UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST
SELF-BUILD HOUSING AND LAND USE PLANNING IN
SEKONDI-TAKORADI METROPOLIS, GHANA
VINCENT NARH BAAH
2018
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST
SELF-BUILD HOUSING AND LAND USE PLANNING IN SEKONDITAKORADI METROPOLIS, GHANA
BY
VINCENT NARH BAAH
Thesis submitted to the Department of Geography and Regional Planning of the
Faculty of Social Sciences, College of Humanities and Legal Studies, University
of Cape Coast, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of
Philosophy degree in Geography and Regional Planning
APRIL 2018
DECLARATION
Candidate’s Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own original research and that
no part of it is has been presented for another degree in this university or
anywhere.
Candidate‟s Signature …………………………………….. Date …………………
Name: Vincent Narh Baah
Supervisors’ Declaration
We hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of the thesis were
supervised in accordance with the guidelines on supervision of thesis laid down
by the University of Cape Coast.
Principal Supervisor‟s Signature ………………………… Date ………………….
Name: Prof. Kwabena Barima Antwi
Co-Supervisor‟s Signature ………………………………. Date ………………….
Name: Dr. Eric K. W. Aikins
ii
ABSTRACT
Increasing growth in population coupled with urban expansion in towns and cities
have resulted in many challenges facing both developed and developing societies.
Institutions and governments‟ inability to provide housing facilities in Ghana has
led to individuals providing their own houses through the self-build strategy.
Inadequate attention to self-build development and land-use planning could result
in haphazard housing construction. This thesis sought to assess the effects of selfbuild housing on the existing land use plans in Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. Out
of 254 respondents, only 220 turned out for the study. They comprised of selfbuild developers, some residents from the selected communities and 9 key
informants (4 assembly members and 5 heads of planning institutions). The mixed
method technique was employed by combining the use of questionnaires, in-depth
interviews and observation check lists to obtain the field data. Factor Analysis
was used to examine the factors of self-build development in the study area. The
main findings of the study are that, planning authorities already had some
measures in ensuring self-build housing development in the Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis. Meanwhile, public interference and multiple land ownership were
some of the challenges facing regulatory institutions that lead to flooding and
congestion in the Metropolis. It is recommended that for self-build development
to conform to sustainable land use planning in the metropolis, city authorities
should embark on capacity building, participatory stakeholder involvement,
adequate resourcing of regulatory institutions and public education intensification
as means of mitigating the challenges discussed in the study area.
iii
KEY WORDS
Developers/Self-builders
Ghana
Land Use Planning
Planning authorities
Sekondi-Takoradi
Sustainable development
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The successful completion of this thesis was made possible through the help
of many people. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisors, Prof.
Kwabena Barima Antwi (Head of Department of Geography and Regional Planning,
UCC) and Dr. Eric K. W. Aikins for their professional advice, encouragement and
optimism that has guided this study. I am really grateful. My gratitude also goes to
Dr. Simon Mariwah and Dr. Collins Adjei Mensah all of the Department of
Geography and Regional Planning for their priceless contributions that shaped this
thesis.
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. and Mrs. Nartey Baah for
their unconditional love, care and assistance. Without their help, this thesis would not
have been completed by now. Special thanks to Mr. Felix Baah and Alfred Kankam
for their support throughout the data collection period. I am equally indebted to Peter
Gyimah, Isaac Ebu, Maxmillian Ato Acquah, Lord Ebo Sampson, Oscar Agyemang
and Lincoln Tei Nyade for assisting me to collect and analyse the field data.
I am also grateful to have had the enthusiasm and cooperation from my fellow
distinguished programme mates, family and friends during my entire programme. I
say thank you enormously. Also, special thanks go to all the lecturers in the
Department of Geography and Regional Planning, for your suggestions and
contributions during the presentation of the proposal and field report. Your guidance
actually helped shape this work. Finally, I wish to express my deepest appreciation to
all the individuals who spent their time in responding to the study instruments and
their inputs towards the achievement of the study objectives.
v
DEDICATION
To Mr. and Mrs. Nartey Baah
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DECLARATION
ii
ABSTRACT
iii
KEY WORDS
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
v
DEDICATION
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
viii
LIST OF TABLES
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
xii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
1
Statement of the problem
3
Research questions
4
Objectives of the study
5
Significance of the study
5
Delimitation
6
Definition of terms
7
Organisation of the study
8
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
9
Definition of housing
9
vii
Housing as a need
16
Housing typologies
19
Urbanisation and housing
20
Sustainable Housing
24
Un-Habitat and self-help housing policy
29
Principles of Land use planning
33
Land administration (Land Use Plans) for housing development.
37
Policies that have influenced housing development in Ghana.
39
Characteristics and attributes of self-build housing
42
Concept of Sustainable Development
43
Housing theories
47
Processes of Self-Build Housing Development (SBHD) Framework
55
Limitations of the framework
58
Conceptualframework for the Study
58
Summary
62
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
63
Study area
63
Research philosophy
65
Study design
68
Data and sources
70
Study population
71
Sample size determination
73
viii
Sampling technique
75
Research instruments
78
Data processing and analysis
79
Ethical considerations
80
Limitations to data collection
80
Summary
81
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
82
Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents
82
Stakeholder‟s measures for ensuring sustainable self-build housing
development in the Metropolis.
96
Challenges faced by planning authorities for the implementation of sustainable
land use plans.
106
Summary
118
CHAPTER FIVE:SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION
Introduction
120
Summary of the study process
120
Main findings of the study
122
Conclusions
124
Recommendations
125
Planning implication of findings
129
Contribution to knowledge
130
ix
Areas for further research
131
REFERENCES
132
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Interview schedule for the residents of Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis
149
APPENDIX B: Interview guide for land planning and management
authorities in Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis.
157
APPENDIX C: Interview guide for Assembly members of SekondiTakoradi Metropolis
161
APPENDIX D: Observation checklist
163
APPENDIX E: KMO and Bartlett‟s Test for the nineteen (19) variables
164
APPENDIX F: Ethical clearance from UCC
165
APPENDIX G: Introductory letter from the Department of Geography and
Regional Planning
166
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
An outline of UN-Habitat policy shifts from the 1945 till date
2
Showing some differences between the UN-Habitat and World
30
Bank‟s policies in housing.
32
3
Brief description of principles of land use planning.
34
4
An outline of the SDG 11 and its relevance to the study
45
5
A linkage between selected development goals towards self-build
housing development.
46
6
Total sample population of the study
75
7
Sex distribution of respondents
83
8
Educational status of respondents.
85
9
Types of occupation of respondents
86
10
Monthly income distribution of respondents
87
11
Religious affiliation of respondents
88
12
Ethnicity background of respondents
89
13
Nineteen variables for the growth of self-build projects in the
metropolis.
90
14
KMO and Bartlett‟s Test for the nineteen (19) variables
92
15
Rotated component matrix showing factor loadings and amount of
variance explained for the development of self-build houses in the
metropolis.
94
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1
Self-help housing development process
56
2
Self-build houses development and sustainable land use planning.
59
3
Study area, (Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis) in Regional and National
Context.
64
4
Age distribution of respondents
84
5
Scree plot depicting the number of main components to be retained
93
6
Evidence of the new Clients Service Access Unit for the Lands
Commission in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis
7
Evidence of flooding in the Metropolis (Anaji to the left and Takoradi
market circle to the right respectively)
8
112
Incremental Self-build Housing Posing Difficulties in Drainage and
accessing other homes in Sekondi.
10
115
Evidence of the main drainage connecting Takoradi No 1 and No 2
communities (left) that disappears under a building (right)
11
110
Cracked building authorised by STMA to be pulled down but still houses
some people in Sekondi
9
99
117
Indication of the point where drainage is covered in the compound
(up) and evidence of a house partly built on the main drainage system
in Takoradi
118
xii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AUMA
Alberta Municipal Affairs and Housing
CCB
Community Capacity Building
CIP
Canadian Institute of Planners
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
GREDA
Ghana Real Estate Development Association
GSS
Ghana Statistical Service
GTZ
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
HFC
Home Finance Company
IDI
In-depth Interview
IRB
Institutional Review Board
LAP
Land Administration Project
LAS
Land Administration Systems
LC
Lands Commission
LI
Legislative Instrument
LUP
Land Use Plan(s)/Planning
MDC
Metropolitan Design Center
MDGs
Millennium Development Goals
MMDAs
Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies
NDPC
National Development Planning Commission
PCA
Principal Component Analysis
PHC
Population and Housing Census
PWD
Public Works Department
xiii
NGOs
Non-Governmental Organisations
SBHD
Self-Build Houses Development
SBHP
Self-Build House Project
SBPs
Self-Build Projects
SDGs
Sustainable Development Goals
SHC
State Housing Corporation
SHS
Schockbeton Housing Scheme
SHSC
Sustainable Housing for Sustainable Cities
SPSS
Statistical Product for Service Solutions
SSA
Sub- Saharan Africa
SSNIT
Social Security and National Insurance Trust
STMA
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly
TCPD
Town and Country Planning Department
TDC
Tema Development Corporation
UCC
University of Cape Coast
UK
United Kingdom
UNCHS
United Nations Commission on Human Settlements
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UN-Habitat
United Nations Human Settlements Programme
xiv
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
All human activities take place in space. While the plea for land rises,
supply is always static. Therefore land becomes progressively limited, resulting in
the proliferation in the number of land uses which necessitate proper Land Use
Planning and Management practices (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit [GTZ], 1999). The world is experiencing an unprecedented rate
of urbanisation. In 2003, UN-Habitat described this particular problem as
worrying. Because land is a finite commodity and institutes a vital constituent that
usually affect the viewpoint of humanity in the long-run (United Nations
Commission on Human Settlements [UNCHS], 2003).
Housing development is predominantly becoming an uncommon
commodity in many urban centres, particularly in the developing countries.
According to UN-Habitat (2011), Africa‟s city population is anticipated to
experience swift growth from 294 million to 742 million between 2000 and 2030.
It was estimated that by the end of 2015, nearly 60 percent of Ghanaians would be
living in urban settlements (Farveque –Vitkovic, Raghunath, Eghoff & Boakye,
2008). Therefore, the effect of urban population growth on Ghana requires the
availability and accessibility of adequate housing facilities among the provision of
other services to cater for the expected increase in the country‟s urban population.
This issue is mostly worrying, recognising that most cities in Ghana are currently
1
unable to mount strategies that are capable of providing adequate housing
facilities to curb the increasing housing needs of the growing urban population.
A report prepared by the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) on the
importance of proper town and city planning (Amoah, 2006), indicates that Land
Use Plans (LUPs) in Ghana are mostly affected by the way self-build housing
developments are carried out. As a result, planning authorities in SekondiTakoradi over the years have engaged in a series of demolishing exercises at
New-Takoradi, Konkompey and Kojokrom Zongo, among others to pave way for
the implementation of planned structural development.
Housing delivery in Ghana is basically motivated by individual
households somewhat than the government institutions or even the estate
developers, which result in the laissez-faire approach of self-help housing also
known as self-build accommodation that supply nearly 95 percent of the housing
stock in the nation (Ministry of Works and Housing, 2000; World Bank, 2010). In
Ghana, self-build housing is regarded as informal though it favours all income
earning groups. It provides vast affordable options, and can make use of
abandoned structures. It is economically flexible and ensures autonomy in the
hands of the individual (Ahadzie & Amoa-Mensah, 2010). Self-build House
Projects (SBHPs) is now an inevitable strategy for development planning because
it comes along with growth quandaries which might compromise the quality of
the urban environment. As a result, all stakeholders, including planning and selfbuild housing related institutions need to integrate all aspects of LUP and
environmental mainstreaming processes into national policies to help Ghana find
2
solutions to the development challenges that Self-build Houses Development
(SBHD) pose to land use plans (UN-Habitat, 2011).
Statement of the Problem
In Ghana, land ownership and it distribution is one of the most contentious
development assets (Amanor, 2001). In this respect, there are a number of
planning regulatory institutions set up to guide the development of structures in
both urban and rural areas. Examples are the Local Government Law of 1993 (Act
462) and the National Building Regulation of 1996 (LI 1630). Also, Ghana has
3established formal land planning and management institutions that are mandated
to plan, control and ensure sustainable development of human settlements (Town
and Country Planning Department, 2007). They include the Metropolitan,
Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs), Town and Country Planning
Department (TCPD), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Lands
Commission.
Unfortunately, efforts made by these regulatory institutions have not been
able to match up with the growth of self-build housing development in urban
centres due to speedy growth of urban cities and the government‟s helplessness to
invest in affordable housing delivery (Amoah-Mensah, 2002). According to
Amoah-Mensah, self-build housing has been practised in an unguided manner in
Ghana for several years. Therefore if the idea of self-build housing is not properly
supported, it may lead to a severe setback in the developmental process of the
country where the self-build housing problems exceed its gains (Ferguson &
Navarrete, 2003). For instance, self-build housing needs in Sekondi-Takoradi
3
Metropolis has exacerbated because of the boom in economic activities over the
years. This has manifested in the abundance of sub-standard self-build housing
structures with poor layouts, congestion and indiscriminate supply of social
amenities without regard to the sustainable land use plans (UN-Habitat, 2011).
Such challenges call for a more holistic approach to urban development as a
means of achieving goal eleven (11) of the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) – “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable”.
Meanwhile, existing literature on housing in Ghana mainly delve into
housing deficit, characteristics of self-help housing, rental housing, slum
development, housing rights, importance of self-help housing and many others
with less attention to the effects of self-build housing development to existing
sustainable land use plans (UN-Habitat, 2005; UN-Habitat, 2011; Ansah, 2014).
Based on the gap existing in housing and land planning literature, the present
study seek to answer questions pertaining to the challenges self-build
development pose to the planning establishments in the carrying out of
sustainable land use planning activities in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis.
Research Questions
1. What are the factors of self-build housing development in the study area?
2. What measures are taken by stakeholders to mitigate the challenges
associated with self-build housing development in the study area?
3. What are the challenges faced by planning authorities in the execution of
sustainable land use plans in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis?
4
Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this research was to assess the consequences of selfbuild housing development on sustainable land use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis.
The specific objectives were to:
1. Assess the factors of self-build housing development in the study area;
2. Assess measures taken by stakeholders to mitigate challenges associated
with self-build housing developments in the study area; and
3. Analyse the challenges faced by planning authorities in the execution of
sustainable land use plans in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis.
Significance of the Study
The study is informed by the nature of Self-Build Housing Developments
(SBHDs) in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis which has resulted in number of
challenges to sustainable land use planning in the Metropolis. It is hoped that
through this study, self-build housing developers will become very much aware of
the existence of the institutional arrangements for sustainable land-use planning in
the metropolis and further identify the challenges that have hindered planning
institutions from undertaking satisfactory activities in Sekondi-Takoradi and
across Ghana.
Also, the study could provide useful information to policy makers,
planners and other stakeholders such as the Metropolitan, Municipal and District
Assemblies (MMDAs), Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), and Housing
5
Developers or Estate Developers on the need to involve all stakeholders in the
sustainable planning and implementation of housing policies in the metropolis.
Further, the study aims at contributing to knowledge and literature on the
subject of urbanisation, self-build housing development and sustainable land use
planning. Finally, the study could serve as a source of reference to academics,
researchers and students interested in future studies on housing and land use
planning in urban centres.
Delimitation
The thesis was confined in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis located in the
Western Region of the Republic of Ghana. Selected communities include
Sekondi, Anaji, Takoradi, and Kojokrom. These communities were selected as
study communities since it was easy getting data on the population sizes and the
situation under study was predominant in these areas as compared to other
communities within the metropolis. In all, 220 respondents turned out for the
study from the calculated 245 sampled participants from the four communities.
Hence, the 220 respondents were used for analysis. The thesis sought to study the
effects of unguided self-build houses development on sustainable land use
planning in the metropolis. The study also investigated into how planning
authorities are challenged in the implementation of sustainable land use plans in
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. The study could have as well investigated the rate
of land degradation and the spatial extent of self-build development on existing
land use plans, but did not cover that since it was not the main focus of the
research. Additionally, time and budget constraints on the path of the researcher
6
also contributed to why the study did not investigate into the spatial analysis of
self-build housing development in the metropolis.
Definition of Terms
Housing: Housing is considered as the quality of the physical and social
structure, their ecological interactions and the policy interventions (government
and institutions) used to champion this course in urban development (UN-Habitat,
2012).
Self-build housing: Self-build housing is described as an accommodation order
in which site-and-services are acquired by individuals/developers, with the
developers taking full obligation for the building of their own housing entities in a
gradual process over a period of time. When self-build houses meet the demands
of land use planning and poses less treat to the environment, it is regarded as
sustainable (Pugh, 2001).
Housing developers: Housing developers or self-builders are described as
individuals taking the initiative of undertaking their own housing provision by
procuring land, making arrangement for labour and financing the cost of
construction from the beginning of the construction of the house to the end (Biitir,
2009).
Land Use Planning: This activity is considered as the logical and traditional,
aesthetics, and systematic use of plot, infrastructure and services with the aim of
promoting the spatial, economic, cultural and social efficiency in the development
of well-being without compromising the quality of the local ecology (CIP, 2000).
7
Organisation of the Study
This thesis is comprised of five chapters. Chapter One focuses on the
background to the study, statement of the problem, research questions, objectives
and significance of the study, delimitations, definition of terms and organisation
of the study. Chapter Two reviews the related literature to the study. Within this
chapter are the discussions of the theoretical perspectives and paradigms that
informed the conceptual framework of the thesis.
Chapter Three centres on the method employed for the study. This chapter
describes the study area, research philosophy, study design, data and sources,
study population, sample size determination, sampling technique, the research
instruments used, data processing and analysis, ethical considerations and
limitations of data collection resulting from the research.
Chapter Four is concerned with the results and discussions while Chapter
Five provides the summary, conclusions and recommendations based on findings
of the study.
8
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter reviews the various works that are significant to the subject
under investigation. The topics reviewed include definition of housing, housing as
a need, typology and urbanisation and housing. Other important aspects discussed
are sustainable and affordable housing.
Specifically, the chapter reviewed sustainable housing, the policies that
have influenced housing development in Ghana, the concept of self-build
housing; characteristics and attributes. Finally, theoretical perspectives of
liberalism and neoliberalism are discussed to serve as the basis that informed the
conceptual framework adopted for the study.
Definition of Housing
Marxist, liberal, and positive theories are the main theoretical
underpinnings behind the definition of housing (Soliman, 2004). In all, Soliman
among other researchers in the field of housing and planning pay respect to the
efforts of John F. C. Turner (1967) whose ideas have been the bed rock of
housing theory till date. Turner (1967) was a British architect known for his
massive contributions to housing and urban development, mostly housing
strategies for poor in the developing countries. Thus, housing development in
recent time‟s sterns from three viewpoints or perspective (i.e Marxist or radical,
liberal or non-Marxist and Positive) such that these notional pathways indicate the
role of housing within the circles of which accommodation is developed. This is
9
why the most recognised role of housing is meant to be shaping society by
providing social change (Awan, Scneider, & Till, 2011).
A. Marxism view of Housing
This is also popularly known as the Marxist or Radical view of housing.
Marxism according to Soliman (2004), is the economic and political theories of
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. For them, human engagements and
establishments are determined by economic activities. That is the reason why
hierarchical struggle is necessary to fashion change historically, and that
communism will always supersede capitalism. According to researchers like
Chiara, Panero and Zelnik (1995) and Soliman (2004), Marx used six (6) aspects
to describe the social classes in capitalist societies. First Marx describe those
personalities who sell their labour authority and who normally do not have
ownership of the resources of production as the „proletariat‟ or the working class.
Second, individuals in a capitalist system who own the means of production and
purchase labour power from the working class are regarded as the „bourgeoisie‟.
Third, Petit bourgeoisie are those who employ labourers and work themselves as
well, just as owners of smaller businesses. For Soliman (2004), Marxism predicts
that the petit bourgeoisie would eventually corrupt within a period of time since
there is often reinvention of the factors of production.
Fourth, Lumpen proletariat in the Marxist social class are considered as
the beggars, criminals and all who have no prize in the national economy, hence
they trade off their resources to the highest purchaser. The fifth class consists of
landlords who are historically important in social classes because they mostly
10
retain some wealth and power in the economy. Finally, the peasantry and farmers
are the disorganised class in the society who are incompetent of carrying out
socio-economic modification. As a matter of fact, most of whom would
eventually go into the proletariat, and some may turn out to be landlords as well.
Based on the Marxist classical groupings of the society, it defines housing
in terms of three basic ultimate scopes: housing as an indispensable good, housing
as an immobile good and housing not only has use worth but also an interchange
value (Soliman, 2004).
i.
Housing
as
an
indispensable
good:
This
is
conceptualised
predominantly a means of survival (means to an end) that is
indispensable for the replica of a nations‟s labour force and is
therefore a good whose price could enter directly or indirectly into the
production of all possessions. As a result, housing is of much interest
to the classes of people rather than just for people‟s immediate
consumption;
ii.
Housing as a fixed good: Availability or access to materials for
building is a precondition for housing production to occupy parcel of
land within a particular location. The reason being that, land is infinite
commodity and does not have the capability of reproducing at will. For
legal handling of land to undertake housing activities, civil liberties to
land and its various use are preserved in the legal rights to own
property in a capitalist economy; and finally, Marxist radical view of
housing defines housing in a capitalist society as not only having a use
11
value but an exchange value as well. To the radical view point,
housing is or can become, a product whose consumption can only be
realised by those who can afford its purchase because they have a
housing need to fulfill.
B. The non-marxist view (liberal) definition of housing
There are four dimensions to the liberal definition of housing (Soliman,
2004; Soliman, 2012). Housing can be defined grammatically as a „noun‟ or a
„verb‟, defining a housing system attached to and interactive with the community
members, housing definition as an effect and lastly, housing as the freedom to
build.
i.
Grammatical definition of housing, according to the Non-Marxist
view, is when housing is defined as a noun and or as a verb. As a
noun, housing does not put obvious effect on the housing market by
providing new spaces for the additional family members who live in
the housing unit. Housing as a verb is described as a dynamic process
that develops in accordance to the prerequisites of its residents. Hence,
a lodging unit can be transformed from just a minor built-up unite into
a mega building consisting of different accommodation units with
many family members over a period of time. In this case, housing may
possibly have special influences on the mechanisms of the housing
market and land use planning due to the additional new units to the
housing stock within a particular locality over a period of time. This
12
process is not spontaneous but develops in stages which is dependent
on the need and availability of economic capacity of the households;
ii.
A housing system is attached to and interactive with the community
members: Secondly, housing is purposely among the basic
components that contributes to development. This is due to the
elements, materials and services of housing growth which actively
relate to diverse activities; whether in the housing industries,
manufacturing firms, or services, as with acquisition of building
materials. This creates an atmosphere of social interaction that result in
capital investment, which in turn lead to community development.
iii.
The effect of housing: housing plays a major function of affecting and
being affected by the residents in a community. Simply, that is „what
housing is and housing does‟. Why because residents have the power
to influence the demand and supply of housing using units and can
have direct influence on the inner space and finishing materials of
housing units. Meanwhile, higher standard materialised house does not
necessarily imply a house that houses better people in the society. The
actual effect of housing development rests on the market due to capital
investment rather than the achievement of the basic needs of its
occupants; and
iv.
Freedom to build: to the Non-Marxist view of housing definition,
housing is seen as one of the most significant human priorities.
Therefore, the freedom to build is demanded by many but differs
13
significantly from one family or household to the other due to differing
socio-economic needs and changes. As a result, the resultant effect of
housing reflects the life of the residents based on their cultural
(customs) and historical backgrounds of their social groups. This
definition set an independent system of housing that allows individual
members of the society to build on their own because the central idea
of housing is influenced by „who‟, „what‟ and for‟ whom‟ decisions.
C. The positive view of housing
With this view of housing, it regards housing in a very broad sense by
relating it to three pillars of the human society. These include social, economic
and environmental dimensions (Soliman, 2012).
i.
Sustainable housing is a basic housing unit that is healthy and
affordable while supplying residents with services like safe drinking
water, having waste drains, among others. Housing with regard to
healthy environment has been one of the main aspects of building
regulation in all countries in recent times. That is the reason why to
Soliman (2004), governments of developing countries must pay
particular attention to health conditions in residential areas. Hence,
concentrating, especially in social aspects of housing affected by
diseases related to waste management and this could go a long way of
cutting down the cost of spending on health care services in
developing countries;
14
ii.
To the positivists, housing, is defined as that aspect of the economy
where housing and environmental development that depended on the
use of capital and energy sources. Why because, it is a common
practice of most residents spending their capital on the improvement of
the physical state of their structure. Therefore, the mechanisms used
for promoting the housing market is determined by the economic
status of families in the course of causing improvements in the housing
conditions; and
iii.
Housing, according to the positivists, is the housing environment. The
housing environment consists of the space occupied by the house, the
residents, the natural and physical environment, as well as the
government and other players in the housing industry. For that matter,
a healthy housing environment requires a holistic and comprehensive
interventions from all these aspects of the environment to make
housing a quality contributor to economic development and one
wellbeing.
In conclusion, all three theoretical housing views assume the importance
of housing to economic development and social welfare of its residents.
Meanwhile, Marxist view asserts that government plays the role of the ruling
class over the other social groups. At the same time, the ruling class are served by
the proletariat. To the liberal group, housing is the output of people‟s effort to
build because they have the freedom to. While the positivists assume that housing
development thrives on socio-economic and healthy environmental interaction.
15
Housing as a Need
Housing is a necessity among the basic human needs. According to Nassar
(2003) and Nassar and Biltagy (2016), the basic needs constitute the fundamental
measurement of absolute human poverty. Therefore, it defines the minimum
resource availability crucial for longstanding physical welfare of persons, usually
in terms of goods usage. Primarily, the traditional constituents of “basic needs‟
include food (water inclusive), shelter and clothing. Modern lists of “basic needs”
goes beyond the traditional ones by adding sanitation, education and healthcare.
As a matter of fact, housing has been a core factor in the achievement of the basic
needs. For that matter in 1948, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
recognised for the first time the civil right for accommodation in the 25th article
which states clearly that:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services,
and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness,
disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are
entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born
in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection”.
A house was once considered to be only shelter, which is independent of
everything else (having no particular influence on people‟s well-being other than
just the physical structure). In recent times, that perception is totally an
16
incomplete view of the inter-relatedness of shelter provision, the people or actors
and their environment (Majale & Payne, 2004). Shelter is regarded as the
rudimentary human need that requires to be met on priority basis within any least
possible space. On the other hand, housing is any form of investment which
improves and expands the available stock of housing units. Meanwhile, housing
also improve both the working and living environment (productivity and health).
Shelter therefore is a core need achieved through housing strategies and more.
Psychologist Abraham Maslow recognised seven categories of elementary
needs also known as basic needs common to all persons. Maslow (1943)
conceptualised and denoted these needs as an order in the form/shape of a
pyramid showing the ranks of conceptions from lowermost to uppermost. All
people, for Maslow (p. 129), need attain or acquire the needs at the least levels of
the pyramid formerly before they can successfully be inspired to achieve the top
ranks (Basset-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). Below are the orderly arrangement of
Maslow‟s Theory of needs from the least (psychological needs) to the highest
(self-actualisation needs):
i.
Psychological needs;
ii.
Safety and security needs;
iii.
Love and belongingness;
iv.
Self-worth and self-esteem;
v.
Need to know and understand;
vi.
Aesthetic needs; and
vii.
Self-actualisation.
17
The bottommost four levels signify deficiency needs, and the upper three
stages represent the growth needs. The first four levels of Maslow‟s hierarchy of
needs are deemed essential for every individual‟s well-being or welfare. After
they have been fully pleased before the person is enthused to seek the true
proficiencies that apply to the growth needs. According to Martin and Joomis
(2007), Maslow proposed that the principal and most straightforward critical thing
societies need to have is existence. That is, their physiological requirements for
food (including water) and accommodation. It is contained in the need for shelter
that society build houses to ensure the attainment of this basic need for human
survival. Hence, individuals must have access to food to eat, water to drink, and
consequently an abode or house to call home before they can think of achieving
anything else in life (Antomioni, 1999). This now provides a basis for why
housing is therefore a need for human development and without it makes people
vulnerable to achieving other essential needs in life.
Many criticisms have been levelled against needs and most, especially the
hierarchy of needs as theorised by Maslow (1943) because it was anticipated that
if people are raised up in an environment in which their needs are not met, they
would be not likely to perform healthily and act as well-balanced personalities
(Basset-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). Meanwhile, researches analysing Maslow‟s theory
over the years have buttressed the division between the insufficiencies and growth
needs but exhibited that not all persons are able to fulfill their higher-order needs
even when given the right environment. For Kaur (2013), notwithstanding the
18
criticisms levelled against the needs theory, this philosophy has made a
substantial input to human studies and development.
Housing typologies
According to the Metropolitan Design Center (MDC) (2005), there exist
so many terms used to refer to or classify buildings where individuals live. The
physical composition of houses is basically categorised into two focal divisions:
free-standing or detached houses and attached or multi-user residences.
Meanwhile, both classifications may vary significantly in scale, style and the
expanse of lodgings (need). Even though houses give the impression to be of
numerous types, many are attributed to issues of one‟s need and style (design)
rather than spatial arrangement or scale, including the following:
i. Free-standing or detached dwelling
These are mostly single-family unit and are constructed on plots larger than the
edifice itself. They are mostly surrounded by gardens. Examples are villas,
bungalows, mention-cottages and core House;
ii. Attached or multi-user dwellings
Multi-use (attached or multi-family) built-up is an accommodation typology
where numerous distinct housing units are confined within one particular edifice.
The commonest form is the studio apartment building. Other examples include,
twin house or semi-detached, terraced house/row house/townhouse, shop-house
(mixed use building form) and the single housing types.
19
Urbanisation and housing
The put up environs in many developing nations particularly is fast
deteriorating and the factors responsible for this can be attributed particularly to
swift urbanisation, rural-urban migration and years of fixed economic downturn,
deterioration of urban infrastructure and deprived housing quality (World Bank,
2005).
The term “urbanisation” has been given different interpretations and
definitions based on ones‟ ideology. For most definitions, urbanisation is regarded
as the spatial growth of natural or rural terrestrial into urban centres mostly due to
migration to standing urban areas (World Bank, 2005). The United Nations
(2000) defined urbanisation as the movement (migration) of persons from rural to
urban areas with population growth associating to urban migration. On the other
hand, housing is described as a growth sector within a national economy and
therefore defined in three aspects namely; the physical product, a process and as
the cultural of reality (UN-Habitat, 2002). Physically, housing is considered to be
a tangible open space or covered with built forms, artifacts, walls, roof, doors,
fences, gates among others. This is called a dwelling unit, a house or a home and
is integrated with other units in the neighborhood through community
infrastructure or facilities. As a process, housing involves the carrying out of
activities including the interaction with multiplicity decisions related to planning,
land acquisition, house construction, expansion and maintenance.
This process is what determines the quality of the „house‟ as a „product‟.
Lastly, as a cultural reality, housing is being generated by, and a generator of
20
lifestyles and other aspects of a peoples‟ way of life. That is why housing as a
need goes beyond shelter provision to the extent of even accommodating the
family‟s life cycle that has interlocking relationship with urbanisation processes.
Even though, people opt for urbanisation due to it related benefits such as the
abundance of quality social amenities and others, the urbanisation expansion in
many developing countries has not been complemented with a resultant supply of
sufficient houses (Osuide & Dimuna, 2005).
Whilst it is assumed that housing and the provision of basic infrastructure
offer an aiding environment for the total development and urbanisation and many
towns endeavour to provide quality accommodation and basic infrastructure for
its inhabitants through amplified policy mediations, funding and other enabling
conditions. Unfortunately, it is vague why the consequences are still terrible
(Yates & Milligan, 2007). According to the UN-Habitat Global Human
Settlement Report in 2003, from another perspective, it could be said that the
measure of urban growth rate is so massive and rampant that any effort to provide
sustainable housing and basic infrastructure would not necessarily meet the
requirements. Much importantly, this might well be attributed to some inadequacy
that exist within the framework being stained with inadequacies incapable of
allowing the status quo to improve (UN-Habitat, 2003).
These have led to high call on housing facilities resulting in overcrowding,
high rentals and the growth of substandard settlements creating serious threats to
the urban ecology (Olotuah, 2005). For Olotuah, substandard housing is often
depreciated kind of accommodation that has not been refurbished or temporary
21
accommodation that does not meet a countries‟ building codes. Another problem
of the urban built environment is the non-compliance of self-builders with
existing accommodation bye-laws and building regulations (Lanrewaju, 2012).
According to Osuide and Dimuna (2005), the main extents of defaulting
are within the areas of land zoning, holdups, construction along service lines and
non-compliance to delivery of adequate freshening (as cited by Lanrewaju, 2012).
Dealing with urbanisation problems on housing from the institutional perspective,
authorities must also prepare to reassign and align responsibilities in peri-urban
areas to ensure the effective integration into metropolitan areas (UN-Habitat,
2013).
Affordable housing
The presence of sub-markets in housing industry (they include informal
housing and the market aided by some formal housing finance institutions) is
important for addressing affordability issues in housing (Bertaud, 2007). These
sub-markets, according to Bertaud, apparently need to be explored within the
broader framework which mostly comprises of lease, land planning and regulating
the economy in which they undertake their activities to foster appropriate policy
response to affordable housing hitches. Globally, decentralised urbanisation has
been advocated as a wheel designated in co-ordination with greater planning and
socioeconomic development programmes for providing sustainable housing that is
sound in land use planning (UNCHS, 2003). For that matter, the housing delivery
markets now run within the comprehensive spectrum of planning, legitimate and
economic agenda, aimed at facilitating affordable housing delivery. If not, most
22
people in urban areas will continue to live in poor houses that are environmentally
unsafe. For instance, more than 30 percent of the world wide urban human
population are residing in poorly constructed housing conditions or living in
slums or are basically homeless (UN-Habitat, 2010).
The state of affairs is overwhelming considering the district/regional
distribution across the world. UN-Habitat (2010) estimate that the share of urban
persons who reside in dilapidated housing units in Sub-Saharan Africa alone
(SSA) was about 61 percent, South Asia (35 %), South Eastern Asia (31 %),
followed by Asia (28 %), while in the Latin America and Caribbean, the
estimated percentage is around 24 percent. As a matter of fact, the low-income
families are usually the most disadvantaged people, who because of inadequate
access to affordable housing facilities have been compelled into engaging
unhealthy informal accommodation in most slums in various city centres
worldwide (Struyk & Gidding, 2009).
Yates and Milligan (2007) asserted that the issue of housing affordability
is an extensive and fundamental planning difficultly emanating from forces within
and sometimes alien to the housing system which are capable of posing multiple
problems (such as gentrification and spatial polarisation) among others related to
land planning particularly for the low-income households. Housing supply (such
as land availability, building legislations, construction industry productivity,
straight participation and indirect association of government through backings)
coupled with issues about demand (income of households, availability,
accessibility and housing finance terms, subsidies from government) impact
23
greatly upon the issue of affordability (Berry, 2006). Bertaud (2007) affirmed
that, speak to the issue of affordability difficulties in housing call for addressing
the demand and supply side constraints concurrently with town-specific reactions
and interactions of all stakeholders (the state, market forces, planners, land
management institutions and legal bodies).
Sustainable Housing
Housing primarily constitute one of those elementary welfare/social
conditions that decide the excellence of life, people and quality of dwellings (UNHabitat, 2012 p. 3). The daily lives of individuals are mostly influenced by the
locality they live in and the influences from social, cultural and economic
activities. Therefore, making housing an important aspect for achieving
sustainable development since it affects the health, security and people‟s
wellbeing. According to the same UN-Habitat report on Sustainable Housing for
Sustainable Cities (SHSC), housing forms a fundamental part of the interactions
between society and their immediate and external environments. Hence, making
housing and sustainability issues a complex interlocked concept that influences
policy development in most countries. That is why according to the report, for
housing provision to be sustainable it has to go beyond the mere idea of shelter
provision to imply more than just than a roof over ones‟ head. Extensively, it
implies the availability of enough accessibility, ventilation, lightening, reliability
and adequate security, sanitation through proper waste management practices,
quality environment and availability of basic social infrastructures.
24
From the context of sustainable development, housing can be defined from
two main perspectives; housing as physical structure and housing as a social
structure. Regarding housing as a physical structure is where by houses are seen
as buildings for residential purpose or provision of shelter. It comes along with
their design, quality of material used, building arrangements in space, and their
interactions with ecological factors (environment). Second, residence-based
undertakings in communities, their characteristics, socioeconomic qualities and
interactions in space defines housing as a social structure (UN-Habitat, 2012). For
the purpose of this study, housing is considered to be the quality of the physical
and social structure, their ecological interactions and the policy interventions
(government and institutions) used to champion this course in urban development.
Urbanisation escalates the quest for housing facilities and other urban
services which most cities planning authorities currently struggle to cope with in
many developing countries. For that matter, cities development in Africa, Asia
and the Latin Americas are commonly accompanied with informal settlements
and numerous slum developments as means of shelter provision. That is why
these informal housing growths are usually unguided and characterised with
inadequate basic infrastructure, lack of sanitary provision, and mostly with
insignificant repute for prescribed planning and construction regulations in urban
communities (UN-Habitat, 2010; 2012).
Because there exist a huge gap amongst housing developers and the
responsible land management authorities at times, it is only through sustainable
solutions (capacity building, stakeholder involvement, education, policy
25
regulation and building of sustainable housing framework) that the disparities
between self-build houses development and urban land use planning can achieve
sustainability without compromising the ecological qualities of the urban
environment in Ghana and beyond.
Self-help and Self-build housing
In the late 1960s, a new housing idea emerged and that reformed the
approach to housing, especially for the poor considerably in the last two decades.
This is termed as the idea of „self-help‟ in housing (Kapur, 1989). Kapur further
asserts that, based on the concept of „progressive development‟ with prime
concern for participation in the housing process by its dwellers themselves, the
self-help idea has since become a new „paradigm‟, that is dominating the field of
housing. Primarily, the idea of Turner (1967) and Mangin (1967) have had
influence on self-help housing resulting in others such as self-build housing
delivery. Both researchers brought about a shift in policy to one where individuals
should be capable of solving their own housing problems through self-build
initiatives. Turner‟s prime overview of self-help housing approach is fastened to
what he termed as the freedom-to-build of which resident authority is supreme to
the means of the housing construction (Mahama & Dixon, 2006). Self-help
housing practice of developing countries have existed among cultures since time
immemorial before conventional town planning (Nnamdi, 2011).
Self-help housing is used interchangeably with the term self-build housing
in most cases thereby resulting in various definitions by different authors (Yihong
& Lichun, 2001; Zhang, Zhao & Tian, 2003). To begin with, self-help
26
accommodation has been conceived as housing construction carried out basically
by low-income earners and are capable of solving their accommodation needs
through their own finances and hire of labour (Bangdome-Dery, Eghan & Afram,
2014). Also, self-help concept is one that permits poor societies to be the main
actors in taking key decisions regarding project planning, construction design,
land management and blue print implementation with government. The support
can take the form of initial project funding, teaching/capacity building on project
management and oversight during time of execution (Ntema, 2011).
Even though most governments in the past were unwilling to propagate
the approach of self-help housing development, this idea in recent times have
found much approval in many housing developing frameworks across the globe
(Pugh, 2001). However, through the acceptance processes, the idea itself has seen
tremendous transformation due to motivations of various groups involved in
housing.
According to Bangdome-Dery et al (2014), self-help housing has evolved
over the years in a series of modifications that comprise, aided self-help housing;
unaided [mostly called laissez-faire]; and institutional self-help housing. First,
aided self-help housing development is regarded a housing ideology where by
site-and-services are principally the obligation of the persons undertaking the
construction of their own accommodation structure. Second, unaided self-help
housing is the housing concept which neglects the role of government in their
activities but rather allowing individual developers to secure land, acquire
27
materials, hire labour and provide any other resource for financing their housing
unit on a parcel of land acquired legally or illegally (Pugh, 2001).
The process of formalisation of spontaneous self-help housing into official
policies has been criticised heavily by researchers, especially the neo-Marxists.
For the neo-Marxists, they assert that sponsored approach to self-help
accommodation delivery has almost all the demerits of unstructured self-help and
none merits. That is why in an attempt to reduce the assistance of government and
donors‟ assistance in self-help housing emerged another liberal wing termed as
self-build housing; where there exist high owner autonomy and limited state
control. The Laissez-faire self-help housing approach is a well-known approach
among any income group but most especially with the low-income groups (Gough
& Yankson, 2010).
According to Ntema (2011), institutional self-help housing on the other
hand denotes the carrying out of self-help housing facilities by means of
community-based institutions, organisations or known groups. It is evident
enough that most Ghanaians indulge in the laissez-faire self-help housing
approach manly defined as self-build housing which supplies about 95 percent of
the total housing stock in the country and consequently subsidising almost
US$300 million annually to the national economy (World Bank, 2010). This is so
because governments‟ funds have not been capable of meeting the general
housing needs of the Ghanaian citizenry (Ahadzie & Amoa-Mensah, 2010).
In order for the purposes of this research to be achieved and in the
Ghanaian setting, the definition which was advanced by Pugh (2001) was
28
adapted. Therefore, self-build housing is described as a housing system in which
the site-and-services on the plot/field are individually acquired with the
developers taking full charge for the construction of their personal
accommodation units in a gradual process over a period of time. Although this
approach of housing provision is regarded time consuming at times, it
undoubtedly continues to be the most prominent supplier of houses in Ghana
(Ahadzie & Amoa-Mensah, 2010).
UN-Habitat and self-help housing policy
The popularly known UN-Habitat was formed in 1976, in the course of
Habitat 1. It was through the Vancouver Declaration that UN-Habitat was fully
established as a professional organisation of planners within the United Nations.
The symposium by the UN at that time is also known by many as the „Aided Selfhelp Conference‟. At that time, the UN‟s method of housing was very similar to
the approach of the World Bank. Both specialists recognised state backing or
funding for assisting self-help housing approach on a case-by-case basis (Harris,
2003). Meanwhile, the UN-Habitat was distinguished by its unique advocate for
acknowledgement of the informal housing division and therefore braced slum
upgrading and provision of subsidies for housing and land use planning (Smith,
1999; Harris, 2003). Later, the UN-Habitat (2003) established additional liberal
propositions to the already existing housing strategies, most especially in
developing countries as reflected in Table 1.
29
Table 1: An outline of UN-Habitat policy shifts from the 1945 till date
Phase
1945 – 1960s
Diverse and sometimes contradictory policies
1954, Abrams: in situ improvement plus incremental housing
construction.
(experienced shortage as a result of neglect)
Actually, there was no commendations prepared by the UN.
ILO 1953: the idea of public/commercial housing
construction satisfactory in principle, but not in budget;
sponsored self-help
1960s –1970s
UN-Associated individual specialists preferred Sites plus
services provision, but had very slight influence on policy
1972 – 1980s
Vancouver Declaration (Habitat1, 1976) – also regarded as
the Aided self-help ideology
UNICEF: Supporters for urban rudimentary amenities
1980s – late
Enabling Methodology:
1990s
Accomplishment by individuals; society based participation;
land gathering, housing investment, aptitude building
1990 onwards
Focus on sustainability plus resilience (Sustainable
Development)
Source: UN-Habitat (2003).
The UN-Habitat policies had a major shift in the 1980s especially from
assistance of self-help schemes to the enablement paradigm. This was the same
time that the World Bank was also drifting attention from support of plots or sites
and construction services coupled with slum upgrading projects to propagate
market/economic enablement (Egurden, 2001). This new shift aimed at promoting
indigenously strong-minded, proactive and self-sustaining settlement schemes
popularly known as the self-build housing project. The orthodoxy shift stems
from the determinations from that of „developer/provider‟ to „finance/support‟.
The advocated support housing model was not a new idea after all. This is
because it has already been propagated by earlier professionals like the Dutch
30
Architect, Habraken, in 1961 and the well-known housing specialist, Turner in
1986 (Smith, 1999).
Even though the former paradigm dwelt more on support or assistance in
physical terms and the latter measured them as institutional levers. Thus that of
the UN-Habitat‟s enablement hypothesis was somewhat different from that of the
World Bank in certain divisions. According to Smith (1999), as the former
focused on enablement of communities, the latter dwell on enabling housing
markets (Pugh, 2000). For Egurden (2001), both bodies‟ policy positions
remained significantly broadly pinned to the neo-liberalists idea of emphasising
on the role for the market forces.
According to Egurden (2001), the approaches of the UN-Habitat in the
1990s policies shifted to Sustainable Urban Development. The model shift payed
attention to all-inclusive planning to achieve stability in competence, fairness and
sustainable development. This rule consolidation took place at the 1996 UNHabitat II Conference in Turkey. This consolidation was later followed by some
working documents and meetings to help shape the future of human settlement
that is sustainable. Examples included two initial papers in 1992: Global Strategy
for Shelter/Accommodation and Sustainable Human Settlements as a means of
achieving housing facilities persons and sustainable human development agenda
(UNCHS-Habitat, 2006).
The Istanbul promises were however transformed, with much emphasis on
cities; after five years in New York‟s „Review of Habitat Agenda and Strategies‟
(UN-Habitat, 2001). Emerging papers ensuing from the Istanbul commitments
31
included: „Cities in a Globalising World: Global Report on Human Settlements
and the Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements‟ (UN-Habitat,
2003). The UN-Habitat (2005) assert that sustainability issues of housing in the
broader sense were also deeply discussed at the First and the Second Earth
Summits, in Rio in 1992 and in Johannesburg in 2002 respectively. The UNHabitat‟s and the World Bank‟s commitment to „markets‟, „public/private
partnerships‟, „housing finance‟, „self-management‟ and „efficiency‟ in housing
development have all thrive from the neo-liberal concepts (World Bank, 2012).
Table 2: Showing some differences between the UN-Habitat and World
Bank’s policies in housing
Policies
UN-Habitat (pay attention to
World Bank (economic
community development)
market and macroeconomic
issues)
Prime Purpose
Instruments
National procedures to
- Reform state structures to
enshure local self-help
enable markets work.
(planned,
No masterproactive
plans. and self-
- Demand side (property
sustaining)
- Organisation restructuring.
rights + mortgage;
- Local access to basic
rationalise subsidies).
resources.
- Supply side (infrastructure
- Change rules + regulations.
+ land; regulations +
- Community participation.
organised construction
industry).
- Running of housing block.
32
Table 2 continued
Basis
- The low income group have
- Informal subdivision plays
done extra than government.
a role.
- More than sites + services,
- Housing sector/actors +
+ upgrading needed.
state economy control
- Resource constraints limit
project successes.
governments‟ action.
- Distinctive projects: minor.
- Government averted from
monitoring + official
reforms to projects.
- Variety of approaches to
lending
- Focus lending to the poor
to continue.
Source: Adapted from Smith (1999)
Principles of Land use planning
Land use planning (LUP) is regarded as an iterative procedure based on
the discourse among all shareholders taking aim at the intervention and
pronouncement for a sustainable means of land use in rural and urban areas as
well as prompting and monitoring its execution (GTZ, 1999). Land use planning
is considered a difficult, complicated and often extremely political/governmental
process. That is why the Canadian Institute of Planners explains land use planning
as:
33
“The scientific, aesthetic, and orderly disposition of land,
resources, facilities and services with a view to securing
the physical, economic and social efficiency, health and
well-being of urban and rural communities” (CIP 2000,
p.1).
Hence, planning for sustainability must think through the multiple and
often challenging ecological, economic and social wellbeing of a greater
proportion of the populace, regulatory bodies, and other stakeholders (Alberta
Urban Municipalities Association [AUMA], 2007; Chalifour, 2007). Concrete
phases of sustainability planning include but not limited to development
management, housing growth and inter-jurisdictional harmonisation. Anywhere
individuals use land and its accompanied capital, land use is scheduled or
planned, whether one is fully aware of it or has no idea (GTZ, 1999, p. 3). GTZ
summed up the following as the eleven core principles of land use planning
(Table 3):
Table 3: Brief description of principles of land use planning
Principle
Description
1: Orientated to local conditions in Planning approaches often fail
terms of both method and content
because worldwide ideologies and
execution mechanisms are functional
and thus preceded spontaneously and
uncritically.
2: Considers cultural viewpoints and Groups can often provide complex
builds up on local environmental original
understanding
of
the
knowledge
environment. Considering this, such
local knowledge should be part of the
basis for planning and implementing a
sustainable land use.
34
Table 3 continued
3: Takes into account traditional Traditional societies have their own
strategies for solving problems and means of attending to challenges and
conflicts
resolving conflicts relating to land use.
In the course of land use planning
activities, these tools should be
known, well understood and greatly
considered.
4:
Assumes a concept which The results of planning and the
understands rural development to be a implementation of measures can only
"bottom-up" process based on self- be maintainable if strategies are made
help and self-responsibility
with the direct people involved and
not as often done behind them or
even against them. Planning is
therefore not just a matter for experts,
but should be carried out together with
those affected by it.
5: A dialogue, creating the The core task of LUP consists of
prerequisites for the successful introducing a procedure of messaging
negotiation and collaboration among and cooperation which permits all
stakeholders
stakeholders to communicate their
comforts and objectives in the
negotiation.
6: A process leading to an The participatory methods used in all
improvement in the capacity of the planning steps of LUP promote the
participants to plan and take actions
technical and organisational
capabilities of all participants, thereby
extending their capacity to plan and to
act.
7: Requires transparency. Therefore, Transparency in planning and the
free access to information for all extent to which stakeholders are wellparticipants is a prerequisite
versed, equipped with both their
commitment and ability to partake in
planning and policymaking. It also
rises the enthusiasm of the societies
for creating sustainable outcomes.
8: Differentiation of stakeholders and A prerequisite for realistic land use
the gender approach critical
planning is the thorough study of the
various interest groups. The aim is to
find out the various interests of the
participants in order to create a basis
for the negotiation and decisionmaking process.
35
Table 3 continued
9: Based on interdisciplinary
cooperation
The indigenous ecological, market
economy, practical, financial and
sociocultural dimensions of land use
make it necessary to work with an
interdisciplinary
approach.
LUP
provides many interfaces with other
technical disciplines and planning
fields which provide it with broad
spectrum of tools.
10: An iterative process; it is the LUP is more than the preparation of a
flexible and open reaction based on planning document; it is a cyclical
new findings and changing conditions process. Iteration in land use planning
consist of both the principle and the
technique simultaneously. This
principle allows innovative
developments and results precisely
observed
to be incorporated into the planning
process, and
11: It is implementation-orientated
Land use planning contemplate on
how the negotiated decisions and the
solutions identified are to be
implemented. The implementation of
limited measures right at the
commencement or parallel to the LUP
process plays an important role in
increasing the trust of the people in
the planning process.
Source: Adapted from GTZ (1999)
From Table 3, land use planning involves a participatory approach to
planning where all stakeholders are active members in decision making and the
implementation processes. With this, the study relies on this literature as a
backbone to assert the importance of housing development that gives due respect
to existing sustainable land use plans. The effective use of these principles in
respect to housing development is a necessary tool for sustainable development
especially in the developing countries.
36
Land Administration (Land Use Plans) for housing development.
Land Administration Systems (LAS), according to Enemark (2007), offer
a nation‟s groundwork for enactment of its land-related plans and land
management policies. Further explained, land in modern administration include
capitals, the marine environment, erections, and all things attached to and under
the earth‟s surface. Moreover, every single country for them devises its own
system, but then again can adapt this framework to organise successful systems
and even improve on existing ones as well. This survey of LAS make available a
cohesive framework to support decision makers to make choices about
improvement of systems (Enemark, Williamson, & Wallace, 2005).
There are four elementary constituents in the design of any national approach
towards LAS improvement. These include;
i. The land management model: this has mainly four management functions
of land tenure, land use, land valuation and land development. In addition,
it can be used by organisations or regimes to design, construct and follow
up their LAS. The principal notion backing the model comprises
developing land administration past its familiar functions of mapping,
cadastral surveying, and registering land to a comprehensive form of
administration practices which involve stakeholders;
ii. The common processes: These activities usually comprise distributing
land, allocating it to identifiable and secure uses, distributing areas to
people and tracking social changes. Differences existing in how these
processes are undertaken underlie the remarkable variety of existing LAS.
37
Meanwhile, among all the variations, market based approaches
predominate (both in theory and practice);
iii. Toolbox approach: It is used for offering tools and implementation options
within different countries. The tools, coupled with their operation reveal
the capability and the past of the country. They reflect the historic focus of
land administration concept and practice in cadastral and cataloguing
activities. Other tools are general tools (land policies, land markets and
legitimate infrastructures), specialist tools (tenure, registering schemes,
land boundaries, cadastral surveying and mapping) and evolving tools
such as pro-poor land managing and gender equity. The cadastre remains a
most important tool, because it is capable of supporting all functions in the
land management paradigm; and
iv. A role for land management in supporting sustainable development: For
most states, meeting the trials of poverty eradication, economic growth,
environmental sustainability, and managing of fast developing cities, are
of instant concerns and requires stakeholder roles to manage the changes.
This is much easier in the case where there exist central land
administration like state lands (Enemark, 2007).
However, in the Land-Use Management/Administration System (the
Planning Control System), the numerous sectorial benefits are well-adjusted
against the complete growth goals for a particular locality and thus form the
foundation for directing of future land-use through development authorisations,
building permits and sectorial land use permits agreeing to the innumerable land-
38
use regulations. Such resolutions are centred on the significant land use data and
thus reflect the spatial significances for the land in addition to the public view in
achieving sustainable development.
Some of the chief hitches with LAS design is that there is the isolation of
components from each other even in countries with successful systems. This,
according to Enemark (2007), is well-known generally as the problem of “silos”.
Alternative difficulty is dependence on solo tool solutions in compound
circumstances. Meanwhile, the LAS has vital information that concerns itself to
the topic understudy. Therefore, this study emphasises on need for strengthening
the toolbox approach to help address the shortfalls of LAS. It calls for each tool to
be considered in the milieu of all the others. Hence LAS must be to decentralise
responsibilities, plan comprehensively and engage all stakeholders in decision
making.
Policies that have influenced housing development in Ghana
Housing Policies of Ghana in the Gold Coast era (1900-1956).
Delivery of housing in Ghana could be drawn back to colonial periods.
Colonial administrations in the initial 1900s could not disregard the influence of
deprived and less healthy living circumstances experienced by residents in Accra,
Sekondi-Takoradi and Kumasi. Arku (2009) elaborated that by the initial periods
of the 1920s, awful accommodation and environmental settings claimed lives of
the indigenous persons, particularly in the ancient settlements of Accra. Hence,
Sir Gordon Guggisberg in 1923 presented the „Dispossessed Persons‟ Housing
39
Schemes‟ to support the localities driven out of lands owing to government
projects (Konadu-Agyemang, 2001). In 1933, the scheme halted because it was
expensive. Housing is over and over again considered as a public cost and rarely
assimilated into state objectives, since governments of unindustrialized nation‟s
emphasis much on party-political and fiscal mileposts (Takahashi, 2009).
In 1943, Governor Sir Allan Burns initiated the Development Plan that
graded housing delivery as important by allocating 6 percent of the total budget
(Arku, 2009) with an estimated amount of £800,000.00 under Scheme A;
constructing three-, two-, and one-bedroom apartments (Konadu-Agyemang,
2001). Scheme B in this policy aimed at promoting Town and Council Housing
where economic assistance was provided for accommodation in Municipal areas
of Accra, Kumasi and Sekondi-Takoradi. Both schemes focused on Subsidies and
Loans extended from support from John Turner‟s perception of housing delivery
through the self-help approach (Owusu, 2005).
Post-Colonial Housing Policies of Ghana (1957 to present)
This was led by the influence of President Kwame Nkrumah and had
impact on successive governments till date to maintain the quest of housing
provision, specifically in growing urban centres where housing deficit remained
rampant (Kwofie, Adinyira, & Botchway, 2011). Then came Tema Development
Corporation (TDC), State Housing Corporation (SHC), and Schockbeton Housing
Scheme (SHS) to deliver houses purposely catch up with the growing housing
requirements of government workforces in Accra, Kumasi, and Sekondi-Takoradi
(Asiedu & Arku, 2009). The late President Kwame Nkrumah‟s administration
40
financed an average of 6.5 percent of the state development expenses on housing
which was commendable at the time in relation to other developing countries
(Obeng-Odoom, 2009).
This socialist agenda pursued by Nkrumah was capable of producing
about 6000 housing units at the cost of £44.5 million (Arku, 2009). Meanwhile,
quasi-administration of government for instance Social Security and National
Insurance Trust (SSNIT) and State Housing Company (SHC) in addition to
private sector-led Ghana Real Estates Development Association (GREDA) have
all backed substantially to Ghana‟s housing delivery stock though considerably
insufficient in quantity (Ahadzie & Amoa-Mensah, 2010).
There came the revamped State Housing Cooperation [SHC] (Ghana
Statistical Service [GSS], 2010). The system presented an equivalent subsidy
from SHC of a 20-25 percent base payment of the cost of the accommodation by
proposed possessors and the extra cost distributed fairly across programmed time.
The gross revenue of the SHC system was fundamentally poor due to problems in
financial mobilisation and dependable run of resources for the construction. This
state motivated intervention is yet another government administration driven
accommodation mediation failure. Many researchers highpoint the incapability of
state-driven shelter schemes to resolve the housing demands particularly in
developing nation states (Amoa-Mensah, 2002). Thus, further compounding the
housing needs of the less to average income crowds in the country. For instance,
mortgage loans especially from Home Finance Company (HFC), over the years
have also not served the poor and low-income groups because of extraordinary
41
borrowing cost from the loaning market at roughly 30 percent interest rate (UNHabitat, 2011). UN-Habitat asserted that self-builders (house-developers) on the
other hand have a preference to borrow for personal businesses and there after use
the earnings for building house or lend from family to support the construction
procedure. This method makes house construction costly and therefore prolongs
time for completion; as long as 10 years and beyond (Bangdome-Dery, Egan &
Afram, 2014).
Characteristics and attributes of self-build housing
The self-build housing process in Ghana according to housing researchers
like Ahadzie & Amoa-Mensah (2010); Ntema (2011); Bangdome-Dery et al
(2014) is mainly characterised by initiatives by the self-builder to undertake the
project, procures and registers the land (not at all occasions though), obtain plans
and construction materials, and acquires construction and building permit.
Moreover, the developer (self-builder) similarly makes arrangement for labour
with less or without any supervision. Merely on few circumstances according to
Ahadzie & Amoa-Mensah do self-builders employ sub-contractors on their
development sites, if not the manual labour employed is restricted to expert and
inexpert labour obtained from the casual sector.
Meanwhile, the most recognised feature of this housing method is its
seeming affordability. For researchers like Kamau (2005) and Biitir (2009),
affordability is the greatest attribute of self-build housing development, especially
in the developing countries like Chile, Ghana and South Africa since it is
relatively cheaper as compared to estate houses in urban areas. Another trade
42
mark of self-build housing provision is its adaptability. According to Kamau, this
is where housing developers utilise the use of local materials and technology at
their disposal.
Lastly, self-build housing development is noted for its suitability. This
building approach unlike others permits the developer to choose the appropriate
design of building that is satisfactory and within the developers‟ ability.
Therefore, it enables the developer to gain some construction skills and the
opportunity to choose artisans for the construction.
Concept of Sustainable Development
Land use planning and management or administration in recent times is at
the front position of sustainability memo. Exact means through which land in
urban centres in Ghana are utilised is important to have a substantial impact on
our ecology. Land in today‟s urban towns is developed in a very rigorous manner.
According to Tinsari (2010, p. 23), as urbanisation continues to grow,
governments need to support ecologically sound land use strategies through
initiatives that stimulate sustainability. Urban land use in Ghana devises to be
advanced in a way that meets human needs of the present and future generations.
For UN-Habitat (2012), sustainable development is acknowledged as a
code for economic and social accomplishments. Further, they assumed that
although the concept maintains a fluctuating concept dependent upon which
sustainability context and value position it is applied, a mutual ground
understanding owes to the 1987 Brundtland report and the 1992 Rio “Earth
Summit”, which well-defined it as “meeting the needs of the present generation
43
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
Similarly, “sustainable development is a multidimensional process that links
environmental protection with economically, socially and culturally sound
development”.
These relations are denoted as the four-pillars to sustainable development
which highlights the necessity for a pleasant relationship between environmental,
economic, social and cultural dimensions (UNDP, 2012). Meanwhile, at the
United Nations Sustainable Development Summit on 25 September 2015,
worldwide front-runners adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
which comprises a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aimed at
ending poverty, combat disparity and prejudice, and wrestle climate change by
2030. The Sustainable Development Goals, or else known as the Global Goals are
the buildup of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The new SDGs
(from 2015-2030), and the wider sustainability agenda goes beyond that of the
initial MDGs (from 2000-2015).
For the purpose of this study, Goal 11 of the SDGs “make cities and
human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” was adopted. Under
this goal, specific targets relevant to the topic understudy include goal 11.1, 11.3,
11.a and 11.b.
44
Table 4: An outline of the SDG 11 and its relevance to the study
SDG 11
TARGET
Goal 11.1
“By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable
housing and basic services and upgrade slums”;
Goal 11.3
“By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and
capacity for participatory,
integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and
management in all countries”.
Goal 11.a
“Support positive economic, social and environmental links
between urban, per-urban and rural areas by strengthening
national and regional development planning”;
Goal 11.b
“By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and
human settlements adopting and implementing integrated
policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency,
mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to
disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic
disaster risk management at all levels”.
Source: UNDP (2012).
Housing delivery is one of those straightforward social circumstances that
regulate the value of life and wellbeing of people and dwellings (UN-Habitat,
2009). Furthermore, it forms portion of the interactions between people and its
surroundings. Building construction and processes mostly use enormous
quantities of natural resources, including land, energy, and water, construction
materials, whilst creating waste and polluting of air, land and water. UN-Habitat
stress that even though sustainable accommodation is every so often related to
prosperity and riches, it does not need to be so. Sincerely, sustainable houses are
those that are all inclusive and inexpensive for individuals to obtain. That is why
45
speak to the issue of self-build housing is thus a required condition for revolution
towards sustainable housing for achieving sustainable land use planning in urban
centres.
The marriage of self-build development with other sustainability land use
conditions is a must for assisting Ghana to achieve the objectives of the 40-year
national development plan which is proposed to start from 2018, along with the
international agendas, such as the 15-year Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) of the United Nations and the 50-year Agenda 2063 of the African Union,
as well as others (National Development Planning Commission [NDPC], 2015).
For self-build housing development to be sustainable in Ghana, the NDPC in its
objective 1a specifies that; the long-term development plan will guarantee the
existence of a blueprint for national development and sustainable growth.
Table 5: A linkage between selected development goals towards self-build
housing development.
SUSTAINABLE
GHANA 40 YEAR
RELEVANCE TO
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
SELF-BUILD
GOAL 11
GOAL 3
HOUSING
Make cities and human
Build safe, wellCreating proper spatial
settlements inclusive,
planned and sustainable plans towards ensuring
safe, resilient and
communities;
efficiency and high
sustainable;
productivity in the
growth of self-build
housing among other
socioeconomic services
like transportation,
health, education and
sanitation towards the
achievement of decent
settlements in Ghana.
Source: UNDP (2012).
46
Sustainable development in the setting of this research, is the promotion of
initiatives that could be taken to ensure that self-build housing development in
urban areas are practised in a coherent manner taking into consideration urban
land use plans which are to be managed properly and capable of being passed on
to future generations.
Housing Theories
Theories have many definitions within and across disciplines (Steggell,
Yamamoto, Bryant, & Fidzani, 2006). Sometimes confusion even set in when
many terms are used in research. These include words for instance assertion,
prediction, axiom, conceptual framework, maxim, model, propose, preposition,
theoretical framework, scheme, description as well as typology. While these
words are specific and come with unique qualities, they are sometimes used as
synonyms in theories for the achievement of set objectives of a research (Steggell,
et. al. 2006).
Generally, researchers agree to the fact theory is vital to analytically and
chronologically shape research data, ascertain the relationships among variables
and serve as a monitor for unearthing of new ideas to spearhead research activities
now and in the future (Creswell, 2003). That is the reason why for Mitchell and
Jolley (1992), without model in research work, a discipline interchanges
directions with deficiency of accuracy and persistence.
According to Steggell et al. (2006), the development of an educational
discipline is mostly measured by the degree to which it has advanced a concrete
47
underpinning for theory building. Hence about “73 percent of housing
development research articles put out in Housing and Society, Environmental
issues and Behaviour, and Family and Consumer Science Research Journal made
mention of solid theoretical basis” (Steggell, Binder, Davidson, Vega, Hutton &
Rodecap, 2003), that are useful to inform the study, including;
i.
Liberalism
The word liberal, according to Gray (1995), grabbed on a precisely
political sense with the establishing of open-minded parliamentary caucuses in
Sweden and Spain, and far along all the way through the whole of Europe, in the
leading decades of the nineteenth century. Liberalism theory dates as far back as
the political theories of John Locke, and that of his ideological and theological
defence of widespread dominance and religious liberality at the end of the
seventeenth century (Ryan, 1993; Laski, 1997; Gray, 1995).
Liberalism over the years has grown to be a rather unclear concept in
housing, and procedure has tended very quiet greatly over time, and in accord
with varying regional proficiencies partly because of its relatively long history of
the term. According to Ryan (1993), dissimilar liberal parties, politicians and
philosophers have often put frontward divergent opinions of what the „original‟ or
„true‟ meaning of liberalism essentially is and with how much, the state ought to
concern itself.
On the one hand, orthodox liberalism is often related to the belief that the
state have to to be nominal, which means that virtually have the propensity to
favour laissez-faire economic strategies, rendered as leading advocates of
48
neoliberalism. Conversely, modern liberalism is characterised by a larger
enthusiasm to let the government become a vigorous contributor in the economy.
This notion has the propensity to order the market and to devise the state to
supply needed goods and amenities to its citizenry. For Ryan (1993),
contemporary liberalism is therefore for all purposes an insightful revision of
liberalism, most exclusively of the economic rules conventionally linked with it.
“Modern liberalism could generally be thought of as being situated politically to
the left of classical liberalism, because of its willingness to employ the state as an
instrument to redistribute wealth and power in order to create a society deemed to
be more decent or equitable” (Kapur, 1989).
Ryan (1993) affirm that several attempts have been made to brand a
reconciled definition of what kind of philosophy liberalism really is. To Ryan,
developing a solution to this challenge is to stress what he has confidence in all
what liberals also have in common. The author identified four simple elements of
a greatly abstract beginning of human and community which he among other
researchers believe liberals of all blocks stand by, and which distinguish their
notion from non-liberals. Collective to all liberalists‟ ideology is a convinced
notion, uniquely contemporary in character, of man and humanity. These
rudiments include Individualist, Egalitarian, Universalist and Meliorist.
Individualist affirms the ethical priority of the individual in contrast to the
privileges of any society: egalitarian, inasmuch as it deliberate on all human
beings as having equal right prestige and rejects the importance to legal command
of variations in ethical worth amongst people; universalist uphold the ethical
49
foundation of harmony of man and agreeing a subordinate significance to specific
remarkable associations and other forms human culture; and meliorist affirm the
corrigibility and improvement social organisations and political measures. This
notion of man and his social environment is that which gives liberalism a
convinced uniqueness that rise above its immense core variability and density
(Gray 1995).
“Anyone trying to give a brief account of liberalism is immediately
faced with an embarrassing question: are we dealing with
liberalism or liberalisms? It is easy to list famous liberals; it is
harder to say what they have in common. John Locke, Adam Smith,
Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, Lord Acton, T.
H. Green, John Dewey and contemporaries such as Isaiah Berlin
and John Rawls are certainly liberals but they do not agree about
the boundaries of toleration, the legitimacy of the welfare state,
and the virtues of democracy, to take three rather central political
issues” (Ryan, 1993).
Another dimension within liberal thought according to Ryan (1993) is
described as the most current battle amid liberalism on the one hand, and
libertarianism on the other. This aspect overlays to a notch with the partition
between conventional and contemporary liberalism, but not entirely so
(Kymlicka, 2002). Liberalism is indisputably a relatively nebulous and often
extremely challenged concept (Rawls, 1993). Often at times it defines an outlook
towards distinct autonomy and democracy that might be existing in one‟s political
50
point of view, somewhat than a distinct and obviously established set of political
philosophies (Gray, 2000).
Notwithstanding the limitations levelled against the liberalists view it has
been a core foundation of privatisation of the housing industry in most developed
and developing countries like Ghana. Undoubtedly the foundation of self-build
housing approach grew from writers like Ryan (1993), Laski (1997) and Gray
(1995) with the assumption that there should exist little or no state interference in
the citizenry‟s decisions regarding undertaking self-build housing projects, since
the government over the years have failed to increase the housing stock to absorb
most urban dwellers (Greene & Rojas, 2004). Meanwhile, it was upon this
assertion that emerged the neolibralists idea of housing that advocates for state or
institutional assistance in self-build housing development when the need be; since
sometimes there could be market failures.
ii.
Neoliberalism
Utmost self-build housing strategies globally, have been inclined by neo-
liberal course of action of the World Bank and UN-Habitat and by other
worldwide, bilateral and regional development organisations and donors
(Norberg, 2001). Neoliberalism is considered to be a slackly delineated set of
political opinions which most obviously embrace the belief that the only
legitimate resolution of a nation is to secure its individuals, promote freedom as
well as robust private property privileges (Friedman, 2006). This belief typically
addresses issues with the prime belief that the political state should be marginal or
51
at least reduce its autonomy and that any wrongdoing by the state outside its
solitary legitimate tenacity is undesirable.
In general, Neoliberalism by far include the conviction that liberally
embraced market instruments is the optimum means of organising all interactions
of possessions and services (Friedman, 1962; 1980; Norberg, 2001). Basically,
neoliberalism at first glance is a notable theory of political economic activities
that recommends that individual‟s welfare could be achieved by liberating private
economic rights and skills inhibited in an institutional agenda and the freedom to
trade. The state‟s part is to generate and protect a framework suitable for these
kind of economic and social practices (Harvey, 2005, p. 2).
Saad-Filho and Johnston (2005) assert that we are living in the era of
neoliberalism. It is difficult to date the exact time of conception of neoliberalism
but its fundamentals can be drawn back to the days of classical liberalism
spearheaded by great people like Adam Smith and others at the forefront of
economic underpinnings. According Clarke (2005), neoliberalism in housing to
his best of knowledge grew from the ideas of Turner in the eighties (80s).
Turner (1967) was undoubtedly not the first researcher to have realised the
prospective of the people‟s impulsive exploit in sheltering themselves.
Meanwhile, he has been greatly recognised as the most influential individual in
conveying the subject to the vanguard of housing discussions. Saad-Filho and
Johnston (2005) assume that one of the first steps in his evolution as a housing
advocates was his „de-schooling and re-education‟ in the squatter settlements of
52
Peru. Further, the theoretical base for this process had already been laid in his
mind earlier through his exposure to the writings of Patrick Geddes.
Turner (1967) based his housing research work on case studies of
squatters in Lima, capital of Peru in the late fifties (50s) and early 1960s. The
problems often associated with the rapid expansion of slums were according to
Turner, as a result of failure on the part of planning institutions to manage poor
housing developments due to their inability to intensify policies and legislations
regarding housing in urban communities. Milton Friedman (1962) in his case
studies demonstrated that the housing provided by the governments was not only
costly, rigid, stultifying and depressing for the users, but by its very nature it
could only serve a few people at the expense of the majority (Munck, 2005).
This argument being spearheaded by Palley (2005) boasts that a countless
setback has occured, where neoliberalism has substituted the economic theories of
Keynes (1993) and his groups (Friedman & Schwartz, 1963). Meanwhile, as
affirmed by Munck (2005), the likelihood of a self-flexible market is a
straightforward postulation in classical/orthodox liberalism in addition to an
essential belief among neoliberals entirely. Competent sharing out of capital is the
supreme imperative tenacity of an economic system that even goes beyond what
Munck describes as neoliberal economic theories (market mechanisms).
Briefly Turner‟s (1967) policy recommendations for housing development
through self-help/self-build approach are in this fashion:
i.
Jurisdictive controls limit the attentiveness of assets and facilitate land
supply, technological advancement and money to poor people;
53
ii.
The adjustment of present lawmaking on least principles and
construction practices at all stages in order to extend it to greater
proportion of the population;
iii.
The institution of regulation and land use planning exercise that
creates limits („proscriptive legislation‟);
iv.
The legislation of land tenure currently acquired illegally by squatters;
the goal is to inspire the amalgamation of the housing development
stock through inspiring private investors;
v.
The flawless parting of different heights of power in housing, whereby
the duties of the set of government, insitutions and the municipalities
do not intersect one another; and
vi.
Provide reassurance if likely to informal housing sector undertakings
through conservative statute which gives decentralised technologies
and promote indigenous schemes that give greater access to resources
such as finance, labour and materials.
As a matter of fact, the real-world application of neoliberal policies in
self-build housing with respect to sustainable land use planning will therefore lead
to a transfer of authority from political to market processes, i.e. from the nation to
economic invisible hands and individual housing developers (Trollstøl &
Stensrud, 2005; Tranøy, 2006). It is against this background that the study
employed this theory to serve as a foundation for undertaking the issues
pertaining to self-build housing and land use planning where there is the interplay
of the market (self-builders/individuals) and the authorities (state and
54
metropolitan land planning and management authorities) in the provision of
housing facilities to boost the urban housing stock in Ghana. Meanwhile, these
paradigms could be properly realised if there exist some effective interactions
between the market forces and all other stakeholders.
Processes of Self-Build Housing Development (SBHD) Framework
Self-build (self-help) housing development process according to Greene
and Rojas (2004) include three phases in its development. These include; the
access to land, building of the simple accommodation facility, and improvement
of the residence unit through incremental building. For that matter, SBHD often
takes place in different stages that are non-sequential. This process involves; preownership of the homes rent, sharing of existing space with other family
members, friends or squatters on unoccupied lands in urban communities; first
hand residents where people acquire land whichever means (legally or illegally)
to commence the construction of simple liveable core housing units; self-driven
expansion; and outer shock-enthused upgrading (Hansen & Williams, 1998).
Notwithstanding, all these phases can appropriately suit into three major stages as
recognised by Greene and Rojas (Biitir, 2009).
55
Figure 1: Self-help housing development process
Source: Biitir (2009).
i. Access to land
This is the first phase to self-build housing. It defines how land is
completely available for built-up purposes. It is non-discriminatory, hence,
making it possible for all income groups to acquire land for construction over
time. For Harris (2003), access to land is accustomed by the existing system of
land tenure; and it is inseparably allied with issues such as historical, cultural,
regulatory and economic dynamics. Consequently, these predominant factors
affect people‟s perceptions on housing development. The priority of most
households in the urban area is to gain access to land where their livelihood
opportunities can be optimised. This results in the fluctuations in urban lands. The
56
implication is the poor implementation of sustainable land use plans due to the
rise in housing needs to cater for the urban population growth;
ii.
Construction of basic housing nucleus
When land is acquired, the next phase is the construction of core housing
units. The main idea is provide shelter for a household. Non-durable items like
wooden pallets and used iron sheets are commonly used materials among the
urban poor self-build housing developers. For the middle and the high class, they
usually use materials like bricks/blocks, cement and sandcrete blocks. For Greene
and Rojas (2004), peculiar thing about this phase is that the plan and erection cost
is mostly controlled by the exact household or the developer which makes this the
difficult stage. Usually, some developers utilise native knowledge and use local
construction materials. Therefore, availability of household income is an
important factor in determining the housing unit that is constructed;
iii.
Incremental upgrading of the basic housing unit
Once developers complete their housing units and occupied it, the next
thing is to improve (upgrade) their dwelling from time to time. This is influenced
by factors such as increase in family size, change in level of income, and priority
changes. While some expand the housing facilities with regards to quality, others
ignore. This particular stage is characteristically recognised by limited
infrastructural facilities causing differing interests between land management
agencies and beneficiaries (Biitir, 2009). This is because, while planning
authorities advocate for improvement of sanitation services, layouts, landscape
design, among others; the beneficiaries (developers) are mostly concerned with
57
amalgamating their belongings for safeguard against natural risks/hazard and
making money.
Limitations of the Framework
Although, the framework presents comprehensive phases to the growth of
self-build houses in urban areas, it has some flaws. First, it failed to elaborate on
the effects of the stages of self-build housing provision on the management and
implementation of urban land use plans. An example is through incremental
housing activities. Second, the framework paid less attention to the consequences
of self-build houses development resulting from non-compliance to the existing
land use plans and how stakeholders‟ measures are being challenged. These
problems abruptly emanate from economic, social, cultural and political factors.
That is why, whether/not land use plans and provision of houses are sustainable,
housing developers care less.
Conceptual Framework for the Study
In spite of the limitations levelled against the framework above and the
theories discussed earlier, the study relied on some core aspects to derive a
conceptual framework (Figure 2) for achieving the objectives of the thesis.
Modifications were made to include the effects of the SBHD processes on
sustainable land use planning and how stakeholder‟s efforts are being challenged
due to self-build housing development processes and the introduction of some
other variables that were not in the original model. All literatures reviewed,
coupled with the theories and the adaptation of Biitir‟s (2009) framework enabled
58
the researcher to come out with a conceptual framework that contains the
elements necessary to make the objectives of study achievable (Figure 2).
LAND
ACQUISITION
STAGE
Obtained / Speculator
FACTORS





Social
Economic
Cultural
Political
Historical
HOUSE
CONSTRUCTION
STAGE
HOUSE
OCCUPATION
STAGE
FACTORS
FACTORS




 Self-build house
Land permit
…Land/Artisan
Planning
House
construction
 Complete house
 Incremental
construction
MITIGATION
STRATEGIES
 Public education
 Participatory
approach
 Capacity
building
 Sanctions
 Periodic
workshops
MULTIPLE LAND
OWNERSHIP
LAND CONTROLS.
RESOURCES &
LAND PLANS
LACK OF PUBLIC
COOPERATION
 Strengthen
intuitions
EFFECTS OF SBHD ON SUSTAINABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF LUPs

Flexibility in

land acquisition

Destruction of
landscape
Shelter

Flooding
provision

Congestion



Loss of green
spaces
Sanitation problem
Inadequate social
amenities
Figure 2: Self-build houses development and sustainable land use planning.
Source: Adapted from Kamau (2005) and Biitir (2009).
From the framework, there exists the interplay of land acquisition, house
construction and house occupation stages that comes along with varied effects,
their challenges to sustainable land planning and stakeholders efforts to mitigate
the development of self-build houses with respect to sustainable land use planning
in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis.
The land acquisition phase involves the access to land for building either
through speculation, purchasing of land and how land is transferred from one
59
person to another. Further, acquisition of land for SBHD can be influenced by
factors such as; physical, socio-economic, cultural, institutional and political
among others. Physical factors concerns itself to the nature of land on which
people build their houses. Examples include steep slopes, flat plains, wet areas
and unexploited plots. Socio-economically, land acquisition is affected by
residents‟ educational background (inadequate knowledge on land use planning),
unemployment and high rent charges in core areas, rural urban migration, and the
level of income. Culturally, religious beliefs and family ties influence people to
build the type of housing units they put up. . Institutional factors are sometimes
regarded as one of the main wheel for driving the effects of self-build housing on
the existing land use plans in urban centres. The framework incorporates their
level of bureaucracy, adequacy of resources to spearhead their activities and the
type of sanctions meted out on offenders. For historical factors, the framework
concerns itself with the causes of growth of self-build housing development
attributed to one‟s ancestral lineage.
Meanwhile, it is important to note that, the factors of self-build housing
development serve as the foundation for all the other stages of the building
processes since it influences the building plans of the developer at all times. Even
though land acquisition is sometimes flexible and aims at providing shelter, the
major challenge faced by planning authorities in this stage is the issue of multiple
land ownership. This makes land use implementation difficult in urban areas
resulting in the proliferation of self-build housing development.
60
At the house construction stage, it deals with planning and involve the
acquisition of land permits, calling for the work of artisans to ensure land
development as well as setting of development controls to regulate the activities
of housing developers. The framework asserts that, not on all occasions that the
right planning activities at this stage are being carried out. Hence, institutions are
seen not to live up to expectation since they face difficulties in land controls and
disparities in land use plans due to inadequate resources at their disposal. Private
individuals also tend to refrain from taking building permit with the intention that
it delays the building process or could be acquired anytime. This results in
hindering the motive of the land use plans (preventing congestion, flooding and
landscape enhancement) in urban areas if not properly managed; but becomes of
benefit if development plans are adhered to.
The final stage which is the housing occupation stage is where self-build
houses are completed (within a period of time). Here there is the utilisation of
infrastructure and facilities available to the household. Within this stage, there are
also plans for incremental construction if deemed necessary (either because of rise
in income level, fear of encroachment by other people and increase in household
members). But the challenge faced by planning authorities at this phase is the lack
of public cooperation (restrictions by public and failure to report or comply with
building regulations) that leads to loss of green spaces, causing sanitation
problems and difficulties in accessing social amenities in most urban
communities.
61
In effect, the adapted framework concretise that the housing paradigms,
the stages and their related factors have effects on sustainable land use planning.
Meanwhile, the benefits of sustainable land use plans far out way its problems if
well implemented. On the other hand, without building controls, our cities will
turn into environmentally poor and congested areas unsafe for human settlement.
Due to that, stakeholders must set achievable targets necessary to remedy this
menace and make urban self-build houses safe, affordable and ones that promote
environmental sustainability. Finally, the dynamic nature of the framework
exhibits it openness to innovative self-build developments that are sustainable for
urban land management development.
Chapter Summary
This chapter reviewed issues which are of interest to the topic under study.
Some of the issues reviewed included the theoretical definitions of housing,
housing as a need, housing typologies, urbanisation and housing, sustainable
housing, principles of land use planning, housing policies in Ghana,
characteristics and attributes of self-build housing, the concept of sustainable
development and theories related to self-build housing. In addition, it discusses
the conceptual framework for the study into details since it is the prime
foundation on which the study is built.
62
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This section of the thesis presents the methods the study employed in the
collection and analysis of the study data. The varied techniques and methods used
to select respondents to participate in the study have been outlined. It discusses
the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from relevant key
informants and self-build housing developers, as well as some residents in the
study area. The rest of the chapter describes the study area, research philosophy,
study design, data and sources, study population, sample size determination,
sampling technique employed, research instruments used, the data processing and
analysis techniques and the ethical considerations. Finally, the chapter ends with a
discussion on the fieldwork challenges and limitations.
Study Area
Like many other Ghanaian towns and cities, Sekondi and Takoradi started
as micro settlements growing around the 17th Century Dutch, Swedish and
English forts built along the coast of Western Region of Ghana. Sekondi, the
older and larger of the twin cities prospered from a railroad built in 1903 to the
hinterland to transport mineral and timber resources. It grew to become an
administrative town and was settled mainly by Europeans. On the other hand,
Takoradi‟s growth was spurred by a deep-water seaport, built in 1928 to facilitate
trade. On 25th June, 1962 Sekondi-Takoradi was elevated to a City status through
63
Executive Instrument No. 7 of 9th January, 1965. Sekondi-Takoradi metropolis is
located between Latitude 4° 52' 30" N and 5° 04' 00" N and Longitudes 1° 37' 00"
W and 1° 52' 30"W. Bounded to the North of the metropolis is the Mpohor Wassa
District, the south by the Gulf of Guinea, the West by the Ahanta West District
and the East by Shama District. The Metropolis covers land size of 191.7 km² and
Sekondi-Takoradi is the regional administrative capital of Western Region.
Figure 3 : Study area, (Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis) in Regional and National
Context.
Source: Geography and Regional Planning Department, UCC (2016).
Though the smallest administrative unit in Western Region, in terms of
land size, the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis is the most urbanised among the 22
administrative units (district/municipal/metropolis) in the region. The population
of Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis was estimated at 559,548 representing 23.5
64
percent of the region‟s total population with an annual growth rate of 3.5 percent
(GSS, 2010). The metropolis is of varied landscape. The coast line has largely
eroded capes and bays with low laying altitude at the central portion and ridges
and hills that are fairly watered. Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis has three main
vegetation types, namely mangrove, savannah woodland and tropical forest.
Generally, the Metropolis does not experience severe weather conditions. The
climate of the Metropolis is equatorial with an average annual temperature of
about 22ºC. Rainfall is bi-modal with mean annual rainfall of about 1,380 mm
covering an average of 122 rainy days.
In order to ensure effective administration, the Metropolis has been
divided into four sub-metros (Sekondi, Takoradi, Essikadu-Ketan and EffiaKwesimintsim) with five constituencies, namely; Effia, Kwesiminstim, Sekondi,
Takoradi and Essikadu-Ketan. Housing is an important determinant of standard of
living as it enhances the life of occupants. Houses in the Metropolis are mostly
constructed and owned by individuals and families. Most houses are constructed
with sandcrete blocks and roofed with either corrugated aluminium/zinc roofing
sheets or roofing tiles/slates.
Research Philosophy
Research philosophy forms an important part of every research
methodology. The essence is to help in the collection of representative sample
data. Research philosophy, according to Johnson and Christensen (2005), is a
65
perspective that is based on the set of shared assumptions, values, concepts and
consequently the varied practices.
According to Norman (2001), research philosophy can be identified from
the positivists, interpretivists and realists schools of thought. This study is
underpinned by both positivist and interpretivists philosophies.
(a)
Positivist Philosophy
This philosophy is centered on highly structured methodology. The
structured methodology is used to make generalisation based on quantifiable
observations and the evaluation of results through the use of statistical
methods/tools (Sekaran, 2006). With the help of positivism philosophy, the
researcher can collect facts and figures that are related to a particular research
issues through general sources (Sundars, 2003).
The main critique against this philosophy is that, it is natural science
biased because often times it is far away from human interactions and behavior
(Creswell, 2003). Further Creswell asserted that another group of researchers
assume the philosophy lack an advocacy/participatory approach to knowledge.
For Phillips and Burbules (2000), thinking after positivism, challenging
the traditional notion of the absolute truth of knowledge and recognising that we
cannot be positive about our claims of knowledge when studying the behaviour
and actions of humans corrects some of the flaws of the philosophy (Creswell,
2003). Therefore, for best results of the study to be achieved, the study employed
both positivist and the interpretivist philosophy to help correct the science bias of
the positivists.
66
(b) Interpretivist Philosophy
In the late twentieth century, there was a view that the subject matter or
theme of social science which concerns itself to people and institutions is quite
distinct from that of the natural world (Creswell, 2003). Therefore, it is believed
that the social world and its management system is too complex to be just
formulated in theories or laws such as in the natural sciences. In this research
philosophy, the researcher interacts with the environment and also seeks to make
sense out of it through interpretation of events and make meaning from emerging
themes (Sanders, 2003).
Many criticisms have been levelled against this philosophy over the years
because interpretivists ideologies used in qualitative research mostly begins with
open and close ended questions that many researchers criticized as being
impressionistic and subjective (Bryman, 2004). In addition, generalization is
difficult when using interpretive philosophy since it is favourable for small
numbers of individuals in a certain organization or locality that is difficult to be
seen widely applicable. Moreover, the process of qualitative research and making
of reports are usually obscured, not clear and could lack transparency in full
(GAO, Liao, & Li, 2014).
Even though interpretive methods provide less explanation of variance in
statistical terms than most positivist methods, they can yield data from which
theories can be processed and develop better explanations of how and why
processes and out-comes occur (Phillips & Burbles, 2000). Also, interpretive
philosophy is regarded to be flexible and more fluid than positivist, since it
67
emphasizes original findings and the possibility for changing research plans at
various stages to produce rich data of great depth. Interpretive philosophy in
research is not just a body of knowledge but a craft; because it is a basic set of
beliefs that guides action and can answer questions about how and why something
is happening (Sekeran, 2006).
Study Design
This research is non-experimental and sought to assess the effects of selfbuild housing development on sustainable land use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis. The study therefore employed the cross-sectional research design in
which aggregate data were collected from different respondents at different points
in time. The flexibility of the survey design made it necessary to be adopted for
this research. With the help of this type of study design, a subset/fraction of the
whole population of the Sekondi-Takoradi metropolis was selected to represent
the whole metropolis. From the study respondents, data were collected to help
achieve the study objectives and answer the research questions for the study.
Meanwhile, ross-sectional research design is used to enrich a study because it
helps to study a large number of people within a short period of time that enables
the researcher to determine the causes and prevalence of a phenomenon, which
other study might not be able to achieve (Mann, 2003). Cross-sectional research
design was employed in the study because data were collected from the target
population once and within a specific period (from March to April ending, 2016).
68
According to Mann (2003), cross-sectional design supports the use of
different methods to collect data from selected respondents in a single study. In
view of this, the mixed method technique popularly known as triangulation was
used in the study. This method involved triangulating both qualitative and
quantitative methods to collect data at the same time. Popular researchers who
support the legitimacy of the mixed method in social sciences research include,
Creswell (1998; 2003) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003). Combining numeric
trends from both quantitative data and specific details from qualitative data is
most suitable for understanding a research problem (Mertens, 2003). Thus, mixed
method in research is a good practice since it is better to look at a situation of a
phenomenon from several angles than to look at it from only one direction
(Neuman, 2003).
There are two forms of mixed method which are “within method”
triangulation and “between method” triangulation. The former involves using the
same method on different occasions whiles the latter is where different methods
are used in the same study (Mikkelsen, 1995; Neuman, 2000). For the set
objectives of this study to be achieved, it employed the “between method”
triangulation. Hence, in this study, questionnaires (quantitative method), in-depth
interview and observation (qualitative methods) were used to obtain data for the
study.
For non-experimental research design, they are mostly characterised by
two fold difficulties which consist of how to ensure clarity and un-ambiguity in
the questions that are to be answered, and getting sufficient return of the
69
completed questionnaires so that meaningful analysis can be made of the data
(Goldkuhl, 2012). Mixed method is time consuming if care is not taken and
difficult to replicate (Sarantakos, 2005; Creswell, 2013).
Meanwhile, to overcome the debilitating effects of these weaknesses of
mixed method, several authors over the years have supported the use of the mixed
method because it offers many advantages, which far outweigh its‟ disadvantages.
For instance, mixed method helps to reduce bias since it helps to avoid accusation
that a study‟s findings are simply the artefact of a single method and a single data
source (Crotty, 1998). In a similar fashion, the method opens opportunities for
detailed and valid interpretations (Decrop, 1999). To gain better understanding of
the phenomenon being studied, completing the strength of both qualitative and
quantitative methods is a credit to the researcher (Depoy & Gitlin, 2005).
Nonetheless, the quality of this study was not compromised by the disadvantages
of the study design in any way.
Data and Sources
The study obtained data from both primary and secondary sources. The
principal source of primary data was from the field work. The primary data were
collected using interview schedules (questionnaires) to gain first-hand information
from selected respondents, observation of self-build housing activities and indepth interviews from chiefs, assembly members and heads of selected
institutions responsible for urban land use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi. The data
obtained from the field included socio-demographic characteristics of
respondents, the factors of self-build housing development in the study area, the
70
challenges faced by planning authorities in the implementation of sustainable land
use plans and measures taken by stakeholders to mitigate challenges associated
with self-build housing development in the Metropolis.
Secondary data were obtained from books, journals, newspapers, articles,
reports, internet reports such as 2010 Population and Housing Census, SekondiTakoradi Metropolis population report as well as conferences and working papers
that concerned themselves with the topic under study.
Study Population
The size of the total study population in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis
was estimated to be 44,513 according to the 2010 national census poll (STMA,
2010). The study population was then projected to be about 83,461 in 2016 at a
population growth rate of 3.2 percent. The Land Planning and Management
Institutions were principally approached through interviews to collect data
relating to the institutional arrangement for land use planning and housing
development in Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. Relevant data concerning the
institutional mandates, resource capacities, collaboration, public participation and
challenges restraining Land Planning and Management Institutions from ensuring
sustainable implementation of land use plans in the area were collected through
the assistance of key heads of the land planning institutions during the interview
sections.
Involving the developers (house-owners) in Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis
was important because self-build developers were the actual actors who were
involved in housing development in the metropolis. They were asked about the
71
factors of self-build houses construction in their localities, their perception of
land-use planning and their awareness of the national building regulations.
Some residents from the selected communities were engaged in the study
because decisions regarding their household activities in terms of where to reside
and other land use issues to a greater extent rested on them. Also, some residents
even though are not house owners had once been care takers, stayed in their
communities for long or participated in local land planning activities over time.
They were asked questions about the factors that influence people to create their
own housing facilities and their perceptions of land-use planning. Finally, they
were asked to suggest appropriate measures to ensure sustainable land use
planning in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis.
One important group engaged in the research were Assembly members in
four selected communities in the study area. Getting chiefs to be part of the
research during the data collection period become impossible because the chiefs
of Kojokrom, Sekondi and the main chief at Takoradi had died and had led to lots
of disputes. As a result, the next of kins of these chiefs were not interested in
taking part in the research because it related to land issues. Therefore they
referred the researcher to the Assembly members who accepted to be part of the
study. The Assembly members were then involved because they are in better
position to give accounts of how self-build activities in their communities have
affected their land use plans over time. Also, they were closely related to the land
owners (stools/skins and families), planning institutions and mostly responsible
for representing their local communities at the Metropolitan Assembly level.
72
Sample size Determination
In order to get a sample size of the population of the study area, the Fisher,
Laing, Stoeckel and Townsend (1998) formula for determining sample size was
adopted. The formula is stated as:
Where:
= the desired sample size (when the population is less than 10,000),
n = the desired sample size (when the population is greater than 10,000),
N = the estimate of the target population size.
In order to get n, Fisher et al. (1998) provided another formula, which is
Where:
n = the desired sample size (when the population is greater than 10,000)
z = the standard normal deviation, usually set at 1.96 which corresponds to 95
percent confidence level;
p = the proportion of the target population have particular characteristics;
q = 1.0-p; and
d = the degree of accuracy desired, this is usually set at 0.05
With (z) statistic being 1.96, degree of accuracy (d) set at 0.05 percent and the
proportion of the target or study population with similar characteristic (p) at 80
percent which is equivalent to 0.80, then “n” in this case is:
73
n = (1.96)² (0.80) (0.20)
0.05²
n = 0.614656
0.0025
n =245.8624
A calculated n which is approximately 246 was obtained. Information
obtained from the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly put the total number
of households within the four selected communities at 83,461. Putting this 83,461
and the calculated figure of 245.8624 into the formula, the sample size for the
study was calculated as follows:
A calculated sample size of approximately 245 respondents was obtained.
Since the formula used for calculation constituted house-owners and residents of
the selected communities in the metropolis at the same time, the sample size was
further divided into two parts; hence 122 developers (self-build house-owners)
and 123 residents were selected for the study. In addition to the 245 selected
respondents, nine additional key informants (five heads of Land Planning and
74
Management Institutions and four Assembly Members in Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis) were purposively selected to form part of the study, bringing the total
sample size of 254 respondents. The table below shows the distribution of the
sample size for the study as depicted in Table 6.
Table 6: Total sample population of the study
Units
Sample Size
Developers (house-owners)
122
Number of residents
123
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly (STMA)
1
Town and Country Planning Department (TCPD)
1
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1
Lands Commission (LC)
1
Public Works Department (PWD)
1
Assembly Members
4
Total
254
Source: Author‟s Compilation (2016)
Sampling technique
Non-probability sampling technique was used to select the 254
participants. Sampling involves the selection of a portion of the finite population
being studied Battaglia (2011 p. 523). Battaglia asserted that the technique
follows qualitative, mixed methods, and even quantitative research designs.
Further, non-probability sampling is a research technique that represents a
valuable group of sampling that can be used in research. Hence, non-probability
75
sampling does not attempt to select a random sample from the population of
interest. Rather subjective methods are used to decide the particular elements that
are included in the sample. Examples include convenience, quota, self-selection,
snowball and purposive sampling. Basically, for the purpose of this study to be
achieved, different non-probability techniques were used at different stages of the
research. It involved stratified, purposive sampling, snowball sampling, and
random sampling techniques in an orderly manner:
a) Self-build developers and residents
Getting the developers or house-owners and residents at the selected
communities in the Metropolis was difficult. This was as a result of the fact that
some developers were not staying in the exact communities they had their
buildings. On this basis, the study sought to concentrate on self-build house
owners who were residing in the selected communities during the period of the
research. For the sake of the topic under study, a carefully chosen multistage
sampling was done.
First, the Metropolitan Council Strata under the main District Assembly
structure of Ghana were identified and used as the study sampling strata. There
are four sub-metros in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly, namely;
Sekondi, Takoradi, Essikadu-Ketan and Effia-Kwesismintsim. Secondly, one
study community was drawn from each of the sub-metros. A total of four (4)
communities were purposely sampled.
The third stage involved choosing respondents from each of the four
selected communities. Mainly, respondents who were self-house developers and
76
residents of the selected communities in the metropolis were contacted to form
part of the study. The snowballing technique was used to identify landlords or
house owners in the study area for convenience sake. By the use of this technique,
one house-owner was identified. With the help of the first identified landlord,
other landlords were identified to be part of the study respondents. On the other
hand, household members or residents were randomly selected. According to
Melese (2006), houses are appropriate avenues through which household
members can easily be located (Mensah, 2010). Therefore, houses were used to
select residents for the study. This method was employed because of the desired
sample size. This helped the study researcher to be sure that the element of
periodicity does not affect the data that was collected.
b) Heads of selected land planning institutions and assembly members
The purposive sampling technique was employed to select nine additional
respondents; which consisted of five land planning and urban management
institutions in Sekondi-Takoradi and four Assembly Members. The inclusion of
the nine additional respondents in the study in the study was based on the vital
roles they play in SBHDs and land administration in the metropolis. Specifically,
key informants constituted of the heads from TCPD, EPA, STMA, LC, PWD and
four assembly members (each from the four selected communities). Also,
personal observations were made at some building sites of some SBH developers
in the metropolis. Primarily, the study observations were made with the use of an
observational checklist and a digital camera that provided photographs that helped
77
the study explain some vital aspects of SBH relevant to the study and for better
understanding of the SBH phenomenon in the study area.
Research Instruments
In conformity with the mixed method design (quantitative and qualitative),
interview schedules (questionnaires), in-depth interview guide and observation
checklist were developed to obtain the primary (first-hand) data from the field.
These instruments were chosen for the study because they were considered
appropriate for achieving the objectives of the study (Depoy & Gitlin, 2005).
Interview schedule is known for its merits of building good rapport,
creating a relaxed and healthy atmosphere in which respondents easily cooperate,
answer questions and clear misapprehension about any aspect of a study
(Kumekpor, 2002).
In-depth interview (IDI) guides were used to collect information from the
nine selected key informants. Semi-structured interview-guides were used for
collecting information from the key informants following the recommendation
from Hockey, Robinson and Meahs (2008). According to them, semi-structured
interview formats are flexible and allow for the exploration of emerging themes
and ideas. Moreover, IDIs provide a scope for asking probing questions to elicit
responses for further information.
The other instrument used in the study was the observation check list.
Non-participant observation was used for the study. In this type of observation,
the observers are on their own and the researcher studies the study area from
outside the group without fully participating in the activities of the research
78
participants (Sarantakos, 1998; Merriam, 2014). The observation of this study was
based on researcher‟s interest in finding out how SBHDs are carried out in
Sekondi-Takoradi. It involved taking of digital photographs at every observation
session.
Data Processing and Analysis
Out of the 245 instruments that the researcher administered unto the
respondents, 220 were retrieved from the respondents in addition to the nine
interviews conducted with heads of planning institutions. This corresponds to a
relatively high response rate of 90 percent.
First, data collected were cross-checked. Second, the questionnaires were
edited to identify mistakes in any form that could affect the quality of the
analysis. The data (quantitative and qualitative) were thereafter coded and fed into
computer software packages for analysis. The Statistical Product for Service
Solutions (SPSS version 21) was used to process and analyse the interview
schedule data that were obtained. The qualitative data collected from the IDI‟s
were coded and transcribed with the use of the Nvivo Software Package (version
11). This helped in categorising the qualitative data under specific themes
(including nodes and sub-nodes).
The results of the analysis of the study data were presented in the form of
percentages, proportions and diagrams for better understanding of the topic under
study. Inferential statistical technique in the form of factor analysis was used to
analyse the factors responsible for self-build housing developments in the
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis.
79
Ethical Considerations
Proper permission was obtained in the form of an introductory letter from
the Department of Geography and Regional Planning as well as the Institutional
Review Board (IRB), University of Cape Coast (UCC) to embark on this study in
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. This letter was used to seek permission from the
relevant land planning and management institutions and all other key respondents.
Respondents were given prior notice and had the rights to either be part or exempt
themselves from the research.
The researcher had to identify himself and the purpose of the research to
the respondents in order to avoid impersonation. This gave the research
participants the choice to join or refrain and were at the same time at liberty to
withdraw in the course of the research or continue to the end. During the research,
the anonymity of respondents was considered vital. In cases where anonymity
were not fully promised, the respondents were assured of confidentiality. To
withhold the full identity of the research respondents, names, house numbers,
addresses and telephone numbers were not included in the field work.
Limitations to Data Collection
Chiefs in the selected communities for the study should have been part of
the study. Unfortunately, due to the current title unrest in the Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis as a result of the death of the paramount chief of Takoradi made it
impossible for any kinsman to respond to the study questionnaires or interviews
during the time of the study data collection.
80
Also, identifying the self-build developers in the selected communities
was a challenge. The reason being that, most of the developers or house owners
had given their rooms out for rent and do not reside in their rental properties.
Therefore, the study concentrated on house owners or developers who were
residing within the selected localities during the time of the data collection.
Another pertinent challenge during the field work process was the
unwillingness of some respondents (especially house owners) to disclose
information about their land acquisition and their facility for the fear of attracting
taxes through the recent property rent mechanism mounted by the assembly.
Notwithstanding these delimitations, the degree of reliability obtained for
the study cannot be underestimated since the study employed the use of diverse
approaches and research techniques to data collection (multiple sources).
Therefore, making the analysis a commendable one in social sciences researches.
Chapter Summary
This chapter mainly focused on the study area, the research philosophy,
study design, data and sources used to collect data from the field. It also discussed
the study population, sample size determination, sampling technique, research
instruments, data processing and analysis, as well as the ethical considerations
and limitations to data collection.
81
CHAPT ER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the study and discusses them to address
the research objectives and questions. The study data was gathered from different
sources; the communities, the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly, the
Town and Country Planning Department, Lands Commission, Environmental
Protection Agency and the Public Works Department of the metropolis. Each
section in this chapter discusses the results of the data analysis in relation to the
study objectives and research questions.
Socio-demographic Characteristics of Respondents
This section looks at the background characteristics of the respondents for
the study. It entails information on the sex, age-group, educational level,
occupational status, religious affiliation and ethnicity of the study respondents.
Sex of respondents
Although the population of females is relatively larger than that of the
males (Females: 286,112; Males: 273,436) in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis
(GSS, 2010), males have been widely known to be the core actors of self-build
housing development, and thus usually take part in decisions pertaining to land
use planning in urban centres. Out of the 220 instruments retrieved from the initial
calculated 245 research respondents, males constituted 53.6 percent while 46.4
percent were females (Table 7).
82
Table 7: Sex distribution of respondents
Sex
Frequency
Percentage
Male
118
53.6
Female
102
46.4
Total
220
100
Source: Field data (2016)
The observed proportion of female respondents in the metropolis is
encouraging largely because Sekondi-Takoradi is developing and there seems to
exist equal opportunities for both men and women, especially in self-build
housing development.
Age distribution of respondents
Age forms an important aspect of self-build housing development. In view
of this, the study categorised the ages of the respondents into a ten-year age
interval. The study identified that the age of respondents (Figure 4) ranged from
18 to 80 years with the modal age (43.6%) within the ages of 30 to 39. This was
followed by ages 20 to 29 constituting 25.9 percent.
83
Age distribution of respondents
50
43.6
45
40
frequency
35
30
25.9
25
20
16.4
15
10
5
0
Series1
3.2
5.9
5
Less than 19
20 - 29
30 - 39
40 - 49
50 - 59
60 and above
3.2
25.9
43.6
16.4
5.9
5
Age group
Figure 4: Age distribution of respondents
Source: Field data (2016)
Data on respondents‟ age cohort were gathered and presented in Figure 4.
It shows that 43.6 percent of the respondents were within the ages of 30 and 39,
followed by those within 20 and 29 years (25.9%) while 3.2 percent of the
respondents were found below age 19. Also, 5 percent of them were above the
ages of 60 years. This indicates that the majority (85.9%) of the respondents were
within the active working age group (20 – 49 %) that are capable of undertaking
self-build projects that could influence land use decisions in the metropolis.
Level of education
Sustainable housing development and policies relating to land use
planning are mostly influenced by people‟s level of education (UN-Habitat,
2012). Thus, education matters when it comes to the growth of self-built houses.
In this regard, the researcher made efforts to assess the educational level of the
84
respondents and how they influence land use plans through self-build projects in
the metropolis. Out of the 220 respondents who took part in the study (Table 8),
only 8.2 percent had no formal education, while 23.6 percent had basic education.
The highest number of the respondents (36.4%) were secondary school leavers
while 31.8 percent had tertiary education.
Table 8: Educational status of respondents
Educational status
Frequency
Percentage
No formal education
18
8.2
Basic education
52
23.6
Secondary education
80
36.4
Tertiary
70
31.8
Total
220
100
Source: Field data (2016)
The relatively high number of respondents with formal educational
background as shown in Table 8 signifies that majority of the respondents were
relatively well educated and therefore, were able to respond properly to the
demands of the research instruments.
Occupation of respondents
Another factor capable of influencing sustainable land use plans in respect
of how people carry out self-build housing development in urban areas is
occupational status. Table 9 indicates that the dominate occupation (56.8%)
among the respondents was self-employment (trading, artisanal and fishing
activities). Second to this group was public servants (educators, health workers
85
and administrators) and followed by appreciable number of 31 private institutions
workers (14.1%). The least group of workers were pensioners (1.4%).
Table 9: Types of occupation of respondents
Occupation
Frequency
Percent
Self-employed
125
56.8
Public servants
45
20.5
Private companies
31
14.1
NGOs
6
2.7
Pensioners
3
1.4
Unemployed
10
4.5
Total
220
100
Source: Field data (2016)
Evidently, the study observed that most of the respondents were selfemployed (Table 9). This could be explained by the discovery of oil in the region
in addition to the presence of the harbour, financial institutions among other
viable economic activities in the metropolis, which makes trading and other selfemployed jobs lucrative to the residents in the study area.
Income levels of respondents
Income levels of individuals in urban areas are remarked to be a
contributory factor to the choice of locality and the quality of house built (Burgess
& Skeltys, 1992; Paaswell & Benjaminm, 1977; Curtis & Montgomery, 2006).
Self-build housing development as an informal housing project is the main
86
contributor of housing delivery in Ghana and houses all income groups (Gough &
Yankson, 2010; UN-Habitat, 2011; Amoah, 2012).
Table 10: Monthly income distribution of respondents
Amount (GH ¢)
Frequency
Percent
Up to 100
9
4.1
101 – 200
13
5.9
201 – 300
24
10.9
301 – 400
58
26.4
401 and above
116
52. 7
Total
220
100
Source: Field data (2016)
Table 10 shows that respondents with income levels above 400.00 cedis
form the largest group of respondents (52.7%) followed by respondents with
incomes between 301 to 400 (26.4%), with the least (4.1%) being those with less
than 100 cedis per month. This result coincides with the assertion that all
individuals at various income levels can be actors of self-build development since
governments and estate developers among other institutions have not been able to
meet the housing demands of Ghanaians (World Bank, 2010).
Religious background of respondents
The 1992 Republican Constitution of Ghana provides for freedom of
worship which allows all persons to join any religious organisation of their choice
without any form of discrimination. The Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis is
inhabited by people of different religious background. The study sought to assess
87
how the religious background of respondents affects land use planning and how
the respondents undertake self-build projects in the study area. Table 11 indicates
that majority of the respondents were Christians (90.4%), 7.7 percent were
Muslims while 1.4 percent stated that they belonged to secret societies with one
respondent who professed to be a Buddhist (0.5%).
Table 11: Religious affiliation of respondents
Religious status
Frequency
Percentage
Christianity
199
90.4
Muslim
17
7.7
Buddhist
1
0.5
Secret society
3
1.4
220
100
Total
Source: Field data (2016)
This result reveals that Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis embraces different
kinds of religious organisations as affirmed by the Ghana Statistical Services
analytical report for the 2010 Population and Housing Census (GSS, 2013).
Ethnic Background of Respondents
Many ethnic groups of people with heterogeneous characteristics are
engaged or contribute to self-build houses development. Particularly, the SekondiTakoradi Metropolis harbours different people with varied ethnic backgrounds
(Table 12).
88
Table 12: Ethnicity background of respondents
Ethnicity
Frequency
Percentage
Akan
180
85.9
Ewe
8
3.6
Ga-Adangbe
13
5.9
Mole-Dagbane
10
4.5
Total
220
100
Source: Field data (2016)
With regards to ethnicity, Table 12 reveals that 85.9 percent were Akans
(Fante, Asante, Ahanta and Sefwi), 5.9 percent were Ga-Adangbes (Ga and
Krobo), with 3.6 percent being Ewes. Mole-Dagbane (Dagomba and Dagbane)
constituted 4.5 percent of the respondents, with no Guans recorded. This result
conforms to the GSS (2013) report that indicates that the ethnic majority (78.2%)
in the Western Region have always been the Akans.
Factors of self-build housing development in the study area
A number of factors contribute to the growth of physical structures in
communities. Predominant among these factors are socio-economic, political,
cultural, physical and institutional (United Nations, 2007). Therefore, for housing
to be sustainable, it has to dwell on factors, including environmental, social,
economic and cultural dimensions as a way of achieving sustainable development
in urban communities (UN-Habitat, 2012).
89
In order to achieve the objective of understanding what drives people into
engaging in self-build projects, the study employed the use of factor analysis to
identify the main factors that drive self-build housing development in the study
area. For the purpose of this study, nineteen (19) factors (variables) were
identified from the review of literature to be relevant determinants of self-build
development in urban centres (Table 13). The respondents were given the
opportunity to indicate the factors that influence individuals most to enter into
self-build projects in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis.
Table 13: Nineteen variables for the growth of self-build projects in the
metropolis
Socio-economic
1. Low level of education
2. Low income level
3. High cost of renting estate houses
4. Employment
5. Migration (rural-urban)
6. Social contacts
Cultural
7. Religious reasons
8. Marriage
Spatial (Physical)
9. Nature of land
10. Advantageous location
90
Table 13 continued
Political
11. Inadequate housing support by government
12. Lack of political will to promote sustainable land use plans
Historical
13. Lineage (family ties)
14. Inadequate information on land use plans
15. Inadequate investment in land use planning
16. Delays in getting building permits
17. Corruption in the land management systems
18. Inadequate enforcement of building policies
19. Lack of sanctions against culprits/offenders
Source: Field survey (2016)
The study then employed the use of factor analysis to analyse all the
factors indicated by respondents from the field survey. This factor analysis was
aimed at reducing the volume of data obtained into useful variables for
description. The factor analysis technique is considered to be a statistical
technique that could be employed to group variables into key factors for easy
analysis and interpretation (Rummel, 1970 as cited by Mensah, 2010). For the
achievement of the specific objectives of the study, a suitability or compatibility
analysis was performed based on the nineteen (19) variables with the help of the
Statistical Product for Service Solutions (SPSS) version 21.
91
Table 14: KMO and Bartlett’s Test for the nineteen (19) variables
Kaiser-Meyer-Ojkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
Approximate Chi-Square
0.782
982.807
Bartlett‟s Test of Sphericity df
171
Significance
0.000
Source: Data Analysis (2016)
The result of the compatibility test in Table 14 depicts that the Bartlett‟s
Test of Sphericity Difference (171) is significant (Significance level = 0.000).
Therefore, the data could be analysed using factor analysis. The factor analysis
(based on a Principal Component Analysis measure) revealed four (4) significant
components that are necessary for this study. Figure 4 presents a pictorial or
graphical explanation for the selection of the four (4) major components or
factors. The clear break after point four (4) indicates the moment where the scree
plot begins to level. Statistically, this makes the first four points the recommended
components that could be used to derive the recognised index/indices.
92
Figure 5: Scree plot depicting the number of main components to be retained
Source: Field Data (2016)
For concrete interpretation of the results gained, a Verimax Rotation Test
was performed (Table 15). None of the variables was deleted from the original
factors. All the listed variables were 0.4 and above, which according to studies by
Fraser, McRobbie and Giddings (1993) as cited by Mensah (2010) is appropriate
but requires careful interpretation based on the type of result. For that matter and
the purpose of this research to be achieved, factors with high positive outcomes
(0.513-0.823) were considered to be adequately enough to interpret the results.
93
Table 15: Rotated component matrix showing factor loadings and amount of
variance explained for the development of self-build houses in the
metropolis
Factors
Variable
1
Inadequate information on land use plans
.623
Inadequate investment in land use planning
.593
Delays in getting building permits documents
.787
2
3
4
Corruption in the land management of building .823
policies
Inadequate enforcement of building policies
.819
Lack of sanctions against culprits/offenders
.775
The nature of land
.584
Advantageous location
.676
Employment
.555
Lack of political will to promote sustainable
.513
land use planning
Inadequate housing support by government
.716
Lineage
.439
Migration
.540
Social contacts
.771
Religious reasons
.686
Marriage
.618
Low level of education
.564
Low level of income
.696
High cost of renting estate houses
.517
Source: Data Analysis (2016)
The Verimax Rotation Test in Table 15 depict that one of the factors had
less loadings (0.439) than others (0.513-0.823). According to Yong and Pearce
(2013), one variable can adequately explain a factor but much convincing when
94
more than two variables have moderately high loading(s) to explain a factor
better. Four factors were statistically chosen for determinants of self-build
housing development in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis since the some other
variables had a bit weaker factor loadings exhibiting a minimal amount of
variance. These are Institutional factors (Component 1: delays in getting building
permits documents, corruption in the land management of building policies,
inadequate enforcement of building policies and lack of sanctions against
culprits/offenders); Spatial determinants (Component 2: advantageous location,
inadequate housing support by government and lack of political will to promote
sustainable land use planning); Cultural factors (Component 3: social contacts,
religious reasons and marriage) and Socio-economic factors (Component 4: low
level of education, low level of income and high cost of renting estate houses).
These four factors explained constitute the core determinants of self-build
developments in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis (Table 13).
From the analysis, people seem to have lost interest in government
interventions and wish private institutions or some organisations liaise with the
government to assist with the development of self-build housing and land
planning and management in the metropolis. Institutional factors being the first
component largely indicates the public‟s frustration on the inability of financial
institutions, land planning and management institutions, as well as estate
developers to come in and assist them in solving urban housing needs as it is done
in some foreign countries. Practically, the land planning institutions are not
assisting in the provision of enough affordable housing units to meet the needs of
95
the growing population. As a result, individuals are driven to provide their own
shelter in the urban communities without paying much attention to control
regulations regarding self-build housing development in the study area.
The spatial location of some localities within the urban communities
attracts people to settle there. Therefore, with little or no government intervention
in investing in housing and land use planning, people are motivated to create
shelter of their choice.
Also, culturally people are too much attached to relatives or close
associates in the urban areas. Ones they get the opportunity to come into contact,
they try to create shelter to accommodate one another for them to continue
enjoying the city life. Additionally, socio-economic-wise, individuals deem it
appropriate to create their housing units once they can acquire any piece of land
and can afford to build a structure in a matter of time. That is why self-build
houses usually takes a longer time to complete (Kamau, 2005 as cited by Biitir,
2009). Also, an individuals‟ level of education is capable of influencing the type
of housing unit to opt for, if it corresponds with his/her income level or social
status.
Stakeholder’s measures for ensuring sustainable self-build housing
development in the Metropolis
Planning and managing urban land use is not an easy task as it includes the
zoning of land, preparation of structural plans and the giving out of building
permits. In order to address land use planning challenges related to self-build
development in the metropolis, it required the contribution of government
96
institutions, assembly members and some members of the selected communities
in the study area. Nine key (9) respondents from five (5) Land Planning and
Management Institutions and four (4) Assembly members were consulted from
the four (4) selected communities in Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. These
institutions were the Lands Commission, Town and Country Planning
Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Public Works Department and the
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly. Heads from each of the institutions
were purposively selected for the study. In-depth interview (IDI) formed the main
data collection technique that was used to gather the relevant data for the study.
When all the respondents were asked to comment on the measures that had been
instituted to help solve the effects of self-build houses on sustainable land use
planning in the metropolis, they specified the use of public education, an allinclusive land use planning; fast processing of building permits; proper
monitoring and evaluation exercises and sanctioning of offenders;
i.
Public education
Data gathered from the officials of the various institutions involved in this
study revealed that there is rigorous public education exercise being encouraged
in the metropolis. In view of this, issues, doubts and ambiguities concerning the
acquisition process of land are made clear and known to the public in order for
them to understand and appreciate it. By so doing, it sort of attempt help people to
acquire permit before building, which is the first step in ensuring and
implementing sustainable land use plans. Subsequently, educative programmes
like workshops and community discussions were to be organised from time to
97
time to guide housing activities in the metropolis. According to Asiama (2004),
planning institutions are not only mandated to assess proposal of zoning or rezoning, administration of land use management procedures in settlements,
processing of building permit but also to create public awareness through
effective education. This view coincides with the aspirations of the exact
procedure land planning institutions in Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis proposed
that is being done. Furthermore, some respondents at the community level attested
that some planning institutions used to organise community meetings once a
while to point to people some of the unscrupulous activities associated with selfbuilding that are unhealthy for their communities‟ development. For instance, one
official form the Town and Country Planning Department (TCPD) commended
the effort made by of the Lands Commission to have now created a Client Service
Department to address the woes of the land owners in the metropolis within a
short period of time. The officer remarked:
“My institution is also looking forward to upgrade our office very
soon and incorporate the idea of Clients Service Access Unit just
as the Lands Commission has done. This is to make sure we give
everyone equal opportunity to express their concerns about how
they find our services” (Figure 6)
98
Figure 6 : Evidence of the new Clients Service Access Unit for the Lands
Commission in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis
Source: Field data (2016)
ii.
Participatory land use planning
In addressing the use of public education to achieve sustainable land use
planning, this study assert that the community participatory approach to land use
planning in the study area was of high interest to the planning institutions in
achieving its set land planning targets. Officials from land planning and
management institutions admitted the influence that the public have on their
activities. Hence, the development and implementation of land use plans in the
metropolis rested in the hands of the community members as well. It would never
be plausible to implement sustainable plans without involving all stakeholders
that can be affected within a particular context.
member had this to say in respect of that concern:
99
For instance, an Assembly
“Land use planning are mostly drawn with the ideas of the
community members as well. This is because, before the
authorities come with plans, they are very much aware of the
fact that the community in one way or the other already have
means of allocating lands for various purposes”.
The same way, since the public lack the technical know-how, authorities
always liaise with the respective authorities to direct and regulate their housing
construction and other land use activities at the community level that would
conform to the goals of the assembly, the region and the country as a whole. This
is because it is a core principle (sixth principle) of LUP to improve on the
capacity of the participants to plan and take actions. In a similar fashion, urban
planning is aimed at improving the welfare of both the private and public actors
through bridging the gap between planning, decision making, processing of ideas
and action (Agbola, Olatubara, & Olorunfemi, 2002). Why because, housing is
one of the basic social conditions that determine the quality of life and welfare of
people and places (UN-Habitat, 2012).
iii.
Processing of permits in due time.
Also, from most of the officials interviewed, delays in permitting process
was a threat to sustainable land use planning since majority of the people get tired
with such process and then start building without it. In this respect, the Head of
the Physical Planning Department of the Metropolitan Assembly remarked:
“The Metro Physical Planning Department has now propose
an automated system in order to facilitate the processes for
100
developers to have their permits in due time. Currently, the
Town and Country Department in the metropolis have
instituted what is termed as the fast track documentation
under the new management. Hence, any individual,
organisation or firm that is in need of urgent permit pays a
stipulated fee that is used to speed up the process for quick
development”.
Therefore, self-build developers are required to purchase lands from
appropriate persons and make sure they have gone for cross checks at the Lands
Commission to make sure that the parcels of land they wish to buy are available
for sale. This is why the Lands Commission in the Metropolis have created the
Client Service Centre to check irregularities in the sales of land and in helping to
address most cases resulting in land conflicts in the area. With the help of this
service centre, land documentation processes sometimes takes less than a week to
be completed once the right documents have been submitted to the commission
for processing.
iv.
Monitoring and evaluation system.
Another measure suggested by a number of the study interviewees was the
new intensive monitoring and evaluation of self-build houses and related land use
activities in the metropolis. From the respondents, there is the need for effective
monitoring and evaluation of all buildings and structures within the metropolis to
ensure that they are in conformity with the land use plans of the assembly. This
also involves the act of inspecting all buildings, structural plans and others to
101
know if they are standard or not and whether they have the necessary certificates
and permit to build at a particular location. One respondent asserted:
“All planning to me is a way of educating people, monitoring
their activities and evaluating how plans are being executed.
Because as an individual when I opt people to stop building,
less would be regarded of me; but when the communities
combine forces with the institutions it is also helpful in
checking land uses and it associated housing development in
the communities”.
This assertion affirms why some researchers advocate for new paradigm
that could change the emphasis of planning from the “should be” of planning
practice to “what” planners should do. This could be achieved through critically
examining how planners construct meaning in their daily practice, planning of
activities and monitoring how plans are being executed (Forester, 1994; Innes,
1995; Healey, 1997)
Similarly, one institutional head suggested:
“To ensure effective monitoring and evaluation, institutions
in the Metropolis are collaborating with one another to draw
sufficient resources (capital and equipment) capable of
undertaking land management exercises in a sustainable
manner. Recently, periodic meetings are held among, TCPD,
LC, Ghana National Fire Service, Ghana Police Service,
PWD, STMA and other private stakeholders”.
102
This mechanism serves as a measuring rod that is used in identifying areas
with good land use practices and those which need assistance to make them
comply with the regulations of the existing land use plans of Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis.
v.
Sanctioning of offenders.
Punishment of offenders forms one of the key factor cited by the
respondents that helps the authorities in ensuring effective implementation of
sustainable land use plans in the metropolis. According to the key informants,
they are legally mandated to punish culprits to serve as deterrent to other
members of the community, organisations or firms that refuse to respect existing
land management and housing construction regulations within the metropolis.
Sanctioning law breakers exist to deter other self-house builders/developers from
just building anyhow and anywhere in the metropolis. Sanctions are meted out to
offenders through the making of bye-laws, sermoning of offenders to chief‟s
palace or arranging people to appear at the law courts to pay fines and penalties
for the non-compliance to the established land use plan and building regulations.
To one key informant:
“We should not deviate from the rules, let us face reality and
do what is good (both community members and authorities).
Anybody responsible for land use planning must deem it
necessary to sit up (be fair and firm) to serve the people in a
lawful manner and not just occupy the position for position
sake”.
103
Incentives in the form of free technical advice on land and building
techniques are on certain occasions provided to developers who are law abiding or
communities in Sekondi-Takoradi who are doing well in housing delivery through
sustainable land use planning.
vi.
Propagating the conversion of some stool, skin or family lands into state
lands.
The chieftaincy and families control of lands in Ghana makes it difficult to
sometimes implement land use plans that are sustainable. Therefore, at the
community level, the planning institutions in Sekondi-Takoradi have insisted on
the design of local land use plans that are in tune with the requirements of the
metropolis, the region and the country in general. Clear examples of such
communities with well-planned layouts in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis
include Anaji, Takoradi Number One, Two, among others. At the moment
housing projects are not carried out well in most of the communities in the
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. For instance, lands demarcated for schools, parks,
game/forest reserves, provision of social amenities, and other recreational centres
are later sold out to people to build. This results in people filling swampy or
marshy areas for building activities forgetting that these zones provide both man
and animal several ecological benefits.
Some projects by government, private individuals and NGOs have not
been able to see the light of day since some interested parties are refusing to
release lands or there exists conflict of interest. That is why Land Administration
Systems are regarded as wheels to achieving sustainable development when lands
104
are state owned or controlled from a central authority (Enemark, 2007). Similarly,
some heads of land planning and management institutions in the Metropolis
asserted that:
a.
“The government should take steps to convert all or if not all,
most lands into state lands for easy access and uniformity in
development; and
b. “We should have a central system as a way of doing things and
that is what I have been advocating for over these years, like the
way Nkrumah did in Tema. Tema is an example of a „New Town
Concept‟ and we have another one to be done in Dodowa soon.
Here in Sekondi-Takoradi, we have started something called the
„King City Project‟ and very soon another one will take place in
Atuabo area where we have the Ghana Africa Gas Company
project. It is in line with what is termed as the Korean Housing
Concept where a community is first developed with all the needed
social amenities before people move in to settle. If this is done it
will help solve the challenges we are facing with housing
development and land use planning in this metropolis and Ghana
as a whole”.
105
Challenges faced by planning authorities for the implementation of
sustainable land use plans
Nine authorities in the Metropolis were interviewed to know their main
functions and responsibilities with regards to sustainable land use. Consequently,
information was sought on the challenges that they faced in accomplishing their
duties in respect to how individuals go by self-build housing development in the
study area. The selected authorities comprised of four Assembly members
selected from four communities from the Metropolis, an official each from Lands
Commission, Physical Planning Department of the Assembly (TCPD), Public
Works Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolitan Assembly. Majority (eight) of them were males with only one
female. Their responses were gathered, discussed and presented thematically
focusing on their challenges and the consequent effects on sustainable land use
planning activities in the study area:
i.
Land ownership issues
Majority of the officials interviewed indicated that, land ownership cases
are the main challenge of the authorities. Usually, this delays the permit process
and developmental projects in the Metropolis since some of the cases have to be
sent to court for approval before anything can be done. Sometimes, developers
start construction even before court verdicts are passed or building permit are
documented. One Assembly member for instance remarked:
106
“Lands here belong to the chiefs. We have two chiefs (one at
Amanful and the other at New Takoradi) but it is difficult to
determine who the head is. This has led to disputes in
ownership and difficulties in land demarcations for
developmental projects”.
This, according to most of the officials, is one of the major threats to
sustainable land use planning in the metropolis. Also, in some instances some
chiefs and or Abusuapanin sometimes sell a particular piece of land to more than
one or two persons or firms/organisations. This conforms to the suggestion made
by Afrane and Asamoah (2011) regarding land and ownership controls as one of
the challenges that limits effective housing development and land management in
cities.
ii.
Difficulty in reclaiming lands from developers for the right purposes the
lands were meant for.
Data gathered from the respondents indicated that another challenge of the
authorities in maintaining sustainable land use planning is claiming lands from
individuals, „Abusua‟ (families) or chiefs (stools or skins) for an appropriate use
for the public. This normally occurs when the Metropolitan Assembly requires
land for public developmental projects and or Governmental projects such as
schools, public toilets, clinics, markets among others. Related to this observation
is the issue that some chiefs or „Abusuapanyin‟ think that they are the sole
custodians of the land so they have the customary right to use it for any purpose
they deem fit regardless of the public interest. This usually results in siting some
107
community projects at places that are in appropriate. For instance, a respondent
had to say:
“An example is a toilet facility constructed close to the
shores of the sea at Sekondi because lands available for
development have been exhausted and the available ones
were not released by the owners”.
Another planning official remarked that:
“Getting the land for the construction of the Takoradi Mall
has been one of my biggest challenges in this metropolis as a
planner. Affected lands were difficult to be reclaimed. It took
us a long time to make all involved understand the benefits of
the project even though appropriate mechanisms had been
put in place to compensate them satisfactorily. Meanwhile,
we are yet to be fully aware of the exact time the mall would
be constructed”.
This is why Hammond (2011) indicated that there should be another look
at the appropriate means of converting most family and stools lands into state
lands to ensure sustainability of land use plans and social justice in land
acquisition for development projects in urban centres;
108
iii.
Disparities between land use plans of the assembly and communities.
A significant number of the officials also asserted a challenge they face
that can be attributed to the difference between land use plans of the assembly and
the ones submitted to their offices by chiefs or „Abusuapanyin‟ in the community.
The same is the case of self-builders who present different structural plan for
permit while they do something different in real sense. Therefore, the differences
exist between land owners and self-build developers, as well as the assembly and
the communities in decisions on land use plans of the assembly and communities.
Sometimes, certain chiefs have their own surveyors and architects that process
their lands and other related documents for them either before or after the land use
plans of the assembly are made. An official asserted:
“The consequences are what are experienced in most
communities where people build along water ways. Their
activities lead to flooding anytime it rains heavily. They
engage in converting residential areas into commercial areas
which later results to inaccessibility in social amenities and
others” (Figure 8).
109
Figure 7 : Evidence of flooding in the Metropolis (Anaji to the left and Takoradi
market circle to the right respectively)
Source: Field data (2016)
Another authority had this to say to concretise the challenges they are facing:
“I am not very happy with the current situation at all. For
example, Sekondi and Takoradi communities used to be a
well built up areas but people in recent years have destroyed
the beauty of the area. People extend their houses to
encroach pathways, roads and reserved spaces. This is
because they have been given the go ahead by chiefs, some
assembly members or opinion leaders in a political way or
so”.
110
The influence of land plans by chiefs and other opinion leaders is one of the
root causes leading to the reasons why some self-builders ignore the processes of
meeting regulatory requirements and move to sites without permits to begin
construction (Afrane & Asamoah, 2011).
iv.
Inadequate resources
For effective and efficient monitoring and evaluation, there should be
enough resources in terms of human and logistics equipment. However, the
assembly does not have enough resources to carry out their duties fully to ensure
effective monitoring of self-build housing development, which is a threat to
sustainable land use planning. According to an authority interviewed:
“We lack the resources to fight all the unguided projects that
is why it seems institutions responsible for land management
practices are not living up to expectation. These have led to
people converting roads and other layouts into settlement
areas. Influence from some chiefs also prevent us from taking
action on people who flout with land use plans. Because of
that we have some structures we need to pull down, but since
we don‟t have the required resources some still remain and
are risky to the safety of people living around” (Figure 7).
111
Figure 8 : Cracked building authorised by STMA to be pulled down but still
houses some people in Sekondi
Source: Field data (2016)
Another head emphasised:
“In our operations we need computers, vehicles, range
meters, surveyors tape, cameras etc. but unfortunately we
don‟t have range meters now. Currently, the few ones we
have are in good shape. Just that at times there are some
technical hinges. And like Oliver Twist, we will always ask
for more. Even without the range meter we can work with the
normal surveyors tape but just that the range meters are
advanced and easy to use”.
112
Further, one official remarked:
“We are about fifteen (15) here managing the whole Western
Region. From the scratch, you can make a justification for
yourself and it is also because the job is not attractive for
people to join. Therefore, considering the volume of work
that we engage in, the funds given us are not enough to
accomplish all our operations in due time. That is why at
times we lag behind”.
Hence, just as asserted by Mahama and Antwi (2006) the availability of
resources to these institutions remain one of the main challenges affecting the
efficient and timely execution of their mandated activities/services to the public.
v.
Lack of development control legislation to deal with local housing growth.
The failure to institute an appropriate land management information
system to ensuring inclusive land use planning has resulted in the total absence of
control of land use within most settlements in the Metropolis. Reports have shown
that Sekondi is among the communities in the Metropolis with large concentration
of informal settlements (GSS, 2010). Currently, any effort made by the assembly,
private institutions and the government to control land use in this settlement for
housing development is seriously resisted. One land management respondent
remarked:
113
“In 1998, I and the former chief executive discussed about
the main road from the Naval Bay area to the bridge at the
Esey Lagoon to regulate the settlement there to build tall
buildings and relocate the people there. Meanwhile people
have delayed this process till date because they feel there is
no law to compel them undertake this exercise. Some land
owners are also sceptical in releasing their lands for this
project but I am hoping that the ongoing discussions with the
new chief executive will pave way to see to how investors can
make this possible”.
According to heads of some institutions, chiefs, opinion leaders and politicians
sometimes interfere in their activities by begging them from collapsing buildings
or structures constructed at unauthorised places (Figure 8).
Another respondent added:
“I think there are sanctions spelt out on paper but doesn‟t
occur in real terms. Because people build at wrong places and
we see stop work and produce permit inscriptions all the time.
Meanwhile most of these buildings are able to reach
completion stage”.
Personal observation from the field work helped identify some housing
arrangement practices within the metropolis that contradict what the land use
plans specify. For instance, some housing development lack access roads and
114
because of that some buildings had to provide access route through other houses.
Also, some access routes serve as gutters through which other houses direct their
waste water unto other plots creating congestion and making landscape of some
areas not attractive (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Incremental Self-build Housing Posing Difficulties in Drainage and
accessing other homes in Sekondi.
Source: Field data (2016)
This is to affirm the assertion made by Biitir (2009) that while planning
authorities advocate for improvement of sanitation services, layouts, landscape
design, among others; the beneficiaries (self-builders or residents) are mostly
115
interested in consolidating their properties for protection against natural risks and
making money.
vi.
Lack of public cooperation that breeds corruption
The public often complain about not being part of the land use planning
and management processes in urban areas. On the side of officials of Land
Management Institutions, the public refuse to collaborate with the ideas of
authorities in regulating building activities. This has resulted in the gap that has
existed between the authorities and the public all these years. It makes the smooth
flow of communication difficult since projects planned by authorities are carried
out in a different manner at the community level. That is why Land Use Planning
principles 5, 7 and 10 affirm the need for dialogue, transparency and flexibility
within land management activities for sustainable growth. On the other side,
sometimes developers refuse to report corrupt officials that collect moneys from
them before they process their land documents. One head remarked:
“I can say it is because we lack a proper land governance
and administration framework that is why all these occur.
It is the cause of corruption and bribery in our land
management practices in the country. If our people were
vigilant enough too, they would have always reported to us
some of the bad practices that self-build developers put up
in the communities. Meanwhile people just over look some
of these things and those who complain too are regarded as
116
recalcitrant and sometimes being shunned by their
community people”.
Another head had this to say:
“In my institution, I will say corruption is subjective since I cannot
actually know what happens directly in all offices but it is possible
it does happen. This is all as a result of the gap in communication
between the public and the institutions. If they do the right thing,
they would need not to subject themselves to some of these corrupt
activities”.
An example is a case that was cited by one assembly member of the
metropolis concerning the construction of a two storey building that has been
mounted on a drainage that no one seems concerned about (Figure 10) because
that person has political influence.
Figure 10 : Evidence of the main drainage connecting Takoradi No 1 and No 2
communities (left) that disappears under a building (right)
Source: Field data (2016)
117
Figure 11: Indication of the point where drainage is covered in the compound
(up) and evidence of a house partly built on the main drainage system in Takoradi
Source: Field data (2016)
Chapter Summary
This chapter has provided vivid information on the socio-demographic
characteristics of the respondents, respondents‟ awareness of self-build
regulations in Ghana and the difficult stage in the self-build development
118
processes in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. Specifically, the study examined
the factors of self-build housing development in the study area and further dwelt
on the measures taken by stakeholders to mitigate the effects of self-build houses
development on the existing land use plans. The final section of the chapter
discussed the challenges faced by planning authorities in the implementation of
sustainable land use plans in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis.
119
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter concludes the findings of the study on Self-build housing and
Land Use Planning in Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. Thus it covers issues on the
summary of key findings of the study in relation to the study objectives,
conclusions of the study as well as the study recommendations that are stated to
help improve on self-build housing activities in the study area through a
sustainable land use planning. Finally, the chapter ends with limitations to the
study and suggested areas for further studies.
Summary of the Study Process
In all, the study sought to assess the effects of Self-build housing
development on sustainable land use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis.
Specifically, the study sought to:
i. Assess the factors of self-build housing development in the study area;
ii. Assess measures taken by stakeholders to ensure sustainable self-build
housing developments in the metropolis; and
iii. Analyse
the
challenges
faced
by
planning
authorities
in
the
implementation of sustainable land use plans in Sekondi-Takoradi.
The instruments used for the study included observation check list,
interview schedule (questionnaires), and in-depth interview guides also known as
IDIs (see the appendices). In order for the objectives of the study to be achieved,
preliminary data were sought on housing developers‟ awareness of building
120
regulation and the difficult stage in the self-build housing process. For the main
objectives, field data on the factors of self-build housing development were
obtained from self-builders and residents, while stakeholders‟ measures for
ensuring sustainable self-build development and challenges of self-build activities
to planning authorities‟ implementation of sustainable land use planning were
obtained from key informants.
For much clarity and in-depth information on the topic under
investigation, data were obtained from institutions concerned with Land Planning
and Management in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. Data from the land
planning and urban management institutions (TCPD, STMA, EPA, LC and PWD)
focuses their activities, availability of resources (human, finance and logistic),
collaboration with related institutions or organisations, outlined measures taken
by stakeholders in ensuring sustainable housing development and consequently
enumerated challenges authorities face by executing their activities related to land
use planning and self-build housing development in Sekondi-Takoradi. Data was
also collected from assembly members of the four selected communities in the
metropolis since they were in better position to give accounts of how self-build
activities in their communities have affected their land use plans over time. The
field data for the study was collected within five weeks (from 1st March to 5th
April, 2016).
Out of the 245 data instruments that the researcher administered unto the
respondents during the field work, only 220 were retrieved from the respondents
in addition to the nine selected key informants and served as the basis for the
121
analysis. The 220 outcome out of 245 field respondents corresponds to a high
response rate of 90 percent. In all, 229 respondents were covered in the data
collection process. It comprised of 108 self-build developers, 112 residents, and
nine (9) key informants (four assembly members and five heads of selected Land
Planning and Management Institutions in the metropolis). A multistage sampling
technique was employed to collect data. The metropolis was first divided into four
sub-metros and a community was selected from each sub-metro. House-owners
were selected using the snow-ball technique because it was difficult to locate
them. Residents were randomly selected since each member of the communities
were capable of being selected for the study. The assembly members and heads of
selected institutions were purposively chosen for scheduled interview. Data
obtained from the field was analysed using statistical packages (SPSS version 21
and NVIVO version 11) and presented using percentages, figures and diagrams.
Factor analysis was employed to analyse the determinants influencing people to
take the initiative of building their own housing facilities.
Main Findings of the Study
The main findings from the study are summarised as follows:
i.
The majority of the respondents were between the ages of 30 – 39.
This constituted 35.4 percent of the respondents in the metropolis;
ii.
For education, 91.8 percent of respondents have had formal education
(basic, secondary and tertiary), probably because it was an urban
centre with many schools;
122
iii.
The majority (56.8%) of respondents in the metropolis were selfemployed and mainly income earners above 400 cedis (52.7%);
iv.
The stakeholders showed commitments of ensuring sustainable
housing
developments
in
Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis.
They
undertake this commitment through periodic public education
programmes, making land use planning an all-inclusive process,
promotion of fast-track processing of permits/documents, monitoring
and evaluation exercises, sanctioning of culprits and propagating of
making lands in the metropolis state owned.
v.
All the heads of urban land planning and management institutions and
Assembly members who took part in this study were very much
concerned about the way self-build houses developments were being
carried out in the metropolis in recent years. Pertinent among the
challenges they face included poor public participation in land use
plans, multiple land ownership, inadequate resources to handle
unguided self-build projects and some interference that hinder their
activities.
vi.
The negative effects for not undertaking self-build projects, with
regards to the laid down land use plans in the metropolis included the
recent floods in areas that were formally not noted for floods,
congestion in some localities, difficulties in accessing some houses
due to improper layouts and inadequate accessibility to social
amenities such as electricity and potable water supply.
123
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
i.
The major factors that account for the development of self-build housing
in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis are institutional, spatial, economic
and cultural factors. Institutional determinants were the most indicated
factor by respondents with historical factor being the least. These factors
result in multiple effects such as destruction of local landscape, poor
accessibility, flooding, loss of green space, inadequate infrastructure, overcrowding and poor sanitation that is capable of affecting environmental
health and safety of persons living in the metropolis;
ii.
Even though the study discovered that the majority of the respondents
were literates (at least Senior High School leavers and beyond), their
knowledge in building regulations and involvement in land planning
process (from preparation to implementation) in the metropolis were
limited. That is the cause of the information gap existing between the selfbuild and the land planning authorities in the study area. Meanwhile, the
study found out that all stakeholders exhibited commitment to liaise with
one another to ensure self-build housing development and land use
planning that are sustainable; and
iii.
Institutional capacity for land use planning in the Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis are trying hard to be one of the best in the country as indicated
by some of the key informants. Meanwhile, institutions mandated to
ensure orderly development of land in the metropolis are hardly well
124
equipped to undertake their activities satisfactorily. Unfortunately, they
are faced with challenges pertaining to financial constraints, insufficient
working staff and lack of public will to adhere their regulations due to
political, family and chieftaincy influence in land management practices in
Ghana. The study found the challenges faced by planning authorities have
resulted in the growth of many sub-standard self-build housing that pose
serious threats to sustainable land use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study and conclusions drawn, the following
recommendations are submitted for consideration:
i.
The Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly in collaboration with the
Town and Country Planning Department, Public Works Department,
Lands Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and any other
related land management institutions should intensify already existing
educational programmes to sensitise the people of the Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis about building regulations in Ghana. This could take the form
of community based workshops, television shows and radio programmes
through which residents of the study area could be well informed or
educated on building activities that are sustainable. Also, the STMA
together with the Public Works Department could embark on training
campaigns for educating prospective self-build developers to use
affordable locally made building material like cement, iron rods, ceramics
among others to boost the growth of the local housing industry and reduce
125
the cost of construction as well as mostly practiced by Japan and other
developed countries in Asia and Europe. It is hoped that residents in the
metropolis will become conscious of the provisions in the building
regulations that adhere to sustainable land use plans when they are well
educated and abreast with modern building technologies.
ii.
The urban land use planning institutions need to heed to the suggestions
(e.g. effective public participation in land plans, modern technology,
sanctioning of law offenders and regular monitoring, among others) of the
respondents by liaising with interested private institutions who are into
housing provision to help address the housing needs of urban dwellers in
the study area and across cities in Ghana by developing sustainable
affordable housing schemes to provide them with shelter;
iii.
To resolve the challenges that self-build housing development and
sustainable land use planning face calls for good governance. Good
governance should be underpinned with a clear vision, strategies and
action plans capable of ensuring sustainable urban housing. That is why
the Government of Ghana need to pay maximum attention to the provision
of resources for the day to day activities of the Land use Planning and
Management Institutions in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. Also,
government funds allocated for these institutions could be increased
considerably to enable them to execute their mandated roles satisfactorily.
However, government should bring reforms in the housing policies to be
able to meet the rising housing needs in urban areas just as in the case of
126
the Norwegian Housing Model that have performed effectively that it is
almost doing away with rental housing issues in the country. This can be
done through financial support systems by liaising with some financial
institutions to offer assistance to self-build developers with a flexible pay
back mechanism. The government should also endeavour to ensure
adequate staffing and provision of enough incentives in the form of
allowances and foreign trips to workshops or conferences to boost the
performances of the land use planning institutions in the study area.
iv.
For self-build housing development and land use planning to be
sustainable, there should be stakeholder involvement championed by a
designated housing ministry responsible for urban spatial planning
processes. This could be achieved through collaboration at multi-level and
multi-stakeholder governance and cross-sectorial cooperation in the study
area. This is because wide and open consultations are critical to the
development of the sustainable self-build housing strategies and projects.
As a matter of fact there are many public and formal sector players in
housing provision but no dedicated ministry of housing in Ghana yet.
Therefore an inclusive urban development strategy could offer
stakeholders the opportunity of collaborating and coordinating their
activities (land registration and titling procedures, planning schemes and
approval processes, zoning and rezoning, demarcation and surveying
schemes and land management and land information systems) to ensure a
successful land use planning that sees to the housing needs of the public
127
without compromising the sustainability of the local ecology just as in the
case of the Swedish Housing Model. Stakeholders in this context can
involve the chiefs, assembly members, communities, STMA, TCPD, LC,
EPA, PWD, EPA, NGOs, real estate developers and other private
individuals or institutions that are related to housing provision and land
use planning.
Through their joint effort they can help support sustainable land
reforms in Ghana. Examples include the Ghana Land Administration
Project (LAP), which is in conformity with recommendation of the 1999
National Land Policy and the 2014 Estate Building Bill, which is yet to be
passed by parliament. By so doing, Ghana could achieve the target set for
urban development in the Forty (40) Year Development Plan and global
goals such as Agenda 21 and goal 11 of the Sustainable Development
Goals.
v.
Technological advancement is of immense importance to urban planning
as well as putting self-build housing development at the forefront in the
management of cities. Advancement in the already technologies can assist
planning authorities in the implementation and monitoring of housing
development that conforms to existing land use plans. Massive
investments must be made into the development of new land
management/administration systems through the adoption of modern
technologies, including the application of Information Communication
Technology (ICT) by the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
128
tools, Geographical Positioning System (GPS), Remote Sensing and
Aerial Photography in spatial planning to spearhead the upgrading of selfbuild houses development in Sekondi-Takoradi. Even though the
application of ICT in urban planning is considered a capital intensive
venture, it merits far outweigh the demerits. The adoption of ICT would
improve planning practice in the metropolis by identifying and protecting
potential land use development problems; monitoring and supervision to
serve as early warnings of unauthorised housing developments in urban
communities;
vi.
Land planning institutions need to adapt to dynamic land management
systems that promote urban development. Besides, Ghana has made some
level of progress in decentralization in recent years and can extend that to
the housing industry as well. For that matter, efforts should be made to
intensify the implementation of the Local Government Act 462 of 1993
and the National Development Planning (System Act) 480 of 1994. This
system would help ensure free and fair land use plans and housing
regulatory policies in the study area and beyond.
Planning Implication of Findings
The outcome of the present study could inform urban planners and key
housing stakeholders to have a second look at urban spatial planning activities in
Ghana. This is because spatial planning could be used as a relevant tool for all
sectors of the urban economy to organise and integrate different sectors and urban
systems into a consolidated spatial strategy for managing self-build housing
129
development through sustainable land use planning. Thus, self-build housing and
planning could be well connected to promote effective housing programmes for
urban areas rather than weakening housing systems to be over reliant on the
market instead of being plan-led. Lessons could be learnt from some renowned
cities with long term tradition of strong housing mechanisms and sustainable land
use planning strategies.
According to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), such
cities are among the healthiest and safest in the world. Examples include;
Melbourne in Australia, Portland in the USA, Copenhagen in Denmark, Munich
in Germany and Vancouver in Canada (UNEP, 2011). It is hoped that the
recommendations provided herein, if effectively and efficiently implemented
would not only benefit specifically the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis, but other
urban areas in Ghana, generally.
Contribution to Knowledge
This study could be relevant to knowledge in two aspects. First, it has
provided a broad-based knowledge on urban building regulations and land-use
planning in Sekondi-Takoradi, a fast-growing urban area with vibrant socioeconomics activities.
Second, it has contributed to the development of strategies that are capable
of helping urban land use planning authorities in reviewing their housing
development by introducing key housing sector players rather than falling on the
government for the provision of houses in urban centres.
130
Areas for Further Research
This study focused on the effects of self-build housing development on
sustainable land use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. Further research
can look at spatial characteristics of self-build housing development and land use
planning in Ghana. Additionally, further research could bring to bear the spatial
similarities and disparities of self-build housing processes between classes of
residence in Ghana.
131
REFERENCES
Afrane, S., & Asamoah, P. K. B. (2011). Housing Situation in Kumasi. In:
Adarkwa, Future of the Tree: Towards growth and development of
Kumasi, 69-91.
Agbola, T., Olatubara, C. O., & Olorunfemi, F. B. (2002). Urban land and
America Academy of Political and Social Science. America Cities.
Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
Ahadzie, D. K., & Amoa-Mensah, K. (2010) Management Practices in the
Ghanaian House Building Industry. Journal of Science and Technology,
30 (2), 62-74.
Amanor, K. (2001). Land, labour and the family in Southern Ghana: A critique of
land policy under neo-liberalisation. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
Amoah, G. (2006). Lack of planning, Ghana‟s bain. Retrieved from
www.thestatesmanoline.com
Amoah, K. (2012). Housing in Ghana: A search for sustainable options as the
way forward for enhanced output – Year, 2003 and beyond. International
Building Exhibition Seminar, Accra 27th – 29th August.
Amoa-Mensah, K. (2002). The strategy of fast track housing delivery: The
Ashongman success story. A paper presented at the Building and Road
Research Institute, Research week seminar, 1-7.
Ansah, S.K. (2014), Housing deficit and delivery in Ghana: intervention by
various Governments. International Journal of Development and
Sustainability, 3 (5), 978-988.
132
Antomioni, D. (1999). What motivates middle managers? Industrial Management,
41 (6), 27-30.
Arku, G. (2009). The economics of housing programmes in Ghana, 1929–66,
Planning Perspectives, 24(3), 281-300.
Asiama, S.O. (2004). Public and Private Sector Cooperation in Achieving Growth
in the Land Sector in Ghana. Journal of the Ghana Institution of
Surveyors, 2004 Issue 1.
Asiedu, A. B., & Arku, G. (2009). “The rise of gated housing estates in Ghana:
Empirical insights from three communities in metropolitan Accra”.
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24 (3), 227-247.
Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (2007). Multi-Jurisdictional Planning.
AUMA Position Paper, February 22, 2007.
Awan, N., Scheider, T., & Till. J. (2011). Spatial Agency: Other ways of doing
architecture. London: Routledge.
Bangdome-Dery, A., Eghan, G. E., & Afram, S. O. (2014). Overview of Self-Help
(Self-Build) Housing Provision in Ghana. Policies and Challenges, 4, 77–
89.
Basset-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg‟s motivation theory have
staying power? Journal of Management Development, 24 (10), 12-19.
Battaglia, P. M. (2011). Nonprobability Sampling: encyclopedia of survey
research methods: London: Sage Publications, London.
Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10 (2), 86-93.
133
Bertaud, A. (2007). Affordable housing: The supply side. World Bank, Beijing.
Retrieved from http;//alain-bertaud.com
Biitir, S. B. (2009). Provision of affordable housing for low income groups in
Tamale Metropolitan area through Self-Help Housing Approach. UnPublished Master dissertation submitted to the Department of Land
Economy, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research method (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Burgess, R., & Skeltys, N. (1992). „Findings from the Housing and Location
Choice Survey: an overview'. Housing and Urban Development Division
& Department of Health Housing and Community Services. Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Canadian Institute of Planners (2000). About Planning: What Planners Do.
Retrieved from http://www.cip-icu.ca/english/aboutplan/what.htm
Chalifour, N.J. (2007). Ecological economics, sustainable land use, and policy
choices. Land Use Law for Sustainable Development. IUCN Academy of
Environmental Law Research Studies. Cambridge University Press: New
York.
Chiara, J., Panero, J., & Zelnik, M. (1995). Time-saver standards for housing and
residential development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clarke, J. (2005). The Neoliberal theory of society. London: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing
among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
134
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social march: Meaning and perspective in
the research process. London: Sage Publications.
Curtis, C., & Montgomery, M. (2006). Urbanet: Housing Mobility and Location
Choice. Working Paper 2, 4-8.
Decrop, A. (1999). Triangulation in qualitative tourism research. Tourism
Management, 20 (5),157 – 161.
Depoy, E., & Gitlin, L. (2005). Introduction to research: Multiple strategies for
health and human services. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (1999). Land Use
Planning
Methods,
Strategies
and
Tools.
Eschborn:
Universum
Verlagsanstalt.
Egurden, S. (2001). Low-cost housing: Policies and constraints in developing
countries. International conference on spatial information for sustainable
development. Nairobi, Kenya, Oct. 2-5, 2001.
Enemark, S. (2007). „Integrated Land-Use Management for Sustainable
Development‟. Proceedings of FIG and UNECE/WPLA Workshop on
Spatial Information Management towards Legalising Informal Urban
Development, Sounio, Greece.
135
Enemark, S., Williamson, I. P., & Wallace, J. (2005). Building modern land
markets in developed economies. Journal of Spatial Sciences, 50 (2), 5168.
Farvacque-Vitkovic, C., Raghunath, M., Eghoff, C., and Boakye, C. (2008).
Development of the Cities of Ghana: Challenges, Priorities and Tools.
Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 110. Washington: World Bank.
Ferguson, B., & Navarrete, J. (2003). New approaches to progressive housing in
Latin America: A key to habitat programs and policy. Habitat
International, 17, 309–323.
Fisher, A. A., Liang, J. E., & Townsend, J. W. (1998). Handbook for family
planning operations research design. New York: Population Council.
Forester, J. (1994). Political judgement and learning about value in
transportation planning: Bridging Habermas and Aristotle. In Hugh
Thomas, ed. Values and Planning. Aldeshot, Averbury.
Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C.J., & Giddling, G. J. (1993). Development and crossnational validation of laboratory classroom environment instrument for
senior high school science students. Science Education, 77(1): 1-24.
Friedman, C. J. (2006). The world is flat: The globalized world in the twenty-first
century. London: Penguin.
Friedman, M., & Schwartz A. J., (1963). A Monetary History of the United States
1867-1960. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Friedman, M., (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
136
Friedman, M., (1980). Free to choose. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
GAO, X., Liao, Y., & Li, Y. (2014). Empirical studies on foreign language
learning and teaching in China (2008 2011): A review of selected
research. Language teaching: The International Abstracting Journal for
Language Teachers and Applied Linguistics, 47(1), 56-79.
Ghana Statistical Service (2010). 2010 Population and Housing Census. Ghana
Statistical Service, Takoradi. Accra: Sakoa Press Limited.
Ghana Statistical Service (2013). 2010 Population and Housing Census, Western
Regional Analytical Report. Accra: Sakoa Press Limited.
Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information
systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 135146.
Gough, K. V. & Yankson, P. (2010). A Neglected aspect of the housing market:
The Caretakers of Peri-urban Accra, Ghana. Urban Studies, 48(4), 793810.
Gray, J., (1995). Liberalism: Concept in social thought. (e.d. 2). Open University
Press, California.
Gray, J. (2000). Two Faces of Liberalism. The New Press, New York.
Greene, M., & Rojas, E. (2004). Incremental construction: a strategy to facilitate
access to housing. Environment and Urbanization 20 (1), 89-108.
Hammond, D. N. A. (2011). Harmonizing Land Policy and the Law for
Development in Kumasi. Future of the Tree: Towards growth and
development of Kumasi, 3(4), 55-68.
137
Hansen, E., & Williams, J. (1998). Economic Issues and the Progressive Housing
Development Model. IN Patton, C. V. (Ed.) Spontaneous Shelter:
International
Perspectives
and
Prospects.
Philadelphia,
Temple
University Press.
Harris, R. (2003). A double irony: The originality and influence of John F.C.
Turner. Habitat International, 27, 245-269.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press Inc.
New York.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented
Society. London: MacMillan.
Hockey, J., Robinson, V., & Meah, A. (2008). What‟s sex got to do with it? A
family-based investigation of growing up heterosexual during the
twentieth century. The Sociological review, 56(3), 454-473.
Innes, J. (1995). Planning theory‟s emerging paradigm: Communicative action
and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
14(3), 183-189.
International Labour Organisation (1953). Action of International labour office as
regards Co-operation, particularly as regards its Practical Activities.
Geneva: Bureau of Library and Information Services.
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2010). Educational Research: Quantitative,
Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. London: Sage Publications.
138
Kamau, P. K. (2005). Factors that affect Self-Build Housing in Nairobi, Kenya.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of
Systems and Information Engineering, University of Tsukuba.
Kapur, P. (1989). From ideas to practice: Self-Help in Housing from
Interpretation to Application. Unpublished masters‟ dissertation submitted
to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, School of Planning and
Architecture, New Delhi, India.
Kaur, A. (2013). Dynamics of rental housing in Eastern Africa. Global Journal of
Management and Business Studies, 3 (10), 1061-1064. Retrieved July 22,
2017 from http://www.ripublication.com/gjmbs.htm
Keynes, J. M. (1993). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.
New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors Ltd.
Konadu-Agyemang, K. (2001). The Political Economy of Housing and Urban
Development in Africa: Ghana‟s Experience from Colonial Times to 1998.
Westport, CT/London: 137–138.
Kumekpor, B. (2002). Research methods and techniques of social research.
Accra: SonLife Press and Services.
Kwofie, T. E., Adinyira, E., & Botchway, E. (2011) Historical review of housing
provision in pre and post-independent(ce) Ghana. In: S. Laryea, R.
Leringer, R. and W. Hughes, (Eds.) Procs West Africa. Built Environment
Research (WABER) Conference, 19-21 July 2011, Accra, Ghana, 541557.
139
Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary political philosophy: An introduction. 2nd
ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lanrewaju, A. F. (2012). Urbanisation, housing quality and environmental
degradation in Nigeria. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning,
5(16), 422-429.
Laski, H. J. (1997). The rise of European Liberalism. Routledge: Transaction
Publishers.
Mahama, C., & Antwi, A. (2006). “Land and Property Markets in Ghana”.
Discussion Paper, Prepared by Royal Institution of Chattered Surveyors,
World Urban Forum III, June 19-23, 2006.
Mahama, C., & Dixon, M. (2006). “Acquisition and Affordability of land for
Housing in Urban Ghana: a study in the formal land market dynamics.”
RICS Research paper series 6(10).
Majale, M &. Payne, G. K., (2004). Regulation and Regulatory Frameworks. In
the urban housing manual: making regulatory frameworks work for the
poor. London: Earthscan.
Mangin, W. (1967) Latin America squatter settlements: A problem and a solution.
Latin American Research Review, (2),65-98.
Mann, C. J. (2003). Observational research methods. Research design II: Cohort,
cross sectional and case-control studies. Emergency Medical Journal, 20,
54-60.
Martin, D., & Joomis, K. (2007). Building teachers: A constructivist approach to
introducing education. Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.
140
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of human motivation. New York: BN Publishing.
Melese, M. (2006). City expansion, squatter settlements and policy implications
in Addis Ababa: The case of Kolfe Keranio sub-city. Addis Ababa.
Unpublished masters dissertation submitted to the Department of
Geography and Environmental Studies, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Mensah, A. C. (2010). Causes and consequences of informal settlement planning
in Ghana: A case study of Aboabo, a suburb of Kumasi Metropolis.
Unpublished master‟s dissertation submitted to the Department of
Geography and Regional Planning, University of Cape Coast, Ghana.
Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The
transformative-emancipatory perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Metropolitan Design Center (2005). Metropolitan Home. New York: Meredith
Corporation.
Mikkelsen, B. (1995). Methods for development work and research: A guide for
practitioners. New Delhi: Sage.
Ministry of Works and Housing (2000). National Shelter Strategy Part Two.
Policy Planning and Evaluation Unit Ministry of Works and Housing.
Retrieved
from
www.modernghana.com/news/112686/1/community-
participation-in- townplanning-a-delayed.html
Mitchell, M., & Jolley, J. (1992). Research design explained (2nd ed.) Fort
Worth. Texas: Haircourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
141
Munck, R. (2005). Neoliberalism and politics, and the politics of neoliberalism.
London: Pluto Press.
Nassar, H., & Biltagy, M. (2016). The nexus of regional poverty and education in
Egypt: A micro analysis. International Journal of Economics and
Financial Issues, 6, 1446-1453.
Nassar, H. (2003). Understanding regional poverty paradox. World Bank Project
on Poverty Strategies in Egypt, Ministry of Planning and World Bank,
Unpublished Memo, 1-92.
National Development Planning Commission (2015). 2008 Ghana Millennium
Development Goals Report. Accra: National Development Planning
Commission.
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
aproaches (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research method (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education.
Nnamdi, E. (2011). Perspectives on the architecture of Africa‟s underprivileged
urban dwellers. Social Dynamics: A Journal of African Studies, 37(1), 4377.
Norberg, J. (2001). Till världskapitalismens försvar. Stockholm, Timbro.
Norman K. D. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (Vol. 16). Sage Publications.
Ntema, L. J. (2011). Self-Help Housing in South Africa: Paradigms, Policy and
Practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of
the Free State, South Africa.
142
Obeng-Odoom, F. (2009). Has the Habitat for Humanity Housing Scheme
achieved its goal? A Ghanaian case study. Journal of Housing and the
Built Environment, 24, 67-84.
Olotuah, A. O. (2005). Urban housing and heritage of earth architecture in
Nigeria: Paper presented to Conference of International Network for
Traditional Building, Architecture, and Urbanism (INTBAU). London,
UK.
Osuide, S. O., & Dimuna, K. O. (2005). Effects of population growth on
urbanisation and the environment in Nigeria. Nigeria: Rasjel Press. 27-33.
Owusu, S. E. (2005). Housing Policy in Ghana: The past, the present and the
challenges of the future, strategising toward the Millennium Development
Goal. Accra: Institute of Local Government Studies (ILGS).
Paaswell, R., & Benjamin, J. (1977). 'A user oriented housing choice model'.
Urban Systems, 2, 133-142.
Palley, T. I. (2005). From Keynesianism to Neoliberalism: Shifting paradigms.
London: Pluto Press.
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational
research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pugh, C. (2000). Sustainability of squatter settlements: sustainable cities in
developing countries. London: Earthscan.
Pugh, C. (2001). The theory and practice of housing sector development for
developing countries 1950-1999. London: Zed Books.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York.
143
Republic of Ghana (1993). Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462). Accra: Ghana
Publishing Company.
Republic of Ghana (1996) National Building Regulations (LI 1630). Accra:
Ghana Publishing Corporation.
Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston: North-western
University Press.
Ryan, A. (1993). Liberalism: A companion to contemporary political philosophy.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Saad-Filho, A., & Johnston, D. (2005). Neoliberalism: A critical reader. London:
Pluto Press.
Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social research (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Press
Limited.
Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Saunders, M. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. South Africa:
Personal Education.
Sekaran, U. (2006). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach,
4Th Ed. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly (2010). Annual Progress Report.
Takoradi: Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly.
Smith J. (1999). Cabrini Green and the redevelopment imperative. Paper
presented at the 1999 Urban Affairs Association meeting, Louisville, KY.
144
Soliman, A. M. (2004). A Possible Wayout: Formalising Housing informality in
Egyptian cities. California: University Press of America.
Soliman, A. M. (2012). The Egyptian episode of self-build housing. Habitat
International 36 (2), 226-236.
Steggell, C. D., Binder, S. K., Davidson, L. A., Vega, P. R., Hutton, E. D., &
Rodecap, A. (2003). Exploring theories of human behavior in housing
research. Housing and society, 30 (1), 32-32.
Steggell, C. D., Yamamoto, T., Bryant, K., & Fidzani, L. (2006). The use of of
theory in housing research. Housing and society, 33 (1), 31-35.
Struyk, R., & Gidding, S. (2009). The challenge of urban world: An opportunity
for foreign assistance. A White Paper for International Housing Coalition
Housing for All. Washington, D.C.
Takahashi, K. (2009). Evolution of the Housing Development Paradigms for the
Urban Poor: The Post-war Southeast Asian Context. Journal of AsiaPacific Studies, 3, 67-82.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tinsari, K. E. (2010). Integrating environmental issues into urban planning and
management: The case of the Sunyani Municipality. Unpublished master‟s
dissertation submitted to the Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah
University of Science and Technology, Ghana.
Town and Country Planning Department (2007). The new charter. Accra: Town
and Country Planning Department.
145
Tranøy, B. S. (2006). Markedets makt over sinnene [The power of market over
minds]. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Trollstøl, S., & Stensrud, E. (2005). Reform av offentlig sector [Reform of the
public sector]. Oslo: Department of Political Science.
Turner, J. F. C. (1967). Barriers and channels for housing development in
modernizing countries. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 32,
167-181.
UN-Habitat (1976). UN Conference on Human Settlements: Vancouver
Declaration. Ontario: Queen‟s Printer.
UN-Habitat (2001). Cities in a Globalizing World. VA: Earthscan Publications
Ltd, London and Sterling.
UN-Habitat (2002). Housing Rights Legislation: Review of international and
national legal instruments. Nairobi: UNON Printshop.
UN-Habitat Global Report on Human Settlements (2003). Slums of the World:
The face of urban poverty in the new millennium? Working paper, United
Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi: UN-Habitat.
UN-Habitat (2003). The Challenges of Slums: Global Report on Human
Settlements. London: Earthscan.
UN-Habitat (2005). World development report: A better investment climate for
everyone. Vol. 1. Washington D.C: Earthscan.
UN-Habitat (2009). Planning Sustainable Cities: Global Report on Human
Settlements 2009. Nairobi and London: UN-HABITAT and Earthscan.
146
UN-Habitat (2010). The state of African Cities: Governance, Inequalities and
Urban Land Markets. London: Earthscan.
UN-Habitat (2011). Ghana Housing Profile. Nairobi: United Nations Human
Settlement Programme.
UN-Habitat (2012). State of the world‟s cities 2012/2013: Prosperity of cities.
New York: Routledge.
UN-Habitat (2013). Planning and design for sustainable urban mobility: Global
Report on Human Settlements. New York: Routledge.
United Nations (2000). World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision. New
York: United Nations Publication.
United Nations (2007). Discussion paper on challenges and integrated policy
responses for informal settlements. Geneva: Economic and Social Council.
United Nations Commission on Human Settlements (2003). The Challenge of
Slum: Global Report on Human Settlement 2003.
Nairobi: Earthscan
Publications Ltd.
United Nations Commission on Human Settlements (2006). West Africa Highlevel peer exchange on “Government Enablement of Private Sector
lending for Affordable Housing”. Ghana Country Report. Accra: UNHabitat.
United Nations Development Programme (2012). Human Development Report.
Annual Report 2011-2012. Retrieved from www.undp.org
147
United Nations Environmental Programme (2011). Towards a Green Economy:
Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, Nairobi:
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Retrieved from www.
unep.org/greeneconomy.
Department of Geography and Regional Planning (2016). Map of the study area.
University of Cape Coast. Ghana: Cartography Unit.
World Bank (2005). The World Bank Annual Report: Year in review. Washington
DC: The World Bank Group. Retrieved from www.worldbank.org
World Bank (2010). Entering the 21st Century, The World Development Report
1999/2000. The World Bank, Washington D.C,
World Bank (2012). World Development Report: Gender equality and
development. Washington D. C: The World Bank Group. Retrieved from
www.worldbank.org
Yates, J., & Milligan, V. (2007). Housing affordability: a 21st century problem,
AHURI Final Report No. 105. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban
Research Institute Limited.
Yihong, L. & Lichun, L. J. (2001). Trends in qualitative research in language
teaching since 2000. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 1-14.
Yong, A. G & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner‟s guide to factor analysis: focusing
on exploratory factor analysis, 9(2), 79-94.
Zhang, L., Zhao, S. X. B., & Tian, J. P. (2003). Self-help in housing and
Chengzhongcun in China‟s Urbanization. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, 27(4), 912-937.
148
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF SEKONDITAKORADI METROPOLIS
Introduction
Support for self-build housing development in Ghana has received little
attention by government and institutions causing majority of Ghanaians to provide
their own housing facilities. Hence, this study seek to gather basic data about the
current state of self-build housing development and its effects on sustainable land
use planning, so as to uncover the challenges associated with self-build housing
development upon the strategies taken by stakeholders to ensure sustainable land
use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi. This document is an instrument for my master
thesis on the topic: self-build housing and land use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis, Ghana.
The results of this survey and the subsequent discussions at any follow-up
meeting will be kept confidential. Meanwhile, there are no “correct” or “wrong”
answers. You are also assured of privacy and anonymity of all the information
that you will give. Thus, feel free to give me credible information to ensure the
success of this research. Your contribution is of much relevance for this study and
all persons or institutions interested in land use planning and housing
development in Ghana.
Please make a tick [ √ ] in the box against your response. Thank you for your
cooperation.
149
Section A: Socio-demographic characteristics of residents at SekondiTakoradi
1. Gender: Male [ ] Female [ ]
2. Age (a) below 19 [ ] (b) 20-29 [ ] (c) 30-39 [ ] (d) 40-49 [ ]
(e) 50-59 [ ] 60 and above [ ]
3. Level of education:
(a) No formal education [ ]
(b) Basic education [ ]
(c) Secondary education [ ]
(d) Tertiary education [ ]
(e) Other [ ], Specify....................................................
4. Occupation; ........................................................................
5. Monthly income (in cedis, ¢):
[ ]
(c) 201 – 300 [ ]
(b) 101 – 200 [ ]
(d) 301 – 400 [ ]
(a) <100
(e) 401 and above
6. Religion:
(a) Christian [ ]
(b) Muslim [ ]
(c) Traditional [ ]
(d) Buddhist [ ]
(e) Other [ ] Specify................................................................
7. Ethnicity: ........................................................................
8. Marital status:
(a) Single [ ]
(b) Married [ ]
(c) Divorced [ ]
(d) separated [ ]
150
[ ]
(e) Widowed [ ]
9. Number of children ………….
10. Number of rooms in your house ………
11. Number of people living in the house …….
12. Which basic facility do you lack in your house?
(a) Bathroom [ ]
(b) Kitchen [ ]
(c) Toilet [ ]
(d) Pipe-borne water [ ]
(e) Electricity [ ]
(f) All of the above [ ]
(g) None of the above [ ]
13. Which facilities are not adequate in your community?
(a) Educational [ ]
(b) Health [ ]
(c) Recreational [ ]
(d) Road [ ]
(e) Sanitation [ ]
(f) None of the above [ ]
(g) Other [ ], Specify ……..
14. How long have you stayed in this community?
15. Are you the/a house owner/developer/care taker? Yes [ ] No [ ]
151
NB: If your answer is No, please don‟t answer question 16 & 18 but proceed to
question 17 & 19.
16. Section B: Self-build housing developers’ awareness to land use
planning building regulations in Sekondi-Takoradi.
Please indicate the extent of your agreement on the scale where 1= Strongly
Agree (SA), 2 = Agree (A), 3 = Undecided (U), 4 = Disagree (D) and 5 =
Strongly Disagree (SD).
Statements
SA
A
Awareness of self-build housing development in
the metropolis
1
There exist land use plans.
2
Land use planning is helpful in guiding
self-building development.
3
I have legitimate ownership over the
land.
4
I have acquired the necessary property
documents.
5
Building permit is valid for 5 years.
6
One may commence building if
building permit is not received within 3
months.
152
U
D
SD
7
A developer must notify the planning
authorities before up a structure on the
date he/she wants to begin.
8
If one is denied a building permit,
he/she can inform the National
Development Planning Commission 30
days after knowing the decision.
9
It is difficult to raise money to finance
the construction.
10 It take a long time to complete a selfbuild house.
11 One need to seek experts‟ advice before
building the house.
12 Developers need to complete the whole
house before moving in.
17. Section C: Factors of self-build housing development.
Please indicate the extent to which the following factors influence people to
undertake self-build housing development in Sekondi-Takoradi.
1 = Very High (VH), 2 = High (H), 3 = Uncertain (U), 4 = Low (L), 5 = Very
High (VL)
153
Factors
VH
Socio-economic
1
Low level of education
2
Low income level
3
High cost of renting estate houses
4
Employment
5
Migration (rural-urban)
6
Social contacts
Cultural
7
Religious reasons
8
Marriage
Physical
9
The nature of land
10 Advantageous location
Political
11 Inadequate housing support by
government
12 Lack of political will to promote
sustainable land use planning
Historical
13 Lineage (family ties)
154
H
U
L
VL
Institutional
14 Inadequate information on land use
plans
15 Inadequate investment in land use
planning
16 Delays in getting building permits
documents
17 Corruption in the land management
systems
18 Inadequate enforcement of building
policies
19 Lack of sanctions against
culprits/offenders
18. Section D: Self-build owners/developers measures of improving selfbuild housing and land use planning in the study area.
1. Enumerate some of the challenges faced by self-build developers in your
locality.
……………………………………………………………………………
2. Which stage of self-build housing do you consider difficult and why?
……………………………………………………………………
3. Considering the problems listed, are you satisfied with the manner in
which your community is organised/planned? Yes [ ]
155
No [ ]
4. Give reasons to question 3.
……………………………………………………………………………
5. In your own views, what measures have land authorities been taking so
far in improving the development of self-build housing and land use in
your community?
……………………………………………………………………………
6. Any additional information?
……………………………………………………………………………
19. Section E: Residents measures of improving self-build housing and
land use planning.
1. What assistance do you receive from the planning authorities?
……………………………………………………………………………
2. In what form do you want it to be implemented?
……………………………………………………………………………
3. What aspect of their work would you want to see improvements?
……………………………………………………………………………
4. Which areas of the community do you like most and ones that need
improvement? Give reasons
……………………………………………………………………………
5. Which aspects of self-build and housing development would you like the
planning authorities to improve?
...........................................................................................................
6. Additional information
156
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR LAND PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITIES IN SEKONDI-TAKORADI METROPOLIS.
Date of interview:
Place of interview:
Name of interviewer:
Gender of interviewee:
Institution / Organisation:
Position / title of interviewee:
Introduction
Support for self-build housing development in Ghana has received little
attention by government and institutions causing majority of Ghanaians to provide
their own housing facilities. Hence, this study seek to gather basic data about the
current state of self-build housing development and its effects on sustainable land
use planning, so as to uncover the challenges associated with self-build housing
development upon the strategies taken by stakeholders to ensure sustainable land
use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi. This document is an instrument for my master
thesis on the topic: self-build housing and land use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis, Ghana.
The results of this survey and the subsequent discussions at any follow-up
meeting will be kept confidential. Meanwhile, there are no “correct” or “wrong”
answers. You are also assured of privacy and anonymity of all the information
157
that you will give. Thus, feel free to give me credible information to ensure the
success of this research. Your contribution is of much relevance for this study and
all persons or institutions interested in land use planning and housing
development in Ghana.
(a) Roles of your institution
1. What is the name of your institution?
2. What are the functions of your institution in the land use planning and
management in Sekondi-Takoradi?
3. What processes do your institution use to execute its mandated functions?
4. Are the specified roles/functions over ambitious?
5. What challenges do your institution face in executing their functions in
relation to self-build activities in the study area?
(b) Human Resources
1. How is your institution structured?
2. How many members constitute the total staff strength of the institution?
3. Are you satisfied with the staff strength at your disposal? Give reasons.
4. Do the staff complain about their salary? Give account.
5. Are there some incentives aside the basic salary that the staffs earn? If
Yes, give account.
6. Using a rating scale of very high, through high, normal, low and to very
low; specify the performance of your staff. What are your reasons?
(c) Finance
1. How is your institution financed/funded?
158
2. Are your funds enough to carrying out your operations? Provide reasons
for your response.
(d) Logistics
1. What are some of the logistics that your institution uses in its operations?
2. Does the condition of the logistics affect the quality of your performance?
If Yes, specify your reasons?
(e) Institutional Co-operation/Collaboration
1. Which other institutions do your outfit co-operate with to ensure orderly
development of land and growth of self-build housing delivery in SekondiTakoradi?
2. What services does your institution offer in such collaboration?
3. What are the challenges associated with such institutional collaboration?
(f) Services
1. What services does your institution provide to the general public?
2. To what extent do self-build housing developers in the metropolis
patronise your services? Give account.
3. Do your services involve the public in its processes? Give account.
4. What is the situation of bureaucracy, bribery and corruption in your
institution in undertaking their functions?
(g) Strategies
 What measures do your institution employ in ensuring sustainable selfbuild housing delivery with respect to the existing land use plans in the
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis?
159
(h) Challenges
1. Does your institution encounter any problem in the implementation of
sustainable land use plans in the metropolis?
2. If Yes, what challenges affects your institution with respect to land
planning and management?
3. Does the way some self-build housing development is carried out affect
your activities? Give specific accounts.
(i) Way forward
 What recommendations would you make in reference to self-build
development and its effects of land use planning in the Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis.
160
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ASSEMBLY MEMBERS OF SEKONDITAKORADI METROPOLIS
Date of interview:
Place of interview:
Name of interviewer:
Gender of interviewee:
Position / title of interviewee:
Locality:
Introduction
Support for self-build housing development in Ghana has received little
attention by government and institutions causing majority of Ghanaians to provide
their own housing facilities. Hence, this study seek to gather basic data about the
current state of self-build housing development and its effects on sustainable land
use planning, so as to uncover the challenges associated with self-build housing
development upon the strategies taken by stakeholders to ensure sustainable land
use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi. This document is an instrument for my master
thesis on the topic: self-build housing and land use planning in Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis, Ghana.
The results of this survey and the subsequent discussions at any follow-up
meeting will be kept confidential. Meanwhile, there are no “correct” or “wrong”
161
answers. You are also assured of privacy and anonymity of all the information
that you will give. Thus, feel free to give me credible information to ensure the
success of this research. Your contribution is of much relevance for this study and
all persons or institutions interested in land use planning and housing
development in Ghana.
1. How long have you lived here?
2. Who are the custodians of this land?
3. Do you have any interactions with any of the planning authorities in the
metropolis?
4. Are you aware of the land use plans for this community? Give reasons.
5. Do you think land allocations in this area have achieved it intended
purposes?
6. What problems do you face in regulating self-build activities in your
locality?
7. Are you happy with the arrangement of self-build houses in your
community? Why?
8. What challenges do self-build housing development pose to the local
landscape?
9. What sanctions are being given to those who build at unauthorised
locations?
10. What are the measures used in addressing the issue of self-build
development and land use planning in your area?
162
APPENDIX D
OBSERVATION CHECKLIST
Date Time
Locality/Area
Name of item observed
163
Instrument used
APPENDIX E
KMO and Bartlett’s Test for the nineteen (19) variables
Kaiser-Meyer-Ojkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
Approximate Chi-Square
0.782
982.807
Bartlett‟s Test of Sphericity df
171
Significance
0.000
Source: Data Analysis (2016)
164
APPENDIX F
ETHICAL CLEARANCE FROM UCC
165
APPENDIX G
Introductory letter from the Department of Geography and Regional
Planning
166