Strategic framework for resident’s participation in housing provision in Akure, Southwest Nigeria

Individual self-help is at the bottom rung of this framework of residents’ participation in housing development in Nigeria and reflects “neglect” (Choguill 1996). This is when the provision of housing is based on residents’ efforts only, usually without success. Users without any outside influence or support also do their financing. It takes place when residents provide housing for themselves due to neglect by the authorities that are responsible for such. In addition, it occurs when the residents do not employ the use of a designer, but design the house entirely by themselves. This is at the bottom of the framework because it is the most serious evidence of government neglect where residents have to develop their housing environment from their meagre resources. Another reason is that, proper participation should involve a minimum of two parties, whereas in this case it is not so (Arnstein 1969; Choguill 1996). This is also, why several people cannot provide such for themselves because they cannot afford it. The implication of this level of participation is that the level of satisfaction derived by the residents is low (Fakere 2017). This is because the residents with their meagre resources or without professional input carry out the duties meant to be carried out by the government or designer, and therefore the projects are usually not successful. The reason is ignorance of the crucial role of the designer, which means that the professional expertise would be lacking in the project. The information gathered from the FGD revealed that this is very common in the study area. It was observed that there was no supply of pipe-borne water anywhere in the study area (Fakere et al. 2018): therefore the residents resort to providing water for themselves through hand-dug wells, and boreholes. The participants at Aule stated that, “some of the houses in this community were constructed by private individuals and every household has its own water scheme; and there is no pipe borne water coming from the mains. Each household provide water either through hand-dug wells or through boreholes. In fact, we are not sure whether the mains pass through this community at all.” In the study area where the government did not provide drainages, several of the residents provided drainages privately in front of their own houses. The participants at Don Bosco noted that, “individual property owners provide drainage channels in front of their plots as they deem fit. While some can afford to do it, others cannot. The government has no input there”.

Community mutual-help is on the second rung in the framework. This is when residents of a community come together to provide housing for themselves through decision-making and financing amongst themselves, usually with low success rates. This is usually in the form of mutual decisions and contributions towards the development of their housing environment. It takes place when residents of a community organize themselves to develop their housing environment due to neglect by the government authorities that are vested with such responsibilities. It also occurs in situations where communities organize themselves to construct houses for their members. According to Fisher and DeFilippis (2015), community organizing has constantly been a basic component of efforts to transform the society, though it is insufficient to achieve the transformation on its own, because it needs some outside support. It was necessary to separate “individual self-help” from this level because though, the circumstances that lead to both are similar; the processes of achieving the housing development projects in each of them are different. This is so because both exist without government support; however, community mutual-help would require local community organization to function, while individual self-help does not. Community mutual-help is higher than individual self-help because, when residents of a community come together for such purposes, it lightens the individual burden compared to when it is done through personal efforts. Another reason is that, it is valuable in building social capital and individual competencies, while providing a basis for community involvement in government-initiated projects. In addition, the scale and scope of participation is wider, compared to individual self-help approach. The implication of this level of participation is that the level of satisfaction derived by the residents is low (Fakere 2017). This level of participation is necessary to build social capital, which is an important characteristic to have for community integration and growth. However, the level of satisfaction is low because of government neglect, while the residents with their meagre resources carry out the duties meant to be done by the government, and therefore the projects are usually not successful. The FGDs revealed that community mutual help is very common in the study area. The FGDs revealed that in the study area, the residents contribute regularly to employ guards for the security of lives and property in their communities. The participants at Ijapo stated that, “security is through communal effort as well. In fact, that is the core of our monthly residents’ association meetings. It is the main reason that we began to meet, and later, infrastructural development was added to it. We contribute money monthly to hire private guards and we pay them. The security men work from 6pm to 6am. There is usually restriction of movements from 8pm for the people that are not known to the community. Each household contribute about N400 (about $1) monthly; and it was higher than that when we were fewer. The crime rate was previously high when there were fewer houses in this neighbourhood. Nearly every house then were victims, and then the population increased and we employed security guards which helped to reduce the crime rate.” In addition, the community also contribute money to maintain the roads within their communities while, in some districts of the study area, the community members contributed to open up new roads at inception instead of the government. The participants at Fanibi stated that, “roads have been through community efforts with no governmental influence. We also contribute money to build culverts in our community in order to facilitate access. The road has been very rough over the years and government was doing nothing about it, therefore we resorted to cast concrete on the roads to make them more motorable. We also had to blast some rocks on the roads because the main road to our community is very rocky. The initial openings of the roads were done by the community”. Individual self-help and community mutual-help are usually bottom-up approaches to housing development without government involvement or support. In the study area, private individuals constructed houses, and unlike in Choguill (1996), NGOs that assist communities in housing and infrastructure do not exist in the study area. In addition, this finding shows that Akure is a unique city where oftentimes, communities develop the housing environment on their own due to neglect from the government authorities that should be responsible for it.

No information is at the third rung in the framework. This occurs when the government authorities assume to know exactly what the community’s most pressing needs are, and go ahead to provide them without recourse to the community members. The implication of this level of participation is that the level of satisfaction derived by the residents is low (Fakere 2017). This is because the housing development project embarked upon by the government would usually not be the most pressing for the people because their opinions were not sought. Since the residents are not involved at this level, the likelihood of the housing development project meeting their utmost needs is low, thereby influencing their satisfaction level negatively. No information is higher than community mutual-help because, at this stage the impact of government/designers would be felt, though they do not involve the people. The FGDs revealed that housing projects constructed in the study area were done without involving the residents at any level of decision-making or construction. The participants at Ijapo stated that, “the roads and drainages in this community are usually done through government and communal efforts. Government provides some of the roads and drainages, and some other ones are done through communal efforts. Government does not usually inform or involve us when they plan to construct roads or drainages in our community. Also, tenants are not informed about the design of their houses of residence because they were not known during that stage”. In Don Bosco District in the study area, there was disagreement between the residents and the road constructors during the construction. The participants stated that, “there has been no collaboration with the government on housing and infrastructure projects in this area. They designed and awarded the projects without our knowledge. However, when they were constructing the roads, we insisted on some qualities. The World Bank financed the project. For the drainage, they refused to allow us to have any say at all. In fact, we tried to do that during the construction of the drainage of one of our major roads here. We told them that the way they are constructing the drainage would cause a huge problem in the area. In addition, the consultant that designed it never carried out the study of the area in spite of the information we gave them. Therefore, when there is rain, it does not flow properly through the right channel. They ought to have provided the necessary drainage in terms of culverts, which they did not do. Therefore, we still have the problem. Along the drainage channel, they ought to have blasted a rock to enable the water flow properly. This was not done, therefore it always flows back to the other side.”

Dissimulation is at the fourth rung in the framework. This occurs when the government is motivated by political gains to engage in for housing development. In this level, the government authority usually does not involve the residents in the proposed housing projects in their community, while those projects are not meant to benefit them. Dissimulation could begin, as no information (level 3) before the residents discover the insincerity and react. In addition, dissimulation usually happens in slums when the government totally clears the slums for redevelopment for other classes of residents, while disguising their real intentions from the residents. Therefore, when the residents protest after discovering their motive during the construction, the constructors disguise their intentions as genuine towards the community. It can also take the form of the government authority making promises to the residents, usually in exchange for something, while they actually do not intend to fulfil such promises. Dissimulation is lower than information in the rung because, there is no financial involvement from the residents. The implication of this level of participation is that the level of satisfaction derived by the residents is low (Fakere 2017). This is because the residents are still not involved in decision-making in this level, and do not derive any meaningful benefits in the project. The FGDs revealed that in Don Bosco, residents living on a street in the community halted the construction of one of the culverts when they discovered that all the run-offs from several other streets were channelled to their street without constructing the drainage on their street to channel the run-offs to the nearest stream. According to the participants, “there is a case in one of the streets in our community where we saw that the construction of culvert would be detrimental to the state of the already bad road. We mobilized ourselves and stopped the completion of the construction. We put pressure on the government through several visits to their offices to construct the drainage first and channel it properly to the nearest stream before continuing the culvert. They promised to do this and we allowed them to continue the work after several months. However, they returned completed the culvert and constructed a few metres of the drainage and left. This worsened the state of that road to the extent that the condition of that road worsens whenever rain falls. They deceived us and we would have resisted their efforts if we knew they had ulterior motives”. At Fanibi, a politician came to the community to seek for votes from the community promising to construct a terribly degraded road when he assumes office. The participants noted that, “we attempt to collaborate with the government on the aspect of infrastructure, especially roads, but they are not forthcoming. The state of the roads in our community is appalling and it is beyond us to construct the road. Sometimes, political contestants come to our meetings and request for what they can do for us. Then, they promise to construct our roads if we vote for them. But, after they win the election, we don’t see them any longer, thereby defaulting on their own side of the agreement. Sometimes, we go to meet them in their offices and remind them of their promises and they promise that we would hear from them. But, we never hear from them.”

Information is at the fifth rung in the framework. This occurs when the government authorities enable the residents to learn about their intentions in proposed housing development projects. In this rung, the information flows only from the government authorities to the resident communities. This is usually without recourse to feedback from residents or negotiation between the parties (Wilcox 1994). The residents are only made aware of the decisions that had already been taken on their behalf by the resource holders (IAP2 2014); hence, it is a top-down approach. Information is higher than dissimulation in the rung because the beneficiaries are made to be aware of government authorities’ intentions about the housing development, though they still do not participate in decision-making. The implication of this level of participation is that the level of satisfaction derived by the residents is average (Fakere 2017). This is because, though they are informed about proposed projects, they are still not afforded the opportunity to influence decision-making and direction of the projects. Therefore, the decisions are still made for them by the other party; this has negative effects on their level of satisfaction. The FGDs revealed that in the study area, this level occurred in housing and road construction. According to the participants at Ijapo, “tenants do not participate in the design of the houses of their abode, whereas those that inherit the houses were only informed about the decision taken about their house designs.” The participants at Don Bosco noted that, “the government informed us about their plans on how to manage our domestic wastes in this community. They did not involve us in the planning but told us about the decisions that they made on our behalf.” In addition, those that inherited the houses and those that live in family houses were informed about decisions already made about the design of the houses.

Financial contribution is at the sixth rung in the Framework. This occurs when the residents have to make financial contribution to government projects in the form of counterpart funding or payment for services rendered for the provision of housing. In such cases, refusal to make such payments means that they would be cut off from receiving such services. Therefore, the community members contribute amongst themselves in order to pay for the provision or repair. Financial contribution is higher than information in the rung because, there is residents’ financial involvement. The implication of this level of participation is that the level of satisfaction derived by the residents is average (Fakere 2017). This is because the residents are still not involved in decision-making at this level. However, they derive some benefits from the project after paying for the repair and maintenance. The FGDs reveal that this is very common in the study area. The participants of Don Bosco stated that, “in this community, some tenants complained that their landlord asked them to pay for the repair of the roof that was damaged by rainstorm. The community is looking into the matter to find a resolution to it.” The Community also stated, “When the transformer is faulty, the authorities usually ask us to pay to have it repaired, else we would be left with no electricity supply. We also have power generating sets and inverters due to epileptic power supply.” The FGDs also reveal that at Alagbaka Phase 2, all the electricity equipment were provided only by the community, without any government support. The participants stated that, “up to a point on getting our electricity to the junction there, that was brought in by the community in the 1970s. It was from that transformer that Ijapo got its light. So when we were still not getting electricity supply in this area, we had to make other arrangements and contributed our money to assist in the installation of a new transformer closer to ourselves and that is why we have light now.” The participants at Fanibi and Don Bosco noted that, “the waste management people come on weekly basis to clear the collected refuse. However, sometimes, when they forget to collect refuse from some parts of the community, we go to meet them and inform them about it. We pay the authorities N500 ($1.38) monthly. The problem with the waste collectors is that they are not regular”. The waste management authorities decide the rate and frequency of payment and inform the residents who comply by paying such amounts to have their wastes disposed by the authorities.

Conciliation is the third highest in the rung and is the level from where the prescriptive participation begins. This level of participation was found in the study area. This is the rung from where the residents begin to influence proceedings in housing development. It occurs when the architect, or government authorities have done the initial design of the house but it is not finalized until the individual residents or community has ratified it. Conciliation is higher than financial contribution because, at this stage the residents truly begin to influence decision-making from the design stage of the project. At this level, the designers make more decisions about the projects than the residents do. The implication of this level of participation is that the level of satisfaction derived by the residents is high (Fakere 2017). This is because the residents are allowed to have some influence on the outcomes of the housing project, thus incorporating some of their housing needs. The use of alternatives in house designs is common in the study area. The participants at Fanibi stated that, “the architect must be given guidelines. He can professionally advise the clients; then we come to a compromise as to what we want. Some people also ask the architect to give them several designs from which they choose one.” The participants also stated, “The government authorities proposed that we would be paying N500 ($1.38) monthly and we agreed to be paying that amount.”

Partnership is the second highest rung in the framework. It occurs when there is an agreement between the designer or government authorities and the residents or community to share decision-making responsibilities about the housing design and implementation. It could be expressed as the users discussing their needs with the designer and both parties reaching a consensus about the final design. In partnership, the government or the residents could be the party that reaches out to the other. Partnership is higher than conciliation in the rung because, the level of involvement of both parties in decision making about the project is identical. This means that the ability of the residents to influence decisions is more intense than in conciliation. Partnership works when both parties agree from inception, about their roles and responsibilities at every stage of the project. Proper documentation of this agreement, where necessary, would forestall uncertainty and misunderstanding during the implementation stages. In partnership, both parties operate in the “expert” space, where collective intelligence is more pronounced (Lee 2006; Fischer et al. 2005; Atlee 2003). The professionals operate as experts in technical, design, technological, and construction aspects of the project, while the residents/community operate as experts in knowing their own needs and setting their priorities, through experiences of living in different environments. This could also include sharing the financial burden between the parties. The implication of this level of participation is that the level of satisfaction derived by the residents is high (Fakere 2017). This is because the residents are allowed to have more influence on the outcomes of the housing project, thus incorporating more of their housing needs. The FGDs reveal that in the study area, it is common for owner-occupiers to discuss their housing needs with the designers of the houses. According to the participants at Don Bosco, “some people will just want to discuss their housing needs with the architect and for the architect to build it. However, some people already know what they want before they even think of building. Therefore, there must be full participation. The architect must be given guidelines. He can professionally advise the clients; then we come to a compromise as to what we want.” The participants also stated, “The electricity poles on the major road were provided by the government; while the others were provided by the community.”

Empowerment is the highest in the levels of participation in the framework. It is the highest level in the rung because; most of the decision-making powers rest on the residents instead of the architect or government authority. This occurs when the residents or community has more control over decision-making than the architect, resource-holder or the government authority in housing development projects. It could be a top-bottom or bottom-up approach but the people are allowed to take responsibility for their living environment with government support, when the government is unable or unwilling to undertake such responsibilities by themselves. Empowerment is at the highest rung because, in this level, the residents have the greatest freedom to influence the planning and direction of the housing development projects, compared to other levels. For housing projects, the government authority would be the financier of the project. The resident would produce a sketch of the project while the designer would guide the residents, and produce the design to specifications. In this level, the designer would determine the more technical aspects, while the residents determine others. However, the general arrangement of internal spaces and their sizes have been largely determined by the resident. The implication of this level of participation is that the level of satisfaction derived by the residents is very high (Fakere 2017). This is because the residents are allowed to have major influence on the outcomes of the housing project, thus incorporating most of their housing needs. Empowerment shows that residents can with outside help; solve their own housing development problems (Choguill 1996).