CORRELATES OF RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION IN

PUBLIC HOUSING IN GOMBE

J.J. Maina and M.I. Isa
Department of Architecture, Ahmadu Bello University
Corresponding author: jjmaina@abu.edu.ng

ABSTRACT

Residential satisfaction has been studied globally across varying contexts in

part due to it’s links with quality of life, residential mobility, success or failure
of housing projects. Few studies assess residential satisfaction in Northern
Nigeria. This study investigated correlates of residential satisfaction in
Investment Housing Estate, Gombe. Employing responses from 41 residents
analysed in SPSS v21, results reveal three out of 33 housing related variables
very highly and significantly correlate with residential satisfaction (p=0.000).
These are quality of communal activities (r=0.796), type of house (r=0.766) as
well as bathroom and toilet facilities (r=0.727). Level of security to life and
property recorded the lowest association with residential satisfaction,
suggesting residents weakly associate the latter with residential satisfaction.
Overall, residents were dissatisfied with the housing environment (M 2.76 of
5) and residents were more satisfied with the 3 bedroom stand-alone typology
compared to the 2 bedroom semi-detached design. The study recommends
rethinking government policy of selling public housing estates without cohort
stratification of owner occupiers as this is unlikely to foster communal
cohesion. Future research is required to establish specific aspects of housing
typology, bathroom and toilet facilities that foster satisfaction in the study
area.
Keywords: Correlates, Gombe, Public Housing, Residential Satisfaction

INTRODUCTION

Residential satisfaction (RS) has been the focus of enormous research attention in developed
countries for several reasons due to interests of various stakeholders including architects,
planners, social workers, private investors and governments. First, RS serves as a key predictor
of residents’ perception of general quality and satisfaction with life (Fernandez-Portero,
Alarcon & Barrios Padura, 2016; Ibem, Opoko & Aduwo, 2016; Ibem & Amole, 2013;
Aigbavboa & Thwala, 2013). Secondly, RS is employed as an indicator of incipient residential
mobility and changes to neighbourhoods (Abdu & Hashim, 2015; Haliloglu Kahraman, 2013).

729
Thirdly, RS indicates success or failure of housing projects (Mohit, Ibrahim & Rashid, 2010)
and housing policies (Ibem, Aduwo & Uwakonye, 2012; Ukoha & Beamish, 1997). Fourthly,
RS serves as an assessment tool about perceptions of inadequacies in housing environments
comprising individual dwelling units, neighbourhood facilities, infrastructure and quality of
management (Ibem & Alagbe, 2015; Ibem, Adeboye & Alagbe, 2015). Fifthly, RS is deeply
entwined with planning and urban fabric of cities and towns (Kitila, 2019; Ogu, 2002), with
far reaching implications for urban and environmental problems such as security, crime,
degradation and urban livelihood. Consequently, more knowledge and understanding about
factors strongly related with RS is invaluable and imperative for sustainable built environments
and resilient cities globally.

Despite benefits associated with investigating RS, the concept is yet to be fully explored in
developing countries, Nigeria inclusive (Ibem et al. 2012). Although several studies on RS
have been conducted in southern parts of Nigeria focusing largely on low and mid-income
public housing estates (Ibem, Aduwo, Daniel, Ayo-Vaughan & Odoanyanwu, 2018; Makinde,
2015; Jiboye, 2014; Ogu, 2002), the northern region has received comparatively less research
attention. Few studies in literature that address parts of Northern Nigeria are either generic,
covering the entire country (Agbola & Adegoke, 2017), conducted around the FCT (Waziri,
Yusof & Rahim, 2014; Ukoha & Beamish, 1997), or focus on privately owned residences
(Abdu & Hashim, 2015). Studies seldom focus on investigating RS within public housing
estates in Northern Nigeria.

Investigating RS within public housing in context specific regions is important for at least two
reasons. RS depends on local and cultural norms as well as perculiarities in climate and housing
requirements. This implies that results from previous studies, though beneficial in providing
methodologies and insight into possible factors which influence RS may not always be
applicable nationwide. Studying RS in public funded estates is important because mass public
housing projects are frequently replicated across Local Governments, States or the country
without due evaluation from end user perspectives (Ibem, Ayo-Vaughan, Oluwunmi & Alagbe,
2018). Additionally, constructing housing units through direct construction using public funds
as well as via public private partnership (PPP) is likely to continue into the foreseeable future
in Nigeria (Sanda, Anibogu, Rugu & Babas, 2020). It is therefore imperative that feedback be
obtained for policy provision and implementation in future projects.

The current study aims to bridge this research gap using Investment Housing Estate in Gombe,
the Gombe State capital. Specifically, the study investigates features of public housing strongly
associated with RS in the study area. Gombe State is centrally located in Northeast Nigeria and
has experienced rapid urbanisation in recent years in part owing to influx of people from
neighbouring states due to horrific insurgency activities recorded in the region. Most urban and
public infrastructure are overstretched. This includes the need for more housing units and
facilities. Findings from the present study serve as feedback for future housing projects in the
area.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Residential Satisfaction
RS has been defined as the measure to which people are happy or content with their home
environment (Mohit et al., 2010; Galster, 1987). It is also a measure of the degree to which

730
housing quality performance meets occupants’ expectations in terms of benefits and needs
(Aigbavboa & Thwala, 2013). RS refers to fulfilment of individuals’ residential conditions in
relation to needs, expectations and objectives of residents (Fernandez-Portero et al., 2016). RS
is seen as a reflection of the degree to which inhabitants feel their housing is helping achieve
their goals (Makinde, 2015). RS has also been conceived as a multidimensional construct that
measures the extent people are happy with housing environments and associated services as
well as the gap between expected or aspired housing conditions and current housing situations
(Ibem et al., 2018).

Two recurring theoritical approaches applied to studies of RS are Housing Deficit Theory and
Aspiration-Gap approach. Housing Deficit Theory by Morris and Winter (1975) explains that
people evaluate housing situations based on established family and societal norms which
influence their quality of life. The authors argue that housing deficit exists when residents
perceive any incongruity between current housing and those established norms. This deficit
may lead to housing dissatisfaction, possible adaptation or mobility. On the other hand, the
Aspiration Gap model developed by Galster (1987) posits that residents tend to evaluate
housing environments based on the extent specific life goals set by individuals are met by their
housing. RS is assessed as differences or gaps between what is aspired and what is obtained in
the current situation. It is adjudged as level of congruity between actual and aspired housing
conditions. Both theories highlight fundamental issues regarding RS, notably that people have
ideas about what housing (dwelling unit conditions and housing environment) ought to be. This
is based on mulitple influences such as personal taste, societal and cultural norms. These are
subconsciously compared to housing currently occupied when assessing the housing
environment. The less differences exist between the two sets of housing conditions, the happier
and satified residents are and vice versa. This study therefore adopts definitions of RS proferred
by Onibokun (1974) and Ibem et al. (2018) as a measure of the extent residents feel housing
environments (housing products and services) meet physiological and psychological needs of
residents.

RS has been measured along several frameworks and variables. Many studies (Ibem et al. 2018;
Adewale et al. 2018; Smrke, Blenkus & Socan, 2018; Etminani-Ghasrodashti, Majedi and
Paydar, 2017; Ibem & Alagbe, 2015; Makinde, 2015; Jiboye, 2014; Waziri et al., 2014;
Haliloglu Kahraman, 2013; Jiboye, 2010; Ukoha & Beamish, 1997) employ variations of the
Housing Habitability Systems framework proferred by Onibokun (1974). Onibokun described
housing environments in terms of four components or subsystems. These are tenant, dwelling,
neighbourhood and management subsystems. Ukoha and Beamish (1997) explain that these
components can be unbundled into measurable variables related to RS. Tenant subsystem
comprises personal characteristics of residents assessed using socioeconomic variables such as
age, gender, educational status, length of stay, tenure etcetera (Table 1).

Table 1: Variables associated with residential satisfaction from literature

Variable Sources
Socioeconomic status
Gender, Marital Status, Age, Monthly income, Education, Ibem, Aduwo, Daniel, Ayo-Vaughan & Odoanyanwu
Tenure, Typology, Mode of acquision, Residency/Length of (2018); Fakere (2018); Ibem & Alagbe (2015); Makinde
stay, Household size (2015); Waziri, Yusof & Rahim (2014); Jiboye (2014);
Ibem & Aduwo (2013); Ogu (2002); Jagun, Brown,
Milburn & Gary (1990); Francescato, Wiedemann &
Anderson (1989); Galster (1987); Onibokun (1976)
Housing attributes

731
 Sizes, number and quality of main functional spaces (sitting
room, bedroom, dining, number of bedrooms,
bathrooms/toilets, kitchen, storage), IEQ of spaces
(ventilation, natural lighting, noise levels), typology,
external appearance, privacy, building materials
Housing services
Water supply, Power supply, General level of cleanliness
Neighbourhood Environment
Quality of communal and social interactions, urban
infrastructure, Proximity to workplace, recreation/sports,
shopping, worship, healthcare, school, prices of
goods/services, job opportunities, suitability of location to
lifestyle, location of house, level of crime and anti-social
activities
Management
Rent/cost of housing, rules and regulations of residency,
facility management and maintenance, security to life and
property
Ibem, Ayo-Vaughan, Oluwunmi & Alagbe (2018);
Ochepa, (2018); Etminani-Ghasrodashti, Majedi &
Paydar (2017); Ibem & Amole (2013); Ibem & Aduwo
(2013); Jiboye (2012); Ukoha & Beamish (1997);
Onibokun (1974)
Hassan, Naeem, Waheed & Thaheem (2019); Maina,
Zarafi & Stanley (2018); Agbola & Adegoke (2017);
Jiboye (2010)
Abdu & Hashim (2015); Ibem, Opoko & Aduwo (2016);
Ibem, Opoko & Aduwo (2015); Aigbavboa & Thwala
(2013); Liu (1999)
Adewale, Ibem, Amole & Adeboye (2018);
Abdulrahaman (2018); Nguyen, Tran, Vu & Luu (2017);
Jiboye (2010); Mohit, Ibrahim & Rashid (2010)

Dwelling unit is sometimes categorised under two sub-components. These are housing
attributes/features and housing services/conditions (Ibem et al., 2018; Ukoha & Beamish,
1997). Both are conceptualised as a single component in the Housing Habitability Systems
Approach. Building attributes refer to design, construction and as well as indoor environmental
quality (IEQ) of individual dwelling or housing units. It contains variables such as sizes of
main functional spaces, quality of building materials, quality of ventilation, lighting, noise
etcetera. Housing services refer to the provision of basic amenities such as water, electricity,
waste disposal mechanisms available within the dwelling unit. The third component,
neighbourhood environment relates to the immediate surroundings as well as facilities
proximate to the house or dwelling. These often include social interaction and communal
activities (Ibem & Alagbe, 2015; Aigbavboa & Thwala, 2013; Onibokun, 1974) as well as
essential facilities such as schools, healthcare, markets/shops, access to roads and public
transport, play and recreational infrastructure (Kitila, 2019; Abdu & Hashim, 2015; Liu, 1999;
Jagun et al.,1990). The fourth component of the housing environment addresses the quality of
management of estates or residential area set up by local authorities or communities
implemented by presiding officials. These involve rules and regulations regarding rent/cost of
housing, residency and allocation processes, facility management as well as security concerns
(Jiboye, 2014; Ukoha & Beamish, 1997; Onibokun, 1974). A review of current literature
reveals that managerial aspects of housing environments have generally recorded lower RS
scores compared to dwelling and neighbourhood components. Neighbourhood environments
have also been shown to be critical predictors of RS “to the extent that residents ignore
inadequacies in the dwelling unit when they are satisfied with the neighbourhood” (Ukoha &
Beamish, 1997, p. 447).

Correlates of Residential Satisfaction

Correlates of RS from literature cover all four components with varying outcomes, depending
on the study context. With respect to tenant related variables, age, gender, ethnicity, housing
typology, tenure, family size as well as marital status are strongly associated with RS. Galster
(1987) established that younger childless homeowners are more likely to be dissatisfied
compared to older residents. Lower RS is also associated with younger unmarried black female
household heads with large families (Galster, 1981). This finding on age, gender and ethinicity
echoes results from Onibokun’s study where single female parents were likely to record low

732
RS in part due to perceived lack of support from family and the neighbourhood (Onibokun,
1976). Homeowners and single family house occupants are generally more satisfifed across
several studies (ibid; Ukoha & Beamish, 1997; Hassan et al., 2019). Additionally, the higher a
resident’s income, the more likely the resident will be dissatified with public housing (Ogu,
2002; Ukoha & Beamish, 1997; Galster, 1987). This dissociation also holds true for educational
status. The higher the educational status, the lower RS tends to be (Hassan et al., 2019) as
education is often strongly assoicated with income. RS correlation with age has however been
markedly different across studies. While Mohit et al. (2010) note that age correlates positively
with RS in Malaysia, Ukoha and Beamish (1997) find the opposite in Nigeria-older residents,
especially after retirement, are more likely to be dissatisfied with public housing. This is
attributed to the lack of traditional community lifestyle and peer interaction in urban centers to
support residents in old age, unlike obtains in traditional Nigerian rural settings (ibid; Waziri
et al., 2014). In Iran, Etminani-Ghasrodashti et al., (2017) also established that older people
were more dissatisfied with public housing. Physical design of multi level dwellings and the
lack of easy access to neighbourhood infrastructure were proffered as possible factors which
exacerbate dissatisfaction among older residents.

Regarding non-tenant related components, Onibokun’s extant study found dwelling unit and
management components satisfactory by residents. However, the neighbourhood component
was unsatisfactory (Onibokun, 1974). Fernandez et al. (2017) also suggest that older people
are more likely to be satisfied with the dwelling unit due to reduced mobility as dwelling
attributes matter most with advancement in age. Jiboye (2014, 2010) likewise reports that
residents were satisfied with dwellings and neighbourhood environments investigated, but not
with managerial aspects. Jiboye (2012) asserts that the physical quality of dwelling units
strongly influence RS as residents in Lagos were generally satisfied when physical conditions
of their housing units were good. This supports findings by Ukoha and Beamish (1997) who
also established that residents with inadequate dwelling features and poor management
processess tend to report low RS. The authors specify sizes and location of principal functional
spaces strongly correlate with RS. Large sitting rooms, bedrooms, kitchens as well as provision
of four bedrooms were optimal conditions for residents in Abuja.

In sum, although previous studies report low or negative associations with RS for aspects of
dwelling units (Fakere, 2018; Aigbavboa & Thwala, 2013; Mohit et al., 2010, Jagun et al.,
1990), neighbourhood enivronment (Abdulrahaman, 2018; Etminani-Ghasrodashti et al., 2017;
Abdu & Hashim, 2015; Mohit et al., 2010; Ogu, 2002) and management components (Ochepa,
2018; Adewale et al., 2018; Jiboye, 2014), such findings are contextual, depending on the study
location. Other studies report the opposite- that high RS associates with physical features and
services of dwellings (Ibem et al., 2018; Etminani-Ghasrodashti et al., 2017; Jiboye, 2012),
good neighbourhood and social interaction (Abdu & Hashim, 2015) as well as management
features (Mohit et al., 2010; Onibokun, 1974). Further investigations need to be undertaken in
different locations to aid policy formulation and implementation in future.

METHODOLOGY

Following quantitative approaches employed by the vast majority of RS studies, a survey

questionnaire adapted from Ibem et al., (2018) was employed for the study. Questionnaires
were distributed to approximately half the residents of Investment Housing Estate Gombe in
June to July 2019. The estate comprises 200 two bedroom semi-detached housing units and

733
three bedroom bungalows (Figures 1 and 2) sold to the public after commissioning in February
2010. At the time of this study, 115 units were occupied. A total of 41 questionnaires (70%)
were retrieved after repeated visits and employed for analysis.

Figure 1: Typical floor plan 3 bedroom bungalow. Figure 2: Typical floor plan 2 bedroom semi-
Source: Isa (2019) detached unit. Source: Isa (2019)

The questionnaire was designed in two sections. Section one requested demographic
information of respondents inlcuding age, gender, marital status, highest educational
qualifications, employment, monthly income in naira, household size, number of bedrooms as
well as mode of acquisition. These relate to the tenant component of housing. To assess
perception of RS with other components (housing features and services, neighbourhood and
social environment as well as management features), residents were required to rate 33
statements on a 5 point likert scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). This is the
most frequent approach employed in literature (Smrke et al., 2018). Data was analysed in SPSS
v21 for both descriptive and correlational tests of association. Data from the first section on
demographic variables were analysed using descriptive statistics, with results displayed as
frequencies or counts and percentages. Mean housing satisfaction (MHS) was calculated for
every respondent across all 33 variables in section two. Mean values above 3 are considered
important in this study. Additionally, MHS was correlated with each of the 33 variables at 0.05
p value (95% confidence level), denoting significant associations using Spearman’s rho (rrho)
because data for the 33 variables were ranked (Field, 2013). Pearson’s correlation (r) was
employed to correlate mean values of the four components, which are aggregates of the 33
variables and so are not ranked. Housing attributes comprise 11 variables, housing services 3
variables, neighbourhood and social environment 12 variables while management features
comprise 4 variables (Table 3). Interpretations on strength of association is based on Cohen’s
position on effect sizes: r less than 0.3 is considered negligible, 0.3 to 0.5 medium and above
0.5, large (Field, 2013). Significant r values equal to and above 0.70 are particularly considered
very strong correlates of RS in this study. Results from these analyses are presented in
succeeding paragraphs.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results
Demographic profile of respondents presented in Table 2 reveals that 34 (83%) are male.
Majority of the sample are married (26, 63%), aged between 25-40 years. Over half (23, 56%)
are at least educated up to a first degree, with 46% (n 19) working with the government as civil

734
servants. The mode of montly income of the sample is between N51-100, 000 (15, 36.6%),
although this is closely followed by N101-150,000 (14, 34.1%). A large number of respondents
have lived at least 5 years in the estate and are thus capable of providing adequate information
about RS in the estate. The most frequently occuring household size is four (8, 19.5%), closely
followed by three, five and six people (7, 17% each). Owner occupiers account for 56% (23)
of the sample while acquisition from previous owner accounts for 44% (18).

Overall, residents are not satisfied with the housing environment of the estate (M= 2.79). This
finding is reflected across MHS for each demographic variable illustrated in Table 2. Apart
from one divorced and two widowed respondents, an elderly resident aged 60+ years, one NCE
holder, four retirees, families with three and four occupants, one free occupier, eight
government allottees and one respondent who was gifted the house, all tenant related sub-
categories record MHS values below 3. The highest MHS for tenant related variables is
recorded for the single NCE holder (M 3.16) while the lowest (M 1.91) was computed for two
respondents aged below 18. This is closely followed by (M 1.92) recorded against the lowest
educational qualification, two single occupants (M 1.94) and three respondents who earn below
N18,000 per month.

Table 2: Demographic profile of respondents

Socio-economic variables Freq. % MHS Socio-economic variables Freq. % MHS
Gender Monthly Income (in Naira)
Male 34 82.9 2.80 Below 18,000 3 7.3 1.95
Female 7 17.1 2.72 18-37,000 1 2.4 2.67
Marital status 38-50,000 5 12.2 2.72
Married 26 63.4 2.84 51-100,000 15 36.6 2.86
Divorced 1 2.4 3.03 101-150,000 14 34.1 2.94
Widowed 2 4.9 3.03 Above 150,000 3 7.3 2.78
Single 4 9.8 2.63 Length of stay
Missing 8 19.5 2.62 6 months-1 year 7 17.1 2.78
Age (in years) 1-3 years 13 31.7 2.65
Below 18 2 4.9 1.91 3-5 years 15 36.6 2.84
25-30 13 31.7 2.86 6-10 years 6 14.6 2.97
31-40 12 29.3 2.86 Household size
41-50 7 17.1 2.78 1 2 4.9 1.94
51-60 6 14.6 2.75 2 4 9.8 2.16
Above 60 1 2.4 3.16 3 7 17.1 3.14
Highest educational qualification 4 8 19.5 3.01
First School Leaving
2 4.9 1.92 5 7 17.1 2.94
Certificate
O' Levels 1 2.4 2.00 6 7 17.1 2.66
Diploma 6 14.6 2.61 6+ 6 14.6 2.78
NCE 1 2.4 3.26 Tenure
BSc 23 56.1 2.89 Renter 7 17.1 2.74
MSc 6 14.6 2.97 Family house 6 14.6 2.66
Missing 2 4.9 2.68 Owner occupier 23 56.1 2.86
Employment Free occupation 1 2.4 3.65
Civil Service 19 46.3 2.92 Missing 4 9.8 2.42
Private organisation 5 12.2 2.09 Mode of acquisition
Self employed 8 19.5 2.84 From developers 2 4.9 2.5
Retiree 4 9.8 3.02 From previous owner 18 43.9 2.76
Civil Service/Private org. 3 7.3 3.00 Government allocation 8 19.5 3.05
Missing 2 4.9 2.31 Inherited 3 7.3 2.33
Typology Mortgage arrangement 7 17.1 2.69
2 bedroom semi-detached 17 41.5 2.79 Gift 1 2.4 3.16
3 bedroom bungalow 22 53.7 2.82 Missing 2 4.9 3.13
Missing 2 4.9 2.45

735
Results for correlations in Table 3 reveal that RS rankings for all 33 variables significantly
correlate with MHS at p=0.05, with varying strengths of association. Overall, housing
attributes recorded the strongest association with RS (r=0.876), closely followed by
neighbourhood environment (r=0.870). Housing services (r=0.749) was third. Management
aspect of housing recorded the lowest correlational value of 0.624. Within the 33 variables,
three achieved r values above 0.70. These are quality of communal activities (0.796), type of
house (0.766) and satisfaction with bathroom and toilet facilities (r=0.727). Level of security
to life and property recorded the lowest association with RS (r=0.345).

Table 3: Correlates of residential satisfaction in the study area

Variables Freq. Mean SD r p value
Dwelling unit/Housing Attributes (n 11) 41 2.90 0.662 0.876 0.000
Type of house 40 2.88 1.181 0.766 0.000
Bathroom and toilet facilities 41 2.83 .946 0.727 0.000
External appearance of your house 41 2.98 1.012 0.686 0.000
Sizes of living and dining spaces 40 2.68 1.095 0.633 0.000
Type of building materials 41 2.51 .952 0.549 0.000
Number of bedrooms 40 2.58 .874 0.504 0.001
Level of privacy in your house 39 3.38 1.161 0.500 0.001
Noise levels in house and estate 37 3.54 .900 0.493 0.002
Natural lighting and ventilation 39 3.49 .997 0.480 0.002
Size of bedrooms 41 2.68 .820 0.466 0.002
Sizes of cooking and storage spaces 39 2.49 .914 0.455 0.004
Neighbourhood environment (n 12) 41 2.73 0.593 0.870 0.000
Quality of communal activities 35 2.74 .919 0.796 0.000
Proximity to shopping facilities 40 2.75 .981 0.628 0.000
Proximity to children's school 40 2.98 1.050 0.596 0.000
Prices of goods and services 40 2.50 1.013 0.583 0.000
Availability of job opportunities 39 2.08 .870 0.577 0.000
Proximity to urban infrastructure 39 2.38 .963 0.563 0.000
Proximity to healthcare facilities 40 2.40 .955 0.560 0.000
Suitability of location to lifestyle 35 3.09 .951 0.522 0.001
Proximity to workplace 37 2.46 1.016 0.513 0.001
Proximity to nearest market 40 2.93 .888 0.459 0.003
Level of crime and anti-social behaviour 37 3.22 .976 0.367 0.025
Proximity to recreation and sports facilities 38 2.53 .979 0.362 0.025
Housing services (n 3) 41 2.90 0.631 0.749 0.000
Level of general cleanliness 39 3.18 .914 0.469 0.003
Electricity and power supply 40 3.55 1.154 0.462 0.003
Water supply and sanitary service 40 1.93 .997 0.354 0.025
Management of estate (n 4) 41 2.58 0.518 0.624 0.000
Rules/regulations of residency 36 2.64 .931 0.474 0.003
Rent/cost of housing 38 2.47 1.033 0.441 0.006
Facility management and maintenance 38 2.24 .913 0.355 0.035
Security to life and property 37 3.14 .855 0.345 0.036

DISCUSSION

Results from the demographic section suggests that association of RS with age as elderly
respondents likely to be widowed and retired were more satisfied than middle aged
respondents, who make up the bulk of respondents. This supports findings from Mohit et al.

736
(2010) but contradicts conclusions from Ukoha and Beamish (1997) as well as Etminani-
Ghasrodashti et al. (2017). Two reasons can be proffered for this. First, sample size is small
and inadequate for elderly retired respondents, thus results are tentative at best. Secondly, the
type of housing, in this case single family or semi detached in the current study differs from
multi level dwellings from which results in the last two studies are derived. Single family
houses have repeatedly been shown to foster RS in literature. Additionally, low educational
qualifications and income were also associated with RS in the current study, although the
caveat on small number of respondents for these variables still holds. More studies employing
a larger dataset are required to confirm these results. It it however pertinent to note that older
respondents are likely to have spent more time in the neighbourhood and so have developed
some form of place attachment while managing smaller households as part of the ‘empty nest’
syndrome. Satisfaction is thus likely to be higher among such residents.

Findings on attributes of dwelling units recording the highest correlation with RS supports
many studies. Etminani-Ghasrodashti et al. (2017) allude that most studies focus on physical
attributes of housing units as main influencing factors of overall RS in public housing. Jiboye
(2012) notes that residents are more likely to be satisfied if the overall physical condition of
their dwelling units is adequate and concludes that physical characterisitics of a house influence
RS. In the current study, the type of house strongly and significantly correlates with RS. This
implies that designers need to pay particular attention to the design of dwelling units as this
aspect recorded the highest correlation to RS in our study context. Specifically, the 3 bedroom
stand-alone typology recorded higher satisfaction rates compared to the 2 bedroom semi-
detached typology (Table 2). This may not be unconnected to the fact that most residents prefer
exclusive rights to their property and sharing a party wall reduces privary, territoriality and
exclusiveness especially in the Nigerian context. This maybe a legacy from the traditional way
of life where dwellings are constructed within stand-alone compounds exclusively belonging
to individual compound heads. Additionally, transformations of dwelling units are likely to be
hampered more by semi-detached designs compared to stand-alone typologies. Unfortunately,
residents are more likely to add more rooms to 2 bedroom housing units, which would lower
the satisfaction ratings for semi-detached 2-bedroom typology.

Neighbourhood environment, specifically quality of communal activities very strongly

correlates with RS, supporting findings from Ukoha and Beamish (1997). High social milieu
across Nigerian societies imply that social interaction is fundamental and dependence on
neighbours remains a strong determinant of quality and satisfaction of life. Cordial
relationships and good neighbourhoods strongly influence where one resides in many urban
centres in Nigeria. Abdu and Hashim’s study (2015) also found RS strongly associated with
quality of neighbourhood infrastructure notably roads, public transport and police station.
Abdulrahaman (2018) likewise concluded that the socioeconomic environment of an area
strongly influences RS. The policy of mixing different strata of people based on public
allocation as in the current study may not have fostered the closely knit community residents
aspire as this item was rated unsatisfactory (M 2.74), supporting Galster (1981) who noted that
integrating different classes of residents maybe disadvantageous in public housing.

The finding on management features recording the lowest associations in the current study
mirrors results from Ochepa (2018), who notes that areas of dissatisfaction in Lokoja include
security and desire for privacy. Jiboye (2010) as well as Ukoha and Beamish (1997) also
recommend management of estates be given better attention as these negatively influenced RS

737
in Lagos and Abuja respectively. Security concerns in the current study were rated satisfactory
on average (M 3.14). This implies security is the least linked variable to RS. In essence, security
is minimally associated with RS in our study context. An explanation for this is that due to high
levels of insecurity across the Northeast region, security issues are paramount and taken care
of in all areas, including our study context. Residents have found ways to address this issue
with the government compelled to support provision of security to its residents. Thus, security
to life and property maybe independent of the immediate local context and more a function of
prevailing regional trends where security is taken seriously everywhere. Combining this result
with satisfaction with level of crime and anti-social behavior (M 3.22), residents rated the
housing environment as secure despite being located within a region with well documented
insecurity concerns.

CONCLUSION

This study set out to identify correlates of RS in Investment Housing Estate in Gombe,
Northeast Nigeria. Results reveal that residents are generally dissatisfied with the housing
environment within the estate (MHS 2.79). Dwelling unit/housing attribute components
recorded the strongest correlation to RS (r=0.876), closely followed by the neighbourhood
environment (r=0.87). Housing services were third (r=0.749) while the lowest correlation was
recorded for management aspects (r=0.624). Three variables record very high correlation
values above 0.70- type of house (2 and 3 bedroom semi-detached houses), quality of
communal activities within the estate as well as bathroom and toilet facilities (0.727). The latter
implies that design professionals need to consider spatial design aspects as bathrooms and
toilets are largely shared by all occupants in the house (Figure 1). The lowest correlation for
individual variables was 0.345 recorded for Security to life and property. MHS for quality of
communal activities, type of house as well as bath and toilet facilities were unsatisfactory,
implying that residents are not satisfied with these aspects of the dwelling unit. Results
regarding low correlation of RS to security issues point to the fact that security issues are
unlikely to be associated with RS, going by the fact that respondents on average rated security
to life and property satisfactory.

The study recommends exploring RS in Gombe and other urban areas in Northern Nigeria
using larger sample sizes. With hindsight, results may have been more robust if a census had
been undertaken instead of sampling. This was a limitation of the study. Secondly, design
professionals need to pay special attention to prevalent user design requirements of 2 and 3
bedroom semi-detached dwelling units and bungalows as well as bathroom and toilet facilities
in future projects. Thirdly, the policy of public housing allocation without some form of
stratification or grouping needs to be revisited in future as this practice is unlikely to foster
high communal activity levels as projected.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the various suggestions proffered by conference participants in order
to improve the paper, especially Prof. M. B. Yunusa.

REFERENCES

Abdu, A. & Hashim, A. H. (2015). Comparison of Residential Satisfaction among Young

Households in Three Unplanned Neighbourhoods in Kano Metropolis, Nigeria. IOSR

738
 Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20(3), 42-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/0837-
20344253.
Abdulrahaman, M. E.-H. (2018). Study of Residents' Satisfaction with Housing conditions in
Urban Centres of Southwest Nigeria. A. M. Junaid, O. F. Adedayo, R. A. Jimoh, & L. O.
Oyewobi (Ed.), Procs, School of Environmental Technology International Conference
SETIC 2018, 10-12 April. Vol. 1, pp. 453-463. Minna: Federal University of Technology
Minna.
Adewale, B. A., Ibem, E. O., Amole, B. & Adeboye, A. B. (2018). Assessment of residential
satisfaction in the core area of Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of Human Behavior in
the Social Environment, 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2018.1502116.
Agbola, B. S. & Adegoke, S. O. (2017). Residential Satisfaction and the Organised Private
Sector Housing in Nigeria. International Journal of African and Asian Studies, 33(2017),
32-41.
Aigbavboa, C. O. & Thwala, W. D. (2013). Housing Satisfaction in Subsidized Housing
Schemes: A Case Study of Johannesburg, Gauteng Province, South Africa. Journal of
Human Ecology, 42(3), 245-257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2013.11906599.
Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R., Majedi, H. & Paydar, M. (2017). Assessment of Residential
Satisfaction in Mehr Housing Scheme: A Case Study of Sadra New Town, Iran. Housing,
Theory and Society, 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2017.1298536.
Fakere, A. A. (2018). Socioeconomic and Participatory Predictors of Residential Satisfaction
in Public Housing Estates in Akure, Nigeria. S. N. Zubairu, & O. F. Adedayo (Eds.),
Inclusive City Growth and the Poor: Policies, Challenges and Prospects (Vol. 2, pp. 1-
15). Minna, Niger State, Nigeria: Community Participation Research Group
(COPAREG), FUT Minna.
Fernandez-Portero, C., Alarcon, D. & Barrios Padura, A. (2016). Dwelling conditions and life
satisfaction of older people through residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.11.003.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th Edition). London:
SAGE.
Francescato, G., Wiedemann, S. & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Evaluating the Built Environment
from the Users' Point of View: An Attitudinal Model of Residential Satisfaction. In W. E.
Preiser (Ed.), Building Evaluation (pp. 181-198). Boston, MA: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3722-3_14
Galster, G. (1987). Identifying the Correlates of Dwelling Satisfaction: An Empirical
Critique. Environment and Behaviour, 19(5), 539-568.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916587195001.
Galster, G. C. & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential Satisfaction: Compositional and
Contextual Correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735-758.
DOI:10.1177/0013916581136006.
Haliloglu Kahraman, Z. E. (2013). Dimensions of Housing Satisfaction: A case study based
on perceptions of Rural migrants living in Dikmen. METU JFA, 30(1), 1-27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2023.1.1.
Hassan, S. Z., Naeem, M. A., Waheed, A. & Thaheem, M. J. (2019). Assessment of Socio-
economic profile and residents' satisfaction living in apartments and single unit houses in
Islamabad, Pakistan. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 23(5),
284-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2019.8067.

739
Ibem, E. O. & Aduwo, E. B. (2013). Assessment of residential satisfaction in public housing
in Ogun State, Nigeria. Habitat International, 40(2013), 163-175.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.04.001.
Ibem, E. O. & Alagbe, O. A. (2015). Investigating dimensions of housing adequacy
evaluation by residents in public housing: Factor analysis approach. Facilities, 33(7/8),
465-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-02-2014-0017.
Ibem, E. O. & Amole, D. (2012). Residential satisfaction in public core housing in Abeokuta,
Ogun State, Nigeria. Social Research Indicators, 113(1), 563-581.
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, 2(2), 182-194.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20441241211280918.
Ibem, E. O., Aduwo, E. B., Daniel, B. O., Ayo-Vaughan, E. A. & Odoanyanwu, M. N.
(2018). Survey dataset on occupants' satisfaction with housing and life in public
residential estates in Ogun State, Nigeria. Data in Brief, 20(2018), 1745-1748.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.09.036.
Ibem, E. O., Ayo-Vaughan, E. A., Oluwunmi, A. O. & Alagbe, O. A. (2018). Residential
Satisfaction Among Low-Income Earners in Government-Subsidized Housing Estates in
Ogun State, Nigeria. Urban Forum, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12132-018-9337-4.
Ibem, E. O., Opoko, A. P. & Aduwo, E. B. (2016). Exploring the impact of urban
neighbourhood environment on satisfaction with life in public housing in Nigeria. Urban
Design International, 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/udi.2016.13.
Ibem, E. O., Opoko, P. A. & Aduwo, E. B. (2015). Satisfaction with Neighbourhood
Environments in Public Housing: Evidence from Ogun State, Nigeria. Soc Indic Res, 1-
25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1188-y.
Isa, M. I. (2019). Evaluation of user satisfaction in public residential housing: A case study
of Investment Housing Estate, Gombe. Unpublished BSc Project, Department of
Architecture, Ahmadu Bello University.
Jagun, A., Brown, D. R., Milburn, N. G. & Gary, L. E. (1990). Residential Satisfaction and
Socioeconomic and Housing characteristics of Urban Black Adults. Journal of Black
Studies, 21(1), 40-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2F002193479002100105.
Jiboye, A. D. (2010). The correlates of public housing satisfaction in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal
of Geography and Regional Planning, 3(2), 017-028.
Jiboye, A. D. (2012). Post-occupancy evaluation of residential satisfaction in Lagos, Nigeria:
Feedback for residential improvement. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 1, 236-243.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2012.08.001.
Jiboye, A. D. (2014). Socioeconomic Characteristics and Satisfaction of Tenants in Public
Housing in Lagos, Nigeria. Africa Development, XXXIX(3), 31-50.
Kitila, A. W. (2019). Factors Affecting Housing Adequacy and Accessibility in Harar City,
Harari Regional State, Ethiopia. East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities,
4(1), 1-26.
Liu, A. M. (1999). Residential satisfaction in housing estates: a Hong Kong perspective.
Automation in Construction, 8(1999), 511-524.
Maina, J. J., Zarafi, I. G. & Stanley, A. M. (2018). Unsatisfactory Amenities: Rethinking
Management of University Staff Housing of Public Universities in Nigeria. Savanna,
24(3), 62-71.

740
Makinde, O. O. (2015). Influences of Socio-cultural experiences on residents' satisfaction in
Ikorodu low-cost housing estate, Lagos State. Environ. Dev. Sustain, 2015(7), 173-198,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9545-6.
Mohit, M. A., Ibrahim, M. & Rashid, Y. R. (2010). Assessment of residential satisfaction in
newly designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat
International, 34, 18-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.04.002.
Morris, E. W. & Winter, M. (1975). A Theory of Family Housing Adjustment. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 37(1), 79-88.
Nguyen, A. T., Tran, T. Q., Vu, H. V. & Luu, D. Q. (2017). Housing satisfaction and its
correlates: a quantitative study among residents livng in their own affordable apartments
in urban Hanoi, Vietnam. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 1-13,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2017.1398167.
Ochepa, Y. S. (2018). Assessment of User Satisfaction as a basis for Sustainable Housing
Provision in Nigeria. A. M. Junaid, O. F. Adedayo, R. A. Jimoh, & L. O. Oyewobi (Ed.),
Procs, School of Environmental Technology International Conference SETIC 2018, 10-12
April. 1, pp. 475-481, Federal University of Technology Minna.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356347022011259 9.
Onibokun, A. G. (1974). Evaluating Consumers' Satisfaction with Housing: An Application
of a Systems Approach. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 40(3), 189-200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944367408977468.
Onibokun, A. G. (1976). Social System Correlates of Residential Satisfaction. Environment
and Behavior, 8(3), 323-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136327527600800301.
Sanda, Y. N., Anibogu, N. A., Rugu, E. A. & Babas, L. Y. (2020). Critical Risk Factors
Associated with Public Private Partnership Housing Projects. Journal of Engineering,
Project and Production Management, 10(1), 42-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/jeppm-
2020-0006.
Smrke, U., Blenkus, M. & Socan, G. (2018). Residential satisfaction questionnaires: A
systematic review. Urbani izziv, 28(2), 67-82. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2018-29-02-
001.
Ukoha, O. M. & Beamish, J. O. (1997). Assessment of residents' satisfaction with public
housing in Abuja, Nigeria. Habitat International, 21(4), 445-460.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0197- 3975(97)00017-9.
Waziri, A. G., Yusof, N. & Rahim, N. M. (2014). Occupants housing satisfaction: does age
really matter? Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 2(1), 341-343.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2014.935467.

741
1
Proceedings of the 1st Environmental Design Conference, AGM and Homecoming Reunion
(EDCON) 2021

28th June – 2nd July 2021

Assembly Hall, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria

Editors
A.M. Stanley
J.I. Azi
H.A. Ahmadu
M.M. Salihu
L. Lasisi
A.D. Garkida
M. Sani
Y.A. Adamu

The information contained and views expressed in this publication are that of the
contributors.

© Copyright belongs to authors of the papers

2021