Professionals’ Perceived Role of the Private Sector in Housing Delivery in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria

1Introduction

Nigerian cities are growing faster than their housing supply, and the private sector is now expected to close much of the gap. Rapid urbanization has escalated housing demand, particularly among low- and middle-income families (Adedeji, 2023). About 75% of urban settlers are reported to live in slums and improper housing (Oni-Jimoh & Liyanage, 2018). Estimates of the national deficit range from at least 17 million units (Ekpo, 2019) to about 20 million at the end of 2018 (Moore, 2019). Poor housing also carries health costs, because housing conditions are linked to physical and mental health (Krieger & Higgins, 2002; Bonnefoy, 2007). Government-led delivery has not closed the gap. Efforts at mass housing delivery failed to achieve the desired results, which prompted collaboration between the public and private sectors (Adegun & Taiwo, 2011). Policy reviews call for deeper housing finance and simpler land allocation and title registration (Ajayi, 2019), and they name scarce long-term funds as a key obstacle (Moore, 2019).

Private participation takes several forms. Corporate developers work alone or in joint ventures with government agencies (Ibem & Aduwo, 2012), and small-scale landlords have been studied as private housing producers in Abuja (Ikejiofor, 1997). The record on affordability is weak: public–private housing schemes studied in Akure delivered little (Adegun & Taiwo, 2011), and those in Ogun State focused on high-income earners (Ibem & Aduwo, 2012). Daramola (2006) earlier posited that the informal sector, dominated by small-scale landlords who mainly supply rental housing, is estimated to account for 70–90% of the housing stock. Adequate housing affects public health and national economic performance (Awe et al., 2024), and poor-quality housing may therefore be linked to poor health and poverty. With these, effective strategies for affordable housing remain under-explored.

This study investigated the role of the private sector in housing delivery in Ibadan, as perceived by Estate Surveyors and Valuers (ESVs). Existing Nigerian studies on private sector housing delivery have focused on Akure (Adegun & Taiwo, 2011) and Ogun State (Ibem & Aduwo, 2012). No study has examined the perception of property professionals in Ibadan, Nigeria’s third most populous city. This study fills that gap.

2Literature review

The literature splits the private sector roles into finance, production and partnership and reports repeated shortfalls on affordability in Nigerian schemes. The financial role states that housing delivery depends on long-term funds, which remain scarce (Moore, 2019), and reviews recommend deepening the housing finance market (Ajayi, 2019). For production, corporate developers build schemes alone or jointly with government agencies (Ibem & Aduwo, 2012), and small-scale landlords also produce housing (Ikejiofor, 1997). Public–private partnerships (PPPs) in Ogun State follow a joint-venture model between government agencies and corporate developers (Ibem & Aduwo, 2012).

In a study by Adegun and Taiwo (2011) where 7 public-private housing schemes were investigated in Akure, Nigeria, it was found that output was meagre though progress was visible. Public-sector dominance, bureaucratic bottlenecks, the macroeconomic environment and socio-cultural issues limited participation, and affordability was elusive.

Ibem and Aduwo (2012) found that joint ventures concentrated on high-income earners. Land supply, housing finance, high material costs, graft and the exclusion of low-income people were the main challenges. The study evaluated the public–private partnership housing policies in Akure Nigeria and observed that the provision of housing was concentrated for the high income earners who can afford it and not for the low income earners who may not be able to afford it.

Abdullahi and Aziz (2011), on the other hand, considered the role of private-sector participation in achieving outcomes for low-income groups, while comparing two developing nations (Malaysia and Nigeria).

The Nigerian studies above cover Akure and Ogun State. This study, however, adds the views of property professionals in Ibadan on what the private sector contributes.

3Methodology

A quantitative cross-sectional design was adopted for the study. The population was every Estate Surveyor and Valuer (ESV) on the 2023 membership directory of the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV, 2023), Oyo State branch (n = 90). A total enumeration was carried out: all 90 ESVs were approached, so no sampling was done. Seventy-one questionnaires were returned and usable, with a response rate of 78.9%.

A structured, closed-ended questionnaire asked respondents to rate five statements on the private sector's role in housing delivery in Ibadan: availability, affordability, quality, collaboration with government, and technology. Each statement used a five-point Likert scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Responses were scored Strongly Agree (SA) = 5, Agree (A) = 4, Neutral (N) = 3, Disagree (D) = 2 and Strongly Disagree (SD) = 1. For each statement the analysis presents the descriptive statistics which include the frequency, percentage, mean score and standard deviation. The grand mean is the average of all 355 ratings (71 respondents × 5 statements), which equals the mean of the five item means. Means were read against equal-width bands: 1.00–1.80 (Strongly Disagree); 1.81–2.60 (Disagree); 2.61–3.40 (Neutral); 3.41–4.20 (Agree); and 4.21–5.00 (Strongly Agree).

4Results and discussion

Respondents agreed unanimously on availability and technology, mostly agreed on quality, and disagreed on affordability and collaboration. The grand mean is 3.43.

4.1Respondent profile

Of the 71 respondents, 54.9% were male and 45.1% female. By age, 25.4% were 26–45 years, 43.7% were 46–55 and 31.0% were 56 or older. By education, 43.7% held an HND, 38.0% a bachelor's degree and 18.3% a master's degree. All were Associate members of NIESV, 60.6% with more than ten years' standing and 39.4% with less. Length of practice in Ibadan was 1–5 years for 46.5%, 6–10 years for 35.2% and 11–20 years for 18.3%. The respondents are mature, educated practitioners, but most have comparatively short Ibadan-specific experience.

4.2Perception of Estate Surveyors and Valuers

The responses to the five statements are summarized in Table 1.

Statement	SA, n (%)	A, n (%)	N, n (%)	D, n (%)	SD, n (%)	Σ (score × frequency)	Mean	Std. dev.	Rank
Introduced innovative technologies	48 (67.6)	23 (32.4)	0	0	0	332	4.68	0.47	1
Significantly increased housing availability	29 (40.8)	42 (59.2)	0	0	0	313	4.41	0.49	2
Improved housing quality	28 (39.4)	29 (40.8)	0	14 (19.7)	0	284	4.00	1.10	3
Collaboration with government accelerated projects	0	19 (26.8)	0	41 (57.7)	11 (15.5)	169	2.38	1.05	4
Led to construction of affordable housing	0	0	0	47 (66.2)	24 (33.8)	118	1.66	0.48	5
Grand mean (1,216 ÷ 355 ratings)						1,216	3.43

Source: Field survey, 2024.

SA = strongly agree (5), A = agree (4), N = neutral (3), D = disagree (2), SD = strongly disagree (1); percentages are of the 71 respondents.

4.3Discussion

Technology has the highest mean score of 4.68 and was ranked 1st. All 71 (100.0%) respondents agreed that the private sector has introduced innovative technologies (67.6% strongly agree; 32.4% agree). This technological innovation has no direct counterpart in the studies reviewed, so it appears to be a new finding for Ibadan.

Every respondent agreed that the private sector has increased housing availability (59.2% agree; 40.8% strongly agree). Increased housing availability has a mean score of 4.41. This is more positive than the review of Akure schemes, which found output meagre (Adegun & Taiwo, 2011). The two used different methods, a perception survey and a scheme review, so they are not directly comparable. This implied that the private sector is acting significantly in the provision of housing delivery, supporting the efforts of the public sector.

A substantial majority (80.3%) agreed that the quality of housing provision has improved, but 19.7% disagreed. The standard deviation of 1.10 shows uneven views, which may reflect differences between developments, but this study cannot test that. This suggests that the experiences of quality appear uneven across developments. Improved housing quality was therefore ranked third with a mean score of 4.00.

With a mean score of 2.38, nearly three in four respondents (73.2%) disagreed that government–private collaboration has accelerated projects, while only 26.8% agreed. Studies in Akure and Ogun State cite bureaucratic bottlenecks, public-sector dominance and graft as constraints (Adegun & Taiwo, 2011; Ibem & Aduwo, 2012). These are plausible explanations, but this survey did not ask for reasons.

Table 1 shows that all respondents disagreed (66.2% disagree; 33.8% strongly disagree) that private involvement has produced affordable housing. This matches the Akure finding that affordability was elusive (Adegun & Taiwo, 2011) and the Ogun finding that low-income affordability went unaddressed (Ibem & Aduwo, 2012). With a mean score of 1.66, housing affordability emerges as a major deficiency in the Nigerian economy. Three settings, using different methods, point the same way. Considering the informal sector being the major supplier of Nigeria's housing stock (Daramola, 2006), the formal private sector may however be reaching only a small, higher-income segment.

Technology (4.68), availability (4.41) and quality (4.00) have high mean scores, while affordability (1.66) and collaboration (2.38) fall in the disagree bands. Overall, the private sector is perceived to deliver technological innovation (4.68), availability (4.41), and quality (4.00) but not affordability, and its partnership with government is seen as weak. This pattern helps explain why a perceived increase in supply may coexist with a persistent deficit for low-income households.

4.4Limitations

The data are the perceptions of 71 professionals, not measured housing output. Unanimous answers on three statements suggest either a homogeneous respondent group or agreement bias. The respondents are ESVs from Oyo State, not developers, residents or government officials, and the instrument's reliability was not tested. Boone and Boone (2012) noted that item means from single ordinal items are descriptive indices only.

5Conclusion and recommendations

The private sector is perceived to play a significant role in expanding housing availability and introducing innovation in Ibadan, but it is not perceived to deliver affordable housing, and its collaboration with government is seen as ineffective and weak. The study therefore recommends that government should mandate affordable units in private developments. This could be achieved also by streamlining land allocation and title registration and deepening housing finance (Ajayi, 2019), so that private developers can build at a lower cost and in a shorter period. There should be increased government support through incentives and streamlined regulation. A clearer collaborative framework should be established between government, developers and communities. setting out their respective roles, because 73.2% disagreed that collaboration has accelerated projects (mean 2.38).

Future research should hence include developers, residents and government officials, and should use measured output data such as units completed by price band, test the instrument's reliability, and ask respondents why they rate collaboration poorly.

References

1. [1]Abdullahi BC, Aziz WNAW (2011). The role of private sector participation in achieving anticipated outcomes for low-income group: A comparative analysis of housing sector between Malaysia and Nigeria. African Journal of Business Management, 5(16), 6859–6890.
2. [2]Adedeji I (2023). Nigerian urbanization and the significance of affordable housing. Journal of Service Science and Management, 16(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2023.163020
3. [3]Adegun OB, Taiwo AA (2011). Contribution and challenges of the private sector’s participation in housing in Nigeria: Case study of Akure, Ondo State. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 26(4), 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-011-9233-x
4. [4]Ajayi IS (2019). Addressing housing deficit in Nigeria: Issues, challenges and prospects. CBN Economic and Financial Review, 57(4), 223–237.
5. [5]Awe F, Akinluyi M, Okeke F, Awe D (2024). Housing quality and health: An evaluation of influencing variables. E3S Web of Conferences, 535, 03004. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202453503004
6. [6]Bonnefoy X (2007). Inadequate housing and health: An overview. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 30(3/4), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2007.014819
7. [7]Boone HN Jr, Boone DA (2012). Analyzing Likert data. Journal of Extension, 50(2), 48. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.50.02.48
8. [8]Daramola A (2006). Affordable and functional housing in a developing economy: A case study of Nigeria. Journal of Land Use and Development Studies, 2(1).
9. [9]Ekpo A (2019). Housing deficit in Nigeria: Issues, challenges and prospects. CBN Economic and Financial Review, 57(4), 177–188.
10. [10]Ibem EO, Aduwo EB (2012). Public-private partnerships (PPPs) in urban housing in Nigeria: Evidence from Ogun State. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 2(2), 2–15.
11. [11]Ikejiofor U (1997). The private sector and urban housing production in Nigeria: A study of small-scale landlords in Abuja. Habitat International, 21(4), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(97)00014-3
12. [12]Krieger J, Higgins DL (2002). Housing and health: Time again for public health action. American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 758–768. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.92.5.758
13. [13]Moore EA (2019). Addressing housing deficit in Nigeria: Issues, challenges and prospects. CBN Economic and Financial Review, 57(4), 201–222.
14. [14]Oni-Jimoh T, Liyanage C (2018). Urbanization and meeting the need for affordable housing in Nigeria. In Housing (pp. 73–91). IntechOpen.