Narrative review of the concepts, functions, components, and evaluation of housing environments in Nigeria

1 Introduction

While the housing situation in Nigeria is not merely a matter of numbers, it is estimated that the nation currently requires over 20 million additional homes to bridge its housing deficit (Adedeji et al., 2023). This core problem is probably due to the lack of alignment between social needs and planning process (Igwe et al., 2017; Udoka and Kpataene, 2017). The formal production of housing is unattainable for most of the population due to high costs and limited resources (Udoka and Kpataene, 2017). Consequently, informal housing has become the dominant, effective, yet largely unregulated mode of delivery (Adedeji, 2023; Oyalowo, 2024; Ezeanah, 2025). The phenomenon of housing in Nigeria cannot be analyzed with the universal standards used in other parts of the world, especially Western models of urban planning, which often focus on formal planning and construction, because the situation in Nigeria is starkly different (Oyalowo, 2024). This is because there is an interplay of both formal and informal mechanisms for housing within the Nigerian setting, which results in a paradox of sorts when applying any universal model to it (Gbadegesin, 2018; Jiboye et al., 2020). Instead, Nigeria’s housing system should be viewed in terms of a socio-spatial system which depends on interactions between physical systems, economic situation, and institutional interactions to create a unique formal–informal paradox (Adewale et al., 2019; Babalola et al., 2020; Jiboye et al., 2020; Adedeji et al., 2023).

The housing problems faced by Nigeria cannot be attributed to a lack of appropriate programs since many such policies have been developed (Ezeanah, 2025). Hence, the issue of effective housing development derives from institutional factors, requiring novel research directions (Adedeji, 2023). In the light of increasingly pressing global housing crises associated with rapid urbanization, declining affordability, and climate change, alongside the growing body of literature and policy responses worldwide, there is a need for an up-to-date and integrative synthesis of housing environments. Despite numerous studies on housing design, satisfaction, and the measurement of housing quality (Babalola et al., 2020; Akinola et al., 2024), few studies have comprehensively synthesized the conceptual foundation, functional roles, structural components, and appraisal frameworks of housing environments.

This review fulfills that demand by offering a structured narrative mini-review of the concepts, purposes, components, and evaluation of housing environments. It’s goal is not to offer a comprehensive systematic review but rather to translate and bring together key theoretical and empirical knowledge, presenting new insights into the conceptualization, evaluation, and improvement of housing environments. The review initially probes conceptual knowledge of housing and how it contributes to human and societal growth and then scrutinizes the primary purposes and structural elements that characterize quality housing. It also reviews prevailing paradigms for assessing environments where people live, particularly emphasizing their strengths and weaknesses.

This review thus seeks to synthesize disparate threads of research into a single framework that brings the physical, social, economic, and environmental dimensions of housing together. It further seeks to identify gaps in current approaches and suggest directions for future research and policy design. Finally, this review serves to present an advanced understanding of housing environments as dynamic, multi-scalar systems at the center of sustainable, inclusive, and healthy urban life.

2 Methods

This study adopted a structured narrative review in analyzing the concepts, functions, structure, and assessment of housing environments in Nigeria. This method allows for a critical evaluation of relevant academic and policy materials without conducting any empirical research or carrying out any statistical tests. A structured narrative review approach is appropriate here since the emphasis is on interpreting and combining literature to construct a conceptual and theoretical knowledge of housing environments as opposed to presenting a full, systematic review of all accessible studies (van Wee and Banister, 2016; Greenhalgh et al., 2018; Mouratidis, 2025). Due to the breadth of the subject covering the idea of housing environments, their function, structural and social aspects, and assessment forms, a complete systematic review was not suitable. This also aligns with recommendations on reviews by De Vos and El-Geneidy (2022), who suggest that broad, multi-faceted topics are better served an interpretive synthesis. It is noted that narrative reviews are subjective and are more likely vulnerable to selection bias than systematic reviews (Paré et al., 2015). An identical approach has been made in various high-profile studies (Sinharoy et al., 2019; Peter et al., 2020; Oloke et al., 2022; Bridgette et al., 2024; Mushanga et al., 2024; Mouratidis, 2025).

In this review, only secondary data from peer reviewed articles from journals, textbooks, conference proceedings, theses, government sources, institutional sources, and gray literature were used. All sources have been collected from databases such as Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Scopus, JSTOR, ResearchGate, AJOL, and MDPI. Other sources include United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-Habitat), World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), and Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. This search was conducted between January and February 2026 (see Table 1). The structured Boolean searching was done using keywords such as “housing environment,” “housing quality,” “residential environment,” “housing evaluation,” “sustainable housing,” “urban housing in Nigeria,” and “residential satisfaction.” The literature search was restricted to English-language publications published between 2000 and 2025. However, seminal and foundational publications outside this period were also included where they were considered essential to the conceptual or theoretical foundation of the review. A total of 300 sources were retrieved through the search process. Duplicates and irrelevant documents were excluded, leaving about 200 sources that underwent screening according to their titles, abstracts, and keywords. The criteria for inclusion were relevancy, methodology, and contribution to discourse on housing environments in Nigeria and other similar settings. Approximately 150 sources were selected at the end of the screening process. The literature review included empirical work, conceptual studies, policy papers, and institution reports. The empirical studies served as evidence for housing quality, infrastructure, and housing satisfaction, while the policy papers gave information on governance and urban development.

TABLE 1. Summary of literature search and contributions to the review.

The data were subjected to a thematic analysis process that was inductive and manual. This meant that the themes were not preconceived. Rather, they were formed by reading the literature and comparing and synthesizing its information. This led to recurring themes being manually classified into categories. The synthesis in the end brought out themes that included housing environment concepts, theoretical approaches, functions, elements, measures, housing problems, and ways to improve housing environments. Credibility was assured through the use of peer-reviewed journals and other official sources where there was checking for consistency. Even though the research relied heavily on secondary sources, the methodology employed offered a sound approach to housing environments in Nigeria. This research suffers from the use of secondary sources of information, which hinders the ability to produce new empirical information or validate results by conducting primary fieldwork. Being a narrative review, it is likely to be affected by the researcher’s subjectivity in choosing and analyzing relevant literature. Moreover, although an effort was made to utilize a wide array of scholarly and policy documents, there is the possibility that some pertinent documents might have escaped notice for reasons such as database constraints, publication biases, and lack of access to relevant documents. The constraint of using only English language material means that some pertinent information available in non-English publications could not be used in this study. It is therefore important to acknowledge that the findings of this study are interpretative and synthetic rather that empirical and should not be regarded as generalizable. In addition, most policy and planning texts reviewed are from Global South contexts, with the assumption that suggested frameworks may fail to sufficiently capture regional variations in housing experience.

3 Results and discussions

3.1 Concepts and meanings of housing

There does not seem to be agreement in literature on the definition of “housing”. This is probably due to its multi-dimensional impact in society and the multi-disciplinary nature of housing research. Hence, the meaning of “housing” is subject to many definitions. Pagani et al. (2021) noted that the meanings linked to housing are similarly as significant as the mediating factors considered in its production. Other authors (Fishman, 2018; Yang et al., 2018; Bianconi et al., 2019; Curado and de Freitas, 2019; Fatica and Prammer, 2018; McLane and Pable, 2020; Tiderington et al., 2021; Benetton et al., 2022) viewed housing as a commodity, part of the federal tax system, an investment, a building, a design problem, a set of buildings, an asset of the community, and a person’s way of life. In addition to these, housing in its entire ramification seeks to meet the physiological, psychological, and socio-economic needs of its occupants and contribute to promoting the overall goals of the sustainable built environment (FRN, 2012). As a result, different definitions have been associated with “housing” by authors in various disciplines. Generally speaking, housing can be conceived from three basic perspectives: it can be seen as a product, a service, and a process. When viewed as a product, housing is seen as a residential environment that provides shelter, dignity, comfort, and security for people (Ruonavaara, 2018). Housing is also viewed as both a commodity and a process which contributes to improving people’s standard of living (quality of life) (Clapham et al., 2018; Gou et al., 2018). In addition to this, Fishman (2018) described housing as a service package for the delight of the consumer, as the occupier will gladly want to consume it. Furthermore, housing connotes the different types, shapes, and sizes of dwellings and can take different forms, such as bungalows or blocks of flats, single-room or duplex apartments, and roomy or compound houses, serving as places of abode or homes and providing locational access and security to the occupants (De Paris and Lopes, 2018; Amiryar and Asano, 2022). Housing can be bought and sold based on its shape, size, and location (Ruonavaara, 2018). This is because, with respect to economics, housing is viewed as a commodity that has market worth. Furthermore, housing is a reflection of an individual’s financial standing and its affordability which is a significant indicator in achieving a certain level of quality of life. When viewed as an asset, housing is likewise viewed as a security which an individual possesses for the benefit of their posterity (Badarinza and Ramadorai, 2018; Özogul and Tasan-Kok, 2020; Fields and Rogers, 2021). This is probably why Polukhina (2022) viewed housing as a physical structure and a carrier of socio-cultural identity that helps establish and maintain family relationships and serves as an investment of accruable asset value. From the service perspective, housing is also viewed as a dwelling unit with a bundle of services through which a wide range of social, cultural, and economic activities can be pursued. This implies that housing, which includes the physical building (house) as well as the totality of the surrounding environment (neighborhood) and services where physical structure is located, is larger in concept than just the word “shelter” (Pagani et al., 2021). Housing as a product or process comes with services that serve a wide range of functions for people. Thus, before an individual or a household acquires housing, some of the things to consider in addition to the physical structure and its characteristics are issues related to health, sanitation, security, and relations in the community and neighborhood. Others include user’s privacy, status of tenure, facilities and services available in the community, and access to job opportunities. Housing is also seen as a process of providing dwelling units and associated services for residents. This means that housing is used as a verb to describe the act of providing housing units and associated facilities required for a decent life (Ruonavaara, 2018). This comprises the entire process of design, development, construction, allocation, and repair, along with the maintenance of housing units and their surrounding environment (Karji et al., 2019; Aureli, 2020). “Housing” thus also refers to the process of producing, allocating, and managing housing units and their associated services, amenities, and infrastructure. Housing as a process can also contribute to how people’s quality of life is improved, particularly in the creation of jobs. This probably explains why Bah et al. (2018) argued that in addition to direct employment created in the building of houses and the associated infrastructure, income, and employment generated in the process, housing itself has a multiplier impact on the national and local economy. As the provision of housing involves a number of participants, including professionals, suppliers, artisans and unskilled labor, individuals in these interest groups can earn living from their involvement in housing construction and management activities (Keskar et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2019). This can have a trickle-down effect on the community, suggesting increased housing and infrastructural investments in building materials, production, transportation, and related industry (FRN, 2012). Furthermore, access to housing can also provide opportunities for home-based enterprises (retailing, hair dressing, and dress-making businesses), especially for women, which can also contribute to improving household income and urban poverty reduction. With regards to this study, the concept of housing as a product and service will be adopted. Hence, the housing condition relates to the product dimension of housing, which includes the physical characteristics of houses such as sitting areas, toilets, kitchen area, and service dimensions including water supply and electricity supply. In addition, the concept of housing in Nigeria differs from other nations. In Nigeria, for instance, housing is seen not as a fully constructed structure but as a developmental process influenced by socio-economic factors (Gbadegesin, 2018). One of the main characteristics of housing in Nigeria is that of incrementally constructed houses, whereby individuals develop their houses by building from scratch and building upon what they already have (Gbadegesin, 2018; Olagunju and Atamewan, 2017). Moreover, housing in Nigeria involves more than just shelter: it includes social elements such as hosting family members, conducting business transactions, and engaging in social activities (Gbadegesin, 2018; Jaiyeoba and Asojo, 2020). Furthermore, most housing structures in Nigeria involve the element of informality, which implies the lack of formal ownership of property and use of occupation and social acceptance as proof of ownership. In terms of economics, housing in Nigeria acts not only as shelter but also as a source of income generation and investment in view of the lack of mortgage facilities (Udoka and Kpataene, 2017; Oyalowo, 2024).

3.2 Components of housing environments

The components of housing include physical/spatial, financial/economic, housing environment/locational, and psychological/social components. The physical/spatial aspect covers the design features of dwelling units and includes the standard of the environment inside the house, the interrelationship of spaces, and its structural condition. It also includes size, layout, the dwelling unit’s appropriateness for the size of the household, dwelling space composition, interior design of the dwelling units, interior spaces’ ventilation, and lighting and privacy in the dwelling units (Atamewan, 2019; Porotto and Ledent, 2021). The financial component is concerned with the cost of housing—the expenditure on housing compared to household income. This includes the economic benefits derived from owning a house in terms of asset value or equity; house titleholders expect their houses to increase in value or provide a return when is sold or used as collateral (Molloy, 2020; Chen et al., 2022). The locational component of housing deals with location in relation to basic services (for example, water, sanitation, and electricity) and social infrastructure such as healthcare, educational, recreational, shopping facilities, and other key urban services (Lai et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2020). The locational component also covers accessibility to important services such as shops, schools, and green spaces. This explains why Equere et al. (2020) and Jegede et al. (2021a) described the characteristics of the surrounding environment where housing units are situated as very important in determining the perception of residents of their housing situation and satisfaction level. The psychological component of housing describes the emotional attachment people have to their home as a place of comfort, refuge, love, and care for family members (Adewale et al., 2019). The psychological component of housing relates to residents’ perception of housing as a symbol of social status, pride, and center of social networks from which people and communities relate with their wider community (Satyanarayana and Ramu, 2019; Sobantu, 2020). The social components of housing deal with noise, crime, accidents, and security control (Jegede et al., 2019). Social components also include relations with neighbors, social activities, and attending meetings. It can thus be inferred that the components of housing environments relate to characteristics of the housing unit, housing unit support services, housing location, housing management, and socio-economic features. The Nigerian housing environment stands out due to its informality, which includes the context of its existence, going beyond the usual scope of housing and infrastructure facilities. The housing infrastructure is diverse, varying from high rises to self-builds, with constant changes resulting from gradual development processes. In terms of infrastructure, utilities are unreliable, which encourages households to develop their own means of generating power (Igwe et al., 2017; Jiboye et al., 2020). In social terms, housing in Nigeria has community-oriented characteristics and multipurpose uses. The economic functions of houses include their use as a source of income generation through business establishments (Gbadegesin, 2018; Oyalowo, 2024). In institutional terms, there is an informality in tenure arrangements which combines customs and statutory law (Gbadegesin, 2018; Mrani et al., 2025). Environmentally, the building adapts to climatic conditions and population densities. It can therefore be observed that the distinctive feature of the housing environment in Nigeria is that the elements are highly interrelated and adaptable in nature. Unlike any other system, it is not a fixed plan but a living system that constantly adapts due to the lack of infrastructure, need, and survival.

3.3 Functions of housing

The literature showed that the way people view housing is important in understanding the role it plays in their lives across countries and cultures. Pagani et al. (2021) identified nine main functions of housing in society: provision of shelter, permanence, impermanence, commodity, symbol of status, self-representation, property, security, and privacy. It also serves a production and consumption function as a place that enables the performance of activities, such as eating, laundering, and companionship. Others (Arkhudi and Mohammadi, 2020; D’Alessandro and Appolloni, 2020; Capasso and D’alessandro, 2021; Jonek-Kowalska, 2022) added that housing plays a crucial role in improving the quality of life and public health, combating social exclusion and discrimination, and strengthening social cohesion. There is also an understanding that housing can provide the residents with feelings of privacy, security, and personal space (Kuoppa et al., 2020).

Housing is significant in providing other essential needs, such as having a family. In the construction of houses, different professionals such as architects, builders, painters, lawyers, town planners, and surveyors are involved. In view of this, it can be deduced that housing production provides employment prospects for such persons. Housing also provides some environmental advantages, including access to employment, education, recreation, and health centers. In the context of this study, housing plays a crucial role in improving people’s quality of life, influencing political, family, career/job, economic and general life factors. In Nigeria, houses have several roles apart from providing accommodation. Houses provide safety against not just against environmental threats but also theft and criminal activities (Jegede et al., 2021b). There is always a need for a generator and borehole due to inadequate facilities. Houses can be viewed as money-making tools because they can be used for storage, hairdressing studios, and places for rent. Houses enable family gatherings, cultural activities, and accommodate members of the extended family, who may reside in common compounds (Gbadegesin, 2018; Oyalowo, 2024). In times of economic instability, houses provide security and stability by serving as savings. Lastly, houses are flexible structures that can be modified to suit the demands of the occupant.

3.4 Levels of housing provision

3.4.1 Individual housing provision

In developing countries such as Nigeria, individual housing provision is very popular. The services of building contractors might be employed by individuals involved in individual housing. However, many houses in Nigeria were built without consideration for building codes and regulations as they were mostly informally built. For instance, over 85% of the houses in Nigeria were estimated to be produced by individuals in the informal private sector (Adegun and Olusoga, 2019). In Nigeria, informal housing goes beyond slum settlements to other areas with a history of durable housing (Mrani et al., 2025) but without formal title deeds or planning permission. This problem is mainly attributed to the difficulties in managing land arising from the Land Use Act 1978, which has made title acquisition a lengthy and costly process (Wapwera et al., 2015). Consequently, people acquire land through informal means and develop their property incrementally (Gbadegesin, 2018). Urbanization adds to this trend, with rapid development in the urban centers outgrowing the capacity of planning processes, hence making it difficult for people to obtain title deeds and plan their houses. Economically, this form of informal housing is unexploited wealth because it cannot be used for collateral purposes (Oyalowo, 2024). The informal building process (incremental) involves building owners personally engaging the services of building contractors and artisans in the production of blocks, foundation laying, roofing, installing doors, and other phases of building construction to save cost. Some problems that constrain participation in individual’s producing houses in Nigeria include insufficient access to finance for housing, problems related to the procurement of land, expensive building materials, building laws and regulation, and residential infrastructural issues (Ekpo, 2019). Furthermore, most individual developers have limited access to financial institutions for support and cannot secure loans at a reasonable interest rate. As a result, the most common resources for housing finance in the informal housing sector are individual savings and borrowing from friends and family members (Adegun and Olusoga, 2019; Jagun et al., 2020; Van Noorloos et al., 2020).

3.4.2 Mass housing provision

In most developing nations, mass housing provision can be classified into two principal groups: the public sector (formal) and the private sector (formal and informal) (Ekpo, 2019). It is significant to note that in Nigeria, the private sector performs a major roles in housing development, including the construction of different income groups’ housing units for sales or rental purposes, manufacturing and supplying materials for building, provision of infrastructure for housing, and making available community development projects which encourage community members to improve their environment (Alabi and Bako, 2018; Gillespie, 2018). Private sector housing comprises formal and the informal private housing. Formal private sector housing involves housing provision by involving several stakeholders such as real estate developers, primary mortgage institutions, deposit money banks, corporations, financial institutions involved in development, and real estate investment vehicles (trust). The informal sector is concerned with housing provision by individuals and families. It is noteworthy that the principal goal of the private sector is to make profit. Private sector housing refers to housing not provided by the government and its ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs) (Adegoke and Agbola, 2020; Tharsika and Pratheepkanth, 2020; Uwala and Kehinde, 2021; Shiyanbola and Olaleye, 2022). With regards to private sector housing, Morakinyo et al. (2015) argued that the private housing sector faces problems that have continually hampered the extensive production of dwelling units to meet the ever-growing housing needs. This is because of the peculiar characteristics of housing, such as its heterogeneous nature, high cost of production relative to its earnings, high cost of transactions, and low supply elasticity. However, our review of literature also revealed that the private sector in most developing countries provides the most spontaneous response to housing shortage. Taking Nigeria as an example, over 85% of existing housing was delivered by the private sector (Adegun and Olusoga, 2019). However, such housing is expensive for low-income earners and thus establishes more reasons for the government to be involved in the production of Nigeria’s housing (Morakinyo et al., 2015). This is perhaps why Adegun and Olusoga (2019) stated that the informal private sector provides the majority of the housing for rental purposes in most urban centers of Nigeria.

Public housing is a response to urban problems generated through rapid urbanization. The urban housing challenges are multi-faceted and include but are not limited to slums, squatter settlements, unbridled physical development , and available resources that do not match citizens’ housing needs. Available evidence suggests that public housing has generated much criticism (Afolabi et al., 2019; Jegede et al., 2019; Equere et al., 2020). In addition, Aliu et al. (2018) and Odoyi and Riekkinen (2022) identified deficiencies in amenities, poor maintenance, association strains amongst public housing management and residents, and serious financial crises as the major problems related to public housing. It is important to highlight that social service provision with the welfare of the less-privileged citizens is the focus of public housing, there is an emphasis on profit-maximization. In Nigeria, stakeholders involved in public sector housing include the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, the Federal Housing Authority, state ministries of housing, state housing corporations, and works departments of local government authorities. Drawing from the wealth of literature we reviewed, it was perceived that the provision of public housing was mainly handled by or sponsored by the government in Nigeria. However, government projects usually involve local authorities in the production, management, and allocation of buildings. This method is characterized by the rent of these buildings being lower than the market price. In the government sponsored/financed approach, the rent is usually higher and buildings are under the management of various associations and cooperatives that stand as proprietors for the buildings (Adebayo, 2019; Ajayi, 2019; Ezeanah, 2025; Jiboye et al., 2020). It is associations and cooperatives that construct, manage, and allocate such buildings. This implies that the former is more related to Nigeria than the latter. Furthermore, public provision of housing services for the economically disadvantaged segment of the population or low-income people could take various forms. These include direct public housing construction, provision of serviced land, the availability of mortgage finance at below-market interest rates, and tax relief on substantial rehabilitation programs. In Nigeria, the most noticeable and popular of these methods is the direct production, distribution, and management of housing units. Table 2 shows the types of housing that exist in Nigeria, their varying forms, and environmental settings. It brings into one coherent discussion the widely scattered literature concerning informal housing, incremental housing, self-help housing, inadequate infrastructure, and the multi-use nature of housing facilities.

TABLE 2. Typology of housing forms and environmental conditions.

3.5 Synthesis: the dual housing system

The housing situation in Nigeria cannot be characterized by the presence of just one system but should rather be seen as two separate systems based on whether the development process involved is formal or informal (Gbadegesin, 2018). The formal housing system is characterized by planning laws and control as well as intensive financial investments in projects. It refers to the government-approved housing plans that have been financed through mortgages (Oyalowo, 2024). However, despite this order and formality, the formal housing system is still out of reach for many people because of its expensive nature (Udoka and Kpataene, 2017).

The informal housing system prevails in terms of sheer magnitude and actuality (Adedeji, 2023). This system entails the principle of gradual growth, adaptive tenure, and extensive social integration (Gbadegesin, 2018; Adedeji, 2023). In this case, the construction of houses does not occur with massive investments but in an incremental and adaptable process necessitated by financial constraints (Gbadegesin, 2018; Olagunju and Atamewan, 2017). These informal dwellings, which are generally considered unplanned and chaotic, are actually efficient spaces that function well within the socio-economic framework of their occupants (Oyalowo, 2024).

Nevertheless, this dualism does not constitute a static concept in any way; both formal and informal systems have certain characteristics that enable them to largely coexist (Gbadegesin, 2018). Thus, many formal neighborhoods find themselves using labor from informal sources in order to build, clean, and maintain their services (Oyalowo, 2024). On the other hand, informal settlements are not completely inflexible because they incorporate features of formal planning in their own development (Mrani et al., 2025).

Such a relationship implies that the formal–informal dichotomy should not be seen as a problem that needs to be eliminated but rather as an aspect of the Nigerian housing system that mirrors economic and political constraints (Gbadegesin, 2018). The solution should not entail the total elimination of the informal sector but rather involve efforts to integrate and improve upon informal arrangements (Mrani et al., 2025; Olaniran and Aule, 2025).

It is thus recommended that the emphasis of policy-making change from eliminating the informal sector to understanding the nature of informal housing arrangements, integrating them into the system, and developing policies that link the two sectors. Such a strategy would make housing policy more realistic and reflective of the needs of the majority of Nigerians.

3.6 Challenges of housing in Nigeria

Urban housing systems, particularly in expanding urban centers, experience an array of interrelated and mutually reinforcing difficulties that arise from social, economic, spatial, and governance factors (Adedeji, 2023).

From the social perspective, overcrowding remains a major problem (Adedeji, 2023; Udoka and Kpataene, 2017). With rapid growth of urban populations surpassing the existing housing stock, many individuals live in extremely cramped quarters. Poor sanitation facilities contribute to the negative effects associated with these living spaces and put residents at risk of contracting diseases that spread through water and the air (Jiboye et al., 2020; Udoka and Kpataene, 2017). Exclusion from society can be noted as another social challenge that residents of informal settlements face (Adedeji, 2023).

The economic constraints on proper housing provision are similarly important. The possibility of accessing funds to build homes does not exist among poorer and middle-class families, especially when the mortgage system is either non-existent or not easily accessible (Oyalowo, 2024; Udoka and Kpataene, 2017). High costs of construction due to expensive material, labor, and regulations have also made formal housing too costly to afford for many families (Olagunju and Atamewan, 2017). The lack of formal options pushes individuals towards alternative means of constructing their homes, including incremental housing and squatting (Adedeji, 2023; Olagunju and Atamewan, 2017).

Geographically, urban expansion is taking place at a rate that tends to exceed the capacity of both planning and legislation (Adedeji, 2023). As a result of rapid urbanization, urban sprawl takes place haphazardly, often in ecologically fragile zones or in hazardous places (Jiboye et al., 2020). The development of slum communities results directly from imbalances in the face of rapid urbanization. Such places usually lack basic infrastructure, such as transport facilities, proper drainage systems, and access to water and electricity. In certain situations, the government resorts to eviction as a means of dealing with such areas, without offering any solutions to the people there (Adedeji, 2023; Jiboye et al., 2020).

Governance issues present another barrier to overcoming the problems associated with urban housing. Low institutional capacity may affect the government’s ability to design, implement, and enforce housing policies (Jaiyeoba and Asojo, 2020; Wapwera et al., 2015). Policy instability arises in situations where policies undergo many changes or inconsistencies arise between policymakers (Echendu, 2022; Olagunju and Atamewan, 2017). The presence of corruption or enforcement gaps may compromise the delivery of housing due to resource allocation distortions or illegal developments within such systems (Echendu, 2022; Olubi and Aseyan, 2022).

Overall, this means that housing should be considered in terms of social inclusion, economic accessibility, and spatial and institutional issues. It is only through an integrative approach to the problem that any tangible results will be achieved (Olaniran and Aule, 2025; Olubi and Aseyan, 2022).

3.7 Evaluation of the housing environment

Evaluation is a multi-disciplinary task; it is extensively recognized in the literature that evaluation involves gathering, analyzing, interpreting, and reporting information about a thing, process, place, or event (Archibald, 2020). In housing research, there are different ways of evaluating housing schemes; the two main types are before completion and during occupation. The former is known as “pre-occupancy evaluation,” the latter is called “post-occupancy evaluation”.

3.8 Pre-occupancy evaluation

Pre-occupancy evaluation (PrOE) is understood to mean evaluation conducted before occupation of the building. This evaluation is usually done from non-users’ and users’ perspectives (Deaky and Parv, 2018; Juan et al., 2018; Alizadehsalehi et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). PrOE provides information about the building prior to occupancy. It has been recognized as a main factor in the process of design and construction safety evaluation, ensuring customer satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, time, and effort prior to the construction phase (Aitbayeva and Hossain, 2020; Wong et al., 2020). On other hand, users carry out post-occupancy evaluation (POE) after construction. To solve the major demerits of time and cost limitations for the enhancement of physical conditions, PrOE can appraise and amend a design before construction by predicting user behavior in the virtual space of the design. PrOE uses virtual reality (VR) in supporting end-users while communicating with designers regarding the future work vision and appearance of the building (Frelin and Grannäs, 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). It can also be carried out by the application of building information modeling (BIM), user-activity simulation, and requirement management techniques (Costin et al., 2018; Wang, 2021; D’Amico et al., 2022). Another popular method of conducting PrOE is space syntax. This is especially used in the evaluation of public spaces by calculating the built environment spatial configuration (Sharmin and Kamruzzaman, 2018; Bendjedidi et al., 2019; Koohsari et al., 2019; Garau et al., 2020; Pafka et al., 2020; Yamu et al., 2021). It works by reducing building floor plans to abstract systems of nodes and links which represent basic patterns of accessibility and circulation (Shahbazi et al., 2018; Zou and Liu, 2021). Many spaces in a single building are implanted in these systems of nodes and links.

As earlier stated, PrOE involves estimating the performance of a building before occupation by simulating the activities carried out in it using presumed occupant behavior (Deaky and Parv, 2018). Nonetheless, there are many problems associated with the application of this tool in Nigeria. These include unreliable power supply and inadequate water, which hinders any estimation that assumes regularity in supply and consumption (Udoka and Kpataene, 2017). Moreover, cultural complexity in Nigeria, where a house is put to various uses, is another reason why this evaluation may be inaccurate (Adamu et al., 2021; Jaiyeoba and Asojo, 2020). There are also changes in building configuration through additions and modification of layout, making assumptions used during design useless (Ackley and Ukpong, 2019; Ilesanmi, 2010). Moreover, economic challenges and urbanization contribute to the lack of reliability in this model due to frequent changes in situations.

3.9 Post-occupancy evaluation

Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is a process through which buildings are systematically and critically evaluated after they have been occupied for a while. POE processes in any building begin at the planning phase, on to programming, then the design and the construction phase, and lastly occupancy. POE aims to ascertain the extent to which occupied buildings meet occupier or user requirements (Hay et al., 2018; Park et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2018; Cranz et al., 2021). According to Ackley and Ukpong (2019), POE systematically analyzes an environment with the aim of understanding its impact on the users of a building, thereby revealing how the building facilitates or constrains occupants’ daily activities. In the context of this study, POE is viewed as actions carried out to understand a building’s performance based on pre-determined goals, including the users’ experience of the building and its environment. Mustaffa et al. (2022) noted that the applications and goals of POEs usually vary, helping to solve problems as they arise and making available feedback about the building under evaluation. POE could also be used to troubleshoot at times of building changeover, particularly after occupants have moved in. It thus addresses problems that were not foreseen in the use of a building, thus balancing and modifying the building as the need arises. POE can further assess the performance of a building by examining factors such as space utilization and documenting its successes and shortcomings (Ackley & Ukpong, 2019). The findings of such evaluations may inform recommendations for remodelling, renovation, or reconstruction. Furthermore, POE findings can provide valuable criteria for informing future building designs and developing broader guidelines and standards for architectural practice. Therefore, POE primarily focuses on investigating and understanding how buildings and their surrounding perform while occupied. This can be achieved using established parameters, performance standards, or criteria. The literature reviewed also indicates the merits of POE can be categorized into short-, medium- and long-term benefits. Short-term benefits include receiving feedback from users on problems faced in buildings and identifying immediate solutions. The medium-term benefits of POE include being able to draw from the positive and negative feedback of users that can be used for the next building phase. Its long-term benefits include a platform where databases are created for possible future update, upgrade, and planning and design procedures and standards (Roberts et al., 2019; Ackley and Ukpong, 2019; Ukpong et al., 2022; Mustaffa et al., 2022).

3.10 Levels of POE

The levels of a typical POE can be summarized into three approaches. The first is indicative POEs. This involves a quick analysis that might include interviews with key stakeholders and meetings and inspections with occupants in order to achieve quick evaluations. They indicate the major strong and weak points in the performance level of a building. The second approach is investigative POEs, in which analyses are more detailed. Here, the criteria of objective evaluation are explained in detail using guidelines or performance standards. This level of POE makes use of interviews and questionnaires, and the results usually give understanding into the reasons and effects of issues in a building’s performance. The third approach is diagnostic POEs, which are the most sophisticated of the three approaches. Diagnostic POEs are broad and system-wide, especially when used in a number of similar building types; they use a wide range of technologies and anthropological forms of research. They also correlate measures of the physical environmental with subjective occupant responses. Such an in-depth POE generates data with high validity and generalizability and, therefore, has the potential to inform the development of guidelines for broader application. This study will take the form of investigative POE, as the focus is identifying the performance of the housing environment in meeting the needs, aspirations, and expectations of end-users and their impact on their overall quality of life.

As earlier noted, POE is expected to measure the performance of buildings after occupation. However, the practice of POE in Nigeria encounters a number of difficulties (Ackley and Ukpong, 2019). The first involves infrastructural instability, especially with power and water supply, which may result in unstable performance conditions, making it hard to evaluate architectural performance independent of external forces. Buildings are also continually modified by occupants, who might make changes to their layout or even transform the building’s use, thus rendering continually the architectural design being assess obsolete (Ackley and Ukpong, 2019; Ilesanmi, 2010). There are also cultural differences between houses in Nigeria and POE assumptions. For instance, many houses in Nigeria accommodate an extended family and have various socio-economic purposes, which deviate from the assumptions made by POE (Adamu et al., 2021; Jaiyeoba and Asojo, 2020). Moreover, POE suffers from practical constraints in terms of financial investment and time commitment (Ackley and Ukpong, 2019; Ziama and Li, 2018).

3.11 Approaches to the POE of housing environments

As earlier stated, the housing environment comprises the characteristics of housing units and services, housing location, housing management, and the socio-economic environment where the dwelling units are located. Consequently, housing and urban environment evaluation can be categorized into both subjective and objective evaluation (Omolabi and Adebayo, 2017; Garau and Pavan, 2018; Adedire and Adegbile, 2018; Riazi and Emami, 2018; Godhwani et al., 2019; Shatu et al., 2019; Babalola et al., 2020; Nakamura and Managi, 2020). According to Mohit et al. (2010), subjective evaluation measures perception, satisfaction, aspiration, and disappointment, and it can be closely linked to human psychological characteristics. Although Cao et al. (2018), Yan and Bao (2018), and Ezennia and Hoskara (2021) argue that subjective evaluation by residents of their housing conditions could be seen as less important or an unreliable source of information for those making decisions, subjective evaluation is known to provide insights into housing conditions of residents not obtainable by objective means. Nguyen et al. (2018), Chen et al. (2020), Mouratidis (2020), and Park and Kang (2022) consider that subjective evaluation deals with perceptions of building users of their satisfaction level with the housing conditions that determining their quality of life. Thus, the socio-economic position of the individuals and how they perceive the place can affect their assessment of housing conditions (Shatu et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2022). This might help explain why Babalola et al. (2020) argue that users’ perceptions of their housing environment may differ regarding what some might perceive as high quality which others might perceive as low quality or no quality at all. Regarding the objective evaluation of the housing environment, Spring (2018), Ren et al. (2019), and Mercader-Moyano et al. (2021) emphasize the assessment of the physical characteristics of buildings. In addition, the facilities, environment, and services provided in the building are also evaluated against some established criteria or standards. This reveals that in assessing the housing environment, experts can utilize local, national, or global parameters. Aliu and Adebayo (2010) and Mohit et al. (2010) argued that in a residential environment evaluation, from an objective perspective, it is vital that housing’s physical characteristics, services it provides, and environment be analyzed.

However, it is argued that objective evaluation does not consider psychological aspects, especially the perception of users on quality and satisfaction. It is therefore crucial to remember that objective evaluation assess the parts of a building that are physical and concrete, which can be observed. Therefore, in objective evaluation, experts already have specific guidelines based on their opinions to determine how far building qualities deviate from standards acceptable in society. Newman (1975) stated that the environmental settings of house, neighborhood, and community are variables which can be used as predictors equally in objective and subjective approaches. For instance, objective evaluation includes predictive variables such as the characteristics of a house’s environment, degree of crowding, dwelling unit type, ratio of rent/value to income, and the neighborhood and community environment (geographic size of the area). Subjective evaluation includes predictive housing environment variables such as the costs of the dwelling unit, room sizes, and size of the neighborhood and community environments. Several studies have evaluated housing environment subjectively and objectively. For instance, Ge and Hokao (2004) established the residential evaluation model alongside the residential environment index system in 2004. The authors were able to establish with the use of questionnaire a subjective evaluation database, while the Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to collate the objective evaluation database; the relationship between both was established using multiple regression analysis. Nyunt et al. (2015) also investigated the measures of the neighborhood environment (NE) relationships and older people’s physical activity transportation both objectively and subjectively. They revealed that physical activity transportation, after residents’ socio-economic, demographics, and health status have been adjusted, has a positive independent significant associations with subjective measures of residential density, connectivity with the street, diversity of land-use, and environmental aesthetic and the measure of accessibility index (AI) derived objectively.

Although Yigitcanlar et al. (2019) indicated that there is little or no agreement between the objective and subjective measures used in the built environment, few studies have effectively combined subjective and objective evaluation approaches. However, the extent to which subjective and objective measures overlap or complement each other is not well reported. From the foregoing, it can be seen that subjective measures of how the housing environment influences their quality of life might involve collecting data derived via subjective assessment. The collection of such data can principally be through interview guides or questionnaires. The validity of subjective assessments has been questioned because of their bias and other possible weaknesses in methodological approach and problems of interpretation. However, subjective assessment usually provides a more reliable source of information than objective assessment in measuring resident’s housing conditions. Nonetheless, a comprehensive analysis of housing’s impact on the quality of life of housing users, which is the focus of this study, needs to combine both subjective and objective approaches to achieve the desired result (Figure 8).

Methods of evaluation, such as objective evaluation, subjective feedback, and POE techniques, are means of providing useful information to housing stakeholders in Nigeria. POE information can assist policymakers in understanding the difference between the planned and actual performance of housing and aid in the formulation of housing regulations or subsidy programs. Designers and architects can utilize subjective feedback to inform design changes that are culturally and contextually relevant, while objective evaluation methods such as thermal comfort, lighting, and space use can assist in functional and material design. Housing managers can utilize these results to inform maintenance priorities and monitor residents’ satisfaction.

3.12 Policy reform and implementation strategies

The existing literature indicates that the problems facing Nigeria’s housing situation do not arise from a lack of policy but rather from deficiencies in its formulation and implementation (Gbadegesin, 2018). One particular area where improvements need to be made is that of the National Housing Policy (2012); while being extensive in terms of its strategy, it needs to be improved in its implementation (Echendu, 2022). Such improvement involves formulating binding mechanisms for implementation, monitoring and evaluation procedures, and devolving responsibilities to state governments to ensure local relevance (Gbadegesin, 2018; Wapwera et al., 2015).

The National Housing Fund (NHF) also needs major reform. While it is supposed to help individuals access funds to purchase houses, its problem is that it is not easily accessible to people who earn low incomes, especially informal sector earners (Udoka and Kpataene, 2017). Reforming the NHF means making loans easy to obtain, allowing informal earners to access the loans, and increasing transparency in the system using modern technologies (Oyalowo, 2024; Udoka and Kpataene, 2017). Furthermore, addressing high interest rates and the astronomical costs of housing units is essential for making these funds meaningful for the average Nigerian (Udoka and Kpataene, 2017).

It is also important to reform the Land Use Act 1978, which still restricts access to land and increases the cost of housing in Nigeria (Wapwera et al., 2015). The problem with this act is that it makes land title acquisition difficult, lengthy, and costly. Its simplification would help increase access to land and make the process more efficient (Gbadegesin, 2018; Wapwera et al., 2015).

Housing delivery methods used by governments must also have reviewed. The current method, which is based on government-led building projects, has been ineffective and has failed to address the needs of poorer members of society (Olubi and Aseyan, 2022). A more successful way would be to embrace the PPP concept, coupled with the development of self-help and incremental housing options (Olagunju and Atamewan, 2017). Offering serviced plots with basic facilities instead of complete houses may prove a useful alternative for low-income earners who build incrementally according to their financial resources (Gbadegesin, 2018; Olagunju and Atamewan, 2017).

Regarding housing-related policies in urban areas, there is a need to integrate infrastructure development with housing. This means that housing should be developed together with transport, water, sanitation, and waste systems (Jiboye et al., 2020; Olaniran and Aule, 2025). There is also a need to strengthen development controls in order to reduce the problem of informal settlements (Olaniran and Aule, 2025).

There is a need for reform in housing finance policy to deal with the fact that the formal mortgage process does not cover a great number of people (Udoka and Kpataene, 2017). Increasing accessibility will depend on devising with other ways of financing, such as micro-mortgages, rent-to-own systems, and co-operative housing systems that will suit Nigeria’s economy (Olubi and Aseyan, 2022; Udoka and Kpataene, 2017).

Finally, building codes need to be improved and strictly enforced. It is not uncommon for codes to fail to take into account weather conditions in an area, along with the issue of sustainability (Igwe et al., 2017). By adopting building codes that respond to the climate and using locally available and energy-efficient building materials, environmental impact can be reduced while increasing affordability (Olagunju and Atamewan, 2017; Igwe et al., 2017).

4 Conclusion

This study presents a state-of-the-art review of the concepts, functions, components, and evaluation of housing environments in Nigeria. The review shows that housing, while delivering fundamental benefits such as shelter, security, and identity, exerts intricate effects on the wellbeing of individuals, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability. Inadequate or unsuitable housing may have negative consequences for health, social equity, and quality of life, especially among disadvantaged groups in different contexts. This was followed by a description of the components of housing and the concept and types of mass housing provision. Furthermore, the literature on the evaluation of the housing environment, particularly post-occupancy evaluation of housing, was reviewed. The study identified the subjective and objective approaches to housing evaluation. Based on the merits and demerits of the two approaches, the study recommends a combination of subjective and objective approaches in order to achieve a better result.

The evaluation of the housing environment in Nigeria has several implications for future study. There is an obvious necessity to shift from simple descriptive studies to causal and impact-driven research that explains the mechanisms that underlie connections between housing environment and health, income, and wellbeing. Firstly, it is important for future scholars to incorporate an interdisciplinary approach into their research that considers the different views provided by architecture, urbanism, healthcare, economics, sociology, environmental studies, and governance. There is also a demand to study Nigeria’s housing in context as the country features unique cultural, geographical and urban peculiarities. Furthermore, there is an opportunity for further researchers to apply modern technologies such as GIS analysis, remote sensing, and big data to gain a deeper understanding of urban expansion, the formation of slums, and the lack of infrastructure. In addition, greater focus on policy research addressing institutional challenges is necessary. Affordability and inclusiveness should become priorities for future research on the housing environment in Nigeria, along with sustainability and the climate-responsiveness of buildings. Finally, the theoretical framework developed in this paper is exploratory and should be empirically tested in diverse socio-economic settings. Future research can employ mixed-methods designs to investigate the interrelation between housing quality, social inclusion, and wellbeing. An understanding of this will contribute to the creation of equitable, resilient, and sustainable housing environments that support the attainment of global development agendas and human flourishing.

There are some limitations in this review that may influence the outcomes. For instance, there is an excessive use of secondary data from the literature and policy frameworks which may result in biases and influence the reliability of the results. Despite implementing structured criteria for article selection, a narrative review approach is still open to bias since some relevant articles might have been omitted. Furthermore, the lack of fieldwork does not allow empirical evidence to be obtained. Finally, the generalization of findings related to housing problems in Nigeria is made irrespective of differences in local culture, climate, and urbanization. The availability of insufficient and out-of-date data is another limitation that influences the study’s findings.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Praveen Kumar Maghelal, Rabdan Academy, United Arab Emirates

Reviewed by: Sofia Melero-Tur, CEU San Pablo University, Spain

Pavithra Rathnasiri, Northumbria University, United Kingdom