Page 1 of 11
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 9, No. 3
Publication Date: March 25, 2022
DOI:10.14738/assrj.93.12036. Adegoke, S. A. O. (2022). Housing Preference and Choice of Nigerians: Evidence from the Organised Private Sector Housing.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(3). 361-371.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Housing Preference and Choice of Nigerians: Evidence from the
Organised Private Sector Housing
Samson Akinbamide Omobayo Adegoke (Ph.D.)
Department of Estate Management and Valuation
Osun State College of Technology, P.M.B. 1011
Esa-Oke Post Office. Esa-oke. Osun State. Nigeria
ABSTRACT
The decline of housing as a political priority despite growing demand has made
housing choice decision more difficult. This study is an examination of the revealed
preference of beneficiaries of organized private sector housing delivery in Nigeria.
The study relied on data collected from sampled estates from two (2) states in each
of the six geo – political zones of Nigeria. These are flats, bungalows, semi –
detached and detached houses. In all, about 58% of all beneficiaries choose flats
about 31% choose bungalows 7% choose semi – detached houses and only about
4% of all the beneficiaries choose detached houses. The findings from this study
showed that about 89% of all beneficiaries choose flats and bungalows. The policy
implication of the preponderance of flat and bungalow in the housing choice of
beneficiaries is that they are the popular, acceptable and affordable typologies of
Nigerians. Therefore, these types of houses should be given priority in funding by
National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF).
Keywords: Housing preference and choice; Revealed Preference; Stated Preference;
Housing Status; Dwelling Quality
INTRODUCTION
Housing remains a fundamental need, providing the platform for citizens’ interaction with the
rest of the society. Housing determines the mutual relationship between every single human
being and the surrounding physical and social space. Thus, housing status – its location and
neighborhood, and the dwelling quality – number of rooms, bathrooms, kitchen, size of living
room, quality of finishing and available services, have become critical indices for assessment of
the degrees of exclusion and inclusion. Yet, in the course of a lifetime, individuals exercise
housing choice decisions on a number of occasions, commencing with the decision to leave
parental home.
The specific pathways that are taken to meet housing need will reflect individual circumstances.
(DTZ New Zealand, 2004). This is because the process of choosing can encompass the
interlinked influences of preference, market conditions, availability, government regulations as
well as both internal and external personal factors such as lifestyle, and social – economic status
(Coolen, Jansen and Geotgetluk, 2011). The decline of housing as a political priority despite
growing demand has made housing choice decision more difficult. The adoption of pro –
market housing reform in Nigeria, that is private sector driven, has further constrained
preferences and choices as affordability becomes a critical limiting factor.
Page 2 of 11
362
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 3, March-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The growing market dominance in housing supply make preference and choice studies critical
to housing supply in Nigeria. This is economically expedient because housing expenditure is
expensive, and represents a significant proportion of household income. Therefore, the private
sector developers must have their housing varieties to appeal to different consumers’ taste and
preferences. Thus, there is the need to determine whether there is a correspondence between
the types of housing being supplied to the market and the types that people want.
Beyond the developers, housing preference and choice study will help to discover residents’
taste, preferences and choice which will provide a reliable guide to estate agents, policy makers
and other people related to housing to make better housing decisions. This is particularly
important to real estate developers to eliminate the current paradox of homelessness and
vacancies in many of their estates. It is the aim of this study to expose the housing preference
and choice of beneficiaries of organized private sector housing in Nigeria. Therefore, this study
focused on the revealed preference of beneficiaries as expressed in their actual choices in
different estates developed by the organized private sector housing developers in Nigeria. The
finding will help the developers to supply housing typology in the right mix in tandem with
peoples’ preference and choice. This paper is in six parts, with this introduction as the first,
while conceptual issues and literature review are parts two and three respectively. Part four is
the research setting and methodology; while the focus of part five is data analysis and results.
Part six is the synthesis and policy implications of findings.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS
Housing preference and choice has been focused by researchers in various academic disciplines
(Kemeny: 1981, 1995; Forrest et al. 1990; & Andreja Cirman, 2006). Conceptualization of
families as social networks could be best explained by the proper understanding housing
preference (Lia Karsten, 2007). Housing preferences are an important element of housing
tenure choice which is a very complex decision. This is in tandem with the model of Henderson
& Ioannides (1983) showing the consumption and investment dimensions of housing demand.
The academic attention by researchers in housing preference and choice is still growing. The
attention generated by this topic has led to studies in different theoretical perspectives
(Mulder, 1996). More interestingly, when researchers focused on housing preference and
choice from the same perspectives, their attention and emphasis are usually on different aspect.
Unfortunately, the understanding of the concept of ‘choice’ throughout the literature has been
inconsistent. Thus most often, the terms housing ‘choice’ and “preference” are used
interchangeably (Auckland Council, 2015).
‘Housing tenure’ is used in much housing research to classify households’ housing
circumstances (Kath Hulse & Ailsa Mcpherson, 2004). It delineates whether households own or
rent the dwelling they currently live in and the terms and conditions of occupancy of that
property. It is widely used to analyse changes in housing circumstances over time both at the
macro level, such as an increase or decrease in the percentage of owner occupiers at a national
level, and at a micro level, such as identification of housing careers (Clark & Dieleman, 1996;
Kendig, 1984)
In reality, the concepts are interrelated, as preference informed choice. That notwithstanding,
there are important differences between housing ‘choices’ and housing ‘preferences’ which
affect the theoretical applications of the research. Thus, while housing ‘choice’ related to what
Page 3 of 11
363
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2022). Housing Preference and Choice of Nigerians: Evidence from the Organised Private Sector Housing. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 9(3). 361-371.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.93.12036
people do in the housing environment they find themselves in and is attentive to the real
decisions and trade – offs that people make, housing ‘preference’ has a more aspirational and
long term oriented (Auckland Council, 2015).
According to Coolen, et al (2011), preference refers to the relative attractiveness of an object,
while choice refers to actual behaviour. Preference, as an expression of attractiveness, may
guide choice to be made. Furthermore the most important difference between housing
preference and housing choice is that preference is a relatively unconstrained evaluation of
attractiveness, while in the case of a house, choice will always reflect the joint influences of
preference, market conditions, regulations, availability, and internal and external personal
factors such as lifestyle and social class (Coolen et al, 2011).
According to Molin et al (1996), choices are assumed to reflect preferences. Invariably, housing
choice implicitly assumed the availability of options within which preferences can be expressed
and choice exercised. Furthermore, since housing expenditure decisions are been made in a
context of increased competition from other demand on disposable income, (including the
availability of a much broader range of consumer items), in most cases final housing choice,
may reflect more of affordability than preference. This is why the view of Brown and King
(2005) is apt when they discuss choice as a concept in the housing context, drawing on Elster’s
(1986).
“Theorizing of Rationality” and concluded that choice is subject to numerous constraints.
Hence, International Encyclopedia of Housing and Homes’ distinction between “real housing
choice” and “housing choice”; as ability to “choose a preferred option from a set of distinctives
“(Brown and King 2005; van Ham, 2012). This view thus acknowledges that distinctive
alternatives are not accessible to everyone who actively searches the housing market, and that
for many, their choice set is limited. Choice set is in this case “the total set of realistic options
available to households given their needs, preferences, resources and restrictions within the
opportunities and constraints offered by the housing market” (van Ham, 2012).
Therefore, an important distinction must be made between “stated” and ‘revealed’ preferences.
Thus why ‘stated preferences are based on’ intended choices or hypothetical choices, ‘revealed
preferences’ are based on ‘actual housing choices’. Stated housing preferences have been
studies extensively and the literature on this subject is vast (Mulder, 1996). In explaining this
type of housing preferences, researchers have shown the influence of macro – level factors, such
as – housing market, housing system and economic situation; compared to micro – level factors
such as household size, composition, age, income and current housing situation (Trembley and
Dillman, 1983).
According to van Ham (2012), investigating stated preferences fundamentally entails
questioning people about how and where they would prefer to live, and can include the
measurement of people’s reactions to hypothetical house typologies. This approach can be
regarded as problematic as people tend to alter their preferences to fit within the possibilities
of their choice set. On the whole, stated preference and choice model is grounded on the
principles that observed choices reflect the combined influences of market conditions,
preferences and availability (Timmermans et al, 1994).