View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Theseus

SHIPPING CONTAINER AS AN
ALTERNATIVE HOUSING
SOLUTION

Case Study Lagos, Nigeria.

Lukmon Abiodun Balogun

Bachelor’s thesis
May 2018
Degree Programme in
Environmental Engineering
ABSTRACT

Tampereen ammattikorkeakoulu
Tampere University of Applied Sciences
Degree Programme in Environmental Engineering

AUTHOR: Lukmon Abiodun Balogun

Shipping Container as an Alternative Housing Solution: Case Study Lagos, Nigeria.

Bachelor's thesis 62 pages, appendices 18 pages.

May 2018

The ever-growing population of Lagos state, Nigeria has brought a challenge in housing
which has resulted in a housing deficit of 5 million people in Lagos and 17 million on a
national scale. An alternative solution of using habitable shipping container homes to
support the construction capacity of conventional construction method that lacks the ca-
pacity to the deliver the annual required number of houses, is readily available but not
common to many Lagos residents as they are familiar with temporary shipping container
structures such as kiosk, site offices and emergency shelters.

This study was set out to understand the perspective, concerns and requirements in using
shipping containers as an alternative solution in providing affordable and decent housing
from a societal point of view of low and middle-income earners majorly affected by prom-
inent housing deficit within Lagos and also the viability of the alternative solution for
tropical region like Lagos in terms of cost, quality, and affordability when compared to
conventional building methods.

The result shows that the choice of Lagos resident in accepting shipping container homes
as alternative is not dependent on their educational background, age, or income, rather it
is more societal status issue where people will accept what is commonly used by the so-
ciety at large. Recommendations where made on how best to deliver this shipping con-
tainer alternative home to Lagos residents and how Lagos state government can also sup-
port in the implementation.

Key words: shipping container homes, low and middle-income earners, housing deficit,
 3

CONTENTS

1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 5

1.2 Background ................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Problem Statement ..................................................................................... 6
1.4 Objective of the Study ............................................................................... 7
1.5 Aim and scope of the study........................................................................ 8
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 9
2.1 The Contest of Low-Cost Housing in Lagos ............................................. 9
2.1.1 The Colonial Period ........................................................................ 9
2.1.2 Post-Independence Period ............................................................. 11
2.1.3 Civilian Administration Period ..................................................... 13
2.2 Lagos State Development and Property Cooperation (LSDPC) .............. 15
2.2.1 Affordability of Lagos state government houses. ......................... 18
2.2.2 Lagos state home ownership mortgage scheme ............................ 19
2.2.3 Lagos state rent to own scheme. ................................................... 24
3 SHIPPING CONTAINER AS ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY ................ 27
3.1 Brief History of Standardized Intermodal Freight Container .................. 27
3.2 Shipping Container Applications ............................................................. 30
3.3 Shipping container structural integrity..................................................... 31
3.3.1 Shipping container rust ................................................................. 32
3.3.2 Shipping container structural modification ................................... 33
3.4 Modular Building using Shipping Containers ......................................... 35
4 LOW-COST HOUSING USING SHIPPING CONTAINER IN LAGOS ..... 38
4.1 Container availability in Lagos ................................................................ 38
4.2 Comparison of container housing unit to conventional housing ............. 39
4.2.1 Cost comparison ............................................................................ 41
4.2.2 Quality comparison ....................................................................... 42
5 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 44
6 RESULT .......................................................................................................... 45
7 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 55
8 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 57
9 References ....................................................................................................... 58
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 63
Appendix 1. Thesis Questionnaire. ................................................................. 63
Appendix 2. IBM SPSS Statistics result for Age, Education, and Income
significance .............................................................................................. 69
 4

Appendix 3. IBM SPSS Statistics result for container home incentives and
social status significance .......................................................................... 78
 5

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.2 Background

Adequate housing is a significant need for human survival, and a fundamental right ac-
cording to article 25 of the United Nations human right declaration of 1948. (United Na-
tions, 2014). However, several international conventions on adequate housing as a right
as been signed and ratified by Nigeria, but Section 16 sub section 2(d) of the 1999 Con-
stitution of Nigeria provides that the State shall direct its policy towards ensuring that
suitable and adequate shelter is accessible for all citizens, which is not stated as a right ,
rather as an objective of the state, making it non-justiciable in accordance to section 6 sub
section 6(c) of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria. (Chegwe, 2014). This simply connotes
that actualization of socio-economic right of Chapter 2 of the Nigerian constitution by the
Nigerian government cannot be judicially obligated. (Diala, 2012)

The demand for affordable and adequate housing has been on the increases over the past
few years in Nigeria. In a recent housing summit held in Abuja, it was made known that
as at 1991 the housing deficit was estimated at 7 million and 17 million in 2017 which
has been a major source of concern for the Nigerian government in finding drastic solu-
tion in solving the problem. (Okafor, 2017).

Lagos state being the commercial nerve centre and also the smallest state in Nigeria shares
an estimated 5 million housing deficit which makes up 31% national estimate. This huge
amount in housing deficit as brought about many informal dwellings and settlements
within the city and as a result increase the number of slums from 42 in 1985 to over 100
as at January 2010. (Olugbenga & Ogundiran , 2013). The people affected the most by
the housing deficit are majorly the lower-middle and low-income earners of the society
who have no access to adequate housing as result of the inability to afford the financial
cost of adequate housing on the market due to the high poverty rate within the city.
(Oshodi, 2010)

There are several reasons for the increasing housing deficit in Lagos. Rapid urbanization
alongside the regular rise in population, with an estimate of 86 people moving into Lagos
per hour (Lagos State Government, 2017), has stupendously increase the population from
an estimated 11.2 million in 2011 to an estimate of over 21 million in 2016, accounting
 6

for 12% of the national estimate of 180 million in 2016 (World population review, 2017).
However, several affordable adequate housing programs has been made in the past by the
state government and in collaboration with the private sector in combating the housing
deficit challenges but all has been unable to relieve this situation as a result of low con-
struction capacity of 2 dwelling per thousand people against the required 8-10 dwellings
per 1,000 people recommended by the United nations.

It is evident that using the conventional method of building construction (brick, sandcrete
blocks and mortar) will not drastically decrease the housing deficit facing Lagos and Ni-
geria at large due to time, cost and delivery capacity of both public (government) and
private sector. However, the use of shipping container-based building technology is not
new in around the world as well as Nigeria. This solution is readily available but not
immensely in use irrespective of the terrible state of housing in Lagos. Several researches
as shown that it is possible to employ this solution in temperate region like Lagos when
properly constructed. The most common studies as regards Nigeria involves the sustain-
ability of shipping container housing (Olotu & Adebayo, 2013) from several profes-
sional’s front of view and the potential of shipping container building looking at the com-
fortability and structural integrity (Mazadu & Danraka, 2015). These studied did not con-
sider the social perspective, in terms of how the several potential residents of the container
based housing sees it.

1.3 Problem Statement

According to Akinmoladun and Oluwoye (2007), several factors influence the provision
of adequate housing in Lagos metropolis but the following are of paramount effect:

1. The limited land and acquisition obstacle

2. The lack of adequate physical planning /development control
3. High cost of building material
4. The lack of proper co-ordination of public agencies and law
5. Poor infrastructure
6. High population growth and population density.
7. Housing finance constraints
 7

Thus, the outline above shows that the housing delivery in Lagos is a political, financial
and socioeconomic issue. For these reasons, it can be inferred that there is no one size fits
it all solution in addressing all straightaway (Akinmoladun & Oluwoye , 2007).
However, the approach of solving the housing problem in Lagos over the years has fo-
cused on conventional means (brick, sandcrete blocks and mortar), it may be appropriate
to focus on how alternatives such as shipping container-based building technology which
is already available locally in Nigeria can help depreciate the housing deficit drastically
if not solve the problem.

1.4 Objective of the Study

The primary objective of this study is to research whether shipping container-based hous-
ing will be viable for the Lagos government to embark upon in collaboration with the
private sector by taking advantage of the faster construction time as compared to conven-
tional construction methods employed presently. In achieving this goal, the objectives are
divided as follows:

1. Understand the current situation of housing in Lagos as well as the challenges still
confronting housing delivery
2. Comparison of shipping container solution with conventional methods in terms of
cost, time, affordability and quality
3. Evaluate factors affecting container housing in Lagos
4. Ascertain the social acceptability of this container solution by means of public
participation.
 8

1.5 Aim and scope of the study

This research will be looking into the principal challenges in low-cost housing delivery
in Lagos and how the Lagos society will be open to a possible alternative of utilizing
shipping containers in providing affordable housing in a similar fashion in the developed
countries.

The aim of the study is to firstly, understand the perspective, concerns and requirement
in using shipping containers as an alternative solution in providing affordable and decent
housing for lower-middle and low-income earners who are majorly affected by the hous-
ing deficit within Lagos and Nigeria at large.

Secondly, the aim is to research Lagosian willingness and objections to accepting resi-
dential shipping container housing with government subsidy and possibly propose possi-
ble solutions to already available companies that sells this technology. The study was
conducted with an online questionnaire sent to a sample of resident in Lagos and analys-
ing their replies in questions concerning shipping containers as alternative housing solu-
tions.
 9

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The Contest of Low-Cost Housing in Lagos

The concept of government as provider of social amenities is a function that is on global

display, as governments all over the world are either directly or indirectly involved in the
provision of basic amenities such as roads, running water, and electricity among others.
As this research is mainly concerned with issues related to housing, it is also important to
reiterate that the provision of housing also falls under the purview of government, directly
or indirectly, as they are either in charge of enacting laws and act, the regulation and
control of housing matters, or the development and administration of housing matters
(Arimah, 1997).

The situation is no different when examining housing provision in Nigeria, as the involve-
ment of government in housing dates to the period of colonial rule in the country, and it
has continued to be under the purview of the government even after independence. It is
therefore pertinent to review the history of the involvement of government and their role
in the development and administration of housing in Nigeria. As examined by Adekoyejo
(2001), this can be best illustrated in three different periods/timeframe: the colonial pe-
riod; the post-independence period and the era of civilian rule and administration in Ni-
geria between 1979-1983 (Akinyode & Tareef, 2014).

2.1.1 The Colonial Period

The recorded history of formal involvement and intervention of the Nigerian government
in housing matters dated back to the colonial administration, as the activities of govern-
ment during this period was largely based on the construction and provision of official
quarters to expatriates and to selected indigenous public service workers, mainly in areas
reserved for government workers and also designated as Government Reserved Area
(G.R.A). Basically, this is the division of reserved areas from the traditional areas partic-
ularly those in the regional areas that were later made state capitals. The interest of the
colonial government in public housing program was spurred by the outbreak of the Bu-
bonic Plague in Lagos between 1925 and 1928, and this necessitated the establishment of
the Lagos Executive Development Board (LEDB) in 1928. The board was primarily
 10

charged with the responsibility of eradicating slums throughout Lagos and to replace them
with the construction of housing units. The strike embarked on by the workers in 1945
also contributed and expedited to the participation of government in the housing program.
In addition, there was also the creation of a residential region in the Surulere outskirts of
Lagos (Akinyode & Tareef, 2014).

According to Agunbiade (2001), It is important to note that these programs and other
similar ones were autocratically done without the contribution of the civil society and
other relevant stakeholders (Akinyode & Tareef, 2014). As there was no meticulous man-
agement of the created housing units, it consequently led to the failure of the housing
programs. Within the context of the program, government did not make provision for the
sale or rent of the houses to the general public. In the same vein, little was done to super-
vise the growth of these settlements situated outside government’s quarters.

As established by Adekoyejo (2001), during the colonial rule and prior to independence,
the different regional governments created housing corporations to provide housing units
for the public; and this formed the basis for the modern housing estates in Nigeria. In
addition, it also marked the commencement of groundwork for the national housing de-
velopment plans. The created housing units were setup in form of staff housing layout.
Also, bodies like the Lagos Executive Development Board (LEDB) and the Nigerian
Building Society (NBS) were placed in charge of providing housing for the public. During
this period, the increasing wave of urbanization and overcrowding contributed to unsan-
itary conditions, which necessitated the first urban development scheme in the country.
In 1945 the grounded Lagos Executive Development Board (LEDB), endeavour to solve
the worsening situation of housing in Lagos Metropolis as workers housing and re-hous-
ing estates were created in Apapa, Ilupeju, Surulere, Ikoyi and Isolo. However, these
housing projects only served the need of the middle and high-income categories due to a
lack of adequate finance, technical know-how and a deficient of relevant technology
needed in the building and construction sector. As the western and eastern regions of
Nigeria attained self-governance in 1956, with the northern region following suit in 1959,
the regional governments established various housing corporations in an effort to provide
more housing options for the public (Akinyode & Tareef, 2014).
 11

2.1.2 Post-Independence Period

As stated by Adekoyejo (2001), after attaining independence in 1960, the Nigerian civil
war broke out in 1967 and lasted until 1970. After the war, the previously existing regions
were dissolved and states were created by the Gowon-government. The creation of states
however aggravated the predicament of housing deficiency and it necessitated govern-
ment’s intervention and involvement in post-independence Nigeria. This period also co-
incided with the implementation of the national development policy. Basically, the estab-
lishment of the National Council of Housing in 1971 was regarded as a practical push by
the federal government at confronting the housing problem in the country. The govern-
ment planned to construct and provide about 59,000 housing units throughout the country;
with 15,000 of those to be situated in Lagos and 4,000 units in the other eleven state
capitals. This initiative was to stretch across the first and second national development
projects of 1962 and 1970/74. The federal and state governments however decided to
diminish their direct involvement in the construction of housing units for workers; rather
they expanded credit facilities to building societies and housing corporations. This period
also witnessed a phenomenal growth and expansion in the building industry due to the
government’s indirect participation in fostering the delivery of houses through its provi-
sion of land and other building materials such as iron-rods, roofing sheets, cements among
others. Despite the liberation to import these building materials, the effort to provide
housing to the medium and low-income citizens was however not widely felt (Akinyode
& Tareef, 2014).

According to Arayela (1996), an adjustment to the strategy was adopted and effected in
1975 through the Third National Development Plan between 1975 and 1980. Through
this strategy, the government initiated a comprehensive and enterprising intervention in
the housing sector by getting involved in a ‘direct’ and ‘active’ participation in the pro-
vision of housing, as compared to its former policy of shifting its responsibility to the
private sector. During this period, the government renamed the Nigerian Building Soci-
ety, as it became the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria in 1976 with government provid-
ing a grant of ₦150 million. Furthermore, Adekoyejo (2001) explicated that, during this
plan period, an estimated sum of ₦1.83 billion was also utilized as capital investment in
the housing sector between the federal and state governments. Also, a noteworthy effect
of these investments by the governments was the 98% increase in the domestic production
of cement and burnt bricks. It enabled the national housing program in the third national
 12

development to meet its goals of rendering about 60,000 residential housing units in five
years. In the year 1977, the program was re-examined upwards with the anticipated hous-
ing stock expected to go up to 8,000 units to be constructed in each of the existing 19
states capitals, with the exception of Festac Town and Ipaja in Lagos, and Kaduna, which
were allocated 46,000 and 4,000 additional units respectively. Basically, a total of about
₦2.6 billion was allocated for this project. By the end of the third plan period however,
The Federal Housing Authority was only able to complete 9,464 housing units in Lagos
and 17,486 units in the rest of the country at an outrageous cost of about ₦430 million
(Akinyode & Tareef, 2014). In evaluating the figure, less than 15% (about 13.3%) of the
initial target was attained by January 1980. Also, the medium and low-income earners
were mostly excluded from this scheme. Furthermore, in examining the reasons for the
failure of the scheme, Adekoyejo (2001) proffered the following reasons:
1. The problem of site acquisition;
2. The exorbitant contractual procedures and inflation in labour cost;
3. Budget reduction and the improper phasing of infrastructure and housing con-
struction;
4. A slow rate of construction as a result of inadequate capacity on the path of the
construction industry;
5. Inadequate building and construction technology and a lack of material choice.

As a result of the failings of the housing project outlined during the third and fourth na-
tional development plans, the devastating outcome was an increased shortfall of urban
houses and also a deterioration of rural houses. This therefore necessitates an elaborate
national housing program established on the concept of affordability and massive partic-
ipation of the citizens, and this project was embarked upon in 1980 during the 2nd Repub-
lic of civilian rule in Nigeria. The low-income earners and households whose annual in-
come wasn’t more than ₦5000 were the main target group for this project, as they were
to be provided with one-bedroom core houses, while medium-income earners whose an-
nual income wasn’t more than ₦8000 were to be provided with two-bedroom core houses.
(Akinyode & Tareef, 2014)
 13

2.1.3 Civilian Administration Period

According to Adekoyejo (2001), the civilian administration of the 1980s used the provi-
sion of housing as a major political tool in canvasing for votes and also used by the gov-
ernment at the centre as one of its core political agendas. Unfortunately, though, the hous-
ing plans of the government were based on the faulty blueprint that characterized and led
to the failings of the previous housing plans. The utopian objective of the project was the
provision of about 400,000 housing units throughout the federation. The plan was to con-
struct 160,000 of the projected units during the first phase of the program, with 8,000
housing units in each of the state’s nationwide and also in the federal capital territory.
This time however, the housing project was divided into one-bedroom and three-bedroom
units specifically for low and middle-income earners respectively.

Upon completion of the houses, they were to be sold on an owner-occupier basis at a cost
of ₦6000 and ₦15000 for the one-bedroom and three-bedroom housing units respec-
tively. These prices represented a subsidized figure provided by the government. How-
ever, at the end of the fourth national development plan, there was a failing and shortage
in the target of the units expected to be provided as only 32, 227 units were provided out
of the 400,000 targeted units. The failure of the scheme could be credited to the faulty
conceptualization and the hasty nature of execution of the plan, an inappropriate building
and construction technology as highlighted in the past failed scheme, and also wastage of
materials from material choice, the choice of sites and an inadequate financial system.

Between 1983 and 1988, it became obvious that the performance of the government to-
wards increasing the housing stock was profoundly low when compared to the efforts and
policies of past housing schemes. This can be attributed to the inconsistent role and atti-
tude successive governments had towards housing policies and programs, as most of the
governments failed to execute or implement their housing policies before leaving office.
However, in 1989, the federal adopted new strategies that included the restructuring of
the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria, as it was now meant to serve as the nation’s apex
finance institution for housing. Savings were to be generated through the National Hous-
ing Fund (NHF), whereby the government would ensure a steady flow of funds to the
Federal Mortgage Bank to facilitate lending to other primary mortgage institutions. There
were however initial indications that showed an imminent lack of success of this initia-
tive, with situations such as the inaccessibility to this loan by majority of the low and
 14

middle-income earners; a slow rate of savings within a short timeframe due to the esca-
lation in the prices of building materials and workforce; and also, the long process of
acquiring the loan from the fund and mortgage institutions among others.

The ineffectiveness of these housing policies therefore led to the provision and establish-
ment of the 2002 third national housing policy, with the government’s main intention
geared at making housing adequate for its citizens. To achieve this goal, the government
was in collaboration with the private sector. The main features of this policy are to ensure
that the majority of Nigerians become homeowners through the facilitation of mortgage.
It also aimed to make houses available at affordable prices to both low and middle-income
households. The policy also established the Federal Ministry of Housing and Urban De-
velopment, with the purpose of promoting, monitoring, supervising and regulating the
private sector-driven housing delivery project.

It is however worth mentioning that mere examining and assessing the high housing de-
mand and its limited supply, the housing needs of Nigerians is yet to be fully achieved.
Different governments at various period in time have adopted various methods to tackle
the problem, such as the provision of loans through mortgage institutions, sponsoring the
owner-occupier housing schemes, low-cost housing projects, rent edicts (rent control)
among others, however these efforts haven’t yielded expected positive results neither
have they reduced the problem of homelessness among Nigerians, especially among the
low-income earning households.

In a nutshell, the urban and semi-urban environments have both witnessed a reoccurring
situation where the housing demand is significantly more than its supply and this has led
to a prevalence of shanties and slums in towns and cities. There is the need for an urgent
attention to curtail the situation as the housing problem in Nigeria is on the rise. Basically,
Nigeria needs to provide her citizens with decent and affordable houses, regardless of
their social or economic class. Housing is an essential need to compliment other social
assets if humans are to live a productive life (Akinyode & Tareef, 2014).

Also, the Federal Government took on the national sites and services scheme in 1986 as
strategies to be used in housing delivery by expanding the supply of serviced plots of land
at affordable cost (Onu & Onu, 2012). This initiative was introduced in order to create an
 15

easy and viable access to land, which had always been one of hindrances to home own-
ership. The goals of the project were to provide serviced land for the development of
houses and other commercial activities in a well-structured and planned environment.
Achieving this goal would eliminate the hurdle to the supply of housing and also provide
solutions to the private and public sector, as well as individuals, in the housing delivery
network. Despite having this projection, only 20,000 plots of land have been allocated so
far in 20 states of the federation since the start of the project in 1986 (Ajanlekoko, 2001),
(Onu & Onu, 2012). The acquisition of land through transfer for an agreed price is rarely
smooth, as it is often times costly and most times involve fraudulent practices whereby
the same land could be sold to two or more people (Agbola, 1988). The promulgation of
the 1978 land use decree was implemented to solve the problem of land grabbing and
other fraudulent activities that had long characterized the acquisition of land in Nigeria,
especially in Lagos. The decree basically vested the entire land within a state into the
hands of the state governor to hold in trust for the people of the state. Prospective home-
owners would therefore need to apply for the use of the land from the government at an
affordable price. Despite the implementation of this decree, land grabbing and fraudulent
activities that have long dodged the ownership of land and houses in Nigeria are still
prevalent (Arimah, 1997), this has been another contributing factor to the inadequacy and
unaffordability of houses in most of the urban areas in the country (Akinyode & Tareef,
2014).

2.2 Lagos State Development and Property Cooperation (LSDPC)

As noted above, the housing provision in Lagos State as involved both the federal and
state arms of government in the past, but in recent time The Lago State Development and
Property Corporation (LSPDC) is a state managed public cooperation, created in 1972
and formerly known as Lagos Executive Development Board (LEDB) is charged with
providing affordable and decent housing in central and the surrounding environ of Lagos.
However, the private developers and individual contribute majorly to housing develop-
ments in Lagos but this study will be focusing on the public developers.

LSDPC have used various housing delivery strategies to improve housing needs, these
housing delivery methods have faced some challenges and have enjoyed some rate of
success. This study explores the housing delivery method deployed by LSDPC and the
challenges of this housing delivery method.
 16

The housing delivery strategies deployed by LSDPC includes;

1. Site and service scheme: this method is one which is being adopted by various
governments in most developed countries in providing housing on and before de-
mand. In site and service scheme, the agencies (LSDPC in this case) supports the
provision of infrastructural serviced plots for individuals who are then encouraged
to develop their own type of buildings. In this strategy, access roads, drainage,
water, sewage, electricity and variety of other individual as well as community
services to mention a few are what the allotted land plots are equipped with.

2. Hybrid: this involves direct government construction for the low-income earners
with housing challenges, the middle and the upper-middle class. As such Lagos
State Development and Property Cooperation (LSDPC) will acquire land and de-
velop and sell houses for profit in high end areas and the profit will be used by
government to fund social housing for the vulnerable members of the society. This
housing delivery method was adopted for the construction of the newly built Ele-
gushi Housing Estate, located within the metropolis of Lekki-Ajah, Eti-Osa Local
Government Area.

3. Joint Venture: this strategy is one which involves collaboration between govern-
ment agency (which is LSDPC in this case) putting resources with private devel-
opers to construct and provide affordable, hygienic and good houses which are
sold to the public. The profit which is generated from the project is distributed
among the parties; this strategy is also very commonly used by other government
agencies.

4. Turnkey: government agency such as the LSDPC combine resources with some
private developers to provide good housing project which are sold to interested
parties and the profit realized from them is used by the government to fund social
housing for vulnerable members of the society. This is usually a form of Corporate
social responsibility for the private organization involved.

5. Private Public Partnership: this strategy is like the joint venture strategy as it con-
sists of the combination of resources (such as financial, human, technical and in-
 17

tangibles) of government agency (LSDPC) with private developers for the con-
struction and provision of housing for the public. It has also been defined as a
combine effort among public, private and third sector organization based on mu-
tual understanding, a division of labour and a comparative advantage in the shar-
ing of responsibilities, risk and benefits.

6. Design and sell: this is the most common housing delivery adopted in most the
developed countries in the world. This strategy is one in which the government
agency provides the design of various types of houses with the presence of the
necessary social facilities and amenities such as water, electricity, sewage, drain-
age etc which are designed in a line with the Building Regulation law which they
sell to interested developers such as Individuals and Cooperate bodies (Obada,
2016).

As published by Lagos State Ministry of Information, Culture and Sport in Lagos Dairy
1997, within 1980 -1997 LSDPC was able to provide 21,630 housing unit which com-
prises of 12,072 low income houses, 1,798 medium income houses and 760 upper income
houses. In addition, figures 1 shows that within 1999 to 2005 the Lagos state government
provided 5240 housing units while 2100 are either proposed, uncompleted or under con-
struction (Akinmoladun & Oluwoye , 2007).

TABLE 1. Total number of housing units completed by Lagos state government between
1999-2005(Akinmoladun & Oluwoye, 2007, modified).
Housing type/ year Economic Medium Upper medium High Total
Jubilee housing
1999 120 - - - 120
2000 1507 - - - 1507
2001 - 912 96 1008
Alliance housing
2002 454 - - - 454
2003 - - - - -
2004 138 270 1560 - 1968
2005 68 52 64 184
Total 2219 1250 1708 64 5241
 18

Efforts have been made by the board to revive old housing unit to conform with modern
standards as well as the construction of the new housing unit for Lagos residents, yet the
housing situation as not significantly changed for better and it is still far from being
solved.

It is important to find out if the houses developed are affordable to the low and medium
income earners and how easy it is to acquire these houses. According to the United Na-
tions, the challenges of affordability of housing in all African countries is as a result of
very low income and expensive cost of housing. In addition, housing affordability can be
measured in such a way where house hold is capable of financially servicing housing
without compromising on basic non-housing needs for human survival (United Nations,
2012).

2.2.1 Affordability of Lagos state government houses.

As stated previously, affordability of a house is said to be the fulfilment of housing pur-

chase requirement without any form of prohibition or threat in meeting and enjoying other
basic living cost and rights. However, there are two major factors that determines afford-
ability which includes capital variable and occupational variable. Figure 1 elucidates the
two variables and other components involved in determining affordability.

FIGURE 1. Basic components of housing affordability (United Nations 2012)

 19

For any household to want to own a house, the key factors that will influence the purchase
will be the purchase cost which is usually determined by location, land, Infrastructure,
materials used in building and sellers profit, and also financial power to make the pur-
chase which is the down payment and the amount left in household savings. Therefore,
an affordable house is one which all housing related expenses of a household such as
mortgage repayment, rent, taxes, insurance and service payments cost less than 30 percent
of their income (United Nations, 2012).

With the above-mentioned components that determines affordability of housing. A look

into the most recent housing schemes embarked upon by the Lagos state government in
order to investigate how affordable are the houses for low and medium income earners.

2.2.2 Lagos state home ownership mortgage scheme

As result the federal national housing policy of 2011 which made provisions for state
government to devise its own housing policy. This brought about the establishment Lagos
Home Ownership Scheme (Lagos H.O.M.S.) in 2012 with an intent to mitigate the hous-
ing deficit in Lagos. The approach of the Lagos state government is by fully funding mass
housing construction and also making fund available for lasting mortgage facilities to
prospective home owners which as major challenge for many Lagos resident over the
years. The scheme was majorly targeted at civil servants and people in paid employment
whose income brackets falls within low and medium income earners respectively
(Alufohai, 2013). The eligibility and conditions for the mortgage scheme is as follows:

1. Applicant must reside in Lagos and under 60 years of age

2. Applicant must have verifiable means of income and credit worthy
3. A down payment of 30% of the intended house to purchased must be paid by
applicant
4. 6% interest rate will be paid on mortgage by beneficiaries
5. Purchased houses and apartments must be occupied by beneficiary with no possi-
bility of transferring or renting out until all obligations has be fulfilled.
6. Applicant must be first time home buyer
7. Applicant must have been in current employment for at least six months.
 20

According to the then governor of Lagos state in person of Mr. Babatunde Fashola, he
stated that the house types were carefully designed to suit different income brackets and
also the houses are affordable because the interest will be a maximum of 9.5% irrespec-
tive of the nation’s economy, there is already a 25% discount on the houses taking into
account land and construction cost and finally, beneficiaries can pay over a 10 years pe-
riod (Adegboye, 2014). The price of the constructed houses is dependent on location and
size of the apartment. A 60.22 m2 one-bedroom apartment in Epe cost between ₦4.3 mil-
lion (€13545) to ₦6.4 million (€20160) while a 60.22 m2 one-bedroom apartment in Su-
rulere is ₦8.25 million (€25988). The table 2 below shows various completed houses
price and locations.

TABLE 2. Price, location and type of Lagos HOMS (Nigeria Finder 2016, modified).

Property type Location Size Price

(m²) (₦)
Room/parlour Michael Otedola estate Odorangunshi Epe 60.22 4.34m
1-bedroom type 1 Odonosa/Odoayandelu 60.22 4.10m
Oba Adeboruwa estate Igbogbo Ikorodu 60.22 6.47m
Michael Otedola estate Odorangunshi Epe 60.22 6.40m
1-bedroom type 2 Igbogbo phase 2 60.22 7.50m
Igando gardens 60.22 7.54m
Magodo 60.22 7.57m
Omole scheme 60.22 7.71m
Sangotedo 47 7.85m
1-bedroom type 3 Chief Anthony Enahoro scheme 1, Shogunro 60.22 8.35m
Chief Anthony Enahoro scheme 2, Shogunro 60.22 8.61m
Shitta, Surulere 60.22 8.25m
Ilupeju 60.22 9.08m
Mushin 60.22 8.28m
Lekki scheme 1 60.22 9.91m
2-bedroom type 1 Odonosa/Odoayandelu 75.79 6.22m
Oba Adeboruwa estate Igbogbo Ikorodu 75.79 7.91m
Michael Otedola estate Odorangunshi Epe 75.79 7.22m
2-bedroom type 2 Igbogbo phase 2B 75.79 9.44m
Igando gardens 75.79 9.48m
 21

Magodo Shangisha 75.79 9.52m

Omole scheme 75.79 9.71m
2-bedroom type 3 Chief Anthony Enahoro scheme 1, Shogunro 75.79 10.51m
Chief Anthony Enahoro scheme 2, Shogunro 75.79 10.83m
Shitta, Surulere 75.79 10.38m
Ilupeju 75.79 11.42m
Mushin 75.79 10.42m
Lekki scheme 1 75.79 12.47m
Lekki scheme 2 75.79 10.54m
2-bedroom type 4 Sangotedo 88 14.69m
2-bedroom flat Chois gardens, Abgowa 75.79 9.75m
3-bedrooms flat Chois gardens, Abgowa 123.9 14.5m
3-bedroom terrace Odonosa/Odoayandelu 123.9 8.77m
3-bedroom type 1 Odonosa/Odoayandelu 123.9 6.96m
3-bedroom type 2 Iloro scheme 123.9 8.98m
Honourable Sotonwa estate, Igbogbo 123.9 9.96m
Hon. Mustapha estate, Ojokoro 123.9 11.02m
3-bedroom type 3 Igbogbo phase 2 123.9 15.43m
Igando gardens 123.9 15.50m
Shitta, Surulere 123.9 16.69m
Magodo Shangisha 123.9 15.57m
Omole scheme 123.9 15.87m
3-bedroom type 4 Chief Anthony Enahoro scheme 1, Shogunro 123.9 17.17m
Chief Anthony Enahoro scheme 2, Shogunro 123.9 17.71m
Mushin 123.9 17.03m
Lekki scheme 2 123.9 17.22m
Sangotedo 100 16.69m
3-bedroom type 5 Ilupeju 123.9 18.67m
Lekki scheme 2 123.9 20.39m

However, most of the houses in table 2 above are too expensive and the Lagos state gov-
ernment did not consider low and lower-middle income earners who by large are the ma-
jority of Lagos residents in urgent need of housing. For federal government civil worker
resident in Lagos whose salary is ₦18000 (€42) minimum wage, he or she can only dream
 22

to own one of these houses when a level 14 civil service worker with 10 years of active
service cannot afford to buy one of the apartments as result of imbalance in income and
apartment prices if we consider it from the United Nations point of view of less than 30%
of income should be spent on housing (Salau, 2017).

According to a study conducted by Renaissance capital (2011), the average income range
of middle class Nigerians is between ₦75000 (€339) - ₦100000 (€479) with most living
in rented apartments, 92% possess a post-secondary education and 76% work in the public
sector (Renaissance Capital, 2011) .These figures conform with the salary structure of the
Lagos state civil service as seen in table 3 but differs from that of the federal civil service
and private sector salary structure. However, the middle class of Nigeria can be said to be
divided into lower-middle income class and upper-middle income class where the former
earns an estimated income of one million naira per annum and the latter four million naira
per annum (Adeniyi, 2015)

TABLE 3. Harmonized public service salary structure (Lagos state government 2007,
m.d)
GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 INCR.
LEVEL N N N N N N N N N N RATE
01 62100 63528 64957 66385 67813 69242 70670 72098 73526 74955 1428
02 63164 65031 66899 68767 70634 72502 74369 76237 78105 79972 1868
03 64072 66368 68663 70958 73254 75549 77845 80140 82435 84731 2295
04 67276 70034 72792 75549 78307 81065 83822 86580 89338 92095 2758
05 76681 79885 83089 86293 89496 92700 95904 99108 102312 105516 3204
06 94238 98143 102049 105954 109860 113765 117670 121576 125481 129387 3905
07 126386 131200 136014 140828 145642 150456 155270 160083 164897 169711 4814
08 164434 170163 175893 181622 187351 193080 198810 204539 210268 215998 5729
09 193819 200641 207462 214284 221106 227928 234750 241571 248393 255215 6822
10 228180 235681 243182 250684 258185 265687 273188 280690 288191 295693 7501
12 263240 274875 286511 298147 309782 321418 333054 344690 356325 367961 11636
13 294307 306608 318910 331212 343513 355815 368116 380418 392719 405021 12302
14 325518 338761 352005 365248 378491 391735 404978 418222 431465 444708 13243
15 360537 378247 395957 413667 431377 449087 466797 484507 502217 17710
16 398771 420055 441339 462623 483907 505192 526476 547760 569044 21284
17 444611 468765 492920 517075 541229 565384 589538 613693 637848 24155

A quick analysis of mine as seen in table 3 in testing the affordability of the Lagos state
government houses, the salary to be considered will be that of the low-income earners in
level 1 step1 whose salary is below ₦75000 (€175) and lower-middle income employees
within the above-mentioned range which is level 7 step1 in the Lagos state civil service
 23

as seen in table 3 below. Three different cases will be looked into for purchasing the
cheapest one bedroom, two bedrooms and three-bedrooms apartment of the Lagos state
home ownership scheme, with the assumption that individual purchasing the apartment
will save his or her entire salary monthly to raise the 30% down payment first. It’s ascer-
tained (table 4) that many low-income earners in the Lagos state civil service cannot af-
ford even the cheapest apartment regardless of choosing to pay mortgage for 10 years or
20 years while the middle-income earner can only afford a one-bedroom apartment with
mortgage repayment time of 10 years.

TABLE 4. Basic analysis of Lagos home ownership scheme (Balogun 2018)

Low income earner monthly salary ₦62000
(€144)
Lower-middle income earner monthly salary
₦123000 (€286)
Apartment type 1-bedroom 2-bedroom 3-bedroom
apartment apartment apartment
Purchase cost of apartment (₦) 4100000 6220000 6960000
30% down payment cost (₦) 1230000 1866000 2088000
Months to save down payment if full salary is 20 30 34
committed to saving (low income earner)
Months to save down payment if full salary is 10 15 17
committed to saving (lower-middle income
earner)
6% interest rate mortgage finance (₦) 2870000 4354000 4872000
Monthly repayment of mortgage for 10 years 31862.88 48338.33 54089.19
(₦)
Percentage of income spent on mortgage re- 51% 78% 87%
payment per month by low income earner
Percentage of income spent on mortgage re- 25% 38% 42.80%
payment per month by lower-middle income
earner
 24

2.2.3 Lagos state rent to own scheme.

The Lagos state Rent to own housing scheme is another housing policy launched in De-
cember 2016 by the present Lagos state governor Akinwunmi Ambode. The scheme is an
amendment to the policies of the previous government of Babatunde Fashola in term of
the percentage paid for down payment. According to Mr. Gbolahan Lawal the State’s
commissioner for housing (2016), in spite of the mortgage scheme provided by the Lagos
state government which attracted lots of people in wanting to own one of the housing
unit, the short fall is that majority are unable to afford the 30% equity contributions re-
quired by the mortgage scheme (Vanguuard, 2016). The rent to own scheme has lowered
the percentage on the down payments in other enable low and middle-income earners
have access to affordable housing along with the following eligibility criteria:

1. Applicant must be primarily resident in Lagos state and will be required to submit
a copy of their Lagos state resident registration card (LASRRA).
2. Applicant must be a first-time buyer.
3. Applicant must be 21 years old and above
4. Only tax compliant resident with proof of tax payment will be eligible.
5. Applicant must be able to make 5% commitment fee and the balance is spread
monthly at a fixed rent over a period of 10 years.
6. Applicant must pass the affordability test and not more than 33% of the monthly
income as repayment (Lagos Sate Ministry of Housing, 2017).

Furthermore, the prices of the housing unit were slashed due to an economic down turn
in the nation, an example is the 2-bedroom apartment which was sold for ₦7.2 million
(€22680) is now sold for ₦3.5 million (€11025) while the 1-bedroom apartment is now
sold for ₦2.3 million (€7245) (Olowoopeju, 2016). Table 4 shows the available housing
unit on sale now in the Rent to own scheme.

TABLE 5. Homes on sale at the rent to own scheme (Lagos H.O.M 2018, modified).
Name and location Unit type Unit price (₦)
Michael Otedola estate Odoragunshi Epe Room & parlour 1.5m
 25

1-bedroom 2.0m
2-bedroom 3.5m
Chois gardens, Agbowa 2-bedroom 3.5m
3-bedroom 5.0m
Oba Adeboruwa estate Igbogbo Ikorodu 1-bedroom 3.0m
2-bedroom 4.8m
Alhaji Adedotun Mustapha scheme, Ojokoro 3-bedroom 9.0m
Honorable Olaitan Mustapha scheme, Ojokoro 3-bedroom 9.0m

The above reduction in price and down payment has been commended by many Lagos
residents and so far, 500 beneficiaries have been allotted homes under the ongoing
scheme. However, for low income earners resident in Lagos who earns below minimum
wage of Lagos state civil service worker such as petty traders and federal government
workers earning ₦18000 (€42) minimum wage, still find the prices of the housing unit
too high (Adio, 2017). How affordable the cheapest apartments could be for a Lagos civil
service worker could be found in my analysis in table 5 below. A low-income Lagos civil
service worker will also find this apartment not affordable if considered from the United
states point, of spending less than 30% of one’s income on housing, while the lower-
middle income earner will conveniently purchase one of the units.

TABLE 6. Basic analysis of Lagos Rent to own scheme (Balogun 2018)

Low income earner monthly salary ₦62000
(€144)
Lower-middle income earner monthly salary
₦123000 (€286)
Apartment type 1-bedroom 2-bedroom 3-bedroom
apartment apartment apartment
Purchase cost of apartment (₦) 2000000 3500000 5000000
5% down payment cost (₦) 100000 175000 250000
Months to save down payment if full salary is 1.6 2.8 4.0
committed to saving (low income earner)
 26

Months to save down payment if full salary is 0.8 1.4 2.0

committed to saving (lower-middle income
earner)
6% interest rate mortgage finance (₦) 1900000 3325000 4750000
Monthly repayment of mortgage for 10 years 21093.90 36914.32 52734.74
(₦)
Percentage of income spent on mortgage re- 34% 59% 85%
payment per month by low income earner
Percentage of income spent on mortgage re- 17% 29% 41.73%
payment per month by lower-middle income
earner

Thus, the demand for low-cost and affordable housing will continue to rise as the current
government housing unit does not meet the realities of the enormous number of Lagos
resident in the low-income bracket. If a further reduction in the prices of the Lagos state
government housing unit is not possible as a result of construction cost, then a possible
alternative with lower construction cost should be embraced in solving the housing the
housing deficit in Lagos and to prevent further scarcity of housing as a result of high
prices of housing from the informal sector.
 27

3 SHIPPING CONTAINER AS ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY

The intended and sole purpose of the invention of the shipping container was to allow for
easy loading, transportation and unloading of goods around the globe so as to reduce
transportation and labour cost. In recent times, Architects around the world have been
able to develop innovative ways to use and incorporate this global trade shipping contain-
ers into building construction due to its structural integrity, cheap cost and availability
which in turn brought about a new type of Architecture referred to as Container Architec-
ture (Schwarzer, 2017). This form of architecture is considered by environmentalist to be
sustainable because of the amount of energy saved in upcycling the abandoned shipping
containers.

Upcycling according to Gunter Pauli can be simplified as repurposing goods and things
in their manufactured or use purpose end of life with the smallest of modification into
valuable product. Upcycling when compared to traditional recycling does not require as
much energy, making it more environmentally friendly and also an economical way of
waste treatment. (Pauli, 2010).

This chapter will be looking into the origin of the modern-day shipping container and its
possibilities for housing design, affordability and how it has been incorporated into mod-
ern architecture.

3.1 Brief History of Standardized Intermodal Freight Container

Prior to the invention of the standardize shipping container that is globally used today,
several forms of containers have been used to transport goods on boats, horse and car-
riages as well as rail systems as far back as the 1792 in England. (World Shipping Coun-
cil, 2018). Trade between countries and continents via the sea has been around for thou-
sands of years and also a great employer of labour, but the greatest challenge has been
that of moving the goods on and off the ships and also to their required destinations easily
within a short period of time, because of this, many manufacturing companies situate their
factories and warehouses close to the seaport to access raw material and also deliver fin-
ished product faster. However, the closeness to the seaport does not really translate to
effective and fast delivery because a typical freight to be loaded onto a truck to seaport
will be loaded piece by piece which may be of homogeneous or mixed goods in paper
 28

board carton, wooden crates and casks. This good will require different men to unload
and load them from the truck to the ship because of how heavy they could be and, number
of goods is counted and recorded during this process of unlading and loading making the
entire process physically exhausting, difficult, labour intensive and overall expensive.

The invention of modern day standardized intermodal shipping container for rail, road
and sea is credited to the Malcom McLean alongside his engineer Keith Tantlinger. Alt-
hough in early 1950’s the United States Army towards the end of the second world war
designed the first globally accepted standardized container also known as the “trans-
porter” of 2.6m x 1.91m x2.08m in dimension as means to prevent theft and impairment
which was used to officer’s goods. During the Korean war, the container’s use signifi-
cantly transformed from the transportation of officer’s good to the transportation of engi-
neering supplies due to an upgrade on its structural durability which was referred to as
CONEX (container express). The CONEX containers went on to eliminate dockside-un-
loading congestion as well as shipping time of supplies from 55 to 27 days. Mclean who
owns a renowned trucking business which he sold after his acquisition of the Pan-Atlantic
Steamship Corporation due to regulations by the Inter State Commerce Commission
(ICC), which does not allow for a trucking company to also own a shipping company
simultaneously.

Mclean’s obsession to cutting cost and saving time brought about his quest for quick and
efficient way to transport goods. His idea for the modern day standardized intermodal
shipping container evolved from his first plan of carrying loaded trailers on ship and driv-
ing them off the ship to several destinations. This idea was found to be inefficient because,
it was realized that the wheels below each trailer would waste valuable space on board
the ship. He (Mclean) then came up with another idea which requires the subtraction of
the wheels and frames of a trailer filled with twenty ton of freight such that it is detached
from its steel chassis and lifted onboard the ship. This idea allowed for the possibility of
stacking the trailer body, maximum use of ship space and also possible 94 percent reduc-
tion in shipping of goods when costed. By late 1955 after Mclean’s Pan-Atlantic company
acquired two World War Ⅱ tanker (T-2) sold for cheap by the US government. A little
modification was made to the purchased tanker to help hold the container alongside each
other, and Mclean’s Pan-Atlantic company named the tankers Ideal X. Mclean along with
his engineer decided to make the containers for Ideal X 33 feet long as result of the avail-
able deck space. The container for the Ideal X was design such that six pieces of steel
 29

with small holes at the bottom and about a foot long was attached to sides of the container
which allows for insertion of rod to keep it locked in place. On April 26,1956, the Ideal
X made her first voyage from Newark to Houston loading 58 containers in less than eight
hours (Levinson, 2006)

The successful trip of Ideal X proved cargo handling can be done safely with containers
on ships. It is an historical chapter in the development of the maritime cargo industry and
this method of cargo handling as found a globally acceptability with a huge impact on
world trade and commerce. Figure5 below shows the various kinds of modern standard
container available globally.

FIGURE 2. Common global Container sizes: the 10ft (3m in length), 20ft (6m in length),
40ft (12m in length) with same height of 8.6ft (2.6m) for all. (Tivacom.com 2018, modi-
fied)

However, over the years there has been several types shipping container circulating
around the globe and this various type are manufactured based on the purpose it is going
to serve as well as the design and characteristics. According to DIN ISO 6346 of January
1996, there are significant differences between the following types:

1. General purpose container

2. Bulk container
3. Named cargo container
4. Thermal container
5. Open-top container
6. Platform container
7. Tank container
8. Air/surface container
 30

For the purpose of this study a major focus will be place on the general-purpose container
which in some cases is also referred to as standard container, dry cargo container or box
container as seen in figure 5 above (GDV, 2018)

3.2 Shipping Container Applications

It is globally common to use shipping container modules as temporary structures in spaces

with other developmental plans. A common example would be temporary site office
found in construction sites and also temporary shelter used in cases of disaster. In addi-
tion, the global use of shipping containers in the transportation sector has made them
readily available to access if the need arises impromptu. Picture 1 below shows the pos-
sibilities attainable with shipping containers. other several solutions that can evolve from
shipping container modules includes the following and this is dependent on the need,
maybe:

1. Offices building
2. Residential building
3. Commercial building
4. Event and exhibition building

The first shipping container building documentation officially recognised was designed
by Phillip Clark in 1987 when he filed for a patent in the United States of America titled
“Method for converting one or more steel shipping containers into habitable building”
which was granted after two years in 1989. Although, this is highly debateable because
the idea as previously been presented by Nicholas Lacey a British Architect in his uni-
versity thesis in the 1970’s. In addition, there are other two cases where the idea of using
shipping container as building was also exhibited. The first was in 1985 on the production
set of the movie “Space Rage” where shipping containers where used in making several
buildings and the second is back in the 1962 where Christoper Betjemann was named as
the inventor in a patent titled “Combination shipping container and showcase” filed by
Insbrandtsen Company Inc. Thus, the idea is no longer new as many Architects over the
decades have been able to come up several designs that are not temporary structures but
permanent habitable homes that are compliant to legislations because the shipping con-
tainer buildings significantly are economical, environmentally friendly, durable, fast to
 31

construct and also generates less construction waste (Woods, www.containerhome-

plans.org, 2015).

PICTURE 1. Grillagh Water House by Patrick Bradley Architects (Aidan Monaghan

2015).

Although, many still consider avoiding building with shipping containers due to many
concerns such as: the need for special equipment for cutting through the steel to create
openings, the need for insulation in extreme (hot or cold) temperatures which further re-
duce the already limited functional space, and for used shipping containers the danger of
contaminated and toxic material transported with the container is of great consideration
(Smith, 2015)

3.3 Shipping container structural integrity

The structural integrity of a shipping container is of utmost importance when it is being

considered for dwelling purposes. This could be compromised by factors such as rust as
a result of weathering and structural modification of the shipping container to suit the
proposed dwelling design. This section will be looking into the two factors detrimental to
the structural integrity of the shipping container and possible ways to prevent and treat
them.
 32

3.3.1 Shipping container rust

There is mistaken impression by many people that shipping containers are rust proof be-
cause they are manufactured from COR-TEN steel (Corrosion resistance and tensile
strength) which is an alloy of steel with copper, chromium and nickel composition, and
also known as weathering steel. In fact, Cor-ten steel were not made to be rust proof rather
made to slow down the process of corrosion by the formation of a protective dark brown
oxide film which prevents deeper penetration of rust when the metal is exposed to corro-
sive weather conditions. In order to actually have strong bond of protective anti-rust
layer, there as to be balance between its exposure to wet and dry condition because COR-
TEN steel invariably exposed to wet and salty conditions will get rust faster than that with
alternating wet and dry conditions. Therefore, environments with salt laden air, high rain-
fall, humidity, or persistent fog is not best suitable for using COR-TEN steel (Western
metal roofing, 2018).

Evidently, the above-mentioned properties of COR-TEN steel applies to every general-

purpose shipping container made from COR-TEN steel for transporting goods or one used
in constructions such as residential, commercial or institutional buildings. Structural and
non-structural rust will be the result of exposing such shipping container to harsh weather
conditions. Structural rust will compromise the structural integrity of shipping container
and probably make the shipping container unusable for construction purposes while non-
structural rust gives minimal concern as it effect reduces sales value. However, there are
several ways to prevent the shipping container from extensive rust when applied partly or
completely in building construction which includes the following:

1. Pre-construction rust prevention: this involves the careful observation of the site
condition, weather patterns and direction to determine the face of the shipping
container that will be exposed to constant harsh weather conditions that will bring
about rusting. An example is shipping container placed directly on the ground,
ground moisture in constant contact with bottom surface might probably result in
rust which could be prevented by raising the shipping container above ground.
Another example is that of a site where the weather strikes the body of the con-
tainer constantly, vegetations could be planted to around the shipping container
or preferably a cladding could be done to protect the COR-TEN steel.
 33

2. Maintenance rust prevention: this involves proper inspection before purchase and
regular inspection after purchase. The inspection includes the removal of stagnant
and trapped waters from any part of the shipping container. An example of trapped
waters is the container rain, it occurs as a result of condensation of the water va-
pour inside container coming in contact with the cooling steel surfaces container
condensing it from vapour to liquid which usually situated at the ceiling of the
container and then runs down the walls shipping container. Trapped waters can be
removed by simply draining it off regularly and the case container rain formation,
proper ventilation of the container to allow water vapour escape or the application
of desiccants to absorb the moisture in the container will prevent the formation of
rust.

Shipping container rust can be treated in several ways depending the extent of the rust.
The application of zinc paint coat with 90% dry zinc powder will is one way to decelerate
the rust process on the container. In non-severe rust situations grinding, chipping and sand
blasting are methods applicable in removing the rust which exposes the metal for sealing
with primer and topcoat paint. (Carthcart, 2017)

3.3.2 Shipping container structural modification

Shipping containers are rigid box and as a structural component in building construction
they require some modification to either create larger space envelop or to create openings
for access and ventilation. In the process carrying out these modifications the structural
strength of the shipping container might be lost which makes the balance of load during
modification a crucial detail during construction. Also, modification may also drive up
the cost of construction as special tool and expertise are required in cutting the shipping
container steel, as such minimal modification will be of greater value in cost reduction.

As noted previously, shipping container is made out of weathering steel and it comprises
of four corner posts with castings, two bottom side and two top side rails, two bottom
cross members, a front top end rail and a door header which are the major load bearing
elements while the side walls, end wall, and roof bears the least load which is dependent
on the material used for that particular component (GDV, 2018) .
 34

FIGURE 3. Exploded axonometric view of a typical 20-foot shipping container. (residen-

tialshippingcontainerprimer.com 2017, modified)

According to Giriunas, Sezen, and Dupaix (2012) a shipping container with no form of
modification in its corner post under an evenly distributed load will bear load up to 212
kip (212000 pounds) but at the event of any form of modification such as the removal of
the side walls, the container maintains its structural integrity by being able to still bear
load up to 212 kip (212000 pounds) while the removal of door assemblies and end-wall
panels result in the shipping container loosing structural integrity because it can only bear
loads up to 168 kip (168000 pound) (Mammadov, 2015)
 35

FIGURE 4. Non-modified shipping container load forces. (William J Penland 2008.mod-

ified)

In order to retain the original structural integrity of a shipping container when modifica-
tion such as opening for access and ventilation is carried out during building construction,
construction drawings should be as detailed as possible with clear dimension and location
of openings and also framing and vertical strengthening element should be applied
around the openings to create lateral stability and evenly distributed load across the ship-
ping container (Penland, 2008).

3.4 Modular Building using Shipping Containers

For the purpose of clarity, it is important to define what a modular construction is. Ac-
cording to Modular building institute (MDI) (2018), “modular construction is a process
in which building is constructed off-site, under controlled plant conditions, using the same
materials and designing to the same codes and standards as conventional built facilities –
but in about half the time”. It could also be defined as building that are entirely or partly
completed, but delivered on site for erection by placing or stacking it (BC Housing, 2014).
There are two types of modular construction namely:

1. Permanently modular construction: Also known as PMC, from the name it is evi-
dent that this type of building is constructed to be non-movable while utilizing
 36

offsite manufacturing methods in fabricating parts or the entire building. This con-
struction method can be incorporated into site-built project as it is highly effective
in monitoring quality and also reduce waste.

2. Relocatable modular buildings: in a similar way they are prefabricated from the
factories and this type of buildings are designed majorly for temporary spaces
with the possibilities of reusing and repurposing them in a different site by trans-
portation which saves construction time as illustrated in figure6 below (Modular
Building Institute, 2018).

FIGURE 4. Timeline comparison of Modular and Site-built construction. (modular.org

2018)

The above definition of modular construction indicates that shipping containers can be
used separately, entirely or combine with conventional construction to attain a permanent
habitable building since each container unit is a module that can be stacked vertically and
horizontally (figure 7), as the shipping container structural durability is adequate to bear
the load exerted upon it. At maximum load the stacking possibility for a general-purpose
shipping container is to stack six containers while other purposely built containers with
higher strength could be stacked nine to twelve high (GDV, 2018).
 37

FIGURE 5. Stacking possibilities of shipping containers (Gregory La Vardera 2007. mod-

ified)
 38

4 LOW-COST HOUSING USING SHIPPING CONTAINER IN LAGOS

This chapter will be looking into how better of a solution is shipping container housing
for low and middle-income earners in Lagos in terms of availability, cost and quality.

4.1 Container availability in Lagos

There are no data available to state the precise number of recyclable shipping containers
or rather waste shipping containers in Lagos and Nigeria at large. However, the fact that
Lagos is the commercial centre of Nigeria where importation and exportation of goods
takes place on a daily is a one way in which shipping container traffic could be estimated.

Nigeria is the 53rd largest importer in the world with products ranging from refined pe-
troleum, cars, wheat, telephones, medicaments, building material, etc. amounting to a to-
tal of $39.5B as at 2015 as compared to $49.2B in 2010. However, $47.8B worth of goods
such as rough wood, cocoa, beans, and petroleum gas was exported in 2015 making Ni-
geria the 49th largest exporter which indicates an 11.9% decrease in exportation (figure)
when compared to that of 2010, with crude petroleum accounting for 77.2% of the total
export (Atlas Media, 2018). Lagos port data from Apapa and Tincan ports corroborates
the above decline in importation as shown below in Table 6.

TABLE 7. Container traffic from Lagos ports (Nigerian ports authority 2017)
Year 2012 2103 2014 2015 2016
Imported 69,2016 79,945 94,923 73,604 62,493
Exported 70,780 78,793 97,263 75,685 66,216

The overall reduction in importation in Nigeria does not directly transform to the unavail-
ability of shipping containers that could be repurpose. The availability of shipping con-
tainer for repurposing is dependent on how many is decommissioned annually due to
legislation of use that requires shipping companies to renew their fleet after use for 25
years (Kolawole, 2014), which is not always the case because in many shipping com-
pany’s containers get decommissioned after 10 years when they are used to a great extent
with obvious dents or rust (Woods, 2015).
 39

Trade balance
130
120
110
Trade in Billion USD 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year

Imported Exported

FIGURE 6. Trade balance data of Nigeria. The data generated from OEC (The observa-
tion of economic complexity) and represented using the above chat. (atlas.media.mit.edu
n.d, modified).

The common types of general purpose shipping containers available in Lagos are the (20ft
(6m in length) and 40ft (12m in length). These containers are available in various condi-
tions which ultimately determine the price they are sold. The 20ft (6m in length) container
cost within ₦270000 (€628) - ₦400000 (€930) while the 40ft (12m in length) is sold
around ₦380000 (€884) - ₦600000 (€1395) in Lagos as found on online stores (jiji.ng
and olx.com.ng).

4.2 Comparison of container housing unit to conventional housing

Every housing construction is carried out in stages which includes, site clearing and prep-
aration, foundation, erection of walls, roofing and finishes. However, shipping container
housing construction tends to omit some of the stages as seen above (figure 6) which
bringing about a reduction in cost as well as time saving. These cost and time savings
evolves from the foundation, wall, wall finishes and roofing during construction, as it
recognised that a used shipping container considered for construction purpose is a box
with already erected wall, floor and roof that requires little modification in creating hab-
itable homes in a tropical region like Lagos.
 40

This technology of building with shipping container in location such as Lagos, Nigeria is
already available and provides solution to the major concerns of many which is the hot
temperature within the space since it is made of steel with high heat conductivity. Ac-
cording to Woods (2015), using shipping container in hot climatic region requires keeping
the indoor environment cool and can simply be done with proper insulation supported by
shades, space cross ventilation, and reflective material on roofs and walls of container.
(containerhomeplans, 2015). Table 7 below shows a general comparison of conventional
building methods with shipping container building methods also known as cargotechture.

TABLE 8. General comparison of conventional and cargotechture method of construction

(Tempo housing 2012, modified).

Criteria Cargotechture Conventional

Low cost Many used containers are available Conventional building method
at a cost that is low compared to a are very expensive in Nigeria,
finished structure built by other la- mainly due to the high cost of
bour intensive means such as brick cement
and mortar
Construction Once the plan is designed, the con- Construction time using con-
tainers are prepared and fitted out at ventional methods are very
time
the workshop. Construction time on- long, which adds to accruing in-
site can be as little as 7 days. Tem- terest on loans.
pohousing built 1000 units in 6
months.
Structural Shipping containers offers a huge Structural strength of conven-
structural strength for fraction of the tional builds is often supported
strength
cost of traditional timber, steel and by additional steel rods and
concrete construction, because all more expensive foundation.
the strength is contained in the struc-
tural elements themselves, the foun-
dation design is simpler and less ex-
pensive.
Modular All shipping containers provide It’s possible to go higher with
modular elements that can be com- conventional design methods,
bined into larger structures. This but this increases cost of con-
simplifies design, planning, and struction due to need for addi-
transport. As they are already de- tional structural strength.
signed to interlock for case of mo-
bility during transportation.
Transport Pre-fabricated module can also be Transportation of the different
easily transported by ship, truck, or materials needed contributes to
rail, because they already conform making construction cost
to shipping sizes. higher.
 41

Availability Used shipping containers are availa- Cement, the primary product
ble across the globe. for building is readily available,
but at a high cost in Nigeria and
the highest in Africa.
Temperature Steel conducts heat very well; so, Buildings are usually well insu-
the container will normally have to lated.
be better insulated than most brick,
block or wood structures.
Labour The welding and cutting of steel is This method is very labour in-
considered to be specialized labour tensive thereby increasing con-
and can increase construction cost, struction cost.
though available now are experi-
enced craftsmen in fabricating con-
tainer steel.
Limitations to Shipping containers have rigid Shaping bricks and mortar is a
shape, making it difficult for more lot easier so design flexibility is
design flexibil-
complicated designs. endless.
ity

In other to analyse both conventional and shipping container construction method the
overall building cost of a 3-bedroom bungalow apartment, basic construction material
and finishes will be taken into consideration without land cost and approval cost.

4.2.1 Cost comparison

The construction cost of a 3-bedroom shipping container home varies depending on ma-
terials selected for the finishes. Tempo housing a shipping container home construction
company provides a 3-bedroom bungalow apartment at a cost between ₦5000000
(€15822) - ₦6500000 (€20570) using three 40ft shipping container at ₦50000 (€158) -
₦75000 (€237) per square meter with basic finishes such as PVC walls, flex tiles on floors
and PVC ceiling (Michael, 2016). This apartment is said to be 25% less expensive when
compared to conventionally constructed one (Dele, 2018).

Using the average cost of ₦62000 (€196) per square meter of a container building to
estimate the cost of cheapest 3-bedroom apartment sold by Lagos state government which
is 123.9m² and sold at ₦6960000 (€22025). Constructing such apartment with shipping
container will be estimated to cost ₦7743750 (€24505) when calculated by simply mul-
tiplying the cost ₦62000 per square meter of a container building by 123.9m². In addition,
an estimated cost of constructing a 3-bedroom apartment conventionally using basic fin-
 42

ishes and material is estimated at ₦5294685 (€16755) (Castleshub, 2017), which is rela-
tively the same as constructing with shipping container. This cost of shipping container
buildings already exceeds the affordability bracket of low and medium-income earners.

According to Architect Emmanuel Obioha (2017) building a bungalow with shipping

container which will be of same comfortability as a conventional building is majorly fast
in constructing but not less expensive as claimed by many. Furthermore, for a shipping
container to be less expensive several compromises will have to be made which will even-
tually increase the cost of maintenance such as the use of air conditioning unit which will
increase cost in terms of energy consumption (Obioha, 2017)

4.2.2 Quality comparison

The quality of any building starts with compliance with local building regulations. How-
ever, there are currently no established regulations for the construction of a shipping con-
tainer home in Lagos which simply indicates that a proposed shipping container building
might have to comply to conventional building regulations in terms of, fire resistance,
acoustics, foundation, roofing, aesthetics, thermal comfort etc. (Obioha, 2017).

As a resident of Lagos, the quality of a shipping container home is most likely the thermal
comfortability, life span and aesthetics. As stated above the thermal comfortability can
be solved with proper insulation that gives effective result based on the R value (heat
resistance value) of the material used which simply means that the higher the R value the
better insulation that is attained. Spray foams and insulation panels with R value of 7.5
are relatively expensive, blanket insulation made with rocky wool or fibre glass could be
applied when cost reduction is of high priority because it is way cheaper than foam spray
and panel insulation (containerhomeplans, 2015), while the conventional building meth-
ods in Lagos requires little or no extra insulation.

According to Ademuson (2017), shipping container homes are starter homes, in other
words they are homes one can purchases or construct before acquiring a house built con-
ventionally. Furthermore, the quality of the shipping container homes in terms of life span
is 20-25 years if properly built and could be executed in less than 3 months (Ademuson,
2017). Conventional buildings are known to have a longer life span of about one hundred
 43

years which is a dependent on the maintenance as well as absence of any form of natural
disaster (Woods, 2015).
 44

5 METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted by carrying out an online survey using Google forms. The use
of online survey was considered as best option as it was impossible to meet with each and
every selected person physically based on company’s time schedule and policy.

The link to the questionnaires was made available to Mr. paul Ojo a representative of
Blueray construction LTD who then distributed it via email to 200 persons all resident in
different parts of Lagos, which includes clients that have ongoing projects with the com-
pany, potential clients of the company interested in building a house in the near future
and persons living in residential facilities managed by the company. The response time
was two months from the first day of July 2017 which was then closed after a month and
half as responses was no longer coming in and a total of 50 responses were recorded.

It is self-evident that the major part of the over 21 million residents are not conversant
with shipping container residential projects because they are not common around the La-
gos environments. Rather, they are mostly familiar with shipping container road side tem-
porary kiosk, shops and site offices. Due to these reasons, the questionnaire was divided
into two sections which comprises of an introduction showing the possibilities that could
and have been done in constructing housing using shipping containers while the other
section involves background questions relating to respondent’s current income, housing
situation, expectations etc. Questionnaire used to carry out the survey can be found as
attached in Appendix 1
 45

6 RESULT

However, the survey was targeted to get one hundred people to participate but as men-
tioned earlier only fifty people responded and also left comment which were of great
importance to how best to provide, design and implement shipping container housing
projects to meet their needs.

The respondents are resident in 15 Local government areas out of 20 LGA in Lagos met-
ropolitan.
From the result, the highest respondents are from Surulere LGA, Lagos Mainland LGA,
Ikorodu LGA with 12%(6) respondents each followed by Ojo LGA and Oshodi-Isolo
LGA with 10%(5) respondents each, followed by Agege LGA with 8%(4) respondents,
followed by Ikeja LGA, Ifako-Ijaye LGA,and Alimosho LGA with 6%(3) respondents
each. Badagry LGA, Eto-Osa LGA and Mushin LGA had 4%(2) respondents each while
Ajeromi-ifelodun LGA, Amuwo-Odofin LGA and Lagos Island had 2%(1) respondents
each. Figure 7 shows the bar chat of the residence of the respondents that filled the ques-
tionnaire.

Location distribution
14%

12%

10%
Respondents

8%

6%

4% Total = 50

2%

0%

Local government area

FIGURE 7. Residential location of respondents in Lagos

 46

GENDER
72%(36) of the respondents were male and 28%(14) respondents were female as shown
in the chart below.

Gender distribution

Male

28% Female

72%

FIGURE 8. Gender distribution of respondent to questionnaire

Age Distribution of the respondents

From the result, most of the respondent fall within the age of 30 to 39 which is responsible
for 52%(26). The second largest group of the respondents is between 21-29 which is re-
sponsible for 36%(18) followed by age group 40 to 49 with 10%(5) respondents and the
least is between 50 to 59 with 2%(1) respondents.
 47

Age distribution
60%

50%

40%
Respondents

30%

20%

10%

0%
21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59
Age bracket

FIGURE 9. Age distribution of respondents

Employment Status
The employment status of the respondent is an important parameter in the acceptance of
using Shipping container for building. 78%(39) of the respondents are gainfully em-
ployed, 16%(8) are entrepreneur while 6%(4) are unemployed.

Employement distribution

16%

6%
Employed
Unemployed
Entreprenuer

78%

FIGURE 10. Employment status of respondents

 48

Level of Education
Most of respondents are well educated. 44%(22) respondents have Bachelor degree,
34%(17) respondents have Master degree, 16%(8) respondents have Higher National Di-
ploma, 4%(2) respondents have Ordinary National Diploma and 2%(1) respondent has
post graduate diploma as the highest level of education attained. Level of education will
have an influence in the choice of people in using shipping container as affordable hous-
ing because being educated will make them to be enlightened and be open minded.

Education level of respondents

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Higher National Post Graduate Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Ordinary National
Diploma Diploma Diploma
Educational degree

FIGURE 11. Educational background of respondents

Monthly income
According to the bar chart below, 24%(12) respondents earn above ₦200000, 22(11) re-
spondents earn between ₦161000 to ₦200000, 10%(5) respondents earn between
₦121000 to ₦160000, 16%(8) respondents earn between ₦81000 to ₦120000, 20%(10)
respondents earn between ₦41000 to ₦80000 while 8%(4) respondents earn ₦40000 and
below. Income of the respondents is also considered an important factor which will also
have influence on the choice of people in choosing affordable housing.
 49

Income categories
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
0 - 40000 41000 -80000 81000 - 120000 121000 - 161000 - above 200000
160000 200000
Income bracket in Naira

FIGURE 12. Income distribution of respondents

Housing Situation
This result shows the current housing situation of the respondents. Most of the respond-
ents were living in the rented apartment which responsible for 60%(30) respondents fol-
lowed by people living with other people who themselves were not paying either rents or
mortgage with 22%(11) respondents. This category of respondents is either living with
other people and support in rents or mortgage payments is 2%(1) while respondents that
own their homes is 16%(8)

Housing situation
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Renter Living with others but Living with others and Home owner
not paying rent or assisting in paying rent
mortgage or mortgage
Type of housing situation

FIGURE 13. Current housing situation of respondents

 50

Factors to be considered for choice of Housing

This result shows the factors the respondents consider as priority when renting, purchas-
ing or constructing a house. 84%(42) respondents are of the opinion of considering the
location of the apartment, 66%(33) respondents will consider the affordability and the
structural makeup of the housing. 54%(27) people will consider the quality of the building
and the same number of respondent will also consider the neighbourhood in which the
housing is situated and 54%(26) the habitability of the housing. 46%(23) will consider
the closeness to services while 42%(21) will consider the size of the housing and 40%(20)
will consider the beauty and aesthetic of the housing.

Housing purchase and rental prefrence

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Housing factors

FIGURE 14. Purchase and renting factors considered important by respondents

Acceptability
When the question was asked if the respondent who shipping container fulfilled their
choice of housing, if they will rent or buy such housing, 16%(8) will not rent or buy such
housing even though it fulfil their housing while 84%(42) of the respondent will rent or
buy such housing. When asked further those that will not rent or buy housing made of
shipping container their reason for such decision, some of the reason given are as follow:
- not befitting their social status, security issue and risk of burglary, fire accident, health
reason, lack of information about the safety of such housing.
 51

Container housing acceptability

16% Yes
No

84%

FIGURE 15. Response on container homes fulfilling personal purchase or renting require-
ments

Furthermore, the question of subsidy and incentives were asked like, if the government
decides to subsidize or put incentives on the shipping container housing if the respondent
will love to acquire it or not. 88%(44) of the respondents will acquire at least one while
12%(6) will not. Some of the respondents who will not acquire one gave similar reason
as the previous question such as security, durability, construction quality and no good
information on shipping container and people acceptability and housing orientation, heat
transfer issue since Nigeria is a temperate region.

Incentives on container homes

Yes
12%
No

88%

FIGURE 16. Response to subsidy and incentives by government on container homes.

 52

However, among those people that will want to acquire such housing if incentive and
subsidy is introduced gave reasons why they will acquire one. Such reasons are as fol-
lows:
• less time consuming in constructing.
• cost effectiveness and affordability.
• if well designed and beautiful, it is considered strong and durable.
• good for office settings.

When people were asked to make a general comment recommendation or give other opin-
ion apart from what was covered in the questionnaire, the responses are as follows.

• I need to know how proper heat transmission and sound attenuation is worked
upon considering containers are metals. Note Knowing Lagos is a highly popu-
lated and hot region when it comes to sun light radiations.
• How big can the apartment be, and is it relocatable?
• In my opinion, shipping container houses are not for human habitation.
• You should've included a range for the cost of building with containers and that
of masonry building construction to exaggerate the difference and pros
• Please expand your survey to evaluate the suitability of these houses in Lagos;
looking at skill of the work force in Lagos to build and maintain the house in-
cluding potential safety and security concerns. A colleague of mine moved into a
home built with synthetic materials in Lekki and after an electrician visited to fix
a flaw, the house burst into flames. I recommend robust risk assessment of this
solution.
• Is this available in Nigeria?
• I think we need more awareness and education on this subject matter in Nigeria.
The mindset of people when it comes to container structures is that it's for the
poor or those with very low income trying to cut cost. For people to begin to ac-
cept and embrace the idea of owning or renting container houses, this mindset
has to be changed through sensitization.
• Details and cost implication of shipping container need to be included for the au-
dience for easy comprehension or a brief introduction about what shipping con-
tainer implies?
 53

• This will be a great innovation to happen in any part of Nigeria

A cross tabulation analysis of the data done using IBM SPSS Statistics with the following
condition where:

H0 = Null hypothesis = No significant relationship between variables

H1 = Alternative = There is a relationship between variables

Also, Chi-Square test P value is considered as:

P value = 5% = 0.05
P ≤ 0.05 = Reject H0
P > 0.05 = Retain / accept H0.

The result in the table 10 below shows the P value for Chi-Square Test when Age, Income
and Educational level of respondents were cross tabulated with Q9, Q10, Q11, where Q9,
Q10, and Q11 represent questions number 9,10 and 11.
Where:
Q9 = If a shipping container house fulfils all your choice in question 8 above will rent or
buy such an apartment/house? (container home purchase)
Q10 = If the government puts incentives/subsidy on container houses renting and buying
would you acquire one? (incentives on container homes)
Q11 = Do you think shipping container houses suits your income type and societal status?
respectively in the questionnaire? (Social status)

All of the P values are greater than 0.05 which signifies that the Null hypothesis H0 will
be accepted and there is no relationship between the variables

TABLE 10. P values of the Chi-Square test from crosstab analysis of age, income, and
education level (Balogun 2018).
Variables Q9 (P value) Q10 (P value) Q11 (P value)
(container home (incentives on container (Social status)
purchase) homes)
Age 0.730 0.713 0.229
 54

Education Level 0.761 0.505 0.648

Income 0.517 0.365 0.860

It is important to state that the P values is considered as the Likelihood ratio because there
are more than two categories in the variables used for the analysis and details of this could
be found in Appendix 2

Similarly, the result in the table 11 below shows the P-value for Chi-Square Test
whenQ10(incentives on container homes) and Q11(Social status) of respondents were
cross tabulated with Q9, where Q9, Q10, and Q11 is the same as mentioned above. All of
the P values are less than 0.05 which signifies that the Null hypothesis H0 will be rejected
which reveals that there is form relationship between the variables.

TABLE 11. P values of the Chi-Square test of crosstab analysis Q10 and Q11 (Balogun
2018)
Variables Q9 (P value)
Q10 (incentives on container homes) 0.000002
Q11 (Social status) 0.000079
 55

7 DISCUSSION

The results show that majority of the respondent live in rented apartments, are highly
educated and are willing to accept shipping container housing as many of them falls be-
tween the low and lower-middle income earners and corroborates with the background
information respectively. However, as seen from the statics analysis in table 10, with P
values greater than 0.005 this simply signifies that income, educational level and age of
the respondent is independent of their choice of living in a shipping container home.
Hence, in providing shipping container homes for Lagos residents a first-hand hand ex-
perience of living in the space will be an appropriate approach as established in the liter-
ature that many Lagos residents are not familiar with such homes even when it already in
use.

While some of the respondent consider that shipping container is not appropriate for hu-
man habitation, which is as a result of their perspective of shipping container homes in
terms of comfortability in tropical region like Lagos the as well as their social status.
Table 11 shows a P value of the Chi-Square Test of Q10 to be less than 0.005 which
means that the response of the respondents to their willingness to live in a shipping con-
tainer home is dependent on their social status. It could be said that a person who is a low
or a lower-middle income earner might consider a shipping container home temporarily
as container home is not what the majority of the society is living in. Therefore, extensive
enlightenment and practical experience will be recommended to make them comprehend
that shipping container homes are as good as any home when properly constructed, made
affordable and also environmentally friendly. This could be attained public campaigns
and regional erection of a pilot shipping container project in every local government area
in Lagos for people to experience it fore-hand.

This study as shown that there are a number houses available in Lagos which are most
luxury houses and are not affordable for the majority of the population usually low and
lower-middle income earners that just need basic adequate housing. The analytical result
in table 11 shows the P value of the Chi-Square test of Q11 to be less than 0.005 which
simply implies that there is significant dependency between government putting incen-
tives or subsidy on shipping container homes and the choice of respondents to live in a
shipping container home. This can be seen as affordability, because any form of subsidy
will translate to reduction in price of shipping container home which is also one of the
 56

three most important preference of choosing a house by the respondents after structural
stability and location as seen in figure 14. As established chapter in 4 shipping container
homes are readily available but not affordable when compared to the expectations of La-
gos residents in terms of income which is contrary to belief of many. For this reason,
additional studies are required in preparing a suitable subsidized program for shipping
container housing development for private land owners and developers willing to provide
shipping containers homes and also on how to significantly reduce the price of shipping
container houses using local materials compared to current prices in and around Lagos
such that low and lower-middle income earners will be able to purchase it using less than
30% of their salary. In addition, it will be of great advantage to combine shipping con-
tainer housing with conventional housing methods in providing adequate amount of hous-
ing in Lagos knowing that the current conventional construction methods lack the capac-
ity to deliver the needed numbers of housing annually as the population of Lagos is no-
where near reduction.
 57

8 CONCLUSION

Contrary to many beliefs that shipping container houses are cheaper than conventional
building, this study as shown that in Lagos the price of shipping container is almost the
same and somewhat higher than that of conventional building if similar standards are put
in place. Therefore, it can be concluded that the provision of shipping container housing
as alternative is viable as it is fast to construct but yet difficult as a suitable alternative to
compete and possibly replace conventional buildings, since social status possesses a sig-
nificant effect in the decision-making process of Lagos residents in choosing a shipping
container home. Thus, shipping container houses should not be considered for Lagos res-
idents until it is made cheaper and trendy.
 58

9 References
Adegboye, K. (2014, May 13). building-low-cost-houses-fashola. Retrieved 02 26, 2018,
from www.vanguardngr.com: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/05/building-
low-cost-houses-fashola/
Ademuson, K. (2017, March 16). Could shipping container be the future of real estate in
nigeria? Ventures Africa audio Visuals. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxPWsmgf-Z4
Adeniyi, M. A. (2015, October 11). understanding nigerias high poverty rate. Retrieved
May 10, 2018, from http://www.nairaland.com:
http://www.nairaland.com/2658056/understanding-nigerias-high-poverty-rate
Adio, S. (2017, November 30). Lagos residents commend rent to own mortgage scheme
. Retrieved from www.sunnewsonline.com: http://sunnewsonline.com/lagos-
residents-commend-rent-to-own-mortgage-scheme/
Agbola, T. (1988, November 19). https://docslide.net/documents/the-housing-
construction-process-in-nigeria-implications-for-urban-growth.html. Retrieved
from docslide.net: https://docslide.net/download/link/the-housing-construction-
process-in-nigeria-implications-for-urban-growth
Ajanlekoko, J. S. (2001). Sustainable Housing Development in Nigeria - The Financial
and Infrastructural Implication. International Conference on Spatial Information
for Sustainable Development (pp. 1-14). Nairobi: fig.net. Retrieved October 2017,
from https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/2001/nairobi/ajanlekoko-
CMWS1-1.pdf
Akinmoladun, O. I., & Oluwoye , J. O. (2007). An Assessment of Why the Problem of
Housing Shortages Persis In Developing Countries: A Case Study of Lagos
Metropolis, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 591. Retrieved
October 2017, from
http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=pjssci.2007.589.598
Akinyode, B. F., & Tareef, K. H. (2014). Bridging the Gap between Housing Demand
and Housing Supply in Nigerian Urban Centres: A Review of Government
Intervention So Far. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 18(11), 94-107.
Retrieved September 2017, from
http://www.bjournal.co.uk/volume/paper/BJASS_18_2/BJASS_18_02_03.pdf
Alufohai, A. J. (2013, May 6). Retrieved 2 20, 2018, from www.fig.net:
http://www.fig.net/organisation/tf/property/ww2013_position_paper.pdf
 59

Arimah, B. C. (1997). The Determinant of Housing Tenure Choice In Ibadan, Nigeria.

Urban Studies, 105-124. doi:10.1080/0042098976294
Atlas Media. (2018). english profile country Nigeria. Retrieved February 28, 2018, from
https://atlas.media.mit.edu: https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/nga/
BC Housing. (2014). Modular prefabricated housing literature scan. Retrieved 2 4, 2018,
from bchousing.org: https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/housing-
affordability/modular-prefabricated-housing-literature-scan
Carthcart, B. (2017, October 16). Retrieved March 24, 2018, from www.confoot.fi:
http://confoot.fi/en/avoid-shipping-container-rust/
Castleshub. (2017, August 27). Retrieved March 20, 2018, from castleshub.blogspot.fi:
http://castleshub.blogspot.fi/2017/08/cost-of-building-3-bedroom-bungalow-
in.html
Chegwe, E. (2014). The right to housing in the context of nigerian law and human rights
practice. Retrieved march 2017
containerhomeplans. (2015, March 23). Retrieved March 23, 2018, from
www.containerhomeplans.org: https://www.containerhomeplans.org/2015/03/5-
methods-to-insulate-your-shipping-container-home/
Dele. (2018, April 5). Lagos housing crisis. (N. Kacungira, Interviewer) DIO THN.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTEIyQN8jJE
Diala, A. (2012). Realising the Right to Adequate Housing in Nigeria. Madonna
University Law Journal,, 1(2), 155-173. Retrieved September 2017, from
http://www.academia.edu/2123571/Realising_the_Right_to_Adequate_Housing
_in_Nigeria
GDV. (2018). container-explanation of terminoligies. (G. d. Versicherungswirtschaft,
Producer) Retrieved 2 5, 2018, from containerhandbuch.de:
http://www.containerhandbuch.de/chb_e/stra/index.html
Kolawole, Y. (2014, September 29). container housing offers cheaper faster option mass
housing tempohousing nigeria. Retrieved October 26, 2017, from
www.vanguardngr.com: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/09/container-
housing-offers-cheaper-faster-option-mass-housing-tempohousing-nigeria/
Lagos Sate Ministry of Housing. (2017). Retrieved March 11, 2018, from
www.lagosstate.gov.ng: https://lagosstate.gov.ng/wp-
content/uploads/2017/07/BOOKLET-HOUSING.pdf
 60

Lagos State Government. (2017, May 11). Bridging housinf deficit in Lagos. Retrieved
October 2017, from Lagos state government website:
https://lagosstate.gov.ng/blog/2017/05/11/bridging-housing-deficit-in-lagos/
Levinson, M. (2006). The Box: How Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and
the World Economy Bigger. New Jersy: Princeton Press.
Mammadov, T. (2015, August). Retrieved August 20, 2017, from
ir.library.illinoisstate.edu:
https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1432&context=etd
Mazadu, Z. B., & Danraka, M. M. (2015). Potentials of Shipping Container Buildings and
the Implication to Nigeria Housing Challenges. Unilorin Confrence Proceedings.
3, pp. 1-9. Ilorin,Kwara State: cambridgenigeriapub.com. Retrieved September 7,
2017, from http://www.cambridgenigeriapub.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/POTENTIALS-OF-SHIPPING-CONTAINER-
BUILDINGS-AND-THE-IMPLICATION-TO-NIGERIA-HOUSING-
CHALLENGES.pdf?x75991
Michael. (2016, September 13). Retrieved March 10, 2018, from www.livinspaces.net:
https://www.livinspaces.net/special-features/tempohousing-can-build-a-house-
with-2-million-naira-using-shipping-containers/
Modular Building Institute. (2018). Why modular. Retrieved 2 4, 2018, from modular.org:
http://www.modular.org/htmlPage.aspx?name=why_modular
Obada, A. (2016, August 13). Retrieved from www.scribd.com:
https://www.scribd.com/document/321102999/An-Evaluation-of-Housing-
Delivery-Strategies-in-Lagos-state
Obioha, E. (2017, June 5). Building with shipping container .
Okafor, C. (2017, september 27). osinbajo: Nigerias housing deficit too high,
unacceptable . Retrieved October 10, 2017, from Thisdaylive Newspaper website
: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2017/09/27/osinbajo-nigerias-housing-
deficit-too-high-unacceptable/
Olotu, E., & Adebayo, A. k. (2013, April 18).
https://www.scribd.com/document/136650342/42-BUILDING-WITH-
SHIPPING-CONTAINERS-A-SUSTAINABLE-APPROACH-TO-SOLVING-
HOUSING-SHORTAGE-IN-LAGOS-METROPOLIS-pdf. Retrieved September
2017, from www.scribd.com: https://www.scribd.com/document/136650342/42-
BUILDING-WITH-SHIPPING-CONTAINERS-A-SUSTAINABLE-
 61

APPROACH-TO-SOLVING-HOUSING-SHORTAGE-IN-LAGOS-
METROPOLIS-pdf
Olowoopeju, M. (2016, December 23). Recession: Ambode slashes prices lagos mortgage
houses. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from www.vanguardngr.com:
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/11/recession-ambode-slashes-prices-lagos-
mortgage-houses/
Olugbenga, E., & Ogundiran , A. (2013). Challenges of Housing delivery In Metropolitan
Lagos. Research on Humanities and Social Scienes, 3(20), 3. Retrieved october
2017, from www.iiste.org:
http://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/RHSS/article/view/9518
Onu, V., & Onu. (2012, December ). Urban ResidentailL Housing and Low-Income
Earners: A Study of Markurdi Metropolis, Benue State, Nigeria. European
Scientific Journal, 18(28), 231-246. Retrieved from
http://www.eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/download/648/710
Oshodi, l. (2010, 11 24). Retrieved from
https://oshlookman.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/housing-situation-in-lagos-
nigeria/
Pauli, G. (2010). http://www.theblueeconomy.org/cases-1-to-100.html. Retrieved from
http://www.theblueeconomy.org/uploads/7/1/4/9/71490689/case_83_upcycling_
versus_recycling.pdf
Penland, W. J. (2008, November). Retrieved July 19, 2017, from www.scribd.com:
https://www.scribd.com/document/343909645/236016761-Container-
Architecture-pdf
Renaissance Capital. (2011, September 26). Retrieved February 28, 2018, from
www.fastestbillion.com:
http://www.fastestbillion.com/res/Research/Survey_Nigerian_middle_class-
260911.pdf
Salau, G. (2017, March 5). Lagos stillgrappling with affordable housing for low-income-
earners. Retrieved March 5, 2018, from www.guardian.ng:
https://guardian.ng/sunday-magazine/lagos-still-grappling-with-affordable-
housing-for-low-income-earners/
Schwarzer, M. (2017, 08 19). The Emergence of Container Urbanism. Retrieved from
Place journal website: https://placesjournal.org/article/the-emergence-of-
container-urbanism/
Shanu. (2016, August 30). Retrieved 2017
 62

Smith, H. (2015, September 2). Retrieved March 18, 2018, from grist.org:
https://grist.org/cities/dear-architects-stop-trying-to-make-shipping-container-
buildings-happen/
United Nations. (2012). Affodable Land and Housing in Africa. 3. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-
Habitat. Retrieved 7 17, 2017, from https://unhabitat.org/books/affordable-land-
and-housing-in-africa/
United Nations. (2014, 5 1). The right to adequate housing fact sheet no-21rev-1 .
Retrieved November 3, 2017, from Un-habitat website: https://unhabitat.org/the-
right-to-adequate-housing-fact-sheet-no-21rev-1/
Vanguuard. (2016, December 1). Lagos launch rent housing scheme december 8.
(Adekunle, Editor) Retrieved March 11, 2018, from www.vanguardngr.com:
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/12/lagos-launch-rent-housing-scheme-
december-8/
Western metal roofing. (2018). Retrieved from www.corten.com:
http://www.corten.com/frequently-asked-questions.html
Woods, T. (2015, April 9). Retrieved February 20, 2018, from
www.containerhomeplans.org:
https://www.containerhomeplans.org/2015/04/who-built-the-first-shipping-
container-home/
Woods, T. (2015, January 20). Retrieved from
https://www.containerhomeplans.org/2015/01/how-long-will-my-shipping-
container-home-last-for/
World population review. (2017, 10 20). Lagos population. Retrieved 10 2017, from
World population review website: http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-
cities/lagos-population/
World Shipping Council. (2018). History of Containerization. Retrieved 1 18, 2018, from
worldshipping.org website: http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-
industry/history-of-containerization

‘
 63

APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Thesis Questionnaire.

64
65
66
67
68
 69

Appendix 2. IBM SPSS Statistics result for Age, Education, and Income significance

CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Age Education Income BY Q9 Q10 Q11
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ
/CELLS=COUNT EXPECTED
/COUNT ROUND CELL.

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Age * Q9 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
Age * Q10 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
Age * Q11 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
Education * Q9 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
Education * Q10 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
Education * Q11 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
Income * Q9 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
Income * Q10 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
Income * Q11 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%

Age * Q9

Crosstab
Q9
No Yes Total
Age 21-29 Count 4 14 18
Expected Count 2.9 15.1 18.0
30-39 Count 3 23 26
Expected Count 4.2 21.8 26.0
40-49 Count 1 4 5
Expected Count .8 4.2 5.0
 70

50-59 Count 0 1 1
Expected Count .2 .8 1.0
Total Count 8 42 50
Expected Count 8.0 42.0 50.0

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.154a 3 .764
Likelihood Ratio 1.297 3 .730
N of Valid Cases 50

a. 6 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum ex-
pected count is .16.

Age * Q10

Crosstab
Q10
No Yes Total
Age 21-29 Count 3 15 18
Expected Count 2.2 15.8 18.0
30-39 Count 2 24 26
Expected Count 3.1 22.9 26.0
40-49 Count 1 4 5
Expected Count .6 4.4 5.0
50-59 Count 0 1 1
Expected Count .1 .9 1.0
Total Count 6 44 50
Expected Count 6.0 44.0 50.0
 71

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.267a 3 .737
Likelihood Ratio 1.366 3 .713
N of Valid Cases 50

a. 6 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum ex-
pected count is .12.

Age * Q11

Crosstab
Q11
No Yes Total
Age 21-29 Count 6 12 18
Expected Count 4.0 14.0 18.0
30-39 Count 5 21 26
Expected Count 5.7 20.3 26.0
40-49 Count 0 5 5
Expected Count 1.1 3.9 5.0
50-59 Count 0 1 1
Expected Count .2 .8 1.0
Total Count 11 39 50
Expected Count 11.0 39.0 50.0

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.156a 3 .368
Likelihood Ratio 4.320 3 .229
N of Valid Cases 50

a. 5 cells (62.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum ex-
pected count is .22.
 72

Education * Q9

Crosstab
Q9
No Yes Total
Education Bachelor's Degree Count 3 19 22
Expected Count 3.5 18.5 22.0
Higher National Diploma Count 1 7 8
Expected Count 1.3 6.7 8.0
Master's Degree Count 4 13 17
Expected Count 2.7 14.3 17.0
Ordinary National Diploma Count 0 2 2
Expected Count .3 1.7 2.0
Post Graduate Diploma Count 0 1 1
Expected Count .2 .8 1.0
Total Count 8 42 50
Expected Count 8.0 42.0 50.0

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.453a 4 .835
Likelihood Ratio 1.863 4 .761
N of Valid Cases 50

a. 7 cells (70.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum ex-
pected count is .16.
 73

Education * Q10

Crosstab
Q10
No Yes Total
Education Bachelor's Degree Count 3 19 22
Expected Count 2.6 19.4 22.0
Higher National Diploma Count 0 8 8
Expected Count 1.0 7.0 8.0
Master's Degree Count 3 14 17
Expected Count 2.0 15.0 17.0
Ordinary National Diploma Count 0 2 2
Expected Count .2 1.8 2.0
Post Graduate Diploma Count 0 1 1
Expected Count .1 .9 1.0
Total Count 6 44 50
Expected Count 6.0 44.0 50.0

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.069a 4 .723
Likelihood Ratio 3.323 4 .505
N of Valid Cases 50

a. 7 cells (70.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum ex-
pected count is .12.
 74

Education * Q11

Crosstab
Q11
No Yes Total
Education Bachelor's Degree Count 5 17 22
Expected Count 4.8 17.2 22.0
Higher National Diploma Count 1 7 8
Expected Count 1.8 6.2 8.0
Master's Degree Count 5 12 17
Expected Count 3.7 13.3 17.0
Ordinary National Diploma Count 0 2 2
Expected Count .4 1.6 2.0
Post Graduate Diploma Count 0 1 1
Expected Count .2 .8 1.0
Total Count 11 39 50
Expected Count 11.0 39.0 50.0

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.818a 4 .769
Likelihood Ratio 2.483 4 .648
N of Valid Cases 50

a. 7 cells (70.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum ex-
pected count is .22.

Income * Q9

Crosstab
Q9
No Yes Total
Income 0 to 40000 Naira Count 0 4 4
Expected Count .6 3.4 4.0
 75

121000 to 160000 Naira Count 0 5 5

Expected Count .8 4.2 5.0
161000 to 200000 Naira Count 3 8 11
Expected Count 1.8 9.2 11.0
200000 Naira and above Count 2 10 12
Expected Count 1.9 10.1 12.0
41000 to 80000 Naira Count 2 8 10
Expected Count 1.6 8.4 10.0
81000 to 120000 Naira Count 1 7 8
Expected Count 1.3 6.7 8.0
Total Count 8 42 50
Expected Count 8.0 42.0 50.0

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.950a 5 .708
Likelihood Ratio 4.226 5 .517
N of Valid Cases 50

a. 8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum ex-
pected count is .64.

Income * Q10

Crosstab
Q10
No Yes Total
Income 0 to 40000 Naira Count 0 4 4
Expected Count .5 3.5 4.0
121000 to 160000 Naira Count 0 5 5
Expected Count .6 4.4 5.0
161000 to 200000 Naira Count 2 9 11
Expected Count 1.3 9.7 11.0
 76

200000 Naira and above Count 2 10 12

Expected Count 1.4 10.6 12.0
41000 to 80000 Naira Count 2 8 10
Expected Count 1.2 8.8 10.0
81000 to 120000 Naira Count 0 8 8
Expected Count 1.0 7.0 8.0
Total Count 6 44 50
Expected Count 6.0 44.0 50.0

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.570a 5 .613
Likelihood Ratio 5.440 5 .365
N of Valid Cases 50

a. 8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum ex-
pected count is .48.

Income * Q11

Crosstab
Q11
No Yes Total
Income 0 to 40000 Naira Count 1 3 4
Expected Count .9 3.1 4.0
121000 to 160000 Naira Count 1 4 5
Expected Count 1.1 3.9 5.0
161000 to 200000 Naira Count 4 7 11
Expected Count 2.4 8.6 11.0
200000 Naira and above Count 2 10 12
Expected Count 2.6 9.4 12.0
41000 to 80000 Naira Count 2 8 10
 77

Expected Count 2.2 7.8 10.0

81000 to 120000 Naira Count 1 7 8
Expected Count 1.8 6.2 8.0
Total Count 11 39 50
Expected Count 11.0 39.0 50.0

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.998a 5 .849
Likelihood Ratio 1.918 5 .860
N of Valid Cases 50

a. 8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum ex-
pected count is .88.
 78

Appendix 3. IBM SPSS Statistics result for container home incentives and social status
significance

CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Q10 Q11 BY Q9
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ
/CELLS=COUNT EXPECTED
/COUNT ROUND CELL.

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Q10 * Q9 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
Q11 * Q9 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%

Q10 * Q9

Crosstab
Q9
No Yes Total
Q10 No Count 5 1 6
Expected Count 1.0 5.0 6.0
Yes Count 3 41 44
Expected Count 7.0 37.0 44.0
Total Count 8 42 50
Expected Count 8.0 42.0 50.0
 79

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
Value df sided) sided) sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 23.000a 1 .000002

Continuity Correctionb 17.659 1 .000026

Likelihood Ratio 16.656 1 .000045

Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000

N of Valid Cases 50

a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .96.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

Q11 * Q9

Crosstab
Q9
No Yes Total
Q11 No Count 6 5 11
Expected Count 1.8 9.2 11.0
Yes Count 2 37 39
Expected Count 6.2 32.8 39.0
Total Count 8 42 50
Expected Count 8.0 42.0 50.0

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
Value df sided) sided) sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 15.590a 1 .000079

Continuity Correctionb 12.130 1 .000496

Likelihood Ratio 13.031 1 .000306

Fisher's Exact Test .001 .001

N of Valid Cases 50
 80

a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.76.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table