Evaluation of Residential Housing Satisfaction in Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria

Evaluation of Residential Housing Satisfaction in Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria

Adeyemo, Omolola Ibijoke, M.Sc., Ilelaboye, Damilola Josephine, M.Sc., Omoni, Adedayo Adebola, M.Sc., Ogundiran, Adeyinka Amos, M.Sc.

Department of Estate Management and Valuation, The Polytechnic, Ibadan, Nigeria.

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.808034

Received: 12 July 2024; Accepted: 23 July 2024; Published: 29 August 2024

ABSTRACT

This study addresses the critical issue of housing satisfaction, focusing on Ibadan, Nigeria. The aim is to examine the residential housing satisfaction across different age groups and residential densities within Ibadan. Key objectives include identifying factors that influence housing satisfaction and understanding the effect of age on these factors. A multi-stage sampling technique was employed, stratifying Ibadan into five regions, from which fifteen neighborhoods were randomly selected. A systematic random sampling of 1330 properties was administered but 865 properties were retrieved representing 65% of the population, utilizing a structured questionnaire rated on a five-point Likert scale to measure satisfaction across various housing attributes. The findings indicate that location, structural integrity, and design features significantly influence residents’ satisfaction. Accessibility to public transport and proximity to amenities were highly rated, while space and layout received lower satisfaction scores. Structural features such as windows, doors, and maintenance positively impacted satisfaction. The study also found that housing satisfaction varies significantly with age, with the 41-50 age group reporting the highest satisfaction, while those over 60 expressed the lowest satisfaction, often due to a desire to relocate closer to family or traditional communities. The study concludes that to enhance housing satisfaction, particularly among the elderly, there is a need to rehabilitate existing housing and improve infrastructure. Recommendations include targeted renovations for aging populations and strategic urban planning that integrates sustainable practices and access to essential services. Also, new residential designs should incorporate the future aged needs. These measures are crucial for fostering improved residential satisfaction and overall quality of life in urban settings.

Keywords: Evaluation, Housing, Residential Housing, Housing Satisfaction, Residential Neighborhood.

INTRODUCTION

Every human being, regardless of their age consider a house as a basic item, which has made housing a concern to researchers, designers, and policymakers. Housing is not just a place to keep people safe from dangers, it is also considered a shelter where humans can find themselves (Aragones, Amerigo & Pérez-López, 2010). Housing was conceived by (Aribigbola, Fatusin & Oladehinde, 2005) to include the buildings, the environment, and the structural facilities that accommodated man’s living and convenience. He stressed that housing includes the social services and utilities that make a community or neighborhood livable. Also, (Olayiwola, 2012) states that residential housing encompasses all phenomena of the creation of the living environment where man lives, housing supplies man’s needs biologically (clean air, water), psychologically (contentment, prestige, satisfaction, privacy, choice, security, freedom), and socially (interaction with others, human development and cultural activities)

Location, planning, and design of the built environment influence the lives and property in residential neighborhoods. The influence of location, planning, and design features on residential properties is pivotal in shaping the country’s future urban landscape and quality of life. As urbanization accelerates, the importance of strategic location cannot be overstated. Proximity to essential amenities such as healthcare, education, and commercial centers will significantly drive property values and desirability. Effective urban planning that incorporates sustainable practices is essential for creating livable environments. This includes mixed-use developments, ample green spaces, and resilient infrastructure to withstand environmental challenges and promote community well-being.

However, the residential building provided through whatever means is expected to meet certain minimum requirements, which is perceived through an expression of happiness and satisfaction of the occupants in the long run. The challenging task for the various housing stakeholders is how to identify factors determining housing satisfaction and the necessary approach to housing development planning (Jiboye, 2011). The factors are numerous with a complex relationship (Teck-Hong, 2012). Identifying housing satisfaction parameters is equally complicated because satisfaction levels vary from person to person based on their expectations, needs, and affordability (Amérigo & Aragonés, 1997). Housing satisfaction is seen as a constituent of the general quality of life of the homeowner. Also, Babin & Griffin (1998) argues that generally, satisfaction is the impression that the consumers have, which is the discrepancy between the consumers’ expectations and what they feel about the experience. It measures the extent of satisfaction with the housing situation. Vera-Toscano & Ateca-Amestoy (2008) describes housing satisfaction as a component derived from a degree of contentment that a given housing situation provides to an individual. To achieve sustainable housing satisfaction, the human settlements should be planned and developed to guide housing development to meet households’ needs and wants, also, there is the need to identify the factors that account for sustainable housing satisfaction among house owners and occupiers.

Therefore, this paper examines the satisfactory level of the residential property attributes that can accommodate various age groups across the contrasting residential density areas in Ibadan metropolis, Nigeria.

Residential Satisfaction and its Measurement

Residential satisfaction mirrors users’ perceptions of a residential environment; hence, it becomes crucial in housing purchasing judgment Vera-Toscano & Ateca-Amestoy, (2008). Residential satisfaction has strong ties to qualities of services, management, and their corresponding environmental infrastructures. Residential satisfaction is also referred to as housing satisfaction. Galster & Hesser (1981) defined residential satisfaction as the gap between the need’s requirements of residents and the realities of their housing provisions. Residential satisfaction is therefore multi-dimensional with widely viewed from physical/spatial, social/psychological, and organizational/management perspectives.

Vera-Toscano & Ateca-Amestoy, (2008) identified the factors that influence residential satisfaction in six categories; public facilities, location, housing physical condition, corporate image, value judgment, and property service. It further observed that value judgment (of property) is on a diminishing return for the occupier after the purchase is made and the occupiers would rather appreciate the space and experiences. However, it resulted that people care more about quality of life, housing comfort, and traffic conveniences if there is an improvement in their living standard.

Quality of Life

The quality of life is a factor that affects residential satisfaction. It is dependent on the quality of existing social interactions with others and within the community (Prilleltensky, 2005). A study (Prilleltensky, 2005) shows that well-being has three levels stating:

1. The first is the individual which emphasizes circumstances like mental health, access to daily material needs, absence of oppression, and threats.
2. The second level is the relational level which talks about positive and supportive relationships possessed by the residents along with possibilities of engaging in politics and other social life that may exist in the community.
3. The third level is particular about basic resources required for ‘life-growth’ in the sense of the resident’s building capacity in various areas of life. Its emphasis is on acquiring resources like education, housing, and employment.

The study went further to state that the three levels are interdependent though each is unique in its right and will not exist independently because if attention is gathered on one level rather than the other the well-being of the resident is considered neglected.

Sense of Community, sense of place, and sense of belonging

Another factor of residential satisfaction is a sense of community. It discusses the social and physical identities of housing (Vera-Toscano & Ateca-Amestoy, 2008). Sense of community provides support to residents through social ties within the community, fostering better capacity of the residents in minimizing relocation concerns, and psychological distress and increasing residential satisfaction (Amole, 2009). A sense of belonging helps in mitigating violence in an environment, particularly when the inhabitants are affiliated with such an environment by way of belief, marital status, culture, property, and religion. Hay (1998) submitted that a sense of place is borne out of perceptions of housing about the geographical and social background of such places. It further explained that a sense of place is usually influenced by superficial connections, residential status, and elements of rootedness in a place. It is therefore an emotional derivative of satisfaction, comfort, and attachment (Al-Kodmany, 2016).

Structural Components

Structural components refer to building envelopes, which are contingent on the stability of the physical structure. This includes the foundations, columns, beams, roof trusses, cladding, roofing, ceilings, walls, doors and windows, floor slabs, and general finishing. Research conducted on public housing in Enugu and Owerri, south-east Nigeria reveals poor construction and not by structural and neighborhood guidelines which have dissatisfied residents (Waziri, Yusof & Abd Rahim, 2014)

Dwelling Unit

Dwelling unit features are the space and sizes provision and arrangements for the living room, bedrooms, kitchen, etc. Building features such as the number of bedrooms, size, and location of the kitchen are found to be strongly related to housing satisfaction (Salleh, 2008). In contrast, Ogu (2002) discovers that occupants of housing estates in Benin City, south-south Nigeria indicate positive residential satisfaction with their dwelling features. The differences in housing satisfaction on dwelling features between Maiduguri and Benin might be associated with demographic and cultural settings in these areas.

Neighborhood Features

Neighborhood and housing environment represent the total available facilities and services, which can be a great source of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This is associated with both physical and social characteristics of the surroundings. The findings of Salleh (2008) reveal the most significant neighborhood factors contributing to low housing satisfaction in private low-cost housing are related to neighborhood facilities and surrounding areas, including poor public transportation, lack of children’s playgrounds, multipurpose halls, parking areas, and safety and facilities for the disabled.

Figure 1: Influence of location, structure, and design of residential property on occupier’s satisfaction.

Occupier satisfaction in residential properties is significantly influenced by location, structural integrity, and design features. Proximity to essential services and amenities, high-quality construction, functional layouts, appealing aesthetics, and sustainable design are key determinants of how satisfied residents are with their homes. Understanding these factors is vital for urban planners, developers, and policymakers aiming to improve residential satisfaction and overall quality of life.

METHODOLOGY

The study is set in the metropolitan of Ibadan. For this purpose, the study adopted a multi-sampling technique, the residential area was stratified into Central Ibadan, North Ibadan, West Ibadan, South Ibadan, and East Ibadan. Fifteen (15) residential neighborhoods out of Thirty-five (35) notable neighborhoods were selected randomly from the region while the street was selected in the chosen neighborhood at the third stage. A systematic random sampling technique was used to select One Thousand, three hundred and thirty properties (1330).

A structured questionnaire was employed and Eight Hundred and Sixty-Five (865) questionnaires were retrieved. It is based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from Very satisfied. Satisfied; Moderately satisfied; Dissatisfied; Very dissatisfied.

Figure 2: Relationship between age group and housing satisfaction

Table 1: Rate of response to questionnaires

Source: field survey 2024

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2. Level of Satisfaction with Location Characteristics

Source: field survey 2024

Table 2 shows the level of satisfaction with their locational characteristics. Access to public transportation has the highest mean value of 4.00, followed by proximity of amenities with a mean value of 3.50, and lastly, safety with a mean value of 3.12 as the lowest. This implies that the satisfaction of the occupiers with their neighborhood is accessibility to public transport particularly to their place of work and worship centers. This corresponds with the work of Lofti & Koohsari (2009) that access to transportation aids housing satisfaction.

Table 3. Level of Satisfaction with Structure Characteristics

Source: field survey 2024

Based on the results of the analysis on the level of satisfaction of the occupiers about their structural characteristics, the highest mean score was structural features (Types of windows, doors, ceiling, paint, etc.) with 3.51, followed by building quality and maintenance with 3.19 and the lowest is space and layout with mean 2.81. These findings imply that most residents are satisfied with their structural features, which might be because a larger percentage of the respondents are owner-occupied.

Table 4. Level of Satisfaction with their Design Characteristics

Source: field survey 2024

As presented in Table 4, residents’ satisfaction with the property design has the lowest mean of 1.99 regarding its sustainability and energy efficiency. However, the table shows that the residents are very satisfied with the architectural design with a mean value of 3.47, then averagely satisfied with the interior design with a mean value of 2.77, and comfort with a mean value of 2.70. These findings imply that due to the country’s high standards, most residents are yet to keep up with the high rate of evolving technology for adequate sustainability and efficient energy.

Table 5. What is the effect of age groups on Housing Satisfaction

Source: field survey 2024.

The research is motivated by the possibility of the influence of age on the overall housing satisfaction level in a particular housing setting. While previous research treats age to interpret the demographic profile of respondents, this study has examined how age variance affects housing satisfaction. Occupants express their overall housing satisfaction based on objective measures of housing satisfaction (location, structural, and design), in contrast to Amole (2009) that subjective measurement appears to be more relevant to housing satisfaction research, hence, focusing on age components.

Analysis showing the effect of age groups on housing satisfaction explains the total housing satisfaction between the various age groups. Higher mean housing satisfaction is expressed in the age group of 41-50 years while 51-60 years recorded a very low satisfaction. On the other hand, the age group of 20-30 years has lower housing satisfaction than those 30-40 years and lowest in the 61 & above age group. The level of housing satisfaction at a relatively older age of 61 and above group was generally lower as against the preceding age groups. This is because the aspiration changes over time. This may be a result of strong family ties associated with most Nigerian cultures with a preference to relocate close to relatives and associates upon attaining the retirement age of 60 years. Other explanations could be that most housing design in the capital city is of a modern concept, which makes it difficult for the older folk to cope with their specific housing aspiration in respect of their strength, health, and traditional housing environment. The result indicates further that housing satisfaction levels vary from person to person based on individual expectations and needs, which are age determinants. This concurs with Amérigo & Aragonés (1997)

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The findings, perhaps, provide better insight into the effect of age groups on housing satisfaction levels, as this tends to increase with the changing age group. It indicates that age factors matter in determining housing satisfaction as observed in different housing satisfaction levels. The study affirms the findings of Blanchflower & Oswald (2008) that the variation in household housing satisfaction is equally age dependent. Ibem and Amole (2012) have equally found age to predict housing satisfaction in public core housing estates in southwest Nigeria. This has further confirmed that household housing satisfaction relates to changes in age components.

The studies have shown the influence of age in determining housing satisfaction levels in residential properties in Ibadan. The young generation, the middle-aged, and the old respond differently with varying housing needs and aspirations, specific to age situations. Housing satisfaction is influenced by age, and the level of effect varies from one age group to the other, signifying the need for integration of various age group components. In the Nigerian context, the satisfaction level at old age may have been a result of the statutory retirement age requirement of 60 years, and most people prefer to live in houses that aid in carrying out activities/movement in a very easy and less stressful manner, rejoin their extended family members upon retirement and/or relocate to a neighborhood with similar housing norms, values to their traditional community. The likelihood of expressing low satisfaction at an advanced age may be a result of the psychological mindset in relocating to their preferred housing environment. Moreover, while general housing satisfaction in Ibadan Metropolis is moderate, there is variation between and within age groups.

Therefore, the study recommends that house owners should rehabilitate and renovate their rental housing accommodation as elders continue to age in place because it goes a long way with their quality of life. Also, new residential designs should incorporate the future aged needs. The government also should assist in improving the condition of the infrastructure identified in the study area as elders continue to age in place in the environment.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Kodmany, K. M. (2016). SUSTAINABLE TALL BUILDINGS: CASES FROM THE GLOBAL SOUTH. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 10(2), 52. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v10i2.1054
2. Amérigo, M., & Aragonés, J. I. (1997). A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0038
3. Amole, D. (2009). Residential satisfaction in students’ housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.006
4. Aragones, J. I., Amerigo, M., & Pérez-López, R. (2010). Perception of personal identity at home. www.psicothema.com
5. Aribigbola, A., Fatusin, A., & Oladehinde, G. J. (2005). SECURING THE FUTURE OF CITIES IN NIGERIA. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366135000
6. Babin, B. J., & Griffin, M. (1998). The nature of satisfaction: An updated examination and analysis. Journal of Business Research, 41(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00001-5
7. Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2008). Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle? Social Science & Medicine, 66(8), 1733-1749.
8. Galster, G. C., & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential Satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916581136006
9. Hay, I. (1998). Making moral imaginations: Research ethics, pedagogy, and professional human geography. Ethics, Place & Environment, 1(2), 134-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668799808727511
10. Ibem, E. O., & Amole, D. (2012). Residents’ satisfaction with public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria. Habitat International, 36(3), 342-351.
11. JIBOYE, A. D. (2011). Sustainable Urbanization: Issues and Challenges for Effective Urban Governance in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(6). https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v4n6p211
12. Lotfi, S., & Koohsari, M. J. (2009). Analyzing accessibility dimension of urban quality of life: Where urban designers face duality between subjective and objective reading of place. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 417-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9425-8
13. 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), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470220112599
14. Olayiwola, S. (2012). Alternative Perspective to Funding Public Universities in Nigeria. In Sustainable Development – Education, Business and Management – Architecture and Building Construction – Agriculture and Food Security. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/29056
15. Prilleltensky, I. (2005). Promoting well-being: Time for a paradigm shift in health and human services. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 33(66_suppl), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/14034950510033381
16. Salleh, M. R. (2008). Life event, stress and illness. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences : MJMS, 15(4), 9–18.
17. Teck-Hong, T. (2012). Housing satisfaction in medium- and high-cost housing: The case of greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International, 36(1), 108-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.06.003
18. Vera-Toscano, E., & Ateca-Amestoy, V. (2008). The relevance of social interactions on housing satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 86(2), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9107-5
19. Waziri, A. G., Yusof, N., & Abd Rahim, N. M. S. (2014). Occupants housing satisfaction: does age really matter? Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 2(1), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2014.935467