3.4 Background Information about Dwellings in the Local Government Councils in Residential Density Areas in Lagos, Nigeria Residential Density Areas in Lagos, Nigeria
3.4.2 Structure and characteristics of Households and Housing in Medium Residential Density Areas Density Areas
49
Table 3.21: Distribution of Households by Type of Religion in the Local Government Councils in High Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
Muslim Christian Other Religion Total
Agege 127(33.5%) 207(54.6%) 45(11.9%) 379(100%)
Ajeromi 111(24.2%) 326(71.2%) 21(4.6%) 458(100%)
Alimosho 119(31.5%) 237(62.7%) 22(5.8%) 378(100%)
Lagos Island 98(41.0%) 127(53.1%) 14(5.9%) 239(100%)
Mushin 145(33.9%) 245(57.2%) 38(8.9%) 428(100%)
Shomolu 92(27.5%) 220(65.7%) 23(6.9%) 335(100%)
Total 692(31.2%) 1362(61.4%) 163(7.4%) 2217(100%)
Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
3.4.2 Structure and characteristics of Households and Housing in Medium Residential
50
Table 3.22: Distribution of Households by Type of Roofing Materials used in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
Mud/Mud Bricks
Wood/Bamboo Corrugated Iron Sheets
Cement/
Concrete
Roofing Tiles
Asbestos Total
Amuwo Odofin
0(0%) 0(0%) 157(61.8%) 36(14.2%) 10(3.9%) 51(20.1%) 254(100%)
Eti-osa 0(0%) 0(0%) 166(70.9%) 32(13.7%) 20(8.5%) 16(5.9%) 234(100%) Ifako-Ijaiye 7(2.6%) 1(0.4%) 177(64.8%) 16(5.9%) 7(2.6%) 65(23.8%) 273(100%)
Ikeja 0(0%) 0(0%) 199(78.7%) 1(0.4%) 1(0.4%) 52(20.6%) 253(100%)
Kosofe 0(0%) 0(0%) 316(85.9%) 0(0%) 1(0.3%) 51(13.9%) 368(100%)
Mainland 4(1.4%) 0(0%) 209(72.3%) 39(13.5%) 14(4.8%) 23(8.0%) 289(100%) Oshodi/Isolo 5(1.3%) 0(0%) 311(81.4%) 15(3.9%) 12(3.1%) 39(10.2%) 382(100%) Surulere 1(0.3%) 0(0%) 289(76.1%) 50(13.2%) 12(3.2%) 28(7.4%) 380(100%) Total 17(0.7%) 1(0%) 1824(75.0%) 189(7.8%) 77(3.2%) 325(13.4%) 2433(100%)
Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
The wall and floor of houses in medium residential density areas are dominated by cement materials as displayed on the Table 3.23. The use of cement, both for walling and flooring of houses, far surpasses all other type of materials used. Most of the houses are virtually cemented both vertically and horizontally as shown in theTable. Thus, the use of mud bricks, burnt bricks, wood, bamboo, corrugated iron sheets and cardboard as walling materials are out-fashioned and outdated. The same arguments can be extended to flooring materials like earth mud, wood/tile, plank, concrete and those in other category. This in effect, suggests lack of demand for these housing materials as modern ones are being preferred and used to by the users (Table 3.24).
51
Table 3.23: Distribution of Households by Type of Wall Materials in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
Mud/Mud Bricks
Burnt Bricks
Cement/
Concrete
Wood/
Bamboo
Corrugated Iron Sheet
Cardb oard
Other Total
Amuwo Odofin
4(1.6%) 2(0.8%) 246(96.9%) 1(0.4%) 1(0.4%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 254(100%)
Eti-osa 0(0%) 0(0%) 234(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 234(100%)
Ifako-Ijaiye 7(2.6%) 1(0.4%) 262(96.0%) 2(0.7%) 1(0.4%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 273(100%)
Ikeja 0(0%) 0(0%) 253(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 253(100%)
Kosofe 0(0%) 0(0%) 364(98.9%) 2(0.5) 2(0.5%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 368(100%) Mainland 12(4.2%) 0(0%) 274(94.8%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1(0.3) 2(0.7%) 289(100%) Oshodi/Isolo 5(1.3%) 0(0%) 374(97.9%) 0(0%) 3(0.8%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 382(100%) Surulere 1(0.3%) 0(0%) 376(98.9%) 1(0.3) 2(0.5%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 380(100%) Total 29(1.2%) 3(0.1%) 2383(97.9%) 6(0.2%) 9(0.4%) 1(0%) 2(0.1%) 2433(100%)
Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
Table 3.24: Distribution of Households by Type of Floor Materials used in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local
Government Councils
Earth/
Mud
Wood/Tile Plank Concrete Dirt/Straw Other Total
Amuwo Odofin
0(0%) 3(1.2%) 5(2.0%) 246(96.9%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 254(100%)
Eti-osa 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 234(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 234(100%)
Ifako-Ijaiye 7(2.6%) 1(0.4%) 0(0%) 265(97.1%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 273(100%)
Ikeja 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 253(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 253(100%)
Kosofe 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 368(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 368(100%)
Mainland 0(0%) 4(1.4%) 0(0%) 284(98.3%) 0(0%) 1(0.3%) 289(100%) Oshodi/Isolo 5(1.3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 377(98.7%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 382(100%) Surulere 0(0%) 6(1.6%) 0(0%) 372(97.9%) 2(0.5%) 0(0%) 380(100%)
Total 12
(0.5%) 14 (0.6%)
5 (0.2%)
2399 (98.6)
2 (0.1%)
1 (0%)
2433 (100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
The available facilities could also enhance and help in the residential choice decision behaviour that may likely to be elicited by an individual household either in the choice of
52
residential neighbourhood or housing type as the case may be. One of the key determinants of making decision out of the feasible and attainable housing choice set is availability, source and type of water supply. From Table 3.25, pipe- borne water serves as a major source of water to some local governments like Eti-osa, Mainland and Surulere as it accounted for 42.3%, 42.2% and 58.9% respectively. The supply of water through public tap also plays a key role in these local governments but at lesser degrees. Just as pipe borne water and water from public tap perform vital roles in the earlier mentioned LGCs, so also is the use of borehole important in some local governments such as Ifako-Ijaiye, Ikeja, Kosofe and Oshodi/Isolo. Infact, boreholes serve as major source of water supply to half of the LGCs in the medium residential density areas. This is similar to the observed trends in high residential density areas. The contribution from boreholes is substantial when compared to other sources of water supply but is more pronounced in high than medium residential density areas. In Amuwo Odofin, water from wells contributed immensely to solving water problems as it accounted for well over 40% of the entire source. The impact of water from the rains, spring, lakes and dams are minimally felt. The activities of small scale water vendors also play contributory role to solving water problems in virtually all LGCs but at varying proportions.
Table 3.25: Distribution of Households by Source of Water in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
Piped Borne Water
Public Tap
Borehole Well Spring Rain
Water
Small Scale Vendor
Tanker Truck
Dam, Lake
Others Total
Amuwo Odofin
24 (9.4%) 24(9.4%) 57(22.4%) 116(45.7%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 10(3.9%) 20(7.9%) 1(0.4%) 2(0.8%) 254(10 0%) Eti-osa 99(42.3%) 29(12.4%) 43(18.4%) 15(6.4%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 19(8.1%) 29(12.4%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 234(10
0%) Ifako-Ijaiye 15(5.5%) 11(4.0%) 212(77.7%) 4(1.5%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 28(10.3%) 0(0%) 1(0.4%) 2(0.7%) 273(10
0%) Ikeja 69(27.3%) 23(9.0%) 134(53.0%) 10(4.0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 11(4.3%) 5(2.0%) 0(0%) 1(0.4%) 253(10
0%) Kosofe 66(17.9%) 56(15.2%) 188(51.1%) 34(9.2%) 0(0%) 1(0.3%) 13(3.5%) 4(1.1%) 6(1.6%) 0(0%) 368(10
0%) Mainland 122(42.2%) 84(29.1%) 35(12.1%) 34(11.8%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 11(3.8%) 1(0.3%) 0(0%) 2(0.7%) 289(10
0%) Oshodi/Isolo 30(7.9%) 11(2.9%) 263(68.8%) 39(10.2%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 37(9.7%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(0.5%) 382(10
0%) Surulere 224(58.9%) 45(11.8%) 34(8.9%) 61(16.1%) 8(2.1%) 0(0%) 6(1.6%) 1(0.3%) 0(0%) 1(0.3%) 380(10
0%) Total 649(26.7%) 283(11.6%) 966(39.7%) 313(12.9%) 8(0.3%) 1(0%) 135(5.5%) 60(2.5%) 8(0.3%) 10(0.4%) 2433
(100%
)
Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
Apart from availability of water supply, the ways and manner by which solid wastes are being disposed could also aid in determining, to a large extent, residential choice decision
53
making of an individual household,. Therefore, it is important to examine its usefulness in such decision-making processes. The picture painted under the LGCs in medium residential density areas is similar to that of high residential density areas in the sense that both PSP and truck pushers remain the two major key methods of disposing solid wastes. From table 3.26, in Oshodi/Isolo local government, PSP alone accounted for over 75% of solid wastes disposal method and this is directly followed by Ikeja with about 62.1%. The contribution from PSP as a means of disposing solid wastes in local governments like Kosofe, and Mainland is also substantial. The presence and prevalence of PSP is not total as private refuse collectors took control of solid wastes collection in some local governments such as Amuwo Odofin, Ifako-Ijaiye and Surulere. We also observed from the Table that Eti-Osa does not possess a distinctive method of disposing wastes as it patronises all the methods of wastes disposal except making use of government bins.
Table 3.26: Distribution of Households by Method of Disposal of Solid Waste in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
Collected by the governme nt
house to house (PSP)
Unauthori zed Heap-Dumping ground in neighbour hood
Truck
pusher/private Refuse
Collector
Disposal within compound neighbourhoo d
Bin/tank
Governm ent Bin
Other Total
Amuwo Odofin
58(22.8%) 24(9.4%) 143(56.3%) 12(4.7%) 1(0.4%) 16(6.3%) 254(100%) Eti-osa 82(35.0%) 46(19.7%) 56(23.9%) 48(20.5%) 0(0%) 2(0.9%) 234(100%) Ifako-Ijaiye 97(35.5%) 1(0.4%) 171(62.6%) 2(0.7%) 2(0.7%) 0(0%) 273(100%) Ikeja 157(62.1%) 16(6.3%) 57(22.5%) 10(4.0%) 6(2.4%) 7(2.8%) 253(100%) Kosofe 202(55.0%) 27(7.4%) 95(25.9%) 6(1.6%) 1(0.3%) 36(9.8%) 367(100%) Mainland 149(51.6%) 15(5.2%) 105(36.3%) 14(4.8%) 2(0.7%) 4(1.4%) 289(100%) Oshodi/Isolo 296(77.5%) 0(0%) 82(21.5%) 0(0%) 4(1.0%) 0(0%) 382(100%) Surulere 91(23.9%) 2(0.5%) 281(73.9%) 3(0.8%) 1(0.3%) 2(0.5%) 380(100%) Total 1132(46.5
%)
131(5.4%) 990(40.7%) 95(3.9%) 17(0.7%) 67(2.8%) 2432(100
%)
Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
Apart from similarity observed in terms of the type of materials used on housing as well as availability of facilities, the proportion of the tenurial arrangement in medium residential density areas slightly differs from that of high residential density areas. The difference in proportion is however observed in the owner-occupancy of houses which has assumed two digit numbers within the LGCs in the medium residential density areas (Table 3.27). For instance, the owner occupancy has two digits for the following local governments namely:
54
Amuwo-Odofin, Eti-osa, Ifako-Ijaiye, Ikeja, Kosofe, Mainland and Surulere only Oshodi that has a single digit. Of these local governments, Amuwo-Odofin has the highest number of owner-occupier houses which is about 24.8%. What this implies invariably is that the rate of home-ownership is higher in medium than in high residential density areas. However, the dominant tenure status is rental houses which claim substantial proportion of housing production in these residential areas. Of special interest also is Eti-osa local government with high proportion of subsidised rented houses which is over and above owner-occupier and normal rented houses. It can thus be inferred from this that most of the houses in Eti-osa local government are either given to workers of certain corporate organisations at subsidised rates or through other unknown means. The subsidised rents also cover all other LGCs in the density areas in varying degrees. The free rent syndrome is also a prominent tenure status in this residential neighbourhood. Amuwo Odofin has the highest number of 4.7%, closely followed by Eti-osa and Ifako-Ijaiye with 4.3% and 4.0% respectively.
Table 3.27: Distribution of Households by Tenure Status in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local
Government Councils
Owner-Occupier
Normal Rent
Subsidised Rent
Free Rent
Other Total
Amuwo Odofin
63(24.8%) 94(37.0%) 84(33.1%) 12(4.7%) 1(0.4%) 254(100%) Eti-osa 41(17.5%) 86(36.8%) 97(41.5%) 10(4.3%) 0(0%) 234(100%) Ifako-Ijaiye 41(15.0%) 146(53.5%) 75(27.5%) 11(4.0%) 0(0%) 273(100%) Ikeja 45(17.8%) 115(45.5%) 85(33.6%) 8(3.2%) 0(0%) 253(100%) Kosofe 47(12.8%) 184(50.0%) 123(33.4%) 14(3.8%) 0(0%) 368(100%) Mainland 38(13.1%) 183(63.3%) 61(21.1%) 7(2.4%) 0(0%) 289(100%) Oshodi/Isolo 34(8.9%) 194(50.8%) 146(38.2%) 8(2.1%) 0(0%) 382(100%) Surulere 73(19.2%) 201(52.9%) 99(26.1%) 7(1.8%) 0(0%) 380(100%) Total 382(15.7%) 1203(49.4%) 770(31.6%) 77(3.2%) 1(0%) 2433(100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
The degree of ownership of rental dwellings is not significantly different for houses rented at market rates but some variations are observed in the case of owner-occupier houses. For instance, the ownership structure of owner-occupier houses depicts that the houses are mainly
55
owned by the household heads across all LGCs whereas houses in the Mainland local government presents co-ownership structure which almost equates that of ownership by household head. The percentage of co-ownership in Mainland local government is 5.9%
while that of household heads stand at 5.5% (see Table 3.28). Some owner-occupier dwellings are also observed to have been owned by other members of households ranging from as low as 1.3% in Oshodi/Isolo local government to as high as 5.6% in Eti-osa local government council.
Table.3.28: Distribution of Households by Type of Occupancy Status in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
Dwelling Owned by Head
Dwelling Owned by Head and Spouse
Dwellin g Owned by Spouse
Dwelling Owned by another Member of Househol d
Household rents the dwelling at market rents
Household rent the dwelling and pays nominal or Subsidised Rent.
Uses without paying rent
Nom adic/
Temp orary Dwell ing
Total
Amuwo Odofin
59(23.2
%)
0(0%) 0(0%) 4(1.6%) 94(37.0%) 84(33.1%) 12(4.7%
)
1(0.4
%)
254(100
%) Eti-osa 21(9.0%) 7(3.0%) 2(0.9%) 13(5.6%) 86(36.8%) 95(40.6%) 10(4.3%
)
0(0%) 234(100
%) Ifako-Ijaiye 27(9.9%) 2(0.7%) 2(0.7%) 12(4.4%) 146(53.5%) 73(26.7%) 11(4.0%
)
0(0%) 273(100
%)
Ikeja 34(13.4
%)
2(0.8%) 1(0.4%) 9(3.6%) 115(45.5%) 84(33.2%) 8(3.2%) 0(0%) 253(100
%) Kosofe 33(9.0%) 0(0%) 1(0.3%) 14(3.8%) 184(50.0%) 122(33.2%) 14(3.8%
)
0(0%) 368(100
%) Mainland 17(5.9%) 16(5.5%) 5(1.7%) 5(1.7%) 183(63.3%) 56(19.4%) 7(2.4%) 0(0%) 289(100
%) Oshodi/Isolo 29(7.6%) 0(0%) 1(0.3%) 5(1.3%) 194(50.8%) 145(38.0%) 8(2.1%) 0(0%) 382(100
%) Surulere 60(15.8
%)
5(1.3%) 5(1.3%) 8(2.1%) 201(52.9%) 94(24.7%) 7(1.8%) 0(0%) 380(100
%)
Total 280
(11.5%) 32 (1.3%)
17 (0.7%)
70 (2.9%)
1203 (49.4%)
753 (30.9%)
77 (3.2%)
1 (0%)
2433 (100%)
Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
Table 3.29 also presents the prevailing housing type in medium residential density areas of the state. The multi-household houses which appear to be the most predominant housing type and stand out prominently in high residential density areas could not find its feet in medium residential density areas as shown on the Table. This, by implication, depicts that there are no particular housing types that stand out markedly. For instance, multi-household houses were only remarkably conspicuous only in three local governments namely: Ifako Ijaiye, (64.8%), Mainland, (44.6%) and Oshodi/Isolo,(51.0%). In fact, some local governments present different and interesting pictures altogether like Eti-osa where flats in a block of flats
56
dominates with 56.0%, whereas duplex took a lead in Surulere with 49.5% and single household houses apparently predominates Kosofe with 41.8% while Amuwo Odofin and Ikeja dominated with 55.1% and 64.4% respectively under room in the main building. The traces of squatters‘ settlers are found in Oshodi/Isolo axis as depicted in the Table. From the above description, it is quite obvious that no particular clear-cut pattern has emerged in terms of prevalent housing type unlike what is obtainable in high residential density area.
Table.3.29: Distribution of Households by Housing Types in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government
Councils
Single- Household House
Multi- Household house
Flats in a block of flats
Duplex Room In the main Dwelling
Squatt ers’
Settle ment
Other Total
Amuwo Odofin
0(0%) 34(13.4%) 79(31.1%) 1(0.4%) 140(55.1%
)
0(0%) 0(0%) 254(100%) Eti-osa 2(0.9%) 89(38.0%) 131(56.0%) 0(0%) 12(5.1%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 234(100%) Ifako-Ijaiye 1(0.4%) 177(64.8%) 16(5.9%) 14(5.1%) 61(22.3%) 1(0.4%
)
3(1.1%) 273(100%) Ikeja 6(2.4%) 30(11.9%) 34(13.4%) 8(3.2%) 163(64.4%
)
0(0%) 12(4.7%
)
253(100%) Kosofe 154(41.8%
)
133(36.1%) 61(16.6%) 3(0.8%) 15(4.1%) 0(0%) 2(0.5%) 368(100%) Mainland 60(20.8%) 129(44.6%) 34(11.8%) 20(6.9%) 41(14.2%) 0(0%) 5(1.7%) 289(100%) Oshodi/Isolo 0(0%) 195(51.0%) 100(26.2%) 0(0%) 75(19.6%) 1(0.3%
)
11(2.9%
)
382(100%) Surulere 3(0.8%) 94(24.7%) 73(19.2%) 188(49.5
%)
16(4.2%) 0(0%) 6(1.6%) 380(100%)
Total 226
(9.3%)
881 (36.2%)
528 (21.7%)
234 (9.6%)
523 (21.5%)
2 (0.1%)
39 (1.6%)
2433 (100%)
Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
Household characteristics also play prominent roles in the residential choice determination both theoretically and empirically. Thus, it becomes useful to evaluate households‘
capabilities through critical assessment of the socio-demographic characteristics.
First, just as explained under high residential density areas, [Table 3.30], secondary education appears to dominate the distribution of households by educational status across all the LGCs except for Eti-osa where tertiary education took the lead by constituting about 49.6%. This is not unexpected in this local government since it has become a base for educated elites immediately after the exit of the colonial masters. The proportion of tertiary certificate holders is also substantial in virtually all the LGCs except that it is significantly
57
higher in Eti-osa local government. The population distribution of those with no formal education is also significant given the percentage values in each of the LGCs.It is highest in Ifako-Ijaiye with about 8.1%, directly followed by Amuwo-Odofin with 7.5% and next to this is Oshodi/Isolo local government. In terms of primary school education, large percentages came virtually from all the LGCs except Eti-osa and Amuwo Odofin local governments with single digits . Those with vocational and technical expertise also accounted for reasonable percentage of the entire distribution, but are highest in Kosofe with 7.6% while Mainland and Ifako-Ijaiye stand at 5.5% and 5.1% respectively.
Table.3.30: Distribution of Households by Educational Status in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
None Primary Secondary Tertiary Vocational /Technical
Other Total
Amuwo Odofin
19(7.5%) 23(9.1%) 112(44.1%) 91(35.8%) 9(3.5%) 0(0%) 254(100%) Eti-osa 9(3.8%) 17(7.3%) 84(35.9%) 116(49.6%) 8(3.4%) 0(0%) 234(100%) Ifako-Ijaiye 22(8.1%) 41(15.0%) 111(40.7%) 82(30.0%) 14(5.1%) 3(1.1%) 273(100%) Ikeja 17(6.7%) 29(11.5%) 111(43.9%) 90(35.6%) 5(2.0%) 1(0.4%) 253(100%) Kosofe 29(7.9%) 56(15.2%) 174(47.3%) 75(20.4%) 28(7.6%) 6(1.6%) 368(100%) Mainland 12(4.2%) 33(11.4%) 126(43.6%) 101(34.9%) 16(5.5%) 1(0.3) 289(100%) Oshodi/Isolo 27(7.1%) 46(12.0%) 201(52.6%) 96(25.1%) 12(3.1%) 0(0%) 382(100%) Surulere 25(6.6%) 53(13.9%) 159(41.8%) 127(33.4%) 13(3.4%) 3(0.8%) 380(100%)
Total 160
(6.6%)
298 (12.2%)
1078 (44.3%)
778 (32.0%)
105 (4.3%)
14 (0.6)
2433 (100%)
Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
The dominant occupation among the sample respondents shown in Table 3.31 is self employment as it accounted for larger percentage of the entire occupational distribution. Self-employment accounted, on the average, for well over 50% of jobs Self-employment to people across the LGCs in medium residential density areas with the highest being Kosofe with 60.1% while the least is Mainland with 42.9%. The availability of public-salaried workers appears to be rampant in Eti-osa and Amuwo-Odofin with 39.3% and 37.0% respectively as compared to other types of occupation. The distribution of private-salaried jobs and that of studentship are not significantly substantial relative to either self employment or public-salaried jobs. In addition, the number of unemployed persons is also substantial among the respondent samples as they are found in the LGCs within the residential density areas.
58
Table.3.31: Distribution of Households by Occupational Status in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
Unemploy ed
Public Private Self-employed
Student/
Apprentic e
Other Total
Amuwo Odofin
8(3.1%) 94(37.0%) 22(8.7%) 121(47.6%) 6(2.4%) 3(1.2%) 254(100%) Eti-osa 12(5.1%) 92(39.3%) 8(3.4%) 115(49.1%) 6(2.6%) 1(0.4%) 234(100%) Ifako-Ijaiye 20(7.3%) 68(24.9%) 19(7.0%) 153(56.0%) 11(4.0%) 2(0.7%) 273(100%) Ikeja 14(5.5%) 93(36.8%) 13(5.1%) 117(46.2%) 12(4.7%) 4(1.6%) 253(100%) Kosofe 18(4.9%) 97(26.4%) 16(4.3%) 221(60.1%) 11(3.0%) 5(1.4%) 368(100%) Mainland 18(6.2%) 109(37.7%) 22(7.6%) 124(42.9%) 8(2.8%) 8(2.8%) 289(100%) Oshodi/Isolo 18(4.7%) 102(26.7%) 19(5.0%) 224(58.6%) 14(3.7%) 5(1.3%) 382(100%) Surulere 33(8.7%) 100(26.3%) 18(4.7%) 218(57.4%) 8(2.1%) 3(0.8%) 380(100%)
Total 141
(5.8%)
755 (31.0%)
137 (5.6%)
1293 (53.1%)
76 (3.1%)
31 (1.3%)
2433 (100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
The bulk of respondents‘ household average monthly income ranges between N10,001and N20,000 in virtually all the LGCs (Table 3.32). For instance, Amuwo Odofin has 27.9%, Eti-osa, (23.0%), Ifako Ijaiye, (33.6%), Ikeja, (29.1%) ,Kosofe, (47.0%), Mainland, (22.3%), Oshodi/Isolo (35.6%) and Surulere, (22.9%). In Eti-osa local government, the households whose average monthly income peaked at N50,000 and above accounted for as much as 31.1%, close to this is Surulere with 23.7% and the least in this category being Oshodi/Isolo with just 5.0%. The two extreme points clearly brings out the wide disparities observable in the choice relating to the housing types earlier mentioned, with majority with lower income patronising multi-household houses as against higher income earners who patronise flat in a block of flats or duplexes or at best single-household houses. Thus, suggesting that the average income earned still remains a singular factor that is influential in the decisions relating to residential housing choice irrespective of residential areas. Apart from this, households in the LGCs who are within the income bracket of N20,001 to N30,000 were also substantial as depicted by the percentages which range from 16.2% to 21.6%. It is important to mention that the percentage differences among the LGCs were not so significantly wide as to create basis for dichotomous analysis. The same can also be said about those within the income bracket of N30,001 to N40,000 except in Kosofe local government with about 6.0%.
59
Table.3.32: Distribution of Households by Monthly Income in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
Up to N10,000
N10,001- N20,000
N20,001- N30,000
N30,001- N40,000
N40,001- N50,000
N50,000 above
Total
Amuwo Odofin
45(18.8%) 67(27.9%) 42(17.5%) 17(7.1%) 25(10.4%) 44(18.3%) 240(100%) Eti-osa 25(11.3%) 51(23.0%) 36(16.2%) 25(11.3%) 16(7.2%) 69(31.1%) 222(100%) Ifako-Ijaiye 43(18.5%) 78(33.6%) 46(19.8%) 31(13.4%) 12(5.2%) 22(9.5%) 232(100%) Ikeja 39(18.9%) 60(29.1%) 34(16.5%) 21(10.2%) 26(12.6%) 26(12.6%) 206(100%) Kosofe 65(20.4%) 150(47.0%) 63(19.7%) 19(6.0%) 7(2.2%) 15(4.7%) 319(100%) Mainland 45(16.5%) 61(22.3%) 59(21.6%) 30(11.0%) 30(11.0%) 48(17.6%) 273(100%) Oshodi/Isolo 69(21.6%) 114(35.6%) 68(21.3%) 29(9.1%) 24(7.5%) 16(5.0%) 320(100%) Surulere 47(12.7%) 85(22.9%) 60(16.2%) 45(12.1%) 46(12.4%) 88(23.7%) 371(100%)
Total 378
(17.3%)
666 (30.5%)
408 (18.7%)
217 (9.9%)
186 (8.5%)
328 (15.0%)
2183 (100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
The household size category in this residential density area is not too different from what is obtainable in the high residential density areas. For instance, just like in high residential density areas household size category of 5-6 dominates mainly the distribution (table 3.33).
All the local government councils in the medium residential density area have household size 5 to 6 which accounts for well over 35% but the distribution of those in category between 7 and 8 is far more than household size 9 to10 as revealed in the Table.
Table.3.33: Distribution of Households by Household Size Category in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 10 and
Above
Total
Amuwo Odofin
37(14.6%) 64(25.2%) 105(41.3%) 39(15.4%) 7(2.8%) 2(0.8%) 254(100%) Eti-osa 18(7.7%) 62(26.5%) 113(48.3%) 33(14.1%) 7(3.0%) 1(0.4%) 234(100%) Ifako-Ijaiye 51(18.7%) 79(28.9%) 109(39.9%) 29(10.6%) 5(1.8%) 0(0%) 273(100%) Ikeja 37(14.6%) 65(25.7%) 93(36.8%) 45(17.8%) 9(3.6%) 4(1.6%) 253(100%) Kosofe 62(16.8%) 92(25.0%) 148(40.2%) 52(14.1%) 7(1.9%) 7(1.9%) 368(100%) Mainland 20(6.9%) 51(17.6%) 160(55.4%) 44(15.2%) 10(3.5%) 4(1.4%) 289(100%) Oshodi/Isolo 53(13.9%) 101(26.4%) 136(35.6%) 75(19.6%) 15(3.9%) 2(0.5%) 382(100%) Surulere 16(4.2%) 108(28.4%) 160(42.1%) 73(19.2%) 18(4.7%) 5(1.3%) 380(100%)
Total 294
(12.1%)
622 (25.6%)
1024 (42.1%)
390 (16.0%)
78 (3.2%)
25 (1.0%)
2433 (100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
60
With respect to distribution of respondents by tribe, it is observed from Table 3.34 that the Yorubas form the major tribe dominating the residential dwellings regardless of residential areas. The distribution of people from other tribes are quite insignificant with the exception of some local governments like Amuwo Odofin,Eti osa, Ikeja and oshodi/Isolo where the percentage of Ibo people are relatively large. For instance, Ibos in these local governments are as follows: 48.4%, 31.5%, 37.0% and 36.3% respectively. It is clear from the Table that Hausas are at lower levels of 1.6%,0.4%,1.5% and 0.3% in Eti-osa, Ifako-Ijaiye, Mainland and Surulere respectively.
Table.3.34: Distribution of Households by Type of Tribe in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
Yoruba Hausa Ibo Total
Amuwo Odofin 115(51.6%) 0(0%) 108(48.4%) 223(100%)
Eti-osa 123(66.8%) 3(1.6%) 58(31.5%) 184(100%)
Ifako-Ijaiye 198(85.3%) 1(0.4%) 33(14.2%) 232(100%)
Ikeja 133(63.0%) 0(0%) 78(37.0%) 211(100%)
Kosofe 267(82.4%) 0(0%) 57(17.6%) 324(100%)
Mainland 202(77.4%) 4(1.5%) 55(21.1%) 261(100%)
Oshodi/Isolo 218(63.7%) 0(0%) 124(36.3%) 342(100%)
Surulere 258(79.6%) 1(0.3%) 65(20.1%) 324(100%)
Total 1514(72.1%) 9(0.4%) 578(27.5%) 2101(100%)
Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
The importance of religious issues is also vital in the residential choice decision behaviour and well documented in the literature. From Table 3.35, the proportion of christians to muslims is substantially large and similar to what is obtainable in high residential density areas. The christians dominate the housing units in all the LGCs in the medium residential density areas as reflected on the Table. However, remarkable difference is observed between high and medium residential density areas such that the proportion of people from other religious sects are quite enormous as compared to high residential density areas that are filled with single digit percentage except Agege only with two digits. Thus, people from these other religious sects are higher in Eti-osa and Surulere constituting about19.2% and 20.8%
respectively.
61
Table.3.35: Distribution of Households by Type of Religion in the Local Government Councils in Medium Residential Density Areas
Local Government Councils
Muslim Christian Other Religion Total
Amuwo Odofin 49(19.3%) 173(68.1%) 32(12.6%) 254(100%)
Eti-osa 54(23.1%) 135(57.7%) 45(19.2%) 234(100%)
Ifako-Ijaiye 57(20.9%) 193(70.7%) 23(8.4%) 273(100%)
Ikeja 43(17.0%) 169(66.8%) 41(16.2%) 253(100%)
Kosofe 88(23.9%) 244(66.3%) 36(9.8%) 368(100%)
Mainland 66(22.8%) 189(65.4%) 34(11.8%) 289(100%)
Oshodi/Isolo 72(18.8%) 273(71.5%) 37(9.7%) 382(100%)
Surulere 60(15.8%) 241(63.4%) 79(20.8%) 380(100%)
Total 489(20.1%) 1617(66.5%) 327(13.4%) 2433(100%)
Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006
It is therefore obvious from the above description that the difference between high and medium residential density areas in trems of regious affiliations is marginal.
3.4.3 Structure and characteristics of Households and Housing in Low Residential