of the residents in the development of the housing units and the modes of acquisition of the houses, suggests that there could be a significant difference in the socio-economic characteristics of the residents in the houses and their levels of satisfaction. Therefore, in the Nigerian context, Ogun State is considered to be ideally suited for the current research, which among other things compared residential satisfaction across the different housing delivery strategies. The review of literature and conceptual framework Studies on residential satisfaction serve various purposes, including the assessment of residents’ present housing conditions, needs and preferences (Kaitilla, 1993; Salleh, 2008) and their quality of life (Caldieron, 2011; Galster & Hesser, 1981; Lee & Park, 2010); the level of success or failure of housing projects (Liu, 2003; Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011) and project quality (Lara & Bekker, 2012). They also help in improving our understanding of housing adjustment and mobility behaviours of residents (Fang, 2006; Lu, 1998). Thus, it can be inferred that even though those who conduct research on residential satisfaction have different rationales and objectives, studies on residential satisfaction promote better understanding of the key sources of satisfaction or dissatisfaction among residents, factors that influence their satisfaction levels and how they are most likely to react in the event that they felt dissatisfied with their housing conditions. According to Fang (2006), this information is important in informing housing policy and planning intervention. From the review of literature, we found that a number of theoretical and conceptual approaches have been put forward by different authors and researchers in a bid to understand and explain residential satisfaction. Galster (1987:540) however noted that most studies on residential satisfaction are based on two contrasting empirical approaches: purposive approach and the actual-aspiration gap approach. In the former, Canter (1983) and Galster (1985) argued that people are seen to have goals and specific objectives directed towards achieving such goals, and that the extent to which one’s residential environment is perceived to be facilitating the achievement of his/her goals is seen as an indication

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

of residential satisfaction. The implication of this is that people acquire housing with the expectations that it will contribute towards the attainment of specific goals in life; and thus they see their homes as an asset capable of facilitating overall achievement of their purpose in life. Therefore, the extent to which they perceive their housing is performing the ‘facilitator role’ is seen as a measure of residential satisfaction. On the other hand, Galster (1987) noted that in the latter approach, people consciously construct a reference quantity or quality that is “an ideal standard” of the different aspects of their residential situation based on their needs, experience and aspirations. As a result, they tend to evaluate their housing conditions based on the “ideal standard” which they have already created a mental picture of and aspire to have. If their current housing situation is perceived to be in close congruence with or superior to the reference condition, they tend to express satisfaction and vice versa. This means that in the actual-aspiration gap approach, a gap between what people want and aspire to have and what they currently have in terms of their housing conditions is seen as a measure of residential satisfaction. The foregoing goes to suggest that residents’ evaluation of their housing conditions depends largely on the meaning they attach to their housing, standard of reference condition to which they compare it with and their housing needs, preferences, expectations and aspirations. Based on these two approaches, several researchers have investigated the extent to which residents are satisfied with their housing units, neighbourhood (social, economic, physical) environment and management aspects of public housing in the different countries. For examples, Liu (1999) investigated residential satisfaction among residents of public housing in Hong Kong, and found high level of dissatisfaction, especially with maintenance and cleanliness of the estates, integrity of the building envelope and access to public transport from their residences. In South Korea, Ha (2008) observed that about 51 percent of the residents of social housing in that country were generally satisfied with their housing conditions. The residents were satisfied with the availability of some neighbourhood facilities such as healthcare, shopping, banking facilities and post office, but were dissatisfied with parking facilities and landscaping in the estates. Elsewhere in Malaysia, Mohit et al. (2010) revealed that residents in newly constructed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur were moderately satisfied with their housing conditions, but were most and least satisfied with housing unit support services and social environment of the estates, respectively. Another study by Mohit and Azim (2012) also showed that a majority of the residents in public housing in Hulhumale, Maldavies, were slightly satisfied with their present housing situation, but the satisfaction levels were higher for services and public facilities than physical space within the dwelling units and social environment of the housing estates. In Nigeria, Ukoha and Beamish (1997) investigated housing satisfaction amongst the residents of public housing in the Federal Capital Territory-Abuja, and found out that they were satisfied with the neighbourhood facilities but dissatisfied with the physical and spatial characteristics of buildings and the general management of the housing estates. Other studies (Ilesanmi, 2010; Jiboye, 2009; Olatubara & Fatoye, 2007) however showed that the residents in public housing in Lagos (the former federal capital of Nigeria) were most satisfied with housing unit characteristics and least satisfied with the layout of the estates, access to public facilities and services. Jiboye (2009) also corroborated the finding by Ukoha and Beamish (1997) highlighted above by noting that the residents of public housing in Lagos were also dissatisfied with management of the housing estates. In other parts of the country, a recent survey by Clement and Kayode (2012) showed that there was a high rate of satisfaction with the proximity to worship centres and adequacy of size of living room than satisfaction with proximity to recreation

165

areas and healthcare facilities amongst the residents of public housing in Ondo State. Also in Abeokuta e the capital of Ogun State, Ibem and Amole (2012) revealed that 59 percent of the residents of public core housing were satisfied with their housing conditions, and that satisfaction levels were higher for housing unit characteristics and management of the estate compared to access to neighbourhood facilities and service. It can be concluded from these studies that the residents of public housing in the different countries have been satisfied or dissatisfied with the different aspects of their housing environment. Indeed, these studies show that residential satisfaction is a highly contextual construct, which partly depends on the manner in which the objective characteristics of the residential environment are perceived by the residents who are the evaluators. Besides these studies, others have investigated the factors which influence residential satisfaction. For instance, Ibem and Amole (2012) and Lu (2002) identified age as one of the most significant predictors of residential satisfaction. In fact, Lu (2002) pointed out that the younger people are likely to be less satisfied with their housing conditions than the older people. Salleh et al. (2012) opined that this is probably due to the fact the younger people have higher expectations and aspirations than the older people. Income status has also been identified as having positive effect on residential satisfaction. The studies by Lu (1999) and Vera-Toscano and Aceta-Amestoy (2008) show that people of high income group are more likely to be satisfied with their housing situation than those of lower income group because the former has the financial muscle to acquire better houses and housing environment. With regards to the effect of gender, although Jaafar et al. (2006) and Varady and Carrozza (2000) found no significant effect of gender on residential satisfaction, Ibem and Amole (2012) and Lu (1999) indicated that gender was a significant predictor of residential satisfaction. The former specifically noted that males are less likely to be satisfied with their housing than females. The influence of length of stay and household size on residential satisfaction has also been investigated by researchers. For instance, Mohit et al. (2010) revealed that whereas the length of stay in the residence had positive impact on residential satisfaction, there was a negative correlation between household size and residential satisfaction in newly constructed public housing in Malaysia. Further, Elsinga and Hoekstra (2005) found that in many European countries housing satisfaction levels were higher among owner occupiers compare to renters, while Salleh et al. (2012) identified the ability to pay rents regularly as one the factors with positive influence on the levels of satisfaction among renters in public housing in Malaysia. On the influence of factors outside the housing domain, the level of social integration among the residents (Hashim, 2003), access to local amenities and the different house buying systems (Tech-Hong (2011) also appear to have a significant influence on residential satisfaction. In fact, the study by Tech-Hong (2011) reveals that residents of medium- and high-cost housing in Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, were satisfied when given the opportunity to purchase homes provided using a particular housing buying system. It is evident from the foregoing review of literature that varying assortment of factors within and outside the housing domain and personal attributes of the residents can influence residential satisfaction across cultures. However, little is known of the differences in satisfaction among the occupants of housing constructed using different strategies. This study was an attempt to bridge this gap. Also from the existing studies, we observe that many researchers have developed residential satisfaction models based on factors that are relevant to the context and purpose of their research (see Fang, 2006; Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011; Tech-Hong, 2011; Ukoha & Beamish, 1996). Following this tradition, the

166

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

conceptual framework of this study includes factors such as housing unit characteristics, dwelling units support services, neighbourhood environment, management of housing estates, housing acquisition process, and socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the residents, considered to be relevant to the housing market in the study area. Furthermore, Choudhury (2005) and Ibem and Amole (2012) noted that residential satisfaction is a measure of residents’ perception of the adequacy of their residential environment in meeting their needs, expectations and aspirations. Therefore, the conceptual framework of the study (Fig. 1) builds on that developed by Ibem and Amole (2012). It is based on the assumption that the strategies used in the provision and the modes of acquisition of public housing (housing acquisition process), objective socio-economic characteristics of the residents and their subjective evaluation of adequacy of the characteristics of the dwelling units, services, neighbourhood physical, social and economic environment, and management aspects of the housing estates have significant influence on residential satisfaction in public housing. Methodology Data used in this study were obtained through a questionnaire survey of ten of the twelve public housing estates constructed in five urban centres of Abeokuta, Ota, Agbara, Gateway City and Ijebu-Ode in Ogun State between 2003 and 2009. The survey was carried out by the researchers between December 2009 and February 2010 in the study area. Three different categories of public housing for low, middle and high income earners constructed using four housing delivery strategies described earlier exist in the study area. Among these categories of housing estates selected for the survey, one housing estate of 270 housing units was constructed using the Core Housing strategy. Two housing estates having a total of 440 housing units were built using the PPP Strategy, and another two comprising 160 housing units were developed using the Shell Stage strategy. However, seven of the estates with a total of 541 housing units were constructed using the Turnkey strategy. Of the 1411 housing units completed in the housing estates, 709 housing units were occupied

at the time of the survey. Consequently, the stratified sampling technique was used to select 670 units representing about 95% of the occupied of housing units (see Table 1). A total of 670 questionnaires were administered to household-heads who were the respondents and 517 questionnaires were retrieved. It was however found that 65 (13%) of the retrieved questionnaires were either filled by youths who by their age were considered not to be household-heads or not completely filled. This suggests that some of the household-heads sampled allowed their children to fill in the questionnaires. Consequently, only 452 representing about 68% of the sample were considered to be valid questionnaires and used in the analysis. The questionnaire designed for the research had four main sections. ‘Section-1’ comprised nine items related to socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the residents. ‘Section-2’ had two items related to housing acquisition process, while‘Section-3’ and ‘Section-4’ comprised 31 items on residents’ perception of adequacy of, and satisfaction with their housing environment, respectively. The variables related to socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the residents investigated were sex, age, education, income, marital status, tenure status, employment sector, length of stay and household size. For the housing acquisition process, housing units constructed using the Core Housing, Turnkey, PPP and Shell Stage Strategies were coded 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, while the modes of acquisition were coded ‘1’ for outright purchase and ‘2’ for mortgage acquisition. Data on residents’ perception of adequacy of the objective characteristics of the dwelling units, neighbourhood environment and management component were obtained using a Likert-type scale ranging from ‘1’ for very inadequate ‘2’ for inadequate; ‘3’ for neutral; ‘4’ for adequate to ‘5’ for very adequate. Similar Likert-type scale ranging from‘1’ for very dissatisfied to ‘5’ for very satisfied was used to capture their responses on satisfaction with the different aspects of their residential environment. The questionnaire was pretested in Covenant University, OtaNigeria staff quarters, while the test for internal consistency and reliability of the scale of measurement used for measuring adequacy of residential environment and residential satisfaction was conducted using Cronbach’s Alpha test. The result showed Cronbach’s

Housing Components Objective of characteristics of dwelling Units

Objective Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of Residents

Objective characteristics of neighbourhood environment (physical and socioeconomic) environment

Residents’ subjective evaluation of the adequacy of objective characteristics of dwelling units, neighbourhood environment and management component

Objective attributes of Management Component of the Housing Estates

Housing Delivery Strategies Mode of Acquisition of Housing

Housing Acquisition Process

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

Residential Satisfaction (Measured by Mean Attribute Scores (MAS) of 31 Attributes of the Residential Environment

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

167

Table 1 Sample size of housing units in each housing delivery strategy. Delivery strategies

Housing estate

Income class

Housing units completed

Housing units occupied

Sample size (%)

Core housing Shell stage housing

Workers H/Estate Laderin Abeokuta OSHC Estate, Ajebo Road, Abeokuta OGSHC H. Estate, Ota Havilah Villas, Isheri OGD-Sparklight, Ibafo Obasanjo Hill-Top (GRA) Estate Abeokuta Media Village, Abeokuta OPIC Estate, Agbara Kemta Extension H. Estate, Olokota-Abeokuta OGD H. Estate Asero- Abeokuta OGD H/Estate, Itanrin, Ijebu-Ode OGSHC Housing Estate, Idiroko 12

Low and middle Middle and high Middle and high High Middle and high High Low and middle Low and middle Middle Low, middle and high Middle and high Low and middle

270 100 60 100 340 32 104 60 88 212 30 15 1411

270 3 12 0 30 30 60 50 12 212 30 0 709

250 (93. %) 15(100.0%)

Publiceprivate partnership Turnkey

Total

30(100.0%) 375(95.0%)

670

Alpha of 0.891 for both the adequacy of residential environment and residential satisfaction which is more than 0.7 acceptable reliability coefficient recommended by Pallant (2011). Three main types of analyses were conducted. The first was descriptive statistics which generated percentages and frequencies of respondents’ socio-economic characteristics and individual mean satisfaction scores (MSS). Individuals’ mean satisfaction scores were computed for all the 452 respondents, and used to examine the percentage of those who were very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied with their current housing conditions. Mean Attribute Scores (MAS) which is the mean satisfaction score for each of the 31 residential attributes and the different housing components given by each respondent were also computed. The second type of analysis conducted was factor analysis with principal component and Varimax rotation methods. The responses on the 31 items used in assessing adequacy of housing environment and residential satisfaction were reduced to a smaller number of uncorrelated factors; and thus ensuring that the best combination of variables was obtained. Apart from revealing the key dimensions of housing (factors) the residents responded to in their evaluation of adequacy of their residential environment and residential satisfaction, the factor analysis was also used as a means of handling the multicollinearity problem that may arise due to intrercorrelations among the 31 residential attributes. In order to understand the individual contributions of the different factors in explaining residential satisfaction, the third type of analysis: multivariate statistical analysis was conducted. Specifically, the Categorical Regression Analysis with optimal scaling technique also referred to as CATREG in SPSS was used to explore the variance explained by R2 as well as identifying the predictors of residential satisfaction in the survey. In carrying out this multivariate regression analysis, mean attribute score (MAS) described earlier was the dependent variable. The nine items related to the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents; two items for housing acquisition process and the factors obtained in the factor analysis of the 31 responses on the adequacy of residential environment were the independent variables. The choice of CATREG analysis was based on its advantages over general linear models (GLM) in the analysis of nominal, ordinal and numerical data and the fact that it can be run with small samples and with least assumptions as Shrestha (2009) pointed out.

above. Greater proportion of the respondents in the Turnkey, PPP and Core Housing were between ages 31 years and 45years, while the majority (67%) of those in the Shell Stage housing were between 46 years and 59 years; suggesting that the older people lived in the Shell Stage houses. In terms of educational background of the respondents, almost all of them in each of the strategies had tertiary education. This suggests that recent efforts by the government of Ogun State in providing housing for the residents were targeted at educated people. This of course, has been the trend in Nigeria in the past few decades as UN-HABITAT (2006) noted. On the employment status of the respondents, it was observed that most of those in the PPP and Shell Stage houses were private sector employees, while those in the Turnkey were almost 50% private and 50% public sectors workers. However, a majority (84%) of the respondents in the Core Housing were public sector employees. This was to be expected as the Core Housing strategy was targeted at public sector workers. Although, about 7% of the respondents across the strategies did not disclose the range of their monthly income, Table 2 also shows that a majority of the respondents in the Turnkey and PPP houses were middle-income earners as against 45% and 42% who were middle- and low-income earners, respectively, in the Core Housing. The highest proportion (78%) of high-income earners lived in the Shell Stage housing. This result suggests that both the Turnkey and PPP strategies were targeted at middle- and highincome groups, the Core Housing had the low and middle-income groups as its target population, while the Shell Stage was targeted at the high-income earners. On tenure status, the highest proportion (44%) of renters lived in houses built using the Turnkey strategy, while most respondents in the PPP and Shell Houses were owner-occupiers. As would be expected, the majority (87%) of the respondents in the Core Houses were mortgage holders. The result obtained in the Core Housing is not surprising as the scheme as noted earlier was designed to assist low- and middle-income public sector workers gain access to housing through the mortgage arrangement. It is evident from the result that there are inherent socio-economic differences between the residents in housing provided in each of the four strategies; meaning that the first hypothesis of the study is supported by our survey data.

Results and discussion

The respondents’ level of satisfaction with their residential environment comprising 31 items presented in Table 3 reveals mean satisfaction score of 2.90; suggesting that they were generally dissatisfied with their overall housing conditions. The result shows that a large proportion (60%) of the respondents were dissatisfied with their residential environment, followed by 36% who were satisfied and very few (4%) who were neither satisfied nor

Respondents of the survey The result as displayed in Table 2 shows that the respondents in housing constructed using the four strategies were predominantly male household-heads who had household sizes of 4 persons and

Satisfaction with residential environment

168

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

Table 2 Respondents’ socio-economic characteristics. Turnkey

PPP

Core Housing

Shell Stage

Total

N ¼ 270

N ¼ 17

N ¼ 156

N¼9

N ¼ 452

Sex of respondents Male Female

188 (70.0) 82 (30.)

11 (65.0) 6 (35.0)

89 (57.0) 67 (43.0)

7 (78.0) 2 (22.0)

295 (65.0) 157 (35.0)

Age group in years No response 31e45 46e59 60 and above

0 184 74 12

(0.0) (68.0) (27.0) (5.0)

0 9 8 0

(0.0) (53.0) (47.0) (0.0)

3 97 52 4

(2.0) (62.) (33.0) (3.0)

0 3 6 0

(0.0) (33.0) (67.0) (0.0)

3 293 140 16

(0.7) (65.8) (31.0) (3.5)

Marital status No response Never married before (single) Married No longer in marriage

3 7 255 4

(1.0) (3.0) (94.0) (2.0)

0 0 16 1

(0.0) (0.0) (94.0) (6.0)

4 6 140 3

(3.0) (4.0) (91.0) (2.0)

0 0 9 0

(0.0) (0.0) (100) (0.0)

7 13 420 8

(1.5) (3.0) (93.0) (1.8)

Highest level of education No response Below tertiary level of education Tertiary level of education

2 (1.0) 5 (2.0) 263 (97.0)

0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 17 (100)

5 (3.0) 6 (4.0) 145 (93.0)

0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 9 (100)

7 (1.5) 11 (2.5) 434 (96.0)

Employment sector No response Public Private Unemployed

1 129 130 10

(0.4) (48.0) (48.0) (3.6)

0 7 10 0

(0.0) (41.0) (59.0) (0.0)

3 131 19 3

(2.0) (84.0) (12.0) (2.0)

0 1 8 0

(0.0) (11.0) (89.0) (0.0)

4 268 167 13

(0.8) (59.0) (37.0) (3.0)

*Average monthly income (Naira) No response Below fx138,000 (low-income) fx138,000efx1144,999 (middle income) fx1145,000 and above (high-income)

13 38 156 64

(5.0) (14.0) (58.0) (24.0)

1 0 12 4

(6.0) (0.0) (71.0) (23.0)

16 65 70 5

(10.0) (42.0) (45.0) (3.0)

0 0 2 7

(0.0) (0.0) (22.0) (78.0)

30 103 239 80

(6.6) (22.8) (53.7) (17.7)

Length of stay in the residence No response Less than 1 year 1 yeare3 years 4 yearsþ

3 26 221 20

(1.0) (10.0) (82.0) (7.0)

0 14 3 0

(0.0) (82.0) (18.0) (0.0)

2 17 134 3

(1.0) (11.0) (86.0) (2.0)

0 6 3 0

(0.0) (67.0)) (33.0) (0.0)

5 63 361 23

(1.1) (13.9) (79.9) (5.1)

Tenure status No response Rented Mortgage Owner occupied

0 138 25 107

(0.0) (44.0) (26.0) (40.0)

0 2 5 10

(0.0) (12.0) (29.0) (59.0)

2 19 135 0

(1.0) (12.0) (87.0) (0.0)

0 0 0 9

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (100)

2 159 165 126

(0.4) (35.1) (36.5) (28.0)

Household size No response Not more than 2 persons 3 Persons 4 Persons More than 4 persons

1 24 35 91 119

(0.4) (9.0) (13.0) (34.0) (44.0)

1 3 3 6 4

(6.0) (18.0) (18.0) (35.0) (24.0)

2 16 24 53 61

(1.0) (10.0) (16.0) (34.0) (39.0)

0 0 0 2 7

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (22.0) (78.0)

4 43 62 152 191

(0.8) (9.5) (13.7) (34.0) (42.0)

Numbers outside bracket represent frequencies; Figures in bracket represent percentages.

dissatisfied with their current housing situation. This suggests that most of the respondents in all the housing estates sampled felt that their current housing conditions fall short of their needs, expectations and aspirations. Therefore, the second hypothesis of the study is not supported by the survey data. Further, the result (Table 4) indicates that all the respondents put together were most satisfied with housing unit features (Factor 6), with MAS of 3.43 and related to the type of building materials used, privacy in the residence and cost housing; followed by the size of residence (Factor 3) with MAS of 3.40, but were least satisfied with neighbourhood facilities (Factor 1) with the least MAS of 2.08. Again, this tends to suggest that the respondents were most satisfied with the design and construction of their dwelling units but least satisfied with access to basic social amenities and neighbourhood facilities.

A number of reasons can be given to explain this result. Firstly, since a majority of the respondents in the survey were middle and low income earners, it thus appears that the result is in support of finding of previous studies (Lu, 1999; Vera-Toscano and AcetaAmestoy, 2008) indicating that people at the lower income levels are less likely to be satisfied with their housing conditions. Secondly, in view of the observation showing that most of the respondents were male household-heads, the result also tends to provide support to Lu’s (1999) proposition that males are less likely to be satisfied with their housing than the females. Lastly, the high proportion of middle-aged respondents in the sample, may have also accounted for the observed satisfaction level in the survey, which seems to be consistent with the submission by Lu (2002) that younger people are less likely to be satisfied with their housing.

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175 Table 3 Mean attribute scores of 31 housing variables across the different strategies. Housing variables Dwelling unit features Sizes of living and dining spaces Sizes of bedrooms in the house Number of bedrooms in the residence Sizes of cooking and storage spaces Type of residence Design of baths and toilet facilities Building materials used Location of residence in the estate Privacy in the residence Aesthetic appearance of residence Natural lighting and air circulation in living and bedrooms Design of residence in relation to occupants’ natural way of life Dwelling unit supports services Water supply and sanitary services Electrical services Neighbourhood environment Recreation/sporting facilities Public infrastructure and urban services Shopping facilities Proximity of home to place of work Medical/healthcare facilities Children’s school Proximity of home to the nearest market Prices of goods and services in the housing estate Business and job opportunities within and around the estate Crime and anti-social activities in the housing estate Communal activities in the housing estates Noise in the housing estate Management of housing estates Rules and regulations within the housing estate Management and maintenance of facilities Cleanliness of the housing estate Security of life and property in the housing estate Cost of housing

Turnkey

PPP

Core housing

Shell stage

3.60 3.82 2.97

3.39 3.61 3.13

3.64 3.78 3.04

3.65 3.79 3.01

3.55

3.74

3.12

3.39

3.32 3.14

3.17 3.22

3.48 3.35

3.39 3.23

3.00 3.30

3.13 3.30

3.02 3.61

3.02 3.43

3.93 3.16

3.83 3.22

3.80 3.40

3.89 3.25

3.16

3.30

3.58

3.33

3.04

2.96

3.47

3.19

2.14 2.10

2.17 1.96

2.92 3.10

2.44 2.46

1.70 2.37

1.35 2.74

2.30 2.88

1.90 2.59

1.64 2.93

1.13 2.30

2.21 3.55

1.86 3.14

1.74 2.37 1.84

1.35 1.87 1.61

2.40 2.48 2.52

2.00 2.41 2.12

1.66

1.74

2.43

1.90

1.81

1.39

2.34

2.00

3.46

3.52

3.31

3.41

2.60

1.09

3.15

2.72

3.37

3.30

3.58

3.45

3.14

3.22

3.52

3.28

2.12

2.09

3.23

2.53

2.54 3.28

2.91 3.74

3.45 3.48

2.90 3.38

3.27

3.78

3.52

3.37

In housing provided using the four distinct strategies, mean satisfaction scores of 2.69, 2.65, 3.13 and 3.10 were observed in the Turnkey, PPP, Core and Shell Stage houses, respectively. This shows that the respondents in the Core and Shell Stage houses were generally more satisfied with their housing conditions than those in the Turnkey and PPP houses. Going by the level of involvement of the residents in the development of the housing units in these two strategies, the result again suggests that satisfaction is generally higher in houses in which the residents participated in the construction process and vice versa. In addition, it may be argued that although the proportion of respondents in the Shell Stage housing is comparatively small, the fact that almost all of them were

169

high-income earners and owner occupiers may have contributed to the observed level of satisfaction. Similarly, the high proportion of mortgage holders, who are also potential owner-occupiers and the fact that they are solely responsible for upgrading their housing units may have also contributed to the higher satisfaction level among the respondents in the Core Housing. With respect to the satisfaction levels with the different housing components, Table 3 also reveals that the respondents in all the strategies were satisfied with all the dwelling unit features, except those in the Turnkey and PPP houses who were dissatisfied with the number of bedrooms and design of the residences in relation to their natural way of life, respectively. It is noteworthy that the respondents across the four strategies were most satisfied with the level of privacy in their dwellings units with mean attribute scores (MAS) of 3.93, 3.83, 3.80 and 3.89, for Turnkey, PPP, Core Housing and Shell Stage, respectively; suggesting that the housing units in each strategy are meeting occupants’ need for privacy. However the respondents were least satisfied with access to shopping facilities, except for those in the Shell Stage, who were least satisfied with the level of communal activities in the housing estate. The respondents in the Turnkey, PPP and Shell Stage houses also felt dissatisfied with dwelling unit support services (i.e. water and electricity supply), but those in the Core Housing, were satisfied with electrical services in their residences; implying that the residents of the Core Housing estate have better access to electricity supply than those in houses provided using other three strategies. The result on satisfaction with neighbourhood environment also reveals that the respondents across the four strategies were satisfied with the levels of crime and anti-social activities and noise within and around the housing estates; suggesting that the levels of crimes and anti-social activities and noise pollution in the estates were within acceptable limits. However, only respondents in the Core and Shell Stage housing were satisfied with the nearness of their homes to their place of work. Regarding satisfaction with the management of the housing estates, although the respondents in all the four strategies were satisfied with only two management aspects: the rule and regulations, and general security of life and property in the housing estates; the respondents in the Core housing expressed satisfaction with the four aspects of management investigated in the survey; implying that the Core Housing estate has better management practice than the others. From the result, it can be inferred that there are obvious differences and similarities in the socio-economic attributes of the respondents; and that their levels of involvement in the development of their residences contributed to residential satisfaction across the strategies. Generally speaking, finding of this study appears to be in line with previous studies in Nigeria (Clement & Kayode, 2012; Fatoye & Odusami, 2009; Ibem & Amole, 2012; Olatubara & Fatoye, 2007) and Malaysia (Salleh, 2008) indicating that residents were satisfied with the physical and spatial attributes of their dwelling units and dissatisfied with access to neighbourhood facilities. It however contracts others studies (e.g. Ha, 2008; Mohit et al., 2010; Ukoha & Beamish, 1997) which show that residents in public housing were satisfied with neighbourhood facilities and housing services more than housing unit characteristics. Thus, it can be concluded that public constructed between 2003 and 2009 in the study area are not adequately supplied with potable water and electricity as well as neighbourhood facilities such recreational, educational, healthcare and shopping facilities and others. Therefore, this is considered as the principal source of dissatisfaction among the residents in the housing estates. Fig. 2 shows residential satisfaction among respondents in housing units acquired through mortgage, outright purchase and rental arrangements. The result shows that a large number (66%) of the respondents who were satisfied with their housing conditions

170

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

Table 4 Factor analysis, mean attribute scores of responses to satisfaction with residential environment in the four strategies put together. MAS

Factor loadings

Eigenvalue

% of Variance

Cum %

7.764

25.0

25.0

Cronbach’s alpha

Factor 1: neighbourhood facilities Recreation/sporting facilities Public infrastructure and urban services Shopping facilities Medical/healthcare facilities Children’s school Proximity of home to the nearest market Prices of goods and services Business and job opportunities

2.08 1.89 2.61 1.83 1.98 2.40 2.07 1.88 1.97

0.546 0.539 0.679 0.695 0.733 0.804 0.717 0.558

Factor 2: management of housing estates Rules and regulations within the estate Management and maintenance of facilities Cleanliness of the housing estates Security of life and property

3.01 3.28 2.5 2.87 3.37

0.732 0.626 0.762 0.671

Factor 3: size of dwelling units Sizes of living and dining spaces Sizes of bedrooms Number of bedrooms in the residence Number of bath and toilets in the residence

3.40 3.65 3.78 3.38 3.20

0.811 0.812 0.619 0.508

Factor 4: type and location of residence in the estate Type of residence Location of residence in the estate External appearance of the residence

3.33 2.96 3.41 3.23

0.506 0.539 0.606

Factor 5: housing services Water supply and sanitary services Electrical services

2.40 2.4 2.4

0.735 0.701

Factor 6: housing unit characteristics Building materials used in the construction of houses Privacy in the residence Cost of housing

3.43 3.37 3.89 3.39

0.618 0.588 0.502

Factor 7: social environment Noise level in the housing estate Level crime and anti-social activities Design of residence in relation to cultural values of residents

3.34 3.43 3.42 3.18

0.693 0.535 0.502

0.888 0.892 0.886

Variables not loaded on any factor Sizes of cooking and storage spaces Natural lighting and ventilation in living and bedrooms Proximity of home to place of work Level of communal activities in the housing estates

3.38 3.30 3.31 2.74

e e e e

0.890 0.885 0.887 0.891

0.887 0.886 0.887 0.886 0.890 0.886 0.886 0.889 3.981

12.8

37.9 0.886 0.884 0.885 0.887

1.700

5.5

42.0 0.890 0.889 0.888 0.886

1.396

4.5

46.0 0.886 0.888 0.887

1.240

4.0

52.0 0.885 0.886

1.218

3.930

55.0 0.888 0.891 0.889

1.069

3.45

59.0

Total variance explained¼59.0%.

lived in houses acquired through mortgage, followed by 32% who lived in dwelling units acquired through outright purchase and 18% who were in rented apartments. This result is an indication that more respondents in housing acquired through mortgage were satisfied than those in residences acquired through outright purchase arrangement and those in rented apartments. This is probably due to the cost implications of, and conditions attached to outright purchasing and renting of houses in Nigeria; and thus providing

Fig. 2. Residential satisfaction across different modes of acquisition of housing.

support to earlier study by Elsinga and Hoekstra (2005) showing that renters tend to be less satisfied than owner occupiers. Again, based on the evidence from this study, it can be concluded that the different modes of acquisition of the houses contributed to the differences in satisfaction levels among the residents. Dimensions of residential satisfaction evaluation by the respondents Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed to reduce the 31 variables related to residential satisfaction to a smaller number of factors. The result (Table 4) reveals that the variables associated with residential satisfaction were reduced to seven factors in all the four housing strategies put together. These factors show the dimensions of residential environment the respondents in all the strategies evaluated residential satisfaction. KaisereMeyereOlkin measure of sampling adequacy of 0.882 was obtained for residential satisfaction, which is higher than the recommended index of 0.60 by Pallant (2011) and the total variance explained across the 31 variable was 59%. The neighbourhood facilities factor was the most important explaining residential

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

satisfaction among the 452 respondents and accounting for 25% of the total variance. Based on the factor loading, items of this factor are related to the location of the estates proximity to key neighbourhood facilities and the economic environment of the neighbourhood. The next important factor was the management of the housing estates, which accounted for 13% of the total variance. The third most important factor was dwelling unit features, which also explained about 6% of the total variance. The factor loading shows that the items are related to the sizes of the residences. Thus it can be concluded that the most important factors, which determine residential satisfaction of the respondents put together are neighbourhood facilities, management of the housing estates and sizes of dwelling units. In the Turnkey strategy, the factor analysis resulted in the extraction of four factors with Eigenvalue more than 1. The four factors accounted for 56% of the total variance across 31 variables (see Table A1 in Appendix A). The housing unit features, management and social environment of the estates factor was the most important in determining residential satisfaction, explaining about 23% of the total variance across the 31 item investigated. The next most important factor was housing unit features and neighbourhood facilities, accounting for 16% of the variance. In the PPP housing, five factors, which accounted for about 76% of the total variance across 31 variables, were extracted (see Table A2 in Appendix A). Dwelling unit features and management of the estate factor was the most important for determining the residential satisfaction among the respondents, explaining about 27% of the total variance across the 31 variables. This is followed by dwelling unit features and availability of electrical, healthcare and other urban services factor, which accounted for 19% of variance. Similarly, in the Core Housing, four factors with Eigenvalue greater than 1 were also extracted (Table A3 in Appendix A). The four factors accounted for about 57% of the total variance across the 31 variables, and the dwelling unit features, services and neighbourhood factor was the most important in determining the residential satisfaction of the respondents, explaining about 27% of the total variance. The next most important factor, which explained 15% of the total variance, was the management factor. For the Shell Stage housing, two factors were extracted from the analysis (Table A4 in Appendix A). These two factors accounted for around 54% of the total variance across the 31 variables investigated. The first factor, which accounted for 42% of the variance, was dwelling unit feature, support services and management factor, while the second which explained about 12% of the variance was the size of dwelling units and neighbourhood facilities factor. It is evident from the result that the respondents in each of the four strategies viewed their housing environment differently to some extent. Whereas, those in the Turnkey and Core Housing strategies evaluated satisfaction with their housing conditions based on four dimensions(factors), those in the PPP and Shell Stage houses evaluated satisfaction with their housing conditions based on five and two dimensions, respectively. The most important factor which determined residential satisfaction in the Turnkey and PPP and Shell Stage houses was related to dwelling unit features and management of the housing estates, while in the Core Housing, the most important factor which determined residential satisfaction among the respondents was the dwelling unit features, services and neighbourhood factor. The different perspectives on residential satisfaction across the strategies can again be explained based on the socio-economic differences of respondents as highlighted earlier. However, it is important to state that across the four strategies, the dwelling unit features appear prominently in the evaluation of residential satisfaction; and thus underscoring the importance of dwelling unit features in residential satisfaction evaluation among residents across the strategies.

171

Predictors of residential satisfaction The factors analysis of the 31 variables associated with adequacy of residential environment resulted in the extraction of five factors: (i) adequacy of thermal, visual comfort and security in the residence (ii) adequacy of social infrastructure in the housing estate (iii) adequacy of management of the housing estates (iv) adequacy of the size of living and sleeping areas; and (v) adequacy of sanitary facilities in the residences. These five factors explained was 56% of the total variance across the 31 items and also show the dimensions of evaluation of the adequacy of residential environment by the respondents. In carrying out the Categorical Regression Analysis (CATREG) which was used to estimate the simultaneous effect of selected independent variables on the dependent variable; socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of respondents, housing acquisition process and the factor scores for each of the five factors extracted from the factor analysis of adequacy of residential environment (independent variables) were regressed on the dependent variable (residential satisfaction). The result (Table 5) shows that nine variables appeared as the predictor variables to determine residential satisfaction in the housing estates sampled. The beta weights also presented in Table 5 reveal that the three strongest predictors of residential satisfaction in the order of importance were adequacy of thermal and visual comfort and security in the residence, followed by sizes of living and sleeping areas in the dwelling units, and management of the housing estate, respectively. Other variables that appeared as significant predictors of residential satisfaction included adequacy of social infrastructural facilities, mode of acquisition of housing and housing delivery strategies. Among the respondents’ socio-economic and demographic characteristics, education, employment sector and household sizes emerged as significant predictors of residential satisfaction. A combination of these nine independent variables significantly predicted residential satisfaction with public housing constructed in the study areas with F (9, 26) ¼ 50.285, P < 0.000. The R2 value (0.755) of the model indicates that 76% of the variance in residential satisfaction is explained by the regression model.

Table 5 Regression analysis of residential satisfaction scores with socio-economic, housing adequacy and acquisition process variables. Variables

Sex Age Marital status Highest educational attainment Employment sector Personal income Length of stay in the residence Tenure status Household size Mode of acquisition of residence Housing delivery strategies Factor 1: level of thermal and visual comfort and security in the residence Factor 2: social infrastructure Factor 3: management of the estate Factor 4: size of living and sleeping areas Factor 5: sanitary facilities in the residence

Standardized coefficients Beta

Std. Error

df

0.047 0.015 0.010 0.048 0.059 0.019 0.021 0.014 0.057 0.044 0.093

0.026 0.027 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.027 0.025 0.032 0.026 0.029 0.026

1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 4 3

f 3.386 0.310 0.173 3.679 5.604 0.467 0.722 0.184 4.980 2.220 12.568

0.066 0.578 0.841 0.026* 0.001* 0.495 0.487 0.668 0.026* 0.002* 0.000*

Sig.

0.849

0.026

1

1061.254

0.000*

0.064 0.105

0.025 0.024

1 1

6.655 18.222

0.010* 0.000*

0.148

0.024

1

36.689

0.000*

0.012

0.025

1

0.222

0.638

Dependent variable: Mean Attribute Scores * Significant Predictors.

172

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

From the CATREG model of the study, it is evident that two of the predictor variables: level of thermal and visual comfort and security; and size of living and sleeping areas in the residence are related to the design and construction of the dwelling units. The other two predictors, namely; adequacy of social infrastructure and management components are management related. In this regard, this finding appears to be consistent with previous studies in public housing in Abuja (Ukoha & Beamish, 1996), Lagos (Ilesanmi, 2010; Jiboye, 2010), Abeokuta, Nigeria (Ibem & Amole, 2012); Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Mohit et al., 2010) indicating that the environment, dwelling units and management components were the predictors of residents’ satisfaction among the residents of public housing in these countries. The mode of acquisition of dwelling units and housing delivery strategies, which also emerged as significant predictors of residential satisfaction are related to housing acquisition process. Therefore, this result tends to support TechHong’s (2011) finding indicating that house buying system is a significant predictor of residential satisfaction. It also appears to be in support of studies (Ibem & Amole, 2012; Mohit et al., 2010) indicating that household size, educational and employment backgrounds of residents have significant influence on residential satisfaction. Thus, it can also be concluded that the third and fourth hypotheses of the study are supported by our survey data. Conclusions This study has shown that most of the residents in public housing constructed in urban areas of Ogun State between 2003 and 2009 were dissatisfied with their housing conditions. Although the satisfaction levels were higher among mortgage holders and the respondents in the Core and Shell Stage than those in the Turnkey and PPP housing, poor access to neighbourhood facilities and inadequate supply of electricity and good drinking water were the main sources of dissatisfaction among the residents as the study suggests. Therefore, everything being equal, this situation may have adverse implications on the quality of life of the residents of the housing estates.

The policy implications of the study suggest that residential satisfaction and by extension the quality of life of residents of public housing constructed in the study area between 2003 and 2009, and indeed future housing projects, can be enhanced through the provision of basic social amenities and infrastructural facilities in the housing estates. To achieve this, it is important to emphasize that future public housing projects for low and middle-income earners should be located closer to where there are shopping, educational, recreational, healthcare facilities and other public infrastructure to enable the residents enjoy these vital services, which are necessary for decent living and hygienic environment. It is also suggested that public housing developers should continue to improve the quality of dwelling units they produce by ensuring that houses are designed and constructed to provide adequate security, privacy, thermal and visual comfort for the occupants. Besides, more attention is needed in the area of routine maintenance of facilities, regular collection of refuse and constant supply of water and electricity in the estates as the result of the CATREG indicates. Another policy implication is that public housing agencies should endeavour to adopt housing delivery strategies (e.g. Core Housing and Shell Stage) that involve active participation of home buyers in the development of their dwelling units and promote incremental construction. As the study suggests, low and middleincome people appear to be satisfied with their housing conditions when they are directly involved in the development of their houses and incrementally too. It is also important that government should adopt policies that promote mortgage-based housing schemes for low and middle-income earners in Nigeria, as the survey data shows that people of lower income groups are more satisfied if they gain ownership of government constructed houses on mortgage than outright purchase arrangements. Appendix A Table A1: Factor analysis of 31 housing variables in the Turnkey strategy.

Factor loadings Factor 1: dwelling unit features and management of the housing estates Type of residence Number of bath and toilets in the residence Building materials used in the construction of Houses Location of residence in the estate External appearance of the residence Natural lighting and ventilation in living and bedrooms Business and job opportunities Communal activities Rules and regulations within the estate Management and maintenance of facilities Cleanliness of the housing estates Security of life and property Recreation/sporting facilities Design of residence in relation to occupants’ way of life Crime and anti-social activities in the estates Cost of housing

0.671 0.687 0.569 0.564 0.631 0.536 0.559 0.608 0.683 0.615 0.601 0.649 0.449 0.736 0.545 0.492

Factor 2: size of residence and neighbourhood facilities Sizes of living and dining spaces Sizes of bedrooms Number of bedrooms in the residence Sizes of cooking and storage spaces Privacy in the residence Children’s school Proximity of home to the nearest market Prices of goods and services Shopping facilities

0.626 0.575 0.513 0.524 0.503 0.604 0.676 0.677 0.565

Eigenvalue

% of Variance

Cum %

7.23

23.0

23.0

4.88

16.0

39.0

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

173

(continued ) Factor loadings Factor 3: neighbourhood facilities Public infrastructure and urban services Medical/healthcare facilities

0.476 0.541

Factor 4: housing unit support services Water supply and sanitary services Electrical services

0.721 0.775

Variables not loaded on any factor Proximity of home to place of work Noise level in the housing estate

Eigenvalue

% of Variance

Cum %

3.15

10.16

49.0

2.09

7.0

56.0

Eigenvalue

% of Variance

Cum %

8.25

27.0

27.0

5.95

19.0

46

4.97

16.0

62

2.36

7.0

69.0

1.98

7.0

76.0

e

Table A2: factor analysis of 31 housing variables in the PPP housing.

Factor loadings Factor 1: dwelling unit features and management of the housing estates Bath and toilet facilities Type of building materials used Location of residence in the estate External appearance of residence Privacy in the residence Cost of housing Residence in relation to your culture Rules and regulations within the housing estate Management and maintenance Security of life and property in the housing estate

0.959 0.944 0.96 0.96 0.676 0.679 0.57 0.544 0.959 0.952

Factor 2: dwelling unit features Sizes of bedrooms Type of residence Sizes of living and dining spaces Sizes of cooking and storage spaces Number of bedrooms Natural lighting and air circulation in living and bedrooms

0.567 0.809 0.577 0.585 0.675 0.604

Factor 3: neighbourhood facilities Noise in the housing estate Electrical services in the residence Public infrastructure and urban services Medical/healthcare facilities Proximity of home to the nearest market Communal activities in the housing

0.577 0.55 0.837 0.827 0.811 0.642

Factor 4: services and neighbourhood facilities Water supply and sanitary services in the residence Recreation/sporting facilities Proximity of home to place of work Business and job opportunities Level of crime and anti-social activities Shopping facilities from residence Cleanliness of the housing estate

0.818 0.533 0.787 0.627 0.77 0.507 0.676

Factor 5: neighbourhood Prices of goods and services in the housing estate Children’s school

0.722 0.491

Table A3. Factor analysis of 31 housing variables in the core housing.

Factor loadings Factor 1: dwelling unit features, services and neighbourhood facilities Number of bedrooms in the residence Sizes of cooking and storage spaces Type of residence Number of bath and toilets

Eigenvalue

% of Variance

Cum %

8.46

27.29

27.0

0.703 0.551 0.636 0.685 (continued on next page)

174

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

(continued ) Factor loadings Building materials used in the construction of houses Location of residence in the estate External appearance of the residence Natural lighting and ventilation in living and bedrooms Design of residence in relation to occupants’ way of life Water supply and sanitary services Electrical services Recreational/sporting facilities Public infrastructure and urban services Shopping facilities Medical/healthcare facilities Children’s school Proximity of home to the nearest market Prices of goods and services Business and job opportunities

0.549 0.598 0.559 0.682 0.773 0.575 0.497 0.576 0.567 0.52 0.567 0.601 0.729 0.565 0.599

Factor 2: management of housing estates Noise level in the housing estate Cost of housing Crime and anti-social activities in the estates Rules and regulations within the estate Management and maintenance of facilities Cleanliness of the housing estates Communal activities Security of life and property

0.541 0.686 0.663 0.805 0.794 0.713 0.514 0.464

Factor 3: dwelling unit features Sizes of living and dining spaces Sizes of bedrooms Privacy in the residence

0.575 0.638 0.599

Factor 4: neighbourhood environment Proximity of home to place of work

0.558

Eigenvalue

% of Variance

Cum %

4.58

15.0

42.0

2.98

10.0

52.0

1.54

5.0

57.0

Table A4: factor analysis of 31 housing variables in the shell stage housing.

Factor loadings Factor 1: dwelling unit features, services and neighbourhood facilities Type of residence Bath and toilet facilities Type of building materials used Location of residence External appearance of residence Natural lighting and air circulation in living and bedrooms Level noise in estate Water supply and sanitary services Electrical services Recreational/sporting facilities Public infrastructure and urban services Proximity of home to place of work Communal activities in the housing Design of residence in relation to occupants’ way of life Rules and regulations within the estates Management and maintenance of facilities Cleanliness of the housing estate Security of life and property in the housing estate

0.642 0.639 0.515 0.544 0.59 0.711 0.462 0.656 0.623 0.6 0.584 0.515 0.533 0.673 0.628 0.696 0.674 0.521

Factor 2: dwelling unit features and neighbourhood facilities Sizes of living and dining spaces Sizes of bedrooms Number of bedrooms Sizes of cooking and storage spaces Privacy in the residence Proximity to shopping facilities Healthcare facilities Children’s school Proximity of home to the nearest market Prices of goods and services Business and job opportunities

0.633 0.615 0.505 0.594 0.507 0.552 0.538 0.512 0.63 0.6 0.49

Eigenvalue

% of Variance

Cum %

12.99

42

42.0

12.0

54.0

3.58

E.O. Ibem, E.B. Aduwo / Habitat International 40 (2013) 163e175

175

(continued ) Factor loadings Variables not loaded on any factor Cost of housing Level of crime and anti-social activities in the housing estates

References Caldieron, J. (2011). Residential satisfaction in La Perla informal neighborhood, San Juan, Puerto Rico. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(11), 77e84. Canter, D. (1983). The purposive evaluation of places: a facet Approach. Environment and Behavior, 15(6), 659e699. Choudhury, I. (2005). ‘A conceptual model of resident satisfaction with reference to neighbourhood composition’, Paper for XXXIII IAHS world congress on housing- transforming housing environments through design, September 27e30, Pretoria, South Africa. Clement, O. I., & Kayode, O. (2012). Public housing provision and user satisfaction in Ondo State, Nigeria. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 8(1), 103e111. Elsinga, M., & Hockstra, J. (2005). Homeownership and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20, 301e324. Fatoye, E. O., & Odusami, K. T. (2009). “Occupants’ satisfaction approach to housing performance evaluation: the case of Nigeria”, paper presented at the RICS COBRA research conference held at the University of Cape Town, 10e11 September, downloaded from www.rics.org/cobra on February 22, 2010. Fang, Y. (2006). Residential satisfaction, moving and moving behaviours: a study of redeveloped neighbourhoods in inner-city Beijing. Housing Studies, 21(5), 671e694. Galster, G. C. (1985). Evaluating indicators for housing policy: residential satisfaction vs marginal improvement priorities. Social Indicators Research, 16(4), 415e448. Galster, G. C. (1987). Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: an empirical critique. Environment and Behavior, 19(5), 537e568. Galster, G. C., & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction: compositional and contextual correlates. Environmental and Behaviour, 13(6), 735e758. Ha, S.-K. (2008). Social housing estates and sustainable community development in South Korea. Habitat International, 32, 349e363. Hashim, A. H. (2003). Residential satisfaction and social integration in public low cost housing in Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 11(1), 1e10. Ibem E. O. (2011). Evaluation of public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria, Ph.D Thesis Submitted to the School of Postgraduate Studies, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria for the award of Doctorate Degree in Architecture. Ibem, E. O., & Amole, D. (2012). Residential satisfaction in public core housing in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. Social Research Indicators, . http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11205-012-0111-z. Ilesanmi, A. O. (2010). Post-occupancy evaluation and residents’ satisfaction with public housing in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Building Appraisal, 6, 153e169. Jaafar, M., Hasan, N. L., Mahamad, O., & Ramayah, T. (2006). The determinants of housing satisfaction level: a study on residential development project by PENANG development corporation (PDC). Downloaded from. http://www. fppsm.utm.my/jurnal/JK6D06_MASTURAJAAR.pdf. on May 15, 2008. Jiboye, A. D. (2009). Evaluating tenant’s satisfaction with public housing in Lagos, Nigeria. Town Planning and Architecture, 33(4), 239e247. Jiboye, A. D. (2010). Correlates of public housing in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 3(2), 017e028. Kaitilla, S. (1993). Satisfaction with public housing in Papua New Guinea: the case of West Taraka housing scheme. Environment and Behavior, 25(4), 514e545. Lara, T., & Bekker, M. C. (2012). Resident satisfaction as a project quality measure: the case of Nova Vida housing project, Angola. Journal of Contemporary Management, 9, 364e381. Lee, E., & Park, N. (2010). Housing satisfaction and quality of life among temporary residents in the United States. Housing and Society, 37(1), 43e67.

Eigenvalue

% of Variance

Cum %

e e

Liu, A. M. M. (2003). The quest for quality in public housing projects: a behaviourto-outcome paradigm. Construction Management and Economics, 21(2), 147e 158. Liu, A. M. M. (1999). Residential satisfaction in housing estates: a Hong Kong perspective. Automation in Construction, 8, 511e524. Lu, M. (1998). Analyzing migration decision making: relationship between residential satisfaction, mobility intentions and moving behavior. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1473e1495. Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: ordered logit vs regression models. Growth and Change, 30, 264e287. Lu, M. (2002). Are pastures Greener? Residential consequences of migration. International Journal of Population Geography, 8, 201e216. Mohit, M. A., Ibrahim, M., & Rashid, Y. R. (2010). Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International, 34, 18e27. Mohit, M. A., & Azim, M. (2012). Assessment of residential satisfaction with public housing in Hulhumale’, Maldives, ASEAN conference on environmentbehaviour studies, Bangkok, Thailand, 16e18 July; Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 00(2012),1e17. Downloaded from www.elsevier.com/locate/ procedia. on January 16, 2013. Mohit, M. A., & Nazyddah, N. (2011). Social housing programme of selangor zakat board of Malaysia and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 26(2), 143e164. Ogu, V. I. (2002). Urban residential satisfaction and the planning implications in a developing world context: the example of Benin City, Nigeria. International Planning Studies, 7(1), 37e53. Ogun State Regional Development Strategy. (2008). Our collective responsibility. Ikeja-Lagos: Comprehensive Project Management Services Limited. Olatubara, C. O., & Fatoye, E. O. (2007). Evaluation of the satisfaction of occupants of the Abesan public low-cost housing estate in Lagos State, Nigeria. The Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, 49(1), 5e9. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual-a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Australlia: Allen & Unwin. Salleh, A. G. (2008). Neighbourhood factors in private low-cost housing in Malaysia. Habitat International, 32(4), 485e494. Salleh, A. N. A., Yosuf, B. N. A., Salleh, C. A. G., & Johari, D. N. (2012). Tenant satisfaction in public housing and its relationship with rent arrears: Majlis Bandaraya, Perak, Malaysia. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 2(1), 10e18. Shrestha, S. L. (2009). Categorical regression models with optimal scaling for predicting indoor air pollution concentrations inside kitchens in Nepalese Households. Nepal Journal of Science and Technology, 10(2009), 205e211. Teck-Hong, T. (2011). Housing satisfaction in medium-and high-cost housing: the case of greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International, 35(3), 1e9. Ukoha, O. M., & Beamish, J. O. (1996). Predictors of housing satisfaction in Abuja, Nigeria. Housing and Society, 23(3), 27e46. Ukoha, O. M., & Beamish, J. O. (1997). Assessment of resident’s satisfaction with public housing in Abuja, Nigeria. Habitat International, 21(4), 445e460. UN-HABITAT. (2006). Nigeria. In National trends in housing e Production practices, Vol. 4, . Nairobi: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements. Varady, D. P., & Carrozza, M. A. (2000). Towards a better way to measure customer satisfaction levels in public housing: a report from Cincinnati. Housing Studies, 15(60), 797e825. Vera-Toscano, E., & Ateca-Amestoy, V. (2008). The relevance of social interactions on housing satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 86, 257e274.