The importance of housing cannot be overemphasized as it plays a crucial role in meeting one of the basic needs of man [1] [2] , which is sheltering him from the day’s stress and protecting him from harm [3] [4] . Housing is the construction of shelter as spaces where people live individually or collectively [5] . Housing refers to dwellings provided for people [6] . It is a basic human need and human right as it plays a vital role in shaping the quality of life for individuals, families, and communities at large [7] . The main types of houses include single-family houses, condominiums, manufactured houses, housing cooperatives, and apartment buildings or complexes, among others [8] [9] . Housing is the basis of stability for individuals and families, the centre of our social, emotional, and economic lives; a place to live in peace, security, and dignity [10] . It is a place that gives shelter, provides safety of lives and property, and a place to sleep after a hard day’s work [11] [12] . Furthermore, housing is central to the realization of the global development goals as set out in the suite of global agreements signed in 2015 -16, including most significantly, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Agenda 2030, particularly SDG11 to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable [13] .

Building or constructing houses for residents in an area (whether urban or rural) is one thing, affording same is another. More recently, residents grapple with challenges faced trying to pay rents among other daily needs that are to be met. This forms the basis of this study as individuals and families, especially low and medium-income earners are faced with housing affordability issues in Asaba, a growing metropolis in southern Nigeria.

Affordable housing is that which is adequate in quality and location and is not too expensive that it prohibits its occupants from meeting other basic living costs or threatens their enjoyment of the basic human rights [14] . Affordable housing is also defined as housing that is priced within the financial reach of low to middle-income earners [15] . As demonstrated in Figure 1 , high demand for housing does not meet supply which subsequently results in high rent costs and affordability issues. By implication, the total cost of housing, including maintenance and utilities, should not exceed 30% of a household’s income [16] . Furthermore, for housing to be affordable, it should be accessible concerning location, which ensures a reasonable commute and associated costs [17] . Access to safe, affordable, and stable housing is also essential for a person’s health, safety, and well-being, which should form part of housing affordability costs [18] . However, defining affordable housing comprehensively, transcends monetary and non-monetary factors, and also includes sustainability [19] . Monetarily, affordable housing means households can cover housing costs, which include rent/mortgage, maintenance, and utilities, without compromising their ability to meet other essential needs like healthcare, food, education, and so on [20] . On the other hand, non-monetary factors include the quality and safety of the housing, its accessibility to essential services, and its environmental sustainability [21] - [23] . Therefore, affordable housing should ensure households meet their basic needs, maintain a decent standard of living, and thrive in a sustainable and supportive environment [24] [25] .

However, in Asaba, the housing cost situation has reached a crisis phase. The function the city plays as the capital city of Delta State, among other functions of being a nodal town and playing host to many industries and institutions of higher learning, has caused a high demand for houses. This has attracted the invasion of quack and hungry housing marketers who act to inflate the cost of housing in the area. Today, a civil servant cannot afford to pay rent in the city, due in part to the fact that the cost of renting houses in the area is quite higher than the minimum wage. Added to these challenges is the fact that there are inbuilt costs associated with the annual rent that the housing agents add to the rents. As a result of these added costs, the agents (housing marketers) find a way to instigate the landlords to increase rent annually. When an existing tenant fails to pay, the agent brings in another tenant and collects another kickback. This circle has continued for years and does not seem to be abating soon. Currently, low and middle-income earners can hardly afford a decent accommodation in the city. This forces these workers to rent houses in the peripheral areas or some cases, adjoining villages. This has its challenges for the occupants, who have to travel very far distances to and from work daily, with the attendant costs and risks [27] .

Generally, there have been very scant studies on housing affordability in Delta State and Asaba. The thinking herein is that there are local socio-cultural peculiarities affecting the housing market in the area in contrast to another area. However, Ozabor et al. [27] attempted an investigation into the housing challenges in Asaba, however, their focus was on the rent costs only. Cascading from the above, the questions that come to mind include; what are the factors contributing to housing affordability issues in Asaba? What is the impact of housing affordability issues on residents of Asaba particularly low-income households? And what policy options could address the housing affordability crisis in Asaba? Thus, this study aimed to assess the Housing Affordability Issues in Asaba. And the objectives are to: identify the factors contributing to housing affordability issues in Asaba, to explore the impact of housing affordability issues on residents of Asaba, particularly low-income households, and to propose policy recommendations to address the housing affordability crisis in Asaba.

Housing affordability is a significant challenge in urban centres, particularly in rapidly growing cities such as Asaba, Nigeria. The data from Table 2 presents various factors contributing to housing affordability issues, including land and construction costs, limited access to mortgage financing, and government policies. This discussion interprets the findings to existing literature to provide a comprehensive understanding of the problem. The results indicate that 81.9% of respondents (SA = 32.2%, A = 49.7%) believe that high land costs hinder housing affordability, with a weighted mean (WM) of 3.0. This aligns with research by Muoneke [66] , who identified land speculation and inflation as primary factors driving housing unaffordability in urban areas. Similarly, Otundo-Richard [30] found that land tenure systems in Nigeria contribute to inflated land prices, making it difficult for low- and middle-income earners to acquire property.

A substantial 89.5% of respondents agreed that the increasing cost of construction materials and labour exacerbates housing unaffordability (WM = 3.3). Inflation and Nigeria’s heavy dependence on imported construction materials drive the price of new home construction in Nigeria, as shown by research by Chiwuzie and Dabara [67] . Soni et al. [68] also argue in the same vein that local material consumption should be encouraged to keep these costs in check.

The data shows that 98% of respondents identified limited access to housing finance as a major constraint (WM = 3.3). This supports findings by Owotemu and Kale [69] , who noted that high-interest rates, strict collateral requirements, and the underdevelopment of the mortgage sector hinder homeownership in Nigeria. Expanding access to affordable mortgage financing is essential for improving housing affordability [70] . Approximately 75.9% of respondents agreed that regulatory policies increase housing costs (WM = 3.0). Research by Saiz [71] highlights that excessive taxes, zoning laws, and stringent development regulations create artificial housing shortages and up costs. The Nigerian housing sector is similarly burdened by lengthy approval processes and high transaction fees [72] .

Real estate speculation emerged as a significant factor, with 97.2% agreement among respondents (WM = 3.5). Frayne et al. [73] argue that speculative investments distort the housing market by inflating prices beyond the reach of average citizens. This phenomenon is prevalent in urban centres where property is often used as an investment vehicle rather than for residential purposes. Insufficient supply of affordable housing, with a WM of 2.8, 69.1% of respondents agreed that housing supply fails to meet demand. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme [74] confirms that African cities often struggle to keep pace with rapid urbanization, resulting in housing shortages. To address this, public-private partnerships (PPPs) and mass housing initiatives should be promoted [75] .

While 52.8% of respondents disagreed that low incomes are a primary barrier to housing affordability (WM = 2.4), the relationship between earnings and housing costs remains crucial. Stone [76] introduced the “residual income approach,” which suggests that housing should be considered affordable only if individuals have sufficient income left after housing expenses. However, 74.4% of respondents agreed that urbanization contributes to rising housing costs (WM = 2.9. The findings are consistent with Joseph et al. [77] , who state that population influx leads to increased housing demand and price surges. Urban planning strategies that incorporate mixed-income housing developments could help alleviate these pressures.

A significant 79.2% of respondents acknowledged that high rental prices contribute to housing unaffordability (WM = 3.1). Research by Aiken et al. [78] suggests that rent control policies and rental assistance programs can provide relief to low-income households. The strongest consensus among respondents (100%) was on the lack of government support for affordable housing (WM = 3.7). Umana et al. [79] emphasize that government intervention through subsidies, land allocation, and social housing programs is essential for addressing affordability challenges.

To compare respondents’ the spatial perceptions of factors making homes affordable in Asaba, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used ( Table 3 ). The results show that there were no significant factors at (p > 0.05), implying that there were no spatial differences in perception that were significant among the three groups of respondents. The p-value for the high cost of land was 0.07, which is higher than the standard significance level of 0.05, and the chi-square (χ²) was 2.1. This shows that there is no variation in spatial categories in opinions regarding the cost of land as a limiting factor for the affordability of homes. In concert with previous research, the identical outcome that land cost is an issue plaguing all areas equally, regardless of geography, is borne out here. Once more, the increase in construction material and labour costs was associated with a chi-square of 3.1 and a p-value of 0.08. Statistically, it does not matter, though it’s higher than some other things. It appears as if all the city cares about are the price. Previous studies have also indicated the fact that material and labour costs affect home affordability [80] .

Perceived access to home finance is not highly differentiated by spatial location, as indicated by a chi-square value of 2.4 and a p-value of 0.14. The finding is similar to a study conducted by Ghani [81] , who equally concluded that the availability of mortgages is a problem across Nigeria and not in any specific location. A chi-squared value of 2.5 and a p-value of 0.12 were found for government policies, taxes, and regulations as a perception of home unaffordability. It appears that people from all over the world have the same sentiment when it comes to government intervention. Consistent with previous literature [82] , the results show that regulatory issues in housing policy impact all geographies in the same manner. A chi-square value of 1.5 and a p-value of 0.06 was found when real estate speculation’s role was examined in the context of investment.

This means that the impact of real estate speculation is still not statistically significant. This finding contradicts those results which show that speculation impacts centre metropolitan areas more compared to peripheral metropolitan areas, such as the work of Gemeda et al. [83] . Surprisingly, there is no considerable regional variation in the perception of supply shortages of affordable housing, with a chi-square statistic of 1.9 and a p-value of 0.19. Similarly, research by Haffner and Hulse [84] indicates that all cities are impacted to more or less the same extent by the shortage of affordable housing. Low-income levels received a chi-square value of 1.1 and a p-value of 0.21, reinforcing the idea that financial constraints are a widespread issue rather than a spatially dependent one. This aligns with findings by Ezennia [85] , who highlighted income levels as a critical barrier to home ownership across Nigeria.

The effect of rapid urbanization and population growth had a chi-square value of 3.2 and a p-value of 0.10, remaining statistically insignificant. While urban expansion has been linked to housing shortages [86] , this study suggests that residents in different areas perceive the challenge in a relatively uniform manner. High cost of renting with a chi-square value of 1.6 and a p-value of 0.14, rental costs were not perceived differently across spatial locations. This supports the conclusions of Morris et al. [87] , who found that rental affordability is a general challenge across different urban areas. The government’s role in affordable housing development had a chi-square value of 1.9 and a p-value of 0.16, indicating no significant spatial perception differences. This corroborates findings by Eja and Ramegowda [88] , who noted that limited government intervention is seen as a general problem in Nigeria.

Generally, Kruskal-Wallis test results suggest that the perception of factors contributing to housing affordability issues in Asaba does not differ significantly across spatial groups. This indicates that these challenges are perceived as city-wide issues rather than problems affecting specific locations. The findings align with existing literature, which highlights these factors as prevalent in urban housing markets across Nigeria and other developing economies. Future research could explore whether variations exist at finer geographic scales or when additional socio-demographic variables are considered.

The findings from Table 4 highlight significant challenges faced by residents of Asaba due to housing affordability issues. These findings align with global and regional studies on the socio-economic impacts of housing unaffordability. A majority of respondents (78.9%) agreed that housing affordability issues have forced many residents to live in overcrowded conditions. Overcrowding is a common consequence of high housing costs, as families often share accommodations to reduce expenses [74] . Similar trends have been observed in other urban centres, where the lack of affordable housing pushes low-income residents into high-density living arrangements [89] . On the other hand, the results indicate that 74.1% of respondents experience financial stress due to high housing costs. Financial strain resulting from housing expenses can reduce disposable income, limiting access to healthcare, education, and savings for the future [76] . Studies in Nigerian cities, including Lagos and Abuja, corroborate that high housing costs significantly impact residents’ economic stability [90] . A substantial portion of respondents (89.2%) acknowledged that they spend a large share of their income on rent or mortgage payments, leaving little for other necessities. This mirrors the housing cost burden threshold defined by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [91] , which states that households spending more than 30% of income on housing are cost-burdened. In Nigerian urban areas, this is exacerbated by rising inflation and stagnant wages [92] .

About 65.1% of respondents agreed that many residents resort to informal settlements due to unaffordable housing. This trend is also noted in studies on urban housing in sub-Saharan Africa, where informal settlements emerge as a coping mechanism [93] . Previous research has shown that the failure of the government to provide houses in Asaba exacerbates the problem [94] . In accordance with escalating housing prices, 77.2% of households have shifted to more underdeveloped neighbourhoods, according to the survey. Housing fees have been set to rise with urban sprawl and peri-urban migration patterns, according to several studies [95] . Asaba’s peripheral settlements are growing rapidly, often lacking adequate infrastructure and social services, which further affects residents’ quality of life. Approximately 75.3% of respondents believe that limited access to affordable housing has negatively affected their quality of life. Literature suggests that inadequate housing is associated with stress, poor health, and lower overall well-being [96] . Asaba’s case aligns with findings in other African urban centres, where limited access to quality housing impacts social and economic well-being [18] . The survey results indicate that 60% of respondents experience reduced financial security due to high housing costs. Similar findings have been reported in housing affordability studies in Nigeria and other developing countries [40] . The inability to save limits economic mobility and resilience against financial shocks. Homelessness due to high housing costs was acknowledged by 63.3% of respondents. Studies have shown that housing affordability is a major determinant of homelessness [97] . Without targeted policy interventions, homelessness in Asaba may continue to rise, similar to trends observed in rapidly urbanizing African cities [94] .

About 77.7% of respondents reported that they have had to take on additional jobs or loans to afford housing. Findings that report that housing costs can put people in a precarious financial position are consistent with this [98] . Nigerian microfinance banks have attempted to help by offering small housing loans, but unfortunately, they are not affordable for everyone [99] . A notable percentage of the respondents (33.9%) reported that their health and happiness have been impacted by the inability to afford good housing. Poor housing is associated with mental and physical illnesses, as noted by research. Poor health in the impoverished neighbourhoods is exacerbated by poor ventilation, congestion, and filthy living conditions [100] .

Findings of Table 4 align with what has been established in the literature heretofore regarding the effects of home affordability among residents. Unaffordable housing makes people financially stressed, with a reduced quality of life, and more likely to be homeless, according to studies [37] . Furthermore, there is ample evidence that the government has no choice but to intervene when it comes to tackling the issue of affordability in Nigeria’s urban housing (Sunday et al., 2021). Just like other large cities, Asaba is experiencing a critical deficiency of affordable housing [74] .

Table 5 displays the findings of the Kruskal-Wallis test, and these findings show how responses from the respondents to the question of the impact of residential affordability issues on Asaba residents vary geographically. The impacts of residential affordability vary in terms of statistical significance by geographical areas.

Several housing-related effects display that there are widespread spatial disparities. One of the indicators that perceptions of overcrowding vary across Asaba’s regions is crowded living conditions (χ² = 4.1, p = 0.05). This accords with previous research that laid down that high population density of slums and urban informal settlements is a result of the exorbitant cost of housing [74] .

Secondly, a large difference exists in housing affordability between the central city and periphery, as seen through people relocating to far or underdeveloped areas (χ² = 6.7, p = 0.02). Großmann et al. [101] found that low-income people are forced to live on the outskirts of cities due to housing affordability issues, making them spend more time traveling and socially disconnecting them. Quality of life is also significantly determined by the lack of affordable housing (χ² = 7.3, p = 0.04). Lower living standards, for instance, lower access to healthcare, education, and employment, have been associated with housing affordability [18] . Additionally, the financial stress of the residents is also highlighted by their inability to save money because of high housing expenditure (χ² = 8.9, p = 0.00). Unnecessary high expenditure on housing consumes disposable income, thus undermining economic stability and stability in the long run, as indicated by studies [76] .

There is a significant relationship between homelessness and affordability of housing (χ² = 12.1, p = 0.00), another main finding. The literature confirms that increasing housing costs and lack of affordable housing are important determinants of homelessness in cities, which supports this statement [102] .

On the other hand, there are a few pieces of data that do not show comparatively dissimilar results depending on where you glance. These include mortgage costs taking a large proportion of household income (χ² = 2.9, p = 0.07), having to borrow money or work extra hours to make ends meet (χ² = 2.5, p = 0.08), and overall financial strain as a result of not being able to afford the cost of housing (χ² = 2.1, p = 0.25). The fact that none of these characteristics reached statistical significance indicates that the issue of affordable housing is not limited to any one section of Asaba, but rather it is present across the whole area. This agrees with the observation of Rodríguez-Pose and Storper [103] that finance-related barriers to housing are experienced by urban citizens at large. Perceived effects of housing affordability on wellbeing and health (χ² = 1.4, p = 0.15) and being forced to live in informal or inadequate housing (χ² = 1.8, p = 0.31) also are not statistically significantly different between regions. Based on the body of evidence regarding housing disparities in new urbanising cities, this means unhealthy housing environments and related health problems are widespread across the city [15] .

There is consistency between the Kruskal-Wallis test findings and the general body of literature on the effects of housing affordability on the population of developing cities. The issues that accompany affordable housing are complex and vary in intensity depending on one’s location within a city, according to research by Adedeji [74] . Current research connecting housing costs to urban migration patterns is supported by the prevalence of issues like homelessness, financial insecurity, and migration to less affluent areas [104] .

On the other hand, affordability problems are widespread instead of being concentrated in any one place, considering that some of the economic-related stresses, such as financial strain and severe rental burdens, were not statistically significant. This observation is consistent with that of Stone [76] , who posits that middle-income groups are not immune to the effects of housing affordability problems, although they are more pronounced among low-income communities.

Table 6 shows the results of a range of housing marketing campaigns in Asaba and their effect on the cost of housing. It is unclear whether e-marketing has had any effect on housing affordability, even though it has been tried and tested in the sector (WM = 2.9). Asaba marketing businesses are making use of internet marketing approaches, including social media advertising, on a large percentage of the respondents (42%). With 42% strongly disagreeing and 31.7% disagreeing (WM = 2.0), the reaction was mostly unfavourable when asked whether these internet marketing approaches have increased affordability or lowered rent prices. It would appear that digital marketing has the potential to make property information more accessible, but not necessarily make properties more affordable. The Asaba findings indicate that digital marketing interventions have not been utilized effectively to address affordability, which contrasts with evidence elsewhere where digital marketing has been established to reduce transaction costs and increase market efficiency [105] . Reasons behind such a gap may lie in obstinate economic issues like high-priced real estate and low purchasing power that advertising cannot resolve.

Equally, the use of flexible payment options by developers as a tool for luring in tenants received low levels of agreement (WM = 1.9), wherein 36.4% of them disapproved and 40.5% strongly disagreed. It might be that people are simply not interested in having flexible payment arrangements because, despite them being in existence, not everybody has ready access to them or their benefits easily. Although Asaba statistics show that such strategies have not done much to enhance affordability, a study by [27] shows that flexible payment terms can increase homeownership rates, especially in developing markets. And with 48.5% strongly disagreeing and 42.5% disagreeing (WM = 1.6), there is no doubt that promotional discounts and mortgage incentives have contributed little to nothing to the housing affordability of Asaba. In areas of high-cost development with limited access to mortgages, incentives can stimulate short-term sales, but they do not solve the issue of affordability or its causes [106] . Virtual property tours and online listings also trend in the same direction, where 43.7% strongly disagree and 42.7% disagree that house hunting has been facilitated by such developments (WM = 1.8). Despite the extensive use of internet resources in property markets across the world [107] , there seems to have been no or minimal impact from them in Asaba. This could be due to a lack of extensive penetration among property firms, insufficient proper listings, or poor digital literacy.

Luckily, there was a slight improvement in concurrence (WM = 2.6) towards real estate firms’ focused advertising efforts on first-time homebuyers, with 25.1% strongly concurring and 25.4% concurring. That some Asaba agencies are attempting to acquire new clients is a welcome development, but the success of these efforts remains to be seen. Tually et al. [108] found that homebuyer levels have risen in similar areas after utilizing targeted marketing strategies such as rent-to-own arrangements and government-supported financing. Outcomes indicate that online promotions, payment plans, and discounted promotions are housing marketing strategies for Asaba, yet they did not significantly improve affordability.

These findings are consistent with current evidence in the literature that structural interventions in the form of housing financing reforms, policy incentives, and cost-reducing measures are required to make housing more visible and accessible [109] . To raise the effectiveness of Asaba’s housing marketing, builders and policymakers are required to participate in integrating innovative marketing strategies with economic practicability options like subsidized home mortgages and government-promoted housing programs. Table 7 reveals the result of which policy changes Asaba’s residents think will help the affordability of housing. The results indicate that there is a high level of agreement on which is the best method through which housing would become affordable, and it is by implementing public-private partnerships, rent control, government subsidies, and locally made building materials.

A lesser level of agreement was reported for policy reactions like urban development upgrades and land use legislation reforms, reflecting doubt over whether they could help with affordability. The weighted mean (WM) for government assistance towards low-income housing was 2.9, and 46.5% of the respondents expressed the view that the policies would make housing more affordable. This aligns with research that shows low-income workers can have a considerable decrease in their financial load by experiencing direct government intervention in housing subsidies [110] . Similarly, with 48.5% of the participants concurring that rent control measures would avoid excessive rent rises, rent control schemes received widespread support (WM = 3.0).

Rent control has been discovered to stabilize rental markets in some research, while other studies have shown that it discourages the construction of new housing, sparking a fierce debate in the economic literature [111] .

There was moderate support for the increase in access to mortgage financing (WM = 2.7), with 32.2% agreeing and 23.1% disagreeing. Becoming a homeowner is one of the many alternatives available, which can be made possible through accessing a mortgage, but the same is not possible in emerging markets due to high interest rates and tight lending terms [112] . Since 38.7 percent strongly believed that PPPs could enhance the supply of affordable housing, public-private partnerships (PPPs) were highly supported (WM = 3.0).

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have improved the delivery of houses in most countries [109] . With 40.5% strongly disagreeing and 34.7% disagreeing, there was broad disagreement regarding the need to tighten land-use legislation (WM = 2.0). This may be on account of fears that too stringent regulations and zoning requirements will drive up the cost of development instead of minimizing it [113] .

Similarly, some disagreement (33.2%) existed concerning the idea of augmented government spending on infrastructure (WM = 2.5). Development of infrastructure may raise land prices as well as housing prices, even though it improves accessibility and liveability [114] . With 42.5% of the respondents concurring, there was uniform acceptance of facilitating the use of locally derived building materials (WM = 3.0). Foreign material dependency can significantly lower building costs and increase affordability, especially as indicated by research [115] . This approach aligns with that report. In addition to lowering the cost of transportation and encouraging local businesses, the use of locally derived materials can allow the economy to survive.

Tax incentives to developers were only weakly supported (WM = 2.7), suggesting that the respondents view them as a viable solution and not a perfect one. Research has shown that tax incentives and rebates can be used to promote affordable housing development; however, such programs need to be well-designed so as not to create unintended effects like market distortions [116] . Housing cooperative establishment also had a moderate WM of 2.6, with 36.9% agreeing. Because they enable people with lower incomes to band together and participate in affordable housing projects, housing cooperatives have experienced positive results in some areas [117] .

Overall, the findings suggest that Asaba residents support a combination of market-oriented interventions (public-private partnerships, tax incentives), cost-cutting strategies (local materials), and direct government intervention (subsidies, rent control) to address housing affordability. Land use controls and urban planning enhancements are instances of regulatory reforms, but their effectiveness remains contentious. These findings are consistent with global research that has demonstrated that to overcome the housing affordability crisis, what is required is a mix of public and private initiatives, along with intelligent regulatory reforms [118] - [120] .

The unaffordability of mortgage loans, construction materials, government regulations, and land are all factors that have led to Asaba, Nigeria’s severe housing unaffordability. The results are in agreement with past research that has shown that speculation on land and the structures of tenure are factors that increase the price of land, making it hard for low- and middle-income earners to buy property. Excessive reliance on imported materials and inflation are both driving up building costs, and thus, houses are becoming unaffordable. Real estate speculation, regulatory hurdles, and the absence of adequate encouragement from the government are all pinpointed as key constraining factors to affordable housing in the report. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test support that the issues are experienced equally across different geographical groups, further establishing their widespread influence, though with differences in socio-economic and geographical settings. Shortage of housing, economic difficulties, and migration to less developed areas are some of the socio-economic effects of housing that people experience, thus influencing their standard of living.

The majority of the residents are financially squeezed and have to take out loans or hold second jobs just to make ends meet. In addition to making them more vulnerable to homelessness and having a negative influence on health and well-being, housing affordability contributes to this financial squeeze. Overcrowding and displacement because of prohibitively expensive prices are identified by the spatial analysis, and differences in housing conditions across different areas are also uncovered. Alternatives have been suggested, such as electronic marketing and simple payment schemes, but they were not shown to be very effective. Public-private partnerships, rent control, and government subsidies are preferred policy programs. Government subsidies, rent control, easier mortgages, and public-private investment are all policy measures that can be used to solve these problems. Future research should evaluate the efficacy of current legislative actions in providing long-term housing solutions in Asaba and other major cities, as well as examine how different perceptions of affordability by population can vary.

The recommendations of this study suggest that the government should tackle the problem of the excessive interest rates and collateral to be paid for a mortgage. Low- and middle-income earners can afford a home if mortgage institutions are made strong, subsidized loans are offered, and microfinance housing schemes are promoted. The second reason why politicians must campaign for the use of locally sourced sustainable materials is due to the skyrocketing cost of construction materials and labour. Use of cheaper options, developing the capacity of construction workers to improve productivity, and tax breaks for local material manufacturers can achieve this. The government must also reduce bureaucratic barriers to land acquisition, establish PPPs for mass housing projects, and incentivize or subsidize affordable housing builders to make housing more affordable. To reduce housing costs overall, regulatory reforms must aim at simplifying approval procedures and reducing unnecessary taxes. Lower housing loans must be made available through microfinance institutions and government programs, since 77.7% of them had taken additional jobs or loans to finance housing. To alleviate financial pressure and increase homeownership rates, more affordable sources of mortgage financing with more flexible payment terms and lower interest rates must be made available.

In addition, subsidies by the government, rent control, and public-private partnership all received massive support by respondents indicating that when applied, it could alleviate the housing provision in the area. As such low-income families ought to have housing subsidies, rent control laws to maintain housing costs constant, and public-private partnerships to enhance affordable houses construction all become priorities of the government. Construction costs can also be cut down by encouraging the use of locally manufactured building materials.

Policies should be set to enhance the quality of housing because 33.9% of the respondents have reported adverse effects on their health due to housing of poor quality. Subsidized housing should be regulated in such a way that it has proper ventilation, sanitation, and crowd control. Housing prices being too high in the central area can be reduced by investing in urban infrastructure like transport and utilities, thereby making the peripheral areas attractive.