ABSTRACT
Governments all over the world are taking steps to address the problem of providing adequate and affordable housing to their people. Ogun State Government in Southwest Nigeria is not left out in this drive, and thus initiated an integrated public housing programme in 2003 with the assumption that the use of different strategies by different organizations will result in the provision of adequate housing and improved quality of life for different categories of people in the State. In view of the fact that the validity of this assumption has not been formally examined, this research therefore aimed at evaluating public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria, with a view to examining the extent to which the different housing delivery strategies have provided adequate and satisfactory housing and influenced the quality of life of residents of public housing in the State.
Survey and qualitative research strategies as well as proportionate and purposive sampling
techniques were used in selecting respondents. Primary data was obtained through the
administration of questionnaire to 90 purposely selected staff members, and oral interviews with four senior management staff in four key public housing agencies. In addition, questionnaire and observation schedule were used in obtaining data from 517 housing units selected from four different housing delivery strategies based on the proportion of their occurrence in nine newly constructed public housing estates. The quantitative data was analysed using frequencies, percentages, cross tabulations, discriminant, principal component and categorical regression analyses; while the qualitative data was analysed using content analysis. Findings show that the four public housing agencies sampled were rated as having adequate organizational capacity in public housing provision. However, housing provided by the agencies was rated affordable, inadequate and not satisfactory by the residents. Although, public housing estates sampled lacked basic socio-economic infrastructure, majority of the respondents felt satisfied with life in their current residences. The study found significant differences in socio-economic characteristics of residents and levels of housing adequacy and satisfaction across the four strategies. Whereas the Core housing strategy provided housing for low-income earners and was rated as having provided the most adequate and satisfactory housing, the Turnkey and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) strategies provided the least adequate and satisfactory housing respectively for middle-income earners. The Shell strategy which provided housing for high-income class had the highest proportion of those who felt satisfied with life. Satisfaction with management of housing estates and housing unit attributes among other attributes discriminated between the residents who were satisfied with life and those who were not. Housing unit attributes were rated the most adequate and satisfactory while socio-economic infrastructure and neighbourhood facilities were rated the least adequate and least satisfactory housing attributes.
Findings also show that housing delivery strategies, additional space requirement in the housing
units, organizational capacity as well as age, income and tenure status of respondents among others were significant predicators of housing adequacy and residential satisfaction in the study area. Residential satisfaction, tenure status, housing adequacy, housing delivery strategies, length of residency, income and age of respondents were factors that influenced satisfaction with life in the housing estates. Although findings of the study are consistent with the findings of prior research; the categorical regression analysis (R2
= 1.000, F=718909256; P=0.000) however shows that adequate housing (Beta=1.000, F=528886811; P=0.000) was the strongest predictor of, and closely related to, residential satisfaction; and that housing adequacy and residential satisfaction have significant influence on satisfaction with life. The findings imply that the different housing delivery strategies used in public housing perform differently in terms of residents†perceived adequacy and satisfaction; the levels of housing adequacy and satisfaction as well as quality of life in public housing can be enhanced through adequate provision and maintenance of basic housing infrastructure and neighbourhood facilities; housing adequacy and satisfaction can be used as synonymous concept in the evaluation of housings; and the underlying assumption in public housing in Ogun State is valid.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page ------------------ - i
Dedication -------------------------- ii
Certification ------------------------ iii
Dedication -------------------------- iv
Acknowledgement --------------------v
Abstract ---------------------- vi
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background of Study----------------1
1.1 Statement of the Problem --------------------3
1.2 Aim of Study-----------------6
1.3 Objectives of Study-------------------6
1.4 Justification-------------------6
1.5 Scope of Study--------------8
1.6 Summary---------------------8
Chapter 2 THE CONTEXT OF STUDY---------------10
2.0.0 Introduction------------------10
2.1.0 Basic Information on the study area----------10
2.1.1 Location and Size of Ogun State--------------10
2.1.2 Administrative Setting----------------12
2.1.3 Demographics and Socio-economic Characteristics of Ogun State----------12
2.2.0 Public Housing in Ogun State ----------------14
2.2.1 Public Housing in Ogun State: Historical Perspective ---------14
2.2.2 The 2003 Ogun State Housing Policy----------16
2.2.3 The Public Housing Programme in Ogun State and its Objectives----18
2.2.4 Housing Delivery Strategies in the Public Housing Programme------18
(i) Government Aided Core Housing Strategy --------19
(ii) Turnkey Housing Delivery Strategy----------------21
(iii)Public-Private Partnership Housing Delivery Strategy----24
(iv) Shell Stage Housing Delivery Strategy-----------26
2.3.0 Public Housing Agencies in Ogun State------------28
2.3.1 Ogun State Housing Corporation--------------29
2.3.2 Ogun State Property and Investment Corporation------------30
2.3.3 Gateway City Development Company Limited------32
2.3.4 Ogun State Ministry of Housing -------------33
2.4 Summary-----------------------35
Chapter 3 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE---------------36
3.0. Introduction-------------------36
3.1.0 Evaluation Research ----------------39
3.1.1 Programme Theory in Evaluation of Social Programmes ------------40
3.2.0 Studies in Public Housing------------------43
3.3.0 Evaluation of Public Housing ------------ 46
3.3.1 Dimensions of Evaluation of Public Housing-------47
3.3.2 Levels of Evaluation of public Housing -----------48
3.4.0 Approaches to Evaluation of Public Housing ---------- ---- --------50
3.4.1 Post Occupancy Evaluations-----------------51
3.4.2 Satisfaction Studies ----- -------55
3.4.3 Evaluation of Quality-----------------60
3.4.4 Evaluation of Housing Adequacy------------66
(i)Decent Housing--------------------69
(ii) Safe Housing-------------70
(iii)Healthy Housing------------------71
(iv)Accessible Housing-----------------74
(v) Affordable Housing----------------74
3.5.0 Methods of Evaluating Public Housing Schemes ---------76
3.6.0 Factors Influencing the Evaluation of Public Housing -------------78
3.7. 0 Housing and Quality of Life----------------80
3.8.0 Summary-----------------------83
Chapter 4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ------------------85
4.0.0 Introduction----------------85
4.1.0 Programme Theory and Conceptual Approaches to Evaluation-----------86
4.2 The Conceptual Framework of the Study------------88
4.3 Summary----------------------89
Chapter 5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-------------91
5.0 Introduction--------------------91
5.1.0 Research Strategy--------------------91
5.2.0 Sample Frame of Housing Units and Public Housing Organisations----92
5.3.0 Sampling Techniques---------------92
5.4.0 Sample Size of Housing Units and Staff Members of Organisations------92
5.5.0 Design of Data Collection Instruments--------------94
5.6.0 Data Collection and Data Treatment----------------95
5.6.1 Objective 1---------------------95
5.6.2 Objective 2--------------------97
5.6.3 Objective 3---------------------98
5.6.4 Objective 4-------------------98
5.6.5 Objective 5-------------------100
5.7. Data Processing ----------------------102
5.
