Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 60



Background of the Study

Housing (adequate shelter) is known universal as one of the basic necessities of life
and a pre-requisite to survival of man (Onibokun, 1983; United Nations, 1992; Salau,
1990; Nubi, 2003). A house is a place in which it provides shelter, refuge, comfort,
protection, and dignity. The housing industry can be a stimulus to national economy
(Onibokun, 1983). A house also provides the physical framework in which human,
social, economic, and cultural resources are realized, enriched, and integrated. In the
traditional African setting, in particular, housing is, in fact, one of the greatly
cherished material properties. This is because of the other functions that a house
performs in the traditional society includes the protection of family cohesion and
values, taking care of the aged through the extended family system, and the protection
of the ancestral values, among others. Thus, the significance of providing adequate
housing in any country cannot be overemphasized.
However, in spite of the fundamental role of housing in the life of every individual
and the nation, and in spite of the United Nations realization of the need to globally
attain adequate shelter for all, the housing crisis remains one of the global problems
and a grave and rising challenge facing both urban and rural residents, particularly in
most developing countries. It is generally estimated that the world needs to house an
additional 68 million to 80 million people (Awake, 2005). According to the United
Nations Population Fund (Wikipedia, 2003), world population passed 6.1 billion in
2001 and it is expected to reach between 7.9 and 10.9 billion by 2050. Over 90% of

the growth during the next two decades is forecast to occur in the developing
Those estimates represent a formidable housing challenge. The situation even
becomes more serious and worrisome when one realizes the fact that despite a number
of political, social, and religious initiatives taken in the past in some of these
developing countries, a large proportion of their population still lives in sub-standard
and poor housing and in deplorable and unsanitary residential environments. This is
particularly so in Nigeria, where housing provision by government commenced before
political independence in 1960 and where, despite various government interventions
and huge investments in housing provision, the housing problem in the country still
remains intractable as many rural and urban populations in Nigeria do not have access
to decent, safe and affordable housing. This, according to Onibokun (1990), is as a
result of the government to provide housing to the general population.
The level of production of housing in a developing country like Nigeria is only 2
dwelling units per thousand people, compared to the required rate of about 8-10
dwelling units per 1,000 population as recommended by the United Nations
(Anthonio, 2002). It is against this backdrop that this study attempts an overview of
government housing delivery strategies in Nigeria over the years with a view to
identify corrective measures that are needed to better the shelter and living conditions
of the generality of Nigerians.


Statement of problem

Housing delivery is a highly controversial and politicised issue that is of great concern
to administrators, scholars and the public in Nigeria. In the last few decades, the influx
of people into urban areas, the natural population increase and inadequate responses
by the government have contributed to the worsening housing situation in this country,
to the extent that economic development and the welfare of the citizens are adversely
affected (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1991; Akinmoladun and Oluwoye, 2007;
Ademiluyi and Raji, 2008).
These problems have become more critical in the cities, where huge housing supply
deficits, dilapidated housing conditions, high cost of housing as well as proliferation
of slums and squatter.

Consequently, there is apparent shortage of housing or

residential real estate, especially for the low-income segment. The housing backlog is
estimated at 14 million units (Roland Igbinoba Real Foundation for Housing and
Urban Development, 2009) and it will require N49 trillion ($326 billion) to bridge the
housing deficit of 14 million units based on an estimated average cost of N3.5 million
($23,333) per housing unit (Roland Igbinoba Real Foundation for Housing and Urban
Development, 2009).
The problem of housing delivery strategy can be known if the following research
questions are asked;
1. What are the housing delivery strategies which have been delivered by
2. What are the challenges of these housing strategies used by LSDPC?
3. What is the level of success of these housing delivery strategies used by

4. What are the measures that are needed by LSDPC to improve housing supply
in Lagos state?


Aim and Objectives

The aim of this study is to evaluate the housing strategies deployed by LSDPC with a
view to identify measures that are needed to improve housing supply.
To achieve the above stated aim, the following objectives are pursued:
1. To determine the housing delivery strategies deployed by LSDPC
2. To identify the challenges of these housing delivery strategies.
3. To determine the level of success of these housing delivery strategies.
4. To determine measures that are needed to improve housing delivery.

1.4 Scope of study

Housing provision is the responsibility of both public and private developers. In Lagos
State, LSDPC is an example of public developers; while individuals or group of
individuals are private developers. In other to evaluate housing delivery strategies in
Nigeria, this study needed to be confined to a specific State; as such this study is
confined to only public developer in Lagos State. Specifically, the evaluation is
limited to LSDPC. The choice of LSDPC in Lagos State is motivated by a number of
reasons. First, Lagos is the largest urban centre as well as a commercial capital of
Nigeria, factors that make the city assume strategic significance in the national
economy and subsequently command high influence on the possible effectiveness of a
number of policy measures. Moreover its unique metropolitan features and complexity
offers opportunities for learning important lessons that could be applicable elsewhere

in Nigeria. Whatever happens in Lagos has an impact on the whole direction of

governance in the entire country.


Significance of study

This study is both theoretically and geographically significant in many respects. In

attempting to evaluate housing delivery strategies by LSDPC, it is hoped that this
study will contribute to the process of improving housing supply in Nigeria.
Further, the study contributes towards improving the current dearth of rigorous
housing research studies and literature on this area of housing studies in Nigeria. The
negative consequences of the current lack of in-depth relevant bodies of housing
literature and data system in the country and the need to redress the situation cannot
be over-emphasized. This study responds by attempting to close the information and
data gap that exists in understanding the challenges of housing delivery.


Definition of terms

Housing: The residential environment, neighbourhood , micro district or the physical

structure that mankind uses for shelter, and the environments of that structure,
including all necessary services, facilities, equipment and devices needed for the
physical health and social well-being of the family and the individual
Lagos State Development and Property Corporation (LSDPC): This is an
organisation that provides housing in Lagos State.
Housing Delivery Strategies: These are the long-term policies employed for housing


Literature Review

The aim of this chapter is to review the literature on the concept of housing and
significance of housing. The review of literature also captured past government
interventions in housing delivery in Nigeria.


The Concept and Significance of Housing

Housing, literally is defined as Buildings or other shelters in which people live, a

place to live, a dwelling etc and to Nations a critical component in social and
economic fabric. Housing represents one of the most basic human needs. As a unit of
the environment, it has a profound influence on the health, efficiency, social
behaviour, satisfaction and general welfare of the community (Onibokun 1998). To
most groups housing means shelter but to others it means more as it serves as one of
the best indicators of a persons standard of living and his or her place in the society
(Nubi, 2008). It is a priority for the attainment of living standard and it is important to
both rural and urban areas. These attribute make demand for housing to be boundless
as population growth and urbanization are increase very quickly and the gap between
housing need and supply becomes broaden. Social status or values and preferences,
taste and financial resources which are all Cultural factors also influence a home
physical characteristics.
Housing, one of the basic needs of man was defined by the World Health Organization
(1961) as:
The residential environment, neighbourhood , micro district or the
physical structure that mankind uses for shelter, and the
environments of that structure, including all necessary services,

facilities, equipment and devices needed for the physical health and
social well-being of the family and the individual
As quoted by Christina (1997), an ad-hoc group of experts on social programming of
housing in urban areas concluded that in fulfilment of social needs, Housing serves
as the area where the individual becomes capable of experiencing community and
privacy, social well-being and shelter and protection against hostile physical forces
and disturbances and also serves as the area, an abundant supply of social relationship
and services are accessible, education, recreation, sports, social welfare and health
protection services, shopping and transportation.
Housing fosters physical, social, and economic as well as psychological satisfaction
for the dwellers. It provides leisure and reflects status, Domfeh (1992). Apart from
being a basic human right, adequate housing plays a major role in the economic
development and growth of the nation. The provision of housing is so inextricably
linked with national economic development that in spite of its high cost on available
investment resources.
Housing enhances and increases the productivity of workers. Provision of adequate
workers houses, conveniently sited near their places of work, together with
remuneration and incentive payments, should improve workers concentration on the
job and thus enhance and improve productivity. Housing fulfils a social need and
satisfies the criteria for remunerative urban investment as a focus of economic
activity, as a symbol of achievement and social acceptance, and as an element of urban
growth and income distribution.

However, the achievement of the goal for the provision of adequate housing in Nigeria
has been difficult, requiring a clearly stated national policy as well as the continued
innovative and co-operative efforts of all institutions involved in the provision of
housing such as financial, industrial and constructional sectors as well as traditional
institutions in land tenure. A good housing scheme and its attendant social facilities
and good sanitary conditions will contribute towards the eradication of health hazards.
It will also facilitate family integration and unity, which will bring peace to contribute
effectively towards productivity at the work place. On the other hand, the lack of it
induces stress, which produces disturbing psychological and physiological reactions
that reduces the individuals ability to cope with the day-to-day stresses of life.


The Nature of Nigerias Housing problems.

Many renowned scholars of urban science (Castells, Burgess, Hall, Turner, AbuLughod, Mabogunje and so on) as well as distinguished regional and international
organization (United Nations Habitat, World Society of Ekistics, the World Bank etc.)
concerned with urbanization and housing at worldwide levels, have long expressed
enormous anxieties over the disturbing nature and dimensions of the housing
problems in the nations of the developing world. Highly recognized among the most
crucial corollaries of unplanned and dependant urbanization is the urban housing crisis
pervading the primary and large regional secondary cities of the fast and medium
developing categories of the third world nations (Lagos, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo,
Mexico City, Cairo, New Delhi, Karachi etc.). This crisis situation in its integrated
form has surpassed the terrains of the social sphere, reproducing itself in the

economic, political and environmental processes of these nations of the third world,
Nigeria not an exemption.
The problem of housing has been generally accepted as being diverse and complex.
Within the spectrum of this problem, one can identify both quantitative and qualitative
deficiencies. Agboola (1998) identified the major housing problems in Nigeria as that
of instability of human needs for housing. This problem is world-wide and it is of a
recurring nature. In fact it is doubtful if any nation of the world can satisfactorily meet
its housing requirements.
In Nigeria, most people live in poor quality housing and in unhygienic environments.
This problem of inadequate housing has been compounded by the rapid rates of
urbanization and economic growth. Housing difficulties is more serious for the low
income groups where problems have been complicated by rapid growth, inflated real
estate values, speculative activity, and influx of poor immigrants and lack of planning.
One can also cite the increasingly significant shifts in the form and design of housing
from the rooming form to flat and single family house forms as a factor responsible
for acute shortage of housing for the low income groups. L.M. Olayiwola et al. The
problem of inadequate housing is experienced in both urban and rural areas in Nigeria.
For example NISER in a study of rural housing in the nine Southern States of Nigeria
found that, the projected demand of housing units on an average of six persons per
dwelling unit for the nine states are 5.2 million in 1990, 7.0m in 2,000, 9.5m in 2,010
and 12.7m in the year 2,020. Other manifests of the housing problem are: high rent in
the housing market, inadequate mortgage finance and inaccessibility to mortgage
loans. These problems have resulted in overcrowding, poor and inadequate social

amenities, unsatisfactory and unwholesome environmental conditions and urban

squalor, the absence of open space, the over development of land area leading to the
overcrowding of buildings, in-accessibility within residential areas, and in the scarcity
and high cost of building materials (Mabogunje 2003).


Need for affordable Housing

The United Nations estimates that Nigerias population in 2005 stands at 141 million,
and predicted that it would reach 289 million by 2050 (Encarta, 2007). The United
States Census Bureau projects that population of Nigeria will reach 264 million by
2050. Nigeria will then be the 8th most populous country in the world (Encarta, 2007).
Rapid growth in population creates demand pressure towards shelter and efficient
supply and distribution of basic utilities and services for the city dwellers, In most of
our urban centres the problem of housing is not only restricted to quantity but to the
poor quality of available housing units which is manifested in overcrowding in
houses. Nigeria is perhaps the fastest urbanizing country in the African continent. One
of the most important challenges facing the country is the provision of affordable
housing. As more and more Nigerians make towns and cities their homes, the resulting
social, economic, environmental and political challenges need to be urgently
addressed (Raji, 2008).
A recent study of housing situation in Nigeria put existing housing stock at 23 unit of
houses per 1000 inhabitant. Housing deficit is put at 15 million houses (Mabogunje
2007) while N12 trillion will be required to finance the deficit. This is about 4 times
the annual national budget of Nigeria (FHA, 2007). Home prices and rents, on the
other hand, have grown ahead of general inflation. Making matters worse, the

composition of homes for sale and rent on the market has been inexorably shifting
towards very expensive home (Nubi, 2008).
The National Rolling Plan of 1990 92 estimated housing deficit at 4.8 million. The
1991 housing policy estimated that 700,000 housing units are to be built each year if
housing deficit is to be cancelled. The documents indicated that not less than 60% of
the new houses are to be built in urban centres. In 2006, the Ministry of Housing and
Urban Development declared that the country needs about 10 million housing units
before all Nigerians can be sheltered.
Between 1975 and 1980, there were plans of deliver 202,000 housing units to the
public but only 28,500 units, representing 14.1% was achieved. Also, out of 200,000
housing units planned to be delivered between 1981 and 1985, only 47,200 (23.6%)
was constructed. Under the National Housing Fund (NHF) programme initiated in
1994, to produce 121,000 housing units, it was believed that less than 5% was
achieved. In spite of a series of government policies towards housing delivery, one
thing that is clear is that; there exist a gap between housing supply and demand
(Olomolaiye, 1999; Agbola, 1998; Adegeye and Ditto, 1985).
Historically, Housing unit is treated as product hence the need for quality if it is to pair
well and perform desirably in the market, but quality in construction industry suffers
significant difficulty as it passes through extreme pressure driven by cost
minimization rather than value maximization. Research has shown that 75% of urban
housing is situated in slum conditions (UNDN,1988), and indeed the quality of the


housing is poor and clearly an affront to human dignity (Olotuah, 1997; Agbola and
Olatubara, 2003).

The Federal Government in 2004, pledged to adequately fund research pertaining to

the manufacture and the use of local materials in the sector with aim of providing
40,000 houses, with at least 1,000 per state before year 2007 as part of effort to
increasing qualitative housing for the masses in the country.
Housing delivery in Nigeria is provided by either the Government or Private sector,
but despite Federal Government access to factors of housing production, the country
could at best expect 4.2% of the annual requirement. Substantial contribution is
expected from other public and private sectors. It should be acknowledged that private
sector developers account for most of urban housing (FOS, 1983). The production of
housing in Nigeria is primarily the function of the private market; approximately 90%
of urban housing is produced by private developers. Due to housing demand created
by rural- urban migration, which account for 65% of urban population growth, the
fixed supply of urban land, and inflation of rental and housing ownership cost (taylor,
2000). Unfortunately, the private sector is saddled with numerous problems which
make supply always fall far short of demand and lower production quality (Nubi,
2008). The problem of qualitative housing has been a concern for both the government
and individuals. Appreciating these problems, both public and private sector
developers make effort through various activities to bridge the gap between housing
supply and demand, but the cost of building materials, deficiency of housing finance
arrangement, stringent loan conditions from mortgage banks, government policies

amongst other problems have affecting housing delivery significantly in Nigeria

( Raji, 2008).
With different Policies and user solutions that are abound for the purpose of reducing
quantitative housing deficiency. It could be possible to solve the problem if housing
were used only for shelter needs. However, in addition to serving as a shelter, housing
is also a produced commodity, consumer good, assurance for families, means used for
reproducing social relations and an investment tool protecting the value of money
against inflation. Moreover, it is important that house is a building block in its
relations with its environment, mutual interaction and increasing the quality of its
environment when it is considered as a part of the city. In this context, it can be
accepted that a large housing stock is available today as a result of new presentation
forms and production processes with a high volume of housing production. However,
the existence of this stock shows that the housing policies are planned depending
mostly on production.


Review of Past Policies and Programmes

Because shelter is essential to everyone, the problem of providing adequate housing

has long been a concern not only to individuals, but to governments as well. This has
made most nations in different forms to continue to place access to affordable housing
at the top of their priority lists (Encarta Interactive World Atlas, 2007).


In Nigeria, the major steps taken, so far, in the direction of solving the housing crisis
in the country includes:
The Establishment, in 1928, of the Lagos Executive Development

Board (LEDB): Government starts to intervene in the housing sector in 1928,

during the Bubonic Plague of 1928 1929 (NHP, 1991), by the then
government of the defunct Lagos Colony, wading into the housing sector
brought into existence by law the Lagos Executive Development Board
(LEDB) which was charged with the responsibility of planning and
Development of the capital city of Lagos, produced layout of Ebute Metta. But
that housing scheme had only civil servants as its beneficiaries. It was only
possible to sell the units of houses in that estate to civil servants through
payroll deduction system. During preparation for independence, the slum
clearance resulted into the construction of additional houses in Surulere which
was the first attempt in urban renewal in Nigeria.
The Board was empowered to carry out slum clearance, land reclamation, and
the development of residential and industrial estates.

The setting up of Nigerian Building Society (NBS) in 1956 : Established

after the World War II, by colonial government with the aim of to extending
housing opportunities to more Nigerians including those in the private sector.
This was a carryover from the British system where mortgage bankers are
called building societies. The effect of the NBS was felt almost exclusively
within the Lagos enclave. Only an insignificant number of people outside

Lagos benefited from the programme. But the NBS could not stand the test of
time because it was dependent on government for funding. Its establishment
was mainly to provide housing loans to both Civil Servants and the Nigerian

Urban Redevelopment or Renewal

Two of the hallmarks of the colonial approach to African urban housing in the fifties
were the Redevelopment of decaying core areas combined with the renewal of
slums or squatter Areas, and the construction of large rental (sometimes tenant
purchase) public housing estates.
The first attempt in the country was in 1951. The then minister of Lagos Affairs
appointed the Lagos Executive Development Board (LEDB) now known, as the Lagos
State Development and Property Corporation (LSDPC) to clear a slum area of about
28.34 hectares (70acres) in Central Lagos within a triangle in the vicinity of Broad
Street, Balogun and Martins Streets together with Nnamdi Azikwe Street and the area
east of it. The property structures in this area range from residential to market stalls
erected in the area without planning and due regard for accessibility, drainage, sewers,
open spaces, parking facilities and density. Finance and problem of rehousing
displaced persons occasioning tenure insecurity confronted the project.

1952- 1972
Nigeria in 1952 - 1960 was carved up into three regions namely: Eastern
Region, Western Region and Northern Region. The regions established
respective housing corporations in 1964. With a function of developing estates
and at the same time providing mortgage for the people to build houses and pay

back over many years. Like the Nigerian Building Society, the housing
corporations had impacts only in the capital cities of the respective regions i.e
Enugu, Ibadan, and Kaduna. One of such is Bodija Estate in Ibadan developed
by the defunct Western Regional government (NHP, 1991). In 1971 National
Council on Housing was established which marked the first significant and
direct attempt by the Federal Government intervention in the area of Housing.

Establishment of the Federal Housing Authority 1973:

The Federal Housing Authority, was established under Decree No. 40 of 1973,
and amended by CAP 136 LFN of 1990. It began operation, however, in 1976.
Its functions and roles include making proposals to government for housing
and ancillary infrastructural services and implementing those approved by
government. Under the National Housing Policy of 1991, FHA was mandated
to develop and manage real estates on commercial and profitable basis in all
states of the federation, provide site and services scheme for all income groups,
with special emphasis on low-income groups in the major cities of the country;
and provide low income houses in all states of the Federation.
Towards the first all African Festival of Arts and Culture (FESTAC), the Federal
Military Government begun mass housing development, it embarked on the
development of the Festival Town in Lagos, and in different state capitals (NHP,


Learning from past failure, FHAs housing delivery is made to be end-user driven
through cooperatives, Housing Associations, Key workers Scheme, and House
improvement (Nubi, 2008). As a source of strength, the agency (Federal Housing
Authority), has well over 53,000 housing units in about 77 estates and a land asset
holding of over 10,000 hectres nationwide to its credit, the FHA has spent over N30
billion on housing development and ancillary infrastructure. It also has an asset base
of approximately N5 billion (ThisDayonline, 2009). The agency is placed in a pivotal
position to contribute so much to provision of residential accommodations to a large
section of the population. Its activities can also boost manufacturing and distribution
of building materials such as cement, iron rods, roofing sheets, ceiling sheets, timber
products, nails, paints, etc. through new housing development or housing renewal.

National Housing Programme:

The development of the Festival Town and Ipaja Town in Lagos was done under the
1975 - 1980 National Housing Programme, by the FHA. Under this programme, the
federal government developed the Amuwo Odofin Phase 1 Estate in Lagos and the
first ever federal low cost housing estates in other 11 state capitals. The estates were in
1978 transferred to the various state governments for purposes of control and
management. This housing programme was the first significant Federal government
effort at providing affordable housing to Nigerian citizens on long-term mortgage
repayment terms. And it was the time when Nigerian Building Society was
transformed into the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria. In 1979, the Federal
government embarked upon low cost housing development (Shagari Low cost) in all

the then 19 states of the federation. The 1981 - 1982 National Housing Programme
was designed to provide 350 medium/high income housing units in each of the then 19
states in the country, to complement the Shagari administration's Low -Income
Housing Programme which was handled by the then Federal Ministry of Housing and
Environment (NHP, 2006). 1986 1993 tagged "A period of consolidation". Then, the
Nigerian urban landscape was littered with many suspended/abandoned housing
projects, resulting from the past failed programmes, Shagari's Low-income schemes
and FHA's schemes. Emphasis during the period was therefore shifted from new
programmes to completion of viable suspended schemes (This Day Online, 2009).

The formation of the National Site and Services Scheme (NSSS) in 1986:
Site and Services scheme is an approach which has been adopted by many
developing countries including Nigeria to provide housing for the poor and
under-privileged in the society. The rapid urbanization and the high rate of
population growth prevalent in the country created the need for an approach
that will promote and enhance rapid housing provision to solve the housing
problem in Nigeria. Due to its design and level of services, public housing was
unavailable to the poor and under-privileged in the society, most of which are
scattered around the periphery of the city in unsafe and unserved land plots.
Aside the above, sites and services scheme are designed to solve the problem of
acute shortage of housing in developing countries including Nigeria,
particularly to the poor who cannot afford the rising cost of constructing houses
and of the high standards established by the government. In site and services

scheme, the government or its agency provides infrastructural serviced plots for
individuals who are then encouraged to erect their own type of buildings. In the
approach, the scheme land is furnished with access roads, drainage, water,
sewage, electricity and a variety of other individual as well as community
services. The underlying principle of sites and services project is that
authorities would provide the land and infrastructural facilities, while the
individual and his family who are allocated the serviced plot proceed to build
their house in accordance with approved plans but of own choice (National
Housing Policy, 1981). Thus, in view of the housing problems in Nigeria, like
other developing countries of the world, housing provision for urban poor has
therefore moved more than never before towards self-help schemes,
particularly of the sites and services type as a strategy of mass housing. The
scheme generally entails public financial commitment for land acquisition,
planning, design and installation of basic infrastructure such as paved roads,
water and electricity before the sites are allocated on leasehold basis to the
public for housing development (Izeogu, 1987)
The setting up of the State Housing Corporation (SHC) to provide housing
to the general population at affordable prices.
The creation of the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN): Nigerian
Building Society was converted to Federal Mortgage Bank in 1977, with a
capital base of Twenty million Naira (N20m) and increased to One hundred and
fifty Million Naira (N150m) in 1979. The impact of Federal Mortgage Bank
then was insignificant as only few loans were given principally to few middle

and high income groups in the country (NHP, 1991). As pressure due to
increase in housing deficit continue to rise, an inclusive Housing policy was
started in 1980, targeting low income group whose annual income did not
exceed five thousand Naira (N5,000). The Federal Mortgage Bank (FMBN) as
a vehicle for Housing delivery in Nigeria, was combining the functions of
primary and secondary mortgage institutions. The Federal government
separates the two functions by creating the Federal Mortgage Finance of
Nigeria (which is now phased out). The FMBN was therefore left to operate
exclusively as a secondary mortgage market and open the primary mortgage
market to the private sector. Many leveraged that opportunity to go into
mortgage banking. But their impact on the built environment has been short of
expectation. With the FMBN operating as the secondary mortgage market, the
next problem was where to source the money to lend to the Primary Mortgage
Institutions (PMIs). In 1992, the Federal government enact a policy which
made it mandatory for every Nigerian earning up to N3,000 monthly to
contribute 2.5 per cent of his monthly salary to a National Housing Fund
(NHF) (Thisdayonline, 2009). This fund was to be managed by the FMBN,
from which it could lend to the PMIs. The contributors to the fund were also
entitled to borrow money from the fund, through the PMIs, after six months, to
develop houses. The Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria, a scion of the Nigerian
Building Society, the FMBN has undergone several transformations since it
came into being in the 1970s. It is today Nigeria's secondary mortgage
institution, charged on the one hand with managing the NHF; and on the other

hand, with lending money to housing developers through the PMIs. The bank
has taken a number of measures in the recent times to ensure that estate
developers can build to target prices.
With the NHF policy, and subsequent decree, in place, the NHF had about N12 billion,
out of which only about N3.4 billion has been disbursed. Contrary to expectations,
however, this strategy did not solve the problem of scarcity of housing in the country.
The national development planners had then targeted the year 2000 as the year by
which Nigeria would achieve the objective of having provided shelter to all citizens.
Akinlusi (2007) strongly advocate for mortgage facilities as vehicles for mass housing
delivery in Nigeria
The setting up of the National Housing Policy (NHP) in 1991: The
Nigerian National Housing Policy was formulated in 1991 with the goal of
ensuring adequate access to decent and affordable housing by all Nigerians.
The housing situation in Nigeria since its formulation has shown quite
glaringly that the implementation of the policy and the operational strategies
adopted for it have been deficient. The policy was revised in 2004 to take care
of the problems encountered in the implementation. A Presidential Technical
Committee on Housing and Urban Development was set up by government to
address the new housing reforms. It recommended amongst other things the
restructuring of the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN) and the
creation of Real Estate Developers Association of Nigeria (REDAN), and
Building Materials Producers Association of Nigeria (BUMPAN). The new

housing reforms created financial mechanisms and institutions that will make
available to the private sector (developers) funds for the production of mass
houses, and allow purchasers (mortgagors) to have easy access to borrowed
money through the Primary Mortgage Institutions (Ebie, 2004). It also
acknowledged, finance as constituting the centre piece, among other major
pillars, of housing delivery (Abiodun, 1999). The poor performance of Federal
Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN), which gave loan to 8,874 out of over
1,000,000 applications between 1977 and 1990 was very worrisome. It was
very obvious that the FMBN should undergo serious re-engineering to be able
to cope with the enormous task of housing finance. This re-engineering resulted
into a framework of two tier financial structure (see fig. 2.1)

Arilesere 1998, summarised the major strategies and guidelines of the National
Housing Policy (NHP, 1991) on Housing finance as follows:
1. Mobilisation of savings into Mortgage Institution
2. Provision of incentives for the capital market to invest in property development
3. Provision of policy controls over the allocation of resources between the
housing sector and other sectors of the economy.
4. Facilitation of flow of domestic and international resources into the priority
housing areas, such as low income housing.

5. Need for government to establish voluntary schemes, mandatory schemes and

Provide substantial budgetary allocations and financial transfer to the housing
Finance system.
6. Establishment of National Housing Fund (NHF) to be administered by the
Federal Mortgage Bank.
7. Ensuring that Commercial Banks, Merchant Banks and Insurance Companies
are given reasonable conditions to encourage them to invest in mortgage

Apart from the above, the policy spelt out other functions of the FMBN These are:
1 1. To develop a secondary mortgage market for housing finance to improve the
Liquidity of the system
2. To act as guarantor for loan stock floated by the primary mortgage
3. To manage the National Housing Fund (NHF)
National Housing Programme (NHP 1994 1995):
1994-5 National Housing Programme was designed to provide 121,000 housing units
nationwide, for all income groups. The cardinal objectives of the programme included
the following: to increase the housing stock in the country; provide easy access to
home ownership; translate the national housing policy objectives into reality; and
enhance resource mobilization. Others were: to establish permanent housing delivery
system which will be self-sustaining and enduring, without reliance on the
government treasury, after an initial take-off grant; strengthen institutions within the

system to render their operations more responsive to demand; and encourage greater
private sector participation in housing development. The programme, nevertheless,
failed due to reasons of inadequate funding, white elephant scale, inadequate planning
and conception, flaws in execution, attenuated public confidence, problems of access
to the NHF, under-pricing and costing, inflation etc. In view of this,theFHA and the
Federal Ministry of Works and Housing were jointly appointed the executing agency
of the NHP at its inception (Thisdayonline, 2009).
The setting up of a Housing Policy Council (HPC) to monitor improvement
in the housing sector and also to set up the machinery for the review of the
1978 Land Use Decree (LUD) in order to make more land available for the
citizens of the country
The review of the mandate given to the Federal Housing Authority (FHA)
to include provisions of the National Social housing as part of the strategy
towards meeting the Millennium Development Goal. The authority also plans
to assist the provision of two million housing units within the next four years.
Others are the formulation of the National Housing Policy (NHP) in 1984,
the establishment of the Infrastructural Development Fund (IDF) in 1985,
and the Urban Development Bank (UDB) in 1992 (Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1997).
Furthermore, on the legal and regulatory framework for enhancing housing delivery,
eight (8) housing related laws have been proposed to the National Assembly. They are:
1. The Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Act 1977 (replacement)

2. The National Housing Fund Act 1992 (replacement)

3. The Mortgage Institution Acts 1992 (replacement)
4. The Social Insurance Trust Fund Act 1993 (amendment)
5. The Investment and Securities Act 1999 (amendment)
6. The Trustees Investment Act 1962 (amendment)
7. The Insurance Act 2002 (amendment)
8. The Land Use Act 1978 (amendment)

In addition to the above, virtually all the introduced National Development Plans
(NDPs) from 1962-1985 and the National Rolling Plans (NRPs) from 1990 to date
explicitly recognize the importance of providing adequate housing in the country as a
tool for stimulating the national economy (Gbolagade, 2005).

The First National Development Plan (1962-1968) accorded low priority to housing
with focus on accommodating government staff in the regional capitals and Lagos. A
low proportion/percentage achievement was recorded.
In the Second National Development Plan (1970-1974) the target was to construct
60,000 housing units (15,000 units in Lagos and 400 units in each of the remaining
capitals). There was marginal improvement at the end of that period.

Efforts were intensified in the Third National Development Plan (1975-1984) to

improve the condition of the housing.
Highlights of the programs include:
Direct construction of low-cost housing units by both the federal and state

Increased construction of housing quarters for government officials, expansion
of credit facilities to enhance private housing construction, and
Increased investment in domestic production of cement. A sum of N2.5 billion
was allocated to the housing sector with a target production of 202,000 units
(50,000 units for Lagos and 8,000 units for each of the, then, 19 states). At the
end of the period, a success of 13.3% was recorded.
During the plan period, the Federal Ministry of Housing, Urban Development, and
Environment was created while the Federal Government bought over the shares held
by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the Nigeria Building Society and
converted it to the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN) with an enlarged
capital base from N21 million to N150 million to provide loans to individuals, state
housing corporations, and private estate development firms.
During the Fourth National Development Plan (1984-1985) period, three schemes
were embarked upon: the direct housing construction, under which 2,000 housing
units were to be built in each state annually, while the FHA was to construct about
143,000 low cost housing units across the country. Site and Services Schemes were
also to be provided.
At the end of the plan period, a success of 20% was recorded.
During the 1990-1992 rolling plan periods, efforts were intensified on the sites and
services scheme. About 2,892 serviced plots were provided in Anambra, Lagos, Imo,
Kano, Kwara, Ondo, and Rivers states, while the second phase commenced in other
states. On prototype housing schemes, 72 housing units were constructed and

allocated in 1990, while the construction of 218 units commenced in Lagos and Abuja.
During the plan period, the National Housing Fund Decree No. 3 of 1992 was
promulgated and Primary Mortgage Institutions (PMIs) were licensed. The Housing
Policy Council was also set up to monitor development in the housing sector. The
1993-1995 rolling plan period witnessed allocation of about 10,474 plots of the three
residential categories to the public. The impact of FHA was also felt in Lagos and
During the 1994-1996 rolling plan, the national housing program was launched with
the target of constructing 121,000 housing units of various models all over the country
by the end of 1996. However, by the first quarter of 1997, fewer than 2,000 housing
units had been completed. The federal and the state governments were expected to
spend N2.0 billion on housing provisions during the 1996-1998 National Rolling Plan
(NRP). Over N3.00 billion was expected to be spent by the two levels of governments
during the 1999-2001 National Rolling Plan (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1998;
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2000). As part of the efforts to increase houses for the
masses in the country, the Federal Government in 2004 pledged to adequately fund
research pertaining to the manufacture and the use of local materials in the sector, with
the aim of providing 40,000 houses with at least 1,000 per state before year 2007.
However, as observed by Ademiluyi & Raji (2008), little had been done to meet this
target barely two months into the year 2007.
Despite these interventions and efforts by the governments, actual achievements in
terms of providing adequate housing in the country remain essentially minimal for a
number of reasons. These include:

1. Problem of Plan implementation. There is often a wide gap between what is on

paper and what is happening on the ground. For example, only 13.3% achievement
was recorded in the federal governments housing program in the Third National
Development Plan (Mabogunje, 2002).
2. Lack of adequate data relating to the magnitude of the problem, due partly to the
absence of the national data bank on housing.
3. Inconsistency in government policies and programs, including frequent changes of
policies with changes of government and without proper assessment of the existing
4. Lack of efficient and sustainable credit delivery to the housing sector.
5. Peoples incomes are relatively low in comparison with house market prices,
resulting in an affordability problem.
6. High cost of building materials. For example, a recent survey has shown that a 50kg
bag of cement has risen from N650 in 2000 to about N1, 600 today.
7. The rapid annual growth rate of the Nigerian population, which was estimated at
3.3% on the basis of annual birth rate of 49.3 per 1,000. Coupled with the rapid
population growth/urbanization is the problem of an increasing poverty level among
the citizenry, which has risen from 65% in 1996 to about 70% in 2007, according to
UNDP and World Bank estimates.
8. Lack of effective coordination among Housing Agencies. While all the three tiers of
the government are involved in one way or the other in housing matters, their
activities are hardly coordinated.


9. Politicization of housing issues, including government involvement in what

Onibokun (1983) referred to as the game of number.
For instance, between 1974 and 1980, there the plan to deliver 202,000 housing units
to the public, but only 28,500 units representing 14.1% were delivered. Also, out of
200,000 housing units planned to be delivered between 1981 and 1985 only 47,200
(23.6%) were constructed. Under the National Housing Fund (NHF) program,
initiated in 1994 to produce 121,000 housing units, it was reported that less than 5%
was achieved. In spite of a series of government policies towards improved housing
delivery, one thing that is clear is that successive governments in Nigeria have not
been able to match their words with action. In fact, the situation in the Nigerian
housing sector remains like that of a child to whom much is promised but little is
delivered. It is no surprise, therefore, that there exists a gap between housing supply
and demand.


Current Housing delivery approach

In 2003, the federal government also established the Federal Ministry of Housing and
Urban Development, and Proposed a Housing Reform, in view of the fact that there
were not many affordable houses in Nigeria. There was an illusion that houses were
available. But most of them were high-priced. Mabogunje (2004) opined that a
number of other legislation needs to be amended substantially to bring their provisions
in line with the new housing regime. The touchstone in such reviews is to reduce redtape and ensure that various legislations are compatible with demands of a free and
robust market economy. The period 2003 2004 witness a Housing policy that

recognized the private sector on the driving seat of housing delivery in the country, the
key features of this policy include the placement of the private sector in a pivotal
position, for the delivery of affordable houses, on a sustainable basis; assignment to
government of the responsibility for the development of primary infrastructure for
new estate development; and review and amendment of the Land Use Act to ensure
better access to land and speedier registration and assignment of title to developers.
Others are the development of a secondary mortgage market, involving the FMBN
and the establishment of a new mortgage regime, under the NHF, to facilitate more
favourable mortgage terms; and a five-year tax holiday for developers (Thisdayonline,


Lagos State Developments and Property Cooperation


2.7.1 Historical Background

The provision of modern housing schemes and the transformation of slums and
ghettos in Lagos dates back to 1928 when the Lagos Executive Development Board
(LEDB) inaugurated. Among other things the LEDB was charged primarily with the
task of getting rid of filth arid unhealthy living conditions, which existed then in
Lagos state. The board was also to transform the slump areas and ghettos into a
planned and habitable environment.


Although the board was the sole executive authority for planning and development
both in central Lagos and its environs, the maintenance of its constructed roads, drains
and open spaces was the responsibility of the Lagos City Council. The vetting of
building plans was also shared with the city council, an awkward arrangement that
often resulted in the delay of approval of building plans. The attendance frustration to
private developers often times led to contravention of planning regulations by
However, subsequent control of the city necessitated the involvement of the Ikeja Area
Planning Authority, (IAPA) in the control of development and provision of housing
outside the city. The (IAPA) on the one hand had full powers to vet building plans and
control private development in its area of jurisdiction, but such plans had to be
forwarded to the relevant council for health approval. With the creation of Lagos state
in 1967, the need to stem the lack of proper coordination between the existing
planning authorities and the local authorities involved, and the unnecessary dissipation
of energy without meaningful results, necessitated the formation of a central body to
be charged with all the duties of the different bodies. Consequently in 1972, the Lagos
Executive Development Board (LEDB), Ikeja Area Planning Authority (IAPA), Epe
Town Planning Authority (ETPA), metamorphosed into what is known as the LSDPC.
The LSDPC Edict no 1 of 1972 bestows legality on this metamorphosis. The functions
of the new body, LSDPC among others were:
1. To acquire, develop, hold, manage, sell, lease or let any property moveable or
immovable within the state

2. To provide and maintain roads, footways, bridges, drains and sewers on its
estates until a local authority takes over.
3. To establish a home ownership saving scheme in respect of any housing estate
or building owned, consulted and managed by the cooperation
Subject to the provision of the Edict, to carry on all activities which are necessary,
advantageous or convenient for the purposes of carrying out its function under the
said Edict.
Upon its creation in 1972, LSDPC which inherited the liabilities and assets of its
three predecessors was completely divested of all their development control power.
This was transferred to the Lagos State Ministry of Works and Planning (LSMWP)
which became responsible for planning and development control throughout the
state. But after much persuasion, the power to control development on its estates
was transferred back to LSDPC in 1978. Under the present arrangement however,
the LSDPC has again been divested of power to allocate powers to provide and
manage residential, commercial and industrial houses throughout the state.


Housing Delivery Strategies adopted by LSDPC

In Lagos state, the provision of housing has been the responsibility of both the
public and private developers but this study explores only the public developer
which is mainly the Lagos State Development and Property Cooperation. Over
recent years LSDPC have used various housing delivery strategies to improve
housing supply, these housing delivery strategies have faced some challenges and

have enjoyed some rate of success. This study explores the housing delivery
strategies deployed by LSDPC and the challenges of these housing delivery
The housing delivery strategies deployed by LSDPC includes;
1. Site and service scheme: this strategy is one which is being adopted by
various governments in most developed countries to solve housing problem. In
site and service scheme, the agencies (which is LSDPC in this case) provides
infrastructural serviced plots for individuals who are then encouraged to erect
their own type of buildings. In this strategy, the scheme land is furnished with
access roads, drainage, water, sewage, electricity and variety of other individual
as well as community services.
2. Hybrid: this strategy consists of the direct government construction for the
underprivileged, the middle and the upper-middle class where agencies like
Lagos State Development and Property Cooperation (LSDPC) will build and
sell for profit and the profit will be used by government to fund social housing
for the vulnerable members of the society. This housing delivery strategy was
used for the construction of the newly built Elegushi Housing Estate, located
within the corridor of Lekki-ajah, Eti-Osa Local Government Area.
3. Joint Venture: this strategy is one in which the government agency (which is
LSDPC in this case) combine resources with private developers to construct
and provide comfortable, hygienic and good houses which are sold to the


public. The profit which is made from the project is shared among the parties;
this strategy is also very commonly used by other government agencies.
4. Turnkey: this strategy is one in which the government agency (LSDPC) add
resources with some private developers to provide good housing schemes
which are sold to interested individuals or bodies and the profit realised from
them is used by the government to fund social housing for vulnerable members
of the society.
5. Private Public Partnership: this strategy is just like the joint venture strategy
as it consists of the combination of resources (such as financial, human,
technical and intangibles) of government agency (LSDPC) with private
developers for the construction and provision of housing for the public. It has
also been defined as a collaborative effort among public, private and third
sector organisation based on mutual trusts, a division of labour and a
comparative advantage in the sharing of responsibilities, risk and benefits.
6. Design and sell: one of the most used housing delivery strategy that have been
commonly used in almost all the developed countries in the world is the design
and sell strategy. This strategy is one in which the government agency provides
the design of various types of houses with the presence of the necessary social
facilities and amenities such as water, electricity, sewage, drainage etc which
are designed in a line with the Building Regulation law which they sell to
interested developers ( Individuals and Cooperate bodies).

2.7.3 Challenges of these Housing Delivery Strategies


The housing delivery strategies that have been earlier discussed in this study have had
some setbacks which has made them not too successful, the challenges these delivery
strategies have faced over the past years in their use are listed below;

1. Finance
2. Infrastructure
3. Land Accessibility
4. Affordability
5. Building materials
6. Economic problems
7. Labour



From the literature review above, it is apparent that housing delivery is a function of
both private and public developers. In Lagos State, LSDPC is the main organisation
responsible for housing delivery. This organisation has used overtime several housing
delivery strategies including Site and Services Schemes etc




Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction
The core concept underlying all research is its method. The
methodology controls the study, dictates the acquisition of the data,
and their arrangement in a logical manner. This method of research
sets up a means of refining the raw data, contrives an approach so
that the meanings that lie below the surface of those data become
manifest, and finally issues a conclusion or series of conclusions that
lead to an expansion of knowledge.
This chapter discusses method used in this study. This study is a survey research to
find-out the housing delivery strategies that have been deployed by LSDPC overtime
in Lagos State.

3.2 Restatement of Research Questions

3.2.1 Research Questions

The research questions of this study include the following:

1. What are the government housing delivery strategies deployed by LSDPC?
2. What are the challenges of these housing delivery strategies?
3. What is the level of success of these housing delivery strategies?
4. What are the measures that are needed to improve housing supply in the study

3.3 Research Design

The research design constitutes the blueprint for the collection, measurement, and
analysis of data. It expresses both the structure of the research problem and the plan of
investigation used to obtain empirical evidence on relations of the problems
(Kerlinger, 1986).
This study may be defined as a survey research. The kind of which is cross-sectional.
Cross-sectional design includes the descriptive, exploratory and explanatory.
Descriptive designs try to discover answers to the question who, what, when, where,
and sometimes how. Both explanatory and exploratory designs are variants of the
descriptive designs. Exploratory design is a descriptive design geared towards the
collection of data for hypothesis testing. Explanatory design is geared towards
collecting data to answer research questions or explain the relationship among
variables (Asika,2002).
The research design for this study includes:
1. Investigation of questions.

2. Selection of data types and sources.

3. Selection of the appropriate sampling technique and procedure.
4. Selection of instruments and evaluation.
5. Pretesting the instruments.
6. Administration of research instruments and data collection procedure.
7. Method of data analysis.

3.4 Population of the Study

A population is made up of all conceivable elements, subjects or observations relating
to a particular phenomenon of interest to the researcher (Asika, 2002). The population
of this study is just the public developers (which is LSDPC)

3.5 Sampling Frame

Cooper and Schindler (1998) described sampling frame as being closely related to the
population. It is the list of elements from which the sample is actually drawn. Ideally,
it is a complete and correct list of population members only. In this study, the list of
elements from which samples would be drawn is public developers

3.5.1 Sampling Technique

The purposive sampling technique is adopted in this study. The staffs of LSDPC
would randomly be selected. The staffs will provide information on the challenges the
institution is facing and the prospects of housing delivery.

3.5.2 Sampling Size

The sampling size of the research will not be too high as about 55 (fifty five)
questionnaires would be administered to the staffs of LSDPC.

3.6 Data Types and Sources

In this study both primary and secondary data would be used.

3.6.1 Primary Data

Primary data would be collected through administration of questionnaires and
personal inspection. A set of questionnaire would be administered to the staffs of

3.6.2 Secondary Data

These would be obtained from journals, textbooks, seminar papers, conference
materials and other relevant publications.

3.7 Instruments for Data Collection

The data collection instrument is a device for collecting the data or measuring
variables which are used for answering research questions and testing the research
hypotheses. The instrument for data collection in this study is a set of questionnaire.

3.7.1 Evaluation of Instruments


A covering letter and one questionnaire would be designed for the purpose of
this research. The covering letter would be attached to the questionnaire. The
main purpose of the covering letter is to briefly introduce the researcher and the
objectives of this study, and to encourage people to complete the questionnaire
with enthusiasm. The questionnaire is designed brief to be but not to the
detriment of the reliability of the study. The questionnaire covers all necessary
issues relevant to the study. These are the determination the housing delivery
strategies deployed by LSDPC, the challenges of these housing delivery
strategies, determine the level of success of these housing delivery strategies in
the study area and to determine measures that are needed to improve housing
supply in the study areas. The questionnaire is both open and closed ended.

3.8 Procedure for Data Collection

The researcher would administer the questionnaires by hand. This means going to

3.9 Method of Data Analysis

In this research data collected would be centrally edited. The objective of central
editing is to ensure maximum consistency in information by correcting any
inconsistency in the information or data, which might create problems in the analysis
and interpretation of the results (Asika, 2002). Thus, arithmetic or numeric errors,


errors of transposition, error of inappropriate response and error of omission would be

The analysis of data would be done with the Statistical Package for Social Science
(SPSS 17.0 for Windows). The relevant tools of data analysis would be utilized in this
study. This is just descriptive.
For the descriptive statistics the frequency tables will be used to present the data; the
mean will also be analyzed.




4.1 Introduction
The objective of this Chapter is to present, interpret and discuss the result of the
analysis of the staff questionnaire survey and oral interviews conducted with selected
staff of the Lagos State Development Property Corporation (LSDPC). The Chapter is
divided into two main segments. Section One presents and discusses the results of data
derived from the survey which examined the respondents profiles. This result was
presented with charts and frequency tables. The second section is the presentation and
discussion of the result of the analysis of the questionnaire survey of housing delivery
strategies LSDPC utilise, challenges the organisation are encountering and the
remedial measures towards increasing housing supply in Lagos State. The result was
presented with charts, frequency tables and mean score ranking. The Chapter ends
with a summary of findings from the study of the public housing agency.
4.2 Response Rate
In total fifty-five (55) questionnaires were administered to staff members of LSDPC,
fifty-three questionnaires (53) responses were received by the cut-off date, out of
which 47 were found usable. This represented an effective 88.6% response rate. The


discarded responses were from respondents who failed to meet the required quality
and consistency checks used in the screening processes.



Figure 4.1: Response Rate

4.3 Profiles of Respondents
4.3.1 Gender of the Respondents
The result indicates that the respondents were predominantly male (73.3 %), and
26.7% female. This is expected, since the culture and tradition of the country require
men to provide for living for their family, thus females in most cases are relegated to
domestic issues and home management. Therefore, males generally dominate
corporate sole proprietorship work force in Nigeria.




Figure 4.2: Gender of the Respondents

4.3.2 Marital Status of the Respondents
Figure 4.3 presents the marital status of the respondents. Of the respondents in this
research, 83% are married; while 17% of the respondents are single. This distribution
shows that the respondents are likely to be responsible as large majority are married.


Marital Status




Estate Management

Building Technology

Civil Engineering

Urban and Regional


Land Surveying

Quantity Surveying



Information Technology

Mechanical Engineering

Public Relations

Purchasing and Supply

Research and

Figure 4.3: Marital Status of the Respondents

4.3.3 Age of the Respondents
Figure 4.4 below shows the age of the respondents. Majority of the respondents
(58.9%) were between ages 31 years and 45 years; 15.0% between age 46 years and
50 years, 14.0% between 51 years and 60 years while those between ages18 years and
30 years accounted for 12% of the sample.



31-45 years
46-50 years
51-60 years
18-30 years

Figure 4.4: Age of the Respondents

4.3.4 Educational Qualification of the Respondents
Figure 4.5 indicates that the respondents are well educated, most with post-secondary
training. Those with Higher National Diploma constituted 42.2% of the respondents.
Next to this are those with Bachelor degree (24.4%), Master degree (20%), National
Diploma (7.8%) and those with National Certificate of Education and other
qualifications contributed 2.2% each to the sample.


Educational Qualification


Figure 4.5: Educational Qualification of the Respondents

4.3.5 Professional Qualification of the Respondents
Similarly, most of the respondents were professionals in the housing sector. It is
evident from Figure 4.6 that 15.6% of the respondents received their training in
Architecture, next to this are those who received their training in Accounting and
Finance (13.3%), Administration (11.1%), Estate Management (10%), Building
Technology (8.9%), Civil Engineering (8.9%) and Urban & Regional Planning
(8.9%). Others were Land Surveying (5.6 %) followed by Quantity Surveying and
Marketing (4.4%) each and Law (3.3%). The remaining percentage of respondents
was from Mechanical Engineering, Information and Communication Technology,
Public Relations, Purchasing & Supply and Research and Documentation each
contributed 1.0% to the sample. The above result can be explained based on the target


population of the survey which focused only on staff members identified to be directly
involved in the design and execution of the organizations housing projects.
Axis Title

Axis Title

Figure 4.6: Professional Qualification of the Respondents

4.3.6 Designation of the Respondents
With respect to the designation of the respondents, Figure 4.7 shows that those in
Senior Technical Staff category constituted about 35.6% of the respondents; 22.2 %
were management and administrative staff, 8.9% were directors and deputy directors
respectively, 6.7% were heads of departments and deputy heads of departments each,
while estate officers and other category of staff members constituted about 5.0% and
4.4% of the sample respectively.



Senior Technical Staf

Management and
Administrative Staf
Directors and Deputy
Heads of Departments
Estate Officers

Figure 4.7: Designation of the Respondents

4.3.7 Working Experience of the Respondents

A good percentage of the respondents (45.6 %) had less than 10 years working
experience, next to this were 21.1% of those who had between 10 years and 15 years
experience, 18.9% with between15 years and 25 years experience, and 14.4% with
over 25 years of experience in the field.


Working Experience

Less than 10 years

Between 10-15 years
Between 15-25 years
Over 25 years

Figure 4.8: Working Experience of the Respondents

The above result shows that staff members involved in the design and execution of the
organizations housing projects sampled were mainly senior technical and
management staff. Although these categories of staff members were mostly male
professionals (architects, building technologists, civil engineers, estate mangers, urban
and regional planners and quantity surveying) in the building industry, they were
within the productive ages of between 31 years and 50 years. This shows the
domination of middle aged workers in the public service of Lagos State, and an
indication that the staff composition of these agencies is capable of standing the rigour
involved in building construction work.

Although, a good number of the staff members sampled had less than ten years
working experience, it is evident from the result that the ratio of those with over ten
years of experience to those with less than ten years experience was 45.56%: 54.44%.

This suggests that the organizations have experienced personnel in housing delivery.
The large proportion of relatively young population among the staff members also
suggests that there are younger than elderly people in LSDPC. This is well expected
for continuity and survival of these organizations. The implication of this result is that
the capacity of the organizations to deliver housing is not jeopardized by a large
proportion of ageing workers. Based on the above result, the organizations can be
considered to have reasonable human capacity to undertake their public housing
4.4 Housing Strategies Utilised by LSDPC
The respondents were asked to state the housing delivery strategies in use by their
organization. The study found that the housing delivery strategies employed by
LSDPC are the Hybrid strategy, Joint Venture, Private Public Partnership, Site-andServices Schemes, Turnkey, Design and Sell.
4.4.1 Extent of the Usage of Housing Delivery Strategies
The respondents were asked to state the extent of usage of the identified housing
delivery strategies utilize by their organization, as shown in Figure 4.8 below, the
main housing delivery strategy in use was the design and sell with a mean score of
4.57, and ranked first. Ranked second was joint ventures with a mean score of 2.8; and
in third position was hybrid model.


Housing Delivery Strategies

Housing Delivery Strategies






Figure 4.9: Housing Delivery Strategies

It was also found that LSDPC is a profitmaking organizations involved in housing
provision, civil works and real estate business. In fact the finding here is consistent
with LSDPC (2008) which indicated that LSDPC is a multi-task organization.

4.5 Challenges Encountering by LSDPC in Housing Delivery Strategies

The respondents were asked of the challenges LSDPC is encountering in housing
delivery. From interview conducted seven challenges were identified, these are
challenges on: finance, land, infrastructure, affordability, building materials, labour,
and inflation. The ranking of the challenges in terms of the relative importance is
presented below in Figure 4.9. From the Figure, assess to finance is the main
challenge besieging the performance of LSDPC, it has a mean score of 4.34 and
ranked first. Ranked second was building materials with a mean score of 4.09. In third
position was economic problems such as inflation and high exchange rate, it has a
mean score of 4.03; while affordability also constitute a huge challenge, and ranked

fourth with a mean of 3.87. In fifth position was land accessibility. It has a mean of
3.81. Infrastructural challenge ranked sixth with a mean of 3.11.





Economic Problems


Building Material






Land Accessibility


Figure 5.0: Challenges of Housing Delivery

From the above, it is apparent that LSDPC has several challenges affecting their
housing delivery strategies. LSDPC has an affordability challenge. Housing delivery
is targeted mainly at the middle high income segment of the population that can either
pay cash or access mortgage finance from the banks. The sheer size of the low-income
population, however, suggests a crucial growth opportunity for developers and
financiers if they are sufficiently innovative. The affordability parameters inherent in
the mortgage instrument limit access by the low-income population. These parameters
include 20% - 30% equity contribution, maximum tenures of only 10 15 years, high
interest rate of 22%, etc. Opportunities to address this market are limited by expensive
building materials and the lack of local capacity to produce the supply chain

components like doors, door knobs, windows, etc. The non-availability of long-term
funding for housing development also compels builders of residential accommodation
to recover their capital within the shortest possible time. It is in this area that the
development of non-mortgage housing finance products, such as housing
microfinance, could be very usefully explored.
4.6 Level of Success of the Housing Delivery Strategies
The respondents were asked of the level of success of LSDPC in terms of the utilised
housing delivery strategies. The result is presented in Figure 4.10 below. From the
Figure, the most successful strategy is the design and sell, ranked first with 4.59 mean
score rating. Joint venture is ranked second, with a mean score rating 3.52; while in
third position in terms of being successful was the hybrid strategy. The least
successful housing delivery model was the site and service scheme.



Site and Service Scheme


Design and Sell


Public Private Partnership


Joint Venture




Figure 5.1: Level of Success of housing delivery strategies


4.7 Summary of Findings

The study has evaluated the housing delivery strategies from LSDPC perspective.
Most of the respondents sampled were married, educated, middle-aged, experienced,
and professional in the housing industry. The housing delivery strategies in use by
LSDPC are the hybrid, PPP, Joint venture, site and service schemes, and Turnkey. The
challenges the organisation is facing ranges from finance, economic issues, land
accessibility, affordability issues, infrastructure and labour. In terms of the level of
success of the utilized housing delivery strategies, the design and sell is the most






This last Chapter of the thesis aggregates the key findings and issues in this research
and their implications. The Chapter begins with an overview of the research. Next is
the summary of key findings as well as synthesis of key issues arising from the study.
The implications of study findings are also presented and discussed. The areas of
further research on the subject matter are highlighted before concluding remarks are
5.2 Overview of the Study
Much has been written on public housing in Nigeria in particular and Developing
Countries in general. However, very little is known and documented on the objectives
and outcome of public housing as social intervention programmes in Lagos State.
Specifically, much is not known on the outcome of different public housing delivery
strategies and the extent to which past and present housing schemes have achieved
and/or are achieving the intended goals and objectives in Lagos State. As a result, it
has become increasingly difficult indentifying the most viable public housing
provision strategies and options in addressing housing need of the different socioeconomic groups as well as impact of public housing schemes on the quality of life of
beneficiaries. In addition, there is scarcity of empirical data on the challenges and
level of success of housing delivery strategies utilized by LSDPC. These are no doubt
important for housing policy formulation, programme design and implementation, and
particularly in identifying optimum efficiency and economics in the judicious
allocation and use of resources in addressing housing challenges confronting most

residents in the study area. It is against this background and the need for proper
understanding of the outcome of various housing delivery strategies utilize by
An in-depth evaluation of housing delivery strategies utilise by LSDPC was carried
out. The research activities and findings are reported in this study. As indicated earlier
on, this study sought to evaluate housing delivery strategies utilise by LSDPC. In
pursuant to this goal, Chapter One of this thesis outlined the following objectives of
this study to include: (1) To determine the housing delivery strategies used by
LSDPC; (2) To identify the various challenges besieging LSDPC in housing delivery;
(3) To determine the level of success of these housing delivery strategies; and (4) To
determine measures that are LSDPC needed to improve housing delivery.
With the above aim and objectives in mind, Chapter Two established the context of the
study by providing basic information on the nature and structure of public housing
policy and provisions in Lagos State. It is evident from that Chapter that current effort
in public housing provisions in Lagos State was initiated out of governments desire to
continuously seek pathways to addressing burgeoning housing challenge in the State.
Having carried out literature review, it was apt to elucidate upon the methods used in
the research design, data collection, presentation, processing, analysis and
interpretations of results. From Chapter Three it can be seen that both qualitative and
survey research methods were used in this study, and that the units of data collection
and analysis were LSDPC. This Chapter also identified the questionnaire as the key
survey technique and interview guide and observation schedule as the two qualitative
techniques used in the study. It was also indicated that both descriptive and inferential

statistical as well as non statistical tools were used in the analysis of data collected
from the field work and literature search. The results, interpretation of the results and
findings as well as their implications were presented in Chapters Four in line with the
aim and objectives of the study. The following sections present a summary of key
findings, synthesis of key issues arising from the study and their implications, areas of
further research and final conclusions respectively.

5.3 Summary of Key Findings

This section therefore presents the summary of key findings in this study.
1. Most of the respondents sampled were married, educated, middle-aged,

experienced, and professional in the housing industry.

2. The housing delivery strategies in use by LSDPC are the hybrid, PPP, Joint

venture, site and service schemes, and Turnkey.

3. The challenges the organization is facing ranges from finance, economic issues,

land accessibility, affordability issues, infrastructure and labour.

4. In terms of the level of success of the utilized housing delivery strategies, the

design and sell is the most successful.

5.4 Conclusion


An evaluation of the housing delivery strategies has been explored in this study
including the challenges suffered by these delivery strategies, its success rate and the
measures which are needed to be taken by LSDPC to increase housing supply. From
the study, we can conclude that the most successful delivery strategy is the Design and
Sell strategy while the most persistent challenge to the delivery strategies is Finance.

5.5 Recommendations
We recommend that with all the findings that this study has explored, the only way
through which supply of quality, safe and decent housing can be increased by the
government (LSDPC) if they part-take in the construction of cheap and affordable
houses. And also housing can be increased if the following measures are put in place,
the measures include;
1. Provision of finance for the housing projects by the government
2. Accessibility of land for housing projects to LSDPC
3. Provision of quality and cheap building materials for the construction of

housing projects
Construction of affordable housing for the public
Availability of skilled and unskilled labour
Availability of infrastructure
The use of slum upgrade to get access to more land space for housing projects