Investigating dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation by residents in public housing: Factor analysis approach

Abstract

Purpose
– The aim of this study was to investigate the dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation by residents in public housing with a view to identifying how government and construction professionals can deliver adequate housing facilities.

Design/methodology/approach
– The research is based on household surveys involving 517 respondents selected from nine public housing estates constructed between 2003 and 2010 in Ogun State Southwest Nigeria. The data were collected using structured questionnaire administered to the residents by the researchers through visits to the housing estates. A total of 33 variables derived from the review of the literature were used in measuring housing adequacy. Descriptive statistics and factor analyses were used in analysis of the data.

Findings
– The study reveals that residents perceived their housing situation as inadequate. They evaluated housing adequacy based on four key dimensions: ambient condition of interiors spaces, security, utilities and neighbourhood facilities; social infrastructure; level of privacy and size of sleeping; and living and dining areas in the residences. These dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation were found not to be exactly the same way experts conceived housing adequacy in the literature.

Research limitations/implications
– The concept of housing adequacy can be used to examine occupants’ housing preferences and their standard of living, the quality of housing and the performance of mass housing projects.

Practical implications
– The paper makes practical suggestions to government and construction professionals on how to improve adequacy levels of public housing. Specifically, in the areas of giving more attention to ambient condition of interiors, security, utilities and neighbourhood facilities as well as privacy and sizes of main activities areas in dwelling units in the design, construction and management of public housing projects.

Originality/value
– The study identifies dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation by residents in public housing and compares these with experts’ conception of housing adequacy.

Full text

Investigating dimensions of
housing adequacy evaluation by
residents in public housing
Factor analysis approach
Eziyi Ofa Ibem
Department of Architecture, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria and
School of Construction Economics and Management,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
South Africa, and
Oluwole Ajala Alagbe
Department of Architecture, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this study was to investigate the dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation by
residents in public housing with a view to identifying how government and construction professionals
can deliver adequate housing facilities.
Design/methodology/approach – The research is based on household surveys involving 517
respondents selected from nine public housing estates constructed between 2003 and 2010 in Ogun
State Southwest Nigeria. The data were collected using structured questionnaire administered to the
residents by the researchers through visits to the housing estates. A total of 33 variables derived from
the review of the literature were used in measuring housing adequacy. Descriptive statistics and factor
analyses were used in analysis of the data.
Findings – The study reveals that residents perceived their housing situation as inadequate. They
evaluated housing adequacy based on four key dimensions: ambient condition of interiors spaces,
security, utilities and neighbourhood facilities; social infrastructure; level of privacy and size of
sleeping; and living and dining areas in the residences. These dimensions of housing adequacy
evaluation were found not to be exactly the same way experts conceived housing adequacy in the
literature.
Research limitations/implications – The concept of housing adequacy can be used to examine
occupants’ housing preferences and their standard of living, the quality of housing and the performance
of mass housing projects.
Practical implications – The paper makes practical suggestions to government and construction
professionals on how to improve adequacy levels of public housing. Specically, in the areas of giving
more attention to ambient condition of interiors, security, utilities and neighbourhood facilities as well
as privacy and sizes of main activities areas in dwelling units in the design, construction and
management of public housing projects.
Originality/value – The study identies dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation by residents in
public housing and compares these with experts’ conception of housing adequacy.
Keywords Public sector, Survey, Post-occupancy evaluation, Housing estates
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm
Dimensions of
housing
adequacy
evaluation
465
Received 24 February 2014
Revised 14 April 2014
31 May 2014
Accepted 25 July 2014
Facilities
Vol. 33 No. 7/8, 2015
pp. 465-484
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-2772
DOI 10.1108/F-02-2014-0017

Introduction
In recent times, there has been increasing need for construction and property
professionals to develop a better understanding of the performance of constructed
facilities such as residential and ofce accommodations, healthcare, educational and
other infrastructural facilities. Consequently, different kinds of post-occupancy
evaluations (POEs) have been conducted to provide insights into how end-users
perceive and evaluate constructed facilities (Hebert and Chaney, 2012). Djebarni and
Al-Abed (1998) specically noted that POE of housing schemes is essential in
determining the effectiveness of such projects and providing feedback to project
initiators and managers. In addition, Leung and Yu (2012) made it clear that the
evaluation of residential facilities can help to improve the knowledge base of managers
in identifying the key components of such facilities that inuence user satisfaction.
The evaluation of residential environment cuts across several disciplines, including
architecture, environmental psychology, housing and sociology, and has traditionally
been based on human–environment interactions. As a result, different theories
(Mehrabian and Russell, 1974;Galster, 1987) and concepts such as residential or housing
satisfaction (Galster, 1987;Mohit et al., 2010;Ibem and Aduwo, 2013), housing quality
(Fiadzo et al., 2001;Ibem et al., 2012) and housing adequacy (Ibem and Amole, 2011;
Eggers and Moumen, 2013) have been used to investigate and understand how residents
perceive, evaluate and respond to their housing situations. However, the studies by
Morton et al. (2004) and Bonnefoy (2007) indicate that among these concepts, housing
adequacy remains one of the least investigated.
Zey-Ferrell et al. (1977) identied the adequacy of housing environment as having
direct link with occupants’ housing preferences and their socio-economic
characteristics. Other studies (Onibokun, 1985;UN-HABITAT, 2006b;Eggers and
Moumen, 2013) help to provide insights into what adequate housing is from experts’
perspective, whereas very few authors (Ibem and Amole, 2011;Ibem et al., 2012) have
examined how residents evaluate the concept of housing adequacy. From the existing
studies, we understand that users give their views about buildings and other
constructed facilities based on their experience and interactions with such facilities
(Vischer, 2008) as against the conceptions of professionals who design and construct
buildings and facilities and may never use them (Chohen et al., 2010). This suggests that
housing occupants’ views on housing adequacy, for instance, may be different from
those of the professionals who design, plan, construct and manage housing facilities.
From the literature, it would seem right to conclude that housing occupants evaluate
adequacy of residential environment based on their perception of the extent to which
their current housing situations are adequate in meeting their needs, expectations and
aspirations. However, the dimensions of residents’ evaluation of housing adequacy and
the extent to which these are similar to or different from experts’ conception of housing
adequacy have not been adequately investigated and properly articulated in the
research literature, especially in the context of public housing. Therefore, this study was
designed to investigate the different dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation by
residents of public housing in Ogun State Southwest Nigeria. The study was guided by
two key research questions. These are:
RQ1. What are the dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation by residents of
public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria?
F
33,7/8
466

RQ2. How are these dimensions similar or different from experts’ conception of
housing adequacy?
Findings of this study are expected to contribute to housing design and management
practices by identifying the key components of residential environment that inuence
occupants’ perception of adequacy of public housing. The study also hopes to contribute
to the existing literature on housing evaluation and management research. To achieve
this goal, the remaining part of this paper is organized in ve sections. The rst section
is the review of the literature on adequate housing, theoretical and conceptual
approaches to evaluating housing environment and a summary of empirical studies on
adequate housing. Next is a description of research methods, followed by a presentation
of study ndings. The penultimate section deals with discussion of study ndings,
while the paper ends with conclusions and recommendations.
Literature review
The review of literature is organized in three sections and covers the following areas:
(1) the concept of adequate housing;
(2) theoretical and conceptual approaches to evaluating housing environment; and
(3) empirical studies on adequate housing.
The concept of adequate housing
The concept of adequate housing or housing adequacy has been dened and interpreted
in different ways by scholars and authors. Form the dictionary denition, the word
“adequacy” is generally understood to mean sufciency in quantity or quality in
meeting a need for something. This obviously suggests that adequate housing simply
means the residential environment that is both quantitatively and qualitatively
sufcient in meeting users’ needs, expectations and aspirations.
From the review of the literature, a number of denitions and descriptions of
adequate housing were identied and summarized in Table I.
It seems evident from Table I that all the denitions and descriptions of adequate
housing are closely related in content and meaning. The UN-HABITAT (2006b),
however, noted that what constitutes adequate housing varies from one country to
another and depends on specic cultural, social, environmental and economic context.
This implies that adequate housing is a multi-dimensional concept determined by
contextual factors. Hence, housing conditions considered to be adequate in one context
may not necessarily be regarded as adequate housing in another context. In any case, the
published literature helps to understand that adequate housing, on the one hand, can be
viewed from the perspectives of housing stock and, on the other hand, seen from the lens
of quality of housing, as explained by Oladapo (2006) and Eggers and Moumen (2013).In
this study, the focus is on the qualitative aspect of adequate housing, which deals with
the habitability, health and safety requirements of housing. Therefore, adequate
housing, as used in this study, describes the residential environment that is habitable
and promotes healthy, safe and secured living conditions as well as the economic and
cultural well-being of individuals, households and communities.
Based on the foregoing denitions of adequate housing, a number of conceptions of
housing adequacy have also been put forward by different authors. For examples,
McCray and Weber (1991, p. 55) viewed perception of adequate housing to be a
467
Dimensions of
housing
adequacy
evaluation

Table I.
Denitions of
adequate housing in
the literature
Authors Denition of adequate housing Context
American Public
Housing Association
(1946) quoted in
Onibokun (1985)
Housing that is decent, safe,
habitable and affordable in
meeting the four fold functions of
physiological and psychological
needs, protection against
contagions and accidents
The American Public Housing
Association Committee report on
the Hygiene of Housing as basic
principle of healthful housing
UN-HABITAT (1996:
Paragraph 60)
Adequate shelter means more than
a roof over one’s head. It also
means adequate privacy; adequate
space; physical accessibility;
adequate security; security of
tenure; structural stability and
durability; adequate lighting;
heating and ventilation; adequate
basic infrastructure, such as water
supply, sanitation and waste
management facilities; suitable
environmental and health related
factors; and adequate and
accessible location with regard to
work and basic facilities: all of
which should be at an affordable
cost
The Istanbul Declaration and the
Habitat Agenda, Second United
Nations Conference on Human
Settlements (Habitat II), Istanbul,
1996
Thiele (2002) Housing that has the following
attributes: legal security of tenure,
affordability, habitability,
accessibility, location and
availability of services and
cultural identity
A position paper on human right
to adequate housing: a tool for
promoting and protecting
individual and community
health
Zubairu (2002) Housing that has the following
attributes: decency, security,
privacy, spacious, healthy,
affordable, legally secured tenure,
habitable, accessible, and
appropriately located with services
and infrastructure
A conceptual paper on housing
concept and design in a
developing economy based on
the Nigerian housing problem
UN-HABITAT
(2006b: 121)
Housing with adequate privacy
and space, physical accessibility,
adequate security, secured tenure,
structural stability and durability,
adequate services and
infrastructure, suitable
environmental quality and health
related factors
UN-HABITAT global report on
national experiences with shelter
delivery for the poorest groups
Ibem and Amole (2011) Housing that has all the
characteristics features required to
satisfy users’ need; expectations
and aspirations
A survey of 517 households on
the qualitative adequacy of
newly constructed public
housing in Ogun State, Nigeria
(continued)
F
33,7/8
468

composite image of all elements in the housing environment necessary to support
minimally acceptable standard of living. They further explained that these images are
inuenced by cultural background, housing norms and values as well as previous
experience with various housing features and norms. Similarly, in a research that
sought to compare the quality and effectiveness of three public housing projects in
Sana’a, Yemeni, Djebarni and Al-Abed (1998) described housing adequacy as a measure
of quality under different housing standards. Also, in a study on the relationship
between perceptions of civic structure and rural housing adequacy in the USA, Morton
et al. (2004) conceived housing adequacy as an important aspect of housing quality
measurement that deals with the assessment of interior and exterior structural
conditions; heating, cooling and sanitation systems; and residence size relative to space
needs. In a recent study on housing adequacy of elderly households aged 65 years and
above in southern communities in the USA, Lee et al. (2014) dened housing adequacy as
an objective outcome measuring housing conditions. From these reviewed studies, it can
be inferred that housing adequacy is a measure of housing quality and, thus, can be used
in exploring residents’ housing preferences and perhaps their standard of living .
Theoretical and conceptual approaches to evaluating housing environment
As noted earlier, a number of theories and conceptual frameworks have been used to
examine and explain how people perceive and evaluate their environment. One of the
theories considered in the current study is the Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) (M-R)
model. In a study on perceived quality, emotions and behavioural intentions of
customers’ restaurant experience, Jang and Namkung (2009, p. 451) noted that many
studies have used the M-R model in exploring the role of environmental stimuli on how
people evaluate the quality of their environment and services. Describing the M-R model
as a stimulus-organism-response model, Jang and Namkung (2009) further explained
that, on the one hand, the environmental stimuli are external to the individual and
consist of different elements of the physical environment; on the other hand, the
organism refers to internal processes and structures intervening between the external
stimuli and the nal actions and responses by the individual. Specically, the M-R
model posits that human reaction to the physical environment is divided into
environment stimuli, feeling states (pleasure, arousal and dominance) and behavioural
responses (approach or avoidance) (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974, p. 8). According to
Mehrabian and Russell (1974), the environmental stimuli inuence individuals’ feeling
states (i.e. transitory conditions of organism that can vary substantially and rapidly
over the course of a day), which, in turn, determine behavioural responses. Although
Table I.
Authors Denition of adequate housing Context
Eggers and Moumen
(2013)
Adequate housing describes
absence of any form of physical,
spatial, and service abnormalities
within the residential environment;
and thus it is a measure of quality
of houses as physical structure
and the associated infrastructure
and services
AHS between 2005 and 2009
Report for the US Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
469
Dimensions of
housing
adequacy
evaluation

feeling states can be described as pleasure (feelings such as happiness, contentment and
satisfaction), arousal (a measure of how wide awake an individual is or how ready he/she
is to act) and dominance (a reection of the extent to which the individual is in control of
or overpowered by his/her environment), behavioural responses can be classied as
approach or avoidance (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Approach response includes a
desire to stay, to look around, explore the environment and to communicate with others
in the environment, whereas avoidance describes behaviours opposite to approach, as
explained by Mehrabian and Russell (1974). The implication of this is that an
individual’s evaluation of the quality or adequacy of physical environment or services
is inuenced by the characteristics features of the different components of the
environment or services and the person’s feeling states (Kim and Moon, 2009).
Extant literature from the work by Russell and Pratt (1980) indicates that persons’
attribute to environments is divided into affective meaning and perceptual-cognitive
meaning. It is believed that the rst level of response to the environment is affective.
According to Russell and Pratt (1980), this is emotion expressed in language, and thus,
affective meaning or quality of a physical environment is the emotion-inducing meaning
or quality that persons verbally attribute to that place. Also, proponents of the
perceptual-cognitive model such as Oliver (1993) indentied emotions as a mediator
among cognitive evaluations, which include perceived performance of products or
services by consumers. Consequently, the literature on consumer behaviour tends to see
people as cognitive beings, whose views on the quality of products or services are
primarily products of comparative analyses of expectations and perceived performance
of such products or services (Caro and Garcia, 2007). Expectations in this context
represent values individuals hope to derive from consuming a product or service and are
known to be the driving forces behind consumers’ desire to buy products or pay for
services.
In line with the foregoing, Amerigo and Aragones (1990) identied the three domains
involved in individuals’ evaluation of the environment as the affective, cognitive and
behavioural facets as explained in a study on residential satisfaction in council housing
in Spain. Oliver (1997) and Wirtz and Bateson (1999) explained that, although the
affective deals with feelings, the cognitive domain involves thinking and taps into the
consciousness of an individual. Also, in a study on residents’ satisfaction with public
housing in Papua New Guinea, Kaitilla (1993) linked the affective and cognitive domains
to the subjective and objective approaches, respectively. According to Mohit et al. (2010),
the subjective evaluation of residential environment is related to the psychological
feelings individuals have towards their housing situation. They explained that this kind
of evaluation involves perception; and thus, it is closely related to the psychological
attributes of an individual. On the other hand, the objective approach to evaluating
housing environment is based on the individual’s ability to carry out comparative
analyses of what is currently available in relation to what was expected. In fact, in the
objective approach, individuals are believed to evaluate the physical characteristics of
housing facilities and services based on their current needs and aspirations as well as
some pre-determined criteria and standards established by governments, professionals
and experts, as Mohit et al. (2010) further explained in a study on residential satisfaction
in newly designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
In addition to the above, there is also the role of memory and learnt associations in the
way individuals evaluate the environment. The literature on consumer research
F
33,7/8
470

indicates that evaluation of the performance of products and services is a memory-based
judgment (Krishnan, 1996;Warlop et al., 2005). Krishnan (1996) specically noted that
memory is the knowledge used to represent any piece of information. Sen (1999)
corroborated Krishnan’s view in noting that consumers’ memory representations of a
product typically include many learnt associations such as product categories,
consumption benets or semantic. He further explained that during a consumption
experience, a product may activate a particular meaning and that meaning becomes
associated with that product’s consumption experience. Therefore, learnt associations
help to provide a complete picture of how consumers perceive a product or service.
Putting this into context, it can be said that the evaluation of housing adequacy by
residents is a function of how well occupants learn from and remember their prior
housing consumption experiences, as well as the quality attributes they associate with
their residential environment.
There are also conceptual approaches that have been used to explain how people
perceive and evaluate their environment. One of such conceptions considered here is
that proposed by Rapoport, 1977. According to Rapoport (1977), people evaluate their
environment based on an ideal picture of what they would like it to be. This implies that
people tend to assess their environment rst, by developing a mental picture of what
they would want it to be like and, second, by comparing their current environment with
what they would like to have (aspirations). On the one hand, Kantrowitz and Nordhaus
(1980) noted that this kind of evaluation is usually inuenced by cultural values and
individuals’ life experiences. On the other hand Fill (1999) was of the view that
individuals’ socio-economic status and role in the family or society were the key factors
that determine this kind of evaluation by housing occupants.
Another conception considered is that presented by Galster (1987) in his seminal
work on the correlates of dwelling satisfaction. Galster (1987) introduced the
actual-aspirational gap and purposive approaches to evaluating housing environment.
In the actual-aspirational gap approach, he explained that people evaluate their
environment based on self-assessed needs and aspirations. Corroborating Rapoport’s
(1977) proposition, Galster also contended that people assess their environment by
comparing the objective characteristics of that environment with certain standards they
believe they may reasonably aspire to have. Hence, the extent to which there is
incongruence between what an individual aspires to have and what he/she currently has
(actual environment) gives the measure of housing adequacy or satisfaction. In the
purposive evaluation approach, Galster (1987) argued that this approach is based on the
individual’s perception of how his/her environment is contributing to achieving his/her
goals in life. This means that individuals tend to evaluate their housing environment
based on their expectations of the purpose it can serve, for instance, the extent to which
their housing can contribute to the attainment of individual and/or collective goals in
life.
Based on the review of the different theoretical and conceptual approaches to
evaluating housing environment, it appears that the way people perceive and evaluate
their residential environment is inuenced by their feeling states and ability to judge
the performance of the environment in relation to specic needs, aspirations and
expectations. Therefore, occupants’ perception of housing adequacy cannot be
separated from the direct impact their housing environment has on them. This is
generally determined by two key factors. First is the attributes individuals associate
471
Dimensions of
housing
adequacy
evaluation

with the physical and spatial characteristics of dwelling units and quality of supporting
services. Second deals with individual needs, aspirations and expectations. These are
usually products of personal traits, knowledge, ability to learn from and remember
previous consumption experiences, roles in the family or society and values (economic,
family, personal and social) people attach to their housing environment.
Literature on adequate housing
From the review of the existing literature, it was observed that the majority of published
works on qualitative adequacy of housing dwelt on the description of the various
attributes of adequate housing from experts’ perspective. The key attributes of adequate
housing identied in the literature and found to be relevant in the current study are
related to habitability, decency, health and safety of housing conditions (Table I).
With regards to habitability attribute of adequate housing, Krieger and Higgins
(2002) and Reilly (2008) noted that a dwelling is habitable if it meets a number of
requirements that are benecial to mental health and social pathology of the occupants.
These include structural soundness, free from repair and dampness prejudicial to
human health, adequate provision for lighting, heating and ventilation. Others are the
provision of satisfactory facilities for the preparation, cooking and storage of food,
adequate supply of wholesome water and efcient system for draining of foul, waste and
surface water. Closely related to habitability is the decency attribute. According to
Housing Support Unit (2000), a decent housing is a residential environment that meets
all the four criteria, namely:
(1) tness (habitability) standard based on health and safety;
(2) a reasonable state of repair;
(3) availability of reasonably modern facilities and services (e.g. kitchen, bath room,
WC); and
(4) provision of reasonable degree of thermal comfort and noise insulation.
In addition, Reilly (2008) described decent housing as housing environment that is
healthy, safe, secure, energy efcient and free from serious disrepair. The above
suggests that habitability and decency attributes of adequate housing are intertwined
and encompass adequacy of the physical structure (building), spaces within the building
(spatial attributes) and services (e.g. water and power supply and sanitation).
The other two related attributes of adequate housing considered in this study are
health and safety requirements. As it relates to healthy housing, Thiele (2002) made it
clear that for housing to be described as adequate, it must meet a number of
requirements. First, it must provide inhabitants with adequate space and protect them
from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, hazards and disease vectors.
Second, occupants must have unimpeded access to safe water supply, sanitary disposal
of excreta and solid wastes, drainage of surface water, safe food storage facilities and
protection against disease transmission. Finally, such housing environment must also
promote physical, mental and psychological well-being of the occupants. In the same
vein, Kawash (2000) explained that the concept of safe housing draws on social
formation and architectural design and that safe housing consists of internal safety and
external security of the housing environment. Zubairu (2002) added that one of the basic
functions of housing is the protection of occupants from inclement weather conditions as
F
33,7/8
472

well as dangerous animals, insects, reptiles and human intruders. Hence, adequate
housing has been described as a residential environment that ensures the security of
lives and property of the occupants (UN-HABITAT, 2006a). From the foregoing, it can
be inferred that the four attributes of adequate housing considered in this study are
closely related and describe the absence of any situation considered to be inadequate
housing condition.
Looking at empirical studies on adequate housing, Zey-Ferrell et al. (1977) examined
the relationships between housing adequacy and the socio-economic and demographic
characteristics of 361 females in two Louisiana communities in the USA. That study
found that housing was signicantly less adequate for:
• blacks;
• those living in the north Louisiana community;
• renters;
• families of females who possessed lower levels of education;
• males who worked at jobs with lower occupational prestige; and
• females who did not prefer to spend their resources on long-range alternatives to
housing.
Both socio-economic variables and consumer preferences were found to be directly
associated with housing adequacy. Kutty (1999) investigated the determinants of
structural adequacy of dwellings using data from the American Housing Survey (AHS)
of Metropolitan Areas of Atlanta, Baltimore, New York, St. Louis, San Diego, Seattle and
Washington, DC. The study revealed signicant differences in the prevalence of
structural inadequacy across metropolitan areas. It found that structural adequacy was
associated with engineering and economic factors, such as age of the buildings, unit
type, tenure, income of occupants and vehicle ownership. Also, Eggers and Moumen
(2013) used data from the AHS to investigate physical adequacy of housing units based
on variables grouped under 14 key components. That study showed that between 2005
and 2009, less than 2 per cent of housing units in the USA were found to be inadequate.
The two main sources of inadequacy were related to sharing of bathrooms and heating
failure. Also, in the USA, Lee et al. (2014) examined housing adequacy as a well-being
indicator for 7,675 elderly households in southern US communities. The result revealed
that elderly households in that region were more likely to live in inadequate housing if
they had:
• lower incomes;
• more household members;
• low housing satisfaction;
• were blacks or Hispanics, or not married; and
• lived in housing built before the 1970s or in rural areas, or the West South Central
areas or in a smaller structure size.
The authors concluded that elderly households living in inadequate housing may be
deprived of independence, autonomy and meaningful activities that are essential for
well-being.
473
Dimensions of
housing
adequacy
evaluation

Elsewhere in Brazil, Ornstein et al. (2011) investigated the adequacy of residential
high-rise buildings in São Paulo in relation to occupants’ needs. Analyses of the designs
of apartments built in that city after 2003 revealed that emphasis was more on the
cosmetic and fashionable aspects than the real needs of end-users. The authors
concluded that there was a need for the housing market in that city to establish a closer
link between needs and human behaviour in the domestic space, and that the
architectural quality of homes should serve as a means of increasing satisfaction levels
and improving design performance.
In Nigeria, Ibem and Amole (2011) examined residents’ perception of the levels of
adequacy of public housing in Ogun State. That study revealed that the 517 respondents
perceived their housing conditions to be generally inadequate in meeting their needs.
Housing unit attributes and neighbourhood facilities were perceived to be the most
adequate and least adequate housing components, respectively. That study did not
examine the dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation by the residents. A similar
survey of 156 residents in incrementally constructed low-income public housing in
Ogun State, Nigeria, by Ibem et al. (2012), revealed that 50 per cent of the respondents felt
that their housing environment in that estate was adequate in meeting their needs. The
study identied the three main housing components residents responded to in their
evaluation of housing adequacy to be:
(1) design of the housing units;
(2) availability of social infrastructure; and
(3) adequacy of management practice in the housing estate.
It is evident from the studies reviewed here that the existing studies in Brazil, the
USA and Nigeria focussed mainly on the physical, spatial and structural adequacy
of dwellings and quality of housing services with little or no consideration given to
the dimensions of adequate housing evaluation by the residents. The second study
in Nigeria reviewed focussed mainly on one low-income housing estate where
housing units were constructed as starter homes and, thus, did not consider the
dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation amongst residents in walk-in homes
and shell houses, and how the dimensions are similar to, or different from, experts’
conception of housing adequacy. Therefore, the current study was an attempt to ll
these research gaps.
Research methods
The study reported in this paper was part of the overall research project conducted to
evaluate public housing in Ogun State Southwest Nigeria. Ogun State is one of the most
urbanized of the 36 states in Nigeria (Ibem and Amole, 2011). In response to the growing
urban housing challenge, the government embarked on the construction of several new
public housing estates for different categories of people in the State between 2003 and
2010. Hence, the state was purposively chosen for the study.
To achieve the goal of the study, as previously highlighted in the introduction,
the research strategy adopted was household survey. This choice was based on the
nature of the research questions of the study. The surveys were conducted in 9 of the
12 public housing estates constructed between 2003 and 2010 in major urban centres
in the study area. At the time of the survey, 1,411 housing units were completed in
the different housing estates, but only 709 housing units were found to be occupied
F
33,7/8
474

by residents in Abeokuta (the State capital), Ijebu-Ode, Ota, Agbara and Ibafo area
of the State. The nine housing estates were selected based on the type of houses:
starter/core housing (in OGD-Workers Housing Estate, Laderin), shell houses (in the
Ogun State Housing Corporation Housing Estate, Ota) and walk-in homes (in the
Media Village, OGD Housing Estate, Asero; Presidential Mandate Housing Estate,
Olokota and Obasanjo Hill-Top GRA Housing Estate all in Abeokuta. Others were
OGD Housing Estate Itanrin, Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State, OGD-Sparklight Housing
Estate, Ibafo and OPIC Housing Estate, Agbara). These housing estates were also
selected based on the socio-economic status: low-, medium- and high-income
earners. To ensure a sample size that is representative of the three different housing
types, stratied sampling technique was used in selecting the housing units based
on the number of occupied units of the different typologies identied at the time of
the survey. Specically, 250 units were selected from the core houses, 405 units from
424 walk-in-homes and 15 units from the shell houses. These translated to 670
households representing about 95 per cent of households in the occupied housing
units in the aforementioned housing estates.
The data were collected between December 2009 and February 2010 through
personal visits to each of the housing units. A total of 517 valid questionnaires
representing about 77 per cent of the distributed questionnaires were retrieved. The
data collection instrument used was structured questionnaire administered only to
household heads or an adult member in each of the housing units found at the time
of the visits. The questionnaire was designed by the researchers based on ndings
from the review of the literature. The existing studies (including Ibem and Amole,
2011;Ibem et al., 2012) suggest that residents evaluate adequacy of residential
environment in public housing based on their interactions with the housing unit
attributes, housing services and infrastructure, neighbourhood facilities and
management of the estates. Therefore, 33 housing attributes comprising 16 housing
units attributes, 6 housing services and infrastructure, 9 neighbourhood facilities
and 2 attributes related to management of the estates (Table II) were used to capture
the respondents’ perception of adequacy of their residential environment in the nine
housing estates. The respondents were asked to rate the level of adequacy of each of
the 33 housing attributes based on a ve-point Likert type scale, ranging from 1 for
“Very Inadequate” to 5 for “Very Adequate”. The question asked was “How would
you rate the adequacy levels of your house and the estate where you live in terms of
the following”. The data on the personal proles of the respondents were also
collected using the questionnaire.
The data were analysed using SPSS Version 20 software package. Two types of
analyses were conducted. The rst was descriptive statistics which produced
proportions and percentages of the personal demographics of the respondents as
well as mean adequacy scores (MASs) for the 33 housing attributes investigated.
The MAS represents the average adequacy score given by all the 517 respondents on
each of the 33 attributes used in the assessment of housing adequacy. The second
type of analysis was factor analysis with principal component analysis. The
responses on the 33 housing attributes used in measuring housing adequacy were
subjected to factor analysis. Apart from revealing the key dimensions of housing
adequacy evaluation by the respondents, the factor analysis was also used as a
means of handling the multi-collinearity problem that may arise due to
475
Dimensions of
housing
adequacy
evaluation

intercorrelations among the 33 housing attributes. Efforts were also made to ensure
the validity and reliability of ndings of the study by pre-testing the questionnaire
instrument and conducting Cronbach’s alpha coefcient test, respectively.
Feedback from the pre-testing exercise was incorporated into the nal version of the
questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha test conducted on all the 33 variables used in
assessing housing adequacy produced Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.891, which is
more than 0.7 recommended by Pallant (2011). This suggests that the questionnaire
instrument was reasonably reliable in measuring housing adequacy in the survey.
Table II.
Housing adequacy
variables
S/N
1
Housing units’ attributes
Level of privacy
2 Sizes of bed rooms
3 Natural lighting in kitchen
4 Natural lighting in bed rooms
5 Ventilation in bedrooms
6 Sizes of living and dining spaces
7 Ventilation in living and dining spaces
8 Lighting in living and dining spaces
9 Sizes kitchen and storage
10 Protection against dampness in the building
11 Protection against noise pollution
12 Level of thermal comfort in the residence
13 Protection against harmful Insect
14 Security measures in residence
15 Number of bedrooms
16 Fire protection measures
Housing services and infrastructure
1 Sanitary and drainage facilities
2 Road network
3 Power supply
4 External lighting
5 Potable water supply
6 Refuse disposal facilities in the estate
Neighbourhood facilities
1 Public transport service
2 Place of worship
3 Parking spaces
4 Open spaces and green areas
5 Play ground for children
6 Healthcare facilities
7 Educational facilities
8 Shopping facilities
9 Recreational facilities
Management of facilities
1 Communal activities
2 Management and maintenance of facilities in the estates
F
33,7/8
476

Study ndings
Personal demographics of the respondents
The socio-economic and demographic proles of respondents encountered in the
surveys are presented in Table III. It is evident from Table III that the majority of the
respondents were males and aged between 31 and 59 years. They were also educated
and low-income earners, living in owner-occupied houses. The result also shows that
around 79 per cent of them had lived in their current residences for between one and
three years. This result goes to suggest that the respondents had lived in their current
residences for a reasonable period of time and, thus, can be considered suitable in
providing reliable data on the levels of adequacy of their current housing environment.
Table III.
Demographics of
respondents
Variables N⫽517 (%)
Respondent’s sex
Male 333 64.4
Female 184 35.6
Age group in years
No response 3 0.6
18-30 65 12.8
31-45 293 56.8
46-59 140 27.1
60 and above 16 3.1
Highest educational attainment
No response 8 1.6
Primary education 4 0.8
Secondary education 11 2.1
Tertiary education 494 95.6
Average monthly income (Naira)*
No response 36 7.0
Below 38,000 (low-income) 137 26.5
38,000-71,000 (middle low income) 186 36.0
72,000-145,000 (middle high income) 77 15.0
145,000 and above (high income) 81 15.7
Tenure type
No response 3 0.6
Privately rented 168 32.5
Owner occupied 323 62.4
Ofcial quarters 23 4.5
Length of residency
No response 5 0.97
Less than one year 82 15.9
one-three years 406 78.5
four -ve years 20 3.9
More than ve years 4 0.8
Note: *US$ 1 ⫽162.75 as of May 2014
477
Dimensions of
housing
adequacy
evaluation

Perception of housing adequacy by the respondents
Result of the respondents’ perception of adequacy levels of their housing environment
shows overall MAS of 2.8. This suggests that the respondents rated their residential
environment in all the nine housing estates investigated as inadequate in meeting their
needs. The implication of this is that the housing environment in the estates falls short
of residents’ needs, expectations and aspirations.
The second column of Table IV presents the adequacy levels of the 33 housing
attributes investigated. It seems evident from Table IV that the respondents rated 14 of
the 16 housing unit attributes as being adequate, whereas none of the housing services
and infrastructure, neighbourhood facilities and management-related attributes was
found to be adequate. This is seen in the result, which shows that none of the housing
services and infrastructure, neighbourhood facilities and management-related
attributes emerged with MAS of up to 3.01. Table IV also reveals that the most adequate
housing attribute was privacy in the residence with MAS of 3.89, whereas the least was
recreational/sporting facilities in the housing estates with MAS of 1.47. This result
suggests that the respondents perceived housing unit attributes to be more adequate
than neighbourhood facilities, housing services and infrastructure in their current
residences.
Dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation by the respondents
The study also investigated the dimension of housing adequacy evaluation by the
respondents in the survey. This was done by conducting exploratory factor analysis
using principal component. Also displayed in Table IV are the four factors with
eigenvalues greater than one, which accounted for 51.1 per cent of total variance across
the 33 variables investigated. These represent the key dimensions of housing the
residents responded to in their evaluation of housing adequacy in all the nine housing
estates investigated.
Although three housing adequacy attributes: size of places of worship with MAS of
2.77, number of bedrooms in the housing units (2.99) and sizes of cooking and storage
spaces (3.36) were not loaded on any of the four dimension (factors) extracted from the
factor analysis, Table IV shows that the rst dimension residents responded to in their
evaluation of housing adequacy was ambient condition of interiors and adequacy of
security, utilities and neighbourhood facilities. With 23 housing attributes loaded on it,
this factor explains around 27.7 per cent of the total variance across all 33 variables
investigated. Next was adequacy of social infrastructure with four attributes loaded on
it and explaining around 11.8 per cent of the total variance. This is followed by adequacy
of privacy and size of sleeping area in the residence with two attributes loaded on it, as
well as explaining around 6.8 per cent of the total variance across the 33 attributes. The
last dimension was sizes of living and dining spaces in the dwelling units, explaining
around 4.8 per cent of the variance.
Discussion
From the result, two key issues were identied and brought forward for discussion. The
rst issue deals with the dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation by the respondents
in the survey. The second is concerned with the analysis of how these dimensions of
housing adequacy evaluation are similar to or different from that established by experts
in the literature.
F
33,7/8
478

Table IV.
Dimensions of
housing adequacy
evaluation by the
respondents
Dimensions of evaluation MAS
Factor
loading Eigenvalue
%of
variance Cumulative (%)
Ambient condition of interiors and adequacy
of security, utilities and neighbourhood
facilities 9.130 27.70 27.70
Natural lighting in living and dining spaces 3.47 0.671
Natural lighting in bedrooms 3.60 0.635
Natural lighting in kitchen 3.64 0.504
Fresh air in living and dining spaces 3.50 0.653
Circulation of fresh air in bedrooms 3.58 0.619
Level of thermal comfort in the residence 3.21 0.569
Protection against noise pollution 3.30 0.454
Protection against dampness in the building 3.13 0.479
Protection against insects and dangerous
animals 3.10 0.566
Security measures in the residence 3.01 0.657
Fire safety measures in the residence 2.68 0.595
Power supply 2.42 0.625
Potable water supply 2.24 0.615
Sanitary/drainage facilities in the residence 2.85 0.454
Refuse disposal facilities in the estate 2.04 0.633
Parking spaces provided in the estate 2.67 0.612
Open spaces and green areas in the estate 2.15 0.593
Shopping facilities in the housing estate 1.61 0.607
Accessibility to public transport service 2.80 0.487
External lighting in the housing estate 2.60 0.630
Road network within the estate 2.69 0.671
Communal activities within the estate 2.65 0.470
Management and maintenance of facilities
in the estate 2.41 0.718
Social infrastructure 3.906 11.84 39.54
Educational facilities in the estate 1.61 0.618
Recreational/sporting facilities in the estate 1.47 0.598
Play ground for children in the estate 1.85 0.568
Medical and health-care facilities in the
estate 0.515
Privacy and sizes of sleeping area in the
residence 2.246 6.81 46.35
Privacy of residence 3.89 0.421
Sizes of bedrooms in the dwelling units 3.80 0.463
Size of living and dining spaces 1.566 4.75 51.10
Sizes of living and dining spaces 3.57 0.472
Attributes not loaded on any factor
Places of worship in the estate 2.77 –
Number of bedrooms 2.99 –
Sizes of cooking and storage spaces 3.36 –
Note: Total variance explained ⫽51.1 %
479
Dimensions of
housing
adequacy
evaluation

First, our survey data show that the respondents in the survey evaluated housing
adequacy based on four dimensions:
(1) ambient condition of interiors and adequacy of security, utilities and
neighbourhood facilities;
(2) social infrastructure;
(3) level of privacy and size of sleeping areas in the residence; and
(4) size of living and dining spaces (see rst column in Table IV).
The implication of this is that residents of public housing encountered in the survey
assessed the level of adequacy of their current housing environment based on these four
key components. First, this result indicates that these are the most important aspects of
housing environment the residents actually considered in their evaluation of housing
adequacy. Second, it also suggests that these are the four housing-related factors that
inuence residents’ perception of the adequacy of public housing in the study area.
Comparing this result with nding of the study by Ibem et al. (2012) previously
highlighted, it is obvious that access to social infrastructure is one key dimensions of
housing adequacy evaluation by residents of public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria.
Second, it also seems evident from the result that going by experts’ point of view,
housing adequacy can be evaluated based on four key components:
(1) housing units’ attributes;
(2) housing services and infrastructure;
(3) neighbourhood facilities; and
(4) management of the housing estates (Tables II and V).
However, a close examination of Table V will reveal that residents do not necessarily
evaluate housing adequacy based on these four components as conceived by experts.
Notably, one point of disparity between experts’ and users’ understanding of housing
adequacy can be seen in the result, which shows that as opposed to experts’ conception,
the respondents identied privacy and sizes of main activities areas (e.g. bedrooms,
living and dining spaces) in the residence as two different dimensions of housing
adequacy evaluation. Also, contrary to experts’ thinking, our survey data suggest that
residents do not consider management of facilities in the housing estates as key
dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation. In any case, it seems interesting that both
Table V.
Comparison of
dimensions of
housing adequacy
evaluation by experts
and residents
S/N
Dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation
by experts
Dimension of housing adequacy evaluation
by the residents
1 Housing units’ attributes Ambient condition of interiors and
adequacy of security, utilities and
neighbourhood facilities
2 Housing services and infrastructure Social infrastructure
3 Neighbourhood facilities Privacy and sizes of sleeping area in the
residences
4 Management and maintenance of facilities Size of living and dining spaces in the
residences
F
33,7/8
480

experts and residents share common view, as it relates to the identication of four
dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation, and housing units’ attributes and social
infrastructure as key dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation. Therefore, based on
the evidence from this study, it can be inferred that there are disparities and similarities
in the way both housing occupants and construction professionals/researchers
understand and evaluate housing adequacy.
Conclusions and recommendations
This study investigated and analysed the dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation
by 517 respondents in nine public housing estates in urban areas of Ogun State,
Southwest Nigeria. Findings show that the respondents rated their current housing
situation in the housing estates sampled as inadequate in meeting their needs,
expectations and aspirations. They also evaluated housing adequacy based on four key
dimensions:
(1) ambient condition of interiors spaces, security, utilities and neighbourhood
facilities;
(2) social infrastructure;
(3) level of privacy and size of sleeping; and
(4) sizes of living and dining areas in the residences.
Some aspects of these dimensions were found to be similar to, and different from, the
way experts conceived housing adequacy in the literature. Based on this result, the
following conclusions were arrived at. First is that the most important housing-related
factors with signicant inuence on residents’ perception of housing adequacy in public
housing are ambient condition of interior spaces, security of residence, availability of
utilities, neighbourhood facilities and social infrastructure and privacy and sizes of
main activity areas and sleeping areas in the dwelling units. The second conclusion is
that there are indeed differences and similarities on how housing occupants and experts
understand and evaluate housing adequacy.
To ensure improved performance of public housing in meeting occupants’ needs,
expectations and aspirations and, by extension, their satisfaction levels, the following
recommendations are made. First, in terms of research, the concept of housing adequacy
can be used to examine users’ housing preferences and standard of living, quality of
housing and the performance of housing projects. Findings of such studies should form
part of the essential database used in the process of providing and managing residential
facilities. Second, there is a need for government ofcials, construction and property
professionals (e.g. architects, engineers, planners, project and facilities managers) to
give adequate attention to ambient conditions of interior spaces, security of residence,
availability of services and social infrastructure and privacy and sizes of main activity
areas in dwelling units in the design, planning, construction and management of public
housing projects. Finally, the development and management of residential facilities
should follow user-focussed and participatory approach, which enables end-users to
make input into the design, planning, development and management of housing
facilities. This is to ensure that the conception, development and management of such
facilities are not based only on the ideas and understandings of experts, rather the views
of target population are sought and taken into consideration.
481
Dimensions of
housing
adequacy
evaluation

References
American Public Housing Association (1964), “Committee on the hygiene of housing-basic
principle of healthful housing”, 2nd ed., pp. 2-4, Cited in Onibokun (Ed.) (1985), Housing in
Nigeria, Nigerian Institute for Social and Economic Research (NISER), Ibadan, pp. 66-83.
Amerigo, M. and Aragones, J. (1990), “Residential satisfaction in council housing”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 313-325.
Bonnefoy, X. (2007), “Inadequate housing and health: and overview”, International Journal
Environment and Pollution, Vol. 30 Nos 3/4, pp. 411-429.
Caro, L.M. and Garcia, J.A.M. (2007), “Cognitive-affective model of consumer satisfaction, an
exploratory study within the framework of a sporting event”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 108-114.
Chohen, A.H., Che-Ani, A.I., Memon, Z., Tahir, M.M., Abdullah, N.A.G. and Ishak, N.H. (2010),
“Development of users’ sensitivity index for design faults in low rise urban housing, a study
of development metropolitan city”, American Journal of Scientic Research, Vol. 12
No. 2010, pp. 113-124.
Djebarni, R. and Al-Abed, A. (1998), “Housing adequacy in Yemen: an investigation into physical
quality”, Property Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 16-23.
Eggers, F.J. and Moumen, F. (2013), “American housing survey-housing adequacy and quality as
measured by AHS US”, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Ofce of Policy
Development and Research, available at: www.huduser.org (accessed 20 February 2014).
Fiadzo, E.D., Houston, J.E. and Godwin, D.D. (2001), “Estimating housing quality for poverty and
development policy analysis: CWIQ in Ghana”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 137-162.
Fill, M. (1999), The Housing Environment and Women’s Health: The Case Study of Ramallah al
Tahta, Birzeit, Palestine, Institute of Community and Public Health/Environmental Health
Unit, Birziet University.
Galster, G.C. (1987), “Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: an empirical critique”,
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 537-568.
Hebert, P.R. and Chaney, S. (2012), “Using end-user surveys to enhance facilities design and
management”, Facilities, Vol. 30 Nos 11/12, pp. 458-471.
Housing Support Unit (2000), “A Decent Home: the denition and guidance for measurement,
housing support unit”, DTLR, London, available at: www.dltr.gov./uk (accessed 23 June
2009).
Ibem, E.O. and Aduwo, E.B. (2013), “Assessment of residential satisfaction in public housing in
Ogun state, Nigeria”, Habitat International, Vol. 40 No. 2013, pp. 163-175.
Ibem, E.O., Aduwo, E.B., Uwakonye, O. (2012), “Adequacy of incremental construction strategy
for housing low-income urban residents in Ogun state, Nigeria”, Built Environment Project
and Asset Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 182-194.
Ibem, E.O. and Amole, O.O. (2011), “Assessment of the qualitative adequacy of newly constructed
public housing in Ogun state, Nigeria”, Journal of Property Management, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 285-304.
Jang, S. and Namkung, Y. (2009), “Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions:
application of an extended mehrabian-russell model to restaurants”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 451-460.
Kaitilla, S. (1993), “Satisfaction with public housing in papua new guinea: the case of west Taraka
housing scheme”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 514-545.
F
33,7/8
482

Kantrowitz, M. and Nordhaus, R. (1980), “The impact of post occupancy evaluation research: a
case study”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 508-519.
Kawash, S. (2000), “Safe housing? Body, building and the question of security”, Cultural Critique,
Vol. 45 (Spring), pp. 185-221.
Kim, W.G. and Moon, Y.J. (2009), “Customers’ cognitive, emotional and actionable response to the
servicescape: a test of the moderating effect of the restaurant type”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 144-156.
Krieger, J. and Higgins, D.L. (2002), “Housing and health: time again for public health action”,
American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 758-768.
Krishnan, H.S. (1996), “Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer-based brand equity
perspective”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 389-405.
Kutty, N.K. (1999), “Determinants of structural adequacy of dwellings”, Journal of Housing
Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Lee, S., Parrott, K.R. and Ahn, M. (2014), “Housing adequacy: a well-being indicator for elderly
households in Southern US Communities”, Family and Consumer Sciences Research
Journal, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 235-251.
Leung, M. and Yu, J. (2012), “Investigating key components of the facilities management of
Residential care and attention homes”, Facilities, Vol. 30 Nos 13/14, pp. 611-629.
McCray, J. and Weber, M.J. (1991), “Perception boundaries: a proposed sociopsychological
framework for housing adequacy”, Housing and Society, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 49-61.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Mohit, M.A., Ibrahim, M. and Rashid, Y.R. (2010), “Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly
designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia”, Habitat International,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 18-27.
Morton, L.W., Allen, B.L. and Li, T. (2004), “Rural housing adequacy and civic structure”,
Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 464-491.
Oladapo, A.A. (2006), “A study on tenant’s maintenance awareness, responsibility and
satisfaction in institutional housing in Nigeria”, International Journal of Strategic Property
Management, available at: http://ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5397/ (accessed 3 April
2010)
Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 418-430.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill
Companies, New York, NY.
Onibokun, A.G. (1985), “Housing needs and responses: a planner’s viewpoints”, in
Onobokun, A.G. (Ed.), Housing in Nigeria, Nigerian Institute for Social and Economic
Research (NISER), Ibadan, pp. 66-83.
Ornstein, S.W., Villa, S.B. and Ono, R. (2011), “Residential high-rise buildings in São Paulo: aspects
related to the adequacy to the occupant’s needs”, Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 73-84.
Pallant, J. (2011), SPSS Survival Manual-a Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS, 4th
ed., Allen and Unwin, Australlia.
Rapoport, A. (1977), Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards a Man-Environment Approach,
Urban Form and Design Oxford, Pergamon.
483
Dimensions of
housing
adequacy
evaluation

Reilly, K. (2008), “Decent housing standards- is there a need for certicate of tness for rental
accommodation in New Zealand?”, Paper for the Australian Housing Institute Rental
Affordability Symposium in Waitakare, July 22.
Russell, J.A. and Pratt, G. (1980), “A description of the affective quality attributed to
environments”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 311-322.
Sen, S. (1999), “The effects of brand name suggestiveness and decision goal on the development of
brand knowledge”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 431-455.
Thiele, B. (2002), “The human right to adequate housing: a tool for promoting and protecting
Individual and community health”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 92 No. 5,
pp. 712-725.
UN-HABITAT (1996), “The Istanbul declaration and the habitat agenda”, Second United Nations
Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II),Istanbul, 1996.
UN-HABITAT (2006a), Shelter for All: The Potential of Housing Policy in the Implementation of
the Habitat Agenda, UN-HABITAT Information Services, Nairobi.
UN-HABITAT (2006b), National Experiences with Shelter Delivery for the Poorest Groups,
UN-HABITAT, Nairobi.
Vischer, J.C. (2008), “Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment”, Building Research
& Information, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 231-240.
Warlop, L., Ratneshwarb, S. and van Osselaer, S.M.J. (2005), “Distinctive brand cues and memory
for product consumption experiences”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 22 No. 2005, pp. 27-44.
Wirtz, J. and Bateson, J.E.G. (1999), “Consumer satisfaction with services: integrating the
environment perspective in services marketing into the traditional disconrmation
paradigm”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Zey-Ferrell, M., Kelley, E.A. and Bertrand, A.L. (1977), “Consumer preferences and selected
socioeconomic variables related to physical adequacy of housing”, Home Economics
Research Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 232-243.
Zubairu, S.N. (2002), “Housing concept and design in a developing economy: the Nigerian housing
problem”, Housing Today- Journal of the Association of Housing Corporations of Nigeria,
Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 37-48.
About the authors
Eziyi Ofa Ibem is a chartered architect and holds a PhD in architecture. He is a Senior Lecturer
at the Department of Architecture, Covenant University Ota, Nigeria. At the time of writing this
paper, he was a National Research Foundation (NFR) Post-doctoral Research Fellow at the School
of Construction Economics and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
South Africa. His research interest is in the areas of housing and urban studies, construction
procurement and environment behaviour. Eziyi Ofa Ibem is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: ibem.eziyi@covenantuniversity.edu.ng
Oluwole Ajala Alagbe is a chartered architect and also holds a PhD in architecture. He is a
lecturer at the Department of Architecture, Covenant University, Ota Nigeria, where he teaches
both undergraduate and post-graduate students. His research interest is in the areas of housing
and urban studies, building materials and sustainable development.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
F
33,7/8
484