Under international human rights law, and as defined by UN-Habitat and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), adequate housing means more than just a roof over one’s head. It is a fundamental human right that provides the conditions necessary for a safe, healthy and dignified life.
According to the core features of adequate housing established by UN-Habitat and international guidelines, a home is only considered “adequate” if it meets the following seven key criteria:
Security of tenure: Occupants have legal protection against forced evictions, harassment or other threats. Homeowners should not be afraid that their houses will be compulsorily or forcibly acquired without adequate and prompt compensation being paid, either by the government or by land grabbers.
Availability of services and infrastructure: Homes must have continuous access to safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, energy for lighting, cooking and heating, washing facilities and refuse disposal.
Affordability: Housing costs must not compromise or threaten the occupants’ ability to enjoy other basic human rights, such as food, education and healthcare. This is typically measured by ensuring that net housing costs do not exceed 30% of household income. However, this 30% rule is debatable when applied to low-paid workers and people at the lowest income percentile, as we have in Nigeria, where the minimum wage is N70,000 per month. A person earning this amount would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to secure adequate housing without compromising other basic necessities of life.
Habitability: The structure must provide physical safety, adequate space and protection from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind and other health hazards and structural risks. Houses should not suffer perennial flooding, and their access roads must be motorable.
Accessibility: Housing must account for and accommodate the specific needs of disadvantaged and marginalised groups, including the elderly, children and people with disabilities. Developed countries like the United Kingdom and the United States of America are using Mobility as a Service (MaaS) to improve accessibility in housing areas by ensuring that all parts of towns are accessible in real time through trains, ferries and buses.
Location: Homes must allow access to employment opportunities, healthcare services, schools, libraries, childcare centres and other social facilities, such as markets and recreational areas.
Cultural adequacy: The way housing is constructed and the building materials used must enable the expression of cultural identity and diversity. Adequate housing must be connected to the culture of the people who use it.
The human right to adequate housing
Under international law, to be adequately housed means having secure tenure — not having to worry about being evicted or having one’s home or land taken away by force. Adequate housing is the foundation for creating sustainable communities and human settlements. It enables people to be productive and to access other basic necessities of life.
In modern parlance, adequate housing is not the same as housing equilibrium. It is generally measured by the Adequate Housing Index (AHI). A government does not achieve adequate housing in a community merely when the stock of available houses (housing supply) is equal to the required housing units (housing demand).
The World Bank Adequate Housing Index (AHI) is a micro-founded methodological framework used to measure and compare housing deficits across emerging economies.
The World Bank’s research on housing deficits across emerging economies provides an important framework for understanding the scale of the housing challenge. Among the key findings reported in the study are the following:
– Deficit scale: Across a study of 64 emerging economies, there is a total housing deficit of 268 million housing units, affecting 1.26 billion people.
– Stock inadequacy: About 26% of the existing housing stock in these economies is classified as inadequate.
– Future projections: At least 40 million additional housing units will need to be constructed by 2030 to bridge the gap and keep up with population growth and urbanisation.
The seven adequacy dimensions
The AHI evaluates housing conditions based on seven constant dimensions harmonised from national household expenditure and consumption surveys:
– Improved water: Access score of 0.941.
– Electricity: Access score of 0.876.
– Tenure security: Access score of 0.782.
– Living space: Access score of 0.657.
– Sanitation: Access score of 0.575.
– Durable material: Access score of 0.520.
– Clean cooking: Access score of 0.443.
Purpose and application of this adequate housing estimation method
– Policy guidance: Helps governments and urban planners pinpoint critical infrastructure gaps and prioritise regional investments.
– Disparity analysis: Highlights wide gaps within countries across different income brackets, urban and rural locations, and occupations.
While the AHI provides a useful framework for measuring housing inadequacy through access to essential services and other physical attributes, there is another important dimension that deserves attention: the actual utilities householders derive from their homes. Housing adequacy should not be assessed solely by the number of houses available or the physical conditions of those houses. It should also consider whether the houses meet the needs and preferences of the people who occupy them, particularly in terms of location, accessibility and proximity to essential services.
Due to the immobility of houses, I propose that housing adequacy in quantitative terms should be measured by ensuring that the number of available housing units in a community exceeds the identified housing requirement by at least 5% of the total housing stock. This additional provision will serve as a buffer against vacancies, changing household needs and other unforeseen circumstances.
However, having sufficient housing units in a community does not necessarily mean that adequate housing has been achieved. The location of those houses and the utilities they provide are equally important. This is particularly evident when household preferences and the reasons people choose or reject particular homes are examined.
In recent research conducted by a firm of construction and project managers on the utilities derived from housing by householders in New York, USA; London, England; Accra, Ghana; and Lagos, Nigeria, it was found that 33% of respondents in New York were living in houses that were not their preferred choices but were the best they could find or settle for in the meantime. In London, 37% of respondents would prefer another home closer to their places of work, their children’s schools, the train station, or a combination of these. In Ghana, 48% said they would prefer another home if they had the means, while the figure was 63% in Lagos.
These findings reinforce the argument that the adequacy of housing cannot be determined simply by the availability of completed housing units. People may occupy houses because they have no better alternatives, even when those houses do not meet their preferences in terms of location, cost, accessibility and facilities.
Housing is not an end in itself. Its quality depends on the utilities derived from it! That is why a two-bedroom flat and a one-bedroom flat in the same vicinity may offer the same utilities to a single man. After all, he is not going to sleep in two rooms at the same time. Adequate housing is not achieved when people cannot find accommodation where it is needed while completed, unoccupied houses remain in the outskirts of the town.
Houses must be provided at the exact locations where they are needed. This requires proper housing-needs assessment, spatial planning and infrastructure mapping. Planning and project-management tools such as Critical Path Analysis (CPA) and Critical Path Mapping (CPM) can also assist in coordinating the activities, infrastructure provision and timelines required to deliver housing projects in the locations where they are most needed.
Quantitative adequate housing is not defined by having the exact number of units required by the people of an area. Almost all the respondents in the study above would prefer to have accommodation near one feature or another, or to ‘run’ away from distractions or disturbances in their present accommodation.
Some householders are managing with the houses they currently occupy because they do not see better alternatives in terms of cost, location and facilities.
When people live in a house simply because they have no other alternatives, that is not adequate housing. Adequate housing should be a bundle of joy, and home should be where the heart is.
Governments that desire to provide adequate housing must therefore look beyond the mere provision of housing units. They must ensure that houses are available in the locations where people need them, that they provide the necessary utilities and that they meet the actual needs of their occupants. In addition, I propose that governments provide at least 5% above identified housing needs as a quantitative buffer. This will help accommodate changing household needs and unforeseen demand while ensuring that housing provision is not merely about numbers, but about delivering adequate homes that promote safe, healthy and dignified living.Â
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.comÂ
Olufemi Adedamola Oyedele, MPhil. in Construction Management, managing director/CEO, Fame Oyster & Co. Nigeria, is an expert in real estate investment, a registered estate surveyor and valuer, and an experienced construction project manager. He can be reached on +2348137564200 (text only) or femoyede@gmail.com
New dimensions to adequate housing in the world