58
© Creative Commons With Attribution (CC-BY)
Published by the UFS
http://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/as
Ayodeji Ajayi
Dr Ayodeji Olusola Ajayi, Urban
and Regional Planning, Osun State
University, Osogbo, Osun State,
Nigeria. Phone: +234 7033871651,
email: ayodeji.ajayi@uniosun.
edu.ng, ORCID: http://orcid.
org/0000-0001-6104-2632
ISSN: 1023-0564 ▪ e-ISSN:
2415-0487
Received: September 2022
Reviewed and revised: September-
November 2022
Published: December 2022
KEYWORDS: Cooperative societies,
housing delivery, housing finance,
public-private collaborations, Nigeria
HOW TO CITE: Ajayi, A. 2022.
Factors militating against cooperative
societies’ contributions to housing
development in Osogbo, Nigeria.
Acta Structilia, 29(2) pp. 58-82.
FACTORS MILITATING
AGAINST COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES’ CONTRIBUTIONS
TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
IN OSOGBO, NIGERIA
RESEARCH ARTICLE1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18820/24150487/as29i2.3
ABSTRACT
Various strategies are being deployed to address
finance for housing development in Nigeria.
However, few localised studies have examined
factors hindering the performance of cooperative
societies to assist with housing development. The
article aims to investigate the barriers that hinder
cooperative societies' involved in housing delivery
in Osogbo and Olorunda local government areas
of Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria. The study used a
quantitative research design, with a questionnaire
survey. Using the multi-stage sampling technique,
110 cooperative societies were selected across
the local government areas and the structured
questionnaire was administered to one member in
each selected cooperative society. Data collected
was analysed using descriptive statistics (frequency
table) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
Results of the communality values based on PCA
showed that financial and land regulation, loan
management, and credibility of co-operators are the
factors affecting the ability of cooperative societies
in funding housing development in Osogbo. The
study concluded that cooperative societies have a
significant impact on housing delivery in Osogbo.
1 DECLARATION: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts
of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Acta Structilia 2022 29(2): 58-82
http://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/as
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
59
Based on these findings, it is clear that, if cooperative societies are well supported by
government policies such as public-private collaborations on land acquisitions, urban
housing production challenges could be reduced.
ABSTRAK
Verskeie strategieë word ontplooi om finansiering vir behuisingsontwikkeling in Nigerië
aan te spreek. Min plaaslike studies het egter faktore ondersoek wat die prestasie
van koöperatiewe verenigings belemmer om met behuisingsontwikkeling te help.
Die artikel poog om die struikelblokke te ondersoek wat koöperatiewe verenigings
verhinder om betrokke te wees by behuisingslewering in Osogbo en Olorunda,
twee plaaslike regeringsgebiede van Osogbo, Osun-staat, Nigerië. Die studie het
’n kwantitatiewe navorsingsontwerp gebruik, met ’n vraelysopname. Deur die multi-
stadium steekproeftegniek te gebruik, is 110 koöperatiewe verenigings regoor die
plaaslike regeringsgebiede geselekteer en die gestruktureerde beskrywende opname
is op een lid in elke geselekteerde koöperatiewe vereniging geadministreer. Data
is ontleed deur gebruik te maak van beskrywende statistiek (frekwensietabel) en
hoofkomponentanalise (PCA). Resultate van die gemeenskapswaardes gebaseer
op PCA het getoon dat finansiële en grondregulering, leningsbestuur, en die
geloofwaardigheid van samewerkers die faktore is wat die vermoë van koöperatiewe
verenigings in die finansiering van behuisingsontwikkeling in Osogbo beïnvloed. Die
studie het tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat koöperatiewe verenigings ’n beduidende
impak op behuisingslewering in Osogbo het. Gebaseer op hierdie bevindinge, is dit
duidelik dat as koöperatiewe verenigings goed ondersteun word deur regeringsbeleide
soos byvoorbeeld openbare-private samewerking oor grondverkrygings, kan stedelike
behuisingsproduksie-uitdagings verminder word.
1. INTRODUCTION
Globally, people save for long-term or borrow money either to build or
buy their houses or to finance housing projects. Housing development
is multifaceted, involving a series of linked stages such as preparation,
production, acquisition, servicing, and maintenance carried out by several
key players such as government (public), private, formal and informal
sectors (Adeoye, 2018: 31). Finance is needed to develop housing, and
government involvement in housing predicates on the premise that most
of the citizenry do not have access to necessary funds to effect housing
development. According to Olujimi et al. (2021), housing is an important
contributor to a nation’s economy, having a backward linkage to land
markets, building materials, tools, furniture, and labour market. It has
forward linkage with the financial markets (mortgage debt accounts for a
large proportion of household debt) and supports the efficient functioning of
the domestic and international financial market (Olujimi et al., 2021).
The Pison Housing Company (2010: 15) affirmed that there were
approximately 10.7 million houses in Nigeria in 2007, and 60% of Nigerians
were homeless. In addition, Pepple (2012: 229) noted that the housing
deficit in Nigeria in 2012 was approximately 17.5 million units. It was
reported, in 2017, that over 108 million Nigerians were technically homeless
(The Guardian, 2017). According to Furtherafrica, (2021), “Nigeria’s housing
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
60
deficit currently stands at between 17-22 million units and to stem this tide,
700,000 houses would need to be built every year over the next 20 years’’.
Several scholars have pointed out that the housing stock in Nigeria is below
what is expected in terms of quality and quantity (Adedire & Adegbile, 2018:
126; Akande, 2021: 36).
To redress the unacceptable housing stock situation, the Nigerian
Government decided to review and update the Draft National Housing
Policy and that of the National Urban Development Policy in September
2011, based on all relevant facts affecting the housing sector (FRN, 2011).
This review was necessitated to achieve affordable housing that will
raise home ownership to approximately 50%; improve Nigeria’s Human
Development Index (HDI) ranking; expand the construction sector and the
mortgage market; significantly reduce poverty in households; increase the
productivity and quality of lives of the citizenry, and improve the housing
sector contribution (to over 20%) of Nigeria’s GDP, as envisioned in Vision
20:2020 (FRN, 2011). Nigeria is yet to meet these milestones because
of rural-urban migration, insecurity, surge in population figures and
inconsistencies in the government’s responses. All of these are worsening
the housing situation in the country, to the extent that economic development
and the welfare of the citizens are adversely affected (Furtherafrica, 2021).
Although affordable housing can be achieved through both home ownership
and renting, only a small percentage of Nigerians have access to procure
decent housing (Olujimi et al., 2021). Similarly, the aftermath of COVID-
19 and inflation in Nigeria have eroded Nigerians’ disposable income amid
rising rental values (The Nigerian Tribune, 2022). Most of the tenants and
those seeking new homes are finding it difficult to cope with surges in rental
values of apartments and homes in major Nigerian cities (The Nigerian
Tribune, 2022). In trying to meet their housing need in the face of the
multifaceted problems surrounding housing affordability and access, most
of the households rely on self-financing through own equity, loans and gifts
from friends and family, remittances from abroad, and contributions from
co-operative societies (Oyalowo, 2018).
Despite being an informal and private source of housing finance,
cooperative societies give their members short-term funding for housing
development. In some instances, apart from the issuance of housing
loans to their members, cooperative societies embark on actual building
construction, where members are encouraged to save towards purchasing
and owning their personal homes. The foregoing aligns with Oyalowo (2018:
15), who defines cooperative housing as varied interventions in housing
supply by any type of co-operative societies, through direct construction
for renting or sales, at market or subsidized rates, for the benefit of
members and non-members alike. The basic element of cooperative
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
61
housing is that people pool their financial resources together voluntarily,
in order to meet their common economic and social needs and aspirations
through a democratically controlled enterprise, organised and operated on
cooperative principles (Majee & Hoyt, 2011: 50).
A number of studies have been conducted on cooperative societies’
intervention in housing provision in Nigeria. For instance, Adeboyejo &
Oderinde (2013: 62) carried out an empirical assessment of the internal
structural organization of the cooperative societies’ social housing delivery.
The results show that cooperative societies had a high level of formalization,
internal structural organization, and democratic content. They were also
determined to be stable, viable, and effective in resource mobilization for
sustainable housing delivery (Adeboyejo & Oderinde, 2013: 62).
Another study used the case-study approach in understanding the
experience and responsibility of cooperative societies in poverty alleviation
in a southwestern region of Nigeria. The study observed a strong
association between educational status and co-operative membership;
moreover, a positive relationship was found between increased asset
base of respondents and membership of co-operative societies with land
ownership (Aderounmu, Oyedemi & Adeleke, 2014: 2).
Ibem & Odum (2011: 25) examined cooperatives society’s roles in securing
land for urban housing in Nigeria, with the affirmation that co-operatives
play a significant role in addressing urban land and housing crisis
confronting low-income people. In addition, Adedeji & Olotuah (2012: 23)
asserted that the involvement of cooperative societies in housing provision
has been successful. By contrast, Ndubueze (2009) stated that cooperative
societies are yet to make any significant impact on the Nigerian housing
sector development. Literature also shows that there are cooperative
housing intervention methods, including acquisition, allocation, processing
of land and title documents, as well as construction material procurements
(Yakubu, Salawu & Gimba, 2012: 1427).
Other activities of cooperative societies are collaborative partnerships with
built-environment professionals in providing housing schemes, granting
loan facilities to members, as well as interior design and furnishing (Adedeji
& Olotuah, 2012: 24). In some instances, cooperative societies provide
home ownership schemes, rental loan schemes, and funding for property
development (Oloke et al., 2017). Likewise, they provide general loans,
housing construction loans, specific loans for land acquisition, special
loans for renovation of existing buildings, and collective purchase of land
for building construction (Ibem & Odum, 2011: 26; Azeez & Mogaji-Allison,
2017: 40).
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
62
Despite the abundance of information on the activities and modus operandi
of different types of cooperative societies in Nigeria, only a few specific
studies have addressed the factors influencing the ability of cooperative
societies to fund housing development in medium-sized cities in Nigeria
(Oyewole, 2010: 245; Mazadu, Muhammad & Iroaganachi, 2021: 3009),
hence the relevance of this article. This article, therefore, aims to examine
the factors militating against cooperative societies in funding housing
development in Osogbo with a view to providing information that could
inform housing policy in addressing housing stock deficit in Nigeria. The
specific objectives were to analyse the administrative/management
structure of the selected cooperative societies and identify factors militating
against cooperative societies in financing housing development in Osogbo.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
To understand cooperative societies’ contributions to housing development
in Osogbo, Nigeria, it is important to introduce the concepts used in this
article. These include, historical background of cooperative societies,
housing finance, land availability, and urban housing development.
2.1 Historical background of cooperative societies
Cooperative societies are formed, in order to achieve social or economic
objectives. Therefore, the formation and operations of the Equitable
Pioneers of Rochdale Society (EPRS), in 1844, signalled the genesis of
cooperatives globally. This is recognized as the first modern cooperative
because cooperative principles were developed there (Abell, 2004). The
Rochdale Society provided a model template of cooperative business,
which was established between 1850 and 1855; a flourmill, a shoe factory,
and a textile plant, which was quickly emulated throughout England.
Afterwards, similar organizations in France, Germany, Belgium, Austria,
Italy, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden began to use the cooperative
business model (Abell, 2004).
The history of cooperative societies in Nigeria pre-dates independence. It
was begotten by traditional collective saving methods as ‘ajo’ among the
Yorubas in the south-west, ‘Isusu’ among the Ibos in the south-east, and
‘Adashi’ among the Hausas of northern Nigeria. The quest for the formation
of formal cooperative forms emerged through the desires of Agege
Planters’ Union in 1907, in South-west Nigeria who were motivated with
the desire to curtail the exploitative tendencies of the colonial masters. This
led to the emergence of other cooperative associations such as the Egba
Farmers’ Union and the Ibadan Agricultural Society (Ogungbemile, 2010: 2;
Oyalowo, 2018).
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
63
Given the importance and relevance of cooperative societies in Nigeria, a
formal and legal framework has been instituted to guide their operations
(Onuoha, 2002: 11). This is contained in the Nigerian Cooperative Societies
Decree 90 of 1993. According to Enete (2010: 149), this enabled the
creation of Director of Cooperatives at federal and state levels and the
Department of Cooperatives under different ministries. In the same study,
the author further affirmed that, in a bid to promote the formation and growth
of cooperatives in Nigeria, the above-mentioned law does not restrict
cooperatives to any particular activity, as long as the overall objective is the
promotion of its members socio-economic interests (Enete, 2010; Ibem &
Odum, 2011: 26).
Cooperative societies have fundamental rules and principles that are
entrenched in constitutions. Some of these tenets are self-help, self-
responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity. Inherently,
executive members and administrators as well as ordinary members
draw their operational guidelines from these documents. In addition, their
values are shared by the key stakeholders such as the cooperators, the
cooperative leaders, and the cooperative staff and determine their way of
thinking and acting (Hoyt, 1997). Dogarawa (2010) opined that the creation
of the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA), in 1985, facilitated friendly
and economic relations between cooperative organizations of all types,
nationally and internationally.
The ICA served worldwide as the final authority because of its acceptance
by cooperators throughout the world, its role in defining cooperatives,
and for determining the underlying principles that motivate cooperative
enterprise. In 1995, the ICA amended the cooperative principles from six
to seven, in order to guide cooperative organizations at the beginning of
the 21st century. The principles include voluntary and open membership;
democratic member control; member economic participation; autonomy
and independence; education, training and information; cooperation among
cooperatives, and concern for community (RBCDS, 1995; Dogarawa,
2010). It is thus safe to say that a cooperative society consists of a group of
people who have voluntarily come together to enhance their quality of life
by working together for the interest of all and to address needs that require
significant capital (Hoyt, 1997; Oyalowo, 2018: 15).
Internationally, the United Nations recognizes the significant role of housing
cooperatives in housing delivery. According to UN-Habitat (2002: 9),
“cooperative societies support social cohesion and stability and give life
to the concepts of corporate responsibility and citizenship. They provide
essential services, ranging from housing to health care that strengthen
community development.” Therefore, the cooperative model of housing
delivery has been used in the Global North and South across countries
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
64
such as Italy, United States of America, United Kingdom, Zambia, Sweden,
Pakistan, Philippines, Denmark, Norway, Canada, and South Africa with
significant success (Abdulkareem, Ogunleye & Ajayi, 2020: 79).
2.2 Housing finance
Housing finance is fundamental to housing delivery. Funding for housing
development comes from either the private or the public sector (Olujimi et
al., 2021). The private sector provides the bulk of finances for home building
from the early period of human existence to the modern period (Oyalowo,
2018). In some instances, a hybrid model (public-private partnership) is
developed to funnel resources into housing projects (Olujimi et al., 2021).
As stated in the Draft National Urban Development Policy of September
2011, housing finance “is the engine that drives the housing sector and
generally refers to the money required for the development of housing
units, provision of housing infrastructure and purchase or acquisition of
housing units” (FRN, 2011: 52).
From an economic standpoint, Warnock and Warnock (2008: 240) argue
that “demand for housing finance is a derived demand for housing, which in
turn depends on the rate of household formation and income levels, while
the supply side stresses the provision of housing finance by a lender as
well as the mobilization of funds within an economy to ensure that lending
institutions have ample access to the fund”. In order to make the housing
finance mechanism effective, houses must be affordable to households,
funds should be accessible with ease, and the financial institutions need to
be sufficiently viable to mobilise housing developers (Nubi, 2008: 2; Amao
& Odunjo, 2014: 102).
Universally, different types of strategic interventions in housing finance
have been observed among the cooperatives. Olayinka et al. (2017)
assert that cooperative housing finance models in the Global North can be
classified into four categories. First, the market rate or equity cooperatives,
where members do not own a specific piece of property but a share in
the cooperative corporation that owns the estate. Secondly, a limited-
equity cooperative that meets members’ housing needs by combining the
equity contribution of cooperators with grants or subsidies from supporting
institutions to provide housing units for its members. Thirdly, the leasing
cooperative which takes a long lease from an investor, a landlord, or a non-
profit organisation and operates the building collectively as a cooperative.
Fourthly, the mutual housing association, a non-profit corporation set
up to develop, own, and operate housing (Olayinka et al., 2016, cited in
Mazadu, Muhammad & Iroaganachi, 2021: 3009). In another related
study, the International Cooperative Alliance (2012) affirms that direct
financial assistance is given to housing cooperatives in Austria, through
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
65
‘Housing Promotion Schemes’. The assistance includes long-term and low-
interest rates public grants or mortgages that cover 20%-60% of housing
construction costs.
Similarly, the Canadian government assists housing cooperatives with
low interest on loans for 50 years through direct lending from the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The Canadian government also
makes grants available to housing cooperatives that are targeted towards
reducing the costs associated with construction (International Co-operative
Alliance, 2012).
Evidence from the African perspective also shows that cooperative societies
adopt various methods in financing housing development, according to
the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) International
Cooperative Alliance (UNCHS, 2001). For example, in Kenya, Katheru
rural housing cooperative society gives housing loans to its members. The
main security for the loans is the crop that is marketed through the society.
In Zimbabwe and Tanzania, work-based cooperative societies operate
whereby employees come together in groups as societies to give housing
loans to their members (UNCHS, 2001, cited in Oyewole, 2010). According
to the International Cooperative Alliance (2012), Egyptian housing
cooperatives can receive a minimum of 25% discount on all State-owned
parcels of land, and this could rise to approximately 50%, subject to the
approval of the Minister of Finance. Egyptian laws also compel the State
to facilitate loans towards the acquisition of land by housing cooperatives
(International Cooperative Alliance, 2012).
In a bid to drive housing development in Nigeria, the Nigerian Building
Society (NBS) was established in 1956 to mobilise savings from the public
for housing loans. The NBS, which was given the mandate to mobilize
savings from the public for purposes of granting housing loans, became the
Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN) in 1977 (FRN, 2011). However,
the transformation failed to yield the desired results because housing
finance structure remained largely undeveloped and could not cope with
changing conditions and increasing demands. Moreover, inconsistencies
in government policies as well as the ineffective operational modalities
of both the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria and the Primary Mortgage
Institutions also contributed to its failure. From the foregoing, it is obvious
that there is a need to provide alternative models for housing finance such
as those provided by cooperative societies.
It is noteworthy to mention the recent efforts by the Nigerian government
in partnering with cooperatives to fund housing development. With the
inauguration of the National Housing Cooperative Development Scheme
(NHDS), Nigerian workers are encouraged to organize themselves into
cooperative societies. They are required to acquire titled land, architectural
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
66
designs, as well as a planning permit to access mortgage loans at 9%
interest rate per annum, with tenures of up to 30 years from the Federal
Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (This Day Newspaper, 2020).
2.3 Land availability and urban housing development
One of the most cited factors by scholars, both local and international, is
the difficulty to access land for sustainable housing development (Ibem &
Odum, 2011: 30; Adeboyejo & Oderinde, 2013: 79; Azeez & Mogaji-Allison,
2017: 42). Access to secured land is crucial and significant in housing
development. As reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
of the United Nations (2002), globally, issues of land ownership are complex
and vary from one region to another.
However, the FAO identified four major categories of land tenure,
namely private, communal, open access, and state ownership. Under
the private ownership, rights are assigned to private entities such as an
individual, a married couple, a group of people, or a corporate body such
as a commercial entity or non-profit organization. “For example, within
a community, individual families may have exclusive rights to residential
parcels, agricultural parcels, and certain trees. Other members of the
community can be excluded from using these resources without the
consent of those who hold the rights’’ (FAO, 2002: online). The second
category is communal in nature. Under this setting, “a right of commons
may exist within a community where each member has a right to use
independently the holdings of the community; for instance, members of a
community may have the right to graze cattle on a common pasture” (FAO,
2002: online). The third category of land tenure is open access and varies
significantly from other types because specific rights are not assigned
to any one and no one can be excluded. This typically includes marine
tenure, where access to the high seas is generally open to anyone; it may
include rangelands, forests, and so on, where there may be free access
to the resources for all. An important difference between open access and
communal systems is that, under a communal system, non-members of the
community are excluded from using the common areas (FAO, 2002). The
most common type is state-owned, where property rights are allocated to
selected consultants in the public sector. For example, in some countries,
forest lands may fall under the control or jurisdiction of the state, whether
at a central or decentralized level of government. As asserted by Odum
& Ibem (2011: 30), “inadequate supply of land for cooperative housing
development and tenure insecurity are the major constraints to effective
housing delivery systems in many developing countries, including Nigeria”.
Sarfoh et al. (2017) affirm that land disputes are the most reported
challenge facing cooperative societies in the Greater Accra Metropolitan
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
67
Area, Ghana, in their bid to provide housing delivery. Litigations manifest
in several forms, from multiple sales of land to contestation of ownership
by different families/traditional authorities, to resistance from charlatans,
to long duration of litigation by the courts. The authors opine that the
litigation issues expose these cooperative societies to serious vulnerability
as member contributions are used for such investments (Sarfoh et al.,
2017). Meanwhile, in Egypt and India, cooperative societies are given
preferential access to public lands and other public support, thus reducing
the challenges of cooperative associations with land acquisition to a large
extent (International Cooperative Alliance, 2012).
In instances where access is not an issue, the high cost of land was identified
as one of the major constraint to housing production. Unlike cooperative
societies, whose budget could be limited and the demand for land is driven
by the needs of members for immediate housing development, private land
investors usually have deeper pockets and sometimes lock down land in
choice locations in urban areas. This development is unhealthy for housing
development because the parcels of land are bought for speculative
purposes and later sold at exorbitant prices. Consequently, cooperative
societies might be forced to source for land in remote locations where land
is cheaper, but lack the basic facilities and amenities. This assertion is
substantiated by Fruet (2005: 304) who reports that cooperative societies,
mostly low-income earners, occupied squatter settlements in Porto Alegre,
Brazil, illegally. Parts of the city that are least developed, with hardly any or
no amenities, are usually acquired, as these parcels are relatively cheaper
(Fruet, 2005: 310).
In Nigeria, “a major shortcoming has been with ownership rights under the
Land Use Act 1978, which confers ownership of all land to the Governors
of each state and is a substantial deterrent to housing and housing
investment in Nigeria. In actual fact, this right of occupancy is endorsed
with a Certificate of Occupancy issued to the recipient. This often delays
and adds significant costs to the registration process’’ (Agbola, 1987: 114).
Therefore, availability of land needed for co-operatives to meaningfully
intervene in housing supply, is under threat and deserves special
consideration. Thus, the various policymakers will need to address the
challenge of improving the supply of affordable housing (Oyalowo, 2018).
Although some scholars have examined the roles of cooperative societies
in housing development, few contextual studies exist and this study aims to
fill this gap in the literature.
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
68
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research design
The purpose of this study was to assess factors influencing the ability
of cooperative societies to fund housing development in Osogbo,
Nigeria. In order to generalize the findings of this study from a segment
of the population, quantitative research design along with a structured
questionnaire survey was used to elicit information from respondents
(Creswell, 2014). The descriptive survey attempts to provide large volumes
of data that can be analysed for frequencies, averages, and patterns (Bless,
Higson-Smith & Sithole, 2018: 16). The questionnaire set 15 variables
that are barriers to fund housing development. Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) was used to validate and reduce these variables to smaller
factors pivotal to cooperative societies’ roles in housing delivery. Rossoni,
Engelbert and Bellegard (2016: 201) affirm that PCA can be used to extract
factors, in order to summarise the data into a manageable number of
factors based on the highest eigenvalues.
3.2 Population, sample, and response rate
A list of 1055 cooperative societies in the city, obtained from the Ministry
of Trade and Cooperative Investment in Osogbo, forms the population for
the study. The 1055 identified societies were stratified between the two
local governments in Osogbo, the capital city of Osun State, based on their
business addresses across Olorunda and Osogbo local government areas.
Osogbo Local Government area had 825 registered cooperative societies,
while there were 230 in the Olorunda Local Government area. However,
during a reconnaissance survey, many of them were not found at their
stated addresses; this may have been due to relocation, or discontinuity in
their operations, or inconsistencies in documentation. Thus, a total of 437
cooperative societies were physically identified at their addresses. From
this list, purposive sampling technique (Creswell, 2014: 50) was adopted
to select 180 registered societies; one respondent from each society
was selected for questionnaire administration. Of this number, 152 were
returned, but only 110 were correctly filled in and valid for the purpose of
this study; this represented a response rate of 61%. Although the sample
size is not valid and not within the recommended sample size of 205 for a
population equal to or above 440 (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970: 608), these 437
cooperative societies with traceable physical addresses, substantiate the
size of the sample.
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
69
3.3 Data collection
One hundred and eighty (180) self-administered questionnaires were
sent out between August 2019 and January 2020. Prior to the date of
data collection, the researcher sought the date when these societies
met and obtained permission from executive members before selection
and questionnaire administration. During their meeting days, the
questionnaires were administered by random selection of one respondent
from each society. The questionnaire for this study had three sections. A
preamble gave the necessary background information on the study and
instructions to be followed by the respondents. The first section elicited
general information about the respondents and their societies such as
year of establishment, source of income, the administrative purpose, and
the management structure. The second section, made up of variables
influencing the ability of cooperative societies to fund housing development
in Osogbo, was based on a 5-point Likert rating scale. Respondents were
requested to rate the level of how they perceived the items as barriers to
fund housing development.
3.4 Analysis and interpretation of the data
The data obtained from both primary and secondary sources were coded
and analysed using Version 22 of the Statistical Package for Social Science
(SPSS). The general information about the respondents’ position within the
society, the year and purpose of establishment, and their source of income
were analysed using simple descriptive statistics. To rank the factors
militating the ability of cooperative societies to fund housing development in
the study area, measures were rated on a five-point Likert scale; 5 = Not a
barrier at all (≥1.00 and ≤1.80); 4 = Somewhat a barrier (≥1.81 and ≤2.60);
3 = Neutral (≥2.61 and ≤3.40); 2 = Moderate barrier (≥3.41 and ≤4.20),
and 1 = Extreme barrier (≥4.21 and ≤5.00). Likert-type or frequency scales
use fixed choice response formats and are designed to measure attitudes
or opinions (Bowling, 1997). The Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
was used to extract factors pivotal to cooperative society roles in housing
delivery. This study adopted the assertion made by Hair et al. (2014) in
selecting eigenvalues criterion to determine the maximum number of
factors to retain in the model. Using a PCA criterion of initial eigenvalues
greater than 1, the orthogonal varimax rotation and factor loading of 0.4
was considered to be good, as it had 30% overlapping variance. A range
from 0.2 to 0.4 is the optimal inter-item correlations mean (factor loading)
for the factor to be reliable (Pallant 2013: 134, cited in Bamfo-Agyei, Thwala
& Aigbavboa, 2022: 11). Cronbach’s Alpha value for the fifteen items was
0.850, which exceeded the minimum of 0.70 recommended by Hair et
al. (2014).
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
70
3.5 Limitation(s) of the study
It is important to note that the study was not conducted across Nigeria;
therefore, the findings cannot be generalised.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
4.1 Cooperative societies and respondents’ profile
The profile of the selected cooperative societies were analysed, based on
frequency of occurrence. Table 1 shows that, out of the 110 respondents
sampled, the majority (41.2%) of them were ordinary members of these
societies, while 35% were either presidents (20%) or vice presidents
(15.0%) of these societies, and 23.8% of the respondents were
financial secretaries.
Table 1: The profile of cooperative societies and respondents
Demographic Category Frequency
n=110
%
Position of respondents Presidents 22 20
Vice presidents 17 15
Financial secretaries 26 23.8
Ordinary members 45 41.2
Date of establishment Earlier than year 2000 70 63
2000 – till date 40 37
Purpose of the
establishment
Land acquisition, facilitating and
helping members own their house
40 36.3
Enhancing entrepreneurship, and
promoting economic empowerment
of members through savings
65 59.1
Granting of loans to procure building
materials
5 4.6
Source of income Members’ contributions and interest
on loans
94 85
Other investments 16 15
The results show that most (63%) of the cooperative societies were
established before year 2000 and this depicts that most of them have been
in existence for at least 20 years and are still in operation. The purpose of
forming cooperative societies varied according to the findings. The purpose
of most (59.1%) of the cooperative societies is to enhance entrepreneurship
and promote economic empowerment of members through savings,
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
71
grants, aids, and loans. While 36.3% of the cooperative societies facilitate
members to own their own houses, only 4.6% grant loans to procure
building materials. The results revealed that 85% of the cooperative
societies grew their financial base from members’ contributions and interest
on loans, while 15% obtained their income from other investments made.
4.2 Ranking of barriers
Further analysis was conducted to investigate factors militating against
cooperative societies’ contributions to housing development in Osogbo. In
Table 2, a composite score average of 3.03 shows that all the 15 identified
items were barriers facing co-operative societies in providing housing in the
study area. The reliability statistics presented shows that the Cronbach’s
alpha was greater than 0.70 at .850, indicating acceptable internal reliability,
as recommended by Hair et al. (2014).
Table 2: Ranking of factors militating against cooperative societies’
contributions to housing development
Factors
n=110
5= Not a barrier … 1= Extreme barrier
Cronbach’s Alpha = .850
MS SD Rank
Willingness to take housing loan 4.35 .863 1
Respondents’ perception of interest being charged on
housing loans
4.29 .828 2
Willingness to serve as guarantor for members 4.24 .491 3
Consultation of relevant professionals before acquisition
of land for housing development
3.73 .903 4
Provision of loan facilities for building services 3.06 1.124 5
Access to additional loans by members to do
maintenance of their houses upon completion
2.96 1.407 6
Difficult land acquisition 2.90 .411 7
High interest rate on mortgage loans 2.87 .390 8
Lack of credible information of cooperative members 2.81 .521 9
Difficult land-registration process 2.80 .468 10
Lack of experience in managing housing loans 2.69 .507 11
Lack of adequate collateral 2.50 .728 12
Lack of credible leadership of cooperative society 2.46 .685 13
Lack of information of credit worthiness of members 2.36 .657 14
High credit risk of informal market borrowers 1.57 .637 15
Composite score (Average) 3.03
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
72
With mean score ratings above 4.24, respondents did not perceive the
willingness to take housing loans (MS=4.35), the interest being charged
by cooperative societies on housing loans (MS=4.29), and their willingness
to serve as loan guarantors for members (MS=4.24) as barriers to housing
development using the cooperative strategy in the study area. This result
might be because cooperative societies charge the least interest rates on
credit facilities, compared to the formal financial sectors in the Nigerian
financial system. These results are in agreement with the assertions
made by Ankeli et al. (2020: 558) that cooperative societies charge the
least interest rates on loans and allow for flexible loan repayment, as the
loan repayment period can be re-negotiated from time to time, in order to
reduce the financial stress on the debtor. As presented in Table 2, most of
the respondents sampled were willing to take housing loans; this finding
is similar to a study in Akure, south-western Nigeria (Olujimi et al., 2021),
where most of the respondents who were members of cooperative societies
secured loans (funds) from cooperative societies for their building projects.
It is gratifying to know that the practice of loan defaulting was not prevalent
in the study area, as evidenced by the willingness of members to serve
as guarantors. A similar result was also reported by Olujimi et al. (2021),
and the implication is that, if the management of cooperative societies
is efficient, they can offer a reliable platform for their members to secure
funding for housing development. Although potent internal mechanisms are
used to dissuade members from defaulting, in some instances, guarantors
and debtors are given the opportunity to renegotiate repayment options but,
in some extreme cases, the defaulters’ properties are confiscated. These
findings show that members have some level of trust in their colleagues.
However, consultation of professionals by cooperative societies before
acquisition of housing sites was reported to somewhat inhibit housing
delivery in Osogbo (MS=3.73). According to the results, lack of experience
in managing housing loans (MS=2.69), lack of adequate collateral
(MS=2.50), lack of credible leadership of cooperative society (MS=2.46),
lack of information on credit worthiness of members (MS=2.36), and the
high credit risk of informal market borrowers (MS=1.57) were extreme
barriers to cooperative societies’ contributions to housing development
in Osogbo.
4.3 Principal component analysis of factors affecting
the ability of cooperative societies to fund
housing projects
The need to ascertain the extent of adequacy of the data loaded for the
study informed the use of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test.
The KMO value obtained (see Table 3) was 0.865, which was higher than
the minimum recommended value of 0.500 (Shrestha & Luo, 2017: 12).
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
73
Furthermore, the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity has a significant value of p <
0.000, at 5% significant level. This test confirms that the data is suitable for
factor analysis, as reported in Ola-awo et al. (2021: 17) and Pallant (2013).
Table 3: KMO and Bartlett’s Test
KMO and Bartlett’s test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy .865
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 507.694
Df 105
Sig. .000
The matrix in Table 4 shows that, out of the fifteen initial variables, PCA
extracted 14 variables on five components with factor loading above 0.4,
with the possibility of militating against the ability of cooperative societies
to fund housing projects. The excluded factor was willingness to serve as
guarantor for members because its score was less than 0.4.
Table 4: Rotated component matrix of factors militating against the ability of
cooperative societies to fund housing project
s/n Variables Component Communalities
1 2 3 4 5
1 High credit risk of informal
market borrowers
.837 .726
2 Difficult land acquisition .074 .530
3 Lack of adequate
collateral
.782 .662
4 Difficult land-registration
process
.626 .694
5 Lack of credible
information on
cooperative members
.820 .727
6 Lack of information
of credit worthiness of
members
.757 .638
7 High interest rate on
mortgage loans
.483 .665
8 Lack of credible
leadership of cooperative
society
.765 .646
9 Lack of experience in
managing housing loans
.695 .545
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
74
s/n Variables Component Communalities
1 2 3 4 5
10 Willingness to take housing
loan
.657 .722
11 Access to additional loans
by members to execute
maintenance of their
houses upon completion
.864 .832
12 Consultation of relevant
professional before
acquisition of land for
housing development
.906 .835
13 Respondents’ perception
of interests being charged
on housing loans
.535
14 Provision of loan facilities
for building services
.614 .479
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
Presented in Tables 4 and 5 are the outputs after rotation showing the
component matrix and total variance obtained. In the final analysis (see
Table 5), five components with initial eigenvalues cumulatively explained
approximately 66.747% of the total variations and should be retained.
Factor one explains approximately 20.772%; factor two accounts for
15.380%, while the third and fourth factors explain 10.941% and 10.278
%, respectively. The fifth factor accounts for 9.376% of the variance in
the model.
Factor 1: Facility management and professional expertise
The first factor, facility management and professional expertise
(component 1), had two correlating variables with high loadings, including
access to additional loans by members to do maintenance on their houses
upon completion (0.864), and consultation with relevant professionals
before acquisition of land for housing development (0.906). This factor was
the most significant because it explains 20.77% of the variance observed.
This result indicates that, regardless of the potentials of cooperative
societies’ efforts in reducing housing deficit, lack of professional expertise
in managing construction processes inhibits effective housing development
(Amao & Odunjo, 2014; Adedeji & Olotuah, 2012). The high factor loading
of consulting relevant professionals prior to housing development in this
study is indicative of their strategic roles to achieve successful cooperative
housing strategy (Oloke, 2015).
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
75
Ta
bl
e
5:
To
ta
l v
ar
ia
nc
e
ex
pl
ai
ne
d
us
in
g
th
e
pr
in
ci
pa
l c
om
po
ne
nt
a
na
ly
si
s
C
o
m
p
o
ne
nt
In
iti
a
l e
ig
e
nv
a
lu
e
s
Ex
tr
a
c
tio
n
su
m
s
o
f s
q
ua
re
d
lo
a
d
in
g
s
Ro
ta
tio
n
su
m
s
o
f s
q
ua
re
d
lo
a
d
in
g
s
To
ta
l
%
o
f v
a
ria
nc
e
C
um
ul
a
tiv
e
%
To
ta
l
%
o
f v
a
ria
nc
e
C
um
ul
a
tiv
e
%
To
ta
l
%
o
f v
a
ria
nc
e
C
um
ul
a
tiv
e
%
1
3.
11
6
20
.7
72
20
.7
72
3.
11
6
20
.7
72
20
.7
72
2.
58
2
17
.2
11
17
.2
11
2
2.
30
7
15
.3
80
36
.1
52
2.
30
7
15
.3
80
36
.1
52
2.
06
9
13
.7
91
31
.0
02
3
1.
64
1
10
.9
41
47
.0
93
1.
64
1
10
.9
41
47
.0
93
1.
98
0
13
.2
00
44
.2
02
4
1.
54
2
10
.2
78
57
.3
71
1.
54
2
10
.2
78
57
.3
71
1.
73
1
11
.5
37
55
.7
39
5
1.
40
6
9.
37
6
66
.7
47
1.
40
6
9.
37
6
66
.7
47
1.
65
1
11
.0
08
66
.7
47
6
.9
11
6.
07
0
72
.8
18
7
.8
12
5.
41
2
78
.2
30
8
.7
52
5.
01
1
83
.2
40
9
.6
41
4.
27
5
87
.5
15
10
.4
93
3.
28
6
90
.8
01
11
.4
61
3.
07
0
93
.8
71
12
.3
11
2.
07
2
95
.9
43
13
.2
67
1.
78
0
97
.7
23
14
.2
03
1.
35
6
99
.0
80
15
.1
38
.9
20
10
0.
00
0
Ex
tr
a
c
tio
n
M
e
th
o
d
: P
rin
c
ip
a
l C
o
m
p
o
ne
nt
A
na
ly
sis
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
76
Factor 2: Financial regulator
The second factor, financial regulator (component 2), with three correlated
variable loadings, high interest rate on mortgage loans (0.483), lack
of adequate collateral (0.782), and insufficient information on credit
worthiness of members (0.757), explained 15.38% of the total variance.
This outcome may be explained by the fact that cooperative societies
are always willing and eager to assist their members in financing housing
development, but insufficient information on credit worthiness of members
poses a huge challenge to accessing funding from commercial banks.
This suggests that cooperative societies are restricted only to members’
monetary contributions, which limits the financial capacity of societies
in funding housing (Olujimi et al., 2021). This finding is corroborated
further by the assertion of Azeez & Mogaji-Allison (2017) that several
cooperatives had problems sourcing funds from financing institutions for
housing development.
Factor 3: Members’ credibility and land acquisition
In the third factor, members’ credibility and land acquisition (component 3),
four correlated variables accounted for 10.94% of the total variance. These
include difficulty in land acquisition (0.74), difficult land-registration process
(0.626), lack of credible leadership of cooperative societies (0.765), and
lack of credible information of cooperative members (0.820). This result
has some implications for the development of housing in Nigeria. The
bureaucratic bottlenecks of land administration currently operating in
Nigeria makes it cumbersome for societies to easily secure and register
them for housing development. Azeez & Mogaji-Allison (2017) also
highlight the role of bureaucracy in curtailing the provision of housing by
cooperative societies. Hence, efforts are required to unbundle this sector of
the government for efficiency.
In addition, the result on problematic land-registration process may be
linked to the corruptive tendencies of government agencies in Nigeria.
This finding aligns with Safoh et al. (2017), affirming that cumbersome
land registration and land disputes were the major impediments preventing
Ghanaian cooperative societies in Greater Accra from effective housing
development. Given the fact that access and securing land titles are
critical parts of housing development, this result calls for urgent action
from policymakers to redress this worrisome trend in Nigeria. Traditionally,
mutual trust among members makes cooperative societies thrive. This is
particularly important because low- and middle-income earners are the
major beneficiaries of these housing loans. If this trust is broken, it might
affect members’ investment confidence in the organization and their
financial capacity in funding housing development.
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
77
Factor 4: Loan propensity
The fourth factor, loan propensity (component 4), explains 10.27% of the
variance and had two correlating variables, namely willingness to take
housing loan (0.657) and provision of loan facilities for building services
(0.614). This finding indicates that cooperative members are highly
motivated to procure housing loans. This might also be related to the
moderate interest rate being charged on loans. An earlier study opined
that moderate interest rates act as stimulators to obtaining cooperative
housing loans (Ankeli et al., 2020: 558). Therefore, cooperative societies
that are solely focused on housing development should be encouraged and
supported in this regard, in order to improve and concentrate their resources
on reducing housing deficit. A related study by Oloke et al. (2017: 220)
to evaluate the success rate of cooperative societies’ housing provision in
Lagos State, Nigeria, made a case for re-strategizing the involvement of
cooperative societies in housing provision for better performance.
Factor 5: Ineffective loan management methods
The fifth factor, ineffective loan management methods (component 5),
had two correlated variable loadings, namely high credit risk of informal
market borrowers (.837), and lack of experience in managing housing
loans (.695) that accounted for 9.37% of the variance. These two barriers
relate to loan management, which is central to the success of cooperative
societies in housing development. Furthermore, the lack of experience of
cooperative executives in managing housing loans is a major factor limiting
their success in housing funding. However, executive members’ good
managerial capability is likely to stimulate the confidence of members in
their handling of the cooperative affairs. This result is in agreement with
the submission that good management and the hope of obtaining loans at
short notice boost savers’ confidence (Ayedun et al., 2017: 67; Ankeli et al.,
2020: 557).
5. CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to assess factors militating against the ability
of cooperative societies to fund housing development in Osogbo. A total of
14 factors that are vital for housing delivery by cooperative societies were
grouped into five components via PCA. Issues relating to the credibility
as well as credit worthiness of cooperative societies’ managers, land
acquisition, ineffective loan management methods, financial regulatory, and
professional expertise factor were the major encumbrances standing in the
path of housing development in the study area. Although the findings of this
study show that most of the cooperatives are viable and highly instrumental
in housing development, more still needs to be achieved on improving and
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
78
consolidating operational funds, because it limits their capacity to bankroll
multiple housing projects.
The findings in this study also have implications for housing development,
since members’ financial credibility is questionable. In order to boost
members’ confidence, leaders are encouraged to embrace information
technology in the management of credit profiles of members.
Based on these findings, if cooperative societies are well supported
by government policies such as public-private collaborations on land
acquisitions, this could reduce the challenges of urban land and housing
accessibility. This can encourage more local and foreign direct investments
in the housing sector because investors will have more confidence and, in
the long run, increase housing finance in the country.
Arising from this study, some suggestions are made for future studies. Only
registered cooperative societies in Osogbo were considered in this study,
which is a limitation. A broader context, including other cities and suburban
areas in Nigeria, could also be examined.
REFERENCES
Abdulkareem, S., Ogunleye, M.B. & Ajayi, M.A. 2020. Assessment of
effectiveness of housing intervention strategies of universities-based
cooperative societies in south-west Nigeria. Environmental Technology &
Science Journal, 11(2), pp. 74-85.
Abell, P. 2004. Cooperative movement. Encyclopedia Encarta.
Adeboyejo, A. & Oderinde, J. 2013. Housing cooperative societies and
social housing delivery in Oyo State, Nigeria. International Journal of
Cooperative Management, 16(2), pp. 61-75.
Adedeji, Y.M.D. & Olotuah, A.O. 2012. An evaluation of accessibility of
low-income earners to housing finance in Nigeria. Journal of Scientific
Research, 7(1), pp. 23-31.
Adedire, F.M. & Adegbile, M. 2018. Assessment of housing quality in Ibeju-
Lekki peri-urban settlement, Lagos State, Nigeria. Acta Structilia, 25(1),
pp. 126-151. https://doi.org/10.18820/24150487/as25i1.5
Adeoye, D.O. 2018. Factors influencing gender differentials in involvement
in urban informal housing development process in south-western Nigeria.
Ibadan Planning Journal, 7(2), pp. 30-41.
Aderounmu, R., Oyedemi, O. & Adeleke, M. 2014.The experience and
responsibility of cooperative societies to poverty alleviation in Eruwa,
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
79
Ibarapa region of south-western Nigeria. Developing Country Studies, 4(2),
pp. 1-8.
Agbola, T. 1987. Institutional constraints on housing development:
The urban areas of Nigeria, the land-use decree and the building plan
approval process. Habitat International, 11(2), pp. 113-120. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0197-3975(87)90061-0
Akande, O.K. 2021. Urbanization, housing quality and health: Towards a
redirection for housing provision in Nigeria. Journal of Contemporary Urban
Affairs, 5(1), pp. 35-46. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2021.v5n1-3
Amao, F.I. & Odunjo, O.O. 2014. Housing finance in Nigeria. Journal of
Economics Sustainable Development, 5(27), pp. 101-104.
Ankeli, A.I., Nuhu, B.M., Popoola, N.I., Ankeli, U.C. & Ojeniyi, A.S. 2020.
Housing development, poverty alleviation and cooperative societies: The
nexus. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science,
4(8), pp. 557-584.
Ayedun, C.A., Oloyede, S.A., Ikpefan, O.A., Akinjare, A.O. & Oloke, C.O.
2017. Cooperative societies, housing provision and poverty alleviation
in Nigeria. Covenant Journal of Research in the Built Environment, 5(1),
pp. 69-81.
Azeez, T. & Mogaji-Allison, B. 2017. Constraints of affordable housing
through cooperative societies in tertiary institutions in Lagos State, Nigeria.
Journal of Geography and Regional Planning,10(3), pp. 39-46. https://doi.
org/10.5897/JGRP2016.0599
Bamfo-Agyei, E., Thwala, D.W. & Aigbavboa, C. 2022. The effect of
management control on labour productivity on labour-intensive works in
Ghana. Acta Structilia, 29(1), pp. 1-25. https://doi.org/10.18820/24150487/
as29i1.1
Bless, C., Higson-Smith, C. & Sithole, S. 2018. Fundamentals of social
research methods: An African perspective. 8th edition. Cape Town: Juta
Company Ltd.
Bowling, A. 1997. Research methods in health. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Creswell, J.W. 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods approaches. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dogarawa, A.B. 2010. The role of cooperative societies in economic
development. MPRA Paper No. 23161. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.1622149
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
80
Enete, A.A. 2010. Registration of cooperatives with government in Enugu
State, Nigeria: What difference does it really make? Outlook on Agriculture,
39(2), pp. 149-152. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000010791745376
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) 2002. Module on forest tenure.
Available at: [Accessed: 12 June 2022].
FRN (Federal Republic of Nigeria). 2011. National Housing Policy, Federal
Government Press. Adopted on 15 December 2011.
Fruet, G.M. 2005. The low-income housing cooperatives in Porto Alegre,
Brazil: A state/community partnership. Habitat International, 29(2), pp. 303-
324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2003.10.004
Furtherafrica. 2021. Available at: [Accessed: 12 June 2022].
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.L. 2014. Multivariate data
analysis. 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hoyt, A. 1997. And then there were seven: Cooperative principles updated.
Available at: [Accessed: 12 June 2022].
Ibem, E.O. & Odum, C.O. 2011. The role of co-operatives in securing land
for urban housing in Nigeria: A case study of NEPA District Co-operative
Thrift and Loan Saving Association, Enugu. Journal of Co-operative
Studies, 44(2), pp. 25-36.
International Co-operative Alliance. 2012. Profiles of a movement:
Co-operative housing around the world. CECODHAS Housing Europe.
Krejcie, R.V. & Morgan, D.W. 1970. Determining sample size for research
activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), pp. 607-
610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Majee, W. & Hoyt, A. 2011. Cooperatives and community development:
A perspective on the use of cooperatives in development. Journal of
Community Practice, 19(1), pp. 48-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2
011.550260
Mazadu, A.A., Muhammad, M.S. & Iroaganachi, N. 2021. Cooperators’
satisfaction with cooperative society housing activities in Jos. Path of
Science, 7(8), pp. 3007-3015. https://doi.org/10.22178/pos.73-4
Ndubueze, O.J. 2009. Urban housing affordability and housing policy
dilemmas in Nigeria. Unpublished PhD thesis submitted to the University
of Birmingham.
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
81
Nubi, O.T. 2008. Affordable housing delivery in Nigeria. Paper presented
at the Southern African Housing Foundation International Conference and
Exhibition, 12-15 October, Cape Town, South Africa, pp. 1-18.
Ogungbemile, A.B. 2010. Cooperative practice and management. Ogun
International Education Journal, 6(8), pp. 42-45.
Ola-awo, W., Alayande, A., Olarewaju, G. & Oyewobi, L. 2021.
Critical success factors for effective internal construction stakeholder
management in Nigeria. Acta Structilia, 28(1), pp. 1-31. https://doi.
org/10.18820/24150487/as28i1.1
Olayinka, C., Oloke, C., Ayedun, A.S. & Akunnaya, P.O. 2017. Empirical
assessment of success rate of co-operative societies’ housing provision
in Lagos State, Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science,7(3), pp. 246-252.
Oloke, O.C. 2015. Performance evaluation of co-operative provision in
Lagos State, Nigeria. Unpublished PhD thesis, Covenant University, Ota,
Nigeria.
Oloke, C., Ayedun, C., Oni, A. & Opoko, A. 2017. Empirical assessment
of success rate of cooperative societies’ housing provision in Lagos State,
Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 7(3),
pp. 2220-8488.
Olujimi, J., Rotowa, O., Fasina,T., Ojo, B. & Bello, M. 2021.The willingness
of cooperative societies to sponsor house ownership in Akure, Nigeria.
Heliyon, 7(5), article number e06950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.
e06950
Onuoha, E. 2002. A critique of the draft Cooperative Policy for Nigeria.
Nigeria Journal of Cooperative Studies, 2(1) pp.10-17.
Oyalowo, B.A. 2018. An assessment of co-operative societies and housing
supply in Lagos State. Unpublished PhD thesis in Estate Management,
University of Lagos, Nigeria.
Oyewole, M.O. 2010. Housing development finance through cooperative
societies: The case of Ogbomoso, Nigeria. International Journal
of Housing Markets and Analysis, 3(3), pp. 245-255. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538271011063906
Pallant, J. 2013. SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data
analysis using IBM, SPSS. 5th edition. London: Allen and Unwin.
Pepple, A.I. 2012. Nigeria: Progress on improving the lives of slum-
dwellers over the decade 2000-2010. In: Proceedings of the International
Ajayi 2022 Acta Structilia 29(2): 58-82
82
Conference on Making Slums History a Worldwide Challenge for 2020,
26-29 November, Rabat, Morocco, pp. 288-294.
Pison Housing Company. 2010. Overview of the housing finance sector in
Nigeria. Commissioned by EFInA and FinMark, Finmark Trust, 1, pp. 15-20.
RBCDS. 1995. What are cooperatives? Washington: Cooperative
Information Report.
Rossoni, L., Engelbert, R. & Bellegard, N.L. 2016. Normal science and its
tools: Reviewing the effects of exploratory factor analysis in management.
Revista de Administração, 51(2), pp. 198-211. https://doi.org/10.5700/
rausp1234
Sarfoh, O.K., Kavaarpuo, G., Konadu, O.A. & Ayitio, J. 2017. Membership-
based organisations and affordable housing delivery in the Greater Accra
Metropolitan Area, Ghana. Final Draft Report.
Shrestha, A. & Luo, W. 2017. Analysis of groundwater nitrate contamination
in the Central Valley: Comparison of the Geodetector Method, Principal
Component Analysis and Geographically Weighted Regression.
International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(10), article number 297, pp.1-
25. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6100297
The Guardian 2017. 108 million Nigerian homeless. Available at:
[Accessed: 24 March 2022].
The Nigerian Tribune. 2022. Housing. Available at: [Accessed: 24 March 2022].
This Day Newspaper. 2020. How Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria is
leveraging cooperators to make homes possible for Nigerians. Available at:
[Accessed: 24 March
2022].
UNCHS (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements). 2001. Cities in a
globalizing World. Global Report on Human Settlement.
UN-HABITAT (United Nations Human Settlements Programme). 2002.
Report of the “Colloquium on Contribution of the Co-operative Sector to
Housing Development”, convened at Ankara Hilton Hotel, Turkey, 27-28
June 2002.
Yakub, A.A., Salawu, A.O. & Gimba, S.D. 2012. Housing delivery via
housing cooperatives as a tool towards achieving national development:
An empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 4th West Africa Built Environment
Research (WABER) Conference, 24-26 July, Abuja, Nigeria, pp. 1427-1441.
Chombo
_Hlk118729836