1. Introduction

2. Affordable housing and the Nigerian Context

2.1. The Housing Market and Implications of Private sector driven Affordable Housing in Nigeria

The Nigeria’s housing market is influenced by some factors that affect the demand and supply of housing. The population of Nigeria is estimated at 212 million as of 2021 and more than half of this population lives in cities implying a huge need for housing (CAHF 2021: 193); furthermore, about 80% of the urban population lives in substandard conditions (World Bank, 2018: 3; Raschke, 2016: 6), while 58.8% of the urban population lives in slums (CAHF 2020: 8), which signifies poor access to housing and huge demand for affordable housing. Generally, poor access to housing is hinged on low disposable income, poor salary and high cost of living. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, over 40% of the population lives below the poverty line of NGN137, 430/annum (US$334) (NBS 2021: 5), hence, are unable to afford basic needs including housing. In some countries like the UK and USA, such people will generally be assisted with housing benefits and housing vouchers respectively to enable them to pay their rent (Wilson and Barton 2019: 31, Perkins 2022); however, such a system is absent in Nigeria, creating further demand challenges, which can affect private investment.

Both government and private efforts have failed to address the housing needs of the low-income (Adegun and Taiwo 2011: 458, Ibem 2011: 202, Makinde 2014: 51), and current housing efforts from both sectors are still lagging in that respect. The average price of houses from both sectors (Table 4) shows that housing is unaffordable for a majority considering the prevailing low income. The backlog of supply arising from such practice over the years creates a huge gap in the affordable end of the market, which offers huge investment opportunities if appropriately harnessed and yet, private investors and even the government are unwilling to accept that serving the low-income market can be profitable (Raschke, 2016: 8). This is due to some operational challenges present in the market.

Table 4. Average prices of houses by private developers and the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing.

Table 4. Average prices of houses by private developers and the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing.

Average house prices from the private sector				National housing programme houses across Nigeria
Bedrooms	Abuja	Lagos	Kaduna	Flat in condominium
2		26,670,000	16,912,494	1 bedroom	2 bedrooms	3 bedrooms
3	51,740,000		29,637,327	7,222,404	9,148,378.4	13,241,074
4	84,330,000	62,740,000	35,796,239	Bungalow
5	142,680,00	87,970,00	49,280,015	9,268,751	12,398,460.2	16,491,155.8

Adapted from Roland Igbinoba Real Foundation for Housing and Urban Development (RIRFHUD n.d) and the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing (FMWH 2020).

Access to land remains a central issue in housing provision since land is governed by land tenure systems (Lawal and Adekunle 2018: 2). This system operates within a regulatory framework, which is the Land Use Act of 1978 (LUA). This Act was originally intended to make land available and accessible for developmental purposes (Ghebru and Okumo 2016: 6) and vests all land to each state governor whose consent formalises land transaction and registration. Generally, this process is lengthy and costly and impacts negatively on construction-related inputs like materials and finance.

In terms of affordability, land price is volatile and varies greatly with its location and the availability of infrastructure (CAHF, 2021: 195); the infrastructure stock in Nigeria is 30%, which is below the World Bank benchmark of 70%. It reflects in insufficient road network linking commercial centres across the country (International Trade Administration (ITA 2021). Therefore, the cost of unserviced land without adequate title in suburban areas ranges from ₦926/m² (US$ 2.3/m²) to ₦7, 716/m² (US$19.17/m²). On the other hand, the price of land with primary infrastructure and adequate title in urban areas ranges between ₦30, 000/ m² (US$73/ m²) to ₦200, 000/m² (US$487/ m²) (CAHF, 2021: 194). The prohibitive price of land in the cities is generally caused by its higher development value and is further exacerbated by its scarcity caused by speculative sales and the government taking over them for luxurious development (Raschke, 2016: 6).

The financial intensiveness of housing development is beyond what private savings and retained business earnings can support (Omirin and Nubi 2007: 52), developers in the formal sector generally rely on loans from the deposit money banks for housing development despite the challenges of doing so. Access to housing finance from these sources is constrained by higher interest rates (more than 25%) and short tenure (average 3 years) (EFInA and FinmarkTrust 2010: 33, CBN 2020: 7). Furthermore, it is constrained by the impediments of the LUA because loans are usually secured with a valid Certificate of Occupancy (CoO). The length of time for registering land and the security of title (EFInA and Finmark, 2010: 37) arising from poor administrative protocols and poor land records (Omirin and Nubi 2007: 52, Adenikinju 2019: 26) are the banes of housing development in Nigeria.

Housing development cost is excessively high and more than half of the cost is attributed to materials cost (Iwuagwu Ben and Iwuagwu Ben 2015: 45). Two major factors are responsible for the high materials cost in Nigeria: the construction technology is predominantly cement and steel-based technology and these materials are not sufficiently available locally, hence, the need to import them. The cost associated with the importation of materials is as high as 50% to 55% (CAHF, 2021: 195); other related factors like bad roads, the high cost of petrol, import duty and the fluctuating exchange rates (Akanni and Oke 2012: 104, Ihuah 2015: 221, Adenikinju 2019: 26, Ajayi 2019: 232) drive up housing cost. To make matters worse, the government has failed to support local research as expressed in the policy (Uwaegbulam, Nwannekanma et al. 2019). Local production has not sufficiently scaled to an appreciable level that can compete with imported materials; the industry is bedevilled with fewer investments due to the high initial capital outlay in setting up factories, stricter licensing rules, high cost of finance, the high number of middlemen, and inefficient infrastructural facilities (Mojekwu, Idowu et al. 2013: 364, Uwaegbulam, Nwannekanma et al. 2019, Eboh 2021).

Involving the private sector to realise certain developmental objectives (KMPG 2021: 42) is no longer new, and it has become even more popular in the housing sector (Berry, Whitehead et al. 2006: 307). Although the footprints of private activities have been visible for a long time in Nigeria, the continuous decline of public resources and government performance has made their engagement in housing formally recognised. Their operation within the existing market is not impressive, however, maximizing private resources in affordable housing will require certain considerations that can help investors navigate the challenging environment.

3. Materials and Methods

3.3. The history of Millard Fuller Foundation housing

The Millard Fuller Foundation started as a non-profit house builder in 2006, to tackle the Nigerian housing deficit. In 2007, its first studio apartments were built with donor funds and sold at affordable prices. Subsequently, the desire to scale up production led Fuller to shift its strategy; currently, it employs short-term project financing (12–24 months) to provide for-profit residential housing developments for the middle to low-income groups (Raschke, 2016:11). The entire housing projects built by the organisation are located in Luvu-Madaki, Masaka in Nasarawa State of Nigeria: Luvu-Madaki is a village in Masaka community, a town that belongs to the district of Karu local government area of Nasarawa state. It is only a few Kilometres away from the capital city (Abuja) of Nigeria (see Figure 1) and most workers who are unable to pay for the expensive accommodation in Abuja live and commute to work from there.

The MFF housing projects comprise mainly of studio apartments and one-bedroom apartments built as a semi-detached bungalow; however, there are other configurations as shown in Table 5. Some of these houses were delivered in an incremen tal building fashion similar in concept to the Chilean firm ELEMENTAL (Ferreira n.d); thus the foundation offers shell and core houses that are completed on the outside but need additional finishing on the inside. Families or apartment owners can upgrade their studios to one-bedroom apartments and their one-bedroom apartments to two-bedroom homes.

The MFF projects are targeted at low-income buyers who were assisted to own a home through a convenient payment plan. As of 2020 when the data was collected, the Millard Fuller Foundation had finished more than 600 affordable housing units (Table 5) and is scaling up its operation to deliver 600 units. Although the progress made since its existence may be considered slow due to several challenges, the MFF activities have contributed immensely to the development of the Luvu community, and its estates provide an affordable housing destination for most workers in Abuja.

Table 5. Summary of MFF projects, based on data collected from a site visit of the project in 2020.

Table 5. Summary of MFF projects, based on data collected from a site visit of the project in 2020.

ID	Project	Number of units	Cost (₦)	Construction method	Funding	Design
1	Fuller estate	60	240,000	Concrete block and Nigerite produced drywall.	Fuller Centre for Housing (FCH) USA	Studio apartment started in 2007 with the last set completed in 2013 and fully occupied
2	Camp Luvu I	13	5.9m	Concrete block construction	Self-funded	Three and four-bedroom apartments.
3	Aso Fuller estate	12	3m and 4m	Concrete block construction	MFF in partnership with Aso savings and loans ltd	One and two-bedroom semi-detached bungalow completed and fully occupied. Started in 2009 and completed in 2010
4	Selavip I & II	36	360,000 & 960,000	Concrete block and Nigerite produced drywall.	Selavip and Etex group	Studio apartments started in 2014 and were completed in 2015
5	Grand Luvu I	268	1.65m, 2.9m and 3.9m	Concrete block construction based on an incremental model2	MFF with funding from Reall, UK (loan at 5%) and bought over by FHF	Studio expandable to one bedroom and one bedroom expandable to two bedroom semi-detached bungalow started 2015 and completed in 2016
6	Camp Luvu II	32	3.6m and 5m	Concrete block construction based on an incremental model	MFF with funding from partner Reall	studio and two-bedroom started in 2020 and ongoing
7	Grand Luvu II	400	2.9m and 3.9m	Concrete block construction	An initiative of FHF completely funded and handed over to it	Studio and two-bedroom semi-detached bungalow, which took off in November 2017 and was completed in August 2018

Source. Site visit (2020).

4. Results

4.1. The targets of MFF projects

This section addresses the first objective, which is to identify the targets of the MFF housing project and to ascertain whether MFF is addressing the housing need of the target groups. This will help to ascertain whether the policy goal to address the affordable housing crisis through the private sector is possible. Hence, the Fuller experience could provide valuable lessons to inform appropriate enabling strategies for private sector-driven affordable housing in Nigeria. Table 6 and Table 7 provide information on the profile of the MFF residents. It shows that based on the policy definition of the low income group (see Table 2), the residents interviewed are within the low- middle income range with only four of them beyond this range. Although this number is not representative of the residents of the estates, we can safely assume that judging from the cost of these houses, only those within the low-middle income or above are catered for in this estate. Secondly, it shows that majority of the participants acquired from the government, which came with its challenges (see Table 7).

Table 6. The profile of interviewed residents.

Table 6. The profile of interviewed residents.

Resident	Employment	Monthly income (₦)	Type of accommodation	Number of persons in the household	Payment cost and plan	Residual income for other household expenses (₦)	Cost of house (₦)
1	Retired driver in a federal ministry	Not disclosed	Two-bedroom	2	Paid in full with proceeds from the sale of land inheritance	Not applicable	3m
2	Federal ministry employee	Not disclosed	Expandable studio and one-bedroom	5	Paid 10% of the price and pays ₦50, 000 monthly for 7 years.	Not disclosed	4.55m
3	A laid-off staff of a private bank and currently has no job due to age	Not disposed	Two-bedroom	2	Borrowed from a friend to pay the initial 10% deposit and makes monthly payments to complete within 5 years	Not disclosed	3m
4	Federal civil servant	136, 000	Two-bedroom	3	Originally ten years but shortened to five years and pays ₦60,000/month	76, 000	3.5 m
5	Federal civil servant	125, 000	Two-bedroom	3	50, 000/month for 5 years	75 ,000	3.5m
6	Federal civil servant	40, 000	One-bedroom	1	19, 500/month for 15 years	20, 500	2.9m
7	Federal Civil servant	135, 000	Two-bedroom	4	46, 000/month for five years	89, 000	4m
8	Federal Civil servant	110, 000	Two-bedroom	4	64, 000/ month for five years	46, 000	3.9m
9	Federal Civil servant	116, 000	Two-bedroom	5	Received as a gift	Not applicable	Not applicable
10	Federal Civil servant	110, 000	Two + one- bedroom	6	90, 000/month for five years	20, 000, supplemented by wife (average of 10,000/month)	6.8m
11	Federal Civil servant	100, 000	Two-bedroom	6	50, 000/month for five years	50, 000	4.2m
12	Federal Civil servant	180, 000	3	5	80,000/month for five years	100, 000	7m

4.2. To determine if the project meets the need of the low-income

This objective attempts to determine whether the MFF affordable housing meets the need of the low-income or the residents of the estates. Hence, the interview questions elicited the following information: ease of acquisition, the satisfaction derived and the turn offs of living in the estate. The themes emerging from participants’ narrative highlight important considerations when designing strategies for enhancing access to housing for the low income

Table 7. Impact of MFF projects on residents.

Table 7. Impact of MFF projects on residents.

Resident	Acquired from	Ease of acquisition	Satisfaction derived	Discomforts or dislikes
1	MFF		Sense of ownership, security (have something to fall back on after retirement), comfort and freedom form harassment of the landlord, safe environment	Poor salary, limited access to mortgage
2	MFF		Sense of ownership, no harassment, no paying of rent, sense of relief and comfort	Unfinished building, bad road
3	MFF		Ability to own a house with small funds, friendly mode of payment, space around the house for garden, communal outdoor space for recreation	Unfinished building, bad road, short payment period
4	FHF through workplace cooperative	Bureaucratic processes and the payments involved	No longer having to pay rent in lump sum, sense of ownership, no harassment, sense of pride, ease of payment	Poor quality, not up to standard, small room spaces, low height, unable to fix ceiling fan with such height, wall absorbs water and destroys the painting, a lot of spending on transportation, low wage, more amenities at the city, failure to secure a mortgage, higher monthly payment due to short repayment period, inaccessible road, inadequate water supply
5	FHF through workplace cooperative	Scheme plan poorly communicated by the government, uncertainty about their ownership status, difficult processing	Better to pay flexible to own than rent, ease of ownership	Rooms are small, will like to make some changes with the open space, spends more time commuting to work, afraid to loose job as a result, problem of water and electricity, bad road
6	FHF through workplace cooperative	Federal government acquired at cheaper price from the developer and are selling at high prices	Sense of comfort despite the inconvenience of lack of amenities, ease of ownership, security	The spaces are small, spend more on transportation, inadequate water, and no electricity but that, is a national problem
7	FHF through workplace cooperative		Ease of ownership and affordability of ownership	Room spaces are small, delineation of spaces is not functional, location of the estate is far, traffic is usually heavy and ends up late at work, short amortisation period and poor communication resulted to higher monthly payment, no water, which adds to the cost of running the house
8	FHF through workplace cooperative	The payment plan and status poorly communicated, the house was formerly cheap until the federal government bought them	Sense of ownership and the flexible way to own a house, the cost of building from the scratch is high and cannot be achieved with low income, communal space for sports, security of the source of accommodation	Thinks that low income housing means not adequate provision, location is inaccessible, no adequate water, no electricity
9	FHF through workplace cooperative			Stress of transportation as a result of heavy traffic, spends a lot on transportation, lesser productivity, no electricity, stressful and costly to get to place of work
10	FHF through workplace cooperative		Better to have mine than pay rent	Longer time on the traffic to get to town
11	FHF through workplace cooperative	Acquiring through government required lots of documentation and payments	Flexibility to own a house, sense of ownership, cheaper to own than build from the scratch, safe environment	Cheap material for construction, feels unsafe when it rains due to rain penetration, spends time commuting to work, no water, bad road, stress travelling on the road to work due to heavy traffic. Inadequate provision of water, power supply in Nigeria is problematic
12	FHF through workplace cooperative		Security, ownership, no longer paying rent, safe environment	Inconveniencing to shorten the payment period because it increases monthly payment and salaries are poor. No amenities like water, it is inadequate for the number of residents

The information in Table 7 shows that majority of the participants are happy to own a home because of the security it guarantees and the freedom from the harassment that comes with renting, they value the ease of and the flexibility of owning a home that MFF has offered against doing so from the scratch due to low income. However, the high monthly payment towards their housing cost and short repayment period, poor design, including poor communication of ownership plan, location of the estate, inadequate amenities, and bureaucratic process of acquiring a home are some of the challenges of their journey towards owning a home in the MFF.

4.3. The Strategies adopted by MFF

This section describes the strategies adopted by MFF to deliver the affordable homes in Luvu, they also highlight the challenges to investment for which investors will need intervention to surmount to deliver affordable housing. MFF described some of the strategies they adopted to realise affordable housing in Luvu, and their narratives are coded under the relevant interview questions. The interview questions sought to understand actions carried out before and during construction to realise cheaper houses, and those adopted to enable residents to access them. Hence, Table 8 describes the strategies adopted by MFF in two categories - construction cost reduction strategies and disposition strategies.

Table 8. Strategies adopted by MFF.

Table 8. Strategies adopted by MFF.

Construction cost reduction strategies
Targets	Method	Reason	Consequences
Land cost	Sited project on the outskirts of Abuja	(i). Land is cheaper in Luvu, (ii). There is already an existing relationship with the community, which made the land transaction easier, (iii). Nasrawa state has a good land registration system	Location lacked services and infrastructure, so they were provided by the organisation and the cost was factored into the cost of development The end-users complained that there is no access road to the project location being far from local transportation and towns.
Design cost	The design was limited to bungalows and comprised mainly studios and one to two-bedroom apartments, the room spaces are compact.	To keep the cost of construction and the materials required for construction as low as possible.	The cost of units was much lower but the end-users were dissatisfied with the outcome, so some of them had to make some changes to suit their design taste
Material cost	Adopted the conventional construction materials in Nigeria eg Concrete block, concrete, cement etc.	To keep the interactive cost of material, construction technology and labour low	Because labour was available for this type of construction, the project resulted in the engagement of the local community, hence employment doubled.
Funding cost	Obtained funding from Fuller Centre for Housing, USA,	To reduce cost	It resulted in fewer and slower production but cheaper apartments sold at no profit and interest (Table 5)
	Used soft loan from Reall UK at a 5% interest rate.	To facilitate production at a reduced cost	Increased production but at an interest rate of 5% to cost of construction; the obligation to the loan was eventually paid for with a bulk purchase of the homes by the Family Homes Fund
Disposition strategies
Selling cost	Set up a flexible payment plan	To assist end-user to pay gradually	Enabled end-users to pay gradually, which suited their variable income and encouraged payment with multiple sources of income
	Completed a portion of the house and built the rest up to the concrete oversite (Figure 2)	To reduce the cost of construction as well as the selling cost; To enable the end-users to make decisions for their home according to their need and resources.	Encouraged end-users to acquire their dream home in a less stressful manner.

5. Discussion

6. Conclusions

References

1. Acheampong, A.; et al. Factors inhibiting the use of indigenous building materials in Ghanaian construction industry. Africa Development and Resources Research Institute Journal 2014, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
2. Adedeji, I.; et al. The challanges in providing affordable housing in Nigeria and the adequate sustainable approaches for addressing them. Open Journal of Applied Sciences 2023, 13, 431–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Adegoke, S. A. O.; Agbola, T. Housing Affordability and the Organized Private Sector Housing in Nigeria. Open Journal of Social Sciences 2020, 8, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Adegun, O. B. and A. A. Taiwo (2011). "Contribution and challenges of the private sector's participation in housing in Nigeria: case study of Akure, Ondo state." Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 26(4): 457-467. [CrossRef]
5. Adenikinju, A. F. Bridging housing deficit in Nigeria: Lessons from other jurisdictions. Economic and Financial Review 2019, 57, 17–36. [Google Scholar]
6. Airgood-Obrycki, W.; et al. "The rent eats first": Rental housing affordability in the United States. Housing Policy Debate 2021, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Ajayi, *!!! REPLACE !!!*. Addressing Housing Deficit in Nigeria Issues, Challenges and Prospects. Economic and Financial Review 2019, 57, 223–237. [Google Scholar]
8. Akanni, P. O.; Oke, A. E. An assessment of trend in the cost of building materials in Nigeria. Environmental Research Digest 2012, 8, 103–116. [Google Scholar]
9. Aliyu, A. A.; Amadu, L. Urbanization, cities, and health: The challenges to Nigeria - A review. Ann Afr Med 2017, 16, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Berry, M.; et al. Involving the Private Sector in Affordable Housing Provision: Can Australia Learn from the United Kingdom? Urban Policy and Research 2006, 24, 307–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Blumenthal, P., et al. (2016). "How affordable housing gets built." Urban Institute. 2022. Available online: https://urbn.is/2wOouox (accessed on 21 January 2022).
12. CAHF (2019). Housing finance in Africa 2019 yearbook. Johannesburg, South Africa, Centre for Affordable Housing Finance.
13. CAHF (2020). Affordable housing in Nigeria: Market shaping indicators. Nigeria: 1-12.
14. CAHF (2021). Housing finance in Africa: A review of Africa's housing finance market. Johannesburg, South Africa, The Centre for Affordable Housing Finance in Africa.
15. CBN (2020). Mortgage. FSS International Conference. Abuja Nigeria, Central Bank of Nigeria.
16. Chime, U. (2016). Challenge of housing affordability in Nigeria. 32nd African Union for Housing Finance 2016 Conference. Abuja.
17. Conteh, A., et al. (2020). "A new insight into the profitability of social housing in Australia: A Real Options approach." Habitat International 105: 102261. [CrossRef]
18. Eboh, C. (2021). Nigeria raps dominance of large cement firms hampering economy. Reuters. Online, Reuters.
19. EFInA and FinmarkTrust (2010). Overview of the housing finance sector. Nigeria, Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access: 1-52.
20. El-hadj, M. B., et al. (2018). Housing market dynamics in Africa. London, UK, Springer Nature.
21. Elegbede, O. T.; et al. An Appraisal of the Performance of Private Developers in Housing Provision in Nigeria. (Redan as a Case Study). International Journal of Advances in Chemical Engineering and Biological Sciences 2015, 2, 8–14. [Google Scholar]
22. Ferreira, K. (n.d). Introduction to Architecture. Online, Creative Commons Attribution Non commercial.
23. FGN (2012). Draft National Housing Policy 2012. Nigeria, Fedral Governemnt of Nigeria.
24. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). "Five misunderstandings about case study research." Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219-245. [CrossRef]
25. FMWH (2020). "Welcome to the national housing programme.". Available online: https://nhp.worksandhousing.gov.ng/ (accessed on 29 August 2022).
26. Garton, G., et al. (2017). New housing design. House of Common Library. United Kingdom, House of Common Library.
27. Ghebru, H. and A. Okumo (2016). Land administration service delivery and challenges in Nigeria: A case study of eight states. NSSP Working Paper 39. Washington, DC., International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
28. Hasgül, E. (2016). "Incremental housing: A participation process solution for informal housing." ITU AZ 13(1): 15-27. [CrossRef]
29. Herbert, C. and D. Mc Cue (2018). "Is there a better way to measure housing affordability?" Joint Centre for Housing Studies of Havard University. 2022. Available online: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/is-there-a-better-way-to-measure-housing-affordability#:~:text=The%20residual-income%20approach%20to%20housing%20affordability%20The%20residual,include%20food%2C%20health%20care%2C%20transportation%2C%20and%20child%20care.
30. Ibem, E. O. (2011). "The contribution of Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) to improving accessibility of low-income earners to housing in southern Nigeria." Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 26(2): 201-217. [CrossRef]
31. Ihuah, P. W. Building materials costs increases and sustainability in real estate development in Nigeria. African J. Economic and Sustainable Development 2015, 4, 218–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Isma'il, M.; et al. Urban Growth and Housing Problems in Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Global Journal of Research and Review 2015, 2, 45–57. [Google Scholar]
33. ITA (2021). "Nigeria-country commercial guide: Construction Sector." 2022. Available online: from https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/nigeria-construction-sector (accessed on 25 December 2022).
34. Iwuagwu Ben, U.; Iwuagwu Ben, C. Local Building Materials: Affordable Strategy for Housing the Urban Poor in Nigeria. Procedia Engineering 2015, 118, 42–49. [Google Scholar]
35. JCHS (2020). The state of the nation's housing. USA, Harvard University.
36. KMPG (2021). National Budget 2021. Nigeria, KMPG: 1-58.
37. Lawal, A. O. and I. A. Adekunle (2018). "Access to Land and the Delivery of Affordable Housing in Nigeria: An Assessment of the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) in Abuja, 1991 to 2013." Sage Open 8(2): 2158244018777281. [CrossRef]
38. Makinde, O. O. Housing delivery system, need and demand. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2014, 16, 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Mariotto, F. L.; et al. What Is the Use of a Single-Case Study in Management Research? Revista de Administração de Empresas 2014, 54, 358–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Mc-Kinsey (2014). A blueprint for addressing the global affordable housing chllenge. online, Mc-Kinsey Global Institute.
41. Mojekwu, J. N.; et al. Analysis of the contribution of imported and locally manufactured cement to the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) of Nigeria (1986 2011). African Journal of Business Management 2013, 7, 360–371. [Google Scholar]
42. Moore, E. A. Addressing housing deficit in Nigeria Issues, challenges and prospects Moore. Economic and Financial Review 2019, 57, 201–222. [Google Scholar]
43. NASIDA (n.d). "Nasarawa State.". Available online: https://www.nasida.na.gov.ng/ (accessed on 8 June 2023).
44. NBS (2020). 2019 Poverty and inequality in Nigeria. Nigeria, National Bureau of Statistics.
45. NBS (2021). Labour force statistics: Unemployment and underemployment report Q4. Nigeria, National Bureau of Statistics: 88. Unemployment and underemployment report Q4: Labour force statistics.
46. NBS (2022). "Unemployment statistics.". Available online: https://nigerianstat.gov.ng/ (accessed on 26 November 2022).
47. NSG (2019). Nasarawa Economic Development Strategy (NEDS) 2019-2023. Nigeria, Nasarawa State Government.
48. NSIWC (2019). The Consolidated Public Service Salary Structure (CONPSS). N. S. I. a. W. Commission. Abuja, Nigeria, Office of the Presidency. 10: 3.
49. NSIWC (2019). Implentation of the new national minimum wage in the Federal Public Service: The consolidated public service salary structure (CONPSS). I. a. W. C. National Salaries. Nigeria, Office of the Presidency.
50. Olajide Olorunnisola, A. (2019). Development of Sustainable Building Materials from Agro- Industrial Wastes in Nigeria. Sustainable Construction and Building Materials. [CrossRef]
51. Olayiwola, L. M., et al. (2005). Public housing delivery in Nigeria: Problems and challenges. World Congress on housing: Transforming Housing Environments through the Design, Pretoria, South Africa.
52. Oluwadare, T.; et al. Assessment of housing quality in the Greater Karu Urban Area, Nigeria: A case of unplanned urbanization. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 2023, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Omirin, M. M.; Nubi, T. G. The role of Primary Mortgage Institutions in housing delivery. Housing Finance International 2007, 22, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
54. Perkins, S. F. (2022). "Low-Income Housing Options for People with Disabilities." Homeownwership. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/low-income-housing-people-disabilities-5220009 (accessed on 11 October 2022).
55. Raschke, C. (2016). Affordable housing in Nigeria. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.
56. Germany, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Inclusive Business Action Network.
57. RIRFHUD (n.d). "RI Index.". Available online: https://rirfhud.org/ri-index-roland-igbinoba-house-pricing-index/#1605014166753-a96f40ce-83d8 (accessed on 29 August 2022).
58. Rosenfeld, O. (2017). Interpreting the term 'affordable housing' in the Housing Partnership. Brussels, DG Regio and EU Urban Agenda Partnership for Housing.
59. Seeley, I. H. (1996). Cost Implications of Design Variables and Quality Assurance. Building Economics: Appraisal and control of building design cost and efficiency. London, Macmillan Education UK: 31-55.
60. Siggelkow, N. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal 2007, 50, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Stone, M. E. (2006b). "What is housing affordability? The case for the residual income approach." Housing Policy Debate 17(1): 151-184. [CrossRef]
62. Udechukwu, C. E. Obstacles to individual home ownership in Nigeria. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis 2008, 1, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63. Udoekanem, N. B. (2013). "ACHIEVING POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN NIGERIA THROUGH MORTGAGE FINANCING: Constraints and Way Forward." Ghana Journal of Development Studies 9: 55. [CrossRef]
64. UN-Habitat (2011). Affordable Land and Housing in Africa. Nairobi, Kenya, UN Habitat. 3.
65. UN-Habitat (2012). Enabling shelter strategies: Design and implementation guide for policymakers. Nairobi, Kenya, UNON Publishing Services. 2: 49.
66. UN-Habitat (2014). The right to adequate housing. Geneva, United Nations.
67. Uwaegbulam, C., et al. (2019). How non iplementation of local building materials' policy is worsening housing delivery. The Guardian Newspaper. Online, The Guardian Newspaper.
68. Wilson, W. and C. Barton (2019). What is affordable housing. House of Commons Library.
69. Wilson, W. and C. Barton (2022). What is affordable housing? House of Commons Library. CBP07747.
70. World-Bank (2018). Nigeria afordable housing projects. Project information document/Integrated safeguards data sheet. Washington: 1-14.
71. Wright, G. Design and affordable American housing. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 2014, 16, 69–86. [Google Scholar]