• No results found

Structure and characteristics of Households and Housing in Low Residential Density Areas Density Areas

3.4 Background Information about Dwellings in the Local Government Councils in Residential Density Areas in Lagos, Nigeria Residential Density Areas in Lagos, Nigeria

3.4.3 Structure and characteristics of Households and Housing in Low Residential Density Areas Density Areas

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

62

Table.3.36: Distribution of Households by Type of Roofing Materials used in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local Government Councils

Mud/

Mud Bricks

Thatch Wood/

Bambo o

Corrugate d

Iron Sheet

Cement/

Concrete

Roofing Tiles

Asbest os

Other Total

Apapa 1(0.4%) 0(0%) 1(0.4%) 184(78.6%) 38(16.2%) 0(0%) 10(4.3

%)

0(0%) 234(100%) Badagry 0(0%) 0(0%) 4(1.9%) 168(78.9%) 25(11.75) 1(0.5%) 15(7.0

%)

0(0%) 213(100%) Epe 6(2.9%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 154(74.0%) 25(12.0%) 1(0.5%) 18(8.7

%)

4(1.9%

)

208(100%) Ibeju-Lekki 2(1.2%) 12(7.4%) 9(5.6%) 89(54.9%) 15(9.3%) 5(3.1%) 30(18.

5%)

0(0%) 162(100%) Ikorodu 6(2.3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 236(91.1%) 0(0%) 1(0.4%) 16(6.2

%)

0(0%) 259(100%) Ojo 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 211(76.7%) 35(12.7%) 0(0%) 29(10.

5%)

0(0%) 275(100%)

Total 15

(1.1%) 12 (0.9%)

14 (1.0%)

1042 (77.1%)

138 (10.2%)

8 (0.6%)

118 (8.7%)

4 (0.3%)

1351 (100%)

Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006.

Similar to other residential areas is the predominant usage of concrete wall materials which took larger percentage over other types. There were also considerable improvements in the usage of concrete walls over other types in Ojo, Apapa and Badagry local governments as depicted by highest percentage of 99.3%, 97.9% and 97.7%respectively as shown in Table 3.37.There are still traces of usage of ―traditional‖ wall materials like mud bricks, burnt bricks and wood/bamboo in some LGC which are Epe,Ikorodu, Ibeju Lekki and negligible proportion in Apapa LGC.

Table.3.37: Distribution of Households by Type of Wall Material in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local

Government Councils

Mud/Mud Bricks

Burnt Bricks

Cement/Con crete

Wood/Ba mboo

Corrugated Iron Sheet

Total

Apapa 4(1.7%) 0(0%) 229(97.9%) 0(0%) 1(0.4%) 234(100%)

Badagry 0(0%) 1(0.5%) 208(97.7%) 4(1.9%) 0(0%) 213(100%)

Epe 33(15.9%) 0(0%) 174(83.7%) 0(0%) 10.5 208(100%)

Ibeju-Lekki 6(3.7%) 0(0%) 134(82.7%) 20(12.3%) 2(1.2%) 162(100%)

Ikorodu 32(12.4%) 0(0%) 227(87.6%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 259(100%)

Ojo 0(0%) 1(0.4%) 273(99.3%) 0(0%) 1(0.4) 275(100%)

Total 75(5.6%) 2(0.1%) 1245(92.2%) 24(1.8%) 5(0.4) 1351(100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006.

Unlike the other two residential density areas [High and medium] where there are no particular flooring materials, buildings in low residential density areas in all the LGCs accorded highest value to concrete floor than any other type. This markedly offers the

63

difference and demarcating lines among the residential density areas. The use of earth/mud also constitutes a vital component of floor materials in all LGCs except Apapa local government (Table 3.38).

Table.3.38: Distribution of Households by Type of Floor Materials used in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local

Government Councils

Earth/Mud Concrete Other Total

Apapa 0(0%) 234(100%) 0(0%) 234(100%)

Badagry 4(1.9%) 209(98.1%) 0(0%) 213(100%)

Epe 6(2.9%) 202(97.1%) 0(0%) 208(100%)

Ibeju-Lekki 21(13.0%) 138(85.2%) 3(1.9%) 162(100%)

Ikorodu 9(3.5%) 250(96.5%) 0(0%) 259(100%)

Ojo 1(0.4%) 274(99.6%) 0(0%) 275(100%)

Total 41(3.0%) 1307(96.7%) 3(0.2%) 1351(100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006

In addition to the type of materials used, the provision and availability of facilities like good drinkable water together with healthy toilet facilities go a long way in influencing the residential choice of housing. In this residential density area, the use of public tap, well and borehole accounted largely as main sources of water supply. For instance, from Table 3.39, in Apapa local government, public tap which serves as the main water supply source provided 40.6% of water used. Similarly in Ikorodu LGC, borehole contributed as much as 73.7% of water used whereas well water has been the main source of water in Badagry, Ibeju-Lekki and Ojo LGCs with of 54.9%, 54.9% and 72.4% respectively. The supply of water by small scale water vendors also complement the main source of water in some local governments like Apapa, Epe and Ikorodo. Water supply by dam, lakes etc also serve important purposes in Epe, Ibeju-Lekki and Ikorodu respectively. What can be inferred in this residential density area is that the source of water supply seems to be common among the LGCs except Ikorodu and Ojo that has borehole and wells as their major souce of water.

64

Table.3.39: Distribution of Households by Source of Water in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local Government Councils

Piped Borne Water

Public Tap

Borehol e

Well Spring Rain Water

Small Scale Vendor

Tanker Truck

Dam, Lake

Others Total

Apapa 43(18.

4%)

95(40.6

%)

11(4.7%

)

24(10.

3%)

0(0%) 0(0%) 41(17.5

%)

1(0.4%) 0(0%) 19(8.1

%)

234(10 0%) Badagry 19(8.9

%)

21(9.9%

)

55(25.8

%)

117(54 .9%)

0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1(0.5%

)

213(10 0%)

Epe 4(1.9%

)

45(21.6

%)

79(38.0

%)

41(19.

7%)

17(8.2

%)

2(1.0%

)

7(3.4%) 0(0%) 9(4.3%

)

4(1.9%

)

208(10 0%) Ibeju-Lekki 5(3.1%

)

0(0%) 45(27.8

%)

89(54.

9%)

1(0.6%

)

3(1.9%

)

1(0.6%) 2(1.2%) 16(9.9

%)

0(0%) 162(10 0%) Ikorodu 8(3.1%

)

28(10.8

%)

191(73.

7%)

5(1.9%

)

4(1.5%

)

0(0%) 14(5.4%

)

0(0%) 9(3.5%

)

0(0%) 259(10 0%)

Ojo 2(0.7%

)

7(2.5%) 65(23.6

%)

199(72 .4%)

1(0.4%

)

0(0%) 0(0%) 1(0.4%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 275(10 0%)

Total 81

(6.0%) 196 (14.5%)

446 (33.0%)

475 (35.2

%)

23 (1.7%)

5 (0.4%)

63 (4.7%)

4(0.3%) 34 (2.5%)

24 (1.8%)

1351 (100%

)

Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006

The use of solid wastes disposal system in low residential density area charts a different dimension entirely from what was obtainable in both high and medium residential density areas. For instance, unauthorised methods of dumping refuse remain the key method of disposing wastes since it contributes significantly in virtually all the LGCs. The contributions of this method in the following local governments namely: Badagry, Epe, Ibeju-Lekki, Ikorodu and Ojo are 49.8%, 53.4%, 56.2%, 20.1% and 39.6% respectively [Table 3.40]. The disposal within compound or neighbourhood also has substantial percentage in some local governments like Badagry, Epe and Ibeju-Lekki. Thus, the use and application of PSP and government bin are minimally reduced unlike in the other two residential density areas.

Equally important method of disposing solid wastes in low residential density area is the use of the private refuse collectors with Apapa LGC having highest percentage of 75.2%. The contribution of this method of waste disposal system also appears substantial in both Ikorodu(47.9%) and Ojo(27.6%) local governments respectively.

65

Table.3.40: Distribution of Households by Method of Disposal of Solid Waste in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local Government Councils

Collected by the governme nt

house to house (PSP)

Unauthorise d

Heap-Dumping ground in neighbourho od

Truck pusher/priv ate

Refuse Collector

Disposal within compound neighbour hood Bin/tank

Govern ment Bin

Other Total

Apapa 41(17.5%) 15(6.4%) 176(75.2%) 2(0.9%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 234(100%) Badagry 0(0%) 106(49.8%) 74(34.7%) 30(14.1%) 0(0%) 3(1.4%

)

213(100%) Epe 2(1.0%) 111(53.4%) 20(9.6%) 49(23.6%) 17(8.2%

)

9(4.3%

)

208(100%) Ibeju-Lekki 3(1.9%) 91(56.2%) 8(4.9%) 46(28.4%) 0(0%) 14(8.6

%)

162(100%) Ikorodu 50(19.3%) 52(20.1%) 124(47.9%) 11(4.2%) 11(4.2%

)

11(4.2

%)

259(100%) Ojo 54(19.6%) 109(39.6%) 76(27.6%) 13(4.7%) 0(0%) 23(8.4

%)

275(100%)

Total 150

(11.1%)

484 (35.8%)

478 (35.4%)

151 (11.2%)

28 (2.1%)

60 (4.4%)

1351 (100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006

The tenure status arrangement in this residential density area presents a totally different setting from what was observed in high and medium residential density areas. A casual observation of Table 3.41 shows increasing proportions in owner-occupier houses and decreasing proportions in rental houses. What this suggests is that home-ownership rates are much higher in low residential density area than in high and medium ones. For instance, owner-occupier houses are almost equal to rental houses in Ibeju-Lekki local government as depicted in the Table. Similarly, in Badagry, Epe and Ikorodu local governments increasing trends is also observed in the percentage of owner-occupation ranging from 26.8%, 28.4%

and 22.8% respectively. Another interesting observation is that subsidised housing rent is much higher than owner-occupier and normal rent in Badagry local government. The phenomenon of free rent is also highest in Ibeju-Lekki local government.

66

Table.3.41: Distribution of Households by Tenure Status in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local

Government Councils

Owner-Occupier

Normal Rent

Subsidised Rent

Free Rent Other Total

Apapa 12(5.1%) 128(54.7%) 90(38.5%) 4(1.7%) 0(0%) 234(100%) Badagry 57(26.8%) 70(32.9%) 73(34.3%) 13(6.1%) 0(0%) 213(100%) Epe 59(28.4%) 70(33.7%) 59(28.4%) 19(9.1%) 1(0.5%) 208(100%) Ibeju-Lekki 60(37.0%) 61(37.7%) 18(11.1%) 23(14.2%) 0(0%) 162(100%) Ikorodu 59(22.8%) 125(48.3%) 69(26.6%) 6(2.3%) 0(0%) 259(100%) Ojo 41(14.9%) 131(47.6%) 88(32.0%) 15(5.5%) 0(0%) 275(100%) Total 288(21.3%) 585(43.3%) 397(29.4%) 80(5.9%) 1(0.1%) 1351(100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006

The ownership status of the owner-occupier houses lies mainly with household heads in all the LGCs [Table 3.42] as household heads own 3.0% in Apapa LGC, 13.1%,22.6%, 27.2%,12.4% and 10.2% in Badagry ,Epe, Ibeju-Lekki, Ikorodu and Ojo local governments respectively. It is interesting to note that the dwellings owned by another member of households have also increased tremendously in this residential neighbourhood in relation to other residential density areas. The ownership status of rental houses follow similar pattern as earlier explained under the tenure status discussion.

Table.3.42: Distribution of Households by Type of Occupancy Status in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local Governm ent Councils

Dwelling Owned by Head

Dwelling Owned by Head and Spouse

Dwelling 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 Subsidized Rent.

Uses without paying rent

Norma dic/Te mporar y Dwellin g

Total

Apapa 7(3.0%) 2(0.9%) 0(0%) 3(1.3%) 128(54.7%) 90(38.5%) 4(1.7%) 0(0%) 234(100

%) Badagry 28(13.1%) 9(4.2%) 2(0.9%) 20(9.4%) 70(32.9%) 71(33.3%) 13(6.1%

)

0(0%) 213(100

%) Epe 47(22.6%) 2(1.0%) 1(0.5%) 10(4.8%) 70(33.7%) 58(27.9%) 19(9.1%

)

1(0.5%) 208(100

%)

Ibeju-Lekki

44(27.2%) 13(8.0%) 0(0%) 3(1.9%) 61(37.7%) 18(11.1%) 23(14.2

%)

0(0%) 162(100

%) Ikorodu 32(12.4%) 2(0.8%) 2(0.8%) 25(9.7%) 125(48.3%) 67(25.9%) 6(2.3%) 0(0%) 259(100

%) Ojo 28(10.2%) 0(0%) 2(0.7%) 13(4.7%) 131(47.6%) 86(31.3%) 15(5.5%

)

0(0%) 275(100

%) Total 186

(13.8%)

28 (2.1%)

7 (0.5%)

74 (5.5%)

585 (43.3%)

390 (28.9%)

80 (5.9%)

1 (0.1%)

1351 (100%)

Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006.

67

The housing type in five of the LGCs favour multi-household houses relative to others. In fact, the type of house in four of the local governments namely: Apapa,Badagry,Epe and Ikorodu, are exclusively characterised by multi-household as shown on Table 3.43. For instance, while 90.2% of houses in Apapa are multi-household in nature so is Badagry with 77.0%, Epe, 85.1% and Ikorodu with 95.8% respectively. The prominent and dominant housing type in Ojo LGC is ‗room in a main dwelling‘ which constitutes about 68.4% of the various housing type. Single-household houses were substantial in Ibeju-lekki with 28.4%

while the phenomenon of squatters‘ settlement is highest in the same local government. The duplex as a housing type is comparatively scarce in this residential density area in relation to other residential density areas.

Table.3.43: Distribution of Households by Housing Types in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local Governme

nt Councils

Single- Household House

Multi- Household house

Flats in a block of flats

Duplex Room In the main Dwelling

Squatters’

Settlement

Other Total

Apapa 1(0.4%) 211(90.2%) 4(1.7%) 2(0.9%) 16(6.8%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 234(100

%) Badagry 0(0%) 164(77.0%) 16(7.5%) 0(0%) 29(13.6%) 0(0%) 4(1.9%) 213(100

%) Epe 5(2.4%) 177(85.1%) 4(1.9%) 0(0%) 20(9.6%) 0(0%) 2(1.0%) 208(100

%)

Ibeju-Lekki

46(28.4%) 57(35.2%) 17(10.5%) 1(0.6%) 16(9.9%) 18(11.1%) 7(4.3%) 162(100

%) Ikorodu 11(4.2%) 248(95.8%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 259(100

%) Ojo 11(4.0%) 34(12.4%) 13(4.7%) 0(0%) 188(68.4%) 5(1.8%) 24(8.7%

)

275(100

%)

Total 74

(5.5%)

891 (66.0%)

54 (4.0%)

3 (0.2%)

269 (19.9%)

23 (1.7%)

37 (2.7%)

1351 (100%)

Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006

The characteristics of the households as earlier mentioned are also very important in explaining peoples‘ residential housing choice decisions. The importance of socio-demographic variables like education, age, and occupation in explaining residential choice behaviour is documented in residential research literature. From Table 3.44, it is clear that a large number of the respondents‘ are secondary certificate holders as revealed by the percentage acquisitions. This cut across all the LGCs in low residential density areas. The minimum acquired is 40.7% while the maximum is 52.1%. Surprisingly, the proportion of those with no formal education and primary education are still greater than that of tertiary education. The lowest in the distribution are those in ‗other‘ category and vocational/technical education. For education, Epe and Ikorodu local governments recorded the highest percentages of 16.3% and 16.2 % , while Ibeju-Lekki and Epe have substantial

68

percentages of 29.6% and 25.5% respectively for primary education. The highest number of tertiary education certificate holders is those from badagry and Apapa local governments with 16.4% and 14.5% respectively. These two local governments still recorded highest number of those in vocational/technical education.

Table.3.44: Distribution of Households by Educational Status in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local Government Councils

None Primary Secondary Tertiary Vocation al/Techni cal

Other Total

Apapa 24(10.3%) 421(17.9%) 122(52.1%) 34(14.5%) 12(5.1%) 0(0%) 234(100%) Badagry 16(7.5%) 40(18.8%) 110(51.6%) 35(16.4%) 12(5.6%) 0(0%) 213(100%) Epe 34(16.3%) 53(25.5%) 94(45.2%) 25(12.0%) 2(1.0%) 0(0%) 208(100%) Ibeju-Lekki 25(15.4%) 48(29.6%) 66(40.7%) 16(9.9%) 7(4.3%) 0(0%) 162(100%) Ikorodu 42(16.2%) 52(20.1%) 124(47.9%) 30(11.6%) 10(3.9%) 1(0.4%) 259(100%) Ojo 33(12.0%) 50(18.2%) 138(50.2%) 40(14.5%) 11(4.0%) 3(1.1%) 275(100%)

Total 174

(12.9%)

285 (21.1%)

654 (48.4%)

180 (13.3%)

54 (4.0%)

4 (0.3%)

1351 (100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006

From Table 3.45, self-employment still dominates the main occupation in the low residential density areas and the proportion of those in this category is substantial across the LGCs [Table 3.44]. This is directly followed by those in the employment of government that is, public-salaried workers. The percentage of unemployed persons is far higher in Ibeju-Lekki than in any of the other local government councils. What this implies is that the number of self-employed persons are scattered all over Lagos state.

Table.3.45: Distribution of Households by Occupational Status in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local Government Councils

Unemplo yed

Public Private Self-employed

Student/

Apprentic e

Other Total

Apapa 7(3.0%) 57(24.4%) 16(6.8%) 151(64.5%) 2(0.9%) 1(0.4%) 234(100%) Badagry 10(4.7%) 55(25.8%) 20(9.4%) 123(57.7%) 1(0.5%) 4(1.9%) 213(100%) Epe 11(5.3%) 32(15.4%) 19(9.1%) 138(66.3%) 4(1.9%) 4(1.9%) 208(100%) Ibeju-Lekki 14(8.6%) 32(19.8%) 18(11.1%) 81(50.0%) 5(3.1%) 12(7.4%) 162(100%) Ikorodu 12(4.6%) 55(21.2%) 10(3.9%) 174(67.2%) 3(1.2%) 5(1.9%) 259(100%) Ojo 15(5.5%) 52(18.9%) 27(9.8%) 163(59.3%) 15(5.5%) 3(1.1%) 275(100%)

Total 69

(5.1%)

283 (20.9%)

110 (8.1%)

830 (61.4%)

30 (2.2%)

29 (2.1%)

1351 (100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006.

The bulk of the respondents (42.3%) comprise people with average family size of between 5 and 6 persons. Next to this are those in the category of between 3 tand 4. This runs through the entire local governments. Of all the local governments, Ibeju-Lekki has the highest household size of between 9 and 10 and this stands at 5.6%, and followed by Apapa with

69

2.1%. The least in this category however is Badagry local government with 0.9%. This situation simply suggests that irrespective of residential density areas, Lagos State is generally overcrowded.

Table. 3.46: Distribution of Households by Household Size Category in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local Government Councils

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 10 and

Above

Total

Apapa 20(8.5%) 68(29.1%) 105(44.9%) 35(15.0%) 5(2.1%) 1(0.4%) 234(100%) Badagry 36(16.9%) 68(31.9%) 88(41.3%) 19(8.9%) 2(0.9%) 0(0%) 213(100%) Epe 28(13.5%) 56(26.9%) 99(47.6%) 18(8.7%) 4(1.9%) 3(1.4%) 208(100%) Ibeju-Lekki 11(6.8%) 34(21.0%) 75(46.3%) 32(19.8%) 9(5.6%) 1(0.6%) 162(100%) Ikorodu 40(15.4%) 78(30.1%) 104(40.2%) 31(12.0%) 4(1.5%) 2(0.8%) 259(100%) Ojo 62(22.5%) 76(27.6%) 101(36.7%) 31(11.3%) 4(1.5%) 1(0.4%) 275(100%)

Total 197

(14.6%)

380 (28.1%)

572 (42.3%)

166 (12.3%)

28 (2.1%)

8 (0.6%)

1351 (100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006

The distribution of households by income across the local governments depicts that majority of representative samples (36.9%) earn monthly income of up to N10,000 (Table 3.47). This is more pronounced in Epe local government with highest percentage of 61.6%, followed by Ibeju-lekki with 46.1% and the lowest in the income category came from Apapa local government with 17.1%. A substantial number of people‘s monthly income lies between N10,001 and N20,000 as depicted in the Table. Ikorodu and Badagry had highest percentage of 48.5% and 41.0% respectively within this income bracket. Apapa LGC took a lead in the income of N20,000 and above over other LGCs as it has 18.4%,15.8% and 13.6% relative to percentages acquired by other local governments. The Ibeju-Lekki LGC (6.4%) took the within the income of above N50,000 and this was directly followed by Apapa with about 4.4%.

70

Table.3.47: Distribution of Households by Monthly Income in the Local Government Councils in Low 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

Apapa 39(17.1%) 70(30.7%) 42(18.4%) 36(15.8%) 31(13.6%) 10(4.4%) 228(100%) Badagry 82(40.0%) 84(41.0%) 24(11.7%) 8(3.9%) 5(2.4%) 2(1.0%) 205(100%) Epe 122(61.6%) 52(26.3%) 10(5.1%) 9(4.5%) 4(2.0%) 1(0.5%) 198(100%) Ibeju-Lekki 65(46.1%) 33(23.4%) 15(10.6%) 13(9.2%) 6(4.3%) 9(6.4%) 141(100%) Ikorodu 72(29.6%) 117(48.1%) 39(16.0%) 6(2.5%) 5(2.1%) 4(1.6%) 243(100%) Ojo 89(34.9%) 88(34.5%) 48(18.8%) 17(6.7%) 6(2.4%) 7(2.7%) 255(100%)

Total 469

(36.9%)

444 (35.0%)

178 (14.0%)

89 (7.0%)

57 (4.5%)

33 (2.6%)

1270 (100%) Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006

Just like stated under high and medium residential density areas, Yoruba is the dominant tribe even in low residential density areas directly followed by Ibo people. Notably, the proportion of Hausa people is quite small in relation to other tribes. Thus, from Table 3.48, the residential houses in Epe and Ibeju-Lekki are mainly Yoruba dominated as they account for well over 90%. This is also true of Badagry and Ikorodu LGCs. However, the population of Ibos is on the increase in Apapa and Ojo and also some Hausas are found in the same LGCs.

Table.3.48: Distribution of Households by Type of Tribe in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local Government Councils

Yoruba Hausa Ibo Total

Apapa 166(77.9%) 3(1.4%) 44(20.7%) 213(100%)

Badagry 159(83.2%) 0(0%) 32(16.8%) 191(100%)

Epe 198(98.5%) 0(0%) 3(1.5%) 201(100%)

Ibeju-Lekki 144(92.3%) 1(0.6%) 11(7.1%) 156(100%)

Ikorodu 208(88.5%) 0(0%) 27(11.5%) 235(100%)

Ojo 160(64.0%) 3(1.2%) 87(34.8%) 250(100%)

Total 1035(83.1%) 7(0.6%) 204(16.4%) 1246(100%)

Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006

71

In terms of religion, christianity also dominates the residential density areas just as we have in high and medium residential density areas. However, the proportion of muslims appear to be more in Ibeju-Lekki with about 59.3% and 40% in Epe LGC.

Table.3.49: Distribution of Households by Type of Religion in the Local Government Councils in Low Residential Density Areas

Local Government Councils

Muslim Christian Other Religion Total

Apapa 86(36.8%) 130(55.6%) 18(7.7%) 234(100%)

Badagry 37(17.4%) 157(73.7%) 19(8.9%) 213(100%)

Epe 84(40.4%) 118(56.7%) 6(2.9%) 208(100%)

Ibeju-Lekki 96(59.3%) 65(40.1%) 1(0.6%) 162(100%)

Ikorodu 94(36.3%) 149(57.5%) 16(6.2%) 259(100%)

Ojo 70(25.5%) 183(66.5%) 22(8.0%) 275(100%)

Total 467(34.6%) 802(59.4%) 82(6.1%) 1351(100%)

Source: Computed from Lagos Household Survey, 2006.

The implication of the description of Lagos housing market is to lend credence to the fact that in renting an apartment or buying a house, people ultimately places different premiums on each of these housing characteristics. This varies from one individual to another. Thus, the choice of an individual when renting a house could easily be influenced if presence any of these qualities mentioned.

72

CHAPTER FOUR LITERATURE REVIEW 4.1 Introduction

A review of the literature is undertaken in this section. In addition, the theoretical and conceptual basis for the study is provided. The study of residential preferences and choice behaviour has received considerable attention for many years in various disciplines of humanities such as environmental psychology, geography, urban and regional planning, urban sociology, civil and building engineering, estate management and environmental economics. The two major approaches which have received attention in studying the housing choice in the housing literature are: revealed and stated modelling approaches. Revealed models are based on observational data of households‘ actual housing choices in real markets.

In contrast, stated preference and choice models are based on people‘s reactions to hypothetical houses.

The problem of housing choice is, therefore, strongly related to the identification of the factors associated with the dwelling and environmental context that may determine the attractiveness of a place. Numerous studies have been carried out in the international literature on housing choice models (see, e.g., Cooper, Ryley and Smith, 2001; Earnhart, 2002; Gayda, 1998; Ortuzar, Martinez and Varela,2000; Perez,Martinez and Ortuzar, 2003;

Walker, Marsh,Wardman and Niner,2002), and a wide variety of explanatory variables has been considered: price, rent, dwelling size, accessibility, natural features, etc.

In addition, empirical and methodological reviews of residential housing choice are undertaken in this section. Lastly, a review of hedonic pricing methodology which is central to the study of housing choice decistion is also dwelt upon.