The sociological label theory provides a theoretical understanding for this study (Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1967). The label theory offers contextual knowledge based on self-identity or behaviour; it uses social status or characteristics as determinants for labelling. The theory has been previously used in race or crime literature in addressing social classification, making some individuals more vulnerable to the label and susceptible to the aftermath of stigmatisation (Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1967). In housing provision, affordability has also been labelled in expressing housing needs for the “poor” or low-income earners without being stigmatised (Ogunnaike et al., 2013). The sociological label theory in the context of this study is used to represent affordable housing provisions for low-income earners. Housing provisions in developing countries have taken on a new dimension over the years, with different innovative frameworks that help to label the classes of people and the housing types that represent their status in society (Adegoke and Agbola, 2020). For example, affordable housing is often labelled in the context of the housing market concerning the buying cost, rental value of the housing stock, or material applications (Katz et al., 2003). In the United Kingdom, local authorities linked affordable housing to local income levels; house or rental prices are grouped according to household types with provisions for specific eligible households whose housing needs cannot be met by the housing market (Okeleheim, 2011).

The demand for affordable housing depends majorly on population growth and urbanisation. Gopalan and Venkataraman (2015) contend that the progressive rate of urbanisation and population growth have a consequence on metropolitan cities. This has led to land and housing shortages, congested transit, and inadequate infrastructural facilities: water, power, and recreation centres (Gopalan and Venkataraman, 2015). Affordable housing has good linkages that balance human social-economic attributes. Gopalan and Venkataraman (2015), citing Rohe and Stegman (1994), argued that affordable housing provisions create access to adequate education, healthcare, perceived control, and satisfaction. Mueller and Tighe (2007) indicated that affordable housing is also linked to education, reduced homelessness, and health benefits to the larger community. In their study, Gopalan and Venkataraman (2015) attributed the benefit of affordable housing provisions in metropolitan cities to its economic growth drivers to attract and maintain workers that could drive economic success (Gopalan and Venkataraman, 2015). However, Wetzstein (2017) noted that housing costs rise faster than the user’s earnings. Thus, Adegoke and Agbola (2020) maintained that affordable housing indicates a balance or creates an imbalance in economic growth.

Housing policy is enacted by government laws for administrative regulations and practices, which directly and indirectly affect housing availability and delivery to end users (Ibimilua and Ibitoye, 2015; Olufemi, 2018:114). The Nigerian National Housing Policy 1991 aimed to solve housing problems by making decent shelters available and affordable to all Nigerians. The policy considers freedom, justice, equity, authority, and public interest in housing delivery. The fundamental issues raised in the Nigerian National Housing Policy include land ownership, housing finance, construction, and delivery. Above all, a housing policy requires a strategy to enforce the purpose of the intended action programmes (Ibimilua and Ibitoye, 2015). Ibimilua and Ibitoye (2015), citing Lawal (1997:139), posited that a comprehensive sustainable national housing policy requires government roles to look beyond planning and control, land, investment, construction and occupancy aspects of housing production. The focus must include specific problems involving land use, plans and controls, credit and financial aids, subsidies to low-income groups, rent control, slum clearance and relocation. The Nigerian National Housing Policy 1991 contained an introduction, goals and objectives, institutional framework for housing delivery, land and settlement development policy, housing finance, building materials and construction costs, low-income housing, mobilising private sector participation, and monitoring and evaluation.

As part of the strategies to realise the goals of the Nigerian national housing policy, various institutions were empowered under the policy, including the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria, providing loans for housing research, construction, and delivery. The Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON) standardised building materials to ensure the quality of housing delivered. The Nigerian Building and Research Institute was empowered to conduct adequate research into various alternative materials for housing construction and delivery in Nigeria. Other instituted organisations were the Real Estate Development Association of Nigeria (REDAN) and the Building Materials Producers Association of Nigeria (BUMPAN). The Nigerian national housing policy promotes collaboration and participation among non-governmental, governmental agencies, and community-based organisations in housing provision and delivery, emphasising using indigenous building materials. However, Ibimilua and Ibitoye (2015) attributed the failure of Nigeria’s national housing policy to poor administration, inadequate funding systems, inadequate housing budget/finance, government miss-priorities and insufficient infrastructural amenities. Olufemi (2018) postulates that global urbanisation in metropolitan cities in developing countries is due to increased economic hubs and the need for liveable and affordable housing. However, Ajayi (2019) maintained that the Nigerian housing policy could not address the issue of housing affordability because the policy was built upon the tenet that the government would provide houses for all citizens. In addition, Odoyi and Riekkinen (2022) noted that the housing policies under various ministries between 1991–2020 emphasised seven key policy strategies to strengthen affordable housing delivery. These include funds, schemes, governments, implementation, development, land, and rurality. Odoyi and Riekkinen (2022) concluded that the existing housing policy strategic theme does not equate to affordable housing provision and affordability for low-income earners. However, activating and implementing strategic themes could promote affordable housing development.

Globally, there are several factors inhibiting affordable housing provision. The government policy on the Land Use Act makes land and other housing inputs inaccessible (UN-HABITAT, National Trends in Housing Production Practices, 2006). Ibem and Azuh (2011) traced these factors to the weak socio-political climate and failed institutional frameworks of Nigeria’s housing policy. Olanrewaju, Anavhe, and Hai (2016) attributed the problem of affordable housing provisions to economic instability, housing policies, lack of legislation, legal crises, market conditions, and the construction industry. Ajayi (2019) concurred that the housing policy in Nigeria had not addressed the housing needs of the populace because the housing policy placed absolute responsibility on the government to provide housing for all citizens. Archer (2022) admitted that the organisations in which housing ownership and control are vested are affected by organisational form, internal rules and regulatory activity, and unique roles of residents/users, which influence the housing rent or prices. Thus, it is unclear whether housing affordability is a product of form and functions or other factors (Archer, 2022).

According to National Housing Policy (1991) and Gulghane and Khandve (2015), building materials account for more than half of the total housing production costs. Iwuagwu and Eme-anele (2012) conceived the high cost of using conventional building materials for housing production. Construction stakeholders play a significant role in specifying materials selection and standardisation for the housing project (Ogundipe et al., 2020a). The price of the housing stock is influenced by the choice of building materials and technologies, poor promotion of security of tenure, insufficient affordable land, and poor infrastructure and service (Ugochukwu and Chioma, 2015). Ugochukwu and Chioma (2015) noted that most housing developers and intending owners insist on using conventional building materials and technologies in Nigeria. Ogundipe et al. (2020b) noted that non-conventional building materials could be developed from agricultural and marine waste to reduce the cost of housing production. To this end, Ugochukwu and Chioma (2015) argued that the unacceptance of local materials and technologies affects affordable housing provision; most end users have inadequate knowledge about the performance of alternative building materials (Ogundipe et al., 2021). Shen et al. (2019) opined that lack of financial will, poor economic incentives, and ineffective legislation enforcement hindered housing affordability. Affordable housing provisions require end users’ input to meet their housing goals and quality delivery (Ogunbayo et al., 2021).

Oyewole (2010) noted that high interest rates and delays in allocating cooperative multipurpose society loans also limit the cooperative member’s access to the required housing fund. Baqutaya, Ariffin, and Raji (2016) noted that housing policy regarding housing loan interest rates and the high cost of housing are the major factors militating against affordable housing provision. Ghaedrahmati and Shahsavari (2019) highlighted some affordable housing problems, including lack of affordable housing, transportation, Tehran’s air pollution, lack of health services, and increasing land prices and rent. Patel and Padhya (2021) opined that faulty housing regulations, inadequate low-cost green technologies, short supply chains, inadequate information, flawed construction processes, and high cost of sustainable practices affect affordable housing provision. Gopalan and Venkataraman (2015) studied affordable housing provision from the perspective of land, finance, and urban utilities/amenities by interviewing stakeholders. The study identified the problems of affordable housing provision: rising cost, regulatory constraints, tiling issues, scarcity of marketable land and shortage of land, lack of rural housing, lack of housing innovation, lack of affordable construction technology, higher floor index, and customer preference.

Additionally, Alhajri (2022) highlighted the challenges facing affordable housing delivery in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as follows: the high price of residential land, high construction cost, high urbanisation rate, reduction of government housing budget, increase in the foreign labour force, new household formation, and difficulties in optioning housing mortgage and loans. Babalola and Hull (2019) observed that the inherent problem and poor implementation of the Land Use Act of 1978 had affected the Land Act to fulfil its goals, and the rural and low-income earners are mostly affected. The study attributed the problem with securing land in Nigeria to the complex process of securing the title of the land, land speculators, high rates/cost of land, and formal land registration not in the interest of the low-income earners. Oluwatayo, Omowunmi, and Ojo (2019) added that bureaucratic bottlenecks, high land registration costs, lengthy registration procedures, and inconsistent policy regimes affect land market development in Nigeria.

Oyewole (2010) noted that flexibility in accessing cooperative housing funds would increase access to affordable housing production more than the National Housing Fund (NHF). Saidu and Yeom (2020) postulated that affordable housing provisions required innovative design techniques, materials quality performance, energy conservation consideration, building orientation, and positioning to improve the housing situation. Ihuah, Kakulu, and Eaton (2014) attributed the failure of affordable housing to low quality, ineffective housing management, time and cost overruns, poor estate, project management, and corruption in housing delivery. However, Ezennia (2022) posited that the problem with affordable housing is beyond financial problems but lacks sustainability practices; though researchers often advocated for sustainable housing, its uptake in Nigeria is deficient. Hence, the various views expressed by researchers on inhibiting factors of affordable housing that often affect low-income earners in metropolitan cities are highlighted in Table 1.

As indicated in Table 2, the respondents' demographic information comprises their age, occupations, annual income, family sizes, and residence status. Most respondents, 42% (48), are 36%–45%, 34% (38) fall within the age bracket of 25–35 years, 17% (17) age range from 46–55 years, and only 7% (7) are above 56 years. Likewise, 33% (37) of the respondents are level 1–6 government workers, followed by 32% (33) that work in private sectors; 18% (20) are entrepreneurs, and the other 20% (23) are individual workers comprising drivers, domestic staff, and artisans. The annual income of 45% (40) of the respondents is below #250,000; while 35% (31) earn an annual income between #250,000–#500,000. 2% (19) earn between #500,000 and #750,000 per annum, 10% (8) earn between #750,000 and #1,000,000 per annum, and only 2% (2) earn above #1,000,000 per annum. The information gathered from Table 32 shows the family size of the respondents. 40% (45) have a family size of 3–6 people, 38% (43) have a family size of 6–9 people, followed by 18% (21) have a family size of 1–3 people, and only 3% (4) have a family size above nine people. 39% (44) of the respondents live in a rented apartment, while 33% (38) squat with friends and family, and only 28% (31) live in their own houses.

The descriptive analysis of the inhibiting factors of affordable housing provision determines low-income earners' opinions based on their knowledge and agreement with the survey questionnaire using the mean score (MS) and standard deviation (σ) ranking presented in Table 3. The land location outskirts of the town ranked first with MS 4.28; (σ) 0.69; the high cost of conventional building materials ranked second with MS 4.14; (σ) 0.84; stigmatisation of affordable housing dwellers ranked third with MS 4.11; (σ) 0.84; lack of security of tenure ranked fourth with MS 4.09; (σ) 0.79; and high inflation and foreign exchange ranked fifth with MS 4.06; (σ) 0.79. Low housing priority from successive governments with MS 4.04; (σ) 0.89; and low government housing budgetary distributions with MS 4.04; (σ) 0.83 ranked sixth; Inadequate innovative housing framework and supply chain with MS 4.01; (σ) 0.87 and low acceptance of housing innovation with MS 4.01; (σ) 0.90 were ranked eighth. Non-acceptance of local construction materials with MS 3.97; (σ) 0.89 and increase in the foreign workforce with MS 3.97; (σ) 0.78 were ranked 10th, respectively. Likewise, the problem of land rights and ownership with MS 3.96; (σ) 0.84, and funding for local construction materials research with MS 3.96; (σ) 0.83, ranked 12th; lack of rent and mortgage price control with MS 3.95; (σ) 0.91, and developers strong profit-driven mentality with MS 3.96; (σ) 0.82, ranked 14th; reliance on imported construction materials with MS 3.95; (σ) 0.87 ranked 16th; inadequate government support of infrastructural allocation with MS 3.93; (σ) 0.91 ranked seventh; the problem of land speculators with MS 3.91; (σ) 0.82 and rural-urban migration with MS 3.91; (σ) 0.76, ranked 18th; insufficient supply of affordable infrastructure with MS 3.90; (σ) 0.77, and inadequate innovative designs and technologies with MS 3.90; (σ) 0.81, ranked 20th.

Consequently, communities’ poor participation in housing development with MS 3.89; (σ) 0.75, and inadequate housing standards and legislation with MS 3.89; (σ) 0.91, ranked 20-s; inadequate execution strategies with MS 3.88 (σ) 0.88 and high mortgage interest rate with MS 3.88; (σ) 0.85, ranked twenty-fourth; ineffective maintenance management with MS 3.87 (σ) 0.86, unsuccessful government housing intervention with MS 3.87; (σ) 0.89, and high population growth with MS 3.87; (σ) 0.85, ranked twenty-sixth; insufficient financial income of low-income households ranked twenty-ninth with MS 3.85; (σ) 0.90; and poor housing policy implementation ranked 30th with MS 3.84; (σ) 0.85. However, the seven inhibiting factors least ranked thirty-first to thirty-seventh were profligacy, bribery and overpricing of contract sum with MS 3.80; (σ) 0.90; high cost of securing land in a choice area with MS 3.80; (σ) 0.88; inadequate mortgage schemes MS 3.79; (σ) 0.92; shortage of qualified construction managers and artisans ranked thirty-fourth with MS 3.73; (σ) 0.92; social exclusion of essential facilities with MS 3.69; (σ) 0.91; low investment in public housing with MS 3.66; (σ) 0.91; and poor national minimum wage with MS 3.65; (σ) 1.01. Hence, the findings of the descriptive analysis indicated that all the identified inhibiting factors affecting affordable housing provision based on the perspective of low-income earners have a mean score above 3.65. According to Opawole and Jagboro (2016), an MIS value of 3.50 indicates the significance of the identified inhibiting factors of affordable housing provision in Lagos metropolitan city.

The study tests the significant difference between the annual income of low-income earners and the inhibiting factors affecting affordable housing provision in Lagos metropolitan city, Nigeria. The Kruskal-Wallis H findings of the thirty-seven identified inhibiting factors of affordable housing provision returned values ranging from 2.509–14.777 for the chi-square (x2) and 0.020–0.747) for the p-value (Asymp-Sig). Seven out of thirty-seven statistically significant factors include land location on the outskirts of the town with a p-value of 0.009; low housing priority from successive governments with a p-value of 0.009; low government housing budgetary distributions with a p-value of 0.042; lack of rent and mortgage price control with a p-value of 0.050; inadequate execution strategies with a p-value of 0.020; high mortgage interest rate with a p-value of 0.008; and poor housing policy implementation with a p-value of 0.020.

The results of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, presented in Table 4, determine data appropriateness for EFA. The KMO test returned a 0.883 value, more than the recommended value of 0.6. At the same time, Bartlett’s test of sphericity has a significant value of 0.000 below 0.5o sets as standard by Eiselen et al. (2007) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), indicating the dataset’s suitability for factor analysis.

Table 5 shows the inhibiting factors of affordable housing provisions (IFAHP) housing after the extraction; all the extracted values higher than 0.1 are considered suitable for exploratory factor analysis. This shows that the identified IFAHP are well fitted in their respective components without any signs of variance. The factor grouping can be relied upon since no variables have a low extraction value.

Table 6 presents the eigenvalues of the variables in the dataset. Kaiser’s criterion for retaining a factor with an eigenvalue above 1.0 was considered (Eiselen et al., 2007). Therefore, seven factors with an eigenvalue above 1.0 were retained. The eigenvalue of the retained components is as follows: 15.813, 2.910, 1.933, 1.693, 1.532, 1.146, and 1.097, which explains 42.737%, 7.866%, 5.224%, 4.576%; 4.141%; 3.098%, and 2.966% of the variance respectively. The seven components represent 70.608% of the cumulative variance, justifying the importance of the 37 variables measured.

The pattern matrix in Table 7 shows how factors in the components were clustered. The table presents the results of the exploratory factor analysis, returning seven components of inhibiting factors of affordable housing provision and the arrangement of variables in each component that align with their significance level. The common name assigned to each of the seven components is as follows: Component 1 is named: Problems with affordable land and security of tenure; Component 2 is named Socioeconomic constraints; Component 3 is named: Problems with conventional materials and technologies”; Component 4 is named: Unpredictable internal factors; Component 5 is named: Absence of innovative framework and supply chain; Component 6 is named: Absent of community collaboration and external economic factors; Component 7 is named: Urbanisation factors. According to Yong and Pearce’s (2013) recommendation, a 0.40 loading factor is adopted as a criterion for retaining loading value EFA components based on pragmatic reasons. The criterion guided this study in retaining a 0.4 and above loadings factor as underlying variables in the seven components.